The other night, I posted this headline on the “politics” section of Reddit:  “Vote up if you’re a religious person and you fully support marriage and adoption rights for gays.  We need to show that not all people of faith are bigots.”

Much to my surprise, the post immediately began to receive down votes and negative comments.  When I asked why, this remarkable conversation ensued.  It involved myself (”J”) and another “Redditor” I’ll call “R”.  At first, the discussion was hostile and defensive, but the more we talked, the more we realized that we are not enemies.  We certainly have some differences on the issue of religion and gay rights, but we discovered by the end of the conversation that we are standing on the same side of the struggle. 

This is the type of conversation spiritual and secular progressives need to be having.  To learn more about an event called “Progressive Summit”, which seeks to bring these two groups to the table, check out this Facebook Group.

(Note: Because of the way comments on Reddit function, the following is a compilation of several comment threads that developed under this post.)

J:  Could someone please explain to me why this post has been so quickly downmodded?

R:  You need to show us with actions, not words. Pull out of the churches. It’s the funding that moderate Christians give each Sunday that is used to fund political actions such as the ‘yes on eight’ campaign.  You personally might not be a bigot, but you knowingly fund the bigots.  Until that changes you’re not changing anything. You act nice, expecting everyone to say, “You’re not to blame, we were wrong about all Christians,” but then the next sunday you’ll put money in the collection plate and it goes straight to the people you call bigots.

J:  I’m sorry, but you are wrong. As a pastor, I know very well where my church’s money goes, and none of it goes to support things like Prop 8. In fact, it goes to support a denomination which is in the process of approving the ordination of gays.  Please stop generalizing and making assumptions about all Christians because some have chosen to act out of bigotry. You are practicing a form of bigotry yourself.

R:  You are currently defending the Christians who were involved, making you an accomplice after the fact. You may not have done the deed personally, but you are perpetuating the problem by protecting the people responsible. That’s why people think all Christians are a unified group…Christians automatically defend the ’separate group of Christians’ who wronged the community. I am really, truly, deeply looking forward to seeing some actions to show you are going to side with the opressed and not the oppressors. Until then your words are an empty gesture.

**********************************************

R:  So we’re past words here, it’s time for you to act. If you want to actually help solve the problem of religions being used to operate and fund projects like the “yes on eight” campaign, then leave the church in protest over it. Let that be your message, that Christianity should not be a lobby group, it should be about Jesus and the good news.

J:  Not all churches support Prop 8. In fact, many of us are working hard for gay rights within our denominations. Mine, the PCUSA, is in the process of approving the ordination of gays. Christians are a very diverse group of people, a fact which is often overlooked in these heated political debates.

R:  My point is simple. You say you oppose these people, but we see you attacking their critics. But there is no proof you opposed poposition 8 before or after it passed. So all we have are words, when we want to see actions (they speak louder). Something like that, people could see it and rally behind it. Words alone…you’re another voice telling us we’re not allowed to criticize any Christian denomination for any reason.

J:  I’m all for you criticizing the churches that supported Prop 8. I’ll give you some Scipture to use against them, if you’d like.

R:  Tempting. ^_^

J:  John 3:16 - “Whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Whosoever is a word that excludes no one.

*******************************************

R:  As long as there is any basis in Christianity for opposition to homosexuality (e.g., Leviticus, Romans - Bible!), anti-gay beliefs and actions will be propagated. Either change Christianity’s book or drop it altogether.

J:  There is plenty of Scriptural basis for affirming gay rights - starting with “love your neighbor.” Myself, I prefer the “meta-narrative” - the overall story of the Bible that is about God’s radical love and acceptance of all human beings - a fact which was reflected in the the life of Jesus Christ.  But I’m not trying to convert anyone here. I’m just trying to show that many Christians are for gay rights and are taking plenty of action to make it happen.

R:  I don’t buy it. What gives you the license to interpret the Bible to your own ends? Either way, most Christians stick to their guns because they were told by Christian leaders or directly by the book (not that it speaks), that homosexuality is wrong. There’s no excusing Christians or Christianity for their role in propagating bigotry.  I’m not saying that I criticize you personally for fighting for gay rights - you’d be a good Canadian and we’d welcome you. But at the same time, please try to understand that Christianity’s never going to get a pass for its intolerances, implicit or explicit.

Earlier this week, I attended a seminar led by Episcopal author Diana Butler Bass.  She spoke about current conflicts within mainline Protestant churches and where they are leading us in the future.  Bass started by drawing a horizontal axis with “conservative” on one end and “liberal” on the other.  The much-publicized fight over the ordination of gays illustrates this dichotomy. 

