Centerfield: What Is The Religious Left?

March 22, 2005

What Is The Religious Left?

Some of you will have noted that I also have a religion blog, Transparent Eye. I identify as a political centrist but a religious liberal. The difference in my mind is that political conservatives want to turn back the clock to the 1950's, while religious conservatives want to turn the clock back to the 1650's! The 1950's had their problems (e.g. segregation) but many people lived good lives. The 1650's were the high point of the post-Reformation age of faith before the Enlightenment. No thanks.

But even if I see myself as a religious liberal (I believe in God, but not that Scripture is the literal word of God) I have a hard time with the religious leftists like Jesse Jackson. Below is a recent column by John Avlon that was sent to me.

The Religious Left Lashes Out By John P. Avlon New York Sun, March 22, 2005
"Whose God is God?" thundered the Reverend Jesse Jackson from a podium placed at the altar of The Riverside Church to an assembled crowd of the left-leaning political and religious faithful on Sunday afternoon. "There is a profound theological debate in our nation tonight about the nature and character of God... . Today the Congress reconvenes to save a woman - Terry Schiavo - from starving to death, but then vote to starve millions everyday. Whose God is God? They fight to save the fetus, and then starve the babies. Whose God is God?"

Enthusiastic applause rolled through the pews as the religious left attempted a revival meeting on the occasion of the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The event was billed as "an interfaith service of remembrance, resistance, reverence and renewal." Other speakers included the celebrated senior minister of Riverside, the Reverend Doctor James Forbes; the author and editor of Sojournors Magazine, Jim Wallis, and Susannah Heschel - daughter of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and chair of the Jewish studies department of Dartmouth University. All were united in the attempt to rally their dispirited liberal troops who, since the election results at home and in Iraq, feel increasingly caught on the wrong side of recent history.

The service began with a solemn parade of cardboard coffins meant to symbolize the fallen American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Some of the performance-art pallbearers wore buttons which read, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" as the jazz pianist Bill Apollo Brown riffed on "Let My People Go."

For all their ripped-from-the-headlines opportunity opposition, there was an evident nostalgia to their activism. Almost every speaker could not help but mention that it was at this very church that Dr. Martin Luther King gave his seminal 1967 address, "Beyond Vietnam." Dr. King's call for a redirection of funds from the Vietnam War to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty was resuscitated in speech after speech. No endorsement of democracy in Iraq crossed the assembled lips, which instead were focused on the concepts of occupation and imperialism. In this liberal hymnal, the war on terror is a diversion from the real crises of inner-city poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation. The most clear and present enemy seemed not to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, but President Bush.

The normally sedate Mr. Wallis drew cheers by saying, "American occupation is not the solution, American occupation is now the problem." Mrs. Heschel inspired peals of knowing laughter when she stated, "I fear President Bush has Sharon-envy." Mr. Victor Parades of "Military Families Speak Out," said that "in our lavish and selfish lifestyles we are indifferent to injustice in other countries." The dreadlocked Reverend Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, coordinator for the Clergy and Laity Concerned about Iraq, brought the crowd to his feet when he said "we must save our democracy by engaging in radical dissent, wherever that dissent may lead." But it was Mr. Jackson who seemed to best summon the passions of the audience when he drew perhaps the loudest applause of the afternoon by saying, "There is a fascist attack on civil rights and civil liberties. We cannot be silent. We cannot let them intimidate us. We must fight back."

What is left of the American left is angry. In their attempt to regroup in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, many have called for the reassertion of a "religious left," to serve as a counterweight to the religious right. In many ways this is a movement to applaud. No political party should be allowed to claim exclusive ownership of the Bible or the American flag. Moreover, there is a strong American tradition of progressive change championed by liberal clergy, ranging from the abolition of slavery to the anti-segregationist civil rights movement of the 1960s. This heritage represents the best of principled American political activism. But as Democrats attempt to reconnect themselves to the self-evident moral authority of this tradition, they need to avoid at least two traps amply evident at Sunday's event.

The first is the temptation to channel their political frustrations into an anger which quickly can translate into hate for their opponents. The American people are justifiably allergic to the stereotype of the wild-eyed anti-American activist. Liberals' association with this campus fringe has done their party irreparable damage since the late 1960s.

