Time Magazine LTE by Rev. Taber
Rev. Taber fires back against the conventional wisdom that religious = right wing in a letter to the editor in the 8/6/07 edition of “Time”.
It was unsettling to read your cover story declaring that the Democratic Party “ignored the faithful for decades” [July 23]. As a liberal Christian and an ordained minister, since when do I not fit the label of “the faithful”? The Democratic Party has been steadfast in support of the poor, minorities and social justice in our nation for many decades. Those who take seriously their faith in God are intimately involved with these issues. “The faithful” is not synonymous with “Fundamentalists.” You do the rest of us an injustice by implying as much.
(The Rev.) William H. Taber ROCHESTER, N.Y.
I was mystified after the last presidential election at the oversimplification of the vast spectrum of religious belief in this country. Religious belief isn’t a problem for progressives. The problem is a sound-bite media that puts religious belief in a box and crudely reinforces existing stereotypes. The Christian Right makes a lot of noise, and gets a lot of media attention, but they don’t represent the beliefs of the majority of religious people.
Amen! (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Seriously though, this makes me think RT should highlight religious progressives in our region.
We should. I think it’s a great idea.
I respectfully disagree and uphold the principles of separation of church and state.
It’s religion that won’t let Iraq find peace, it’s religion that won’t allow the Middle East to cease war, and it’ll be religion that destroys what we hold sacred and dear if allowed.
Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps that was the plan? Find a “candidate” (…in this case God) and put him out there as your “main guy”. After all, who has the courage to declare him the wrong choice?
Problem with that theory is which God is the “correct” God?
Nope…separation of church and state. Let us choose which God we worship on our own, and pray in the manner we choose to be what we find acceptable, and kind.
Remember - people get the government they deserve.
Why must candidates even have a professed faith? After reading the Time article, it was obvious that one or more candidates didn’t even belong to a house of worship. Why can’t we judge someone on his or her actions? So, an atheist or nontheist who has supported progressive actions consistently, but has no professed faith won’t be considered alongside someone who wears faith on the sleeve, but meanwhile votes for war, NAFTA, gets millions in campaign donations from corporate donors, against universal healthcare (single payer), etc., etc…To judge people on faith is just irrational to me–just look at George W. Bush.