Dan Savage Wants Liberals To Recover 'Hijacked' Christianity

[cbayer]

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2012/12/13/watch-dan-savage-wants-liberals-recover-hijacked-christianity

In the latest episode of his web series, American Savage, Dan Savage tells liberal Christians that their silence has allowed the religious right to "hijack" the faith.
BY SUNNIVIE BRYDUM DECEMBER 13 2012 7:05 PM ET



Dan Savage wants liberal Christians to speak up in their churches and speak out about supporting their LGBT friends, family members, and fellow parishioners, the columnist and LGBT activist said in a video released today.

In the latest episode of Savage's new web series, American Savage, the founder of the It Gets Better Project says he's used to fielding complaints as a columnist from Christians who take offense at his across-the-board condemnation of Christians as antigay.

"We're not all like that," Savage says he hears on a regular basis from people of faith responding to his syndicated sex advice column, Savage Love. He's heard the refrain so often that he's conjured a clever acronym to refer to liberal Christians who support LGBT equality: NALT Christians, or "Not All Like That."

"But the reason so many of us have the idea that you are, indeed, all like that, and the reason that Christian has become synonymous with antigay is because of these loud voices on the Christian right," says Savage in a featured clip of the gay activist speaking at Arizona State University. "And they've hijacked Christianity, with your complicit silence enabling their hijacking of it."

more at link, including video link.

[Promethean]

1. Two things made the hijacking easy.

First is the assumption that someone claiming to be christian is automatically standing from a position of moral authority and is a good person. I see this constantly, it is why some people seem to begin everything they say with the phrase "I'm a christian."

The second is the fear of social ostracism. Christian culture has been dominant for so long that people just follow it without thinking about it. So when someone speaks about something and quote the bible to back them up even if it seems repulsive at initial impression people just let it stand unchallenged. Easier than to potentially upset someone.

[cbayer]

2. I think the hijacking was entirely political and based on two issues - abortion and GLBT rights.

I think Rove and the neocons saw a population that had strong feelings on these two issue and pursued a plan to promise them that he could get them what they wanted.

He got them nothing or nearly nothing, but that was never the point. He rallied them, solidified them, promoted them and, in doing so, marginalized the rest of the christian community.

The liberal/progressive wing is trying to take it back, but it's going to be a long slog.

[patrice]

26. "fear of ostracism" to me is because of the externalization of "christianity", which comes before

ALL else, instead of identifying and testing the organic roots of it within every cell of your being, every second of your life, every breath you take, then allowing that to discover its unlimited, FREE, co-relate in creation, and then letting that become a part of those organic roots of who YOU are (not someone else's idea of who you are), in a nutritive Christian cycle modeled in the life of a free human being whom we know as Jesus.

[dimbear]

3. Hijacked?? Christianity has been a powerful force on the right since the 4th century.

Imagining otherwise won't change history.

[cbayer]

4. Prior to the rise of the religious right, religion was much more frequently seen as a force

for good in this country. Their involvement in the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement was critical.

It was hijacked and, I agree with Savage that the liberal/progressive religious communities have been too passive in allowing this to happen.

[dimbear]

5. It's a long long tale, it's worth a lot of attention.

Certainly there was Christian involvement on both sides in the civil rights movement. Pastors in the churches which were created during (or just before) the Civil War to preserve slavery had some really unfortunate things to say. It's all there in the history books. There was important positive involvement from secular forces, and probably way out of comparison to their numbers, from Jews.

The whole history of slavery needs to be considered. Note that the Catholic Church itself was an important slaveholder. Note that Papal bulls authorize slavery, and then others would later condemn it. Note that one pope gave out slaves as presents to his cardinals. Note that the conquistadores would read Spanish or Latin sermons to the American natives, and if they didn't accept Jesus from what to them was gibberish, the conquistadores deemed that it was justifiable to rob and enslave them. Read, when you have the leisure, about the horrific Jesuit reservations in Paraguay. Ditto the nasty institutions set up in California or Arizona called mockingly 'missions'.

Then come up to nearer the present. Consider the first rightwing radio host, Father Coughlin. Recall the clerical opposition to women's suffrage. Ditto reproductive rights. It goes on and on and quickly gets monotonous, but you see the drift.

Be fair. There is a liberal minority, as always, but Christianity is primarily a rightwing force, and always has been for as long as there's any realistic history available.

[skepticscott]

7. How dare you use facts?

Those aren't fit subjects around the Bayer dinner table. And the Jesuits...oh dear...if you're not kowtowing to the Jesuits, you're nothing but a bigot.

[cbayer]

9. There is certainly a long history with those on all sides of issues, but Savage

is talking about more current events.

He recognizes that there is a liberal/progressive religious group in this country that was too passive as the religious right grew.

He is encouraging them to take it back.

Christianity has not been a primarily rightwing force in my life. In fact, it has been quite the opposite, as I was raised by a radical preacher father in a radical church.

This isn't about scoring points. Thats what the religious right did. We are talking about promoting and supporting religious groups, leaders and individuals who work for social justice and civil rights.

To lump everyone together is exactly what Savage is asking not be done. He is asking that the religious left be more active and vocal.

[dimbear]

11. I understand that you are one of the liberal minority, and respect that. It's just

that there's no use pretending that things used to be much different. What liberals need to do is get control over religion for the very first time, if they can. Considering the nature of Christian textual doctrine, I think their odds are long. No reason not to try.

[cbayer]

23. Well, I think it might be easier if the anti-theists, like yourself, eased up a bit.

[longship]

27. Liberal minority? I don't know about that.

If the liberal religious even are the minority, it cannot be by much. I would certainly not call Catholics as necessarily right wingers, nor Jews, nor United Church of Christ, nor many Methodists, nor Quakers, nor Universalists, etc. There are many religious sects in this country who would stake a claim on liberal religion.

The claim by Savage is well taken. There are many who are not stepping up to the plate. We need more Rev. Barry Lynns in this country (director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State).

I am with Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett here. By not being loud and proud, the liberals give comfort to the few loud, reactionary theocratics in our midst, who the media inevitably trot out on all sorts of issues.

And who do the media trot out to oppose them? Of course, it's the atheists. The media loves the chair-throwing arguments. We rarely see the Barry Lynns, and only occasionally the actual Barry Lynn. They would rather see Hitchens, Dawkins, or somebody like them who make for more compelling drama.

I agree. The liberal theists are not doing their part. Or, at best are prevented from doing their part by cultural biases.

If this could be changed, one might find out that the liberals and their followers might outnumber the far more outspoken kooks.

[skepticscott]

6. You mean like in Salem?

And in the Deep South during the centuries of slavery?

Aren't you and your father tired of lying about how nothing good could ever have happened without religion?

[pinto]

12. You might ask Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, the Dali Lama, Bishop Tutu among others.

[skepticscott]

13. Oh? Ask them what?

Specifically.

[pinto]

15. What role, if any, did a religious background play in your social activism?

Simple open ended query. (All have a well known religious framework in their lives.) Leaves room for none as an answer.

If none, a follow up query. What in your background played a role in your social activism. And how so? Again, open ended and an opportunity to clarify the record.

If yes, my religious background played a part, another follow-up. Would your social activism have been the same without it. And how so?

[skepticscott]

16. And then ask them

"If you weren't religious, would you still have fought just as hard for these causes, or were you just doing it because you thought your god or your sacred text required it of you?"

"Were many of the people you were fighting against just as religious as you, and just as motivated by their religious background as you?"

"Did you consider the commitment and motivation of non-religious people fighting on the same side as you to be inferior to yours?"

When you've gotten honest answers to those, see if you still have a point worth making.

[pinto]

21. Those questions seem to presuppose a point-of-view. They are almost accusations, not questions.

Stated more neutrally & open ended, I think they'd be good questions to ask.

The honesty issue is subjective, as well. How would one determine that an answer is honest? What's the criteria? My point-of-view? Yours?

I fall back on trusting someone to state their opinion as they see it. Not my call to judge whether it's honest or not. Yet I feel it's always cool to ask for clarification or more info.

And, I think everyone has a point worth making.

[skepticscott]

24. In other words

you know the likely answers to those questions, but are too intellectually cowardly to confront and discuss them, because they undermine your preconceived and unalterable point of view, so you resort to lame deflections.

Nice try, though. Transparent, but the best you could probably do.

[pinto]

28. I don't know the answers. Yet I know this- I've never bullied those who have different views than I.

Some civil give and take is the best I can do. I appreciate that. Yet, I'm not comfortable with any more discussion with you.

[pinto]

8. Especially in the American experience (that's my frame of reference). What would you suggest

for a more active role among liberal/progressive religious communities? Simple immediate steps, longer term ideas. Just whatever comes to mind in this context.

I ask because I'm pretty sure that I'll be joining a local Episcopalian church I walk be every day. And, as an aside, leaving the Catholic church I was raised in.

