Leaders Call for Balanced Religious Debate
Progressive Religious
Leaders Call for a Balanced Representation
of Religion in the Media
The report is available online at: www.mediamatters.org/LeftBehind
Washington, D.C. -- Media Matters for America, along with Faith in Public Life and progressive religious leaders from throughout the country, held a press conference today to discuss "Left Behind: The Skewed Representation of Religion in the Major News Media," a new report documenting the overrepresentation of conservative religious figures in the major news media. Media Matters, a progressive media watchdog organization; Faith in Public Life, an organization dedicated to increasing the strength and visibility of faith leaders working for justice and the common good; and the diverse group of progressive religious leaders called on major media outlets to provide a more balanced expression of religious values and views.
"The overwhelming presence in the news media of conservative religious voices leads to the false implication that to be religious is to be conservative, and worse, that to be progressive is to lack faith or even to be against faith. Nothing could be further from the truth," said Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. "People of faith have long been, and will continue to be, active leaders on progressive causes for justice. Our faith compels it."
"I have long felt the media have given Americans a distorted view of what people of faith believe. This research from Media Matters proves that. I hope both the print and electronic media in this country will now seek the balance so many of them profess to have as they continue to report issues of religion and its impact on our society, government, and the American culture," said Rev. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches USA.
"The media have a vital responsibility to represent the fullness of Catholic social teaching in what needs to be a broad and rich debate about the role of religion in public life," said Alexia Kelley, Executive Director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. "Catholic leaders who speak to the moral dimensions of an unjust war, the dignity of the human person, the growing gap between rich and poor, and global warming, speak from the heart of our Catholic faith. They must not be routinely passed over for strident commentary from culture warriors."
"This report clearly indicates what we've always suspected -- that the media prefer to see the world through a simple lens, a casualty of which is that the right and the conservative voice can often take control of the conversation," said Rev. Dr. Jim Forbes, host of the Air America program The Time Is Now. "So what do we do now? Those of us on who call ourselves progressives need to speak out and be heard."
"Unfortunately, much of the secular and religious media are stuck in the habit of secular-left/religious-right bipolar reporting, and they're failing to see that the religious and political landscape isn't that simple anymore, if it ever was," said Brian McLaren, Board Chairman for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
Media Matters undertook this study in large part because of the media's response to the 2004 elections, in which key media figures overemphasized the impact of "values voters" -- a misleading term used by the media to describe conservative religious voters motivated by opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, which suggested that progressive voters did not care similarly about values.
In their coverage, news organizations overwhelmingly presented a picture in which religious Americans were defined as conservative Americans. This representation in the media proved to be a misleading characterization of how these so-called "values voters" influenced the 2006 elections, in which the "value" cited most by voters was the Iraq war, not issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.
- A 2006 Zogby International exit poll showed that the "moral issue" cited most by voters was the Iraq war, and that more than twice as many voters cited greed and materialism or poverty and economic justice as "the most urgent moral crisis in American culture" as those who cited abortion or same-sex marriage.
- Despite their depiction in the mainstream media, only 10 percent of evangelical Christians said abortion and same-sex marriage would be the most important factor in determining their vote, according to a 2006 study by the Center for American Values in Public Life.
- Even though close to 90 percent of Americans identified themselves as religious in the Center for American Values in Public Life study, according to a post-election survey in 2004, only 32 percent of Americans identified themselves as conservative.
KEY FINDINGS:
- Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders we studied were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders between November 3, 2004 -- the day after the 2004 presidential election -- and December 31, 2006.
- On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.
- In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.
ATTENDING TODAY'S PRESS CONFERENCE:
- Rev. Brian McLaren is a best-selling author, a leader of the "emerging church" -- a Christian evangelical movement that seeks new ways to worship and understand the gospel in a postmodern era -- and Board Chairman for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
- Rev. Dr. Jim Forbes is the former Senior Pastor of The Riverside Church in New York City and host of The Time Is Now on Air America.
- Rabbi David Saperstein is the Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, which advocates on social justice issues on behalf of the national Reform Jewish Movement to Congress and the administration.
- Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar is General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, composed of 35 communions that count 45 million Americans among their members, and author of Middle Church: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right.
- Alexia Kelley is Executive Director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the fullness of the Catholic social tradition in the public square.
The report is available online at:
www.mediamatters.org/LeftBehind
###
RSS Feeds
It's amazing that we let the media tell us who a Christian is or isn't.
The reason that the vast majority of religous leaders on T.V. are social conservatives is obvious enough. The vast majority of evangelical Christians are social conservatives who vote overwhelmingly Republican. Face it, conservatives and Republicans basically have a monopoly on religous voters. The reason that the vast majority of evangelical Christians vote Republican is that Republicans promote traditional biblical values, while most Democrats stand for things which directly contradict biblical teachings. Republicans and conservatives stand for biblical truth in preserving the sanctity of human life, speaking the truth about homosexuality, which the Bible labels a sin in several different passages, defending freedom of religion against the progressives who seek to get all religion and spirituality out of public life, refuting the evolution propaganda, and being a close ally of Israel. "Religous progressives" reject biblical teachings and support the further destruction of human life, homosexuality, an overall coarsening of the culture, and they distort Christs' teachings of poverty and the poor to suit their own political agenda. Christ never advocated that there needed to be a strong cenral government to redistribute income. He merely said that individuals should give their own money to help the poor. I believe that as well, as do most conservatives. Christ never advocated socialism. He merely told Christians to be generous with their own money. Religous liberals should not be on T.V. any more often than they already are, or at least not until Christians actually start embracing a liberal agenda. I don't think that is going to happen any time soon, as most Christians follow biblical truth and reject the progressive vision which goes directly against biblical principles.
I would add that a great many "progressives" seem to really dislike religion and many also seem to believe that religious people are stupid or backwards.
More religious progressives? What would they preach?
Progressive Christians would preach the same things that Jesus did.
Love of neighbor, love of God, social justus, jubilee , caring for the poor and orphaned; you know the things that the second half of the bible has in it.
Makes for a fascinating read. And it says that God is love? Fascinating!
You have got to be kidding. What kind of generalized assumption is it that you think Democrats stand in direct contradiciton to biblical teahings? Have you no decency? do you not realize that the bible is open to a vast amount of different interpretation? What makes you think that yours is the only right one? You distort the teachings of Christ to fit your own radical right wing agenda. Christ was essentially the first non-violent revolutionary. Like it or not, a person in today's society who would actually live like Christ taught,would be labeled a weak liberal by people like you. It is unfortunate that you fail to see your hypocrisy and your fear of science. Nevertheless, I see the futility in arguing such an issue with you. Heck, you think the earth is only 10,000 years old and the dinosaurs raomed the earth with Noah. An you think the Democrats have a unrealistic skewed view of the Bible? Come on!!!!!!!
"What kind of generalized assumption is it that you think Democrats stand in direct contradiciton to biblical teahings"
Not all Democrats. I clearly said MOST Democrats in my post. There are some pro life Democrats who support traditional values and a literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about the more liberal Democrats. And yes, liberal Democrats do stand in direct contradiction to biblical teachings. They support the further destruction of human life, homosexuality, evolution, and a weaker alliance with Israel. And yes, I do believe that the earth is around 10,000 years old, as do the majority of the American people. You shouldn't try to make me look like the extremist when the majority agrees with me. The Bible clearly says that God created the earth and all that is in it in six days, not six billion years. That's a literal interpretation of the Bible. The fact that many liberals denigrate Christians who believe in biblical creation simply makes them want to support Republican candidates and oppose the liberal Democrats who paint them as extremists.
Explain to me what is a day to God. Never in Genesis does is say 24 hours. Why do you find it so hard to reconcile science with faith? The Bible was written by man. The Bible is a series of "books" put together by a group of men. It was a group of men who decided what was and what wasn't appropriate for a compilation of books to form the Bible. We know that there are hundreds of other ancient writings, some older than the books in the current bible, which were rejected by a council of men who somehow decided what was good for the masses to digest. the Catholic bible, for example, has additional books in it's bible than the widely accepted King James Version. Which one is the real word of God? How do you know that most Democrats reject the teachings of the bible? I just wonder if you live our life based upon the literal interpretation of the Bible. Hadn't had any pork lately have ya?
