Christian evangelicals work against modern day slavery

Interesting that there has been so little interest among liberals highlighting the new movie Amazing Grace, about William Wilberforce, the British Christian evangelical credited with helping Britain to abolish slavery. This movie has been the talk of my church and Christian publications. It shows that religion isn't always the evil certain secular liberals make it out to be. and it shows the commitment of both secular human rights groups and evangelical groups (including Focus on the Family and Concerned WOmen for America) to ending modern day slavery.

THis blog tends to focus on all the evil, bad stuff of the religious right and how they aim to impose their "theocracy." i do not blame seculars or those w/o direct knowledge of Christian evangelicals to think, from the likes of Frederick Clarkson's posts and others, that we are a bunch of gay-hating, fetus-obsessed hypocrites who worship cardboard cutouts of George Bush every week. The evangelical community i know (black, latino, immigrant, esp) are way more diverse than the stereotypes imposed on us by both the mainstream media and secular liberals.

I have always recommended to Democratic activists that the most important publication they should read is not the Wash post, NYT or Harpers, but Christianity Today.

It is highly disappointing when i read books like Michelle Goldberg and others on the CHristian right's theocratic agenda, where they profile only the most extreme fundamentalist nutcases (fundie different from evangelical) without ever refering to Christianity Today, which is a pretty mainstream, intelligent and influential media outlet. I  may not agree with some of their political agenda, and neither will most folks here, but I always respect their thoughtful point of view, and the ways in which they enrich my faith by showcasing ordinary folks (maybe even Republicans...) doing wonderful things in Christ's name.

See this profile of rich Christians in Texas helping out Zambian boys who were held in bondage:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/...

is the woman profiled a Republican probably? in all likelihood, but it shows the humanity of the folks who we sometimes disagree with. Another cover story in Christianity Today talked about Christians rescuing women from sex trafficking in Southeast Asia. Those are the folks you don't hear about in either the New York Times or on liberal blogs. If you want to equate us all with Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson, fine go ahead. but then you are being just as bigoted and narrowminded as the theocrats you so rightly condemn. I suggest to those who may not have a good understanding of evangelicals to read Christianity Today (as well as anything by Phillip Yancey) to gain a better understanding of a group that is so influential in the US.

•  Good diary.

  You make a good point. I think that most people here know the difference between religious people who are only trying to do whats best for themselves, their families, or the country, and those who are out to expand a power base and push a political agenda.

  The problem is that those "bad" religious people seem so tied into most of what we are against, it is easy to overlook the good that religion and religious people accomplish.

  Anyway, good diary.

  by DMOmaha on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:07:18 AM PDT

•  Here is where influence starts.

  This is a case in which liberals and conservatives (of a certain type) can find common ground.

  Work for the same goals.  Talk up YOUR reasons for being in favor of these goals.  Talk about how your philosophy impacts your actions.

  This is how you get the other side to believe that your ideas have merit.

  by Dar Nirron on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:09:49 AM PDT

•  Good should be applauded wherever found..

  But the evangelicals really need to wake up to the smokescreen conservatism has become. It has become a license to steal from the poor and if they need to look to scripture for guidance on that point..fine..but do it.

  by java4every1 on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:13:58 AM PDT

•  Keywords

  Dobson is that you?

  British Christians......Doesn't say much about the supposed American Christian right when you have to go all the way across the ocean to find something positive to say about a religious movement.

  Oh and for the record this site actually PROMOTES at least one site that promotes religious outreach among liberals. That's far from demonizing religious policies. Just because the site does not advocate ONE religion as right does not make it intolerant of religion as your diary suggests.

  Nice try at linking liberal and secular though. If I were uninformed and listened to FOX news I might believe you.

  by cwaltz on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:15:21 AM PDT

  •  did you read?

    i guess you didn't read the article about the texas woman and her rescuing a zambian boy from bondage...or that Dobson's grouop is supporting the anti-slavery campaign...

    by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:23:20 AM PDT

    •  Well

      Dobson is a joke. He is by far one of the worst things to happen to Christianity of late. The guy is not interested in furthering tolerance and has absolutely no understanding of what "love thy neighbor" means. The fact that he supports this only makes me wonder what his "cut" is gonna be because we all know that Dobson doesn't do anything that does not seek to either give him power or money. He's disgusting and I'm more thyan willing to say my prayers and ask God for His forgiveness for saying so.

      by cwaltz on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:41:39 AM PDT

      •  Dobson

           If Dobson is so against slavery, why didn't he use some of his influence over his good buddy Tom DeLay, whose support for the abuses in the Marianas Islands, where garment workers toil as virtual slaves, and undergo forced abortions to boot, was well known?

