Danforth and the Religious Right
As has been widely reported, former Senator and UN Ambassador John Danforth once again criticized the influence of "the religious right" on the Republican Party, this time during a visit to the Clinton Library.
With all due respect to Senator Danforth, his speech was somewhat reminiscent of the timing of Al Gore's famous global warming address -- given on New York city's coldest day in decades.
If the withdrawal of Harriet Miers was a loss for any faction of the Republican Party, it was the evangelical (or "religious") contingent. The opposition to Miers was composed of largely secular conservative intellectuals -- not the religious conservatives whom, according to Danforth, wield overwhelming (and destructive) influence in the Republican Party.
To me, it's difficult to understand what Senator Danforth, an Episcopal priest himself, finds so undesirable and threatening about people of faith making their home in the Republican Party. As far as I'm concerned, it's a badge of honor. Why should their voices count less than the militant secularists that dominate Democratic ranks?
With all due respect to Senator Danforth, his speech was somewhat reminiscent of the timing of Al Gore's famous global warming address -- given on New York city's coldest day in decades.
If the withdrawal of Harriet Miers was a loss for any faction of the Republican Party, it was the evangelical (or "religious") contingent. The opposition to Miers was composed of largely secular conservative intellectuals -- not the religious conservatives whom, according to Danforth, wield overwhelming (and destructive) influence in the Republican Party.
To me, it's difficult to understand what Senator Danforth, an Episcopal priest himself, finds so undesirable and threatening about people of faith making their home in the Republican Party. As far as I'm concerned, it's a badge of honor. Why should their voices count less than the militant secularists that dominate Democratic ranks?
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:10 PM
9 Comments:
It really shouldn't be too difficult to understand. There are of course liberal Christians. They, like secular liberals, believe in a "my truth" kinda philosophy which meshes with the "we'll take anybody no matter what they believe" Democratic Party. The conservative Christians believe in external truth, or truth that exists despite one's own desires and proclivities. This lines up better with the Republican Party which more often than not understands that there are absolutes and that "gray areas" are generally man-made ways to rationalize bad behavior. The "threat" that they try to scare folks with comes from the inate knowledge of those absolutes and the fear that they'll be shown to be in conflict with them. From this, they highlight the lie that conservative Christians are trying to force religion down the throats of helpless citizens.
oh shut up.
doesn't this whole episode make you feel even a teensy bit ashamed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801721.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The fact that you don't understand what's wrong with religion's rapid engulfing of politics and government is pretty scary. Religion has no place in politics or government in the U.S.
If you don't want to live in a country that constitutionally enforces secularism in government and the rule of law, go start your own christian utopia somewhere else (preferrably far away) and stop trying to rewrite the constitution.
You know, on second thought, keep trying to shove religion down the throats of Americans. It is one of the central reasons Republican's are increasingly being viewed by the majority of American's as "puppets of the religious right" and "out of touch" with the views of mainstream America. It is also why moderate Republicans like Danforth are bailing on Bush in droves.
So, on second thought, "stay the course" - it's only helping advance the cause of swinging the political pendulum back to the center.
After reading for a few weeks now, I find Draino's comments aptly reflect his moniker of "Draino".
Don't y'all agree (wink wink)?
Peter
Peter (anonymous) wrote, After reading for a few weeks now, I find Draino's comments aptly reflect his moniker of "Draino".
Don't y'all agree (wink wink)?
Peter
Not as much as I think your comment aptly reflects your name "Peter".
Thanks MT.
Anonymous (wink, wink)
So people of faith are supposed to disconnect their religious beliefs from their political ones, Draino? Spoken like someone who has no idea what it means to have deep religious convictions. No one has suggested we rewrite the Constitution so that we have a specific religion running the country. The religious right is merely a group of people trying to maintain values they believe have existed in the Constitution since the beginning of our nation which will help us as a society to prosper. I don't see them forcing religion down anyone's throats. I see them trying to have a voice in political discourse, as do other groups. The fact that you are so scared of people who have a strong sense of morality and commitment to family and traditional values says far more about you than it does about them.
Post a Comment
<< Home