There are many people who reject religion do so because the only religious voice they hear is from the radical religious right. There are many religious leaders who are more progressive and are frustrated. I wonder if we could find or sponsor a forum to bring progressive religious leaders together (interfaith) to collaborate about finding a religious progressive voice.
My political awareness got its start in the Lutheran Church, with pastors preaching sermons on social justice in the sixties. We always thought that Christian faith was about social justice. The "evangelical" right is a heresy. Evangelicals in the nineteenth century were leaders amongst abolitionists and other campaigners for a better world.
As a reconciling United Methodist lay leader, I find religion gets a bad rap because of evangelical and religious right extremists who seem to forget that we are not in a theocracy (at least not yet). I see my faith as a reason for being a progressive, equality and equity participant in politics. We would all do well to remember that a relationship with God (or no relationship for those who don’t believe) should be a personal guiding light, not a battering ram to beat others into submission. Using belief in God to hurt others is contrary to what people say they believe a loving God to be.
I consider myself a person of faith. I daily read Bible apps, the Bible and Franciscan Father Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditations from the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque. He has a very inclusive view of God and the importance of Unity. This year’s theme is “Nothing Stands Alone”. His meditations includes writings from Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and other mystical views of faith. At the very least the good practicing “Christian” should always be working from a framework of justice based on Love. My problem is my inability to find that view being consistently “preached” in a bricks and mortar church. It feels like Churches I have recently attended don’t have the courage to call out social wrongs for fear of offending some members. True Bible based behavior and messaging should be very clear about gun control and basic human rights for everyone, including women and their rights to make their decisions about their bodies. I think many organized “Christian” institutions lack the courage to speak what the Bible really says about many of these issues. So sad because I so agree with you Dr. El-Sayed-Faith matters! And as I work this election cycle with the Michigan Voter Protection Hotline I really view this work from a truly spiritually based point of view.
Very important contribution. Spot on! "As both a proud Muslim and a proud progressive, I find that the tension across these has become increasingly difficult to hold. Though our movement takes pains to welcome Muslim identity, I often find an implicit mistrust of the personal beliefs and practices that come with the faith. The idea of prayer or religious discipline is openly mocked or scorned... " Thank you for drawing attention to this issue.
The same characteristic that drives people to seek out religion, especially ones that advocate a rigid view of right and wrong also makes them seek out authoritarian political leaders. It's the Pilgrims all over again. One doesn't have to believe in a deity to work on behalf of social justice and in fact religion often gets in the way of achieving it. There is no convincing people who hold these views to embrace the whole human family.
J. - I agree that there are many ways to work for social justice outside of faith. But faith is also one such path, too.
I think reducing faith to “rigid views of right and wrong” is overly simplistic. It’s also a sort of determinism that is self-defeating. It buys us out of the hard work of persuasion. I think people value faith for as many reasons as there are people who value it. And we need to create space for that kind of diversity, too.
I was referring to those forms of belief that are rigid - not all are. However, I do think that anyone who embraces religion gives up their right to think for themselves. Those very conservative belief systems, that are rigid in their interpretation of right and wrong are usually the ones that create most of the problems. I am not against people believing whatever they want to - indeed, there's nothing I can do about that. However, I'm adamantly against these beliefs being used to rationalize limiting people's civil rights. And, many people turn to these types of religions to help them manage the uncertainly of life - I hold the clerics responsible for exploiting people's fears, while holding out their hands for payment. In this country churches are not supposed to engage in political activity, but that has never been enforced. And they don't pay taxes either, which I think is unconscionable. Why should organizations rooted in superstition be granted such exemptions? The irony of all of this is that the founding fathers tried to restrict the role of religion in the political arena, while religions held center stage in Europe for centuries. In the US we are still struggling to free ourselves from the influence of religion, while in Europe most churches are on the decline. I'm hoping eventually religion will become a private matter and lose it's influence altogether at least in the public sphere. But when we shred the social safety net, and life becomes more precarious, people often turn to those who promise they have the answers.
