Does the Left Understand the Faithful?

As the Supreme Court took up Salazar v. Buono last week, deciding the fate of a cross on public land, I was put in an awkward position. Once again, I squirm at the unrestrained histrionics of both sides, sinking into my chair as I did during heated debates in my religion classes in college. The reason for my discomfort? I am that rare creature, distrusted yet patronized by both sides of the culture wars: a Christian with leanings towards Biblical inerrancy who is also an unabashed progressive.

The case is the banal, tedious type that excites law students and bores the rest of us. It involves a religious symbol placed on public land, with complex reasoning and politics behind it. What upsets me is not the case itself, but the predictable nature of it all. The Left attacks a public display of religion and the Right defends America's Christian origins. Meanwhile, a great number of Christians dedicated to their beliefs but progressive in their political views -- including myself -- squirm uncomfortably, unhappy with the hijacking of their faith by the Right and having to defend their religion from apparent assaults by the Left.

Progressive Christians will never whole-heartedly embrace Democrats as long we feel the need to justify our faith during waves of Left-Right tensions over religious symbols. While a vocal minority of evangelical Christians are "values-voters" -- basing their political decisions primarily on single value-driven issues -- most Christians are faithful voters. We vote based on our entire set of beliefs, supporting the candidate who appears to share and understand our faith. Even though certain values held by Christians are incommensurate with the GOP agenda, the GOP will continue to gain votes as long as they seem the more "faithful" of the two parties.

Democrats have long had a problem appealing to the faithful. Despite John Kerry's Catholicism and some attempts to gain Christian support, Bush handily beat Kerry among almost all Christians in 2004. This is because Democrats believed they could rely on appeals to certain issues expected to resonate with Christian voters. Meanwhile, voices on the Left critical of a public role for Christianity caused Christians to perceive a general progressive hostility towards their faith. This limited the effectiveness of Democratic outreach to Christians. In contrast, Bush presented himself as the candidate of faith in general, gaining the votes of this important electoral group.

Obama, though, has appeared much more at ease with religion. Faith has long been a central element of Obama's message; since his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he has called on the faithful to reject the use of religion as a political tool by the right. In the 2008 election, Obama made significant gains among Christian voters; even his ¼ share of the evangelical vote was an improvement. These voters are very committed to their religious beliefs, and believed Obama the more faithful of the presidential candidates.

If progressives are able to maintain this image -- as the party that truly understands the faithful -- their share of the Christian vote will likely grow. If, in contrast, they believe that a general alignment between progressive and Christian values is sufficient to gain Christian support -- despite broader hostility towards religion among some on the Left -- the trend Obama began will be short-lived.

The Supreme Court case illustrates this issue perfectly. Right-wing Christians see an indelible connection between their faith and government acceptance of public Christian displays. Progressive Christians often disagree. We place a value on the separation of Church and State, but are still uneasy with criticism of the public display of Christian symbols. Right or wrong, faith involves gut reactions, and the reaction to statements by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union is to perceive an attack on the faith.

One can object that the cross in question is just a symbol: if progressive Christians truly value Church-State separation, they should support its removal. But that is the point: it is a symbol, representing a set of beliefs that guides and enriches the lives of Christians. And Christians like myself are ultimately faithful, not values-voters. While I personally will never switch allegiance to the GOP because of cases such as this, it may well sway other progressive Christians and cost Democrats future political support.

So the Democratic Party must tread lightly on issues of faith, achieving the difficult balance between appealing to the base and reaching out to the faithful. If progressives want to maintain and increase the Democratic share of Christian voters in this country, they must understand our faith and sympathize -- even if they do not agree -- with the value we believe it holds for this country. Merely appealing to what seem to be Christian "values" every four years will not be enough. Ultimately, the Left may have to abandon the religious symbols it fights over in favor of the broader goal of steering the country in a progressive direction, because the faithful will not.

