Religion
Related: About this forumCan a religious person be considered progressive if they oppose lgbt and reproductive rights?
Let's use a simple dictionary definition of progressive:
| 20 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| One cannot call themselves progressive if they oppose lgbt/reproductive rights | |
17 (85%) |
|
| One can call themselves progressive if they oppose lgbt/reproductive rights | |
3 (15%) |
|
| Other (explain) | |
0 (0%) |
|
| I like polls | |
0 (0%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
50 Shades Of Blue
(11,084 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)The simple part of your definition is definitely correct.
Define social reform.
Define liberal.
And feel free to visit my thread and post some theists or non-theists who you consider to be true progressives.
Perhaps Christopher Hitchen?
Push-polling at its finest.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't understand the hesitation.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Words matter, and this "poll" is designed to elicit one response.
I do not understand your hesitation, or reluctance, or inability, to propose a single, non-theist who you consider to be a progressive. Are there none?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Either the label fits or it doesn't.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You claim this is push polling to get a specific response, yet seem oblivious to your own posts with the same design (in addition to deflecting from questions raised)
So, can someone who is opposed to LGBTQIA rights truly be called a progressive.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bigotry based on religious beliefs is no different than any other kind of bigotry/oppression. Progressives support equal rights for all.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)non-theists who are progressives who have already chimed in on this issue, right here in this thread.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)public figures.
And we still have not defined what being a progressive is. Or even if one can be a progressive without agreeing on every position that might be named.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)what public figures are non-theists AND progressive? You are acting like we have some "leader" like the Pope, and we don't, so it means nothing who fits into what category. It seems to me that you are trying to say that non-theists cannot or are not progressive. I have made it clear that this is not true based on the progressives here.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)If I define a progressive as being a pacifist, how many progressive politicians are there?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Get reduced to "single issue" just so you can make theists look better.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Upon what do you base your opinion that progressives must be pacifists?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because the question is an obvious attempt at a tu quoque. I, for one, am happy to leave the goalposts right where they are.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)any progressives on the part of those who are quick to point out the speck in their neighbor's eye.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)For instance; Hitchens, whom none of us would claim was a progressive for one second.
Very well, I think Dr. Susan Blackmore is good example of a progressive, but it's not her primary vocation. If you MUST have a name.
Please do vote.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)She writes and lectures from a non-theistic perspective, but what makes her a progressive?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)positions.
But I am not your search engine and I am not starting some kind of hero worship OP 'progressive people in X'. You are welcome to attempt to dox her with any anti-progressive positions she may have stated. I know of none.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)do you include those that are anti-LGBT and anti-choice?
It's a simple yes or no question.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And I am still waiting for someone to name one non-theist who is progressive. It should not be that hard, but if a person must be perfectly progressive it helps to define what progressive is.
For instance, should a progressive be anti-war?
Should a progressive be respectful of International Law?
In my definition, a progressive is anti-war and respectful of International Law.
edhopper
(35,558 posts)are two progressive atheist politicians for a start.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)THAT Pete Stark?
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/dont-let-door-hit-you-way-out-pete-stark
Got it. That certainly sets a low bar.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)But a bar so low that Trump could almost step over it.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The pope sets a low bar, but I don't think Trump could step over it.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)What if Putin was standing on the other side with his hand out?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Is he going to be in the series as well?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Thanks for the "No" response, but the second sentence in your title is where I become confused. Are you saying you don't judge self-identified Progressives who are anti-LGBT and/or pro forced birth? I don't understand what you mean with the word "judging".
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)I might have a different answer. There might be some commonalities, some overlap, but defining what constitutes a progressive, or a Democrat, is the subject of much debate at DU.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Either you're trolling, or you have no idea of the people you speak of. You won't find any atheists in here that don't recognize Hitchens' sexism and warmongering.
And none of us would, for a moment, try to pawn him off as a Progressive in any sense.
delisen
(6,822 posts)Under the dictionary definition I think they would be progressives but not a perfect ten.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm not referring to whether or not one personally approves of lgbt people or abortion - I'm referring to those who actively oppose our rights and advocate restricting them.
delisen
(6,822 posts)I think, in the dictionary term.
I have know many religion-affiliated persons who are opposed to abortion but do not impinge on the freedom of others. They might offer help to a pregnant woman but not try to take away her choice.
Most religion-affiliated persons I have known who seem very progressive are progressive regarding LGBT persons.
Regarding reproductive rights, I think about Dorothy Day. I cannot say she was not a dictionary definition progressive.
My recollection of the New Testament is that Jesus said nothing about abortion
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I know a few old timers who will never get used to seeing two gay guys kiss on television and don't understand why gender is fluid but they adamantly believe that lgbt people deserve the same rights as straight/cis folks. Same thing with abortion, plenty of women are personally opposed to it but still advocate for our right to choose. Those people are progressives.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)I personally believe that abortion is taking life, and I believe that it is wrong, but I would not impose my beliefs on anyone who felt differently. I am prochoice and pro-life.