Religions are the tools of the patriarchy. Most present day gods are male. And most present day religions are very clear about limiting women's lives and rights.
I wrote this piece because of takes like this. This kind of condescension against people of faith that equates faith and tyranny is exactly what’s pushing folks away. If we are serious about embracing diversity, telling people they are “clearly limiting women’s lives and freedom” or that they are being tricked by dubious faith leaders is unhelpful. I’d also encourage you to read a bit more on the diversity of faiths. The idea that God has a gender is an anathema to the idea of God. By definition the concept of ANY gender is limiting, and the notion of an Omni-powerful being defies gender.
Of course there are moderate believers. However, moderates shield the extremists and it's the extremists who are the problem. As long as these beliefs are "acceptable" the extremists will exist as well. They are the people who use religion to justify horrendous treatment of others. The anti choice people, use their beliefs to justify restricting women's rights. The anti-gay people use their beliefs to justify persecuting gay people. Whole wars have been and are being fought by people with differing beliefs. If some of them had their way they would re-institute laws forbidding interracial marriage. These are extreme views and because they are often justified by a religious perspective they are given credence. Nationalism, patriarchy, religion, all have been used to cause unspeakable suffering. As to the idea of a gendered god, many very eloquent feminists have written on this subject. There are probably very good books on many sides of this question. I have attended various religious ceremonies and have often heard god referred to as only "he".
I disagree. This is an unnecessarily defensive argument. There’s no need to get defensive with those who reject religion. Their rejection of religion is not an offensive act. It is not an attack on Muslims or any religion. This argument pushes back on and takes offence at the non religious. Throughout the world and in the United States the non religious have historically been, and continue to be, one of the most discriminated against groups. The rejection of religion need not have anything to do with the defeat of the evangelical right or any religion for that matter. Religious Democrats should embrace the non religious, not tell them that their rejection of religion is problematic.
My point is not about individuals who reject religion. They are welcome to do that. It’s about the political identity of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement--and I argue that neither is rejecting faith consistent with our beliefs nor is it tactically beneficial
I get your point. Your ok with people rejecting religion just as long as it doesn’t become part of the Democratic or progressive identity. Of course rejection of religion is not consistent with your beliefs as a Muslim. Perhaps you’d prefer the non religious just not be in the Democratic Party or that they just keep their ideas to themselves - not happening.
Dennis - I think you're ascribing exactly the zero-sum view to faith I'm trying to reject in this piece. It's not an "either-or," it's a "both-and." I think the party and the progressive movement needs to be welcoming of ALL people, people who reject religion and people who accept it. People who reject faith are absolutely welcome to share their ideas, so long as they're okay with people who accept faith sharing theirs--and neither are sharing ideas that reject the other. That's what I'm striving for. We need to acceptance seriously.
Sounds like doublespeak. Your piece serves to rally the religious to silence the non religious, a perpetuation of the oppression non religious have experienced for ages. Furthermore, your assertion that non religious should not reject religion, for whatever reason, is preposterous. That’s what makes them non religious!
Nobody's trying to silence the non-religious--and to insinuate that is to assume intentions that are deeply inconsistent with mine, or anything I've ever articulated. Leveling that assertion also sits in a rich tradition of Islamophobia that I've often heard from the right (though I am hearing more and more on the left) (you can see it's ugliest manifestations here: https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/10/michigan-governor-colbeck-el-sayed/597828002/). You can reject religion and accept religious people, Dennis. It's called tolerance, and for a long time it had a rich tradition on the left. I worry we may be losing it.
