EnMasse

[leftcoastguy]

Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Sikhs?

I am curious to know what enMasseurs think about religions and progressives. Quite some time ago I made an assumption that certain religions, including mine of course, had more progressive folks within their religious communities than others. Now I am not so sure my initial assumptions were correct, and am curious to know what others here think.

Is there even still a role for religions in the progressive movements of our world?
_________________
Thinking is so overrated.

[Red T shirt]

Although I am basically opposed to organized religions my impression has been that the United church has been as progressive as any that I have encountered.

[leftcoastguy]

Speaking of the United Church I remember a progressive minister in Port Alberni who encouraged First Nation folks to participate and some were eventually elected to the congregation's board of directors. Apparently there was a backlash from more conservative elements within the congregation and I think the minister was eventually turfed from the pulpit.

RTS

I do agree with you however that as far as mainstream religious organizations in Canada are concerned, the United Chuirch has shown some good leadership, particularly around the issue of gay rights.
_________________
Thinking is so overrated.

[TS.]

Like RTS, I generally have a dim view of organized religion. I also agree that the United Church has been the best of the bunch on progressive issues. Cheri DiNovo, the NDP candidate in the Parkdale-High Park by-election, is actually a UC minister, and she performed the first legal same-sex marriage in Canada.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[leftcoastguy]

I think the NDP has an abundance of United Church ministers which is one of the reasons it is such a healthy political party in comparison to some of the other mainstream parties, eh!
_________________
Thinking is so overrated.

[sparqui]

In general, I think politics should be divorced from religion. You can take any major religion and find people that fall across the entire left-right spectrum politically. It seems to me that this fixation on how progressive or fundamental a faith is vis-a-vis politics is a relatively new phenomena in modern history.

Not to diminish the politics found within religion themselves as in Liberation theology as a splinter from rigid Catholicism or the commendable move by the United Church to ban bottle water. But those are examples of conscience and not necessarily political affiliation.
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”

-- Gilles Duceppe

[unionist]

Progressive politics depends on mercilessly viewing the world as it is, siding with the exploited and oppressed (the vast majority), and promoting those actions which will advance humanity and its neighbours (the environment) materially and spiritually.

To the extent that religion involves belief in non-natural agents of creation or change or influence in the world, it is totally incompatible with progressive movements. That doesn't mean individual religious people or groups of conscience can't play a positive role -- they always have and always do -- but in order to do so, they must consciously leave their superstition at home.

Some religious beliefs which focus on morality or human advancement without the superstitious element are perfectly compatible with progressive politics.

As for organized religion, churches, etc. - forget it. They may have played a progressive role in some earlier epochs (the Reformation, etc.), but not in the 21st century. I know of no exceptions where they are not a brake (or, rarely and at best, a neutral influence) on the advance of humanity, society, and the environment.

[unionist]

[elmateo]

I don't know if I would classify many religious groups as 'progressives'. But that doesn't mean that they aren't 'good people'.

Like the Mennonite Central Committee, I don't know if they are necessarily 'progressive' but I certainly think they are 'good people'.

I am not as worried about organized activity as others maybe, if I feel they have been motivated to do 'good'. To me, right now, that is far more important to this world than being what I would call 'progressive'. In some ways it legitimizes traditional religious structures, which can be problematic, but I don't necessarily see those structures as even possible to remove from society, and I would rather recognize the ones who are doing good work, praise them for it, and encourage others to make those steps if they are inclined that way.

[Tehanu]

[elmateo]

The idea that without religion we would be immoral is one of the biggest lies in the history of society. Religion, history is full of proof, does not have any sort of correlation with 'good' behaviour. And its rather frightening to listen to adults who proclaim that how could one possibly be a 'good' person without fear of God?

What is most scary about it, is that we have a very large of segments of the population who ultimately believe that one should do 'good' not because it makes themselves and others happy, that doing good is worth something intrinsicaly, but rather that to do good prevents bad from happening. It strikes me ultimately as reinforcing selfish behaviour.

But in reading a little bit about Christian history, there are people who have been motivated to do some extremely awe-inspiring things, and I cannot deny that they were influenced by their religious affiliation. I could 'dream up' alternate ways of replacing the communal role religion plays and prefer to have them in the world, but that isn't going to happen, so I think that even as an atheist, one has to compromise one's idealic vision with reality. If a large group of people are motivated to do good because they believe they are enacting God's love, inspired by revelation, I have to accept that and say "Good for you, I am pleased that you exist". The alternatives are just too ugly.

[unionist]

[elmateo]

Quakers or Liberation theologist Catholics are two examples.

