| OK, get over the shock of actually talking about religion. Religion has entered politics, that is a done deal. In many ways, religion and politics both talk about building community. Let go of the "hands-off religion" rule, to look at how similar our religious differences is to our political differences (or don't read the article). While the religious world is far bigger, this discussion will just focus on the recent movie suggestions that Jesus might be just a guy.
One of the strongest differences between progressives and conservations is the reaction to the suggestion of recent movies the Jesus might be just a guy, outstanding by his life and by his teachings. Another variation is that Jesus is the son of God, in the same sense that all humans are children of God.
For progressives, the idea if Jesus might just a guy was interesting and not at all challenging to faith. In fact if Jesus - as an ordinary guy - could do such great things, then it meant that all of us could do more in what we do. It meant the teachings and life examples of Jesus were even more to be studied, emulated and revered.
So I was quite surprised to find out how upsetting the very idea of "Jesus might be just a guy" was to conservatives. The reaction is intense anger and denial. Indeed the idea can not even be discussed. What is so threatening about this idea?
I think that "power" is the essence of the conservative's beliefs. So the important essence of believing in Jesus requires the deity power, not how Jesus lived or what Jesus taught. Indeed as I asked questions at "Jesus" stands in conservative gatherings, they did not engage in discussions of key passages of the bible and in some cases, did not even recognize them. "Jesus" was a marketing tool, where one simply invoked the name and was saved. The essence of this religion seems to be "what the religion can do for me!" It is not a do-it-yourself kind of religion. |
| Another difference seems to where religion affirms the importance of all people or where religion affirms the importance of a chosen few. In the progressive tradition, one is supposed to seek out the person who is different from you, to show compassion and understanding. Indeed I have personally been admonished to not demonize the other. (OK, I am not very good at that.) In contrast, the conservative religions seem to seek out a group to make the embodiment of evil - gays, Muslims, Chinese or the poor. The concept is that prosperity and wealth is given to the deserving, which is my group. Anyone who is suffering must have deserved it. The tortured logic of deserving involves allowing anything in the community that might be morally condemned. "Condemned", "jails" and "execution" are all favored words that support and justify the superiority of the group that one is in. It is the opposite of equality.
I believe one of the reasons for the need for superiority is fear that there is not enough for everyone. This is the opposite of the loaves and fishes Bible story where Jesus fed everyone.
So what I am seeing is that religion is a projection of what people already believe or want to believe. Even in the same religious traditions, there is enough variation that a person can still choose a religious variation that better fits what each individual wants. The religion then becomes the bedrock that shakes off all evidence to contrary. Indeed we have seen this "faith" before "facts" approach in rejecting climate change, in rejecting that education prevents more abortions than making abortion illegal, and in rejecting that President Bush lied us into war. The principle of "faith before facts" is the basis of drinking poison kool-aid references.
Go one step further, let's assume that need for a superior power goes to fear, fear of loss of jobs and security in this world. Indeed my discussions with conservatives indicate that would love to have a government that provided universal health care without the insurance administrative overhead. What they are missing is the faith that government can be good - that there are and can be good leaders. What this means is that we are not using the persuasions that will work. It means that we need to tell good stories of when government has worked well.
I noticed that Republicans who are Republicans because their families always were Republicans usually talk very fondly of President Franklin Roosevelt. If we crafted a persuasion the party doing what Roosevelt advocated, is the Democratic Party. Basically the need for security and the need for a superior power can be translated into building a strong government community power.
Indeed if we are looking at what the religious differences are telling us, conservatives are not do-it-yourselfers, they want to hire the expert. They want a leader who they can simply trust. And go back again to the nature of the fear that all politicians are corrupt. Notice how moderation feeds into the concept of corruption. By choosing the political strategy of trying to be all things to all people, John Kerry lost the moral high ground of standing for anything. In contrast, when John Kerry first spoke out on the show, 60 Minutes, everyone wanted to vote for him. Even now there are Democrats who bending to the will of health insurance companies. People want a politician who will stand up to insurance companies and all corporations. People have lost faith in the ability of Democracy to represent us.
So this means that if Democrats spoke more in charismatic moral tones like "health care is right of everyone", "a health care dollar spent on anything but health care is a waste" and "health insurance companies sell us lies about health care in other countries". If we spoke smack-between-the-eyes truths on even just one issue, then suddenly the people who just desperately want a great leader would come to us.
And if religion comes to politics, take it directly on. For example, Jesus is on the side of universal health care. After all, Jesus healed the sick and the poor for free! If the teachings of Jesus matter, then this supports government provided universal health care with no greedy profit involved:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).
And if the "power" of Jesus is all that matters, then the fact that Jesus ordered it should matter.
I am not good enough in other religions to quote other sacred texts, however it is a universal tenet of religion to take care of one another and to build good communities. All religion is on the side of single payer health care and against allowing the greed of the cherry-picking health insurance industry.
And I believe that if we design our persuasions with religious beliefs and morals in mind, then we can be more political persuasive. We can do this with suggestion and without directly invoking religion. We have already started with the word, "greed". Indeed the Bible is one of the first advocates that says we must have a healthy thriving economy where everyone benefits:
James 5:1-6 New International Version
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
Democrats have been saying this, in phrases like "growing the whole pie" and "we all do better when we all do better".
Democrats should be proud of our moral beliefs, whether based on a particular religion or not. While I used the example of Jesus, obviously moral beliefs can come from many diverse sources. Indeed many people walk in moral paths without any religion. My point is that moral discussions are at the heart of politics. We have to go there. As Democrats, we are on the high moral ground and we should go there.
Update: An example of religion being used effectively in the health care discussion!
Update2:A cool listing of what different faith traditions say about health care!
|
