# The Religious Roots of a New Progressive Era

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Society\
**Created:** [August 30, 2020, 1:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546 "2020-08-30T13:51:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 11\
**Page:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2020, 3:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/204 "2020-09-02T15:08:12Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> When you are a public employee you pledge an oath to uphold the constitution. If you can’t do your job without violating the constitutional rights of others then you shouldn’t be in that job. Doctors aren’t public employees, so it’s a slightly different case. From what I know, no doctor is required to do abortions, but public employees are required to render services without discrimination, and that includes issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

It’s hard to understand Eddie’s position that Christians should be able to ignore anti-discrimination laws because of their “religious conscience” even though they promised to uphold those laws when they agreed to take the job and collect the paycheck. Well, it’s not hard at all given Eddie’s constant claims TRUE Christians are better than everyone else and should be given special privileges not accorded to others.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2020, 3:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/205 "2020-09-02T15:28:35Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> Not for people who are professionally trained in the history of ideas, as opposed to molecular biology.

Thank you for that mere assertion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2020, 3:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/206 "2020-09-02T15:36:06Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> It’s hard to understand Eddie’s position that Christians should be able to ignore anti-discrimination laws because of their “religious conscience” even though they promised to uphold those laws when they agreed to take the job and collect the paycheck.

Equality can feel like persecution if you are used to a privileged position. Logic has been twisted so out of whack within some groups that not being allowed to discriminate is discrimination.

Thankfully, that tide is starting to turn. Many in the Christian community are starting to understand that secular is not synonymous with anti-religion. You can be religious and support secularism. The Bible says you shouldn’t worship idols or worship gods other than the God of the Bible, but thankfully most Christians are not asking to outlaw other religions. Christian public servants are required to issue building permits for houses of worship that go against what is stated in the Bible, and they issue them (as far as I know). Religious freedom has to include everyone.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2020, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/207 "2020-09-02T15:56:11Z")

</div>

@Eddie

> Other times they have taken isolated little bits of the Old Testament out of context, and used those isolated bits as rules by which Christians are meant to live today.

I don't think taking explicit endorsement of Israelites taking non-Israelites as chattel slaves as endorsement of Europeans taking non-Europeans likewise is taking it out of context. I also think that explicit endorsement would trump any less explicit conflicts these passages have with the "sentiments" of passages on Adam and the Sermon on the Mount.

> I agree that people can and have read all kinds of things into the Bible. I don’t agree, however, that when read carefully and regularly (as opposed to “dipped into now and then for purposes of controversy”) that it’s an ink blot that could mean nearly anything.

I'm sure that there were Theologians in the Antebellum South and in the Confederacy? Are you claiming that they merely "dipped into now and then for purposes of controversy", in the defense of slavery? You may claim that they were wrong, but it is harder (and more arrogant) to claim that they were ignorant.

And I cannot help thinking that slavery and submission (either to masters or to God) were more pervasive themes in the Bible than freedom (unless handed to you on a plate by God) and autonomy.

> For example, you can’t get Nazi doctrine out of the Bible, though the Nazis may have tried.

Well let's start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism\_and\_the\_New\_Testament

Add Martin Luther’s notorious antisemitism (praised by the Nazis).

Add Paul’s words on submission to authority (and what is Nazism and the Fuhrer but the ultimate authoritarianism).

Add Christian apologetics about OT genocides.

It might not be a perfect biblical basis, but the “sentiment” is there.

I’m not claiming that it’s not a tortured reading of the Bible. But then again, I would consider a number of other more ‘orthodox’ readings to be likewise tortured.

Over the years figures such as Mother Theresa and Jean Vanier have garnered accolades from all camps.  
Mother Teresa? Not so much. [Public image of Mother Teresa - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa)

> Yes, that is true, but as I think I mentioned to someone, maybe you (so many people talking here I can’t keep things straight!), the Declaration, not formally part of the Constitution but certainly very much part of its inspiration...

It was me. But I would distinguish the purely ceremonial Declaration from the more practical Constitution by which they were actually proposing to run their lives and their country. Flowery deistic language may have been useful in the former, but seems to have had no place in the latter.

> No, the main source of deep popular conviction in the fundamental equality of all men for 18th-century Americans was the Bible ...

Not that deep, or the Constitution would not have made explicit allowance for slavery.

> You’re talking as if religions are rigid things based only on books ...

No, I'm talking as if the Ten Commandments were ... you know ... commandments. Things that were meant to be immutable and (both literally and figuratively) cast in stone.

I would also point out that the 10C were not the only point at which the OT spoke out against religious pluralism. I’m fairly sure there were a number of passages where it is presented as bad, very bad, and that extreme measures should be employed to prevent it, and horrible consequences if it wasn’t prevented.

> Still, I grant you that nowhere in the Bible are pluralism and democracy taught. But it was never my contention that modern thought came directly from the Bible. I said that Biblical themes helped to give it birth and shape it, not that the Biblical teaching was preserved untransformed in it.

