Using Religion for Good

[Warren Tighe]

I learned a lot from this Ezra Klein Show in which he interviews Texan politician James Talarico, a devout Christian.  It gives me a glimmer of hope for our country.  In particular it illustrates how, with effective spokespeople like Talarico, we might be able to take back Christianity as a force for good. 

If you find time to listen, I'd like to hear what you thought of it.  

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-james-talarico-reclaim-christianity-for-the-left/id1548604447?i=1000744968082

It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of the rhetoric of James Talarico and Charlie Kirk.  Would have been great to see them debate each other. 

Warren

[Scott Hotes]

Hi Warren, thanks for sending this, and all else being equal, I think Talarico could add something positive to the Democratic Party.  Yes, I think it makes sense to have as a strategy to make inroads into the tremendous and terrible progress the so-called “Religious Right” has made in pushing Christians toward the right, toward MAGA and toward Trump.

I think the way you have worded some of this, including “Using Religion for Good” and “take back Christianity as a force for good”, I’m not so sure I can agree with.  The latter, especially involving the phrase “take back” makes it sound like the goal would get back to some previous steady state where Christianity was a “force for good”, and somehow the right changed that and we need to get it back.  I’m not sure I would agree with that, or would agree that that is somehow the natural, historic state of things.

My perspective looks something like this:

1. People should be free WRT religion.  Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it:  "Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.”

2. Organized religion, as a force operating within a nation state, will tend toward political involvement.  That is because organized religion, like all collective human endeavors, endeavors toward power, and politics is where power lies.

3. The Founding Fathers, along with other enlightened thinkers, were well aware of this, and strove to avert this tendency.

4. We must accept that organized religion lives and thrives in the U.S.  Not just Christianity, but that is the religion which by far has the most power today in the U.S. and is the greatest threat toward theocracy.

5. One strategy for neutralizing the negative impact the Religious Right has had on our politics would be to emphasize aspects of Christianity that align better with the values of the progressive left, such as multiculturalism, egalitarian values, environmental protection, etc.  Who should do this emphasizing, and what efforts could be effective is left open as an exercise for the reader.

6. It’s all well and good for someone like Talarico to point out that the Religious Right emphasizes “the wrong things”, but he has a tall hill to climb here.  The Religious Right is really a movement that is made up of its members.  If the heads of the church are “preaching” these divisive messages, and their congregations are falling in line, voting and speaking publicly along these lines, I think it is fair for someone on the outside to say, well, call it what you want but as far as I can tell this is what “their religion” is all about.  Sure the Bible may say some things that contradict this or that view, but you are just one voice, and it would appear, in contradiction with church leaders.

7. Similarly, Talarico takes pains to say that the Bible is actually silent on abortion and gay marriage.  But church leaders are not silent on these.  Yes, the Bible requires interpretation, people have spent 2,000 years doing exactly that, and whether he likes it or not, many have found abortion and gay marriage to be out of bounds.  Maybe that will change, maybe it is changing, but that is where we find ourselves today.

8. Finally, it’s somewhat intellectually dishonest to only focus on the more progressive messages of Christ and the Bible.  This is a well-worn path and I would not do justice to it repeating here, but I suggest Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian” as a fine place to start for a rebuttal.  Christianity has aspects that I think are at best difficult to square with modern progressive ideals.  Just as an example, the concept of hell, that is a place of eternal punishment for non-believers.  As a second example, consider a major theme of the new testament, the notion of “knowledge” and the quest for knowledge for its own sake.  This leads to questioning the Christian dogma, and has been interpreted as being prideful and sinful.

Why I am not a Christian, Bertrand Russel

Scott

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/30f0abfc-7574-4132-beed-54fc0ec7edd6n%40googlegroups.com.