(Also posted at The Moderate Voice)

Follow Peter Henne on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pehenne

Comments

[Tiger99]

Mr. Henne,
You use the term "progressive christian" and support for Bush in the same narrative.­.. I'm confused..­.
As a lifelong Democrat from a family of Democrats it was the very progressive Christians who are preaching the message you are here that allowed the complete takeover of my State Oklahoma by the Far Right Christians­... I personally find Presidents Obama's dedication to his Faith as a blind spot that will eventually destroy any real hope for fundamental progressive change... We have suffered enough with leaders who cling to their biblical beliefs, it is time for a leader who can lead without being guided by his biblical beliefs...
As far as you lack of understanding given to the issue of Christian Symbols and the Federal Government let me just say this "if we give them an inch they will take a mile"... If we allow the cross to stand Christians will use it as a prime example to set a precedent on why their faith should be represented anywhere they please on Federal Property or Government Documents.­.. We do not need to embrace nor should we be concerned for personal issues or views to be progressive in this matter...
The Constitution uses the terms "Nature's God" and "their creator" not "the God of the Jews" or "the Christian's Jewish God who is the Creator"..­.
I don't believe that Democrat's should become the "Progressive Christian Party" in opposition to the Republican "Fundamentalist Christian Party"...

[Querent]

The reason for your discomfort? Cognitive dissonance.

[Wendy Johnson]

For strategic reasons, you are advising religious minorities in this country to acquiesce while the majority continues to impose their identity as the only important one. I don't think it's what Jesus would do.

[JBS]

What do you mean by "the faithful"? The ones who just talk the talk?

The ones who want to tax me to finance the imposition of their religious dogma on my life.

Or the ones who actually walk the walk?

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

Other religions do not try to have their stamp on the government. As long as your religion is on all of our dollars and unjustly a part of our pledge of allegience, it is the Christians who are forcing the issue. Practice your religion freely but stop acting the martyr when it is you who are being intollerant of the rest of our right to ours.

[Arion]

Jefferson prohibited prayer in the the Whitehouse. Yet he gave liberally to the Catholic and Presbyterian Churches. Washington regularly attended church. Yet he always left before communion was given. These seemingly paradoxical acts are for me perfect emblems of the balance required.
In this vein I am quite sympathetic with Mr. Henne's viewpoint. In fact, speaking as an unchurched progressive liberal, I hope the cross remains. I'd like to see prayer back in public schools and at sport events too. While the fundamentalists get absolutely silly and mendacious attempting to prove the devout Christianity of the founders (who were Deists and not Christian), as a people we began as a body of devout Christians and remain overwhelmingly Christian at least in name to this day. I think it's kind of nice to celebrate this tradition, even on civic occasions. On the other hand, I wish they'd take the 'under God' out of the pledge. It's an insult to the poet who wrote it and weakens the meter. it was only inserted by some anti-commies under Eisenhower. If you want to be originalist, take it out

[Maerwynn]

Christians are all for public displays of religion as long as it is Christianity, all for prayer at public events as long as it is Christian.

I'm tired of the perpetual wail that they are being persecuted and must justify their faith all the while failing to see that they are attempting to force everyone else to justify their own faiths. Worse actually. Their ultimate goal is to force everyone else to become Christian.

It is rather egocentric to call for others to understand and sympathize with those of the Christian faith when Christians refuse to understand and sympathize with those of other faiths or no faith. I don't believe the twain will ever meet.

No one faith has exclusive rights representing the United States. No one symbol should be displayed on public property or paid for by tax dollars.

[Laserbeam]

Flagged as favorite!

[seawolf77]

There is no evidence of Jesus existence. The Roman historian Josephus who lived exactly in this period and would have presumably wtinessed the birth of Chriatianity and possibly even known the apostles only mentions Jesus in passing and it was more his being James brother than being Jesus. All other great historical figures almost always have at least one historian talk about him or her. As fas as I know only the Koran mentions Jesus as the Son of God and that he did indeed exist. Can anyone correct me on this?

[MeddlingMonk]

The Qu'ran cannot be considered a witness to Jesus as it originates several centuries later.

As for your assertion that Jesus can't be historical because Flavius Josephus mentions him 'in passing', that is hardly logical. The mention is itself significant and no amount of special pleading can negate it. And you are also incorrect in claiming that Josephus is the only Roman historian to mention Jesus. There is a garbled reference to him by Suetonius (in his account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome) and by Tacitus (in the same context) who also reports that Jesus was condemned by Pontius Pilate.

There is no factual basis for denying the historicity of Jesus. One thing you really need to understand is that Jesus lived and died in obscurity with only a small group of people around him who believed he was in any way a significant person. That belief was so powerful that it impelled them to spread the 'good news' about Jesus across the Roman world and beyond. Because that effort was so successful, making the name of Jesus so ubiquitous, that it is now difficult for people generally to comprehend the obscurity of Jesus' life. That he is mentioned 'in passing' by first- and second-century Roman historians is natural and is to be expected.

