An interesting article in Slate today. Lookout neo cons, the religious left has risen. Sorry for the longer than usual cut and paste. Here are some excerpts.

The Religious Left
It is fruitful and has multiplied.
By Steven Waldman
Posted Wednesday, April 5, 2006, at 12:41 PM ET

Lo and behold, there is a religious left. The Catholic Church is helping to lead the fight against immigration restrictions. A week doesn't seem to pass without some group convening a conference on religion and liberalism. Last year, Rev. Jim Wallis' progressive manifesto, God's Politics, became a best seller; now Jimmy Carter's book attacking the religious right is on the list.

According to research by professor John Green, white religious voters made up 21 percent of Kerry's tally, compared to 11 percent for Al Gore in 2000. If you add African-Americans and Latinos, who as a group are also very religious and liberal, the religious left amounted to about 40 percent of the Kerry vote. Not surprisingly, the religious lefties are seething over the religious right's political dominance.

Bible-thumping liberals: "[M]any of the most progressive social movements in American history—anti-slavery, women's suffrage, the fight for child labor laws and the civil rights movement—had overt religious roots and motivations." In some cases, the Bible-thumping liberals are pro-life; in other cases they support legalized abortion but want to reduce the number of abortions.

Pious peaceniks: This group is composed of white liberal Protestants, Catholics, Reform Jews, and an occasional Buddhist. Its members are carrying on the spirit of the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s and the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s. They have mobilized in opposition to the Iraq war and have a strong interest in environmentalism and antagonism toward corporate America. Exemplars are Cindy Sheehan, the National Council of Churches, the Catholic Church, Faithful America, and the Christian peacemakers who camped out in Iraq as human shields. The hostages who were recently rescued in Iraq were also part of this group.

Ethnic churchgoers: In this group are African-Americans, Hispanics, and Muslims, who together accounted for about 19 percent of the Kerry vote in 2004. Though they also opposed the Iraq war and share the views of other religious lefties about the importance of fighting poverty and protecting the environment, they differ from the other groups on abortion and, even more so, gay rights.

Conflicted Catholics: Though more pro-choice than Hispanics or blacks, liberal Catholics tend to feel guiltier about abortion. The real difference may not be in the policies they support—the majority want abortions to be legal but restricted, just like the majority of the rest of the population—but in their attitudes toward pro-life people. Liberal Catholics are less likely than secular liberals to hold pro-lifers in contempt. Even if they disagree with church theology and skip Mass, their religious background makes them respect the heartfelt nature of the anti-abortion position.

Religious feminists: This is perhaps the newest faction. In aiming to win for women the right to control their own bodies, feminism ran up against the patriarchy of many religious institutions. Some feminists, however see spirituality as an important part of their lives and have begun trying to bring faith into their movement.

In sum, though, after years of being fractured and relatively impotent, the religious left now seems organized and energized. Where abortion and gay marriage threatened to divide them a few years ago, opposition to the Iraq war and immigration restrictions now unite them. This is not necessarily good news for secular liberals, who tend to think that all the religious mumbo-jumbo entails a dangerous mixing of church and state. But they may swallow their distaste if they think it will help them win elections.

The article in Slate. (http://www.slate.com/id/2139365/fr/rss/)

the Stewardship Christians. Whole group of Christian Environmentalists saying Rightie slash and burn attitude is anti Christian and back it with scripture. From Genesis to revelation it clearly says we're supposed to look after the planet and that it is not 'ours' to use and abuse but Gods.

I do a left-leaning newspaper column in a pretty conservative city, and I've been getting mail for three or four years from people who say, "I consider myself a Christian, and what Bush/Congress/Pat Robertson/etc. are doing doesn't represent what I believe." The general tone is that they didn't like what was happening, but since a lot of it was being done in God's name, they weren't inclined to object. Nice to see organized non-wacko Christianity finally coming out of its stupor.

Nice to see organized non-wacko Christianity finally coming out of its stupor.
Ah, but haven't they always been there? MLK, Al Sharpton, Jimmy Carter, etc. With all the hullaballoo over the religious right and GWB's election, maybe the religious left had just not counted - until now.

These are the same groups that have traditionally been Democrats, where's the gain? Trying to paint the fight against illegal immigration as being anti imigration is another loser. It will give a great deal of moral satisfaction to have lost on it to those who consider themselves the guardians and purveyors of morality in this country though. Go for it.

These are the same groups that have traditionally been Democrats, where's the gain? Trying to paint the fight against illegal immigration as being anti imigration is another loser. It will give a great deal of moral satisfaction to have lost on it to those who consider themselves the guardians and purveyors of morality in this country though. Go for it.
I think instead of kowtow-ing to the religious right maybe it's time politicians take a look at the religious left. There are a lot of votes to be had here.

Physician, heal thyself.:)

Physician, heal thyself.:)

So, Snake, aside of you stated preferences here on this board, is it your feeling then that these "religious lefties" do not represent Christianity?

What I think is they are nothing new. Various groups will support various causes without becoming committed to a political philosophy. What the reference I made was to the comment that conservatives should court these groups because theyre are a lot of votes there. It never seems to occur to the left that their hard line tact against the "religious right" allienates a huge block of votes as well. The divisions here in this country seem to have more to do with geography than religeous affiliation. No, I don't question the faith of people who are religious and support liberal causes. I support some liberal causes as well, though I am not actually a religious activist.

What I think this article shows is the effort of the left to try to counter the image they have of being anti religion. I don't think it will work because the core differences are too well defined. Abortion, gay marriage and rights, and removal of religious icons and practices from civic property and functions.

What the reference I made was to the comment that conservatives should court these groups because theyre are a lot of votes there.
I don't think anyone actually said that conservatives should court the religious left. I think that moderates should court them instead of courting the religious right. I think it would be politically easier to do, actually. To me the religious left's position on current issues (obviously I don't agree with some of them) would be a much easier sell to the American people than the religious right's stance.

The religious left, like the religious right, have already taken a side. That is why they are defined as left or right instead of just religious. Trying to influence either side to change their vote would require modification in the political positions of the left or right on various issues. Is that what you are advocating, that the right shjould change their positions on roe v wade and the other hot button issues to court some people of faith that are currently leaning left? How many would they pick up and how many hard right voters would they lose?

The religious left, like the religious right, have already taken a side. That is why they are defined as left or right instead of just religious. Trying to influence either side to change their vote would require modification in the political positions of the left or right on various issues. Is that what you are advocating, that the right shjould change their positions on roe v wade and the other hot button issues to court some people of faith that are currently leaning left? How many would they pick up and how many hard right voters would they lose?
I think the right should stick to their positions and thus with their hard right voters. I say leave the religious right to the right wing conservative voters and politicians.

I'm saying moderate politicians might want to pay more attention to the religious left instead of the religious right.

I think the religious right should be left to fade away into obsolescence. I think American voters for the most part, are more aligned with the views of the religious left than the religious right.