"Do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved,that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years one day." 2 Peter 3:8
I just wonder if RINO takes that verse literally.
Sure, a day may be a like a thousand years taken together with Jesus saying, "The Father and I are the same." and "I speak in parables so that the people may understand."
I'm only a layman but it gives rise to the question, did God speak in parables through man in the Old Testament? Could it be that man was screwing up the message until Jesus came to pull our collective heads out of a God who was O.T. bloodthirsty?
I don't know, but I believe and so have the faith in Jesus to try to live my life according to His teachings and commandments, not according to the Old Testament law. Nobody was ever justified through the law.
Jesus hates no one and loves everyone, don't let anyone tell you anything else.
Rhino Hunter apparently defines as Christian only to include those who "support traditional values and a literal interpretation of the Bible." Such a definition pretty much excludes any Christian who recognizes that the Bible is a multifaceted product of different historic faith traditions and that its truth speaks at many different levels. For most of the history of Christianity, Biblical scholars have understood that scripture is to be read at many different levels: the literal or narrative level, the moral or religious level, the symbolic or spiritual level, etc. Biblical literalism is actually a late modern development because it accepts the modernist idea of truth as objective factual accuracy rather than truth as interpretive. That is literalist take the position that all scripture is true as a collection of historical or objective facts. Consequently, the two creation stories in Gen 1-2 are taken as if they are supposed to refer to factual historical events and not as a religious, symbolic or literary story. What should be clear from the first creation story is its emphasis on the seven day as the holy day of completion when God rests from creating the world. That is, the creation story is really a teaching about Sabbath. Sabbath cannot be reduced to mere literalism. Rather Sabbath forms the most essential theme that runs through both the Old Testament and New Testaments. Sabbath does not refer only to the seventh day of the week. It also refers to the seventh year of service when all slaves are to be granted freedom, a limitation on labor practices. It also refers to the jubilee year (7 x 7 years) when all land was to be returned to the original families, a limitation on property right, that property is never really sold but is merely leased. Sabbath refers to liberation from bondage and the hope of a promised land and entering into God's rest. In the New Testament, Jesus makes clear that the Sabbath is a time for healing and release from bondage (e.g. Luke 13:10-17), that Sabbath is God's gift to humanity, not a dreary obligation.It should be clear that none of these realizations of Sabbath require a literal interpretation of the Bible. All that is needed is a faithful listening scripture and a willingness to be transformed by it. God will show us the many ways to enter Sabbath. I believe that social justice is one way to enter the grace of Sabbath. For example, to make sure that people have healthy places to live gives concrete expression to Sabbath as rest. Or to deny health care to the poor is to deny the personal risk Jesus took to heal on the Sabbath. To pollute and squander the earth is to dishonor and show ingratitude toward the Creator who completed creation on the Sabbath. In all these ways and more, I believe, we are commanded to "keep the Sabbath holy."So there you have it, the view of a liberal Christian who actually reads the Bible. If Rhino wants to disown me as a member of Christ, that is his judgement. But when we stand before Christ we will not be asked if we supported a literal interpretation of scripture or what our professed values were; rather he will ask, Did you feed me when I was hungry, did you clothe me, did you comfort me, did you give me a home when I was a stranger? I hope not to hang my head in shame.
First of all I never meant to insinuate that liberals can't be Christians. I'm sure that there are a lot of liberals that are Christians. All it takes to be a Christian is to believe that Christ died on the cross for your sins, and to ask him to come into your heart. The point I was making is that conservatives and Republicans take a more literal view of the Bible and usually stand up for biblical values. Liberals, on the other hand, generally believe that the Bible is merely the inspired word of God and not meant to be taken literally. Thus, they don't accept much of what the Bible says about issues like the right to life and homosexuality. That doesn't make them any less Christian in my opinion, but it just seems to me that they don't stand up for basic biblical principles that God outlined in the Bible.