           The man is a hypocrite, pure and simple.

        by happy camper on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:09:56 AM PDT

    •  Slaves and Blastocysts

      I applaud the efforts of the group you identify (assuming that those freed are not ending up in worse situations).  What is not so great about the Evangelical response to Amazing Grace is that the main response has been to liken abortion to slavery, to liken 100-cell blasocysts to thinking, breathing, caring people.

      Here's Richard Land, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President

      "You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see the parallels between, first of all the abortion issue and slavery, and, second, the general condition of the culture then and now"

      I can't think of any greater insult to those who worked to free people than to equate those people to clumps of cells.  It's as insulting as any of the worst racial theories of the 19th Century.

      by ortcutt on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:01:34 AM PDT

      •  "clumps of cells"

        well, there are those of us who view it as unborn life. it's always curious to me how certain liberals--so into protesting animal abuse, genocide, war, etc, can treat the fetus with such disdain, like it's a piece of tissue.

        i am not one of those who equates the abolition movt to the pro-life movt. some of my friends do, and i have some respect for that POV. more respect certainly than the POV that says fetuses = clumps of cells and then wonders why there is such an assault on the right to choose.

        by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:13:11 AM PDT

        •  What are you disputing?

          1. that a 100-cell clump of cells is a developmental stage in human development

          2. that some Evangelicals oppose abortion of 100-cell clumps of cells.

          Anti-abortion people are ready to go to the barricades to protect those 100-cell clumps of cells.  Let's not pussyfoot around that.  This is an extreme position held by many people that demeans the dignity of living, breathing, caring people.

          by ortcutt on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:27:57 AM PDT

          •  Respect for people

            What really disturbed me in the stem-cell debate was when evangelicals came out and claimed that a 100-cell clump of cells has the same moral status as me or any other thinking, breathing, caring person.  Because anyone who thought there was no difference in moral status between a 100-cell clump of cells and me doesn't have any respect for people.  They don't understand why slavery was (and is) wrong.  They don't understand why discrimination is wrong.  They don't understand why global poverty is wrong.  If they can't understand that a person thinks and cares and that a 100-cell clump of cells doesn't and that that difference matters, then they don't have a right to claim the mantle of William Wilberforce, a man who stood up for the rights of people, not for the alleged rights of clumps of cells.

            by ortcutt on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:57:24 AM PDT

•  There are good fundies...

  just like there were some good Germans in the 1940's. Problem is, the entire culture is so dominated by conformity and sheepish adherence that there's little room for thought or genuine compassion.

  One of my partners is a genuinely devout (Liberal!) evangelical. His church funded a number of schools and hospitals in Rwanda...most of which were destroyed in the genocide. He has an admirable grasp of Rheinhold Nebuhr's tragic view of history and the fallibility of human judgment, which informs his enlightened skepticism about the fanatical fundies. His kind of Christianity I can admire, as a devoted secular humanist.

  by Ralphdog on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:15:44 AM PDT

  •  Please don't equate

    fundies (fundamentalists) and evangelicals. They are not the same thing.

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:25:33 AM PDT

    •  Most studies show that the MAJORITY of

      evangelicals are fundamentalsits--at elast here in the South. I've run into some evangelical liberals and non-literalists up North, but down here? Nary a one.  You  CAN be one without the other,but downhere, it's damned hard.

      by irishwitch on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:37:08 AM PDT

      •  Let's not alienate those who are

        both evangelical and liberal, by tying the 'fundie' label around their necks. If it's hard to be such in some parts of the country we only make it harder if their liberal "allies" turn on them.

        by Catte Nappe on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:47:18 PM PDT

        •  I live among fundies.

          I generally use that term to describe the Christian RIght--rather than evangelicals.  But down here, I've met precious few--and up North only a handful of Christians whoa e both liberal and evangelical.