They are a "welcoming church", in that they actively encourage LGBT inclusion. I have friends who are members. While I don't feel any strong need to have a religious label, per se, I do feel a need to be a part of some spiritual community. And one that recognizes that on my own terms to an extent.

Plus, in a broader social context, they are out front with other faith based groups on issues that transcend solely religious structures, i.e. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, etc.

[cbayer]

10. I think the more that support and join forces with progressive religious movements, the more

likely they are to take it back.

Glad that you may be able to join a church that is affirming. You are an activist, pinto. I suspect they will not only welcome you with open arms and give you what you need, but welcome the opportunity to have you help them further the causes they champion.

[trotsky]

17. You are correct in a way.

It was "seen" as a force for good. Christians thought they were doing those heathen natives good by slaughtering them and converting those they could to Christianity.

It was not hijacked, it's been a tool of the powerful used to oppress others for a very long time.

Ignoring this historical truth is not helping.

[Fumesucker]

14. There's people been saying this for years and years right here on DU

Indeed, I've said something very similar myself, liberal Christians don't stand up against the fundies, it happens constantly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=641509&mesg_id=641510

For the most part the only people who really stand up against the Krazy Kristians are the non-theists of whatever stripe, liberal theists have no desire at all to get into a theological food fight with the Krazy fundies.

[skepticscott]

18. You'd think they'd have a little more courage

since the fundies can no longer get away with roasting people who dissent over a slow fire.

[cbayer]

20. I don't think that is true. I think the major problems are

that the press has no interest in covering liberal/progressive christian groups and

these groups get shot down by their own side every time they speak, as can be seen on this site and in this group frequently.

[Fumesucker]

29. Where are the liberal Christians who are suing to get religious displays removed from govt property?

It seems to me that it's almost always atheists or other non theists that are left the thankless task of trying to get religion out of government.

Liberal Christians say they believe in the separation of church and state but their actions don't really show it for the most part.

Liberal Christians don't get any press because they don't make any waves, the media loves them some conflict, that would get their attention.

[cbayer]

30. Honestly, they don't seem to care much about the religious displays.

Just not a priority.

But there are many groups that are working for GLBT civil rights and other social justice causes. And there are many who hold strong positions about secularism and denounce imposition of religion into state matters.

[Fumesucker]

31. Well that's a surprise

That the separation of church and state isn't a priority to liberal Christians I mean.

GLBT civil rights is a secular matter rather than religious one per se, by no means is all the prejudice against GLBT driven by religion.

As I said, when it comes to keeping religion out of government it's up to the non-theists.

[cbayer]

32. Separation is important to many liberal christians, just not as

important as it is to some other groups. Particularly not some of what seems relatively harmless. OTOH, when religion is used to oppress others, progressive theists are right there at the front.

Religion can be used to either fight for GLBT civil rights or make a case against it. Many christians feel civil rights and social justice are deeply ingrained christian values.

[Fumesucker]

33. Hmm.. When atheists dare to so much as put up a billboard on private property they get attacked

Meanwhile Christian iconography is all over government property and liberal Christians are good with it.

So many things are a matter of perspective, no?

God Bless America.

[cbayer]

34. This is not a game to see who is more oppressed.

There is certainly christian privilege and atheists are clearly battling negative perceptions.

That doesn't negate or take away from the good people that are doing good things.

To make blanket statements about what liberal christians are good with or not good with doesn't really help much, in terms of what Savage is asking for here.

Unless the goal is just to score points.

[Fumesucker]

35. Savage's own words, speaking to liberal Christians

"And they've hijacked Christianity, with your complicit silence enabling their hijacking of it."

Part of that silence in the face of the hijacking is silence in the face of conservative Christians putting Christian iconography on every piece of government property they can.

The fundies attack with a multi-pronged strategy, you have to fight them everywhere because they're like the damn Terminator, they don't feel remorse and they never stop coming at you. When you give up one field of battle without even contesting it then they are that much closer to victory.

Please don't leave the small minority of non-theists alone to fight the fundie monster, you liberal Christians are far more numerous and have far more power.

[cbayer]

38. If anything, I am completely about alliances and coalition building.

There are many religiously based organizations that ally with secular organizations for common goals.

I agree with Savage to some extent. I think progressive religious organizations were too quiet, but not complicit.

They are pushing back, but there is a dearth of media coverage. And then there is the enormous problem of non-religious groups on the left not only rejecting them, but actively attacking them.

That needs to stop. And just as Savage is saying that it is up to the liberal churches to fight back against the religious right, I will maintain that it is up to progressive secular groups to fight back against the anti-theists. They also don't seem to feel remorse and just keep coming at you.