Abdul, I need not be schooled on tolerance. I know of tolerance through personal experiences that you cannot begin to imagine. I’m a strong proponent and advocate for a pluralistic society of many races, cultures, ethnicities, and religions - provided that religions are benign and kept separate from government. Diversity is a strength. You say that you strive for acceptance and want to welcome all people, and I want to take you at your word. However apparently you either won’t admit or you do not realize the implications of telling non-religious not to reject religion. If your intent was to foster tolerance then you should have chosen your words more carefully because you did the opposite. I’ll give you an analogy to try to explain why those words appear to be an attempt to silence the non-religious, may offend them, may be viewed as intolerant and divisive. How would Muslims or Jews react to being told that they must not reject Jesus Christ as God? That says to them shut up and be quiet, don’t say Jesus Christ is not God. It’s an attempt to silence them. That’s what you’ve done to the non-religious. Non-religious, by definition, reject religion. You’ve attempted to silence the non-religious by telling them not to reject religion. By illuminating this I’ve said absolutely nothing that warrants dredging up, God knows from where you pulled it, a totally unrelated trope. It seems a deflection and a diversion, and like your original piece, another unnecessarily defensive posture. I resent any suggestion that I attacked Islam or that I’m an Islamophobe. I did not. It’s wrong and I will not be cowed by it. It’s ok, you say, for people to reject religion as long as it doesn’t become part of the Democratic ideology. That’s divisive and exclusionary. Is it ok for a black person to be elsewhere, just not at our table? I don’t think you really mean that. I know you want to bring more voters to the Democratic fold. Even though what you suggest may work a little, it’s a tact in a very wrong direction. Find other ways. If you don’t now see the intolerance in your words there’s nothing more I want to say about it except “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice” - Ayaan Hirsi Ali
This is one of the most important contributions to The Incision. It is nuanced and insightful. The role of faith, a belief system not objectively provable, includes religion, politics and other life experiences and practices.
I was raised in the South by a father who was a pastor in a fundamental religion. He gave his life to Christ in a tent revival meeting in western Kentucky at age 19. The religion in which I was raised required you to be twice blessed, saved and sanctified. Full emersion baptism was required. All church members had the right, even the obligation to correct any “sinful” actions. Crowd dynamics applied to all. The promise was an angelic life in heaven for true believer Christians or burning in hell for eternity for sinners.
Trump has created a belief system based on strict adherence to his mandates and all of the lies he has told as an article of faith. Adherence to his demands is reinforced, required by his crowd of adherents, true believers.
Faith does have a role to play in many people’s lives. It offers a path to follow in managing life’s many ups and downs. It provides comfort after death to believe you will exist forever in peace, beauty and harmony. I don’t think that can be taken away from those who incorporate that into their being.
It is estimated that there are close to 4 thousand religions worldwide. Why would that many exist if there is one true answer, one God guiding all? I personally respect other’s religious beliefs. I do not have to adopt them as my own or pay a price for choosing my own values to live by. We must keep religious beliefs and politics separate!
Your comment at the end: "It turns out that freedom from religion implies freedom of religion. We would do well to embrace both." is so right in my opinion. Years ago, when I finally realized that each religion and each doctrine that is adhered to is actually an ideology, I resigned from my "ideology" Christianity and now think of myself as unaffiliated. I am free to experience the universal force (God) without having to define, describe, or make up mythologies to explain what I believe.
I find myself wondering if you are referring to a certain aloofness that is often associated with academics -- an air of being "right" or judging the "basket of deplorables" instead of adopting a "live & let live" perspective. The religious right has definitely made it harder for me to be accepting of organized religion; also, I was raised Catholic but made a conscious decision that uncertainty is what I must live with. Spirituality becomes more prominent with age, but not the doctrine of any church. I struggle to understand how it feels to be more accepting of religion, but realize that people don't arrive at the same conclusion and may not feel as constrained as I do. We really need to leave room for each other.
I'm an atheist. I believe it is the control freak extremists in all religions who are a danger to all of us. My mom left the church in her youth but raised me to believe all people have value and are worthy of respect and thus I will work with anyone who believes similarly. Thanks for addressing this important issue.
I hear you. Clearly the threat is coming from the GOP. BUT, it is incumbent to live our values - and embracing space for faith is critical to truly building a coalition that can defeat the totalitarianism of the right.
There are many people who reject religion do so because the only religious voice they hear is from the radical religious right. There are many religious leaders who are more progressive and are frustrated. I wonder if we could find or sponsor a forum to bring progressive religious leaders together (interfaith) to collaborate about finding a religious progressive voice.
My political awareness got its start in the Lutheran Church, with pastors preaching sermons on social justice in the sixties. We always thought that Christian faith was about social justice. The "evangelical" right is a heresy. Evangelicals in the nineteenth century were leaders amongst abolitionists and other campaigners for a better world.
As a reconciling United Methodist lay leader, I find religion gets a bad rap because of evangelical and religious right extremists who seem to forget that we are not in a theocracy (at least not yet). I see my faith as a reason for being a progressive, equality and equity participant in politics. We would all do well to remember that a relationship with God (or no relationship for those who don’t believe) should be a personal guiding light, not a battering ram to beat others into submission. Using belief in God to hurt others is contrary to what people say they believe a loving God to be.
Cheryl - this is really well put: "a personal guiding light, not a battring ram to beat others into submission." Thank you.
I consider myself a person of faith. I daily read Bible apps, the Bible and Franciscan Father Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditations from the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque. He has a very inclusive view of God and the importance of Unity. This year’s theme is “Nothing Stands Alone”. His meditations includes writings from Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and other mystical views of faith. At the very least the good practicing “Christian” should always be working from a framework of justice based on Love. My problem is my inability to find that view being consistently “preached” in a bricks and mortar church. It feels like Churches I have recently attended don’t have the courage to call out social wrongs for fear of offending some members. True Bible based behavior and messaging should be very clear about gun control and basic human rights for everyone, including women and their rights to make their decisions about their bodies. I think many organized “Christian” institutions lack the courage to speak what the Bible really says about many of these issues. So sad because I so agree with you Dr. El-Sayed-Faith matters! And as I work this election cycle with the Michigan Voter Protection Hotline I really view this work from a truly spiritually based point of view.
Very important contribution. Spot on! "As both a proud Muslim and a proud progressive, I find that the tension across these has become increasingly difficult to hold. Though our movement takes pains to welcome Muslim identity, I often find an implicit mistrust of the personal beliefs and practices that come with the faith. The idea of prayer or religious discipline is openly mocked or scorned... " Thank you for drawing attention to this issue.
The same characteristic that drives people to seek out religion, especially ones that advocate a rigid view of right and wrong also makes them seek out authoritarian political leaders. It's the Pilgrims all over again. One doesn't have to believe in a deity to work on behalf of social justice and in fact religion often gets in the way of achieving it. There is no convincing people who hold these views to embrace the whole human family.
J. - I agree that there are many ways to work for social justice outside of faith. But faith is also one such path, too.
I think reducing faith to “rigid views of right and wrong” is overly simplistic. It’s also a sort of determinism that is self-defeating. It buys us out of the hard work of persuasion. I think people value faith for as many reasons as there are people who value it. And we need to create space for that kind of diversity, too.
I was referring to those forms of belief that are rigid - not all are. However, I do think that anyone who embraces religion gives up their right to think for themselves. Those very conservative belief systems, that are rigid in their interpretation of right and wrong are usually the ones that create most of the problems. I am not against people believing whatever they want to - indeed, there's nothing I can do about that. However, I'm adamantly against these beliefs being used to rationalize limiting people's civil rights. And, many people turn to these types of religions to help them manage the uncertainly of life - I hold the clerics responsible for exploiting people's fears, while holding out their hands for payment. In this country churches are not supposed to engage in political activity, but that has never been enforced. And they don't pay taxes either, which I think is unconscionable. Why should organizations rooted in superstition be granted such exemptions? The irony of all of this is that the founding fathers tried to restrict the role of religion in the political arena, while religions held center stage in Europe for centuries. In the US we are still struggling to free ourselves from the influence of religion, while in Europe most churches are on the decline. I'm hoping eventually religion will become a private matter and lose it's influence altogether at least in the public sphere. But when we shred the social safety net, and life becomes more precarious, people often turn to those who promise they have the answers.
Religions are the tools of the patriarchy. Most present day gods are male. And most present day religions are very clear about limiting women's lives and rights.