So am I a progressive?
As to LGBTQ rights, in my view, all rights are human rights. But some of my co-religionists obviously disagree.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)How about a specific question with a specific answer.
Do you support allowing emergency contraceptives like Plan-B over the counter, no age limit, no ID?
What about requiring a pharmacy to stock it, as part and parcel of them being a licensed pharmacy?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)If it was not clear, it should now be clear.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Should Catholic hospitals be required to provide a full range of services around reproductive choice and health?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thanks.
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,408 posts)with full rights and opportunities, one is certainly not progressive.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Unless one believes in evolution.
edhopper
(35,558 posts)if they were around today would they oppose slavery and approve of women voting?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)They would approve of slavery and oppose women voting.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You do realize he was a right wing religious nut job, right?
When did Scalia say this? What were his exact words?
edhopper
(35,558 posts)do you agree with Scalia? if so, no they were not progressives.
And if you agree with Scalia about almost anything, I would asy YOU are not a progressive.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)If only it had happened a year earlier.
edhopper
(35,558 posts)would probably have blocked it then too.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)You can be against something personally but as long as you're not trying to pass laws so that others conform to that viewpoint, or actively and intrusively trying to convert people to that viewpoint, I can't see much harm in it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)People who want to ban marriage equality, prevent same sex couples from adopting children, revoke protections for transgender students, ban abortion, etc.
Are those people progressive?
Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)It's like asking if the taliban is progressive. I don't think anyone is under that assumption.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)In fact that's been an issue for quite some time when it comes to excusing religious intolerance.
The pope is often referred to as progressive even though he actively opposes both lgbt and women's reproductive rights.
Stop calling Pope Francis progressive: You might love his pastoral style, but don’t fool yourself on Vatican substance
Recently an outspoken opponent of abortion who wanted to ban it completely and still calls for more restrictions was called a "progressive person of faith". Another - a lawyer for the hate group the Family Research Council which vilifies lgbt people and accuses gay men of being sexual predators was praised for his good works.
I expect some disagreement when it comes to defining what makes a progressive 'progressive' but personally I draw the line at active opposition to human rights for women and lgbt people. I was curious about how others felt so I created a poll.
Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)Catholic church exists in. It depends whether you're using progressive as an adjective or noun. I don't see any problem with calling the pope progressive, or a progressive within the papal state. It's silly to scrutinize progress as not enough progress. Be happy with little steps forward.
And, to the pope's defense I'm fairly certain he wants to go further but there's some weird Borgia shit going on in the Vatican right now and he's fighting an attempted conservative coup. But he's opening the doors.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I asked:
Are those people progressive?
Your response:
It's like asking if the taliban is progressive. I don't think anyone is under that assumption.
Now you're changing your mind because it's the pope who opposes my rights? Since when does religious belief make intolerance and oppression of others acceptable?
And I'm supposed to be "happy" with this?
Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)a creed and reject those that don't.
But I can't do that so I need to be happy when they make any kind of progress from their current positions.
Idk why you wouldn't. A pope that doesn't want to start a holy war is a breath of fresh air.
Not to split hairs either but the Catholic church has no power in America, the Catholic League does.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Catholic hospitals are being sued for denying women adequate medical care.
The Catholic Church is making health care decisions for more and more Americans—whether they know it or not.
Between 2001 and 2011, the number of American hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church grew 16 percent, even as the number of public hospitals and secular nonprofit hospitals dropped 31 percent and 12 percent, respectively, according to an upcoming report by the American Civil Liberties Union and MergerWatch, a nonprofit that tracks religious health care mergers. In 2012, Catholic hospitals and health care systems were involved in 24 mergers or acquisitions, according to Irving Levin Associates, a market research firm. Ten of the 25 largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country are Catholic, and Catholic hospitals care for 1 in 6 American patients. In at least eight states, 30 percent or more of patient admissions are at Catholic facilities.
Ten of the 25 largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country are Catholic, and Catholic hospitals care for 1 in 6 patients.
Catholic hospitals are required to follow health care directives handed down by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops—a group of celibate older men who have become increasingly conservative over the past few decades. (Recall the bishops' ongoing showdown with the White House over Obamacare's requirement that health insurance plans cover contraception.) The issues go far beyond abortion. The bishops' directives restrict how doctors in Catholic hospitals may treat everything from miscarriages to terminal illness. How this treatment differs from that of secular hospitals is not always disclosed to patients.
