I come to the merger of Firedoglake and The Seminal with optimistic anticipation. I am a Unitarian Universalist minister who believes that liberal religion and progressive social movements are life affirming compliments to one another.
I am the creator, producer and host of the radio program “Soul Talk” in its 13th year of broadcasting. The program currently airs on Progressive Blend Radio based in Washington, D.C.
As well, I am the Founder and President of The Free Souls Project, promoting the integration of spirituality, democracy and ethics from a liberal faith perspective. My personal blog is The Free Souls Connection. I have been a regular author on The Seminal for the past year in the area of Religion and Politics.
I will be a panelist in the workshop, "A New Progressive Vision for Church and State" at Netroots in August. Below, is something I wrote in 2005. This will give you a flavor of where I am coming from. Lets work together on repairing our terribly damaged democracy that has been devolving since Reagan enabled the birth of our theocrat/imperialist nightmare.
Soulfully,
Chuck Freeman
"After the November 2004 Presidential election I was deeply disturbed that America had put the Bush Administration back in office. I viewed John Kerry as the lesser of two evils, but at least he wasn’t cynically pandering to the "Christian" theocrats. On November 14, 2004 I preached a sermon entitled, "Walkin’ the Strait and Narrow." This was my response to 22% of voters who claimed to be followers of Jesus and voted for Bush on the basis of "moral values."
I began to feel a call to enter the public debate on spirituality and morals more explicitly as a Preacher of Liberal Religion. Having cut my teeth in the literalist Bible tradition, I knew the strength of passionate belief and gaping intellectual blindness in this approach to Religion and Society.
I kept hearing this passage in my head about Jesus after he "cleansed" the temple, in relation to my sense of responsibility for the Soul of America. "Zeal for your house will consume me."
I was, and continue to be troubled that progressives have largely abandoned Spirituality in the ethical considerations of our time. I saw that Religious bigots like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson were household names, and that few if any Ministers of a more sane, humane Religion were known beyond their relatively small spheres of influence. I saw how the narrow-minded teachers were shrewdly using media to spread their fearful God, and that we progressives were scarcely using the potent tool of mass communication.
I am emboldened by the faith of Edward Everett Hale. ’I am only one but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.’"





60 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Religion as it is used by many so called preachers is but another word for the promotion of hate, bigotry, war, etc. Why is it that Christian mega pastors are so fond of repeating the words of genocide of the Old Testament? If focus was on the message of Jesus that is contained in the New, this world would be such a better place. Love and caring and respect for all human life is supposed to be the message given. I don’t think that those you mentioned believe in the concept of a Creator. They would not dare spread their message of hate of ‘the other’ if they did. Where does the intellectual blindness originate from? Fear installed in children before they can reason for themselves, perhaps? Jesus was not a Christian; did not start a formal church and promoted praying in private. Makes me think that some of these preachers never read that section of the Bible. I don’t think they took the money changer message to heart, either,..’g’. The power of one is never to be underestimated. A bit of Bible history; have you seen this yet? Welcome.
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
I was driven away from any kind of church for good by this horrible merger of business,greed,money,nationalism and religion. I believe there’s something larger than myself,but I don’t think I need a middle man for me to have some sort of goodness and moral compass. This is my problem,liberals may make fun of or shun religion,but we didn’t do that for no reason. I find it destructive and offensive when people don’t think it’s possible to be a decent human being unless there’s a religion involved. I think that is what liberals have trouble articulating and it comes across as being snotty to people of faith.
I lost my family to this crap,they refuse to have anything to do with me or my kids because I won’t go to their church and believe the things they do. I take this stuff personally,so understand that my anger isn’t with you. There’s not supposed to be a religious test to hold office and yet I cannot think of any president in recent history who hasn’t had to somehow pander to the media and the right wing about being a Christian.
Isn’t it possible to come together as people of good will and constructive ideas without it having to be about God?
Chuck, welcome to the lake! “Their fearful God” is a thought-provoking formulation.
As one of the spiritual voices on The Seminal (I’m a Presbyterian pastor), I hope that this move to FDL can help elevate a conversation about faith in America, where it has gone wrong, what it is doing right, and how it can’t be ignored and ridiculed if the left wants to make some real progress on things. There are deep misconceptions and prejudices between religious and non-religious progressives that need to be addressed honestly and respectfully.
Welcome! I attend a UU youth group. I like their family values much better than the right winger fundy values.
Can progressive politics enhance religion?
Just as good a question!
Sure it can you just have to start taking religion back from the Fundies right now they own the brand name with the public.
To take back ownership of the brand name start picking fights to get more attention.
Make the fundies as relevant politically as David Brooks, the Fundies don’t like him, we laugh at him and Karl Rove has a 100 people in the shrinking News Media all saying the same thing he does.