I wrote this piece because of takes like this. This kind of condescension against people of faith that equates faith and tyranny is exactly what’s pushing folks away. If we are serious about embracing diversity, telling people they are “clearly limiting women’s lives and freedom” or that they are being tricked by dubious faith leaders is unhelpful. I’d also encourage you to read a bit more on the diversity of faiths. The idea that God has a gender is an anathema to the idea of God. By definition the concept of ANY gender is limiting, and the notion of an Omni-powerful being defies gender.
Of course there are moderate believers. However, moderates shield the extremists and it's the extremists who are the problem. As long as these beliefs are "acceptable" the extremists will exist as well. They are the people who use religion to justify horrendous treatment of others. The anti choice people, use their beliefs to justify restricting women's rights. The anti-gay people use their beliefs to justify persecuting gay people. Whole wars have been and are being fought by people with differing beliefs. If some of them had their way they would re-institute laws forbidding interracial marriage. These are extreme views and because they are often justified by a religious perspective they are given credence. Nationalism, patriarchy, religion, all have been used to cause unspeakable suffering. As to the idea of a gendered god, many very eloquent feminists have written on this subject. There are probably very good books on many sides of this question. I have attended various religious ceremonies and have often heard god referred to as only "he".
I disagree. This is an unnecessarily defensive argument. There’s no need to get defensive with those who reject religion. Their rejection of religion is not an offensive act. It is not an attack on Muslims or any religion. This argument pushes back on and takes offence at the non religious. Throughout the world and in the United States the non religious have historically been, and continue to be, one of the most discriminated against groups. The rejection of religion need not have anything to do with the defeat of the evangelical right or any religion for that matter. Religious Democrats should embrace the non religious, not tell them that their rejection of religion is problematic.
My point is not about individuals who reject religion. They are welcome to do that. It’s about the political identity of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement--and I argue that neither is rejecting faith consistent with our beliefs nor is it tactically beneficial
I get your point. Your ok with people rejecting religion just as long as it doesn’t become part of the Democratic or progressive identity. Of course rejection of religion is not consistent with your beliefs as a Muslim. Perhaps you’d prefer the non religious just not be in the Democratic Party or that they just keep their ideas to themselves - not happening.
Dennis - I think you're ascribing exactly the zero-sum view to faith I'm trying to reject in this piece. It's not an "either-or," it's a "both-and." I think the party and the progressive movement needs to be welcoming of ALL people, people who reject religion and people who accept it. People who reject faith are absolutely welcome to share their ideas, so long as they're okay with people who accept faith sharing theirs--and neither are sharing ideas that reject the other. That's what I'm striving for. We need to acceptance seriously.
Sounds like doublespeak. Your piece serves to rally the religious to silence the non religious, a perpetuation of the oppression non religious have experienced for ages. Furthermore, your assertion that non religious should not reject religion, for whatever reason, is preposterous. That’s what makes them non religious!
Nobody's trying to silence the non-religious--and to insinuate that is to assume intentions that are deeply inconsistent with mine, or anything I've ever articulated. Leveling that assertion also sits in a rich tradition of Islamophobia that I've often heard from the right (though I am hearing more and more on the left) (you can see it's ugliest manifestations here: https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/10/michigan-governor-colbeck-el-sayed/597828002/). You can reject religion and accept religious people, Dennis. It's called tolerance, and for a long time it had a rich tradition on the left. I worry we may be losing it.
