I will be posting here semi-regularly about Progressive Christianity. My next post will probably just be a long list of links to organizations people should check out. Kudos for giving me one more that I wasn't aware of :).

Which in a sense is odd, because properly understood and live Orthodox Christianity would mean one could not be a political conservative as that political philosophy is normally presented in this nation, except on the issue of life.  

So just wondering why that particular image?    

Also, I think that the use of icons really extends beyond Eastern Orthodox churches. I'm an Episcopalian and I have an icon of Christ that I keep above my bed in my dorm room. The Archbishop of Canterbury even wrote a book about praying with icons of Christ.

I also wouldn't consider "progressive Christianity" to mean Christianity that is particularly modern or free of ritual. I myself very much fall into the Oxford Movement/Anglo-Catholic realm of Anglicanism. Despite our emphasis on ritual (incense and elaborate clerical clothing for example)and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (not transubstantiation persay but nevertheless a very traditionally Roman Catholic/Orthodox idea), many Anglo-Catholics would consider themselves to be politically and socially progressive.

Thus, when I say progressive, I'm referring to a sort of Social Gospel Christian ideal and not necessarily a progressive liturgy or form of worship. There are certainly Progressive Christians of all liturgical and denominational stripes.

I would say that there is an inherent conservatism in the Eastern Churches.  That does not mean they lack social responsibility - in fact the tradition of social responsibility was actually fairly strong in the Russian church for example.   Btu perhaps given the strong tradition of the Byzantine "symphony" as the late John Meyendorff used to describe it, let the Estern chruches to a weird combination of supranationalism with deference to the state.  IT was more in the sense of even how that hs carried over in the ethnic (ufortunately) Orthodox churches in the US that I meant that I would not think of the eastern churches in connection with progressive christianity.

At the same time, a proper understanding of Orthodox theology would recognize that the truest icon of Christ, since that is what is featured, is not the painted image but the living and breathing human being before you, and that is hammered home in the Gospel of the Snday of the LAst Judgment  (Matthew)  whatsoever you do unto these the least of my brethren and all that.

Peace.

But, uhh, thanks.

I'm very much not out to convert anyone, that is the last thing I would ever try to do here. All I'm saying is that there are millions of Progressive Christians out there and it would be a mutually beneficial step towards our common goals for the rest of the left to bring them into the fold. Just the mere mention of Christianity elicits such a knee-jerk negative reaction from some of my fellow Democrats. That people would so quickly set aside working towards our common ideals over religion is really disheartening for those of us who view our progressive ideals to be instruments of our faith.

Yet we too have people who are hostile towards Christians for some reason - if I had to guess I suppose it might be because of the stranglehold that the religious right has over the subject these days, but that's just my guess.   Anyways, there was one day where our minister saw the need to remind the congregation that we too need to be tolerant of people of faith.

You know what it was that made me invoke Dawkins?  This bit of ridiculousness:

As a party, we need to stand up and say, once and for all, that its not only acceptable, but ADMIRABLE for a politician to let his or her faith guide them in their ideology and decision making.

I don't know about you, but there's a lot of religious belief out there that I don't only think is a bit silly, but is absolutely anathema to any democratic and civilized society (including a fair number of self-identified Christians).  I don't find it "ADMIRABLE" when Bush cites his faith in supporting a constitutional amendment to lock the door against  my fellow Americans getting basic civil rights.  I don't find it "ADMIRABLE" when I hear faith used as an excuse to wage war.

Mostly, I find it appalling.  I think the track record of "faith" in guiding personal decisions is questionable, at best.  But in the public arena?  It's a hands down no question loser.  So forgive me if I've got something less than respect for a proposal to encourage substituting faith for sound and clearly explained public policy judgment.

Grow up.  If we can allow differences on ideology to remain in the party, we can certainly allow religious views WITHOUT the condescending remarks.

P.S. -  A think Dawkins is an ass.  A clever ass, but an ass nonetheless.  Who is he, or you for that matter, to tell me that my faith is stupid?  He, and you, could make your points without trying to demean the rest of us as idiots.