The fundies like David Brooks and the Media talking heads must be made to appear as a shrinking audience and irrelevant to politics.
Sarah for example got out the 20% and really motivated them more than anyone since Reagan but she scared everyone else away you can’t win elections with 20%er fundies.
http://www.biblegateway.com/pa…..chapter=25
This is my attempt at a fire breathing Fundy Lefty Sermon
My Bold
The GOPers are going to hell for this one HELL HELL! I say They have taken Judas’s Silver Pieces. They have taken the World that the Devil first offered Christ when he was tempted! It is time to throw the Money Changers out of the Temple!
http://www.thercg.org/books/ews-n.html
Tell Me who has fought for the Poor to be Fed and Clothed? Who has fought for the people in Prison and Against the Death Penalty (I think after the Crucification we can guess JC’s views on that issue) . Who now fights to help the sick get National Healthcare! . And then ask yourself who stands against us? Not a one of whom has a better chance than a camel of going through the eye of a needle.
We are our brothers keepers free choice the GOP screams sure but just like the prodigal son if a lost sheep comes back we throw a feast heck its our duty to go looking for lost sheep and make our case if they choose to come back we help them home.
Cassie, your host family is UU, correct? I am a UU, not active because I couldn’t warm up to the tiny congregation here in South Bend, but I embrace their religious views, especially their progressive activism and the value they place on the worth and dignity of every person.
I’m going to give this a chance instead of condemning it immediately. Maybe it’ll be nice.
I want our Dems on the news shows to have bible quotes at the ready for discussions on the issues.
War with Iran ” Blessed are the peace makers
National Healthcare Debate The Prodigal son and the Good Samaritan.
The GOP says Free Choice which they do when ever there is a buck to be made off of human misery but strangely they never allow that freedom to the bedroom.
To which we reply We are our Brothers Keeper and you choose to Mark Yourself like Cain.
GOPers claiming to speak God’s will well the story of Eiljah and the 400 prophets of Baal comes to mind Demand they accept the challenge:)
Wonderfully stated! I actually did a blog with the title you wrote. Link below.
Soulfully,
Chuck
http://freesoulsproject.ning.c…..gPost:3044
OK Not nothing but religion is a problem not a solution. According to the Constitution of The United States No religion, any religion or no religion shall be established by the government. I may not state this correctly but you know what I mean. I don’t wish to insult anyone. religion especially contemporary “christain” religion” has become a poison on our supposedly secular society. :believe” what you want but leave me out of it! For way too long religious bigots have tried to legislate “morality” and it is impossible because my “morality” or your “morality” probably aren’t the same! I’m sick and tired and disguisted with a bunch of fools telling me how to live my life, I don’t tell anyone how to live theirs and…………..WTF
peace
Hi Jim, welcome to the lake.
I come out of the RC tradition (of which I am deeply ashamed for their institutional heresy), but I’m a big fan of Luther and Calvin (especially his stuff on stewardship).
IMHO, FDL has a really terrific understanding of the “social gospel,” even though it’s outside the theistic context.
There are a lot of people here, who I know are dedicated atheists/agnostics, who I also feel are my moral and ethical superiors. Many are simply not interested in asking questions about transcendence and I always want to respect that. I know at times in the past I have unintentionally made comments that upset them. I regret that.
There are times where knowledge of the Xtian tradition (something for which I have a lot of respect, Bultmann, Tillich, Rahner, Niebuhr…. ) is helpful here in debunking some of the latest wingnut misrepresentations of Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, and their followers.
IMHO, the Almighty’s grace is effective whether it is anonymous or explicity in the name of the salvation-bringer. At the risk of pissing off some FDL’ers, I will “confess,” that I find FDL a very holy place, an occasion of God’s grace. I just want to underline that’s my opinion, my interpretation. I don’t want to “put that” on anyone else. I will also add I don’t subscribe to the classical Judaeo-Xtian understanding of God. I think Schubert Ogden (Methodist) showed that a process God who is not all-knowing nor all-powerful nor unchanging is more intune with the Judaeo-Xtian scriptures. OT, I want there to be a God and I fully realize that impacts my judgement about it. But I’m prepared, at least intellectually, for the eventuality that there isn’t….. I’m not a fan of Michael Novak, but I thought his book BELIEF AND UNBELIEF expressed this well.
IMHO the Judaeo-Xtian tradition has a lot of baggage, because it’s been around so long. The West has segmented learning a lot, espcially since the “Enlightenment.” In the 16th century, when you got a Ph.D., it covered all learning.
I’m a big fan of the Jesus Seminar. IMHO, when people understand the narrative of who Jesus and his followers were, in relation to their culture, it’s not such a big deal whether God exists or not. IMHO, Jesus and his message is still very consistent with the humanist traditions that animate and underpin FDL.
