Gay Churches Decline / Fundamental Churches Grow
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
General_Paul
Registered Senior Member
Religious Left Seeks Center of Political Debate
Conferees Call For Stronger Voice
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A02
More than 350 political liberals of many faiths gathered in Washington yesterday to begin what some pollsters say is a quixotic task: restoring the voice of the religious left in the nation's political debate.
"Progressive religious voices, which historically have fueled so much social change in this country, seem to have been washed out of the public dialogue in recent years," said John D. Podesta, a Roman Catholic who was White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. Podesta now heads the Center for American Progress, the Democratic think tank that organized the conference to highlight the "proud past" and "promising future" of the religious left.
Speakers celebrated the role of religious liberals in the civil rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, the nuclear freeze campaign and sanctions against South Africa's former apartheid system. They called for a stronger, more clearly religious voice against the Bush administration's foreign policy and for environmental stewardship, universal health insurance, and efforts to fight poverty at home and abroad.
Yet even as the conference at times took on the enthusiasm of a pep rally, there were sobering reflections on why the religious left lost its prominence after the 1970s and how hard it may be to regain it. At the core of those concerns was a simple set of statistics, reinforced by numerous polls: People who say they are frequent churchgoers vote Republican by a ratio of about 2 to 1.
"All the surveys show that if you ask about either church attendance or attitudes -- how important is religion to you in your daily life? -- you get the same thing: the more religious, the more conservative," Gallup pollster Frank Newport said in an interview. "I certainly remember the days when being religious meant fighting for civil rights and social justice, and it's not that those people aren't still out there. But religious liberals are a small minority today."
Some liberals dispute that conclusion.
"Church attendance is not the only indicator of living out your faith," said the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the Clergy Leadership Network, a group devoted to "leadership change" in Washington. "The vast majority of people of faith in this country are center to left, politically. But if you only measure religious commitment by butts in the pews, that's what you get."
Conference attendees also blamed the media, saying news reports tend to play up the simple dichotomy between the secular left and the religious right rather than citing the full range of religious views.
"It really bothers me that whenever the media and others talk about people of faith, they talk only about the religious right and don't seem to realize there are people like me, who grew up Baptist and believe in God and have strong religious values, but who want different policy outcomes," said Melody Barnes, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former chief counsel to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).
But some of the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims at the conference also said they have felt excluded or even disdained by the secular left. The Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., senior minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, told the audience in his keynote address that "we have got to find a way not to be embarrassed" to speak about religion with secular progressives.
And there was no lack of hand-wringing among the conferees about what the religious left has done wrong.
"Part of it is our fault. We should take back the Bible, take back the theological principles and not just cede them to the religious right," said the Rev. Susan B. Thistlethwaite, a minister in the United Church of Christ and president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. "It's not good enough to talk in vague terms about values. We can do better than that. We can make the theological arguments."
Historian Taylor Branch said that in the 1970s, the abortion issue split the progressive religious alliance that had formed in the civil rights movement. Since then, the left has done no better than the right in "moving beyond polemics," he said.
"Not many people who call themselves pro-choice actually want to celebrate abortion, and not many of those who call themselves pro-life want to put women in jail for having abortions," he said. "It's more of a show than a debate, with polarizing options that aren't real. Both sides profess that they love children, but you don't really have the two sides doing very much to cooperate to reduce the number of neglected and abandoned and unwanted children, or to care for them."
The Rev. Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian Church (USA) minister who publishes the interfaith quarterly CrossCurrents, said that from the 1950s through the 1970s, the mainline Protestant denominations took for granted that their values would infuse television and the public schools. Evangelicals, who felt shut out of establishment institutions, created their own schools and broadcast outlets. "Then you wake up one day in 1984 and the Christian right is dominant, and you wonder why," he said.
Conferees Call For Stronger Voice
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A02
More than 350 political liberals of many faiths gathered in Washington yesterday to begin what some pollsters say is a quixotic task: restoring the voice of the religious left in the nation's political debate.
"Progressive religious voices, which historically have fueled so much social change in this country, seem to have been washed out of the public dialogue in recent years," said John D. Podesta, a Roman Catholic who was White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. Podesta now heads the Center for American Progress, the Democratic think tank that organized the conference to highlight the "proud past" and "promising future" of the religious left.
Speakers celebrated the role of religious liberals in the civil rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, the nuclear freeze campaign and sanctions against South Africa's former apartheid system. They called for a stronger, more clearly religious voice against the Bush administration's foreign policy and for environmental stewardship, universal health insurance, and efforts to fight poverty at home and abroad.
