Posted by Helen on: 08.09.2006 /
Hemant Mehta, the eBay atheist, has a link to A New Progressive Alliance on his blog today. Their home page begins this way:
A New Progressive Alliance
A Call for Unity between Secular, Spiritual, and Religious Progressives
Realizing that our shared commitment to human rights, religious freedom, and peace and social justice, significantly outweighs our differences; we the undersigned, comprised of both secular and religious progressives, declare an alliance between progressive, rational-minded people regardless of one’s spiritual, religious, or secular perspective.
Here are a couple more excerpts from that page:
While we make no apologies for the beliefs that have helped to shape our character, we acknowledge that neither faith in God nor atheism suffices to define one’s ethical character. We maintain that the character of a human being can only be defined and evaluated on the basis of one’s actions.
We agree that fanaticism, be it religious or secular, is the true enemy of reason and of human progress.
[...]
We, the undersigned, agree that given our nation’s many ethical and societal challenges, secular, spiritual and religious progressives must set aside their differences to work together to create a better world.
I’d like to know what you think of A New Progressive Alliance.
Comment by: Scott
1I have a hard time setting aside my difference to create a better world. I totally understand what he means but my difference is that I wouldn’t work to create a better world without the help of Jesus Christ which creates the fundamental difference between me and an atheist. It is semantics, I know, but I would rather work with atheists to make the world a better place using the tools and graces that I believe are available to me and not leave those at the door just for unity sake.
Comment by: Helen
2Thanks for your comment, Scott.
I want to be sure I understand the distinction you’re making between leaving Jesus at the door when working alongside atheists, or taking him with you. I understand why the distinction matters deeply to you; can you explain what it looks like in practice? Also, what did you read on the NPA site that implied to you you’d have to leave Jesus at the door?
Comment by: Julie Marie
3I’ll have to go to Hemant’s site and check it out in full, but from what I see here I like it and I would be one of the undersigned.
Comment by: Marty
4I like very much the approach of the Progressive Alliance and have become one of the undersigned.
Comment by: Marty
5I personally have no problem with this statement as written and I signed up including this statement. However, my guess is that there are those who may not feel comfortable with this statement because of “significantly outweighs our differences” in which some believe that belief in God is the most important thing.
So I am wondering if a statment that deletes this section might gain acceptance for the rest of the statement by those are not comfortable with that statment in - and I am wondering if the removal of that statment would make the statement unacceptable to others. Here is how the statmement would read with it out.
Realizing that our shared commitment to human rights, religious freedom, and peace and social justice; we the undersigned, comprised of both secular and religious progressives, declare an alliance between progressive, rational-minded people regardless of one’s spiritual, religious, or secular perspective.
I am fine either way. I would choose whichever statement is most inclusive of people of differing beliefs.
Comment by: Helen
6I think you raise a good point Marty. It makes sense to me that some people might be uncomfortable with language that seems to minimize the importance of the differences.
Maybe such people feel they are working together not because the shared commitment outweighs the differences but rather because the good that can be achieved by working together makes the challenge of working together worth taking on in spite of differences.
Comment by: Eliza
7The phrase “rational-minded” struck me as unnecessary & potentially divisive - it just seems to set up a false dichotomy - we in this group are rational, others (or people who don’t sign on) are not rational…
Also, it reads to me like something written by (secular) humanists, with the comments about religion thrown in - probably because of what Marty and Scott brought up, that for many religious people the differences would be too important to brush aside.
Other than those phrasing difficulties…what a great idea! I’m ready to sign on.
Comment by: Rachel
8I agree, Eliza. I also thought the phrase “rational-minded” was too inflammatory. And as a person of faith, I didn’t find the statement especially appealing. I don’t view my religious faith as something which must be set aside so I can work with others to MTWABP. Being a follower of Jesus is what animates and inspires and equips me to want to MTWABP. As Scott said, that isn’t something I could set aside or leave at the door.
That being said, I still support the principle being put forth. I totally agree that atheists and people of faith can and should work together on the issues of human rights, justice, religious & political freedom, peacemaking (I would add environmental issues). And I agree that faith and science are not contradictory or incompatible. I deeply admire the activism of many people who do not share my faith beliefs. I have worked with them in the past on issues of shared concern and will continue to do so.
Comment by: Jeff Nall
9Hi folks,
As the creator of the NPA project I want to thank you all for participating in this important debate. Secondly, I’d like to ask anyone interested in doing so to email me: sabletide@yahoo.com with their express interest in being a signer.
Finally, Rachel and others, by no means do we wish you to “set aside” your religious faith to work with others. The point of including “rational-minded” is to make clear that religious people, too, are rational. In fact, the heritage of reason is one which progressive Christians contributed to greatly.
Comment by: SezMe
10I can see how the opening sentence might give some people problems. But, Marty, I’d prefer to keep the sentiment being expressed intact. Thus, a better wording might go something like:
I, too, did not find the use of the word “rational” to be particularly productive but not for the same reasons noted above. First, faith is, by definition, not rational (and, before I get trashed, I do NOT mean that in a derogatory manner). Second, nobody is entirely rational, atheists included (maybe especially!).
Rather, the point that I think should be more emphasized is that in the areas where the NPA wants to work, we all can apply ourselves to that particular effort in a rational manner, even if we come to the table from various non-rational motivations.
I’m a bit surprised that no Christian has objected to this sentence:
This is not consistent with the Bible.
Those nit picks aside, I don’t have any problem being a supporter.
Comment by: Helen
11Jeff, thanks for stopping by and clarifying that you don’t consider ‘rational people’ and ‘religious people’ to be two mutually exclusive groups.
SezMe, I’d like to repost your comment on what is inconsistent with the Bible so it can be a discussion in its own right. I’m curious to see whether other people agree with you. I’m still trying to decide whether I agree with you or not ;). I’ll probably repost it tomorrow since we have a new post up today already.
Comment by: Rachel
12Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. I appreciate the good work you are doing.
Comment by: SezMe
13Go for it, Helen. I’m looking forward to any comments that may be posted and I promise to be on my best behavior in responding. :-)
Comment by: Helen
14Ok, it’s up!
How the Bible evaluates character
Comment by: Paul
15Looks good to me, i’m all in favour of people workin together rather than against each other…
Comment by: J
16Interesting discussion.
First of all, I agree with SezMe that faith is by definition not rational. This does not mean that a person of faith in not capable of being rational, simply that part of his/her life is based on something not rational (we all behave irrationally sometimes).
I would hope that people like would not leave their faith at the door since it is that faith would drives them to make a contribution. What I would hope they leave at the door is any desire to proclaim the superiority of their faith or any desire to convert others to their faith. If we get together to discuss a social topic other than religion, I expect the conversation to be rationally focused on that topic and not include any faith-based (read “irrational”) arguments. I see no reason why we couldn’t have an in-depth discussion of the topic without ever even mentioning the speicifc of each person faith, if any. If a person is incapable of having a rational discussion without coming back to “my faith”, or “my holy book”, or “my religious leader”, then I would tend to think that person qualifies as one of the fanatics that are “the true enemy of reason and of human progress.”
J (I am a very religious/spiritual person, but I will not provide any additional details since they are irrelevant for this post.)