Again, I know a lot of people at FDL don’t concurr with my interpretation and I do not mean in any way to be “imposing” it on anyone. It’s just the way I put things together. I am well aware they I could be dead-wrong about the existence of God or an after-life or both.
Women should not be educated or you get Feminazis.
Private Religious Shira Charter Schools Schools should be mandatory! No money for public schools in the Stimulus! No Money for Birth Control in the Stimulus! No abortion!
This is a religious country founded by Christians Muslims we should live like it under Sharia Bible law.
Global Warming is a myth spread by liberal Jews/Zionists designed to hurt our Saudi Friends after all where would Bush and the Taliban be without Ossama and his Saudi friends money.
Its so hard to tell the Taliban position on issues from the GOP’s they are so alike.:)
We need to point this out to people.
That’s beautifully written, Boo. The Dems have allowed the Rs to take over the discussion of religion and it shouldn’t have happened. I think it’s due to the fact that we never dreamed that something so private would be used in the way the fundies have used it. Blind-sided completely. Now we need to start talking about it and stop this attack that liberals are godless.
I absolutely agree that we don’t need God or Religion to be decent human beings. I too have great tension in my family over leaving the fundy church and being a UU Minister. I do get the anger! I hope to model a healthy relationship between religion, life, and politics.
Soulfully,
Chuck
Yes, without a “social” interpretation of the gospel, believers turn into “church mice.”
Oversimplified, that’s what Jesus of Nazareth was preaching AGAINST when he mentioned the “law.” “Church mice” is exactly what almost all recent Roman Catholic popes, except John the 23rd, have demanded. It’s also what a lot of biblical literalists from the “reformed” demonimations of Xtianity have de-evolved to. It’s an obsession with private morality, private piety, private salvation, to the exclusion of social morality.
Jane (who I think is either atheist or agnostic, it’s none of my business) has identified that one of the most virulent and harmful expressions of this has been in the heretical interpretations of the “protestant (Roman Catholic) work ethic.” These hereticts believe that their wealth is a sign of God’s grace. They also believe that poverty is a sign of God’s displeasure.
You’d be hard-put to find anything that more completely contradicted Jesus’ message, but that’s what happens when you die. Some people mangle what you said.
Some people are trigger happy at mentions of religion others, not many mind you are defensive of it we try our best to respect our friends views even if we cross others lines.
I agree the Lake is a good place imagine no fear of hell, no thought of Heaven but we still want to make a better world and help people without thought of ourselves.
The GOP complains that we want to do this with their money, yet they never show us the same consideration when they risk our lives in oil wars or lay us off from our jobs!
And after the bank bailout the ITS OUR MONEY argument has gotten weak.
I think its time for a liberal GOD to appear again. The God of the Free Markets Capitalism Moloch has failed.
Thanks for the welcome. Fear causes us to do some awful things like making torture a national policy! God has been and continues to be for many the ultimate fear monger who will torture you forever!! I’m committed to offering a different “God.”
Soulfully,
Chuck
Thanks for giving this a chance. I hope to show that “faith” is a verb and can be a life changing, even culturally transforming force. Gandhi and King are pretty good models!
Soulfully,
Chuck
FWIW, Peterr posts for FDL. He’s an ordained Lutheran minister.
I think religion can help to inform progressive politics if it can find a better balance between practice (and I mean practice in its fullest sense) and doctrine.
I think this is exactly what Jesus was protesting when he turned over the money changers tables in the Temple.
Do GOPers even read the bible? How do they miss passages like that and come up with the Gospel Jesus only loves you if your Wealthy?
I wonder if this uniting of wealth, religion and politics is a sign of a decaying culture?
As an atheist (fact-based world) I see absolutely no value in religion whatsoever, let alone it playing a role in shaping society.
History shows us that religion has done far more harm than good. And if that isn’t clear enough in this country right now, then I don’t know what could convince you otherwise.
Before you pose your question, you must first define and seperate religion and spirituality- Religion is the politics of spirituality. Dogma. The party line. Do that, and you will go to hell. That religion’s followers are going to hell because they don’t believe like we do. We are good, they are bad. Separate the two, and you will have a better answer to your question. If you look at most religions and spiritual philosophies you will see that they have a common set of values. After all, the principles of Jesus’ Beatitudes are also found in other religions, and most religions are humanistic- they have a set of rules on how to behave while on earth. The rest of it, a superior being, afterlife, etc., is all unproven by tangible means, so that can be left out of the question.
Spirituality is another thing- this is about self awareness, a person’s place in the cosmos, transcendence, heaven, Nirvana, and it has a positive affect on mankind, because it makes a person more self aware and aware of their surroundings. And more likely to want to create harmony around them. Spirituality is one on one- a person and his or her maker / effort to find meaning to life. I think this is less than useful for government, because it doesn’t do much for a group- it is done from within, and stays within.
