The Rise Of The Religious Left: Religious Progressives Will Soon Outnumber Conservatives

[R Merm]

Source: Think Progress

One-in-five Americans are religious progressives, according to a new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. Using a religious orientation scale that “combines theological, economic, and social outlooks,” researchers argued that while the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans continues to rise, a growing coalition of young, diverse, and politically-active Americans are connecting their faith with progressive values.

“Our new research shows a complex religious landscape, with religious conservatives holding an advantage over religious progressives in terms of size and homogeneity,” Dr. Robert P. Jones, CEO of Public Religion Research Institute, said in a press release. “However, the percentage of religious conservatives shrinks in each successive generation, with religious progressives outnumbering religious conservatives in the Millennial generation.”

According to the survey, 23 percent of people aged 18 to 33 are religious progressives, while 22 percent are nonreligious and 17 percent are religious conservatives. By contrast, only 12 percent of those aged 66 to 88 are religious progressives, whereas 47 percent are said to be religious conservatives.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/07/19/2324411/the-rise-of-the-religious-left-religious-progressives-will-soon-outnumber-conservatives/

[exboyfil]

1. My wife keeps wanting me to attend the Promise Keepers conference this weekend

I told her that I do not share the political leanings of the organization, and my faith is not of the emotional variety. I told her I planned to keep my promises this weekend by going to work to put food on the table. I think she may not bother me further about it. Apparently our church has a number of tickets that will go unused, and the Pastor contacted her about me attending free. If I wanted to go I would pay my own way.

[calimary]

2. Good for you!

YOURS is the proper way to prove yourself a keeper of promises to a spouse. You already know more than those religious extremist meddling crackpots could try to "teach" you!

[dbackjon]

24. No one that values equality for all Americans should ever set foot in Promise Breakers meeting

Except hold protest signs at their hypocrisy

[IrishAyes]

49. Don't forget what Promise Keepers did

Years ago when that young mother drowned her 2 little boys in the lake; it later turned out that her father-in-law had been molesting her and admitted it. Shortly after, PK pronounced him 'a righteous man'. Even if he had completely and sincerely repented, which sexual predators are not known to do very often, giving him official 'righteous man' status at the very least seemed excessive.

Has the organization since then grown a conscience? How often do leopards change their spots? Like everything else conservative and therefore self-described (faux)Christian, that one stinks to high heaven. You're wise to keep your distance.

[exboyfil]

61. Beverly Russell?

Do you have a source for the Promise Keeper's calling him a righteous man?

[IrishAyes]

62. Sorry, that was so long ago I don't remember the names, and such a well known news story

that I didn't think to look it up for you. If you doubt my word or memory, however, you're welcome to research it. But I seriously doubt you'd find it on a PK website. THEY would probably deny it ever happened, and claim those two little boys are actually living somewhere in Canada with their mother this day.

The young mother secured her two little boys in the back seat of her car and then somehow sank the vehicle in the river or lake with them inside. IF I RECALL PROPERLY now, and I think I do, at first she blamed a black man for the crime.

[exboyfil]

64. Thanks for the info

I did try looking up the Promise Keepers quote before responding. I don't doubt you, but I like to source everything. I know Pat Robertson said he was a changed man (soon after the accusations came out - isn't that special). I did not know about the Promise Keepers though.

I do hate anyone who has hurt someone like that being brought up as an example of a changed life and all is forgiven. I would not trust any organization that endorsed that.

[No Vested Interest]

68. Without googling, I believe the mother's name was

Susan Smith, in case you want to pursue it further
And the state was South Carolina, if I recall correctly.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

71. Let me tell you about a PK hypocrite I once met.

The guy wore a polo shirt with the PK logo embroidered on it.

My DH was doing some programming work for this guy.

In his office he had a TV set on a stand and some VHS tapes on a shelf under it.

One of them said on the spine "BLACK WHITE ANAL".

He later hid that tape after I saw it.