Also, just for the record, Christ never advocated that we need a large central government to redistribute income. He merely said that individuals should give of their own money to help the poor. The Bible is basically neutral on the role the government should play in the economy.
Thanks, Rino. Here are a few responses.
I fail to see how Biblical literalists are any more disposed to follow basic Biblical teaching than the rest of us. "Standing up for values" is not the same as living them. Is the abortion rate for Evangelical youth any lower than for other youth? How about when the pastor's teenage daughter gets pregnant?
To be clear, I am opposed to abortion, but I believe that it is more effective to prevent unintended pregnancies and to give public assistance to mothers where needed than to criminalize abortion. Why don't I see pro-life advocates demanding better access to medical care for mothers and babies or for public daycare so mothers can afford to work low paying jobs? Since when does the sanctity of human life depend on the earning power of a mother?
The most basic Bible teachings are about justice for the poor and weak, not homosexuality. The Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage. The few passages quoted against homosexuals refer to exploitive extra-marital practices, such as prostitution or sex between a man and a boy. Heterosexuals have the same problems with exploitive sex. Marriage is one way to reduce promiscuity. Same-sex marriage has the same potential to reduce promiscuity among homosexuals. Didn't Paul say it is better to marry than to burn?
Regarding big government, I would point out that Jesus was living under Roman occupation. The Roman Empire was big government. It would make as much sense for Jesus to advocate for heavier Roman occupation as it would for an Iraqi to advocate for a heavier US occupation of Iraqi. Jesus did not live in a country were the government was by and for the people.
Jesus did not live in an indivualistic society. He never said that loving neighbor was limited to the change in one's pocket. He was critical, however, of those who practice almsgiving the the sight of others. What better way to "not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" than to pay taxes to a government that cares for its people.
Are you willing to give as much to the poor as you currenty pay in taxes? To be honest, I am not. I would not run up a $1 trillion national debt to fund a pointless occupation of Iraq giving huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. It is more important for children to thrive regardless of the means of their parents than for me to feel good about helping the poor.
Give alms if you like, but don't deprive the poor of justice. Is this a Bible principle you are willing to stand up for?
In all these responses, I hope you can appreciate that it is important to hear faithful voices from across the political spectrum. I don't claim that my views are the best answers, but I do hope that by engaging in dialogue we challenge each other to live more faithfully all that scripture teaches, not for our own sake but for the good of all God's creation.
Jesus never said a word about homosexuals to my knowledge, but if your going to use the O.T. to dam people then call yourself a Jew, because for you Jesus has never come.
Jesus is the Word and the Word said "God is Love"
"I do believe that the earth is around 10,000 years old, as do the majority of the American people."
If 150 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
I admire your willingness to spout this dribble. Take some notes for when you "stand before your maker", now this should be interesting.
Funny I had a friend in the Marines who called me Rhino, once.
The next time you read the bible, try to read it like a Christian with the loving eyes of Jesus.
God Bless and good luck kido.
"and they distort Christs' teachings of poverty and the poor to suit their own political agenda."
And the Republicans don't? Not that it really matters, since what the Bible says or doesn't say is irrelevant to our system of government. The Country Club Republicans learned years ago, with the help of Jerry Falwell, that Conservative Christians are very gullible and easily herded. Ronald Reagan played them for suckers, and the GOP has been doing the same ever since. Do you really think George Bush gives a ratsass about what Jesus said or did?
Rino you don't seem to have read the lead off column "left Behind."
Your position represents, per the column, 10 percent of the evangelical Christians. Evangelicals represent 23 percent of Americans. Close to 90 percent of Americans today self-identify as religeous. I don't see how you can claim to speak for a majority of evangelicals, much less christians. Unless you contest the validity of the studies involved.
Republicans promte tradidtional family values, while most Dmocrats stand for things which directly contradict biblical teachings. There are many ways to answer that. I'll settle for a few examples from you, and go from there.
Republicans are for the sanctity of human life. Euphimism for Pro-life? A few examples, exclusive of this, would be nice.
I know of the one quote " not lying with a man as you do with a woman". I'm sure as a biblical literalist the other quotes are at your fingertips. I'm sure they would make no impression on me. How is living any life free of sin?
If you can find any progressive, exclusive of atheist's, who want to remove all spirituality and religion from public life, pointem out and I'll kick them in the shins and see if they cry out "Oh random fluctuations in the space time continuum!" Or similar.
You have no idea of the real uses evolution has had in your food or medical intake and training. How is this proganda? You want true darwinism, get a job in any corporation and watch what leads to sucess, and what leads to anything else in this conservative world of business.
Do you really want anything from Israel besides being there to be destroyed horribly so Jesus can come back and send the right folks to heaven, and the rest of us to eternal torment in hell?
Probably should be a new paragraph there. You'll have to take rejection of biblical teaching up with those religeous progressives. I'd expect an argument. The bit about coarsening of culture applies if you get you culture off the tv. I have read an amazing series of books over the years of a wide range of subjects, non-fiction and fiction. Few have left me feeling poorer for it or more culturally coarse.
Christ may have had some familiarity of stronge central government. Rome and all, which did do things for the poorer parts of their population. The jews may have had some governmental assistence. I don't know here. He had no familiarity at all to socialism so its kind of moot.
I don't keep up but the folks in the column don't seem to think they have much access as it is, and the "left Behind" column says MSM pretty much ignores them.
The argument about how much influence the bible should have in our lives or government, has filled a few book shelves. You'll pradone me if I don't take that one up.
Later
My simple premise is this: the belief by human beings in any sort of interested supernatural higher power, call it "god"* or whatever other name you choose to identify your deity, is a mental illness. This illness is much like manic-depression and paranoid-schizophrenia, containing symptomatic elements of both (in addition to the unique horror that it is intentionally spread and is quite often fatally contagious and irrationally murderous).
After decades of rigorous study and personal experience, I have come to the unavoidable conclusion that this belief in a guiding supreme being is a verifiable mental disease which is manifested in its believers by a distorted and diminished concept of reality and the conscious, voluntary choice to completely disregard their own physical senses or the irrefutable proof of natural law. Its resulting dementia is exhibited by the believer’s inability to reason logically and make rational decisions based on credible evidence, a willful blindness to its infantile dogma, and just one of its ugly consequences is the simple-mindedness in its followers to presume to know "the way" that is best for us all to live and conduct our lives.
Those of you who buy into the god-myth either have not read the book, or are hopelessly demented.
Natural law huh? Why is it that you essentially contradict your own argument on natural law by believing that something can come from nothing. I respect your opinion. but, I wonder how have you reconciled such a premise if you base your beliefs on natural law. In your rigorous study, what have you discovered which explaines how something came from nothing. There are unexplainable phenomenons in relation to the universe that physicists and scientists have no answer for. After all, the Big Bang is just a theory. Why is it hard to believe that some force, in my opinion God, could have set all natural law in motion? Edgar Cayce, in his writings expands on this premise. It's worth a look. But to say that people who have faith are mentally ill and demented is quite frankly ridiculous.
So, where did God come from? If the Universe is too complicated to have come from nothing, would not the creator of that same Universe be equally or more complicated?
I don't know where God came from. As a person of faith I just accept that God always was. But, as someone who sees no problem in reconciling faith with science, I don't believe that the physical always was. Science tells us that you can't get something from nothing. I think it is perfectly logical and reasonable to believe that the universe and everything in it was created by a higher authority. It seems to me to be illogical to believe that all of a sudden there was a universe when seconds before there was nothing. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, right?
"As a person of faith I just accept that God always was."
As a person of science, I could equally, and with just as much evidence, accept that the Universe "always was."
"It seems to me to be illogical to believe that all of a sudden there was a universe when seconds before there was nothing."
Then it is equally illogical to believe that God "always was". The problem arises when people of faith try to drag God into the world of science and logic...He doesn't fit. They insist that the Universe could not have arisen from nothing, yet the God which created it all just... always was. Good religion, bad science. The same logic which eliminates the eternal Universe also eliminates the eternal God. You can't have it both ways.
You could do that except science isn't faith based and religion is.
You are correct. That is why Creation "Science" is not really science. God cannot be tested, or measured, or observed. Plugging God into the blank which arises when discussing the origin of the Universe solves nothing. It simply offsets the riddle with another riddle.