The Bible thumpers are all Old Testament Biblicans- they make an informed choice to ignore the teachings of Jesus. And Biblicans have created a religion of fear and hate and power, and this is not how you create good in the world.
Focusing on the common ground of how to treat your fellow man will indeed, improve government. Care of the sick, the elderly, the poor, this was all taught by Jesus, and others. Do this, and you will have good government, because the leaders will follow the people.
I think we are stuck with religion whether we like it or not. Humans seek meaning in their lives and one of the ways they do it is through religion. It is very unfortunate that the dominant face of religion in America is a fundamentalist strain of evangelicalism.
I am not of Christian faith myself, though I was raised as a Christian, but I have respect for the a lot of the work that gets done through church-affiliated NGOs. And here in Canada, a lot of the social advances of the mid-twentieth century (pensions, health care etc.) were very strongly rooted in Christian teaching and were led by ministers.
I couldn’t agree more. Even at its most benign, faith is inherently based in fear. Whether it is a fear of eternal damnation or of the possibility that there is no deeper meaning to the universe, faith is an inherently exploitable state of mind.
US history is awash with pandering to “people of faith,” and the time to stop is now.
Personal religious beliefs should not be a deterrent to progressive political beliefs and acts.
Purblind stupidity and slavish adherence to dogmatic thought, OTOH, appear to be strong assets toward conservative functionality.
;>)
Fern- mankind has a built in drive to search for “the greater”- God, infinity, space, meaning, betterment, a sense of place and purpose, the new horizon, greater knowledge. Agreed, religion is one of the ways to do this, but religions are primarily social organizations- a group of like minded people reinforcing each others’ ideas. They provide support, security, a sense of belonging, guidance, purpose, and self validation. None of this is bad, and don’t take it as a put down of religions. All people need this, to some degree or another, but religion clearly offers this. But people sometimes should stop and ask themselves why they belong to their particular group.
Taking another shot at your, as per usual, excellent question.
I’d really like to see Catholic Democrats hit the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy hard on abortion and other “bedroom” issues.
The low hanging fruit is the hierarchy’s position that both contraception and abortion are a mortal sin. They can’t have it both ways. If they really think life begins at conception, artificial contraception only makes sense. I’m aggressively pro-choice through all three tri-mesters, but from a rhetorical perspective, that’s an easier point for lay Catholics to make with the all-powerful, all-male, all-celibate hierarchy.
More low hanging fruit is the RC cover-up of child molesting priests. Roman Catholic priests, who have sex with underaged boys, get infinite absolution until the press publishes the stories. Hierarchy has no problem with gay sex when it’s one of them. Roman Catholics, however, who divorce are immediately condemned to PERMANENT celibacy.
No forgiveness for them, ever.
In order to get an anullment, in most cases you have to be rich, well connected (Guilani/Kennedy) and pretend that you were nuts when you gave “consent.” Oh yeah, the offspring are also illegitimate.
There’s no priest shortage. Plenty of married men and women would be eminently more qualified than most of the losers/misfits/criminals they ordain now. RC Church can keep the “option” of celibacy. It only became “mandatory” in the 12th century under Hildebrand. In Mark’s gospel, Jesus’ first miracle was curing Peter’s mother-in-law.
BooRadley, you express yourself beautifully, and choosing to believe while accepting the unknowable is a wise stance.
Religion is a force in our society, and the political power of conservative Christians is well documented. But the problem with conservative American Christian religious groups, especially of the Protestant kind, is their close association with racism. (The reason the Southern Baptist Convention exists is because it split off from its main church in the 1840s rather than renounce slavery; other Southern branches of other denominations did the same thing, but they would all later rejoin with their original branches after the end of the Civil War; only the SBC would refuse to rejoin its home branch.)
As as atheist this is a hard one. Personally I cannot see how mixing more mythology into politics can be good for anyone. I’d like all people of faith to keep faith and politics separate, to see them as differing arenas of interest. However, I know that is not likely to happen so I’m trying to think of an upside to more religion in progressive politics. Maybe, and it’s a big maybe, by having more thoughtful discussions of religion we can begin to remove the sacrosanct position that faith holds.
Perhaps we can start to question religion’s place more openly, not take it for an automatic good, see the harm it has caused and call out it’s followers when they obviously transgress. to no longer be afraid to “questions someone’s beliefs” and to have the courage to say “you mean that you really believe…?” And then to expect a real answer about the voices in their heads.
We have lately made fun of the circular firing squad on the Right stemming from a demand for ideological purity. I would ask some of the responders on this site who have issues with organized religion to hold their fire against potential allies lest they fall into the same trap.
Dynamics of Faith
His point is that faith in science or authenticity, or any “belief,” all springs from the same place.