[unionist]

[virge47]

As far as religions having a place in progressives, I feel they are in fact at odds with each other. Also I also find Islam more then most other organized religions to be more extremist in their views and beliefs then other religions.

I also feel morals are a concept created by all religions in order to control their adherents. Morality is also a very powerful tool of corporations. Morality is a learned concept and is alien to all humans. A baby is very selfish and only begins to think of others when it has been indoctrinated in the concept of morality. The natural response of humans is to take care of oneself. Also the mother will naturally protect her young in order to ensure the continuation of the species, but outside of protecting your own direct family, there is no benefit to extending this help to others.

If when we die there is no afterlife, what is the logic in helping others who can not directly help you in return? Why not just acquire all that you can for yourself and your emmidiate family and let others worry about their own problems. Religion seems based on the concept that if we help others it will guarantee our place in some beautiful afterlife. So I beleive when a progressive buys into this idea of morality, they have accepted religions strongest precepts.

[bshmr]

Much of this thread seems speculative. That said, I was active in three buddhist denominations, a UUA (Unitarian Universalist Alliance(?)) group, with 'meeting' Quakers in AFSC, plus a Humanist group. Without doubt all of these would be labeled as 'far left' by Ru$h, OhReally, Fall-Well, et al.

Johan Galtung, a peace researcher, has a online paper on 'soft and hard' aspects of religion which was useful to us recently. It clarifies a bunch of '-isms' as well as maps a tree of religions, again both useful to us recently.

Plus, there have been several speaking out on 'how liberal religious leaders used to be' . [ Council of Churches ran a campaign on that, for instance. ]

Some WVF (World Values Survey) research points out that 'conservative/fundamental religious/strict father/faith' from a comparatively tight cluster relative to typical progressive/liberal value-holders. IMO, the dangerous group is upper third of the authoritarian seeking folks and who are worried about survival as well as well-being (threatened sometimes, satiated sometimes). I deride them as 'herdlings' yet their dependence on organization is a survival strength. In contrast, progressive/liberals tend to individual/familial dispersion -- tend to individual acts to benfit the whole (paradox, too).

[Q*Bert]

[unionist]

[elmateo]

Humans show compassion and are nice to eachother because they share emotional bonds.

Humans have evolved emotional bonds because they have proved to be beneficial.

Compassion and all that good stuff isn't reducible to evolution and 'survival' just because it is connected to it.

[sparqui]

[virge47]

[bshmr]

[ This may be helpful. It does mention factors which contribute to confrontation or violence as well as peace and jusrice. ]

http://www.crosscurrents.org/galtung.htm

RELIGIONS, HARD AND SOFT
by Johan Galtung

Every religion contains, in varying degrees, elements of the soft and the hard. For the sake of world peace, dialogue within religions and among them must strengthen the softer aspects.

JOHAN GALTUNG the dean of international peace research, founded the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo in 1959. He worked on his first book, Gandhi's Political Ethics, while in jail as a draft resister; he has since published over fifty books and taught in universities all over the world. The present essay was given at a 1994 UNESCO conference in Barcelona on the contribution of religion to world peace and is reprinted with the kind permission of the Barcelona branch of UNESCO.

[Tehanu]

So-called moral development does not rely on religion. Otherwise there's a good chunk of us who'd be completely immoral and non-altruistic. It's so often the young folks who've sopped up a little Ayn Rand who associate atheism with the "virtue" of selfishness.

There are a couple of useful theories of moral development that were developed in the seventies and eighties. This is a very brief summary:

[elmateo]

Oh oh, can I post my first year paper? Its associated to Gilligan and stuff. Not sure if it is really intelligent, got a very good mark though (could be the other papers in the class were horrible!).

[Tehanu]

[elmateo]

A lot of 'religious' moralising (in the Abrahmic tradition) to me is more like advanced virtue ethics.

While there is the 'reward' and 'punishment' bits, its not really consequentialist (and anyone who puts a lot of attention to it comes up with all the inconsistencies and problems), and most of it sounds more like Aristotle and the ideal human.

Virtue ethics gained a little more prominence in the 20thC from people trying to understand how we respect different cultures - MacIntyre who presents an argument in favour of something like (looking for that R word(?), that means everyone has their own morals and you can't reconcile them ARGGHHH) and defends it with as virtue ethics - something along the lines that each community has developed their own ethical history and such which exposes certain traits and qualities in people. I tried to read the book as you can see .

I am reluctant to just pretend we can make moral judgements and toss out centuries of religious moralising because we see it as 'baaaadddd', when its not really clear to us what is going on when we start talking about morals. Most people, despite what they think, resort to virtue ethics about characters, its the most engrained version of ethics for people. I have only met 2 people (professors) who I can tell when possed with an ethical question actually sit down and work it through (one is a Kantian/deontologist and the other is a utilitarian-like). Most people seem to 'know' what is right, and often it is a 'judge of character'.

I find that the 'care' stuff is also more 'virtue' ethics as well. I am not really sure how it plays out in application.

HA relativism! I got it![editted]

[Red T shirt]

Would that be Gilligan of "three hour cruise" fame, also known to the Skipper as "little buddy"?

[Q*Bert]

[elmateo]

Not to mention that various cultures have demonstrated a tendancy towards non self-centred values... with greater importance placed on the success of the community than the specific individual.

Western capitalist culture seems to have been the one to have gone to the extreme of individual self-centred valuing.

[Tehanu]

I wonder how anyone can imagine a society in which people weren't mutually co-dependent? It's to all of our benefit to treat others well, is it not? Short of heading off to the woods somewhere and becoming a survivalist, which might get a bit tedious after a while. And no EnMasse, either!

[elmateo]

[Corey]

[TS.]

[Corey]

[TS.]

[Boarsbreath]

The doctrines are irrelevant. Period. So you'll find the greatest proportion of sensible people (including "progressives") in whichever religion or denomination, at the relevant time & place, puts the least emphasis on doctrine.

In Canada that's Anglicans & Uniteds, mainly, I would guess, plus Judaism to the extent that just being Jewish counts as 'religion' (which it shouldn't).

In the States, Unitarians maybe? And certainly Quakers.

But it depends on local trends in the congregations; nothing to do with official doctrine. It's Catholics in Latin America, because the alternative there is wild-eyed pentecostals, who certainly do take doctrine seriously. In Europe the alternative to Catholic, in "Catholic" countries, is no-religion, and they're the sensibles. Meanwhile Anglicans in Africa are just like the pentecostals in Latin America...and so on.
_________________
if

[Rufus Polson]

There are Unitarians in Canada. Some of my friends were married by a Unitarian minister--nice woman.
I've never been quite clear whether I'd count Unitarians as a "religion" though.

[N.Beltov]

The thread title is a rather ugly way to describe progressives. Market ideology, turning everything into a commodity, including progressives, often does more harm than good. Progressives are not a market to be cornered or appropriated by any single church or organization. U-G-L-Y.

In Canada, the United Church and the Unitarian Universalists (UU's) seem to be home to a lot of progressives. But a lot depends on the individual Ministers and church officials to make a congregation a home for progressives or not. The Minister can set the tone for the whole church and encourage or discourage activism for social justice.

Sidebar, by the way, the Rev. Norm Naylor read the banns for Chris Vogel and Richard North in the First Unitarian Church of Winnipeg in 1974. My church was, in this case, ahead of the Canadian state on this issue of recognizing same-sex marriages.

Another religious tradition in Canada that stands out for me is the Jewish tradition. Notwithstanding the odious role that organizations like the CJC now play, Canadian Jews played a big role in the left in this country, in socialist-oriented organizations, spanning many decades. I cannot even imagine the Winnipeg left without the unselfish and civic-minded contribution of Jews in this city.

Over two decades ago now, when I first dipped my toe in political activism, a Catholic Bishop in Victoria by the name of Remi de Roo was an active public figure on a number of social issues and demonstrated that even the conservative Catholic church can be home to progressives.

Churches can play a positive role when other organizations in civil society cannot. Nelson Mandela, upon his release from prison after 28 years, honoured in his public statement the churches of South Africa who "raised their voice against apartheid when all other voices were silenced. " It's useful to remember such things.

No one church or religious tradition has cornered the market on progressives. Social activists and fighters for social justice come from all walks of life and traditions.
_________________
"...without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement in the true sense of the word." Георгий В. Плеханов

[LawLibrarian]

I have to say I like the Unitarians too. But then again, I would not describe them as an organized religion. A "disorganized" religion would be closer to the truth. Of course, Unitarians would not like the word "truth".

[mark_alfred]

Both Hawkes and Dinovo have a claim to performing the first same sex marriage in Ontario. Hawkes, in 2001, did some church thingy (from Wikipedia: "publish official banns for three consecutive weeks, and thereby conducted a legal marriage without requiring prior government permission".) If I'm remembering correctly, Dinovo conducted a marriage ceremony between two women, and, on the submitted form to the government, entered one of the women's names in the groom spot (the other in the bride spot), wherein later, an actual marriage certificate from the government was issued to the couple.

[elmateo]

Elmateoism is the only socialist religion I know of. We believe in wearing only our underpants around the house when it gets over 28 degrees.