"When you go into a hospital or an ER, you do not think that there's a bishop between you and your doctor," says Linda McCarthy, CEO of a Planned Parenthood branch in western Washington. In 2010, Peter Sartain, a prominent bishop recently enlisted by the church to crack down on nuns deemed too liberal, was appointed to the Seattle diocese. Not long afterward, he told the Catholic hospital in McCarthy's area to stop performing lab work for Planned Parenthood that the hospital had handled for at least a decade, including tests unrelated to abortion, such as cholesterol screenings. McCarthy publicized the demand and the hospital backed off, for the time being.
"The Catholic bishops are seizing an opportunity to control the health care we all pay for, and they're being wildly successful," says Monica Harrington, the co-chair of Washington Women for Choice. A spate of proposed deals could leave Catholic facilities accounting for 50 percent of the state's hospital admissions. "We could very well end up with three conservative bishops overseeing health care for 6 million people," McCarthy says.
Abortion services are always quick to go when a Catholic hospital takes over, but the changes go much further. In many cases, doctors are prohibited from prescribing birth control, and hospital pharmacies won't sell it. Doctors may even be told not to counsel patients about it. Catholic hospitals have been reluctant to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, and when they do, they first require a pregnancy test to ensure the woman was not pregnant before the assault. The bishops' guidelines forbid tubal ligations and vasectomies. They also extend to end-of-life care: Catholic hospitals may ignore patients' requests to be removed from feeding tubes or life support, even if those wishes are expressed in living wills. And many states allow religious hospitals to discriminate against gays and lesbians, both as employees and as patients.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/catholic-hospitals-bishops-contraception-abortion-health-care
That article is from 2013 and it's only gotten worse:
A disturbing new report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and MergerWatch, “Health Care Denied,” finds that one in six hospitals in the U.S. are operated in accordance with Catholic religious rules, known as the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs).
While perhaps best known for prohibiting abortion, the restrictions go far beyond that, and impact more than reproductive health.
For women, the impact can be deadly.
Abortions are prohibited even if the fetus has no chance of survival and the mother’s life is in danger. Savita Halappanavar died of sepsis in Ireland because her physicians would neither terminate her doomed pregnancy to save her life, nor transfer her to a facility that would care of her. Tamesha Means was luckier. She survived. Despite starting to miscarry at 18 weeks’ gestation, she says that Mercy Health in Muskegon, Michigan, sent her home, denying her appropriate care and putting her life at risk. There are similar, less well-known cases here, detailed in the ACLU report. Not providing emergency care is a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requirement for hospitals that receive Medicare funding—and Catholic health systems receive billions in taxpayer dollars.
In “Growth of Catholic Hospitals and Health Systems: 2016 update to ‘Miscarriage of Medicine’,” MergerWatch reports disturbing growth in Catholic-dictated health care. Between 2001 to 2016:
–The number of acute care hospitals that are Catholic owned or affiliated grew by 22 percent, while the overall number of acute care hospitals dropped by 6 percent
– There are now five states (Alaska, Iowa, Washington, Wisconsin and South Dakota), where more than 40 percent of acute care beds are in hospitals operating under Catholic health restrictions
–In another five states (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Oregon and Kentucky), between 30 and 39 percent of the acute care beds are in facilities that are Catholic owned or affiliated
Physicians at Catholic hospitals have to agree to abide by the ERDs as a condition of obtaining privileges. Depending in part on the whim of the local bishop, this could include gag rules prohibiting counseling a patient or referring a patient to a place that would provide necessary services.
In Washington state, data shows that 40% of all hospital beds are in a Catholic hospital. There is no other option for care in entire regions. This is especially true in rural regions, and it is frightening when the only access to healthcare is dictated by someone else’s religious doctrine, rather than medical science.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/05/07/health-care-denied-at-550-hospitals-because-of-catholic-doctrine/
The RCC has influenced American politics for decades:
In 1975, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops had developed a plan to turn every diocese into an anti-choice political machine and to use its existing infrastructure to set up an office in every congressional district. The bishops’ plan included a four-pronged legislative strategy, which continues to guide the anti-choice movement today:
(a) Passage of a constitutional amendment providing protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.
(b) Passage of federal and state laws and adoption of administrative policies that will restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible.
(c) Continual research into and refinement and precise interpretation of Roe and Doe and subsequent court decisions.
(d) Support for legislation that provides alternatives to abortion.
In other words: fight for an amendment to undo Roe, but at the same time work through the courts and legislatures to make it harder for women to access legal abortion. While Roe would remain the law of the land, women would not be able to actually exercise their rights.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/personhood-movement-internal-battles-go-public-part-2-0
They were also behind the Hobby Lobby decision:
The Catholic bishops now sought a broad-based conscience clause that would allow any employer or insurer to refuse to cover contraceptives for any religious or moral objection. This represented a major escalation in the grounds for claiming conscience protections. Traditionally so-called conscience clauses, like the 1973 Church Amendment, protected individuals or health care entities like hospitals only from being compelled to directly perform abortions or sterilizations in violation of their moral or religious beliefs. In 1997, the federal government expanded conscience protections to the payers of abortion-related services when it allowed Medicaid and Medicare managed-care plans to refuse to pay providers for abortion counseling or referral services. Now the bishops were attempting to extend conscience protection to any payer who had a “moral” objection to contraception. Such a measure would make contraceptive coverage mandates useless, because any employer or insurer could opt out. And it would once again leave women’s reproductive health care at the mercy of individual employers and insurers and stigmatize contraceptives, like abortion, as a segregated health service that could be carved out of the continuum of women’s health needs.
