Do left-wingers have a problem with how they talk about religion?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While the premise of the original post is absurd (the left in the United States and in most countries is not nearly as anti-religious as the CHP), I think the way this thread has devolved in the last dozen posts or so is itself proof that American liberals at least do have a problem with how they talk about religion.

Part of me really dreads what the state of American religion will be in 20 years. If enough "True Unbelievers" start taking the reins of power as all the olds retire/die, then an anti-religious sentiment could easily start affecting the party. For the last several decades, the Democratic nominee has been chosen by old black voters who are more religious on the whole, but things can and do change and the overturning of Roe could definitely cause anti-religious backlash.

This is never going to happen for the same reason the Twitter anime avatar crew will never hold any real power or influence, they have no organization and never do much besides sh!tpost online.

[Beet]

The left ceding Christianity to the right has probably been their biggest mistake in the past 50 years. Like, this isn't the 1780s estates-general anymore.

[sting in the rafters]

As if the clergy of most-Abrahamic religions (inb4 clippyChristianity.jpg) don't have a problem with the way they talk ab non-believers. Mfs call us the devil 24/7 and drop mad bread from the collection baskets on stupid-a$$ sh**t like keeping weed illegal or denying mothers healthcare, I got no problem going an eye for an eye.

Edit:

The left ceding Christianity to the right has probably been their biggest mistake in the past 50 years. Like, this isn't the 1780s estates-general anymore.

Did the left "cede" Christianity, or did American conservatives/reactionaries substitute Dominionism for white supremacy as their chosen cultural wedge in class consciousness?

[Ferguson97]

In your post. What should Democrats use as a messaging strategy if denigrating religion is not on the table?

They probably shouldn't address "religion" as a broad concept at all. It's a third rail.

The question in the original prompt wasn't "how should Democrats change their messaging strategy regarding religion" it just asked if the left wing has a problem with how they talk about it. Religion should be criticized more by the left in an ideal world, but that's not advisable given how religious America is.

You chose to add "and Democrats should adopt this strategy" to my sentence, when that's not what I said, and that wasn't the question that was asked.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In your post. What should Democrats use as a messaging strategy if denigrating religion is not on the table?

They probably shouldn't address "religion" as a broad concept at all. It's a third rail.

The question in the original prompt wasn't "how should Democrats change their messaging strategy regarding religion" it just asked if the left wing has a problem with how they talk about it. Religion should be criticized more by the left in an ideal world, but that's not advisable given how religious America is.

You chose to add "and Democrats should adopt this strategy" to my sentence, when that's not what I said, and that wasn't the question that was asked.

If left wing activists were to just start spouting openly anti-religion stuff, do you think the Democrats wouldn't get blamed? Not talking about tankies or people who already hate the Democrats too but more mainstream ones. Democratic politicians would be put in a tough bind between having to condemn them or be associated with them.

Also what do you think would be the result if people did something like burn Bibles at a pro-LGBT rights rally? Would that help the cause? Part of what led to greater LGBT acceptance was mainstreaming the message that you could supportive of LGBT people and Christian, this was a pretty big part of the message here in 2012 when we voted down our anti-gay marriage amendment. Just taking a "vote no on Q1 to trigger the Christians lol" message would not be very effective to put it mildly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The left ceding Christianity to the right has probably been their biggest mistake in the past 50 years. Like, this isn't the 1780s estates-general anymore.

Did the left "cede" Christianity, or did American conservatives/reactionaries substitute Dominionism for white supremacy as their chosen cultural wedge in class consciousness?

Both. Obviously the latter was much worse since it was actively malevolent rather than merely stupid and self-righteous.

In your post. What should Democrats use as a messaging strategy if denigrating religion is not on the table?

They probably shouldn't address "religion" as a broad concept at all. It's a third rail.

Because it doesn't exist in any sense more rigorous than a Wittgensteinian family resemblance.

[sting in the rafters]

The left ceding Christianity to the right has probably been their biggest mistake in the past 50 years. Like, this isn't the 1780s estates-general anymore.

Did the left "cede" Christianity, or did American conservatives/reactionaries substitute Dominionism for white supremacy as their chosen cultural wedge in class consciousness?

Both. Obviously the latter was much worse since it was actively malevolent rather than merely stupid and self-righteous.

Forgive my indifference towards the Four New Atheist Horsemen and the plethora of smug youtube ranting community clones which populated my adolescence in light of your sitting Senator who among others repeatedly cite scripture to defend illegal Israeli settlements in search of fundamentalist campaign money.

[Ferguson97]

If left wing activists were to just start spouting openly anti-religion stuff, do you think the Democrats wouldn't get blamed? Not talking about tankies or people who already hate the Democrats too but more mainstream ones. Democratic politicians would be put in a tough bind between having to condemn them or be associated with them.