Rove 'described fundamentalist Christians as nuts'

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Saturday, 14 October 2006

Efforts by the Republican Party to rally grassroots support for next month's mid-term elections were knocked yesterday by a new book suggesting that right-wing evangelical Christians are regarded with contempt by the White House's top strategists and courted strictly for their votes.

The book, by former White House insider David Kuo, suggested that Karl Rove, President Bush's top political advisor, and his staff, routinely refer to fundamentalist Christians as "the nuts". That is unlikely to be taken kindly by the evangelicals who voted in 2004 and made the crucial difference in securing President Bush's re-election.

Mr Kuo writes: "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous' and 'out of control'."

[...]

In his best-selling analysis of the Republican movement, What's the Matter With Kansas?, Thomas Frank described a party that "talks Christ but walks corporate". Earlier this week, television host Tucker Carlson said "the elites" in the party had "pure contempt" for the evangelicals, but added that the evangelicals were "beginning to figure it out".

I just wondered what you thought about the utter contempt within the Republican Party leadership for evangelical Christians.

However, the same sort of tolerance doesn't always extend to Christians. This is certainly not all the Democratic Party's fault. The religious right, a group that has effectively succeeded in being very politically loud, has given Christianity a bad name for many on the left. Also, with guys like Bill Maher on TV who are adored by many Progressives and are openly contemptuous towards people of faith, its hard not to be a little put off.

We can't completely remove blame from the party for making Progressive Christians feel excluded. Don't forget that we aren't too far removed from Bob Casey being prevented from speaking at the '92 convention because of his pro-life stance on abortion which for Roman Catholics, and many other Christians, is a matter of faith. Though a positive change is evident in Tim Kaine's ability to say that his religion makes him pro-life in the 2005 elections, the rift isn't completely fixed.

Jim Oberstar, one of the most Progressive Congressmen in the entire House of Representatives, who just happens to be the co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus, simply left this aspect of his resume off his campaign website in 2006. I would presume that isn't a coincidence, but a preemptive measure taken against the negative firestorm that could result from certain Democrats who wouldn't respect that his faith mandated his pro-life views.

Of course, I only use abortion as an example of a wider pattern of mistrust continued by a certain group of progressives who, sadly, are preventing the solidification of a partnership that could maximize our efforts to do the most good possible for this country.

Now Catholics back then were prohibited from eating meat on Fridays, so the Army made the Friday Supper meal Steak Night.  Lots of catholics back then not all observant and while even Orthodox Jews were given dispensation form "keeping kosher" while they did their mandatory and universal (really, better than 90% I'd guess from people I met in bunks next to me who should otherwise, like George Bush, been able to avoid service) service.  Even Pork was okay if there was no other choice in emergency conditions.

This German Pope has decided to eliminate LIMBO from all the threats Catholics face if they don't cross their liturgical t's and dot their I's, and that confuses me because I was taught that if I were ever to get to heaven, I would abide strictly by the teachings of the Church and its prelate, the Pope or, with some minor sins that would have to be "purified" if I was not able to confess them to a Priest before I was killed or otherwise met an untimely demise, I would end up in a place called PURGATORY (which I think the Pope says still exists, though I'm not sure about why he's sure) to cleanse me of my sins so I could enter heaven.

I don't want to seem like I'm picking on catholics but it is my closest experience.  I once asked a confessor how a Pope could have acknowledged children outside the celibacy requirement and still be the INFALLIBLE VOICE of the Church?  His response, in a confessional was that the Pope was human in his personal life and therefore fallible BUT, when it came to matters of faith and the church, HE WAS INFALLIBLE and that did it for me! The Pope was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in flowing robes and a really big ring!

