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.
I’d say the clear answer to the question in the OP is “no”.
Liberals or progressives or whatever sometimes point to the purported words and actions of Jesus to point out that Jesus was basically a liberal socialist, but the rest of the bible has lots of conservative and authoritarian stuff in it. The writings of Paul are really the basis of much of modern Christianity, and Paul wasn’t liberal.
I don’t think that anyone thinks that Islam is liberal at its true core, other than the tagline “religion of peace”. Is there a single country that uses Sharia as its basis for its laws that would be described as liberal?
There’s not much in the Old Testament that I would call liberal, although I haven’t read all of it.
I’d say that Jainism is liberal at its core – avoid any sort of killing, war. I don’t know what it has for other social values, though.
I think the thing the progressives are latching on to, and maybe not quite understanding is that there’s a pretty heavy element of “love the sinner, hate the sin” involved in a lot of more liberal Christianity, and that divide between liberal and conservative Christianity largely comes down to how they approach and treat people who don’t do what the religion says and/or how they come to their opinions of what the religion says.
I’ve found that the more liberal Christians tend to believe it’s not their job to judge, but rather to love their neighbors and try to bring them closer to God. There’s also a big dose of “God made them that way, it’s not my place to gainsay the Almighty” which informs the tolerance.
The more conservative denominations tend to be textually literal, and view the judging as part of some kind of “tough love”. I’ve also found that side of things to be intellectually lacking; they conflate societal norms with religious norms all the time, and also have a much larger vein of hypocrisy in their teachings (why is it ok to divorce, but far worse to have gay sex in their eyes? Best I can tell, they’re equivalent in the BIble).
Ultimately it really does come down to how open minded they are; lots of people in the more conservative denominations are very learned, but they came at it and were educated from a closed minded perspective, so they just reinforced their viewpoint, as opposed to being open minded and willing to consider viewpoints other than their own.
There are a few possibilities:
You haven’t actually “often seen” this. You’re mistaken.
The progressives you’ve heard making this argument are falling prey to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. No True Religion advocates violence, and Pete Hegseth’s religion advocates violence, therefore it’s No True Religion.
The progressives in question are carefully defining terms in a way that acknowledges and skirts the NTS fallacy. A “true religion” is defined as a religion that encourages peace, and if you’re using religion to encourage violence, you’re breaking that specific definition of “True Religion”.
Related to #1, the progressives in question know exactly what they’re doing: they’re framing the debate in a way that positions religion as a force for progressive change in the world, and deliberately delegitimizing reactionary religious impulses.
I suspect Exapno_Mapcase was making a satirical ‘no true Scotsman’ statement, not meant to be taken seriously. Mind you, it would be easier to identify progressives if we wore pink.
Given the absolutist nature of this OP, I could see that being a satirical remark for sure.
“Do progressives believe…” No, I doubt you can find any subject that all self-described progressives agree on.
And you shall know them by the color of their hair.
I can’t imagine what would lead anyone to believe that religions are liberal at their true core. Have they read the manual?
It’s an interesting question that turns on different meanings of the word “true”. I believe with perfect faith that God is a bleeding heart liberal, so there is a meaningful sense in which I think all progressive religions are “true”, in that they actually follow the will of God, while all conservative religions are false.
But obviously “true” can also be used in the sense of “authentic” or “consistent with the history of the religion as actually practiced by the majority of its followers”. In that sense, many religious sects are relatively “true”, but not progressive.
Sorry… are you saying that’s what the OP’s progressives believe, or what you believe?
(Not looking to pick a fight.)
How could someone believe in “True Christianity” if they’re not a Christian? I can’t speak for all progressives, but I would hope someone like Talarico could help convert other Christians to progressivism. I have no illusions that there’s anything special about his or any other form of Christianity, except that his appears (IMO) to be much more positive, hopeful, moral, and aligned with the goals of progressive politics than “conservative” aligned forms of Christianity.
Yes, this.
I don’t think progressives, in general, would attempt to weight in on what “true” Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism means - especially progressive that do not self-identify as members of that religion.
However, I think most progressives would agree that Talarico’s version of Christianity is better than Paxtons, in the sense that it is more compatible with progressive views and leads to a better world.
It’s similar with Islam. To the extent that Muslims exist, and their beliefs come in a variety of forms, I would much rather amplify and expand the teachings of those that are more progressive in their form of belief and accepting of people with other beliefs. I don’t really care which one is “True Islam” - I just don’t want the radicals that would prefer infidels be killed to have any sway or power.
As they say, “two progressives, three opinions.” No, wait, that’s…
They all work from the same manual.
It’s simply a case of: good people will do their best, and bad people will do their worst.*
*There’s a corollary to that but I’ll leave it out.
Please don’t give the conservatives ideas…
I think I agree.
Only if you are inside the religion can you say what the true core or essence is.
There are some exceptions once you get into smaller groups within larger religions. So all the Friends Meetings in my area are liberal. But there are Friends/Quaker congregations elsewhere that are rather conservative (see Evangelical Friends Church Statement of Faith). It may be that most Quakers worldwide are conservative. But as an outsider, I cannot say what is the essence.