You’re the one who made the claim. You’re the one arguing that there is something about progressivism that makes it incompatible with religion. Make an argument to back that up.
The null hypothesis is that religion has not relevance on non-religious ideologies.
I’ll just note that my actual answer to the OP was in my second sentence, which is so anodyne and obvious that @LSLGuy made it in the very first response.
The rest of you are kneejerk reacting to a jesting comment that you all got whooshed by. The “of course” didn’t make that obvious? What is a true progressive?, I was asking. That’s such a good question that @Czarcasm spelled it out in so many words.
I do like his suggestion that all opinions in Great Debates be backed up by facts, evidence, and studies. Would be Great to see.
I have to get up early tomorrow, so I need to sign off very shortly. I’ll check in tomorrow for fes.
I see, makes sense.
I think LSLGuy’s comment may have been spot-on. I was wondering why progressives were trying to ‘rehabilitate bigoted religions’ by claiming they were non-bigoted rather than say “It’s bigoted to the core and we’re better off without them at all.” But his comment made sense, that this is an intermediary step for many progressives who see it as impossible to get rid of them for now.
I don’t think those can be separated cleanly. Religion is something people do: it’s a contingent set of practices shaped by social, historical, cultural, political, and other contextual factors, that are ultimately less related by a ‘common core’ than by a set of family resemblances. Saying ‘such-and-such religion isn’t inherently evil’ need not mean it’s inherently good; it isn’t inherently anything beyond what the people following its practices make of it. So the progressive position would rather be to shape the socio-cultural context in such a way as to encourage implementing the socially beneficial aspects of religious practice, rather than the harmful ones; or perhaps even overcome the need for it altogether, by offering a secular alternative to the positive reinforcements (belonging, group identity, purpose, spiritual fulfillment…) followers of a religion derive from it.
No, yours is just wrong. “Progressive” may be a somewhat fuzzy term, but there’s no definition of the term that includes a requirement for or against theistic belief. You might as well be saying “True progressives wear pink,” for all that it has any relation to any commonly accepted understanding of the term.
Right. Sure.
This. For any religion to get really big, it has to appeal to lots of different kinds of people. So progressives who are engaged in religion see the liberal, generous aspects of religion. Fascists who are engaged in religion see the authoritarian aspects of religion. And so on.