At least that's the sense I have of it  [ others here may correct me ! - and, that's fine. ]

In contrast, many on the Christian right seem to want to go the route advocated by Dostoevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" :

As with the Anti-Philosophes who opposed the original Enlightenment, many leaders on the American Christian right seem to hold that human nature is at base sinful and so to give humanity [ beyond a select elite held to be somehow superior and so immune to common sins ] too much freedom, and too much knowledge, would surely lead to disaster.

As far as this site goes, well here's an excerpt from the Talk To Action statement of purpose :

There is an editorial framework for this site than that is different than you will find on other major blog sites, so please read this carefully: We are pro-religious equality and pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic.

We understand that some people who share our general concern about the politics of the Christian Right may not agree on all of these matters. That's fine. Anyone who agrees with the general mission of this site is welcome to participate -- but bearing this in mind.

It is our intention to take the conversation forward, and not let it be held back by debating what, in our view are or should be, settled matters of human, civil and constitutional rights. Similarly, religious debates are off topic, especially debates between theism and atheism. Finally, we are nonpartisan. While political discussions are welcome, -- even central to the purpose of this site -- we do not wish the site itself to be a platform that is necessarily for or opposed to any particular party.

This was a movement,  that for most of its "life" was framed and articulated by religious leaders, and  its spokespersons argued against racism on moral and/or religious grounds.

Those who particpated in the mass movements were drawn from the churches, and were encouraged, educated, informed and empowered by tyhe churches.

Letters and writings of Dr. King confronted the Christian Right/Cinservative America that  their so-called "bibical principles" had little to do with the man from Nazereth.

I know thism not because I read it, but because I was "there">

Were we this wrong?
Pax Christi,
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk

by Ninure on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:51:28 AM EST

If I understood the full article in the NYT correctly, he seems to be warning the left not to become like the religious right by distorting and 'taming' the gospel for pure political ends. This does not mean that the gospel and faith cannot or should not inform action and politics from the left.  Most mainstream Christians and Jews would say that they can and they must. But we are reminded here that political platforms are not the same as spiritual values and that the two should not be equated. The justice provided by the state, while necessary, does not live up to the demands of love.

This equating of political and spiritual values, unfortunately, is exactly what the theocratic right does all the time. "God appointed George W. Bush president." "Marriage is the God-ordained union of one man and one woman for life." And so on. In their effort to bring about their vision of the kingdom of God on earth through whatever means necessary, they have forsaken the call of Jesus to radical discipleship (sell what you have and give the money to the poor, take up your cross and follow me) and replaced it with grand messianic (and for some, imperial) ambitions.

The difference, almost by definition, for liberal and progressive religious folk is that we understand the absolute necessity of the separation of church and state. One can not be allowed to control the other, although it is (or at least should be) an important role of religion to hold the state to ever higher standards and to call its citizens and leaders to renewal, compassion and justice. This represents the prophetic, as opposed to pastoral, role of religion in the public square. This has nothing to do with the attempts of any one group of religionists to impose their religious values on the rest of society through the machinery of the state.

I agree with Ninure that Martin Luther King is one of the greatest examples of this principle in action. It's a principle that can only be fully embodied in a spiritual movement, but that doesn't mean to say that politics cannot be renewed and made more just and compassionate as a result of the interplay between such a movement and the sphere of politics. We are, after all, whole human beings.

It would be cheap and dishonest to try to artificially inject religious values or language into liberal and progressive politics. But it would be refreshing to see an environment develop where deep spiritual values can be allowed to influence and inform policy making rather than being shut in the closet for fear of alienating the extreme left. When liberals cannot talk publicly concerning the spiritual basis underlying their liberal/progressive ideals, the right has already won half the battle.

by prodigal on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:52:47 PM EST