Religion as a conservative force, vs religion as a force for social change

I might also recommend the three-part "Power of Nightmares," available as direct downloads for a limited time - here here and here (or possibly here here and here) which discusses specific anti-liberal religious movements in the US and the Middle East as tools for gaining political power

the SAME BIBLE that contains obscure diktats about bodily fluids happens to have some big headlines about loving your neighbor as you would love yourself, not killing people... the genius of the BushRoveCo and Islamicist strategy over the last 12 years is to willfully miss the forest for the trees - with RoveCo being arguably more successful at bringing people along with them. if we took their analysis of the Bible and applied it to public transport we'd all be minding the gap but never actually stepping onto the trains

I watched the first part of The Power of Nightmares, and have recorded the other two. It should be helpful, but I'm a bit worried that I'm going to end up ranting about modern politics rather than classical sociology (mind you, if it's relevant then it shouldn't matter).

kerry u could be right, i've always used it to describe any movement that drew biblical inspiration to advance an agenda of economic justice ("meek shall inherit the earth" "and justice shall roll down like the waters" "the mighty shall be made low" etc) but yeah i might be smushing over some important distinctions with that

These arguments aren't really detracting from the question, mind you, which should be read as 'tradition' vs 'change'.

Xpost again!

Another useful keyword on this topic is "Maryknoll."

Around the year 2000 some people, including a number of religious conservatives, recommended forgiving Third World debt in the name of "Jubilee."

You might also review the Catholic Church's updated for the 21st century list of sins. The ones that stick out in my mind are "paying unfair wages" and "charging unfair rents," which seems to be a criticism of unfettered capitalism.

For example, where it says do not kill, it is intended for an individual. because else where is says there is a time for war and a time for peace.

Someone who believes God is sovereign might say that he changes socity as much and whenever he wants to, and if he chooses to use me to help with that I'm willing to do what I can.

Tracer, that's an interesting point, and may be true in an overarching metaphysical sense (or something), but do you not think that the point of Liberation Theology was to enact CHANGE for the benefit of those suffering from poverty and injustice (not through charity, but self-emancipation)?

j.lu, do you know where I can find these 21st Century Sins listed?

This argument mostly emerges from conservatives when it comes to Christ's teachings seeming lefty, but not when they believe religion has a place in politics - as long as it's used for what they want. I think the line drawn here between the personal and the political is nonsense, and I think it's clear from Christ's actions against economic injustice that he does view his message as both a personal and a political one. As for 'thou shalt not kill', I think this does apply to war - not to the Old Testament, but Christ seems to be anti-war (swords and ploughshares etc.) Also, A Nairn, remember we are talking about small c conservatives not big C.

I think most of this just comes down to that the Law (from the Bible) is used to show man that it is impossible (maybe even contradicting in some places) to follow it no matter how hard they try. "The ideal cannot be reached" is the more important message than "Try and become the ideal"

Weber's Calvinist creation of capitalism thing as a signal of social change

Well, this is something I'm only just learning about, so if anyone else spots any mistakes in my simplistic relaying then feel free to shout me down.

Max Weber (and the book that this is from is called The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) believed that the Calvinist theory of predestination (ie we are born damned or saved and nothing can change this), rather than sending people into a spiral of despondency and inactivity, actually encouraged the development of capitalism in the Western world. In part due to increasing rationalisation, in part due to the idea that, whilst we may not be able to change our saved/damned status, economic wealth is a sign that we are blessed, and also due to the Puritanical idea that luxuries are blasphemous (or some such), which led to profits from business not being spent on frivolous things, but being plowed back into the businesses themselves, thus expanding and increasing.

Not explained particularly well, but most of the flaws in what I've just written are flaws in the argument itself.

xpost HMM!

Adam Smith himself wasn't Calvinist, as far as I know (could be wrong) but Scottish protestantism in general is very puritanical, and quite strongly influenced by Calvinism

I don't see the word 'people' anywhere

Yeha, there is a lot of this going on. The important thing is for them or others to try and distinguish between the two.

The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the
question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the
past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status
in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John
Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered
a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan
argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast
their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral
responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar
advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely
to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the
question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to
read previous entries.

I say forget introspection. It's time to be honest about our
antagonists. My predecessors in this conversation are thoughtful men,
and I honor their ideas, but let's try something else. I grew up in
Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be
the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the
right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I
suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the
ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58
million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full
of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)

Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States,
especially in the red states. There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand
fight on the frontier called a "knock-down-drag-out," where any kind
of gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair. The ancestors of
today's red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on
these fights. When the forces of red and blue encountered one another
head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red
forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the
Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial
election. The red news media of the day made a practice of
inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed
red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian
massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in
1862—Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power,
pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and
slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The error that
progressives have consistently committed over the years is to
underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what
the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write,
and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full
of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state
citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are
essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be
slugged from behind.

Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into
you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will
burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is
tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical
thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is
dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make
sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of
complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that
is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among
the chosen. This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages
you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent.
American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery,
and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's
what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take
responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald
Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they
wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state
types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be
ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome,
they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your
ignorance with even more fervor. But by this time you don't need much
encouragement—you've put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and
really, some kind of miraculous fruition (preferably accompanied by
the torment of your enemies, and the ignorant always have plenty of
enemies) is your only hope. If you are sufficiently ignorant, you
won't even know how dangerous your policies are until they have
destroyed you, and then you can always blame others.

The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven
presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big
capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of
the religious right in their class war against the middle class and
against the regulations that were protecting those whom they
considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The
architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were
exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of
virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome
now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They
know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful,
amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire
them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same
qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to
such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls
for power. Must everyone?

Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to
every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we
have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to
give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal
to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can't
understand it and don't respond. They cannot be allowed to keep any
secrets. Tens of millions of people didn't vote—they are watching,
too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and
that the battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to
remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse.
Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and
hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.

Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
By Jane Smiley
Updated Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, at 3:24 PM PT

Prohibition used ethnic scapegoating - it was intended to neutralize the threat posed by immigration.

the idea that he does is the foundation of liberation theology!

The divide-and-rule tactic is clearly working brilliantly in America today. Soft bigotry as a tool of soft fascists, who'd-a-thunk it?

Interesting parallels on fear of invasion/terror and fear of invasion/legalised buttsex. The more Charismatic/evangelical religions are the most homophobic.

Op-Ed submitted to the Charleston (WV) Gazette
William Boyd Grove is a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church
living in Charleston, WV.

RELIGION AND THE ELECTION: A Caution Against Blasphemy
by William Boyd Grove

Webster defines blasphemy as "profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine." To commit blasphemy is to trivialize holy things for unholy purpose. It is, for instance, to violate the second commandment which states "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."(Exodus 20:7-NRSV). I write this column not as a political partisan, although as a citizen I have a political point of view, but as a bishop of the church who is compelled by my consecration to caution against blasphemy, in defense of the Bible and biblical faith.

Blasphemy is running rampant in our country as this election campaign proceeds, trivializing holy things as it moves on. The latest instance of it was the distribution by the Republican National Committee, in West Virginia and Arkansas, of a brochure with a picture of a Bible with the word banned across it, and another with the hands of two men with a wedding ring with the word allowed across it. The implication is that the election of Senator Kerry would lead to the banning of the Bible and the approval of same-sex marriage. Those who distributed the brochure know that the claim is not true and not possible. The first amendment to the United States Constitution would not allow it, and Senator Kerry's election would not lead to it. The brochure is not only insulting to the intelligence of West Virginians, targeted to the stereotype of Appalachians as "dumb hillbillies," it is blasphemous; it is " profane and contemptuous writing concerning God and the Bible."

Clergy usually do not take public, partisan positions in an election. I have never before done so in more than fifty years of ministry as a pastor and a bishop. But in this election, the use of false teaching concerning scripture and the Christian faith by a political campaign demands response from religious leaders. Bishops in our church are charged to "guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim ...the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition.... My goal in this column is to "guard the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture" against those who are distorting and manipulating its teachings for political gain.

It is now widely believed that, of course, nearly all persons of religious faith will vote for President Bush. That "conventional wisdom" has originated in the Republican party and been advanced by an uncritical media. The claim is not correct, and the statistics supporting it have been distorted and oversimplified. The "religious right" is not the only voice of religious faith in this country!

The issues on which the religious right has focused in this campaign are almost solely abortion and same-sex marriage. While those are important issues which need and deserve discussion, they are not the only, or even the primary, issues to which the Bible is relevant. On the other issues in the campaign, the President's policies are not in accord with Biblical teaching, or with the teaching of his own church.

The media has made much of the fact that Senator Kerry's position on abortion contradicts the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and as a result, some bishops may deny him the Eucharist. Why does the media not investigate whether or not President Bush's policies are consistent with the teachings of his church, the United Methodist Church?` Such an investigation would reveal that the President's policies are contrary to the Social Principles of his church (official church teaching), and to the broad consensus of ecumenical church teaching on many significant issues. I will name only three.

