Amy at Texas Faith: Is the religious left too nice?
Is the religious left indeed without the same influence and profile as the religious right? If so, is it because the religious left has tried more to be civil and nice than to make a compelling moral argument?
AMY MARTIN, Executive Director, Earth Rhythms; Writer/editor, Moonlady Media
As a Taoist, am I the religious left or right? What about the spiritually-unaffiliated, Buddhists, or those in New Thought churches? Which side of the polarity are they to be pegged on? Or is it finally time to ditch the dualism entirely and stop simplifying a complex religious world?
So I turned to Rev. Eric Folkerth, a minister who leads a congregation at Northaven Methodist that engages deeply in issues such as economic justice and human rights. He told me: “There is one more factor which the reporter utterly failed to mention at all, and which I believe is the biggest factor: the complete and utter religious illiteracy of many reporters. Most have no idea: a) That there IS a Religious Left; b) That there are credible spokespersons for it; and c) That the fundamentalist view is not the only ‘Christian view’.”
As long as journalism highlights religious stories that stem from conflict, with the emphasis of churches like Northaven on co-existence and healing, the public’s view of the Christian spectrum will be limited. Since newspaper readership is declining, perhaps the assumption that “Kumbaya doesn’t sell” is incorrect.
NOTES
The Washington Post’s Lisa Miller wrote earlier this month about how “nice isn’t going to win the battle for the religious left.”
Miller noted how the religious left once made the case for issues of great consequence, such as women’s suffrage and civil rights. But she contends the religious left needs to greatly improve how it makes its priorities and activities more compelling and newsworthy.
Wrote Miller:
“Kumbaya is not a story. Why can’t we all just get along is not a story. Since the rise of the religious right in the 1970s in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, the religious left has failed to gain any comparable visibility, traction or voice on major issues in the political sphere.
“News releases from the precincts of the religious left continue to emphasize niceness over moral authority….There’s nothing wrong with being polite, of course. But a great, galvanizing, undeniable moral argument is better. ‘Civility is a great friend of the status quo,’ says Jim Naughton, partner at Canticle Communications, which advises faith-based groups. ‘People aren’t going to change because you’re nice to them.’”
What do you think of her point?
Is the religious left indeed without the same influence and profile as the religious right? If so, is it because the religious left has tried more to be civil and nice than to make a compelling moral argument?