[trotsky]

46. OK now you're just not making sense at all.

"the enormous problem of non-religious groups on the left not only rejecting them, but actively attacking them"

ENORMOUS? Really? What a few mean atheists say on the Internet is somehow blocking progressive believers from reshaping their religion?

What a pantload. It seems that you, like most liberal believers frustrated by their lack of progress in overcoming their conservative brethren, now want to attack fellow progressives. Same as when moderate Democrats wanted to blame the gays or atheists for losses in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Oh if only those uppity gays had kept their mouths shut and not attacked Democrats for doing nothing!

Your words ring hollow and hypocritical, cbayer. Nothing new there.

[jamtoday]

19. All I could think about

when reading about the claims of liberality within the churches were the Catholic nuns who are being brought to heel at the moment for what is perceived as liberal views. Nor is it only the Catholic church that is so reactionary, that is the nature of the religious beast and all the subjective 'well I'm a nice Christian' does not cover the appalling historical facts or contemporary political savagery of a barbaric institution.

[cbayer]

22. They aren't being brought to heel at all.

They are still out there. They are still shouting.

They get less support from the so-called liberal left than they do from their own catholic constituency.

Screw that. Anti-theists are the problem at this point, not christians.

[skepticscott]

25. You've been saying that for months

Saying that the Catholic Church was ignoring them "at their peril", and that they were leading some great wave of change. Hogwash. Nothing has happened as a result of their little coach tour, exactly as sensible people here predicted.

[jamtoday]

36. That's just silly,

The Vatican has taken over their affairs in order to maintain orthodoxy.

"By now, it’s hard to imagine anybody who hasn’t heard about the Vatican’s doctrinal condemnation of the main umbrella organization of Catholic sisters in the US, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), and its appointment of a conservative archbishop to control the organization’s future actions."

That's from a Catholic woman.

http://marianronan.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/bringing-the-nuns-to-heel/

Since the church's do interfere in politics for dogmatic reasons then I refute your assertion that anybody questioning their actions is the problem.

[skepticscott]

37. Don't confuse cbayer with facts

She's too fond of her fantasy of sweeping "change from within" by busloads of impossible-to-ignore-or-resist nuns. It makes it that much easier for her to rationalize her apologetics.

[cbayer]

39. My assertion that anyone who questions the church's actions is the problem?

I made no such assertion.

The nuns are still out there speaking their minds. There were strong and loud progressive religious groups behind every GLBT success in this election.

They need support, not attack.

[jamtoday]

40. Thinking about your reply

the one thing that occurred to me is that they are not initiates into the mysteries and whilst the nuns cannot perform any sacred rites then their effectiveness is null and void for Catholics. Whilst admittedly it's been a while since I looked they hardly have a high profile. In case you did not notice this week that old reprobate the Pope sent a twitter and editors and headline writers fell over themselves as always. The structure of the organization does not permit permit rebellion. Period.

As to progressive religious groups, could you understand that many find that an oxymoron?

[cbayer]

41. Agree that the catholic patriarchy is a large problem, but that's

why I continue to support those that try to change them from within. Change will be glacial, but it does (and has) occurred.

I am well aware that many see progressive religious groups a an oxymoron. Those people are often bigoted, intolerant and complicit in dividing the left. I often question their true motives.

[jamtoday]

42. I didn't

mean the term quite as severely as what you seem to have taken it (so I do hope that's a veiled cuss at my perceived bigotry *chuckling*), I stand by it though but hold the opinion of distance rather than just intelligence as the divide.

For you are still pursuing this idea that the church holds an opinion more valid than any other and that all those that view themselves as having liberal tendencies will automatically want to charge in and assist you in rescuing something you consider valuable. Trying to sell the left a Trojan Horse? You even speak of a divide where none exists, yet. Or is this the church dumping the poor old Right Wing, you do know that you'll leave them with no friends at all then. That's not very churchy is it now?

[cbayer]

43. You are again misinterpreting what I have had to say.

I do not think the church's opinion is more valid than any other. I do think it can be valid in it's own right, but I do not think it trumps.

You have no idea what I value, other than what I have told you. Your assumptions about me appear to be based solely on the evidence that I am not just like you.

There is a divide. There needs to be more of a divide between the religious right and progressive/liberal theists. And there needs to be less of a divide between the second group and progressive/liberal atheists and other "nones".