[MeddlingMonk]

I have to make a correction. Suetonius' mangled reference to Jesus (he confuses the Greek word 'christos' with the Latin name 'Chrestus') is in the context of Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome. I was conflating in my mind that passage with the one about the fire of Rome which Nero blamed on Christians (to divert suspicion from himself).

[Kalifornika]

I do not understand why anyone would feel the need to have a religious symbols representative of one's faith placed on public property. To me, it represents a profound insecurity regarding that faith.

[doodlebug2]

give this person a cigar!

[KOSMOCITIZEN]

Since the beginning of the Christian faith , Scholars , Politicians, Emperors, Kings, and so on..
use the Christian faith in a way to legitimize their agenda and advantage in the hearts of the
believers.
the Roman Emperor Konstantin (334 AD ) used the Christian Faith to advantage to build the Eastern Roman Empire which became the Byzantine Empire
Meanwhile In Alexandria, Egypt ,2nd century AD. The Theologians and scholars divided in two different ideologies that are alive to this day. One camp preaching to believers:
Believe and be faithful without questions and search. And the other camp preaching , Believe and be faithful and search for understanding.

History is full of these stories.

what is going on in America today
you have to go back to 1300 -1400 AD
VATICAN and POPE issue the little faithful books, if you read them and agree with their religious dogma your sins are forgiven.

2000 AD BUSH and the Republicans the Christian values party, against abortion ,gays ,feminism, won
A lot people pressed to think ,by their pastors , preachers , by voting Republican they doing the wright thing in the eyes of GOD and their sins will be forgiven .

That is the the most creepy thing the religious wright has done to the Americas
every Sunday in the Churches, across America , Christians fall into a same deception trap other Christians fall 600 years ago
where is going to end this kind false teaching,deception and manipulation. in violence.

[Marnie1]

"Progressive Christians will never whole-heartedly embrace Democrats as long we feel the need to justify our faith during waves of Left-Right tensions over religious symbols."

A “symbol” by definition is not the real thing. It is a “symbol” of the real thing. If losing a “symbol” threatens your faith, your faith is very shallow indeed.


Why do you feel need to justify your faith? Discuss it with others yes, but to justify it? Its your faith, so it’s your definition of faith. Your comfort zone defined by you. Why do you need to justify it to anyone?
It's just you looking in the mirror at your faith and either being comfortable with what you see or not. Don’t put your discomfort off on anybody else.

Politics is politics and religion is religion.
Render unto Caesar (politics/ bureaucracy) those things that are Cesar's (government /bureaucracy) and unto God (religion/faith) those things that are God's.

I am a life long Christian and an independant. I see no threat to my faith is loosing a public eyesore.

[S1m0n]

The bible regularly and repeatedly contradicts itself in matters both great and small, as makes sense for a document written over a period of centuries by speakers of at least three native languages. How can an honest person consider it inerrant?

[ThinkCreeps]

Why does any particular superstition deserve understanding?

Hold whatever unsubstantiated ideas you like in your head. Just don't tell me, my family and my friends what to do, based on your claimed relationship with a fictional character.

[Laserbeam]

You nailed it. That goes for me, too!

[doodlebug2]

me also

[brady61995]

they have to understand that the left for the most part is christian. just not nutty shoving a cross in your face like we are vampires. when you put up a cross you have to put up a klan cross and devil head and a a star of david and a swastika because once you open that door its open to everyone. Fanatical actions scare people and make them think they are creepy. teabaggers and nuts and people that are not willing to work togehter make us normal people nervous. pro lifers, birthers, there has to be a civil way we can all get to the same goal. a decent country to live in without all the hate.

[springsm]

Don't take yourself so seriously Mr. Henne. I am a definate progressive to the left, I am also a faithful Christian.­..I also understand that the issue of the WWI cross is because it is on public land and some atheists who don't believe in anything..­didn't like it. The Jewish Star could not be added and that was wrong. How many muslims were in WWI with the ones who raised this cross...no­body knows. So if not all of the symbols can't go up, then none should. And the Christian conservatives think that all is going to hell without their own ideology out there. I think it is a big stink about not much, but alas...it has become about more than it is. Oh wait a few minutes...­the Christmas season is coming and all parties can again start their song and dance on a new project. And for heaven's sakes, this was a memorial to the fallen comrades of these World War ONE soldiers. It was in the early 1900s NOT 2009.

[Tiger99]

For all our sakes remove the cross and replace it with a fitting memorial that is representative of all the "Fallen American Soldiers" who fought in WW1, not one that symbolizes one particular faith..