"Progressive Values Can't Be Just Secular Values"

[Htom Sirveaux]

New polls suggest liberals have an increasingly negative view of religion, despite the fact that most Democrats—and Americans—are religious.

CHRIS COONS AUG 13, 2017

For a generation, the Democratic Party of which I’m a member has steadily moved away from communities of faith. Today, according to a recent Pew study, more than one-third of Democrats—including 44 percent of self-described liberal Democrats—think churches and religious organizations actually have a “negative impact” on the United States.

But the beliefs of those liberal Democrats don’t reflect the views of most American voters. The fact of the matter is this: The vast majority of Americans—including the majority of Democrats—are people of faith. According to a recent Pew study, for example, nearly 80 percent of Americans identify with a religious faith. Two-thirds of them pray every day.

That’s why if progressives are to achieve our goals, we have to open our hearts and minds to our allies in the faith community. Doing so won’t just advance our shared policy goals—it might also help heal a nation deeply divided along political lines.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/progressive-secular-religious/536559/

Hey, did you know that liberals suck because they are so anti-religious that Senator Coons had to publicly lecture them to play nicely with religious people (even though the majority of liberals *are* religious people)? It's true. They just stubbornly refuse to open their hearts and minds, and that's why this nation is so deeply divided. It's not at all that there's an entire party of people whose political platform is often "liberals suck", and who on that basis elected a dangerous white supremacist. Nope, it's that liberals really do suck because they are such negative nellies about religion, and if we could all just come together and recognize that (preferably praying together about it), the world would be saved.

Senator Coons, as a church-going liberal and someone who has spent a good chunk of his life pondering spiritual matters, I'd like you to know that you just made things worse rather than better. Anti-religious people have no shortage of religious folks willing to lecture them about what they are doing or saying wrong, religion-wise. One more won't make them feel more positive about religion. Listening to them and taking them seriously without the condescending lectures might not either, but they'd probably feel better overall, and that's more valuable on a purely human level. But you might not have time for that amount of listening, since ignored people tend to store up quite a bit to say, and you probably have wealthy donor fundraisers to attend.

I understand, but in that case, could you get back to your job as a politician rather than play "apostle to the liberals"? I'm sure they'd appreciate that, too.

[Warpy]

1. They used to be religious values

until the religious patriarchs got their tighty whities in a twist over abortion.

[Voltaire2]

6. Right wing reactionary religiosity did not start with abortion

Instead it is more or less the normal mode, and progressive religiosity is the exception.

[Warpy]

11. I know aboiut the "great awakening" and where and how it started

Zealots with tin ears have always banned music; zealots with two left feet banned dancing; zealots who couldn't hold their liquor banned drinking, etc. That garbage has always plagued all religions. It was usually small scale and varied from church to church.

For it to go mainstream under the umbrella "Christian" took two things: a patriarchal knee jerk reaction to women deciding their own fates independently of men and a snake oil salesman like Reagan who convinced them the GOP had all the other answers, too.

[LonePirate]

2. I never realized helping the poor and the sick were secular values.

[Mariana]

9. Do you think only religious people do those things?

Do you think only religion could inspire people to want to do them?

[LonePirate]

10. Those are simply two of the most important progressive values.

They also happen to be the hallmarks of a central figure in the New Testament. Yet some people think progressive values can't be religious values. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. From what I can conclude, only Christians can care about the poor and sick.

Is this correct?

[underthematrix]

3. Progressive values are Christian, Islamic and Judaic values

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. No religion: 67% Clinton, 25% Trump; religion: 44% Clinton, 51% Trump

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

QED.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Also, 25% of Black Protestants, and 23% of White Catholics, think churches have a negative impact

http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/

So it may be a case of scepticism rather than not identifying with religious people.

[Lucky Luciano]

7. I do wish religion would just go away.

People should be good without the threats of punishment from "god."

Proselytizing is also pure evil.

Helping people does not need to be inspired by "god." It should come from within. If god was needed as a motivator, then it was clearly insincere to begin with.

Science and the scientific method should be the ONLY benchmark by which we understand the way the universe works.

[gtar100]

12. Agree with what say except the last part. Not all things are measurable by science.

Science is awesome at understanding the physical world but that isn't all we experience. Your last paragraph sort of sounds like a "one true religion" kind of statement. Smacks of materialism. You sure science is the right tool to understand *everything*?

[Lordquinton]

15. What did you have in mind that Science can't understand?

Cause scientific understanding is growing all the time, just because we don't understand it now, doesn't mean it's not expanding. We'll get to it eventually.

[wryter2000]

26. Test this statement with the scientific method

"William Shakespeare was a great writer."

There's no way to evaluate his greatness as a writer with the scientific method (other than to take a survey that would show most people agree with the statement). Yet any sort of literary evaluation will conclude that, indeed, he was a great writer.

I'm a social scientist by training, and I fully agree that the scientific method is the only way to understand the physical world. But I agree with the poster one post up that it can't explain some things, like why murder is wrong.

Please note: I do NOT claim you must turn to religion to understand ethics. My own view (not proven) is that you acquire your sense of right and wrong at a very early age and only attach your religion to your ethics later. And we all know atheists who appear to be better Christians through their actions than many Bible thumpers.

[Lordquinton]

27. It can be tested

First lay out paramaters, then collect data, then conduct surveys, and so on.

I can't give you a nice simple answer, but you know science isn't simple. That's what people want; simplicity. But we can't just say "god did it" to everything, we have to explain it, and then people tune out. It's too long, too complex, or the worst, it ruins the mystery!

Declaring that something can't be tested shows a lack of imagination and resignation that science shouldn't have.

Tell me your parameters and we can start something. That's what I say about God and I just get hostility in response.