Also what do you think would be the result if people did something like burn Bibles at a pro-LGBT rights rally? Would that help the cause? Part of what led to greater LGBT acceptance was mainstreaming the message that you could supportive of LGBT people and Christian, this was a pretty big part of the message here in 2012 when we voted down our anti-gay marriage amendment. Just taking a "vote no on Q1 to trigger the Christians lol" message would not be very effective to put it mildly.

How many times do I have to say that I don't think it's a good idea for Democrats or any left-leaning activists to start doing this for you to get it through your head? I answered the question in an idealistic context. Ideally, religion would be criticized more by the left. But because people like you would throw a tantrum, they shouldn't do it.

[TheReckoning]

While the premise of the original post is absurd (the left in the United States and in most countries is not nearly as anti-religious as the CHP), I think the way this thread has devolved in the last dozen posts or so is itself proof that American liberals at least do have a problem with how they talk about religion.

How is the CHP an “absurd example” of a left wing party losing what should have been an easy election because of their anti-religion stance?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The left ceding Christianity to the right has probably been their biggest mistake in the past 50 years. Like, this isn't the 1780s estates-general anymore.

Did the left "cede" Christianity, or did American conservatives/reactionaries substitute Dominionism for white supremacy as their chosen cultural wedge in class consciousness?

Both. Obviously the latter was much worse since it was actively malevolent rather than merely stupid and self-righteous.

Forgive my indifference towards the Four New Atheist Horsemen and the plethora of smug youtube ranting community clones which populated my adolescence in light of your sitting Senator who among others repeatedly cite scripture to defend illegal Israeli settlements in search of fundamentalist campaign money.

Implying that Chuck Schumer (who, yes, is way too pro-Israel even for my liking) is part of a Dominionist political project is in breathtakingly bad taste.

[Samof94]

The left ceding Christianity to the right has probably been their biggest mistake in the past 50 years. Like, this isn't the 1780s estates-general anymore.

Did the left "cede" Christianity, or did American conservatives/reactionaries substitute Dominionism for white supremacy as their chosen cultural wedge in class consciousness?

Both. Obviously the latter was much worse since it was actively malevolent rather than merely stupid and self-righteous.

Forgive my indifference towards the Four New Atheist Horsemen and the plethora of smug youtube ranting community clones which populated my adolescence in light of your sitting Senator who among others repeatedly cite scripture to defend illegal Israeli settlements in search of fundamentalist campaign money.

Implying that Chuck Schumer (who, yes, is way too pro-Israel even for my liking) is part of a Dominionist political project is in breathtakingly bad taste.

A Jew is not someone who would support Christian Dominionism.

[Battista Minola 1616]

While the premise of the original post is absurd (the left in the United States and in most countries is not nearly as anti-religious as the CHP), I think the way this thread has devolved in the last dozen posts or so is itself proof that American liberals at least do have a problem with how they talk about religion.

How is the CHP an “absurd example” of a left wing party losing what should have been an easy election because of their anti-religion stance?

That's not what I said. I meant that the anti-religion stance of Kemalism is more extreme and much different (and almost self-evidently so) from whatever problematic attitudes on this you will find in the left of most other countries, chiefly the USA.

[sting in the rafters]

Implying that Chuck Schumer (who, yes, is way too pro-Israel even for my liking) is part of a Dominionist political project is in breathtakingly bad taste.

A Jew is not someone who would support Christian Dominionism.

I’m not the first to make the comparison despite the virulent anti-semitism inherent to Christian nationalism. This is not to suggest secular stalwarts are immune to ethno-nationalist appeals coded in religious language: who could forget Sargon of Akkad and other Bannonites supporting Brexit thanks to Islamophobia (among other unsavory reasons)? My point stands however that Atlasian hand-wringing over atheists’ insufferableness (a constituency which is mind you, greatly overrepresented in academia and conversely underrepresented in our legislatures by a similar magnitude) pales in comparison to the reality of nearly half this great country still believing the Bible should influence our laws.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The left ceding Christianity to the right has probably been their biggest mistake in the past 50 years. Like, this isn't the 1780s estates-general anymore.

Did the left "cede" Christianity, or did American conservatives/reactionaries substitute Dominionism for white supremacy as their chosen cultural wedge in class consciousness?

Both. Obviously the latter was much worse since it was actively malevolent rather than merely stupid and self-righteous.

Forgive my indifference towards the Four New Atheist Horsemen and the plethora of smug youtube ranting community clones which populated my adolescence in light of your sitting Senator who among others repeatedly cite scripture to defend illegal Israeli settlements in search of fundamentalist campaign money.

Implying that Chuck Schumer (who, yes, is way too pro-Israel even for my liking) is part of a Dominionist political project is in breathtakingly bad taste.

Also that fundamentalists are actually donating to Schumer...LMAO!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The left ceding Christianity to the right has probably been their biggest mistake in the past 50 years. Like, this isn't the 1780s estates-general anymore.

Did the left "cede" Christianity, or did American conservatives/reactionaries substitute Dominionism for white supremacy as their chosen cultural wedge in class consciousness?

Both. Obviously the latter was much worse since it was actively malevolent rather than merely stupid and self-righteous.

Forgive my indifference towards the Four New Atheist Horsemen and the plethora of smug youtube ranting community clones which populated my adolescence in light of your sitting Senator who among others repeatedly cite scripture to defend illegal Israeli settlements in search of fundamentalist campaign money.

Implying that Chuck Schumer (who, yes, is way too pro-Israel even for my liking) is part of a Dominionist political project is in breathtakingly bad taste.

Also that fundamentalists are actually donating to Schumer...LMAO!

I mean, indirectly through donations to AIPAC or something, it's unfortunately possible, which is why that isn't the aspect of the post I said was in bad taste.

Implying that Chuck Schumer (who, yes, is way too pro-Israel even for my liking) is part of a Dominionist political project is in breathtakingly bad taste.

A Jew is not someone who would support Christian Dominionism.

I’m not the first to make the comparison despite the virulent anti-semitism inherent to Christian nationalism. This is not to suggest secular stalwarts are immune to ethno-nationalist appeals coded in religious language: who could forget Sargon of Akkad and other Bannonites supporting Brexit thanks to Islamophobia (among other unsavory reasons)? My point stands however that Atlasian hand-wringing over atheists’ insufferableness (a constituency which is mind you, greatly overrepresented in academia and conversely underrepresented in our legislatures by a similar magnitude) pales in comparison to the reality of nearly half this great country still believing the Bible should influence our laws.

With respect, I'm still not sure why I'm the target you're going for here, since I already said that I agreed with you that the continued influence of quasitheocratic ideas on the right is a much bigger problem than the center-left not responding to it ideally.

[sting in the rafters]

With respect, I'm still not sure why I'm the target you're going for here, since I already said that I agreed with you that the continued influence of quasitheocratic ideas on the right is a much bigger problem than the center-left not responding to it ideally.

Fair enough, you quoted me first but I apologize for any personal hostility.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

With respect, I'm still not sure why I'm the target you're going for here, since I already said that I agreed with you that the continued influence of quasitheocratic ideas on the right is a much bigger problem than the center-left not responding to it ideally.

Fair enough, you quoted me first but I apologize for any personal hostility.

I quoted you because I was responding to what you said, but I didn't really understand myself to be criticizing it per se (more agreeing-with-but-nuancing), so I was sort of surprised when you got more combative. We're good on my end, though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't believe that it's tractable, but the left has this weird disjunction between some who assume religion is dumb and should die out and others who insist that the proper understanding of religion is a left-wing one. This is far from the only example of "split personalities" within political movements, but the lack of a unified message makes it hard for the left to coherently engage with religion as a concept.

[PSOL]

     I don't believe that it's tractable, but the left has this weird disjunction between some who assume religion is dumb and should die out and others who insist that the proper understanding of religion is a left-wing one. This is far from the only example of "split personalities" within political movements, but the lack of a unified message makes it hard for the left to coherently engage with religion as a concept.

This is only due to most religious lessons in the Bible being of a certain focus to conditions that still are present in current times, most famously within Christianity in particular, and the popularized belief of the purported anti-slavery message of Moses ditching Egypt.

Early Christianity resembled a party with a purpose. Traditions like Methodism and Quakerism are the torchbearers of this.

[Samof94]

While the premise of the original post is absurd (the left in the United States and in most countries is not nearly as anti-religious as the CHP), I think the way this thread has devolved in the last dozen posts or so is itself proof that American liberals at least do have a problem with how they talk about religion.

How is the CHP an “absurd example” of a left wing party losing what should have been an easy election because of their anti-religion stance?

That's not what I said. I meant that the anti-religion stance of Kemalism is more extreme and much different (and almost self-evidently so) from whatever problematic attitudes on this you will find in the left of most other countries, chiefly the USA.

To name a different country with an authoritarian push against religion, Mexico had some anti-clerical sentiment after the Revolution and one of the reasons for The Cristero War.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     I don't believe that it's tractable, but the left has this weird disjunction between some who assume religion is dumb and should die out and others who insist that the proper understanding of religion is a left-wing one. This is far from the only example of "split personalities" within political movements, but the lack of a unified message makes it hard for the left to coherently engage with religion as a concept.