She then drew a vertical axis and labeled it with “conventional” at the top and “intentional” at the bottom, making the claim that most church conflicts happen on this axis, not on the liberal-conservative one.  The example she gave was one of the most divisive issues that can be found in congregations these days - traditional vs. contemporary worship.  More churches have gone to war over whether to have organ or guitar music than over the issue of ordaining gays. 

Bass’ argument was that changing and breaking with long-held traditions is where the church faces its greatest challenges these days.  It’s not about resolving the conflict between liberals and conservatives, a conflict which has been around for over a century and which will never get resolved through arguing.  It’s about transforming traditional practices.

Much of what Bass said about church conflict can also be said about the world of politics, especially when it comes to the recent presidential election.  Certainly, there were issues in the election that fall neatly onto the liberal-conservative axis: taxes, the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, etc.  But John McCain’s own adviser famously said that the campaign was not about the issues, which begs the obvious question, “OK, then, what was it about?”

It was about that vertical axis that Bass drew.  It was about “convention” vs. “intention.”  It was about doing things the way they’ve always been done vs. change.  What will history remember most about the 2008 election?  That it was a mandate to end the War in Iraq?  That it was a victory of raising taxes on the wealthy over trickle-down theory?  That it was a validation of Obama’s almost-universal health care plan?  Hardly.

Those left vs. right issues will certainly be important in the coming years, but they’re not what carried Obama to a resounding victory.  Obama won because the people wanted change.  They wanted something different than George Bush and Bill Clinton and the same old Washington political games.  McCain tried to present himself as the real option for change, but in the end, he lost because he couldn’t help but represent tradition and convention.

What will be remembered about 2008 is that Obama is the first black president.  That he is the first post-Boomer president.  That he is the first tech-saavy president.  Perhaps even that he is the first post-partisan president.  And that he ran (for the most part) a positive and uplifting campaign.  All of these things have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.  They have nothing to do with this dichotomy that has been placed on our politics throughout American history.   They have to do with something else, something that is bubbling forth from our culture that Obama was smart enough to tap into. 

At the end of Diana Butler Bass’ seminar, she introduced a third axis into her model, making it three-dimensional.  This third axis was the movement from modernism to post-modernism.  Bass didn’t spend too much time trying to describe post-modernism and what the coming years will look like, but she assured us that the church that exists 50 years from now will bear little resemblance to the modern relic that exists right now. 

I think we can say the same for politics and for the world in general.  Whatever things look like in the year 2058, I feel certain that the Obama presidency will be viewed as the beginning of a whole new epoch - and not because of policy, but because of process.  He will go down as a great president not because he will accomplish partisan victories, but because he will transform the methods and practices by which a president governs and leads.

This morning, I downloaded the first of Obama’s Youtube addresses, a true “Fireside Chat” for the 21st century.  I wonder if John McCain even knows how to use Youtube.  I can’t help but marvel at how much things are already changing.

Last weekend, I posted three maps that suggested a fairly strong correlation between the states that McCain won and the states with the most poverty. From these maps, it seemed clear that poor people have once again voted against their own interests by voting Republican.

But here are two more maps that throw a big wrench into these conclusions. The first shows how the electoral map would have looked had we counted only the votes from people who make under $50,000 a year - an Obama landslide. 

The second is if we counted only people who make more than $50,000 - an Obama victory, but by the narrowest of margins.

We seem to have a contradiction here.  How is it possible that the poorest states went for McCain at the same time that the poorest voters went for Obama?  Help me out, Seminal readers.  I’m scratching my head on this one.

Here’s the electoral map from Tuesday night’s presidential election:

Now here’s a map showing how many people live in poverty around the United States:

Finally, here’s one displaying income inequality:

See any patterns? It appears that, for the most part, the areas that voted for Obama are also the areas that have the lowest poverty rates and the smallest gap between rich and poor. And conversely, the areas that went for McCain tend to have more poverty and show a greater disparity bteween rich and poor.

All of which seems to indicate that the places suffering the most during this economic crisis are the ones that continue to vote for the party whose economic policies favor well-heeled, corporate interests - and that the areas that are not quite so bad off are going for the party that historically has been on the side of the poor and the working class, and that has promised to do more directly for working people in this election.

Go figure.

American culture is slowly moving from modernism to postmodernism, the type of major shift in collective worldview that hasn’t happened since the Enlightenment of the 18th century.  If this transition were a river, we’d see the Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) standing on the modern side of the river, Generation X (1965-1980) in the middle trying not to get swept away, and the Millennials (1981-2000) comfortably positioned on the postmodern side.  Generation X, then, is the bridge that is taking us from one era to the next.

Having been born in 1961, Obama is technically a Baby Boomer.  But the recent presidential debates demonstrate the fact that Obama is functionally a postmodern “X’er” in both style and outlook.  John McCain, by contrast, is still firmly rooted in the world of modernism:

Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. McCain spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.

Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. By contrast, McCain perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.

Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. Talking about Iraq, McCain promised to seek American “victory and honor.” Obama was more concerned about America’s global reputation.

In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama’s office but not necessarily for Obama himself.

Personal morality vs. communal values.  Dichotomizing vs. consensus.  Confrontation vs. negotiation.   Nationalism vs. globalism.   Obviously, these distinctions cannot be universally applied to McCain and Obama.  But the debates did clearly show how Obama operates from a very different approach and a very different way of looking at the world.  The Obama victory indicates the fact that although the United States as a whole might not be a postmodern culture quite yet, we are certainly moving steadily across that river.  That so many younger voters who are firmly rooted in the postmodern worldview came out and voted for Obama further illustrates this shifting reality.

Personally, I am more excited about the postmodern flavor of the upcoming Obama presidency than anything else.  Much is being made of the significance of his victory for African Americans and all minorities, as it should be.  Much is being made of the defeat of neo-conservatism and the weakening of the Republican Party, as it should be.  And much is being made of the great gains made by women in this campaign, as it should be.

But all of those triumphs can be placed under this much larger shift in our culture that has now made its way to the highest office in the land.  Obama will be a different kind of president.  To many folks in the older generations, the way he does things and the way he talks about things will seem foreign.  But to those of us in the younger generations, he will be an absolute breath of fresh air - for we will finally feel that our worldview and our way of dealing with reality is being represented.

It all started when I published an article about Bill Maher and his prejudice against religion, saying that he was driving people of faith away from the liberal/progressive movement. I was surprised to get a fairly strong backlash defending Maher, and realized that there is a lot of hurt and distrust across the spiritual-secular divide. There are also a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings to overcome.

I conceived of the idea of hosting an online summit meeting where both sides could come together and discuss these differences, as well as the things we have in common - namely a passion for peace, social justice, and protecting the environment. Portions of the summit will be published on The Seminal, and it will likely get started sometime in January.

To prepare for the summit, I have started a Facebook Group called “Progressive Summit.”  The purpose of the group is to act as a gathering place for people who are interested either as participants or observers.  It also will introduce and generate discussion around some of the topics and people that will be featured.

To join the group and learn more about Progressive Summit, go here.   We’ll see you at the top!

Well, we made it!  Election Day is finally here.  And so is the number one selection on the “Top Ten Songs to Blast From Your Office on Election Day If You Work at a Polling Place.”  But before we get to the top song, let’s recap numbers ten through two:

10. “The Man’s Too Strong” - Dire Straits
9. “Don’t Stop Believing” - Journey
8. “Killing In The Name” - Rage Against the Machine
7. “A Change Is Gonna Come” - Sam Cooke
6. ”My Generation” - The Who
5. “Dirty Laundry” - Don Henley
4. “Positively 4th Street” - Bob Dylan
3. “What’s Going On” - Marvin Gaye
2. “Holiday” - Green Day

And topping the charts is what some consider to be the greatest rock-n-roll song of all time: “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” by The Who. This video was actually produced for the 2006 mid-term elections, but it is still very appropriate, lest we forget what this election is really about:

We’re almost there! Just two selections left in the “Top Ten Songs To Blast From Your Office on Election Day If You Work at a Polling Place.” Here’s the list so far:

10. “The Man’s Too Strong” - Dire Straits
9. “Don’t Stop Believing” - Journey
8. “Killing In The Name” - Rage Against the Machine
7. “A Change Is Gonna Come” - Sam Cooke
6. ”My Generation” - The Who
5. “Dirty Laundry” - Don Henley
4. “Positively 4th Street” - Bob Dylan
3. “What’s Going On” - Marvin Gaye

For the second position, we turn to Green Day and this instant classic from the “American Idiot” album. Sing it with me: “I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies. This is the dawning of the rest of our lives!”

Can I get another Amen? (Amen!)
There’s a flag wrapped around a score of men (Hey!)
A gag, a plastic bag on a monument

I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
On holiday

“The representative from California has the floor”

Sieg Heil to the president Gasman
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel towers
Who criticize your government
Bang bang goes the broken glass and
Kill all the fags that don’t agree
Trials by fire, setting fire
Is not a way that’s meant for me
Just cause, just cause, because we’re outlaws yeah!

I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives

10. “The Man’s Too Strong” - Dire Straits
9. “Don’t Stop Believing” - Journey
8. “Killing In The Name” - Rage Against the Machine
7. “A Change Is Gonna Come” - Sam Cooke
6.  ”My Generation” - The Who
5. “Dirty Laundry” - Don Henley
4. “Positively 4th Street” - Bob Dylan

All right.  Now we’re getting to the good stuff.  Here’s Marvin Gaye: