Recovering Hijacked Religions? Liberal vs. Conservative Believers

Conservative and fundamentalist religious groups have been among the most prominent religious voices in the world recently. They are not, however, voices that speak for everyone and those who find themselves left out are hoping to take back the names of their religions — or at least broaden their meanings a bit. Unfortunately, one of the most popular tactics used by such believers is to do some of the same things which fundamentalists do. So just how much difference between them is there, really?

In The Boston Globe Jim Wallis wrote a couple of years ago:

[W]hen the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is not "class warfare," as the rich will always charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus in the Scriptures, which claims they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent populations. Those Scriptures don't simply endorse the social programs of liberals or conservatives but make clear that poverty is indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to help uplift those in poverty will be judged a moral failing.

All interesting advice, and worth taking seriously as an antidote to the rhetoric of the religious right. Wallis then, however, take a wrong turn...

It is because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that it must always be suspicious of too much concentrated power -- politically and economically -- either in totalitarian regimes or in huge multinational corporations that now have more wealth and power than many governments. It is indeed our theology of evil that makes us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy -- not because people are so good but because they often are not and need clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid the dangerous accumulations of power and wealth.

How about too much concentrated religious power? Perhaps it's too much to expect a powerful religious leader to warn people about too much concentration of religious power — sometimes what a person doesn't say talks louder than what they do say. Religion has only rarely through history offered support to democratic political structures. Religion is traditionally authoritarian, not democratic, so it's only natural that it works well with authoritarian political and economic systems. Wallis has to know that but his failure to mention as well it is quite astounding.

The loss of religion's prophetic vocation is dangerous for any society. Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will question the recourse to violence and rush to wars, long before any last resort has been unequivocally proven? Who will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability?

Who is Jim Wallis to suggest that only religion has the authority or power to “uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts,” to “question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders,” or to do any of the other things he lists? How dare he. This is a perfect example of why secularists like myself are disappointed over and over and over again every time we reach a hand out and offer to work with religious liberals and moderates.

In their self-righteous arrogance, so many presume that religion alone holds the keys to society's problems — exactly one of the problems we find with fundamentalists. People like Wallis might claim at times that they are tolerant and open-minded, but statements like the above prove unequivocally that they aren't. There is a fundamental arrogance about a lot of religious people that makes them think that because they are religious, they have a privileged place in society and that everyone else should stop and listen to them simply because they are talking about religion. Then, they turn around and accuse atheists of being arrogant and intolerant for dismissing their religious beliefs as irrational and unfounded.

Speaking for myself, I’m getting just sick and tired of all this nonsense and am no longer interested in giving such people the benefit of the doubt. Instead of assuming good will on the part of people like Jim Wallis, I’m afraid they are going to have to prove it to me by deed rather than through empty words. The political policies of liberals like Wallis might be better than those of fundamentalists, but the attitudes, approaches, and tactics are far too similar.