yeah, i can, actually. and do.
the only problem i see is figuring out what we think it means to say that god is on our side, or -- which you don't quote -- at least that god is not against us. there's a significant difference there, isn't there?
>
> as leftists, we are not in the business of taking god seriously that we can
> state that god is on our side. to do so is to say 'yes' to god. it's
as leftists? or as atheists? is that a freudian slip or just a confusion of leftism with atheism? certainly there are plenty of leftists who take god seriously -- as everyone seems now to agree -- so what can it possibly mean to say that *as leftists* we don't take god seriously. it's like saying, *as a civil rights agitator*, mlk did not take god seriously.
> conceding ground to theists and pretending that we believe in god, if we
i'm not at all saying we have to pretend to "believe in god" (whatever that means, and i think it matters a lot, i'm afraid), any more than michael was saying we all have to join the methodist church and affirm each other (which methodists do a lot of, iirc). i understand both the bible and christianity better than most christians, i would hazard, and better than many jews, if my utterly unscientific experience is any guide. the point is being able to talk intelligently with people about some combination of their scriptures, traditions, and values so that discussion isn't shut down when they say, "but the bible says" . . . if you have no reply except, "fuck the bible", then that's where the conversation ends. if you can actually discuss it with them, then that's different.
that's really all i'm saying, even if my language was a little provocative. i'm certainly not talking about god being a stalin fan any more than He [sic] is, say, a red sox fan.
and i am even more certainly not committing myself to theism.
ahem.
> don't, or getting what you really want if you do believe in god: a left
> that is theistic or one that will speak about religion, theism,
> spirituality on the terms you want.
i'm looking for "a left" that actually gets shit done. that's really all. and i'm not saying that there isn't any shit getting done, btw. i'm only saying that i don't see why anyone thinks i'm arguing that "the left" has to be theistic. only that we need to appeal to left people.
>
> this doesn't mean that we don't take seriously the people on the left who
> do believe in god or spirituality or anything they want to call it. it
> doesn't mean we think they're stupid or ignorant or not quite grown up yet.
> (and I'm aware of all the drawbacks of a modernity that has concluded that
> we can't agree to any overriding set of values/morality/ethics. which is to
> say, there is a conceit in this position, as there's a conceit in the focus
> on functional/formal rationality in science. I'm just willing to be
> conceited on this one.)
>
> it just means that we aren't, as leftists, in the business of taking god
> seriously. as individuals, believe whatever you want, and as nonbelievers,
> leave the progressive theists and spiritualists alone.
whta do you mean, "leave [them] alone"? i'm not sure yet how to respond to this.
>
> when you say stuff like this, i get the sneaking suspicion you haven't left
> theism behind. :)
:P
i'm all about negative theology, so everything i say is utterly contingent, but i do not subscribe to any theism, even theoretically, much less in practice. i just think that theists can't be theists if they aren't political somehow (in the broad sense of "political"), simply because if you take anything seriously, you have to be political about it.
so in the case of people who construct meaning around a theistic god, god plays a critical role in their understanding of what they do (or anyway, ought to -- i realize there's an issue here).
> but then, sometimes, i haven't. heh. but seriously,
> that's what comes through in your conversations on the subject. i have been
> struggling around this for awhile, trying to figure out what's up, reading
> what you've written, trying to figure out how to express this.
>
> so, i say this hesitantly and with a great deal of respect.
well, i'm no more offended than i am a theist. ;-)
but seriously, here's the thing. i personally am not a theist. i just am not. that said, however, many christians are, and to talk to them about their god as if they are not doesn't make much sense. of course, this has to be tailored to the people you're talking to, but if we're talking to theists, then i'm talking to them about the classical prophets and social justice. mlk's birmingham jail letter is great on this, actually.
i guess what comes through is that i think religion is inherently political. well, duh. so what i really react against is the whole "keep religion out of politics thing". it will never ever every in a million jillion years work, because if you are religious and take your religion seriously, it affects your politics. how can it not, for any thinking being? it's a value system.
and here again i would distinguish between the philosophical and the strategic issues. i don't have to agree that there is a god who commissioned prophets to call people to social justice in order to be able to argue coherently that that's what's happening in isaiah and amos, for example. i don't have to abide by the purity code or the god who supposedly handed it down in order to argue that the prohibition against men lying with men as with women is in fact not about "homosexuality" (and i'm not even being foucauldian on this one). i don't have to "believe in" the story of sodom and gomorrha in order to make a very strong case that that is not about homosexuals, either.
and what i'm saying is that we can and should make such cases where it is appropriate. not that we have to believe it.
i've gotten lost, now, and i'm really tired, so i'll stop.
j -- Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead