Let's Talk About The Bill Of Rights
by digby
There has been a lively discussion recently about this post by Zack Exley who is working with left leaning evangelicals to find some common ground on which to build a coalition around values such as "people over profit, the environment over mindless growth, meaning over consumerism, means of making a living and health care for all, care for the needy, peace and more."
He gets hung up over the word "secular" as a pejorative term and wonders if there is a better word to describe those who are not evangelicals:
As with any political label, to say, “Secular Progressive” bends the definition of “Secular” a little bit. But it works well in the sense that a secular progressive, like a “secular priest” is not acting in the world directly in the service of a religious community. In other words, all of us “secular progressives” can have a range of religious and atheist views.
By “Evangelical Christian Progressives,” on the other hand, I mean people who are tightly woven into an intimate Christian church community that pervades all aspects of their life and politics. Likewise, all aspects of their life and politics are guided by a very specific theological belief set — those beliefs vary somewhat from one community to the next, but all Evangelical Christians have a core theology in common.
Equally as important for this discussion, they mostly (but not all) have a lot of cultural practices in common that stand in stark contrast to most (but not all) “secular progressives.” They don’t approve of sex before marriage, think divorce is unacceptable, find common expressions that “take the lord’s name in vain”—and cussing in general—jarring and believe homosexuality displeases God.
Those cultural differences rule out simple social gathering, let alone intimate political collaboration, between “Secular Progressives” (soon to be renamed!) and “Evangelical Progressives.” It is those cultural and ideological/theological differences that need to be bridged—accepted where possible and negotiated where necessary.
And I don’t see how we can do that without at least having words to use for these two different, albeit overlapping and fuzzy, groups. Without words, we can’t talk. Without talking, we can’t work things out.
I think the words are right in front of us. As Americans, if we can all agree on the Bill of Rights as our common reference point we can build political coalitions and work together across all these cultural/theological/ideological distances. If we can't, then I'm not sure how it will be possible to bridge, accept or negotiate such deep, fundamental differences within one political party.
I certainly have no problem with liberal leaning evangelicals exercising their religious beliefs, loudly and proudly, even though I personally find some of their beliefs to be as offensive as they find mine. But likewise, they have no standing to demand that the government use its great powers to promote or legislate religious beliefs on their behalf. Our democracy was founded upon the odd idea that there are some rights the majority simply cannot infringe, even if they're offended by those who exercise them. That includes both the right to practice evangelical Christianity and the right to be gay, both of which have required the protection of our constitution at different times.
You can't be all things to all people in a country as varied and as diverse as ours, but politics requires people working across those lines in common cause. Forming coalitions requires some ground rules. That's what the Bill of Rights essentially does. Let's talk about what they mean, what they're for and why they're important. I would almost guarantee that if we can agree on what that means all the rest will fall into place. Live and let live and the separation of church and state are fundamental American values.
As to the question about what to call secular progressives, since the right has once again bastardized a perfectly good word and turned it into an epithet (we really need to stop letting them do this) "pluralist progressive" or "constitutional liberal" or "civil libertarian" all work for me for these purposes.
Update: William Schneider just made the case on Lou Dobbs that religion is the defining issue in American politics and the candidates' religious outreach demonstrate whether they can reach across party lines and unite the country around common religious beliefs. So, who gives a damn what a bunch of cranky secular progressives think anyway?
Update II: Pastordan has an interesting little scoop on one of the leading lights of the religious left.
I'm so tired...
.