Let's Not Have A Christian Left, and Say We Did

A few of my friends have on more than one occasion, in response to the current Republican vitriol, have advocated the concept of a "Christian Left," believing that this would represent Jesus more authentically. I would agree on this point, but also posit that the concept of a Christian Left would also be vulnerable to the same traps that befall the Christian Right, and this essay is intended to make these traps clear.

The concept of a Christian Left is actually in a very privileged position, something that cannot be said about the Christian Right: The policies that would be advocated under the CL platform can be endorsed by a much more diverse range of people, many of whom may not be Christian. One would, conversely, have to not only be Christian, but a certain kind of Christian, in order to find the policies advanced by the CR the least bit palatable.

What this chiefly means is that in order to sell the platform to a wider audience, it would be inadvisable to use the "Christian" part of it as justification, as it makes people who would otherwise be in support of the platform unnecessarily uncomfortable (something that the conservatives learn again and again, and attempt to compensate for by way of short-term exploitable political resources). One can certainly privately use religion to justify social good--in fact, if that were its only function, few people would have much of a problem with it--but the translation from private planning of the programs to building support should be one where the programs are justified by their own objective merits.

Because the policies are justifiable on their own merits, the "Christian" part of the label in fact may be rendered unnecessary, at least in the greater political arena. There is a step beyond "God said X was good"--Why? For example, why should we take care of the planet? Because we live here, we are responsible for it, and if we want to continue to exist, we need to take care of it. Each of these positions are similarly objectively justifiable: justifiable in a way that transcends religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

On the other side, the militant atheists are equally squeamish about allying with religious groups that happen to share their views on science and education (or the two combined), despite the fact that having religious groups join them puts a limit within the framework of the conflict with Creationism/ID: It allows religious people who value science (and many of them do) a medium through which to tell their conservative counterparts that evolution (and science generally) is totally acceptable within their worldview. It is worth noting that one of the premier organizations for science education, the National Center for Science Education [NCSE], has constant contact with religious organizations that share their views.

This is the political reality--the ideological framework--within which the growing secular caucus will have to operate. They want the whole package: They demand that people renounce their traditions and adopt Naturalism (the philosophical position that empirical science is the best and only way of understanding the world. I for one am not a Naturalist). This is obviously not going to happen, and is only going to get them in trouble, because not only is it unnecessary in order to build support for science (and) education, but it is also as egregious and impossible as the Christian Right's demand that America become a Falwellian theocracy.