A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on May 22nd, 2009 in Progressive Faith

Anyone who has read much of what I have written knows that I support full equality for the GLBT community. Like many, I was surprised to hear about “The Dallas Principles”. Unfortunately, I don’t see it as visionary in the least. In fact, I see it as a major step backwards. The Principles:

In order to achieve full civil rights now, we avow:

1.Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.

2.We will not leave any part of our community behind.

3.Separate is never equal.

4.Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

5.The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.

6.Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.

7.Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.

8.Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

Hmmmm. “Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.” Huh? It sure looks like they are telling the world, “If you believe in equality because of your faith, then you are wrong.”

Oddly, right beside the box stating their principles is a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That would be the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The man who said:

“A religion true to its nature must also be concerned about man’s social conditions….Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion.”

The very next quote if from Thomas Jefferson – the man who wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Though they don’t quote her, Sojourner Truth would have been surprised at their insistence that religious beliefs cannot affirm civil rights. After all, she said:

Does not God love colored children as well as white children? And did not the same Savior die to save the one as well as the other? If so, white children must know that if they go to Heaven, they must go there without their prejudice against color, for in Heaven black and white are one in the love of Jesus. Now children, remember what Sojourner Truth has told you, and thus get rid of your prejudice, and learn to love colored children that you may be all the children of your Father who is in Heaven.”

I understand why many in the GLBT community would bear hard feelings towards religion. Religion has, too often, been used as a blunt instrument of repression, bent on forcing people back into line rather than liberating them on earth as it will in heaven. It is natural to want to wall one’s self off from small-minded institutions that launch wave after wae of attack. I understand.

But there are a number of problems with that approach. First of all, it’s a huge tactical blunder. In this country, starting any endeavor by saying religion has no place in it is simply going to raise the hackles of people who might otherwise listen (like me).

Second, it’s impossible. It comes from the misunderstanding that people of faith should leave their faith at home when they participate in the public sphere. That’s great – as long as those who aren’t religious also leave out everything they believe in as well. It’s impossible.

Third, it’s a pretty safe bet that more people who fight for civil rights also believe in one God or another. Hobbling them from engaging the opposition on home territory is simply asking for your army to leave its weapons at home.

It isn’t just academic. The eighth principle states, “Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.” Soooo – if I can’t commit to leaving my faith out of fighting for civil rights, then you don’t want my help?

I’ve been assured by some of those involved with these principles that this is not their intention. It is, however, what they are saying. At the best, it is simply a badly written document that asks for people of faith to exhibit a high level of tolerance for a fundamental misunderstanding of who they are. At worst, it displays a tendency to call for tolerance for one group while denying it for another. On the whole, it simply isn’t needed. The Principles would be perfectly functional without singling out religious beliefs to target. After all, secular beliefs can be just as restrictive as those based in religion.

Protests and explanations to the contrary may be valid. The problem is that a statement of principles should not have to be explained. Like I said, it picks a fight that is simply unnecessary – or at least seeks to engage it on the wrong level. As such, it will serve merely as a bone of contention, not a call to move forward.

Sphere: Related Content