          I am WIccan. WHenthey stop ahrassing mY faith, I'll be a lot less disgruntles with fundies.

          by irishwitch on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:32:36 PM PDT

•  The difference is, I think,

  between the broad evangelical Christian community -- as capable of good, and even progressive good, as any other group of people, whose religion is perhaps exactly what moves them to act in goodness -- and the organized evangelical Christian political movement in the United States, which puts an entirely different face forward and advances what I'd consider to be a destructive agenda. The evangelicals you are talking about are quietly going about accomplishing good; they're not the representatives of the political movement who are anything but quiet. And I don't make that observation as a secular liberal, but as a very religious, practicing, church-going, vestry-sitting, Sunday-school-teaching liberal.

  by jamfan on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:21:04 AM PDT

  •  political movt

    my point is that even the evangelicals who are part of the "political movt" (james dobson, etc) are still part of the anti-slavery coalition. there is a diversity of issues in which we can all work together. many of the anti-slavery folks are probably pro-life, anti-gay rights activists too. a lot of folks at my church are sick sick sick of the Christian right folks who are politicizing the church, but even they tend to be socially conservative (pro-life, anti-gay rights). they just aren't about shoving their agenda down folks throats--for instance, though they may disagree with Obama's pro-choice stance, they will also be disgusted at any church leader who says he has no right to speak in church or that he's a "bad" Christian because he's not prolife. they are more open-minded than that. those are the types of socially conservative evangelicals you can win over, and there are more of them than you think at the grassroots...

    by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:28:00 AM PDT

    •  If a person is opposed

         to equal rights for gay Americans, they are, by definition, "shoving their agenda down people's throats", because they expect others to accept a lesser level of citizenship.

         That phrase (shoving their agenda down folks throats), curiously, is used almost exclusively by religious conservatives to characterize anything they disagree with. It is usually applied to things like gay rights, that will not directly affect those who are doing the objecting.

         Whenever I hear it, I know someone is getting ready to tell someone else how to live their personal life.

      by happy camper on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:43:25 AM PDT

      •  agenda

        many blacks and latinos oppose gay marriage. they think "unelected judges" are shoving their moral views and imposing them on the country, a country that still majority rejects gay marriage. my view on this is that judges probably should not be the ones deciding this, that only democratically elected legislatures/govts should be doing this, and that since the younger generation doesn't have a problem with gay marriage, it'll probably come in due time.

        by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:55:34 AM PDT

        •  Do you feel the same way about salvery?

          Due time my dear, due time.

          by kd texan on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:01:22 AM PDT

        •  They are not opposed to gay marriage.

          They are opposed to equality. By opposing gay marriage it is them, not unelected judges, who are shoving their moral views on the rest of society and forcing others to live by their chosen myths.

          by kd texan on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:15:47 AM PDT

        •  No one

             wants to force any church to marry gays. Why should gay people not have the same right to civil marriage and the legal status thereof? It is not a question of religious belief, but of contract law.

          by happy camper on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:18:57 AM PDT

          •  And BTW

               those "unelected judges" are a co-equal branch of the government. They are unelected for a reason, too.

            by happy camper on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:21:05 AM PDT

            •  Thank you.

              Those judges were appointed and confirmed according to the law and State and Federal Constitutions. If conservatives want to overturn the precedent of judicial review, they need to amend the constitution.

              by homogenius on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:31:54 AM PDT

        •  Majorities in some states

          would still probably favor Jim Crow laws too.  Anyone think blacks would have gotten anywhere with civil rights if whites had to vote for it?

          by grada3784 on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:43:17 AM PDT

    •  You have to understand that to

      those of us who are pro-chocie, profeminsim, pro=-gay rights as merely human rights---it's damned hard to get past their opposition to causes we consdier extremely important.

      ALso not that in geneal, the liberals here aren't invading evnagelical churches and disrupting their functioning (with rare occasional moments by Act-Up) while the people you're praising DO just that to clinics, gay rallies, etc, calling people hateful names and accusing htem of horrible crimes I did clinic escort duty so I ahve experienced this sort of Christian love personally..

      Example: when the story of the Ft. Hood WIccans broke, they merely contineud to hold their open circles peacefully despite the harassment from local fundies.  They didn't retalaite by disrupting or invading thebaptist church that was behind the protests (protests that were so disruptive that base security had to coem to keep the good Christians away from the "evil witches."  The ignorance on the part of the christians wa appalling.

      Most of the letters came from congregants at the Tabernacle Baptist Church and School in Killeen, at the urging of their pastor, the Rev. Jack Harvey.