Damned hypocrite. Also impossible to work for.

[Atman]

3. Bullshit.

Well written PR piece for the churchies. Nothing more.

[cbayer]

5. Are you dismissing the results of the survey?

[Atman]

7. Yes.

.

[cbayer]

8. Based on what?

Do you consider the trend of religious people identifying as progressive a bad thing?

[NoOneMan]

14. If it makes believing nonsense trendy and cool and popular, then yes from me

But if it doesn't, and religious numbers continue to decline, then it doesn't really matter at all

[cbayer]

28. It doesn't make being a believer any of those things.

It means that there can be more progressive religious organizations to form coalitions with to achieve mutual goals and fight back against the religious right.

I think it matters a great deal.

[R Merm]

36. +1

It is great going to the Moral Monday demonstrations here in NC and seeing religious leaders from different religions and denominations attending, speaking, and yes, even being arrested. The article my exaggerate the size but there are definitely out there.

[cbayer]

37. Huge kudos to you for attending the Moral Monday events!

I am so impressed with this movement and glad that it is getting at least some press coverage.

One of the problems the religious progressives and liberals have had it getting any coverage.

[IrishAyes]

50. A lot of atheists sneer at the religious left

Have they forgotten what people like MLK and Wm. Sloan Coffin and the Berrigans did for humanity? Or people like Desmond Tutu? I think it's been too long since I pointed out that one of the conservatives' favorite theologians, CS Lewis, was an ardent socialist married to a self-declared full blown communist. Either they can't stand to admit it or more likely, they don't even know it. A little knowledge ....

[cbayer]

52. Some of them do more than sneer - they actively attack them.

Makes you wonder what the agenda is.

But then again, many atheists are building coalitions with progressive & liberal believers, and the results are looking very good.

[IrishAyes]

59. Well, perhaps the atheists' militant wing

compares somewhat to our conservative RW American Taliban. A pox on the backside of humanity.

[cbayer]

60. I wouldn't personally take it that far, lol,

but I do think that progressives attacking progressives is a divisive and counter-productive tactic.

The Republicans have used it against us for a long time, and quite effectively.

[Gman]

12. You're reading much more into it than what's there

It's an article about demographics.

[LanternWaste]

18. What specifically leads you to believe that premise, and hence, denying the survey as valid?

"Well written PR piece for the churchies. Nothing more...."

What specifically leads you to believe that premise, and hence, denying the survey as valid?

[IrishAyes]

51. It contradicted the poster's own biases, that's what. Naughty survey!

[Iliyah]

4. But I thought Progressives were satan worshipers?????

[kentauros]

48. No, we worship (and presumably elect) Satin!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039149

[pampango]

6. "Religion has long been co-opted by religious conservatives as a vehicle for political gain, but

this study hints that the future of faith-based political advocacy could rest with the left-leaning faithful. Religious progressives already make up 28 percent of the Democratic party—this in addition to 42 percent that are religious moderates—a number that only stands to grow as Millennials age and begin to vote in greater numbers.

And when it comes to economic issues, religious progressives are actually more passionate than other liberals about eradicating income inequality; the study found that 88 percent of religious progressives said that the government should do more to help the poor, more than any other group polled.

The emergence of this new group might raise the hackles of some more secular-minded progressives, but the study found that although religious liberals are passionate about progressive causes, they aren’t interested in imposing their beliefs on others: only 29 percent of religious progressives believe a person has to believe in God to live a moral life, as compared to 74 percent of religious conservatives.

[amb123]

9. As long as they

unequivocally support the Separation of Church and State, I say good.

[Igel]

11. They will.

But they will exempt their own views from consideration.

People have a massive problem with preachers and ministers getting involved with politics, taking social stands, agitating for change based upon their deeply-held beliefs. Why if any such minister were to get involved, he should be denied any audience, he should be deprived of any tax exempt status and held in the greatest disregard.

Take, for example, the Reverend Martin Luther King ...

Uh ... perhaps not.