That seems to be somewhat of a retreat from your earlier position. And I don't think I ever stated that Christianity had _no_ influence.

> Consider one such transitional moment. John Locke ...

And I've already conceded Christian influence (positive and negative) on the Enlightenment, in large part because of the likes of Locke.

> There is plenty of bad American Biblical exegesis and bad American Christianity.

How does an outsider tell "bad American Biblical exegesis" from good, except through whether they agree with the consequent positions? I'm sure a Segregationist theologian might say the same thing about you. Are you claiming that _nobody_ in the Old South could read Greek or Hebrew?

If the exegesis is sufficiently ambiguous that the Segregationist can state their position without getting laughed out of his seminary, then one has to suspect that a degree of ambiguity exists in the source material.

> Thus, many Southern slave-owners may have treated their slaves with compassion ...

That appears to be part of the Lost Cause myth. I would question whether it has much (any?) factual basis.

> Some of the people who voted for Trump are doubtless good and even theologically orthodox Christians. Many others may be very poor Christians in practice, and with very little theological education. And of course, what people here seem to forget, it that it is not just Christians who voted for Trump. Trump stands for a right-wing, free enterprise view of things ...

Two points. (i) Evangelicals constitute the largest, and most visible part of Trump's **base** ( that is voters that are on his side come what may, not _all_ Trump voters, some of whom might defect). (ii) Trump is _not_ pro-free enterprise. He is anti-Free Trade (which is an important part of free enterprise) and a career-long Crony Capitalist (someone who gets by on his connections rather than through free competition).

> Well, yes, European statesmen and political theorists in the Middle Ages did think that way. But in actual fact, as the Gospels show, Christianity, as opposed to the religion of Israel, is maddeningly silent and unclear about how human societies are to be governed.

Then, given NT silence (and in fact acquiescence in its theme of obedience), is there any surprise that they went with what they could find in the OT?

> It was a concession when the people of Israel demanded a king like the other nations; previously, while not exactly a democracy in the modern sense, it was a tribal confederacy in which each Israelite farmer or shepherd was in principle the equal of any other, ruled only by the Law, not by kings or emperors.

I would suggest that such a system would be impractical at any time or place where a strong central leadership was needed to deal with external threats (or even an internal faction that became too strong). I think the lack of a strong central leadership has been blamed for the dissolution of the Polish kingdom (which ended up with an elected King, generally chosen to be too weak to interfere with the kingdom's magnates), and the replacement with the earlier American Confederation Period with the US Constitution.

> Modernity is not Christianity, but it certainly owes something to Christianity.

That would appear to be a weaker assertion that you started out with.

And I’m happy to let this dead horse rest unflagellated, if you are. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2020, 4:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/208 "2020-09-02T16:18:06Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> Your are fear-mongering that the updated abortion law in France will lead to women killing their babies just prior to labor without valid reasons. Keep your religion out of other people’s lives. France’s abortion law update just keeps France’s laws the same as most countries in the EU. Stop with the “killing babies” routine.

Why do you deny him the right to argue his position. We are killing babies. Up to the 9th month. Publicly available abortion has been shown to be difficult to control at least in the US. What will stop France from going down the same slippery slope?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2020, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/209 "2020-09-02T16:22:14Z")

</div>

Can we please not descending in a Killing Babies argument? I am prepared to close comments if this gets out of hand.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2020, 6:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/210 "2020-09-03T18:00:19Z")

</div>

I don’t see why anyone would argue about abortion when Eddie has raised the far weightier issue of our day: the decline in Lions Club membership. Of similar magnitude, I would point, as evidence of moral decline, to the rerouting of the A30 to bypass Okehampton town center – what a moral disaster, in every way!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2020, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/211 "2020-09-03T18:34:53Z")

</div>

Dogs and cats, living together!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2020, 7:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/212 "2020-09-03T19:03:14Z")

</div>

Personally, I am less concerned about the sexual morality issues pertaining to dogs and cats living together than I am with the fact that some of these dog/cat relationships appear to be forming as anarcho-syndicalist collectives. Who’s going to teach our children the merits of free markets when these animals are sharing food and toys?

(And, to be clear: I am using the word “animals” in the pejorative sense only, rather than in any biological sense.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2020, 7:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/213 "2020-09-03T19:51:44Z")

</div>

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> Personally, I am less concerned about the sexual morality issues pertaining to dogs and cats living together than I am with the fact that some of these dog/cat relationships appear to be forming as anarcho-syndicalist collectives. Who’s going to teach our children the merits of free markets when these animals are sharing food and toys?

Orwell would be proud.

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6f78fd232a417843894f00b16880a4e50ba5a436.jpeg)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [September 6, 2020, 7:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546/214 "2020-09-06T19:51:45Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-religious-roots-of-a-new-progressive-era/11546.md?page=10)