      "I have no tolerance for evil or people who do evil," Harvey said. "We don't think anybody in the Army or otherwise should be in favor of witchcraft. The Bible states explicitly, 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' "

      Troyer said it's that kind of reaction, fueled by popular myths about witchcraft, that he must combat. "I still get calls from people asking me if they kill babies out there."

      http://www.sacredwell.org/...

      http://www.positiveatheism.org/...

      http://www.celticcrow.com/...

      http://www.circlesanctuary.org/...

      by irishwitch on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:50:11 AM PDT

      •  exactly my freakin point

        you stereotype all evangelicals as the batshit crazy extremists you meet--i'm here to tell you there are mnay more who aren't like that. and if you read Christianity Today or get to know some of them, you might find some common ground.

        the crazy people who do this shit you are talking about--protesting abortion clinics, writing hateful letters, are an extreme minority. Do I judge the left and liberals by their most obnoxious  people? are all environmentalists a bunch of wacked out earth liberation types who like to burn shit down?

        i happen to be feminist, but a socially conservative one, as are many folks i know . the prolifers i know, you know what they do? they have foster children. they adopt mentally retarded babies. they work in their church's day care centers to help single moms out. they LIVE their pro-life beliefs in ways that are consistent with the gospel. they are not out there yelling "BABY KILLER" at planned parenthood clinics. just like some pro-lifers unfairly stereotype feminists as selfish, pro-abortion, manhaters with no morals so do feminists often characterize pro-lifers as just woman-hating religious bigots.  my whole point is to argue for a broader view of people that doesn't demean them into these stereotypes.

        by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:02:39 AM PDT

        •  Nice to hear you really speak out

          ... instead of parroting phrases heard in the polpits of Neo-Con machine.  (I.E. "unelelected" judges, "shoving agenda down throughts" and invoking generalized bigoty of minority groups against other minority groups)

          Look, you believe in Christ, we get that.  

          You feel that Christ wants you to be compassionate and do good wors, we get that and applaud that...

          You defend Evangilists as genuine followers of Christ, we dispute that and continue to dispute that...  Hate in any form is not the path of Christ

          As much as you desire to incorporate your religious beliefs into politics, understand that the Founders of the Constitution purposely created a secular government and placed safeguards to ensure that religions would not return to a place of tyranny.

          I'm sorry that the Evangicals you identify with have failed to follow Christ and feel it is their duty to impose Tyranny on others.

          You know deep down that the Republican agenda is not modelled after Christ.

          So you think Christ would not heal a homosexual.  Ever read the passage about the Roman General who had his slave boy (lover) healed by Christ and knowing, like the general, if it were Chist's will "it shall be done."

          Realize that you are experiencing the discomfort of holding on to the bigotry and fear, while you are also embracing love and tolerance.  

          If I may, search for the Christ within and allow your self to truly be transformed. The conflict you feel will evaporate and you will be renewed. Love and be loved.

          by ChakraTease on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:00:33 PM PDT

        •  Hardly.

          I know many evangelicals whether I wish to or not. SOema re like my former neighbors, for whom I babysat more than once--she was more liberal on any issues than I was, and I am pretty damned liberal (she was furious when the AF tossed ut Kelly Flynn for having na affair with a man separated form his wife because males usually get away with this ).  But I also know a LOT of batshit crazy ones, too. Some of them are among my in-laws and neighbors down here.

          My Mil is one of thekindest,most decent women I have ever met.  When one of her employees (the single Mom of biracial twin girls) learned her father was dying, she provided her with suitcases (we lent her ours too) because she dont have any,  drove her to the airport (a LONG trip) and picked her up.  But even she told us if we lived with her, we culdn'tprctice our WIccan faith--and she is no one's image of a batshit crazy extremist. But her attitudes toward Wicca (and she actually KNOWS somethignbaout it because I have explained it to her several times and given her books she couldhev read but didn't) aren't all that different fromt he members of that Baptist church--it's a pretty common attitude among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

          Neither are most of the people yelling insults at abortion clinics are not extremists--unlike the ones who shoot doctors and blow up clinics. Theya re  typical of conservative Christians. Mos tof them would never do anything violent--but they feel free to harass and insult anyone who disagrees with hem. ANd,thanks to the constitution they have that right.  BTW, the women I was escorting were RAPE victims who chose not to go to a hospital because then they'd have to talk to the police; I drove them to clinics for STD tests and wa on call if they needed further help counseling.

          You completely missed the point of my post, I suspect intentionally.  NONE of the WIccans dissed the Baptists.

          The problem here is that Christians of your type DEMAND we respect them--but aren't willing to give respect in return.

          by irishwitch on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:30:53 PM PDT

    •  I see what you're saying; my point

      is that what the activist political wing of the evangelical movement is demanding, and demanding loudly, of the political leadership of this country -- a political leadership the evangelical movement has a huge role in electing and sustaining -- is not action against slavery. Dobson, etc., do not expect their elected Republican leaders to follow through on a compassionate humanitarian agenda, and they are happy to overlook a multitude of uncompassionate, inhumane Republican policies. I think it's great that Dobson is part of the anti-slavery coalition; I think Kossacks would make a bigger deal about it, and be truly impressed by it, if he were going on the TV all the time railing against slavery the same way he's on the TV all the time railing against homosexuality. (And I am still taking pains to separate the political Dobson types from your average, everyday evangelicals.)

      by jamfan on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:29:23 PM PDT

•  Reinforcing stereotypes

  Democrats in general and this blog in particular have been very vocal about the links between Christianity and progressive politics. It's no coincidence that Street Prophets, the only Dkos community site focused on a particular issue, is about faith and politics. There has been a lot of dialogue-- between Al Gore an "envirangelists," among the churches that participated in "Evolution Sunday," about economic justice programs and the Bible. I agree that there are some aspects of the Left that could be labelled anti-religiousfolk-- but on the whole, this meme is tired.

  Oh, and by the way, about International Justice Missions- there might be more than meets the eye.
  Link:

  the IJM is described by Andrew Hunter from the Asian Pacific Network of Sex Workers as "rabidly fundamentalist." He talks about the "rescue and repatriation" tactics of the IJM. After kidnapping sex workers with the help of the local constabulary, they incarcerate them, then force them back to their native countries, one of which is Burma, a military state that a lot of women leave expressly because it's a military state. Sometimes they just plop the women somewhere halfway and they are left with the dangerous and expensive task of returning themselves. This is all done under the auspices of anti-trafficking (oddly, using the same methods as traffickers), though many of these sex workers are not trafficked.

  by righteousbabe on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:24:40 AM PDT

  •  It isn't so much anti religion...

    ....as it is the irrelevance of religion for anything fundamental. I can appreciate tactical politics taking it into account. But it contributes nothing on a more basic level.

    Again, the US will go the path of Europe sooner or later, and the sooner the better. Those who insist on remaining faithful will be met not with persecution (which frankly some of them seem to enjoy) but with sighs and shrugs. Fervent religious beliefs are always indicative of a pathology of some kind -- excessive patriotism (US worship disguised as Christianity), reaction to a personal loss or failure, fear of death or ruin, fear of ignorance.... many of them the same pathologies that people become addicted to drugs for. Faith is one of the less damaging drugs, taken in moderation, but addiction is never a good state to be in.

    by sagesource on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:36:13 AM PDT

•  I'd like to point out to you

  that in America, while most of the abolitionists were religiously motivated, quite a few of those DEFENDING slavery did so by quoting the bible, which, even in the NT accepted slavery.

  Evangelicals, like any other social grouping, will have good and bad among them. Perhaps the reason we see the down side so much is because, at this point in time,  they are doing more harm than good on a national and  political level.

  Sure, they get involved in projects that help individuals--but, all too often, to get the help they give, you have to be one of them or at least participate int heir religious programs.   If the price of rehab is becoming a fundamentalist, I  would take addiction, frankly. Sadly, that's the  requirement for way too many of the services they offer--rehab, alcohol treatment, etc. Faith-based charities  take taxpayer dollars and plunge them into  treatment program in which religious faith plays an integral part, and prayer and bible reading are part of the program---so long as they don't put the money into religious paraphernalia, it's quite legal, even though the actual program is religious by its very nature.

  If the only reason you help people is to convert them, you're a pisspoor Christian. When Jesus preached the Sermononthemount and told people to feed the hungry, visit the sick, aid those in prison, he never said, "but only if they are willing to worship Me and My Father."   Too bad your good Christians aren't willing to follow HIS  example.

  I LIVE on Christian charity.  It comes with a high price. We cannot afford decent housing in this area and still pay our bills.  We live with my Mil.  As part of the price we pay,w e are not permitted to follow our own faith or practice eit at all while we live here.  We are WIccan and she considers that demon worship--she KNOWS she is wrong but she refuses to discuss it.  THAT is the sort of string that comes attached to far too much Christian charity.