The honest proponents of ID will admit that it is really not about science, but about defending the literal interpretation of Genesis.
I don't believe that ID would teach the literal version of Genesis but I have no proof of that. ID is not science, I agree. But science has no answers on the origins of the universe so ID is as good as anything science has to say on the topic.
Not comploetely accurate. While science does not explain how the universe came into being, it does tell us that it is actually quite likely that the universe existed before the big bang... it may not have a beginning or an end. The problem is that the big bang, which is inevitable acording to the General Theory of Relativity, is a singularity for said Theory, a point at which it no longer applies. Until we find a theory that does not break down, we simply have no way of figuring out what happened before the Big Bang, since we have no way to describe it...
"science has no answers on the origins of the universe so ID is as good as anything science has to say on the topic."
Maybe so, but only if you're looking for non-scientific answers. If you're doing science, you have to accept its limitations. Plugging God into the creator role is no more logical than plugging in Aliens from Alpha Centari.
Nerzog,
I understand your premise. But you indicate that it is equally logical as a person of science to accept that the universe always was. I guess that is o.k. but, the currently accepted theory is that the universe was not always but was rather created by a big bang. If you chose to reconcile that inconsistency to your argument that is fine. I certainly can't emperically prove you wrong. I disagree wholeheartedly on your assertion that God doesn't fit with science. I would argue that such an argument is based on your perception of what God is. My perception of God n no way interfers with reconciling faith with science. Isn't it black and white to just say that the two can't coexist? Isn't it possible that God set in motion natural law? We know or at least I accept the fact that there is physical evolution, I also believe in spiritual evolution as a natural law. I see no problem iwht the two coexisting.
One theory is that the Universe is forever expanding, then contracting. After it contracts to the infinite degree, it explodes again in a Big Bang, so that there is not just one Big Bang, but an infinite series of Big Bangs. This fits logic and the known evidence just as easily as the "God theory". If I must demonstrate where the Universe originated, then the ID proponent, by the same set of rules, must demonstrate where God originated. We know the Universe exists...we cannot know whether God exists or not.
I have no problem with the concept of God-driven evolution on a philosophical level...what I have a problem with is randomly plugging God into the equation and calling it science.
Nerzog,
That is a fair assesment. As a proponent of Theistic Evolution, I feel that it is invariably a scientific question as to whether their is a God. Obviously that question loses credibility when supernatural aspects become involved which of course is where faith intervenes. In any event, despite verifiable measures the Big Bang remains just a theory, although a widely accepted one at that. Nevertheless, I agree it unreasonable to formulate scientific hypothesis based upon faith or by inserting God as a measuable instrument in the formulation of said hypothesis. I just happen to believe that evolution is a physical fact that was set in motion by a higher power. I can't prove God exists but you can't prove he doesn't. Age old debate, but fun nonetheless.
I would agree. I posted this earlier, and it got flagged as off topic, but I'll try it again. A spokesman for the Creation Science Museum was on the O'reilly show a couple of days ago. When asked if he could accept "God-directed" evolution, he said no, because it does not fit within the literal translation of the Bible. That's where the Creationists lose credibility scientifically. In order to defend their view, they must insist on a 6,000 year old Earth, Noah's flood, and dinosaur's coexisting with humans.
Thanks for being honest. You represent the typical progressive liberal in this country. Your personal attacks on the vast majority of the American people who believe in God reflect the majority view of progressive liberals. Your post demonstrated to everybody why "progressive religious leaders" are so rare. A good number of progressives are just like you and denigrate people of faith. But I do appreciate your honesty and the fact that you don't care about being politically correct.
"progressive religious leaders" are so rare"
Are they really that rare, or are they just not media whores like Falwell and Robertson and Tilton and Bakker and Swaggert and Dobson and Roberts and...
Then why does Media Matters want the progressive religous leaders to become "media whores?"
Or, perhaps, if they are rare, could it be due to the incompatibility of progressive thinking and religious dogma? Once you stop thinking in black and white, it's harder to accept the fundamentalist world view.
