Lerner then asserts that "what underlies the secular Left's deep skepticism about religion is their strong faith in another kind of belief system"--yet another religion that unnamed secularists are said to ascribe to--claiming that it derives from "scientism," which he accurately describes as a "reliance on the value of empirical observation to determine truth and guide observations." 14 Once again, he names not a single person or organization who subscribes to this idea, or a single relevant action resulting from such beliefs. Nevertheless, he declares "It has become the religion of the secular consciousness."15

 However apocryphal Lerner's claims may be, they form the backdrop to one of the four guiding principles of his national Network of Spiritual Progressives: "Challenge the misuse of God & religion by the Religious Right and religio-phobia on the Left." Suffice to say, the Network's web site fails to offer a single example of "religio-phobia on the Left;" explain its significance; or provide any examples of how it has been "challenged."

Some of those assertions are expanded upon on other parts of the NSP site, like the Spiritual Covenant with America:

8. We will seek separation of Church, State and Science.
We will protect our society from fundamentalist attempts to impose a particular religion on everyone, but will not fall into a first-amendment fundamentalism which attempts to keep all values out of the public sphere. We will protect science from invasion by the state, religion or corporate priorities, but reject "scientism"-- the worldview that claims that everything capable of being known or worthy of our attention can be fully described in scientific terms.

CONTRAST: TLIBERAL AGENDA

They mistakenly confuse the separation of Church and State with the separation of spiritual values from the state. They claim to be defending the neutrality of public space, and fail to realize that there is already a religion operating in the public space, the religion of the dollar, of materialism and selfishness, the religion whose highest belief is that all that is real or at least all that can be known is that which cane be verified through sense datum or measured (which, for the public realm, usually means: money, the one thing most easily validated and measurable). So their defense of the first amendment is based on the false assumption that we actually have a neutral public space and that it must be protected from all values.

CONTRAST: CONSERVATIVE AGENDA

They often seek to privilege Christian values in the public sphere and get lots of support from many Americans who know that when their children come home from school drunk with the disease of "making it" in the larger society (either by grades to get the best career, or by physical prowess and active domination over others) and "making it in their peer group" either by conforming to the standards of the group or, increasingly for young girls, by responding to the sexual pressure championed by a growing sector of the media even for pre-teens, these children are responding to a public sphere drenched in corrupt values which loving parents want to resist. Using this perfectly legitimate desire for alternative sets of values, the conservatives rush in with a repressive agenda that will do little to solve the problems, or seek to eliminate or dramatically weaken the actual functioning of the separation clause of the Bill of Rights.

Neither liberals nor conservatives understand how much "science" today is driven in its choice of research topics by the requisites of the marketplace, so neither has seriously addressed how to protect science from the pressures of the economic marketplace. And those same pressures exist, though in somewhat different form, in many religious communities who have become dependent on the support of the wealthy or those who have bought into the assumptions of the marketplace to keep their doors open. Too often this has resulted in a clergy more subordinate to the fund-raisers than to their own highest moral and spiritual values.

TALKING POINTS WHEN MEETING WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS

A. CHURCH, STATE AND VALUES: Our Founding Fathers were sensitized to the folly of religious sectarian disputes and their adverse effects on the public welfare evidenced by several hundred years of violence in Europe. Thus, they crafted an institutional structure, safeguarded by the Constitution, to prevent government intrusion into matters of religious conscience and to prevent religious ideology from distorting public debate on the general welfare. They sought to promote universal civic values which can be consistent with religious and spiritual pursuits and which could ensure an enabling environment where each individual could pursue their sense of awe in the Creator's majesty according to their own dictates of conscience.

1. CHURCH AND STATE: The wall of separation between church and state is a bedrock of the constitutional system of the United States of America. It has effectively prevented government intrusion into matters of conscience, reverence for God, and the spiritual pursuits of communities and individuals. It has enhanced rational debate in which diverse views have found mutual respect in matters of public governance. It has prevented the overreaching capacity of those who would abuse religious rhetoric in the pursuit of personal power. It serves the United States well. Serious, credible, politically powerful assaults on this principle must be explicitly identified and defeated.* Political candidates who would attack this bedrock principle of the republic must be called to account. This crisis can be denied no longer. The principle of limited government is challenged by no doctrine as dangerous as breaking down the separation of church and state.

B. VALUES AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE: The overbearing dominance of market values in our culture has left a vacuum in our public discourse regarding our collective civic purposes. Beyond defense, jobs, and social/economic stability, our political purposes remain uncertain. Extreme sectarian religious exclusivists exploit this vacuum by claiming to provide higher purposes but actually mask an anti-labor, environmentally irresponsible, and jingoistic set of policies garbed in religious language. We propose that universally recognized civic values concordant with all religious traditions must be explicitly expressed as part of the foundation for promoting the general welfare. These values include love, caring, compassion, tolerance, justice, a sense of care and respect for the natural world, a reverence for life, and the importance of the sanctity of conscience and personal liberty. These values find ethical expression in universally recognized principles such as the Golden Rule which we believe should be promoted at all levels of decision making, including international affairs. We must overtly challenge the proposition that only right-wing policies are value based. Caring for the poor, the disenfranchised, stewarding and protecting the environment, and pursuing peace and justice are resonant with all people of faith and good will.

C. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Religious doctrine, not subject to the criteria of measurable and disprovable propositions, is not an appropriate criterion to give direction to science and technology. However, values concordant with religious doctrine are important to bring balance and give more meaning to a reasoned debate. Science and technology address measurable and disprovable propositions. The pursuit of these two disciplines is never value-neutral, for choosing to investigate and apply derived knowledge to particular areas is always a decision, an expression of values. Too often the choice now is garnered disproportionately by funding arising from military concerns and market interests. Clearly these are important but need to be balanced by endeavors directed to improving the quality of life and the general welfare.

What I'm finding missing from the site is the sense of Spiritual Progressives being part of a coalition with agnostic/atheist Progressives -- which would involve the willingness not just to challenge others' misperceptions about you (religio-phobia, etc.), but to be challenged about your misperceptions about them.  It's one thing for Spiritual Progressives to assert that they/we bring something of value to the table, it's another to claim that they/we should take over the agenda because our partners don't know their own best interests.

by Rusty Pipes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]