War and Peace. The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church, and the dominant position among the churches of the world is that war is always a last resort. Last resort is the first of seven criteria of Just War doctrine, which is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Preemptive war, now a part of official US government policy, can never be justified by church doctrine.

Care of the environment, or, to use biblical /theological language, "stewardship of creation." According to Genesis 2:15, the human was made responsible for the creation "to till it and to keep it." The Social Principles of the President's church declares "All creation is the Lord's and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it. Water, air, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life are to be valued and conserved because they are God's creation, and not solely because they are useful to human beings." In violation of this teaching, the policies of the administration have rolled back legislation protecting the environment that has been in force for many years under presidents of both parties, and our government has refused to sign international treaties on global warming and other threats to the environment.

Concern for the poor. According to Luke 4:16 Jesus, quoting the prophet Isaiah, said "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has sent me to bring good news to the poor." The teaching of the President's church seeks fulfillment of that promise to "bring good news to the poor." However, these last years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of persons living in poverty in the United States and millions have been added to the number without health care. The gap between the wealthy on the one hand, and the middle class and the poor on the other, has increased each year, under the policies of the government which has brought good news only to the wealthy.

Not only are the policies of this government in conflict with scripture and the teachings of the President's church, but President Bush has been unwilling to listen to the counsel of religious leaders unless he knows in advance that they agree with him. Being open to other points of view within the Christian community is one of the marks of mature Christian life. The bishops of the President's church have repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought a meeting with the President. He is only the second President since Washington who has refused to have a discussion with Methodist bishops. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the National Council of Churches sent small delegations of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant leaders to meet with the leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the Vatican and the United States of America. In nearly all of those visits the delegation met with the head of state. Of those governments, only the President of the United States and his administration refused to receive a delegation. Tony Blair, despite his support of the war, spent over an hour with the delegation, listening to its point of view.

I do not question President Bush's personal faith. But he has not studied the scriptures in relation to issues of justice and peace, or else he has ignored those teachings. The result, in my judgment, is that he has allowed his religious beliefs, dominated by his political ideology, to make him absolutely certain that he is right, and unwilling to listen to other voices. He is slow to admit a mistake on any issue of substance, because he believes his decisions are just and righteous. The dogged determination and "staying on message," that some so admire, is self righteous and very dangerous. It casts the current struggle against terrorism in "holy war" terms as a conflict between absolute good on one side and absolute evil on the other, the same perspective held by the terrorists. The issues are between good and evil. The methods of the terrorists are evil. But it is very dangerous for us to see ourselves as totally righteous. A mature understanding of scripture could help the President to avoid the arrogance and hubris that have so offended the rest of the world. And in such a situation, to exploit, distort and manipulate religion for political advantage is blasphemous. It is to trivialize the holy for self-serving purposes.

Religious talk can be very cheap. Jesus said "Not everyone who says to me Lord, who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) What is the will of "my father in heaven?" That is a huge question. The President and his campaign would do well to reflect on that question, and to avoid the tendency to believe that they already know the answers. They might also consult with others who have studied the question who might have a different point of view. And meanwhile, they should be careful to avoid the sin of blasphemy.

Ah, but they're marxists - the problem is that God is concerned with our morality, not our economics. Capitalism is amoral, so the claim that God has some aesthetic preference for bank-loans and stock markets is odd. However, if we apply, as I think we should, morality to economics, then we might get socialism, say. Anyway, my point is that God would prefer an egalitarian society not because He really cares about who owns the means of production, but because the egalitarianism would emerge from a society of moral people. It's good, because I can say conservative Christians are wrong to say God prefers their politics while still being able to say God prefers mine.

I'd also like to hear more from the British side (Kevin G, are you Scottish, or am I thinking of someone else?). But carry on Americans as well, please! And everyone else.

I am going out now, though, so won't be able to contribute more until tomorrow.

http://www.azpolicy.org/assets/pdf/EthicalIssues.pdf

-change human nature
-change human identity
-find out if genetic underpinnings to ingroup favoritism exist. Find out if/how they are adaptive. If their adaptivity is archaic, figure out how to eliminate them in the world population.
-same with religiosity and authoritarianism (both already shown to be at least partly heritable).

robert bellah died

http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2013/07/robert-bellah-1927-2013.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/08/where-does-religion-come-from/243723/

I just finished reading "Religion in Human Evolution" last week. It sounds like he did lots of other interesting work over the course of his career:

http://crookedtimber.org/2013/07/31/robert-bellah-has-died/