To this end, the religious left must similarly be aware not simply retreating to a nostalgic activism that applies predictable old rhetoric to every new event. They must update their approach or remain irrelevant. Iraq is not Vietnam. George W. Bush is not Bull Connor.

After the event, Rev. Jackson left the altar quickly. I followed his entourage into a departing elevator and asked the reverend what he felt watching Iraqis vote six weeks ago. "I have to put it into context," he replied. "The same people who enjoy watching democracy in Iraq would not fight for us to have the vote in our own country. And Cheney, who voted three times to keep Mandela in jail, did not vote for democracy in South Africa. So I am suspicious of their motives for their newfound passion for democracy ... You have to hope that the people [in Iraq] are better off, but it is premature to arrive at any conclusions that they are better off. All we know is that they are dying, daily."

Until leaders of the religious left like Rev. Jackson can adjust their perspective to acknowledge the human rights benefits of the end of the rule of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, even as they continue to dissent from this American administration, they will appear to be stuck in the past and mired in comparatively narrow domestic partisan politics. Surely their vision of God must be able to make such distinctions.

Part of the confusion is over which spectrum we're talking about. Jesse Jackson is definitely on the political left. As far as I know, however, he is entirely orthodox in his theology. In contrast, I suspect that a number of neoconservatives in the Bush Administration are agnostics--further to the left than Jackson in purely religious terms.

The religious left, if we are to call it that, is stuck in the civil rights paradigm of the 1960's. Martin Luther King's movement was a great success, but it flowered against the backdrop of the unique circumstances of Jim Crow racism. The circumstances today are entirely different. The religious left needs a new outlook.

Posted by rickheller at March 22, 2005 10:40 AM

Comments

So the religious far left is as embarassing as the non-religious left? I'm shocked to find that they seem to be reflexively anti-war, who could have predicted that?

Will somebody please put Jesse Jackson in a time capsule, his day has SO passed...

Posted by: bk at March 22, 2005 12:21 PM

This phenomenon is not unique to the left. You could say the same things about the right. Both extremes use religion to “prove” their political points.

Posted by: Alf at March 22, 2005 12:37 PM

Cloaking politics in the mantle of religion is bad, whether it is left or right. Clergy who think that God has told them whether a particular policy is moral are dangerous. Jesse Jackson is and has always been, nothing but a huckster.

Posted by: MWS at March 22, 2005 01:35 PM

Dwelling on the past is just as much of a factor on the right. Some preach that Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves or trace their roots to Thomas Jefferson ,although the platform of Republicans and Democrats has been inverted since the late 1800's.

Posted by: ReutherMonkey at March 22, 2005 02:09 PM

Rick,

I have read a lot of your postings on your blog and found them quite interesting. I consider myself a very religious person, although probably not in the sense that many would, and always find other points of view interesting.

The "religious right" has attempted to establish their absolute claim to carry the mantle of the Bible. They have rejected the inclusion that this nation was founded on and allowed themselves to be manipulated by a handful of men who have ridden to power and riches on their shoulders. Pat Robertson is, IMO, one of the most corrupt public figures in American society. He is every bit as corrupt as Al Sharpton, a favorite target of the right. At least Al doesn't have mining contracts with African dictators....but I digress.

The Jesus that I believe in was never involved in politics. He lived a life of service. He fed children, clothed the poor, and healed the sick. The government into which he was born was rife with corruption, but he never advocated rebellion. One of his more famous sayings was "render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasars, and unto God the things that are Gods." I always viewed that as an expression of his belief that he was not a political animal, he wasn't here to change the political world, he was here to improve people's lives.

All of that to say, I don't believe either side is right. Jesse Jackson makes me sick, but so does Jerry Falwell. Pat Robertson is no different than Al Sharpton. D James Kennedy is Louis Farakhan. They are all men who are using religion to manipulate the masses to further their own agenda, be it to amass power, fame, or fortune.

History is filled with hatred and abuse performed in the name of god. As much as the world has advanced over the last centuries, when it comes to religion, our future continues to replicate our past.

Posted by: AH at March 22, 2005 02:21 PM

Covering my bases here...I think we've all been called to task a time or two for making statements that couldn't readily be backed up with facts...

For the Pat Robertson/African Diamond Mining/Jesse Jackson/Al Queda connection, read this article in US News & World Report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_011112.htm

Posted by: AH at March 22, 2005 02:28 PM

I found your statement about some of the administration's neo-conservatives being agnostic very intriguing. I had also noticed this – Bush doesn’t attend weekly church services because ‘he doesn’t wish to interrupt the service’. I have not heard about Chaney’s church attendance either. For all his moral failings, Clinton attended church on a regular basis (perhaps because of his moral failings).

Why do you think the religious right haven’t noticed Bush’s lack of church attendance?

Posted by: EG at March 22, 2005 03:45 PM

Actually, AH, Jesus lived in times of extreme political upheaval. The Hebrews, whose religion was protected by the reverence the Romans had for antiquity, were feeling the urge for political freedom. In addition, there were at least two major "sects" of Judaism that were battling over the soul of the religion, and there were many other, smaller sects that had some popular support. Remember, the revolt that led to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD (or CE), the secession from society of the Essenes, and, of course, then came Paul to really shake up things by showing that Christianity was not an ancient Jewish sect, but a brand new religion which the Romans deemed to be a politically dangerous superstition.

According to some great scholars, many of Jesus' followers were expecting a political solution from the Messiah, not an apolitical gentleness.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at March 22, 2005 03:46 PM

Literally,

Exactly. And, contrary to what is being espoused today, he did not advocate a political solution. (Step up on soapbox) I'm not saying there isn't a place for politics & religion, but I am saying that today's followers of Christ need to re-consider their approach. Are they truly following his example? (Step off soapbox)

Posted by: AH at March 22, 2005 05:51 PM

"while religious conservatives want to turn the clock back to the 1650's"

My understanding of religious fanatics in the US is that they would probably rather turn the clock forward, just so they get closer to the Second Coming of the Lord and "rupture". Am I far off?

Read on the Economist that there are about 50 mil such Dispensationalists, Born Agains, Evangelicals etc. Is this in any way accurate, seems awfully much. Are they the same thing? How come they are so popular in the world's best educated nation?

PS: If you are a Rel. Liberal you are gonna LOVE this. Me I am just embarashed and hope they 'll clean house.

Sex, Drugs and Rock err Hymnals?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4265283.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4237135.stm

Posted by: Yiannis at March 23, 2005 02:57 AM

Yiannis,

You bring up another interesting issue: religious fanatics' time warp. The denominations/religious dispositions you mentioned are attempting to jump forward (rather than backward). These groups wish to hasten Jesus' return by supporting Israel. They believe that the formation of Israel as a strong nation is the precursor to the Second Coming. And anything they can do to speed up that activity means to them their rapture.

I assume the 50 million is a worldwide count.

BTW, unless you live in Australia, I wouldn't claim the U.S. is the 'best educated nation'.

Posted by: EG at March 23, 2005 08:15 AM

My understanding of religious fanatics in the US is that they would probably rather turn the clock forward, just so they get closer to the Second Coming of the Lord and "rupture". Am I far off?
Read on the Economist that there are about 50 mil such Dispensationalists, Born Agains, Evangelicals etc. Is this in any way accurate, seems awfully much. Are they the same thing? How come they are so popular in the world's best educated nation?

Now we're getting into the stuff that leads to denominations. My hope would be not that folks would say "they belief that?" but that they would come to have a fuller picture of the breadth and depth of the Christian churches. We're not as monolithic as some would suggest. Politically, its worth asking what are the common issues that ties denominations together?

As for the "education" comment, I only pray that some day the knee jerk assumption that if you have "faith" you're not rational and therefore less intelligent will go away.

Posted by: c3 at March 23, 2005 08:40 AM

I have to echo C3's comments...trying to paint Christian beliefs with a broad brush isn't fair, and as moderates, I think we try to be fair to all involved. Yes, some evangelical Christians have beliefs that involve Israel, many more equally conservative Christians think that those beliefs are "science fiction." I don't want to get into a religious debate here, I guess I don't think a political forum is a place to discuss details of individual denominations faith. We can say that NO group can claim absolute ownership of the Bible, Torah, or Koran, etc...

I think many in the Democratic community (not painting with a broad brush here) have shot themselves in the foot by looking down on people of faith. Yes, the R's seem to have gone to the other extreme here, but... To look at someone who has faith and classify them as "uneducated" simply based on their beliefs...that is in and of itself intolerant, and isn't tolerance what we are all about?

Posted by: AH at March 23, 2005 08:56 AM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

March 22, 2005

What Is The Religious Left?