Obama for America 2012 campaign speechwriter turned New York Times Washington bureau reporting intern Theodore Schleifer has an article in the Times that runs under the headline "Religious Conservatives Embrace Pollution Fight." It includes this sentence:
Although many of the faith leaders came from traditionally progressive congregations, like black churches, synagogues and mainstream Protestant denominations, others were more conservative Christians who reflect a growing embrace of environmentalism by parts of the religious right.
That sentence could have used an editor. It's not clear initially whether the word "black" modifies just "churches," or also synagogues and mainstream Protestant denominations. The word that Mr. Schleifer was looking for wasn't "mainstream" but "mainline." And it's not even true that "black churches, synagogues, and mainstream [sic] Protestant denominations" are "traditionally progressive," whatever that even means. Orthodox synagogues may be "progressive" on some issues, like government anti-poverty spending, but conservative on others, such as opposition to gay marriage, support for defense spending, or support for school vouchers or government aid to religious schools. Black churches may be "progressive" on civil rights issues but less so when it comes to gay marriage or violence in the media. Even the term "progressive" here is problematic. If you are some radical environmentalist who opposes genetically modified food, opposes hydrofracking for natural gas, opposes nuclear energy, but wants to get energy from windmills like Europeans did back a couple of centuries ago, that makes you a "progressive"? It seems to me that is a "progressive" who opposes progress. It sounds like the Times is using "progressive" here as a euphemism for "liberal" or "politically left-wing." Maybe it polls better. But it doesn't help readers understanding of the issue, especially when it is used as sweepingly and loosely as it is in the Times passage quoted.