  I am afamiklair with the fact that there are plenty of good individual evangelicals and fundam,entalists, but I distrust the movements.  And, yes, I am very familiar with Christianity Today. Used ot read it as a method of known y enemy.

  As for Rev. Clarkson--he is a Baptist and a minister. Ifanyoen has the right to criticize his fellow Christians, it's he and Pastor Dan. They are LIBERAL Christians.

  by irishwitch on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:29:46 AM PDT

  •  yo--you don't think black folks know this?

    and yet african americans are the most religiously devout and Christian group we have in the US. why?  because they identify with Jesus and the Bible as a liberation text. Frederick Douglass already saw the contradiction, and in way more eloquent terms, as the perceptive EJ Dionne noted here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:08:12 AM PDT

    •  I guess you assume that going

      to church a lot equal most devout.

      I am very devout in my faith though at this time I cannot practice it.  Thanks to my beleoved but decidedly fundy MiL.

      I was rasied Catholic, spent the first 20 years as a Catholic, have a minor in Christian theology--and I knwo a LOT about history. Thepoint you are refusing to face here is that if you are gonna cite the anti-slavery folks as  good Christians,--you MUST acknowledge the way the Bible has ben used to JUSTIFY slavery. If you don't do that,  you're  ignoring half the picture. And you are.

      You also made no attempt to respond to the oTHER subject I raised: the fact that many Christian charities run by fundies and conservative evangelicals tend to ONLY help those who are members of their faith community or willing to pretend to be.  That isn'tmy idea of the sort of charity Christ urged upon his followers.  I HAVE run into individuals who followed the Gospel.  I used Cahtolic charities once  for ocunselign at a difficult point in my life--they had a government contract and we NEVER talked about religion at all (they'd have vioalted the contract had they done so). Today's faith-based initiatives ALLOW and ENCOURAGE proselytizing as part of the program--and I firmly believe that is both unconstitutional and not in live with Christian teaching as shown in the Gospels.  

      A classic example is what happened in NYC.  The Salvation Army, once it became clear you were allwoed to discriminate even with government funding, required its employees to  fill out forms in which they were asked about their religiosu affilaition, among other thigns.  These were not for jobs in which preaching was required--it was for social workers and cousnelors in their mental health clinic.

      The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today in federal court charging The Salvation Army with religious discrimination against employees in its government funded social services in New York City and on Long Island. The lawsuit asks the federal court to order the 136 year old charity to stop the practices and to rule that the government funding of The Salvation Army’s faith based discrimination against its social services employees in foster care, adoption, HIV, juvenile detention and other social services is illegal. Agencies for New York State, New York City and Nassau County and Suffolk County are named also as co-defendants.
      The Salvation Army provides social services for more than 2,000 children each day who are placed with the charity by the government. The programs are funded almost exclusively by taxpayer money. The agency receives $89 million in taxpayer funds for social services and employs about 800 people.

      Eric Fine, Anne Lown, Mary Jane Dessables and Marina Obermaier
      In announcing the lawsuit, Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU, noted, "This case is not about the right of The Salvation Army to practice or promote its religion. They have every right to do so, but not with government money. The Salvation Army cannot use taxpayer money to practice religious discrimination against its social services employees."

      The Salvation Army recently began to require all employees in its Social Services for Children division to fill out a form on which they: a) identify their church affiliation and all other churches attended for the past decade, b) authorize their religious leaders to reveal private communications to The Salvation Army; and c) pledge to adhere to the religious mission of The Salvation Army which, according to The Salvation Army, is to "preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

      Moreover, new job descriptions for every social services employee now require compliance with The Salvation Army’s religious mission statement. Previously, the social services unit had its own mission statement which was completely secular. All this began as part of a Reorganization Plan last year by the national leaders of the charity "to narrow the gap" between the ecclesiastical Salvation Army and the social services component. The goal of the Reorganization Plan was to ensure that "as a Christian agency [...] a reasonable number of Salvationists along with other Christians [will be employed by The Salvation Army.]"

      The suit was filed on behalf of eighteen current and former Salvation Army employees of varying religious and non-religious backgrounds. They include many of the most respected senior managers in the agency.

      Anne Lown is the current Associate Executive Director of Social Services for Children of The Salvation Army and has received 5 promotions in the 24 years she has worked for the charity. "I do not think my religious beliefs nor the religious beliefs of the 800 employees in Social Services for Children are any business of the Salvation Army," Lown says.