Abdul, I need not be schooled on tolerance. I know of tolerance through personal experiences that you cannot begin to imagine. I’m a strong proponent and advocate for a pluralistic society of many races, cultures, ethnicities, and religions - provided that religions are benign and kept separate from government. Diversity is a strength. You say that you strive for acceptance and want to welcome all people, and I want to take you at your word. However apparently you either won’t admit or you do not realize the implications of telling non-religious not to reject religion. If your intent was to foster tolerance then you should have chosen your words more carefully because you did the opposite. I’ll give you an analogy to try to explain why those words appear to be an attempt to silence the non-religious, may offend them, may be viewed as intolerant and divisive. How would Muslims or Jews react to being told that they must not reject Jesus Christ as God? That says to them shut up and be quiet, don’t say Jesus Christ is not God. It’s an attempt to silence them. That’s what you’ve done to the non-religious. Non-religious, by definition, reject religion. You’ve attempted to silence the non-religious by telling them not to reject religion. By illuminating this I’ve said absolutely nothing that warrants dredging up, God knows from where you pulled it, a totally unrelated trope. It seems a deflection and a diversion, and like your original piece, another unnecessarily defensive posture. I resent any suggestion that I attacked Islam or that I’m an Islamophobe. I did not. It’s wrong and I will not be cowed by it. It’s ok, you say, for people to reject religion as long as it doesn’t become part of the Democratic ideology. That’s divisive and exclusionary. Is it ok for a black person to be elsewhere, just not at our table? I don’t think you really mean that. I know you want to bring more voters to the Democratic fold. Even though what you suggest may work a little, it’s a tact in a very wrong direction. Find other ways. If you don’t now see the intolerance in your words there’s nothing more I want to say about it except “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice” - Ayaan Hirsi Ali
This is one of the most important contributions to The Incision. It is nuanced and insightful. The role of faith, a belief system not objectively provable, includes religion, politics and other life experiences and practices.
I was raised in the South by a father who was a pastor in a fundamental religion. He gave his life to Christ in a tent revival meeting in western Kentucky at age 19. The religion in which I was raised required you to be twice blessed, saved and sanctified. Full emersion baptism was required. All church members had the right, even the obligation to correct any “sinful” actions. Crowd dynamics applied to all. The promise was an angelic life in heaven for true believer Christians or burning in hell for eternity for sinners.
Trump has created a belief system based on strict adherence to his mandates and all of the lies he has told as an article of faith. Adherence to his demands is reinforced, required by his crowd of adherents, true believers.
Faith does have a role to play in many people’s lives. It offers a path to follow in managing life’s many ups and downs. It provides comfort after death to believe you will exist forever in peace, beauty and harmony. I don’t think that can be taken away from those who incorporate that into their being.
It is estimated that there are close to 4 thousand religions worldwide. Why would that many exist if there is one true answer, one God guiding all? I personally respect other’s religious beliefs. I do not have to adopt them as my own or pay a price for choosing my own values to live by. We must keep religious beliefs and politics separate!
Your comment at the end: "It turns out that freedom from religion implies freedom of religion. We would do well to embrace both." is so right in my opinion. Years ago, when I finally realized that each religion and each doctrine that is adhered to is actually an ideology, I resigned from my "ideology" Christianity and now think of myself as unaffiliated. I am free to experience the universal force (God) without having to define, describe, or make up mythologies to explain what I believe.
I find myself wondering if you are referring to a certain aloofness that is often associated with academics -- an air of being "right" or judging the "basket of deplorables" instead of adopting a "live & let live" perspective. The religious right has definitely made it harder for me to be accepting of organized religion; also, I was raised Catholic but made a conscious decision that uncertainty is what I must live with. Spirituality becomes more prominent with age, but not the doctrine of any church. I struggle to understand how it feels to be more accepting of religion, but realize that people don't arrive at the same conclusion and may not feel as constrained as I do. We really need to leave room for each other.
I'm an atheist. I believe it is the control freak extremists in all religions who are a danger to all of us. My mom left the church in her youth but raised me to believe all people have value and are worthy of respect and thus I will work with anyone who believes similarly. Thanks for addressing this important issue.
Love This! Thank You for your Courage. You are playing chess, not merely reacting to what was said a moment ago, but thinking it through over time.
It may look like a rook, but it moves like a bishop...
🙏🏽
If Religious minorities feel the threat is coming from the Democratic Party; they're either brainwashed or naive.
I hear you. Clearly the threat is coming from the GOP. BUT, it is incumbent to live our values - and embracing space for faith is critical to truly building a coalition that can defeat the totalitarianism of the right.
Excellent