Or perhaps all the churches and religious organizations that backed marches for civil rights?

Uh ... No.

Let's face it. The principled opposition to the meddling of religious organizations in social and political issues rests, for most people, in the fact that it's the opposition that's doing the meddling. In recent decades it's been mostly the "Others" who have done this, so it's seemed like a well-grounded principle. As soon as the shoe's no longer on the Right's foot but is on the other foot, the Left's, we'll spare no political sole in secular saving of souls.

[24601]

16. What if instead they support the 1st amendment's prohibition on government establishing

religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

[cbayer]

32. The progressive and liberal religious people I know are also secularists.

That does not mean that they do not involve themselves in politics. It does mean that they support the 1st amendment.

[longship]

10. Who is Public Religion Research Institute?

I don't think I've ever heard of them. That doesn't mean anything, though.

I have heard of both good and bad surveys from folks like PEW and Barna, both who arguably have a religious agenda.

The test is how reliable the individual survey is and how it was collected and analyzed.

I will have to look more deeply than this article to make a decision on how valid it may be. And to do that, I'd have to care about these results, which I am not too sure about.

[deutsey]

15. EJ Dionne is one of the authors of the study

This is from their website:

Public Religion Research Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and education organization dedicated to work at the intersection of religion, values, and public life.

Our mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research. As a research organization, we do not take positions on, nor do we advocate for, particular policies. As members of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the American Political Science Association (APSA), and the American Academy of Religion (AAR), our research team follows the highest academic research standards. PRRI is also a supporting organization of the Transparency Initiative at AAPOR.



They may have been part of the Pew Research Center a while ago, or I might be confusing them with something else that had the same mission.

[cbayer]

29. I posted this in Religion yesterday. Here's a link to their press release.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/121887761

[longship]

33. Looks good. Thanks, friend. ;) nt

[NoOneMan]

13. Oh, we will see

They spend their free time believing fairy tales and some very regressive mythology. I don't think they are beyond manipulation as they age.

[hrmjustin]

21. I don't believe in fairy tales. I believe in God!

But I respect your right to think I believe in fairy tales.

[NoOneMan]

22. Zeus or Apollo?

[hrmjustin]

23. The Christian God. The Holy Trinity.

[NoOneMan]

25. Oh Yahweh? He's the one that made a man live in a whale, right?

And takes the form of a burning bush? Oh, I guess I was mistaken about the fairy tale bit.

[hrmjustin]

26. I said you have the right to believe it is a fairy tale but I disagree with you.

[R Merm]

39. .

[awoke_in_2003]

40. Those damn reindeer bullies...

[IrishAyes]

55. Well said.

[IrishAyes]

54. No evolved/educated person takes those stories to be necessarily literal.

They were a needed way of passing along basic concepts and truths to an agrarian and often nomadic society. Needed at the time, though it isn't really intellectual to scoff at them today. Would you try to overburden ancient, illiterate (for the most part) people with the science of microbiology, for instance, or in order to reach them would you describe things in terms they could understand? You wouldn't get very far explaining atoms to someone who had no idea of things too tiny for the human eye to see, unless you used the term dust, which was probably the tiniest particle they could imagine. In that era, 'dust you are and to dust you shall return' is a lot more appropriate.

Ancients understood symbolism more than science. Jonah in the belly of the whale was probably never meant to be taken literally even back then, because there's still a regional saying about the gullible: "He swallowed a big fish!"

So put your anthropology perspective hat on good and straight, and you'll find less reason to scoff.

[Arugula Latte]

65. There are tens of millions of Americans who DO think this stuff is the literal truth.

A lot of them aren't necessarily slack-jawed yokels, either. They see ancient Greek and Roman myths as interesting yet fictional stories from long ago, yet they don't make the leap to look at the Bible in the same way. I know some educated people who believe that a dead Aramaic-speaking guy from Judea is going to return to Earth soon to save people. They must have a great ability to compartmentalize their thinking -- like when you're watching a movie and suspend disbelief. As Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

[IrishAyes]

67. Well, even Mark Twain couldn't always be right.

And he did love the catchy quip.

Yet by no means am I saying the Bible is strictly fictional. Even the symbolic parts may bear basic truths presented in a manner understandable by people in that era. That doesn't mean that a modern, educated person with a liberal bent should reject it either. It is worthy of study on a variety of levels. The purpose is elevation of the human soul rather than its debasement. I personally do believe in the Holy Trinity and the saving power of the risen Jesus' love for ALL creation.

But no, I don't believe any ordinary mortal human being on earth knows all the answers, or even all the questions. Or even needs to! People can make a hell of heaven or a heaven of hell if they so choose.

I've been privileged to attend the passing of so many terminal patients that I could write volumes on what I've personally seen and experienced. When they leave, I hold with those who like to open the window in the room, even though I don't think for one second that failure to do so would delay them at all. It's symbolism, sort of like wishing them a swift and easy journey or waving a last goodbye.

One of my favorite Bible stories involves the miracle of loaves and fishes. You can reject it out of hand although people did hold large gatherings back then same as we do now. Or you can - quite erroneously, I think - decide that Jesus literally multiplied the loaves and fishes. I suppose he could have, although the Bible doesn't really say that's how it was done; but that's beside the point. Those people were not exactly stupid, certainly not trusting enough to go hiking way out in the desert without carrying provisions for themselves just in case. But maybe if they could get free food, who doesn't like that? So what would be the greater miracle, physically multiplying a few items into many, or using a young boy's natural generosity to set a good example where people's hearts would be changed at least for a moment and they could see that sharing together is the best way? I vote for the latter.

That's why I see no need for people to get their shorts twisted over what or how much is literal, symbolic, or maybe even both. That's like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - it misses the point. The danger lies in this fool's errand of demanding that it must be all one way or the other, especially if a person argues for strict and total literalism of every iota. That's bibliolatry, a kind of idolatry that fundies just don't seem to realize they commit. Worst of all, it's idolatry of self because they worship their own beliefs, not any higher power. I'd wager most of them will tell you what I've heard so many say: that if they ever find out for sure that a single word in the Bible isn't literal and complete truth as they want to understand it, they'll no longer believe in God either. Hubris personified.

So now perhaps you understand better why so many of my Bible Belt neighbors would lynch me if they thought they could get away with it!

[IrishAyes]

53. Good on you.

[cbayer]

30. What a load. I am assuming you think that of all progressive religious leaders, than.

[NMDemDist2]

17. ....

[iandhr]

19. Groups like my synagogue.

We did a big push for marriage equality in New York.

[wordpix]

20. my Xtian born again friend worked for Obama this time around

She had been a RWnut for many years, voting for W* Bush both times but finally her sisters and I convinced her the RW pols couldn't care less about her concern for the poor and those without health insurance (including my Xtian friend). She saw the light and put in a lot of volunteer hours for Obama in 2012, now watches MSNBC instead of Faux and gets burned up at the repug shenanigans.

[Zoeisright]

27. And hopefully non-believers will soon

outnumber all religious groups.

[cbayer]

31. Never going to happen, imo, so

I think we should support those in the religious community who share our progressive values.

[JNelson6563]

34. "We"?

Sometimes you go too far with your schtick Cbayer. You are part of the religious community so of course you support it.

And no, progressive atheists do not need to "support" Christian progressives in their (hopefully someday) efforts to drown out the hateful zealots in their community. We atheists will be staying out of it and pushing on to achieve progress, regardless of the the religious community's many issues.


Julie

[cbayer]

35. I am part of what religious community, Julie?

Progressive atheists don't have to support anyone. I am sure they will carry on without them.

But many do and some very powerful coalitions are being formed, each group embracing the other

You say "we" but you are far, far from speaking for atheists in general. You represent but a small group, but I am again amazed at how I see more atheists use the third person plural than I do religious people on this site.