Yet even as the conference at times took on the enthusiasm of a pep rally, there were sobering reflections on why the religious left lost its prominence after the 1970s and how hard it may be to regain it. At the core of those concerns was a simple set of statistics, reinforced by numerous polls: People who say they are frequent churchgoers vote Republican by a ratio of about 2 to 1.
"All the surveys show that if you ask about either church attendance or attitudes -- how important is religion to you in your daily life? -- you get the same thing: the more religious, the more conservative," Gallup pollster Frank Newport said in an interview. "I certainly remember the days when being religious meant fighting for civil rights and social justice, and it's not that those people aren't still out there. But religious liberals are a small minority today."
Some liberals dispute that conclusion.
"Church attendance is not the only indicator of living out your faith," said the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the Clergy Leadership Network, a group devoted to "leadership change" in Washington. "The vast majority of people of faith in this country are center to left, politically. But if you only measure religious commitment by butts in the pews, that's what you get."
Conference attendees also blamed the media, saying news reports tend to play up the simple dichotomy between the secular left and the religious right rather than citing the full range of religious views.
"It really bothers me that whenever the media and others talk about people of faith, they talk only about the religious right and don't seem to realize there are people like me, who grew up Baptist and believe in God and have strong religious values, but who want different policy outcomes," said Melody Barnes, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former chief counsel to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).
But some of the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims at the conference also said they have felt excluded or even disdained by the secular left. The Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., senior minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, told the audience in his keynote address that "we have got to find a way not to be embarrassed" to speak about religion with secular progressives.
And there was no lack of hand-wringing among the conferees about what the religious left has done wrong.
"Part of it is our fault. We should take back the Bible, take back the theological principles and not just cede them to the religious right," said the Rev. Susan B. Thistlethwaite, a minister in the United Church of Christ and president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. "It's not good enough to talk in vague terms about values. We can do better than that. We can make the theological arguments."
Historian Taylor Branch said that in the 1970s, the abortion issue split the progressive religious alliance that had formed in the civil rights movement. Since then, the left has done no better than the right in "moving beyond polemics," he said.
"Not many people who call themselves pro-choice actually want to celebrate abortion, and not many of those who call themselves pro-life want to put women in jail for having abortions," he said. "It's more of a show than a debate, with polarizing options that aren't real. Both sides profess that they love children, but you don't really have the two sides doing very much to cooperate to reduce the number of neglected and abandoned and unwanted children, or to care for them."
The Rev. Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian Church (USA) minister who publishes the interfaith quarterly CrossCurrents, said that from the 1950s through the 1970s, the mainline Protestant denominations took for granted that their values would infuse television and the public schools. Evangelicals, who felt shut out of establishment institutions, created their own schools and broadcast outlets. "Then you wake up one day in 1984 and the Christian right is dominant, and you wonder why," he said.
General_Paul
Registered Senior Member
The way you speak Woody, you really shouldn't even bother to call yourself a "Christian" more like a hate spreading theocratic pseudo-Nazi. Jesus never once preached intolerance or hatred, he never preached one word about Homosexuality, Gay Marriage, or Abortion. He preached loving thy fellow man, caring for the poor, and incorporation of all peoples. Not, "Hey, God hates fags, you should repent before you rot in hell." I don't think you and I are reading the same book, or perhaps you're too dumb to open the book and read the words and drawing your own interpretations of what Jesus Christ wrote, instead of letting your uber conservative minister interpret them for you.
Woody said:
Woody, why are you telling us that in your opinion gay churches die? What is your point exactly? Is it to prove that God hates gay people so he makes their churches die, as you put it?
He must love atheists, since the number of atheists is always growing!
on your gay crusade still woody, come out of the closet.
"The woody doth protest too much, methinks."
William Shakespeare
"The woody doth protest too much, methinks."
William Shakespeare
yes,"the preacher said:
Methinks thou doth protest too much!"
woody walker sure has homosexuals on his mind! He seems to think of little else. In fact, I don't know anyone who thinks about homosexuals as much as woody does, including homosexuals, On every thread. woody talks about, and I quote:
* radical homosexuals
* homosexual terrorists
* militant homosexuals
* homosexual sodomy
* homosexual vicars
* want(ing) to get shot of them
It seems to Mr. woody might just be longing to give a gay, much, much more. Well, let me put it in limerick form. Everything is best as a limerick, wouldn't you agree?
There once was a man named w walker
his woody he did nicknamed the stalker
The more he saw bob
The more it did throb
so to bobs ass, he became a corker.
He also likes little butts in extra tight shorts
Wison said:
For a couple of reasons:
1) Several of the atheists on this forum believe education is reducing christian membership in the US and the world. As an insider, I disagree. Liberal churches are dieing on moral issues, not because of "science".