[jamtoday]

44. I don't think

I'm misinterpreting but perhaps not explaining myself too well in trying to be sensitive. What I really think is keep religion completely away from politics. What the idea of whether the church is right or left has to do with politics I really don't understand. What I'm trying to say whilst pulling your leg is that I do not care about the church. I do not believe the cynical political science and social engineering of said organization it has nothing good to teach as the obedience it professes is a dictat not an education. It claims to be a moral authority yet it is built upon the lies of a mythical figure and plagiarised, corrupt or forged books. If you have liberal politics all well and good but how the claimed liberal church goers can say they intend to lay claim to a reactionary, illiberal and oft neo-fascist belief system and somehow fashion it into something genuine people could accept is beyond me. Claim all you want for your own politics but to attach anything but a literal meaning to that tome is to change the religion. My assertion is you will not be allowed to, should you do so it is no longer the same religion.

[cbayer]

45. But what do you have to say about the significant role that

religious groups, leaders and individuals have played in some of the US's significant social movements. Civil Rights? Ending the Viet Nam War? GLBT rights?

Social justice and civili liberties are deeply ingrained in many religious doctrines.

You seem to care a great deal about the church and appear to have some very strong and rather fundamentalist views about them.

It appears that your experience with progressive churches and progressive people of faith is very limited. And you appear to have a rather literal take on the bible and other religious texts.

I suggest you hang around. You can read about all kinds of progressive people of faith and even get to know some.

Right now, what you say sounds a lot like the dogma of the religious right. It's all been said before, but, when it comes down to it, it is nothing more than your opinion.

[jamtoday]

47. Perhaps reply with

Hitler was a vegetarian and loved dogs? The Nazi regime introduced some of the severest penalties for animal cruelty?
When the Borgias were Popes and weren't humping their relatives they commissioned fine art?
When Martin Luther wasn't burning people at the stake, hating women or selling out his co-conspirator to the Inquisition he did much to bolster the Reformation?

You mention about how I come across but could I suggest a quick glance in the mirror. I obviously don't know you but on this site I saw a Republican string puller complain that the party had lost credibility with a number of sections of the public and they had to begin to appeal to those groups. Then we have your claims, the church's have been involved in.....blah blah blah. So in a group of 20,000 people protesting if there are a hundred church people there it somehow requires special mention??? Why are you incapable of doing worthy things for their own sake instead of claiming some extra merit points from the public or your tooth fairy because you happen to practice mythology, for what purpose outside of some guilt laden conscience do you feel the need to emphasise the church part, that was the piety I referred to in an earlier reply. 'Not only do we take part in worthy causes, we are the church as well', the overweening self-congratulatory bull gets wearing, others just take part as the occasion merits it yet those of a religious persuasion still play the exceptionalist card whilst attaching themselves to common causes. As I am outside the remit of your co-dependency and conformation bias could I say that in reference to you having to announce at this particular moment in history that you can be in the church and support the popular humane causes of the day sounds a tacit admission that things have not always been so and, like the Republican party officer, that the church is frightened and struggling with lowering congregations and the shifting sands of widening levels of scientific understanding.

The Atheist billboard said 'You Can Be Good Without God', take the church and God part out of your statements about pushing for what's best for humanity and not only will you understand where I am coming from but may begin to gain insight into the fact many of the problems were caused by the church in the first place.

How many existentialists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None: the lighbulb has got to want to change.

[cbayer]

48. You do know you are in the religion group, right?

This is the group that talks about religion and how it is involved in politics.

One last thing. While I know that you can be good without god, I look forward to the day when atheist organizations make social justice, civil rights and caring for those most needy among us priorities. Then, perhaps, religious organizations can truly step back from that.

It's been nice talking to you, but I think it's pretty circular at this point.

(Psst - old joke there. Usually said about psychiatrists, though, not existentialists).

See you around the campfire.

[jamtoday]

49. Agreed

But is the religious group not allowed a counter thrust from non believers.

[cbayer]

50. The group is very open to that and it happens every day.

I am going to ask you again, though, to not make assumptions about where I am coming from.

I am pro-theist and pro-atheist. I believe there is power in numbers and coalitions. I reject those who are bigoted, insensitive or wish to eliminate the other *side*.

[okasha]

53. Yeppers.

If they're anything like the Ursulines who taught me, and the girls in my class who went on to join them, these ladies are far more likely to bite Benny's ankle than "come to heel."

[kestrel91316]

51. I thought Dan Savage was one of those christofascists who has done the hijacking.

He's got a helluva lot of nerve if that's the case.

[cbayer]

52. Er, no. Dan Savage is one of the most vocal pro-GLBT activists in the country.

[okasha]

54. Perhaps you're thinking of Michael Savage?

Who pretty much is.