      Added Mary Jane Dessables who is the Management Information Systems Director for The Salvation Army and has worked for the charity for 12 years, "Although I am not a Salvationist, I have sung for their Devotionals... attended their Good Friday services. I participated because I wanted to, not because it was required or requested of me."

      And Margaret Geissman who is the former Human Resources Manager for Social Services for Children with The Salvation Army has left the charity rather than provide personal information about employees. "When I refused to answer questions that I felt were clearly illegal and violated my employees’ privacy, I was harassed to the point where eventually I resigned. As a Christian, I deeply resent the use of discriminatory employment practices in the name of Christianity."

      NYCLU Legal Director Arthur Eisenberg noted that The Salvation Army’s new employment practices "have injected religion into the workplace in ways that violate the anti-discrimination principles of the Fourteenth Amendment."

      Martin Garbus, whose firm, Davis and Gilbert is co-counsel with the NYCLU, cited President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative as the catalyst for the current situation and called it "the greatest transfer of wealth from governmental bodies to evangelical churches. Federal, state and local services are being used to spread the evangelical message."

      In addition to Eisenberg, Lieberman and Garbus, plaintiffs are also represented by NYCLU staff attorney Beth Haroules; NYCLU co-counsel Deborah Karpatkin; and Howard Rubin and Gregg Brochin from the Davis and Gilbert law firm.

      The NYCLU is the NY affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.

      http://www.nyclu.org/...

      This flatout WRONG, however you look at it.

      ANd thsi is what mainstream conservative christians are pulling all over the palce. Start acknowledging THAT for a change or, to quote the NT, get the log out of YOUR eye before you attack the rest of us over the mote in ours.

      by irishwitch on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:45:44 PM PDT

•  A stopped clock is right twice a day.

  That evangelicals are right on some issues is almost irrelevant in evaluating their movement as a whole. Any number of movements infinitely more disgusting than the vast majority of evangelicals -- you can fill in the names yourself, I'm sure -- have done SOME good things. Indeed, if you think back to your theology, you'll remember that pure evil is a logical impossibility, since evil exists only as limiting and confining the good.

  And frankly, anyone who could believe the sort of things evangelicals believe could believe just about anything, including justifications for new types of slavery.

  Sooner or later the United States will go the way Europe, Japan, and Canada have gone, with churches and formal religious belief slowly dissolving into irrelevance. When that day comes, there will be no less good done in the world, and there will be many fewer excuses to do evil.

  by sagesource on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:29:52 AM PDT

•  Uhh, what?

  It is highly disappointing when i read books like Michelle Goldberg and others on the CHristian right's theocratic agenda, where they profile only the most extreme fundamentalist nutcases (fundie different from evangelical) without ever refering to Christianity Today, which is a pretty mainstream, intelligent and influential media outlet.

  This is like complaining about a book on gardening because it doesn't cover particle physics.
  Goldberg's is a book about Christian Nationalism.  What  did you think it was going to be about given that it's titled "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism"

  by ortcutt on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:29:59 AM PDT

•  The biggest problem is that the RW Christianists

  have taken control of the publicity for real Christians.  It's been this way for a long time.  Back in the 1920's the way the KKK announced it was in town was by showing up at a church service in full regalia.  And it was accepted as much as it is today.  

  I would like to think that Christians don't believe the lies spread about gays or any other group, but I need the actions of Christians to help that hope.  And it's not always easy to find.

  There's an old saying which cleaned up says that you don't poop where you eat.  Well, the RWC are pooping on your dinner plates.  Instead of recognizing it for what it is, most, I'm afraid, will be asking for second helpings.

  by grada3784 on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:51 AM PDT

•  Did secular liberals bring slavery

  to the west?

  by kd texan on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:46:55 AM PDT

  •  nah. they just brought communism

    and killed millions of more people ....

    by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:09:58 AM PDT

    •  Which western country is communist?

      Why can't you face the fact that christians brought slavery to the west. And what does slavery in the WEST have to do with communism?

      Nice dodge though.

      by kd texan on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:20:37 AM PDT

      •  like black folks don't know this?

        did you read above? interesting that the descendents of slaves, brought here by "Christians" are the most fervent believers in the US? Maybe cause for them, the Bible is a liberation text. and Frederick Douglass already noted the hypocrisy of Christians on slavery...