Frankly, I don't think it's desirable for the left to have a unified message on religion. Any effective left-wing coalition is going to encompass a wide variety of religious attitudes. No movement claiming to represent the working class can hold on to New Atheism-tier contempt for religious faith. At the same time, no movement committed to equality can turn a blind eye to religion's historical role as defender of established power structures. This fundamental contradiction is not going to be resolved until and unless the material and ideological conditions of Western societies change dramatically. So the best we can do is have a broad tent while keeping both extremes at bay. My own personal inclination draws me toward the sort of "religious anticlericalism" popular among a lot of 19th century Continental European radicals (like Victor Hugo, who fervently believed in God while despising the Church), but I realize that this position is better suited to a historically Catholic country than one with America's religious history.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My own personal inclination draws me toward the sort of "religious anticlericalism" popular among a lot of 19th century Continental European radicals (like Victor Hugo, who fervently believed in God while despising the Church), but I realize that this position is better suited to a historically Catholic country than one with America's religious history.

That sounds like hipster Christianity.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My own personal inclination draws me toward the sort of "religious anticlericalism" popular among a lot of 19th century Continental European radicals (like Victor Hugo, who fervently believed in God while despising the Church), but I realize that this position is better suited to a historically Catholic country than one with America's religious history.

That sounds like hipster Christianity.

Not really? I mean I get that hipster Christianity is one of the more decentralized branches of Christianity, but that's not the same thing as anticlericalism as a political movement in post-Revolutionary Europe. Again, I'm not sure it even makes sense to draw this comparison in a country that was never dominated by the Catholic Church or a comparably hegemonic religious institution, which the US never was.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't believe that it's tractable, but the left has this weird disjunction between some who assume religion is dumb and should die out and others who insist that the proper understanding of religion is a left-wing one. This is far from the only example of "split personalities" within political movements, but the lack of a unified message makes it hard for the left to coherently engage with religion as a concept.

This is only due to most religious lessons in the Bible being of a certain focus to conditions that still are present in current times, most famously within Christianity in particular, and the popularized belief of the purported anti-slavery message of Moses ditching Egypt.

Early Christianity resembled a party with a purpose. Traditions like Methodism and Quakerism are the torchbearers of this.

     The thing that strikes me most about this post is that Christianity emerged in a context where policy is governed by autocratic regimes over which the believers had absolutely no control, which is part of why the Bible has so little to actually say about the interaction of the believers with government. Christian ideas about voting to outlaw sinful actions or to establish charitable systems are, at best, philosophical interpolations. At worst they become false gospels when churches start preaching about politics in a manner that does not touch directly on the personal responsibility of every believer to live righteously in his/her own life.

     I don't believe that it's tractable, but the left has this weird disjunction between some who assume religion is dumb and should die out and others who insist that the proper understanding of religion is a left-wing one. This is far from the only example of "split personalities" within political movements, but the lack of a unified message makes it hard for the left to coherently engage with religion as a concept.

Frankly, I don't think it's desirable for the left to have a unified message on religion. Any effective left-wing coalition is going to encompass a wide variety of religious attitudes. No movement claiming to represent the working class can hold on to New Atheism-tier contempt for religious faith. At the same time, no movement committed to equality can turn a blind eye to religion's historical role as defender of established power structures. This fundamental contradiction is not going to be resolved until and unless the material and ideological conditions of Western societies change dramatically. So the best we can do is have a broad tent while keeping both extremes at bay. My own personal inclination draws me toward the sort of "religious anticlericalism" popular among a lot of 19th century Continental European radicals (like Victor Hugo, who fervently believed in God while despising the Church), but I realize that this position is better suited to a historically Catholic country than one with America's religious history.

     I see your point, but I would point out that this lack of a clear message is a handicap in reaching religious people. That's definitely less of an issue in Western Europe, where religion has largely been excised from public life and public secularism is a generally accepted rule, but it holds left-wing causes back in America where a lot of voters want politicians that signal religious fraternity (though sadly there is much less emphasis on actual piety).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I see your point, but I would point out that this lack of a clear message is a handicap in reaching religious people. That's definitely less of an issue in Western Europe, where religion has largely been excised from public life and public secularism is a generally accepted rule, but it holds left-wing causes back in America where a lot of voters want politicians that signal religious fraternity (though sadly there is much less emphasis on actual piety).

That's certainly true to some extent, although whether this is a net loss for Democrats isn't entirely clear. There is a large portion of the American public which is actively hostile to these kinds of religious appeals and would probably be alienated by a Democratic party that leaned hard into it. At the same time, one of the most solid base of support for the party has long been Black churches, and they seem perfectly capable to make a religious case for progressive policies that resonate with a substantial portion of the American public. Really, the problem of religious people feeling alienated from the Democratic party is largely a problem with White religious people (as well as perhaps the more assimilate segment of Latinos). Which, imo, says about as much as the nature of White Americans' religiosity as it does about the Democratic party.