In Genesis 22:1-24, the story of Abraham binding Issac is about human sacrifice. Famine was the big killer, so staying in the habit of killing a few children made sense to a lot of people, fewer mouths to feed and maybe it placates the gods. As the author of Genesis relates, the clan of Abraham broke with that. The Cannanites, the Hittites and other tribes continued the practice.
The Judaeo-Xtian scriptures are the cultural, ethnic, economic, military, politics, matrimonial law, dietary, ritualistic, and religious record of those groups.
Life was short, and there was no science. There was no alternative. There was no counter balance to what we now call religion. They didn’t call it religion, or politics, or anything else. It was simply who they were over and against the other tribes with whom they fought for survival.
I’m not arguing for religion. Historically, however, I think it’s unfair to blame religion as religion for all our problems. Stalin and Mao got rid of religion, and it’s not as though that ended evil. Germany was around 100% Judaeo-Xtian throughout the holocaust. Obviously the Xtian tradition failed massively to live up to the Ten Commandments.
I totally agree with your whole comment.
Can religion enhance progressive politics?
No.
Religion has an overinflated opinion of what it has to offer. However, people bring what they bring to politics, and if what they bring is influenced by their religion, well, that’s what that is. But religion has absolutely no place in progressive politics as such, because progressive politics are secular in a profound way. That’s one of the reasons we are on this side of the fence: we look at the reality and wonder what can be wrought from it; the other side looks at the reality and wonders how it can best be denied for advantage.
Totally agree. While I do not denigrate anyone elses faith, I could wish they’d keep it to themselves.
I’m an ardent fan of Joesph Campbell and I truly believe we need to move away from this christainity which has ruled and ruined the planet for 2000 years.
To me it is nothing but political and social control and has been since the Council of Nicaea, where men picked and chose what to believe in and declared Jesus divine, and Mary Magdalene a whore.
Since then, the bible has been rewritten god knows how many times.
For instance; the word “Lord” was never used until the middle Ages when there were serfs to the “Lord”.
As with Campbell, I believe there desperately needs to be a new spiritual mythos. One which works WITH the planet and incorporates the sacred feminine to balance out the more violent half of the yin yang.
Religion is not working and hasn’t been for sometime. If it had been we wouldn’t have these morally bankrupt individuals who act like a pack of baboons running the country/world. To even think for a moment it has a place in the progressive movement is regressive to me.
Besides, we’re entering the Age of Aquarius and everyone is going to have to make peace with their own souls in their own way.
We’ve been shooting ourselves and life in the foot for 6000 years. It’s time to stop.
FWIW, this is very disjointed and it’s just history, no dogma, no belief.
The whole “virgin birth” story is only in Luke. John and Mark both ignore Jesus’ birth. Matthew’s version has the angel appearing to Joseph, urging him to marry the pregnant Mary.
By the time the canon was closed in Xtianity around 250CE, there were plenty of gospels floating around in addition to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Peter had a gospel, as did Thomas, and there were others I’m forgetting now. My point is that by 250, whoever was in charge, we’re really not sure, understood that there was pluralism built right into what would become the canonical scriptures. It was obvious that the virgin birth, just one of countless examples, was not the sina qua non of the faith. It was ok to disagree about the virgin birth.
Another example is that Mark’s gospel in its original form had no resurrection. It ended with the cross. Later someone tacked on Easter.
This is what drives me nuts about the literalists. They won’t read their own damn scriptures. They don’t say at all what the fundies claim they say.
Mark forgot the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, but they both had other sources Mark didn’t have. One of their sources was the “Q” community. We’ve lost the written record, but it’s obvious neither Matthew or Luke felt as though they could change one word of the “Q” source. They appear to have felt a lot freer to edit the material they got from Mark. The “Q” stuff is alot of the “world is coming to an end,” apocalyptic stuff. Facts are facts, Jesus preached the imminent end of the world. The earliest Xtian documents are Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians. That’s probably pretty close to some of what Jesus said. God’s coming on his chariot and he’s pissed. What we have is a hellanized version of Jesus. A lot of the Jewishness of Jesus was lost until the 20th century. Paul is in some ways more dominant than Jesus. Here’s Paul before 60CE: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galations 3:28. Scholars know Jesus never said that. There’s nothing about Jesus liking Greeks or Romans. Jesus was an illiterate Jew and he clearly was not as virulently sexist as the powers in Israel. But, Paul, who never met Jesus of Nazareth, was a well-educated, Greek speaking Jew, who was also a Roman citizen. He found something in Jesus’ preaching and improved/hellanized it.
Paul’s the first one to say that Jesus said “this is my body, eat it, this is my blood, drink it.”
No scholar I am aware of has any doubt Jesus of Nazareth uttered those words. No one has a clue what he meant and no one else said anything remotely like it. Paul included it, because he had no choice. Those words were tied very closely to the memory of all who knew Jesus.
John is called the Maverick gospel, because he is so different from the synoptics, Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that Jesus’ blood on the cross washed away our sins, expiatory sacrifice.
John rejects that. In John it was Jesus’ birth that saved us. Jesus’ death was unnecessary and caused only by human sin. Again, there’s pluralism built right into the canonical scriptures.
John is very quiet on miracles. John wants his church to know that they don’t need to see miracles to believe. Obviously, no one could produce any miracles. Most of the miracle stories are in the synoptics. John, however has three passovers. The synoptics only have one each. Most scholars think John is right, Jesus probably had a three-year ministry.
Jesus never intended to start a religion. The gospels were written because the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70CE. Although the “Nazareans” were in some tension with Judaism, there was a lot of pluralism PRIOR to 70. Not everyone believed the same thing, there were the Essenses, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, all of whom were following Jewish law. There’s zero evidence, however, that Jesus was trying to start a new religion. He died a good, pious Jew. We don’t really know why the Romans killed Jesus. He probably got in another fight in the temple, flipped over some money changers table. Some centurion, probably acting on Pilate’s standing orders for Passover, just crucify everyone involved in any fight or disturbance.
The story in John about Pilate washing his hands and deliberating is pure bullshit. We have letters from Rome to Pilate. Pontius, you can’t crucify 800 people at a time. More people means more tax revenue. After Jesus was killed by the Romans, it was unpopular to be his follower. That’s why Matthew especially is so eager to pin Jesus’ death on “the Jews.” Nobody wants to get fed to the lions.
If the Jews had hated Jesus, they could have stoned him. They didn’t need permission from Rome. What we now know as Xtianity, didn’t begin until after 70. Jews who were “Nazareans,” had been welcome in Temple before 70. After 70, they had to choose. Drop Jesus and keep their jobs and families, or leave Judaism and lose both. Those who left Judaism needed worship books and catechisms to guide their worship. That’s what the gospels were for different geographic regions.
FWIW, there’s a real strong health care overlap with Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars accept that Jesus’ family wasn’t happy with him. The thought is Jesus had a gift. We don’t understand it, but people in his day believed he had some kind of healing power. He wasn’t the only one. What made Jesus of Nazareth unique, however, was that he took his healing on the road.
His family tried to explain to him, “that wasn’t the way it was done.” Jesus was supposed to STAY in Nazareth. People would come to him for healing and then the family would CHARGE them. Jesus didn’t charge a flat rate for healing and he made house calls. He billed what people could afford.
I’m not trying to sell religion. I do think Jesus has been badly misunderstood by a lot of people who think they are following him.
I grew up in the Catholic church where I was taught to loathe myself. Since the age of about 13 my beliefs have ranged all the way from agnostic to anti-theist where I am now. I was further humilitated by Chaplains in the United States Navy, who openly mocked my beliefs in front of my peers. I have made it a point for most of my life to go out of my way to avoid knocking peoples’ religion. Until they started using it as a cudgel with which to assault me and my civil rights. Religion has historically killed orders of magnitude more people than it has saved. I’m not going to leave FDL because of this new feature but forgive me if I ignore it.
As Elaine Pagels of Princeton discusses in her many books, we need to understand how the Christian church, as an institution, defined christian thought and doctrine. I think that we need to separate institutional/political processes, that necessarily formed later (apx.369CE- 16c. CE) christian thought, from the or an experience with divinity, spirit, personal meaning, or the noetic and esoteric expressed by the man from Nazareth. They obviously diverge considerably. The history of early christian organizing is a fascinating journey into sociopolitical engineering. Without historical context and church formation, the notion of the Christ and the principles ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth remain confusing.
Those who reject belief, in any power greater then themselves, do not reside at the Lake. I have read, felt, and enjoyed the deep humanity and transcendent grace through the work, intellect, and heart of FDL’s writer’s higher purpose.
That we, as finite humans, do not need to bring (a) God into our understanding denies the existence of the calling many here find themselves following. How do I believe you all have a higher power that acts through, and with you, as you? I see the courage, strength, and even obsessive nature of working as a body politic for justice. “When ever two or more are gathered”, in common purpose for justice something powerful happens. And we all become better for it.
I have been an Interfaith minister since 1987. As an adherent to the concept that there is a common thread in all world religions that is the working foundation of human culture, interactions, and thought, I welcome the inclusion of discussion that includes abiding principles, characteristics, behaviors, and thought that elevates any human experience. I have a deep respect for these underlying principles regardless of how they present themselves.
Further, if God doesn’t exist then I will create one that works for me. A God named anything I want. And I will join the vast ancient human quest for meaning beyond what I can see. And like the drowning man pulled into an invisible boat who rows regardless of what he can see, I will begin to see and experience how solid is that in which I reside. And I will be at peace. And peace enables me to set out, again, against the ugly tide of peoples fears born of poverty of mind, body, and heart.
Besides, peace is better then drunk. Really. Been their, done that. Anyway one can function longer and better. And maybe discover that something magnificent, beyond ones singular ability, has occurred.
Welcome Chuck.
In Spirit.
To put it in biological terms, we can not function well in politics, or any other area relying on only the left hemisphere of our brain and trying to suppress the right hemisphere. Of course, the inverse is true too. Why be half-human when we can use all of our brain and be a whole human?
If anyone objects to that analysis, then consider historical terms. Liberal religion has historically been the home base of some of the most significant progressive political movements in this country. It is not necessary that it be that way, but is demonstrably true that the interaction of the two has helped the cause in the past.
Disclosure: I do not attend a church, but some of my best friends do. ;)
I’ve got to go with Hitch on this issue. Religion, however well-intentioned, poisons everything.
Can Religion Enhance Progressive Politics?
No, but perhaps religious people can enhance progressive politics.
To me, Paul has always been the anti-Christ. Jesus supposedly said “All these things shall come to pass before this generation has ended.” And up jumped Paul after “falling on the road to Damascus”.
It was Paul who really wrote early Christain dogma. And he wasn’t even a disciple. It seems few know that Paul “fell” 60 years after Jesus’ death…by whatever means.
There were two schools of christainity in Rome at the time of the “christains being fed to the lions in the stadium”; there were the “Peterists” who followed the gentler way of Jesus and the “Paulists” who were all about Armageddon and forcing others to believe as they did.
I’ve often found it fascinating, in my peregrinations through the worlds’ religions and spiritual paths to see which ones “made it” and which didn’t.
It’s always the violent faiths that seem to make it. Like who has much knowledge or even heard of Ba’hai? Not many, and their prophet, I believe, was the latest full manifestation of god. I am not a Ba’hai. But I knows it when I sees it.
All that being as it was, it was the Paulists who caused so much trouble in Rome that they were thrown to the beasts in the Roman arena; Rome, a State which was known for it’s religious tolerance. Too bad the Paulists didn’t pick up on that a little.
And there’s Paul, all throughout the New Testament, with his killing ways and words and absolute disgust of women. And why not? He was a Greek. He sure didn’t say anything against “homosexuality” did he? No all his venom was reserved for women.
Christainity would do itself a favor to pay attention to the real messages discovered in the thrown out Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea scrolls, because that’s where Jesus true message is. But they’d rather look down on other people, literally, from Tim Lehane’s new gospels which preach of “spaceship Jesus” coming to re-make the earth and kill all the non-believers, no matter how nice they are.
2000 years of killing; 10 million women murdered just in the witch burnings alone, and at a time when Europe was pretty sparsely populated.
Don’t get me started on Islam and women.
But, no, religion is not for me…too many “Thou Shalt Nots” that interfere with life itself; Too many twisted people; Too many dead in the name of the “Lord”.
There’s another way, few indeed see the difference; the way of actual spirituality that affirms life and humbly realizes that we are part of it’s web and “by treating the least of these with kindness, so ye have treated me”.
Ah! One of MY people. Howdy!
Progressives should happily welcome any religious group that is willing to forsake their blanket tax exemptions in order to participate in political activity.
Churches who want to retain their voluntarily-accepted 501(c)(3) status, on the other hand, should abide by its restrictions and stay the hell out of politics.
You’re correct in many ways, but I think the evidence all points to Paul being the more sane/hellanized one. The violent community you speak of is imho found only in the “Q” community. The only record of them survives canonically in Matthew and Luke. Q was a very apocalyptic, very Jewish first century community. As I mentioned above archeological findings, Dead Sea Scrolls for example, have helped scholars rediscover the Jewishness of Jesus. Until those findings were unearthed, all the earliest surviving Xtian documents were in Greek.
Luke/Acts of the Apostles is written by the same author. S/he disagrees on many issues with Paul’s authentic letters. If you want to gain an understanding of Paul, scholars agree it’s in his authentic letters, not Acts of the Apostles.
The first recorded crisis between Jesus’ followers and the Jewish leaders occurs about 49CE, as recorded by Paul, iirc in Corninthians. Paul calls it the Council at Jerusalem. He wants to baptize Greeks as Jewish Xtians. This is critical, because there’s zero evidence that Jesus ever wanted to extend his message to Greeks. He was already suspect by many Jews, because he didn’t sufficiently despise Samaritans. Someone would have remembered if Jesus had been inclusive wrt gentiles. There’s zero evidence he was. He saw himself exclusively as a Jewish prophet to the Jewish people.
Paul had the utmost respect for Jesus, but it’s clear he split with him on this issue.