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        Last time i checked, it wasn't atheists who ended slavery either...

        my point is not to insult atheists. it is as  simpleminded and stupid to blame Christianity for slavery as it is to blame atheism for the rise of Communism and the vast untold misery it imposed on much of the world.

        by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:34:05 AM PDT

        •  Your last paragraph is something

          I can agree with. But, you brought up the slavery issue in your diary.

          What puzzles me quite a bit is why did slaves take up the religion of their "masters" in the first place? And, do you think that may be a reason why African Americans, on average, are more homophobic than other ethnic groups in america?

          It is a sincere question and I truly would like your thoughts

          by kd texan on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:47:06 AM PDT

          •  explanation

            why did they take up the religion of their masters? that's a good question. I think it was the inevitable byproduct of slavemasters wanting to eradicate indigenous traditions and instill "good Christian" discipline into their slaves. But as you can see from this history...

            http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/...

            slaves mixed freely their own indigenous worship with Christian beliefs...more importantly, at some point, blacks who could read the Bible could see for themselves that this text didn't justify slavery and that in fact, it was a liberation text full of liberation stories (Exodus being prominent). that in turn led blacks to use this text to foil their masters--to point out the hypocrisies in their approach. that with the growing Christian abolition movement as well i think provided the basis and nurturing for african american religion.

            if you read the EJ Dionne column, you can see why blacks find so much inspiration from the Bible. as i've heard more than one person say, "without God, we wouldn't have survived slavery..." now one could ask "without god, would there have been slavery though?" probably. i'm sure humans would find another way to justify enslaving others.

            as to homophobia, i think the church obviously does play a role, but the reason why homophobia is so much more an emotional topic among blacks is because of the way homophobia intersects with black masculinity and racism. because being gay and gay culture is traditionally associated with whiteness, westernness, colonialism, femininity, there is a visceral rejection of anything reeking that in the black community, where homophobia is especially rampant in hypermasculine circles (i.e. athletics, see Timmy Hardaway, hip hop). in Africa, where i lived, this is why AIDS has not been adequately dealt with--it's a white gay disease, and why African gays may have it even worse than their black American counterparts.

            so then you get the phenomenon of the down-low and now black women having to bear the costs of that.

            here are some links that can maybe go into more depth on this issue. all i can say is, white activists who can't understand why blacks oppose gay marriage and would prefer just to call them bigots, shoudl try and understand the roots of it. they should try to understand why equating the civil rights movt to the gay rights movt really disturbs a lot of african americans (coretta scott king and other blacks can make this parallel, but white liberals should avoid...)

            http://www.getunderground.com/...

            http://www.villagevoice.com/...

            i thank you for your genuine interest in this issue. it is much more producitive than flinging epithets.

            by ihlin on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:42:15 PM PDT

            •  Wow, thanks for the detailed and very

              informative response. It does make very good sense that African Americans, once educated, could read the bible and see what was actually being said, rather than relying on others and also see the contradictions between the two.

              I do agree that slavery would have existed regardless of religion and that there would have been some other justification which would have had the same end result.

              It will take some time for me to wrap my mind around the gay/homophobia issue, but you have provided a good base of knowledge for me to build on.

              The above response by you is what this topic deserves. A serious, factual discussion of the history and development of African American christianity. Well done and thanks for the conversation.

              KD

              by kd texan on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:17:09 PM PDT

  •  Jennifer Pitts

    has an interesting book, A Turn to Empire that chronicles mid-ninteenth-century liberalism and its collusion with imperialism.  Not exactly slavery, here, but certainly nasty oppressive junk, that imperialism is.

    She's married to a guy who looks at liberal anti-imperialists in Enlightenment Against Empire.

    by dirkster42 on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:40:39 AM PDT

•  I don't think "this blog"

  focuses on the nasty aspects of religion - there are several commenters who do.  I find myself weary of some of the knee-jerk anti-religion discussions, but I don't think you can pin it on DailyKos - it's simply a feature of modern life that people have been hurt by Christian churches, or that they find in science more compelling answers to their existential questions than in religion (though that is odd to me).  And it's not even a strictly conservative/liberal issue, though many of the more vocal opponents are on the left.  Sam Harris does not exactly have progressive views when it comes to "the War on Terror," as he has justified torture on occasion.

  by dirkster42 on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:45:58 AM PDT