Stuff I had to confess to take communion after saying my penance is no longer "confessible".  Want to know what LIMBO was before the Pope abolished it?  It existed from at least 1941 when I was born and it was for babies who died BEFORE THEY COULD BE BAPTIZED in the Catholic Church.  It was not heaven, as only the baptized catholics could get there, just like the born-again baptists, the observant conservative jews, and moslems who did or didn't do whatever (I'm not sure as there is no muslim pope), seem to feel that only fiercely true believers will enter heaven.

Turns out that now, unbaptized catholic babies who die in child birth or whenever can enter heaven.  I hope that those who were sent to Limbo when I was a student of catholic teaching have cashed in their Limbo tickets for upgrades to heaven.

All I can say is "Thank the Lord!"

NOW I would ask the Pope to get out of the unscientific argument of when human life begins.  If he really believes that embryos created at fertility clinics, as George Dubya Bush apparently does, are human life,  and should not be used for stem cell research, THEN I DEMAND that HE DEMANDS that all unused embryos not used by fertiltiy clinics NOT BE DESTROYED, rather they should be shipped with all measures to insure their human survival to the Vatican for care OR, if that is impossible, to Dubya Bush where he can decide what a Born-Again Christian does with uneeded, excess, embryos.  Death Penalty Texas Style Anyone?  

I'm just tired of hypocrites and done with this rant.

More than 50 religious leaders signed a letter that says Prince William's illegal-immigration crackdown has divided the community, damaged its reputation and created what they call an "unwelcoming spirit."

The letter quotes a passage from the Old Testament Book of Leviticus that reads: "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien."

And Corey Stewart's response?  He "criticized the letter, saying illegal immigrants are the ones dividing the community."

Nice.

The Democratic Party's problem with people of faith began when we allowed the Republicans to describe themselves as the party of family, and thus Christian values. It became a case of repeating the lie so often that it became true. Recently, as evidenced by Tim Kaine's success and the candidacies of Tom Perriello and others, we have made it clear that people of faith not only have a place in our party but a role in driving our agenda. We need to continue pushing back on the notion that we are hostile to people of faith, and keep showing it with our ant-war stance, our efforts at eliminating poverty and discrimination, and our love and respect of all people regardless of sexual orientation, race, or gender.

But it's not easy to change perceptions. Last month, my local paper published an editorial accusing Democrats of hating conservatives (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01192008/349729)
They refused to print my response.

I read with disappointment Paul Akers' comments on the separation of church and state. ("Sighs and wonders", Jan 18) As usual, Mr. Akers wasted an opportunity for rational discussion, instead deteriorating into misleading half-truths and name calling.

The notion that "Democrats of sound mind" object to the "Religious Right" as their primary justification has never been my experience.  Democrats speak frequently of healthcare and education, privacy rights, equal treatment under the law, conservation and smart energy policy, collective bargaining, and a myriad of other issues as the foundation of their political identity.   Belief in social justice and positive change is what binds the Democratic Party, not a reaction to the negative policies of any other organization.

Faith has always been a cornerstone of the Democratic Party. Many of my Democratic colleagues say that their Christian faith is precisely the reason they are Democrats.  Jesus compared the love of our neighbor to the love of God, and so as Democrats, we believe it is our responsibility as citizens to help those less fortunate.

But Mr. Akers presents a red herring, a false notion that a desire for the separation of church and state is an attack on conservative Christians. People of faith, regardless of political affiliation, easily see through this fallacy. In his Letter to the Danbury Baptists of 1802, Thomas Jefferson stated, "Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State". Upholding the wishes of the Framers is not an attack, as Mr. Akers well knows.

Our most recent elections have shown that ultimately Virginians have more in common with each other than some political figures would like us to know. While many were able to stay in power by dividing and conquering, those days are over. With divisive and ignorant editorials like this one, Mr. Akers is in danger of making himself obsolete. Ultimately, that may be exactly what we need to move forward together.

We just need to keep working, and we can bring people back.

CONVERT TO SATANISM!
BURN THE CROSS!
BATHE IN THE LAMBS BLOOD!
DANCE/SHIT ON HIS GRAVE!
GO TO HELL!
Oh wait,
THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!