"could it be due to the incompatibility of progressive thinking and religious dogma"
That was exactly my point as well. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Is it possible that you consider dogmatic thinking a virtue?
"You represent the typical progressive liberal in this country. Your personal attacks on the vast majority of the American people who believe in God reflect the majority view of progressive liberals."
Lots of progressive liberals are Christians, you know, including me. Or are they not "real" Christians because they don't hate homosexuals, Muslims, and black people?
Who Would Jesus Hate? Just about everyone, according to you freaks.
Why the media would even want a viewpoint from a religious leader in regards to a political issue is troubling. Keep the political stuff completely on the politicians and the issues of religion on the religious. That damn Pat Robertson did this.
It is always easier to see a problem when it is someone else's.
For the media to present a picture to people where they must choose sides between secular atheism or religious fundamentalism, where one will prevail and the other will fail entirely, may just be seen as good journalistic drama with little consequences until one looks at the Middle East.
I think that even the most confirmed atheist can comprehend why AA does not recommend that people give up smoking or coffee while they in the process of giving up liquor.
I am a religious progressive who has led others at times away from fundamentalism as have others like me. It was not done by insisting that no god exists, but by living and showing a greater faith in God than that of the fundamentalists, a faith that is not afraid of science or statistics but embraces them as tools to use for greater understanding of what God is.
The secret to breaking the iron grip of fundamentalism does not lie in destroying spiritual beliefs, but in destroying belief in the infallibility of man including those who wrote the ancient texts of every religion, that God can stand up to every test or investigation and if errors are found in texts then they were the errors of man.
It is very important in all civilizations how spiritual beliefs are presented in the media, critically important, if those civilizations are to evolve and prosper and not become stagnant or regressive.
That reminds me of a quote from Thomas Paine, which went something like this..."Is it more likely that Nature would leave her course, or that a man would tell a lie?"
The one inescapable fact is that the Bible was penned by men. There is no evidence that they had access to any knowledge beyond that of men.
"There is no evidence that they had access to any knowledge beyond that of men."
It is tautological that one has no access to any knowledge beyond that of men, unless, of course, one is a woman.
Thomas Paine's beliefs were as bound by his time and comprehension in the 1700s as that of the ancients thousands of years ago.
We on the other hand can now comprehend extraterrestrial life, terraforming, altering DNA for adaptability on other worlds, and even the concept of sentient energy.
There is no evidence that only man had a hand in all that has taken place on this planet. It is impossible for us to tell.
True, but science makes no allowance for the sun standing still or a man rising from the dead. These events fall outside the realm of the natural world.
Do not be so fundamentalist is reading ancient literature. To the ancients anything big that happened to them happened to all the world and anything that lasted a long time was forever and ever.
It is very easy to guess the sun standing still would be the longest day of Summer, the solstice, and someone rising from the dead would be someone coming out of a coma.
Many of the miracles lie in coincidence, the coming together of events much as Jung once guessed.
Scientists are saying that we will be able to observe other planets with life in about twenty years and what we see we desire to touch and somehow become a part of. I think that this is natural for all higher intelligence and has probably always been this way.
We have only barely touched on how all life is interconnected and interdependent on this planet, and we are clueless as to connections that could exist on a solar or galactic scale, let alone on interconnecting dimensional planes. I am sure there is more to learn of order and laws that can be used to manipulate time, space, and states of being that we have not even dreamed of.
I would agree. We may never unravel the riddle of the Universe. It is arrogant for any person, whether a scientist or theologian, to assume to know the absolute truth about anything. I would add, however, that if Biblical apologists wish to ascribe the contents of the Bible to God Himself, then those writings should be able to withstand logical and scientific scrutiny...and they do not.
On the universe, big bang, etc. I've read some on connections between black holes and universe generation. Useful words of description are a bit lacking. Is a meta-verse the media in which universes exsist. As I say the words get tricky. The postuated end of our universe is usually called the big crunch.
I think of gods involvement here is in the creation of many puzzles to be figured out. He/she/it doses not have to be logical or clear, but we look to find out how things work and how the parts relate to the whole, as well as we can.