The bishops failed to get a broader conscience clause in the bill mandating coverage of contraceptives for federal employees, but they did manage to get an exemption for the five religiously affiliated plans in the system. Having set the precedent that religious providers would be treated differently concerning the provision of reproductive health care, even in the matter of noncontroversial services such as contraception, the bishops launched a major new effort to create broad conscience exemptions.
...
There was more at stake that just the bishops’ authority over services provided by Catholic institutions. Domestic and international social service agencies affiliated with the church, like Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Relief Services, receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts each year to provide social services to the poor, run adoption agencies, and manage international development projects. Catholic Charities affiliates received nearly $3 billion in government funding in 2010, accounting for more than 60 percent of their revenue. Religiously affiliated hospitals in the United States, of which 70 percent are Catholic, receive some $40 billion in government funding each year through Medicare and Medicaid and other government programs.
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/how_the_catholic_church_masterminded_the_supreme_courts_hobby_lobby_debacle/
Women are suffering and dying because the RCC has too much power.
Don't you dare expect me to be happy about that or excuse the pope's misogyny because he's not as bad as his predecessors.
Am I also expected to praise the progressiveness of other religious homophobes and misogynists or is the pope special for some reason?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Sure, man. Whatever you say.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)..."What if the person in question provides..." (hmmm...what's the current terminology...oh yeah)"...material support for an organization that actively works to ban marriage equality, prevent same sex couples from adopting children, revoke protections for transgender students, ban abortion, etc."
Can a person be called Progressive if they hold personal beliefs in support of marriage equality etc., but are active members of an organization that works across the globe to ban marriage equality, prevent same sex couples from adopting children, revoke protections for transgender students, ban abortion, etc.?
One might argue that it is easier to affect change from within, as a member, and I would agree with that sentiment, but the last time I checked most churches don't have official/required membership fees. So, one could work to make change from within, without providing any direct support.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I know many progressives who left such an organization after realizing that their support was in effect tacit approval for their anti-lgbt and anti-reproductive rights policies. By providing financial support and allowing themselves to be counted among the members of this organization they realized they were actually helping it to oppress women and lgbt people.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Opposing human rights for women and lgbt people is regressive, not progressive.
LostOne4Ever
(9,629 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]If you are against equal rights for any minority, then you aren't a liberal![/font]
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Some people actually think forcing women to give birth is progressive. I wonder how they would feel about forced tissue and organ donation?
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)Period. To condone those laws ignores the rights of non-theists. It's bigotry. There is no argument here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Your objection wouldn't seem to affect the situation.
The most important thing, though, is to drive off all the religious people. Stay on that one until it's done.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)All of them? Really?
Or just the ones who oppose the Democratic Party platform? Cuz I got news for you, those religious folks weren't voting for us in the first place.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Really?
You don't have much faith in them.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If a few people posting on an anonymous message board is going to scare people away from the Democratic Party, I question just how much they were committed to the party's goals in the first place.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I should be quiet, I don't want to offend anyone.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"And be thankful I'm not throwing you UNDER it... yet!"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We're in good company.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Historically speaking, it's a great place to be.
Warpy
(113,131 posts)and be considered progressive, in any way.
Bob Casey (D-PA) doesn't get it. He's great on men's issues, but men aren't the only ones who live here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
vlyons
(10,252 posts)I would not consider you progressive. The question is - do you yourself choose to never have an abortion, or do you oppose other women making that choice for themselves? Similarly, do you yourself choose to not enter into a same-sex relationship, or do you choose to prevent other people from making that choice for themselves?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Actively advocating for restrictions on lgbt and women's rights is not progressive.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)If they advocate placing a low priority on those issues, and promoting progressive positions otherwise (and they come from an overall very conservative faith community). Especially if they seem like they might be on a trajectory towards changing their non-progressive ways.
Setting such contextual factors aside, no, opposing those rights is not progressive.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)There are no hard and fast rules about what qualifies one as a progressive and people who struggle to get past their beliefs deserve credit for trying to evolve. I guess I draw the line when it comes to advocacy. It's difficult to consider someone progressive if they are willing to actively promote restricting the rights of others.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Even if they say progressive-sounding things on other issues, their time, money, and voting is going to reactionary causes. Their actions show where their heart lies.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)She is recovering.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We only get one mom. 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)