In 49 the Jewish leaders won’t allow Paul’s Greek “converts” unless the males agree to circumsicion. Paul gets Jesus’ brother (James the Just, not one of the apostles either) to negotiate with the Jewish leaders. They finally agree to accept money from the Greeks instead of circumsicion. WRT Peter, he flip flops on circumsicion. In addition, Peter’s not the first pope. Jesus’ brother, James the Just, and probably John (the disciple Jesus loved?) are clearly in charge of Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem. Peter’s at best, third in command in 49. IMHO, the reason Peter dies in Rome, is because after 49 he got kicked out of Jerusalem, probably for being too soft on gentiles. That would be consistent with the rising tide of Jewish dissatisfaction with Roman rule, which culminated in the Romans destroying Jerusalem in 70.
It’s possible that James the Just is the real stoning of St. Stephen (from Acts, not Paul’s authentic letters). James the Just was thrown off the roof of the Temple in 66CE. That’s the way they “stoned” someone. If you survived the fall, they finished you off with stones.
After 2 and 1 Thessalonians, Paul’s earliest surviving letters, it’s Paul who makes the transition from an imminent eschatology (Jesus coming back on his chariot throwing lighting bolts) to a more realized eschatology, a delayed second coming and the notion of a “heaven.” This was especially tough to explain to those followers of Jesus who had sold all their possession, because they thought Jesus would be “right back.”
Again, here’s Paul fundamentally altering Jesus’ preaching.
A lot of Catholic scholars have written about Romans 16:7, because it gives the Vatican fits about the ordination of both genders. “Greet Androni’cus and Junia (Julia); they are of note among the apostles.”
Paul NEVER uses the term “apostle” loosely. It’s the highest ranking term in the early church. Bishop, would be below it. Paul just called “Julia” notable among the apostles. She’s probably married to Andronicus. Paul was celibate, but he had no problem with “married apostles,” or bishops. He didn’t, however, want the bishops married more than twice.
Yes, the Romans were tolerant relative to others in the 1st century, in that they didn’t butcher everyone they conquered. Nero 64-68CE was not tolerant. The point you raise is imho why the canonical gospels are at such pains to pin the blame for the crucifixtion on the Jews. They’re trying to placate the Roman authorities, so they don’t get thrown to the lions.
There’s a lot of secondary evidence that Jesus’ traveled with women. That was a little ahead of his time and it’s probably part and parcell of why the Jewish leaders fussed over his “eating and drinking with sinners.” If you read the beginning and ending of Paul’s authentic letters, he continued that counter cultural acceptance of women and expanded it. Paul’s authentic letters are filled with very warm greetings to many, many women, who ran his Greek Chruches. There’s massive evidence that after Paul, misogyny attempted and for the most part succeeded in wiping out all record of these women. In addition the prominent role women had was eliminated.
IMHO the shortest of Paul’s letters, Philemon, iirc less than a thousand words, gives great insight into Paul’s character. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon’s stole from him and escaped. When the money ran out, Onesimus found Paul and worked for him. Paul knows Philemon almost has to kill Onesimus. If Philemon doesn’t, it will encourage other slaves to steal from him. But Paul writes to Philemon and asks him to take Onesimus back, not as a slave, but as a free man. The image we’re left with is Onesimus knocking on the door with Paul’s letter in hand, hoping that Philemon will at least read the letter, before he kills him. We don’t know what happened.
Nail hit smack on the head.
Thanks! What UU church and where?
Soulfully,
Chuck
Sure religion has done major damage in the world. So has every other human institution. When you boil it down the problem is still humanity. What would the world be like without the faith based work of Gandhi or MLK? Their example and results argue for healthy religion rather than no religion.
Soulfully,
Chuck
The non profit status of churches only restricts endorsing political candidates and party’s. With your logic the civil rights movement would have never happened. Churches were primary places for this tremendous human rights advance. Liberal churches like mine are also on the vanguard for Gay rights/marriage. Should we stay out of this civil debate?
Soulfully,
Chuck Freeman
Do you totally ignore Gandhi & King?
Soulfully,
Chuck
Beautifully and wonderfully stated! Thanks.
Soulfully,
Chuck
Nice distinction!
Soulfully,
Chuck
Chuck, if you have accepted the benefits of 501(c)(3) status, you must also abide by its restrictions, and refrain from any endorsement of candidates or parties.
You can fight all you can for great causes. But don’t use an “end justifies the means” argument to do so in violation of the law. If you feel compelled to engage in partisan political activity, please change your organization’s tax status.
Rationally,
Don
That is precisely what I and my church do. I am a political independent who thinks the 2 party system is bought and paid for leaving our democracy in grave danger. This is the primary reason single payer is off the table from the get go.
Soulfully,
Chuck