Glad you like my "schtick". I'll be here all week.

[IrishAyes]

56. Stick around. Please.

[Arugula Latte]

43. Why would it "never" happen? The trendlines are going in a postiive direction in the

better-educated countries. In Britain, for example, the number of atheists has risen from 14% in 1963 to 42% in 2012.

[cbayer]

44. While I agree that more people are identifying as atheists

I think there are many factors to be taken into consideration when evaluating that data. One of the most important, and positive imo, is that it is becoming more acceptable to identify as such. As for "better educated", the data also supports that there is a strong correlation between poverty and religiosity. Now, perhaps if we see poverty eliminated.....

I think religion is here to stay, though it will change over time as it always has.

I don't know where in the world you get yours stats about Britain. I have a terrible connection right now, but I did find this:

In the 2011 Census, 14.1 million people, about a quarter of the entire population (25%) of England and Wales, said they had no religion, a rise of 6.4 million since 2001. The British Humanist Association (BHA) had encouraged people to tick the "No religion" box and said the fall was "astounding". It has calculated that Christians could be in a minority by 2018.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism‎

Note that that is census data and refers to "no religion" and not atheism.

Since this is so wildy different from what you postulate, do you have a link to support the data you are putting forward?

[Arugula Latte]

45. From this:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/10/statistics-round-up--religion-in-decline-around-europe-and-usa

[cbayer]

47. If you go to the data, you will see that 24%, not 42%, clearly identify as atheist.

That is, that is the percentage that say "I don't believe in God". The rest are classified as agnostic and are all over the place. So the conclusion drawn by secularism.org is erroneous. Also the sample size is miniscule in comparison to the census data.

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/files/files/Polling/Cathedrals%20Final%20Data%20PDF.pdf

But that's neither here nor there. The numbers are rising. The reasons for this are multifactorial and indicate a positive trend for atheists, imo.

Since atheists tend to be democrats and more progressive/liberal than many religious groups, rise in the numbers is a good thing. So is rise in the number of religious people that identify as progressive.

Together, these groups can exert some significant push back.

[displacedtexan]

38. We non-believing Unitarians are bound for world domination!

Just joking, but I sometimes think I should be taking notes for a test during Unitarian philosophical sermons and social action committee meetings. Tee hee.

[IrishAyes]

57. I would give almost anything

if there were a Unitarian society within reach for me. I am cradle Catholic dyed in the wool, but a pesky liberal one and my ecumenism continues to broaden. There is a small Catholic mission here, but so backward that I hardly recognize it as such. Suppose that's fitting, because most of them consider me a Jesuit-leaning heretic.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. I have been a UU since 1979.

When I discovered the First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Antonio.

Unfortunately, there are no UU Fellowships or churches within driving distance of where I am.



It's nice to have a place to hang out with atheists, agnostics and the uninterested on Sunday morning and hang out in discussion groups.

Also, we worship the giver of life --- the coffeepot.

[Enthusiast]

41. How do religious progressives feel about

biological evolution?

[cbayer]

46. Surveys I have seen show that belief is creationism is strongly correlated with

the religious right and not so much with the religious left.

[IrishAyes]

58. I for one can assure you

that I have absolutely no quarrel with science as accepted in the secular world. Science tells us how (or at least the most advanced understanding of the time), while religion more properly concerns itself with why. They actually make good bedfellows when not bickering among themselves.

[truebluegreen]

42. Not soon enough for me...

but looking forward to it regardless.

[darkangel218]

63. Soon? how soon?

They were saying the same thing 10 years ago and look at the fundies today, stronger and more powerful than ever.
Don't forget financial and political power matters greatly, perhaps even more than numbers.

[ZombieHorde]

66. Bwahahahaha! nt

[Doctor_J]

69. Until they own a thousand radio stations, won't make a bit of difference

just like in the rest of American life, majorities of any size mean nothing without a propaganda resource.