[wryter2000]

29. No, you tell me

What parameters? Number of vowels? Use of tense? Rhyme?

That's exactly the problem. Science doesn't have the parameters to measure greatness in art.

And I'm not resorting to God as a solution, so we can leave God out of it. Even though this is the religion forum.

[Lordquinton]

30. I relate it back to god because we're in the religion group

So that's what the context is. Personally I'm fine with "we don't know" for some things, but art isn't one of them. While there is a subjectiveness to it, good art hits certain centers of the brain and makes us happy to look/read/listen to it. We can go from there, testing what it is that makes us happy, why we enjoy it, what parts make our brains light up.

Take music, You can pretty much create a song to pull on the exact emotions you want, and it's all backed up by Science. Why can't the same be done for other arts?

The further we push neuroscience, the more we can understand about art and other "unknowables" the easier it will be to define what makes Shakespeare great.

[wryter2000]

32. Music

I'll grant there's math behind how we perceive music. Not so with literature that I'm aware of. As to the neuroscience of pleasure--that still won't tell you why people find Shakespeare's writing more pleasurable than mine. You might as well just do a survey as I mentioned above.

But as you say, this isn't related to religion.

[Lordquinton]

33. Are you implying surveys aren't scientific?

I've shown overwhelming evidence that if someone with the right knowledge and creativity were to do it, they could probably find a method. Saying it's impossible is just intellectually lazy.

It's not specifically related to religion, but the premises are the same.

[wryter2000]

34. Surveys are fine

They can tell you THAT people perceive something to be beautiful. They can't tell you WHY. Science can explain why the sun emits light. It can't tell you why Mozart was a greater composer than Salieri.

[Lordquinton]

35. That's a subjective opinion

However, If it's something decided upon, there is criteria. If there is criteria, then it can be tested. We know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it's not universal, but there are averages, so if the majority finds something true, then there must be a reason, that can be discovered through research and experimentation.

I do feel we're just going round in circles, and we will never convince each other, and you're right we left the subject behind long ago.

[wryter2000]

36. Fun talking to you

It's nice when one of these subthreads doesn't devolve into a shouting match.

[Lordquinton]

37. Srsly

I know I tend to come off confrontational, but that's due to years of conditioning here. Haveta remember to dial it back from 11...

[MineralMan]

8. Which "secular values" differ from "religious values?"

Tolerance? Equality? Caring for the poor? I could go on and on, but won't in the spirit of avoiding overstating.

The reality is that most "liberal" and "secular" values are the same values that are purported to be advocated by Jesus. Perhaps some Christians have neglected to read Matthew, the very first book in their New Testament. That is where the most words reportedly spoken by Jesus can be found. In most cases, "secular values" reflect those, because they are the values that most societies and cultures have in common.

[guillaumeb]

14. Please define what you find "condescending" about his remarks.

The condescension seems to me to be contained mainly in the commentary.

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. Could you summarize what you think the main points

of my commentary were, so I can clear up any misunderstandings?

[guillaumeb]

17. A weak attempt at deflection.

You made the initial claim. You can defend it or not.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. I don't want to be misinterpreted.

If you can give me more access to your point of view by summarizing the main points of what you think I said, then I can clarify anything necessary about the condescending lecture comment in the context of the rest of my commentary.

[guillaumeb]

19. In my view, your entire lecture/commentary was expressed in a very condescending manner.

[Htom Sirveaux]

20. Ok, let's try this: you disagreed with tone it was said in,

but what was wrong with the actual substance of what I said, apart from the tone? Is the sum of your objection that it's wrong to accuse someone else of condescension while being condescending yourself?

[guillaumeb]

21. Let me elaborate.

I believe that the following sums up the essence of the argument:

That’s why if progressives are to achieve our goals, we have to open our hearts and minds to our allies in the faith community. Doing so won’t just advance our shared policy goals—it might also help heal a nation deeply divided along political lines.

And yes, he did say that a majority of Democrats and progressives are people of faith.

Do you find either of these points to be condescending to non-theists, and if so, please elaborate.

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. The substance of my first paragraph

was that negative feelings towards religion on the part of liberals are not responsible for the current divided state of America. I would add further that Democrats didn't make religion a partisan issue. So lecturing non-theists about it as though they need to make it all better is indeed condescending.

The substance of my second paragraph was that before calling on people you are ostensibly allied with to open their hearts and minds, it would be well to open your heart and mind to them, especially if they are a religious minority widely viewed negatively. It's hard to do that while you're telling them how politically inconvenient you find their feelings.

[Angry Dragon]

23. Coons is very confused

There are two things at work here.

think churches and religious organizations actually have a “negative impact” on the United States
This could be classified as 'organized religion'

The vast majority of Americans—including the majority of Democrats—are people of faith.
this could be looked as no needing guidance and just finding your own way

Organized religion can be very, very, very negative, You do not need a church or organized religion to have faith and he is an idiot if he thinks one needs those things. Better to find your own path, one that works for you.

[Iggo]

24. Sure they can.

Next!

[Lordquinton]

25. Flawed premise

While the nones are one of the left's strongest blocks, they are still small, and on top of that they are rarely thrown any bones.

The left needs to stop letting the right set the narritive.

[Thomas Hurt]

28. They have a negative attitude or they have an objective and real world view of the good and bad..

of organized religion?

Whereas the conservative christians, barely acknowledge the negative aspects of organized religion unless it is of a competing faith.

Having it pointed out to them, angers them.

So are you saying progressives should be more what? Christian?

or should progressives forego their free speech and just stop speaking about religious policy?

or progressives should be more tolerant of theocratic policy?

[trotsky]

31. This country was founded on secular values.

Is that a bad thing?