[N.Beltov]

A submission by past President Elizabeth Bowen of the Canadian Unitarian Council (CUC) noted the following churches were present for the Supreme Court of Canada hearings in 2004 on SSM:

[LawLibrarian]

I know a woman in Toronto named Judy whose spiritual belief system her friends have started calling "Judy-ism": a mix of ZEN, hippy chick hedonism, the more liberal parts of Judaism, Unitarian philosophy, and lots and lots of wine.

She likes to say she lives in the People's Republic of Olivia in Toronto.

[al-Qa'bong]

[Wee Mousie]

Strange as it might seem, the Anabaptist movement which came out of Switzerland in the early Sixteenth Century, was, no less than fifty years ago, the Christian religion most closely aligned to what was then considered a progressive agenda.

The Anabaptists’ most controversial claim, at the time of their formation, was that baptism as a child was useless, as only an adult is capable of making a commitment to a faith. Originally, people who accepted the Anabaptist precepts were baptised again into this new faith. (Anabaptist means “to rebaptize.”)

They were rigorously pacifistic, eschewed patriotism and the swearing of oaths, and renounced all form of ostentation in their personal lives as well as their houses of worship. The worst form of punishment they would inflict upon another was shunning the evildoers. They believed in the priesthood of all believers, choosing their leaders from their elders amongst the laity, often through the drawing of lots.

And this was in 1527!

Of course, they were harshly persecuted by both the Catholic church and all the new parochial national Protestant churches, so that their early history is one of pogroms and migrations.

Through these vicissitudes, some forms of socialism (if not communism) crept into their social, if not their religious organization.

Fifty years ago, with the exception of free love and the appreciation of drugs, there was little difference between the platform of the counterculture of the sixties and the Anabaptist movement throughout history, except that few forms of the Anabaptist movement were notable as advocates of prostylization, and none sought to attain their goals through violent means.

What makes this all so strange is that the Anabaptist movement fragmented into several recognized religions, namely the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, Quakers, Church of the Brethren, Brethren in Christ, Seventh Day Adventists and of course, Baptists who are now the most recognizable church amongst the Religious Right.

I guess you never know where evolution is going to take you..
_________________
Relieve The Troops — Bring Them Home Now!

[F.Codger]

The problem with most organized religions is they tend to focus too much on the metaphysical elements without regard to the physical being. People who are suffering physically, emotionally or psychologically are less likely to be devotees -- which Jesus actually acknowledged in his sermon from the mount (the old story of five loaves and two fishes which fed 3000).

So the religious who have reached me from across the religious spectrum have tended to be those who actually are progressive, if only by degrees.

The Catholic church I attend infrequently (I'm kinda mad at God right now) has a priest who talks a lot about injustice, however obliquely. He talks a lot about seeking to be inclusive, specifically mentioning the GBLT community.

As someone who has always sought out spirituality, I figger that the religious who 'get it' are the ones who understand that the deity we worship laid down rules to help us get along with each other, primarily. All the major religions have very similar core tenets: be good to each other, the details are secondary.

It's those overly conservative religious, who are always harping on about being respectful of a vengeful god, I just think they have a low opinion of the deity's self-esteem. I don't for a minute think God is so insecure that he needs us grovelling every hour of the day.

The ones who get it cross all religious lines. I think I've met members of all faiths whose progressive nature I've respected and enjoyed.
_________________
This... will end... badly

[al-Qa'bong]

Some have claimed that Jesus was an anarchist who wouldn't have been happy with those overly conservative folks you mention.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[bshmr]

In general, 'progressives' separate 'church and state' whereas 'conservatives' consolidate the authority of both as is illustrated with various World Values Survey based research and demography.

As a tangent, the following re-evaluates Iraq which had been a relatively secular autocratic state before sanctions and occupation:
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2006/Jun06/r061406a
Now, with religion empathsized (in play) and the lack of adequate authority, scholars can also discuss the quandary plaguing the USA (without calling attention to the fact).

Back to the point, I consider the WVS-based demography and research as elemental for this discussion because it adds some real-live facts. ( From smaller images on page: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/statistics/index.html ) For instance, because the scalars (and methods) are identical, "Mapping Authority and Survival or Well Being", I (one can) overlay the Country/Religious Map with the Scatter placement for specific responses to glean more -- in this case inferring 'national religion'.

[Makwa]

I think that the most progressive religion has also been the oldest, Aboriginal Traditionalism, but that's just me.
_________________
When the madness comes, let it flood on down and over me sweetly, let it drown the parts of me weak and blessed and damned, let it slake my life, let it take my soul and living completely, let it be who I am. {Van Der Graaf Generator}

[sam]