2) The reason liberal churches die: they are no different than the rest of the world. Their message is irrelevant, so why not just drink a few brews on a saturday night and sleep in on a sunday morning? Why bother going to a church that tells you that you are ok just like you are -- well ok then just do what you want to, and forget about church -- you don't need to do anything -- what's the point?
God does not hate any sinner, but he does hate their sin. He loved sinners enough and hated sin enough to die on a cross.
Yes, he loves all human beings, but you'll probably never understand it.
For a couple of reasons:
1) Several of the atheists on this forum believe education is reducing christian membership in the US and the world. As an insider, I disagree. Liberal churches are dieing on moral issues, not because of "science".
2) The reason liberal churches die: they are no different than the rest of the world. Their message is irrelevant, so why not just drink a few brews on a saturday night and sleep in on a sunday morning? Why bother going to a church that tells you that you are ok just like you are -- well ok then just do what you want to, and forget about church -- you don't need to do anything -- what's the point?
God does not hate any sinner, but he does hate their sin. He loved sinners enough and hated sin enough to die on a cross.
Yes, he loves all human beings, but you'll probably never understand it.
Right, they should tell you what a wretch you are, so they can break you down, and then build you up again when you fully embrace their ideology and culture. Sounds like the standard brainwashing technique.
mustafhakofi said:
*************
M*W: Methinks it too! BTW, great poem!
Woody said:
*************
M*W: No, Woody, it is you who doesn't "understand it."
Becoming "educated" as in "learning the sciences" is what detracts from fantastical belief in the supernatural which lessens the ranks of the religious. The supernatural is a trickle down phenomenon from the Dark Ages.
Your hypothesis that "liberal churches die," because they are no different than the rest of the world, is silly. If that were the case, liberal churches would increase in membership, because they would be the status quo.
But, they are not the status quo. Churches of all kinds are defying the status quo. That is what causes their demise. The status quo is now science minded. So, education definitely plays a major role in the dislocation of the foolish minded.
Your description of god hating the sin but not the sinner is also foolish. You cannot even prove a god exists much less his emotional make-up. I'll never understand why you and people like Jenyar believe your invisible, supernatural god has human emotions like "love" and "hate." All the more reason this figment does not exist!
You say the numbers are falling because of moral issues. Are you saying that those who no longer attend churches are less than moral because they quit? Your hypothesis just doesn't make any sense. People don't become immoral when they quit going to church. Morals are something one has lifelong. When people quit going to church, it's about an increase in education and not a lack of morals.
More specifically, people are becoming more educated about the impossibility of supernatural beings. There's a lot of research being published discounting old religious creeds. Take christianity, for instance, what you see is NOT what you get! It's a copycat religion, in fact, it wasn't created as a religion, but stupid people turned it into one. No Jesus existed much less saved anyone and, therefore, membership has declined. Sure in some third-world countries in Africa, christianity may be proliferating, but it's not saving anyone. And in Brasil it appears to be growing, but let's face it, so is proverty. These destitute countries have nothing else to help them out of their dereliction except a phantom belief of hope when no hope is really there. Those numbers will die out soon as well.
Why boast about growth of a fundamental church (if there is such growth)? This is only proof of how idiotic people can be in endorsing fantasy passed down from parents and teachers. People like Woody and Lawdog are sorry examples of this. As for the moderates: Don't hide... At least Woody and Lawdog are honest and straight forward in their endorsement of this hideous faith. Twist it as you may, you can not disguise your irrationality. You belond in the same cesspool as them.
Woody:
Liberal churches are hardly dying. In fact, the world churches with the largest memberships are gradually becoming more liberal. For example, see recent changes in the Anglican church in the UK and Episcopalean church in the US.
You know, you're partly right. I think some churches have made the mistake of trying to be all things to all people. In the process, they have diluted their core values and messages to the point where some people say "what's the point"?
I think, if you're going to get serious about religion, you might as well have all the trappings, and the strict moral requirements, and so on.
On the other hand, the fastest growing churches in the US, as I said before, are the "born again" evangelical churches. And what characterises them? The freedom from obligations. They teach that Jesus loves you just as you are - even if you're a sinner. You don't have to actually do anything - although giving your money to the people who run the church is always encouraged.
Evangelical churches have replaced religion with show business - and the strategy is pulling the crowds.
Out of interest, Woody, what is your denomination?
Liberal churches are hardly dying. In fact, the world churches with the largest memberships are gradually becoming more liberal. For example, see recent changes in the Anglican church in the UK and Episcopalean church in the US.
You know, you're partly right. I think some churches have made the mistake of trying to be all things to all people. In the process, they have diluted their core values and messages to the point where some people say "what's the point"?
I think, if you're going to get serious about religion, you might as well have all the trappings, and the strict moral requirements, and so on.
On the other hand, the fastest growing churches in the US, as I said before, are the "born again" evangelical churches. And what characterises them? The freedom from obligations. They teach that Jesus loves you just as you are - even if you're a sinner. You don't have to actually do anything - although giving your money to the people who run the church is always encouraged.
Evangelical churches have replaced religion with show business - and the strategy is pulling the crowds.
Out of interest, Woody, what is your denomination?
Such acts are against the natural law. Church law is meant to be more difficult even than natural law, (ie. mercy, not merely justice).
Here is the Church's position:
Homosexual acts are unjust because:
1) it harms the individual himself, who uses his "tools" in a wrong way and puts himself in danger of serious maladies.
2) it mocks the kingdom of love: genital intimacy is mocked when it is not between a man and a woman.
3) it does injustice to the spouse of the opposite sex that God had destined for the person.
4) it does injustice to God's providence by entering into a fruitless union.
5) it does grave injustice to children who need parents of both genders
5) it can do injustice to society by causing scandal and giving bad example
6) it puts society in danger because it calls down the wrath of God.
Therefore the law of mercy begs all those who suffer from this condition to refrain from any further activity, on behalf of society and for their own welfare.
Here is the Church's position:
Homosexual acts are unjust because:
1) it harms the individual himself, who uses his "tools" in a wrong way and puts himself in danger of serious maladies.
2) it mocks the kingdom of love: genital intimacy is mocked when it is not between a man and a woman.
3) it does injustice to the spouse of the opposite sex that God had destined for the person.
4) it does injustice to God's providence by entering into a fruitless union.
5) it does grave injustice to children who need parents of both genders
5) it can do injustice to society by causing scandal and giving bad example
6) it puts society in danger because it calls down the wrath of God.
Therefore the law of mercy begs all those who suffer from this condition to refrain from any further activity, on behalf of society and for their own welfare.
Seriously Woody, build a bridge and get over it. It's getting tiresome.
Let's get it straight. If you believe jesus is god, then the fact is he didn't die on the cross, or anywhere else, because apparently god cannot die. No sacrifice, no death, just a tired old magic trick to fool the halfwitted.
Let's get it straight. If you believe jesus is god, then the fact is he didn't die on the cross, or anywhere else, because apparently god cannot die. No sacrifice, no death, just a tired old magic trick to fool the halfwitted.
Lawdog:
What's the "True Church"? I haven't heard of that one.
Are you talking about sexually transmitted diseases? Heterosexual people can get those, too, if they have unprotected sex.
And what's "the wrong way" to use one's "tools"?
Are you claiming that homosexual people cannot love one another? How did you reach that conclusion?
Many people never marry. What did God do with their destined spouses?
Many male-female couples never have children. Are their unions worthless, too?
But all children have parents of both genders. Or are you talking about role models or guardians, perhaps? What's wrong with two same-sex guardians?
A bad example of what?
Does it? God said not to eat shellfish either. I hope you don't eat Lobster, Lawdog. Or wear clothes which are of mixed cloth, such as cotton/polyester blends. God said that is an abomination.
Maybe you should remind people not to mix their clothing fibres, too. That would be equally important, wouldn't it?
What's the "True Church"? I haven't heard of that one.
Are you talking about sexually transmitted diseases? Heterosexual people can get those, too, if they have unprotected sex.
And what's "the wrong way" to use one's "tools"?
Are you claiming that homosexual people cannot love one another? How did you reach that conclusion?
Many people never marry. What did God do with their destined spouses?
Many male-female couples never have children. Are their unions worthless, too?
But all children have parents of both genders. Or are you talking about role models or guardians, perhaps? What's wrong with two same-sex guardians?
A bad example of what?
Does it? God said not to eat shellfish either. I hope you don't eat Lobster, Lawdog. Or wear clothes which are of mixed cloth, such as cotton/polyester blends. God said that is an abomination.
Maybe you should remind people not to mix their clothing fibres, too. That would be equally important, wouldn't it?
mustafhakofi said:
I guess he feels that they constitute the bigger threat to decency and/or morality of than any other force in the world. This seems to be the thinking of alot of fundamentalists these days.
Homosexuality is just plain evil, no matter the person or situation. I don't quite understand the logic of it, but I do know one thing: Woody has the typical pissy attitude. Pissy pissy pissy.