"St. Jack": Not So Tolerant
Senator John Danforth has been kind to me when I've been thrown in his path from time to time. No doubt he's a good man, and he has a wonderful family. They've done -- and do -- a lot for St. Louis and its surrounding communities.
But his views, expressed in this Washington Post piece, can best be labeled in one word: Intolerant. To conservative Christians who want a voice in politics, he says, "You're not welcome. Go away." He's more outraged, it seems, by those who oppose embryonic stem cell research than those who support partial birth abortion.
It's hard to imagine a senator being lionized if he had denounced the political participation of any other group -- Muslims, Catholics, Jews. And when, exactly, did Senator Danforth become the arbiter of who does, and doesn't, have a legitimate place in the Republican Party and in national politics generally?
This passage of the story seemed to me particularly revealing:
He recalls a more pleasant era of coalitions and compromises that gave way to ever fiercer partisanship starting in the early 1990s after Thomas was already on the bench. He dates the beginning of the downslide to the arrival in the Senate of sharp-tongued former House Republicans.
Hmm. Yes, things were so much more pleasant when Republicans knew their place (a common view in Washington, as I pointed out here). The problem is that the "coalitions and compromises" always ended up pushing America to the left. The people of faith whom Danforth won't tolerate are the ones who have been merely trying to maintain a cultural status quo, in eras when the left has been trying to push gay marriage, push prayer out of the public square, and establish an abortion right that extends to injecting scissors into the back of a full-term baby's head and then sucking out its brains. Is it really so wrong to object to these things, Senator Danforth?
In any case, people of faith -- whether liberal Republicans like Danforth or conservatives -- should both be welcome in our party. No one has the right or the standing to tell the other to "get out."
P.S. The reporter's agenda is made clear from his treatment of the Thomas hearings. Here's the quote:
Wall Street Journal reporters Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer spent three years investigating the allegations against Thomas, concluding in their 1994 book "Strange Justice" that "the preponderance of the evidence suggests" Thomas lied under oath. The book sits on Danforth's shelf, unread.
Yes, well, that's a little bit like trusting Alger Hiss' version of the Whittaker Chambers story, isn't it? Yet it seems that Danforth is even apologizing for his support of Justice Thomas -- which, for my money, was his most important achievement in 18 years in the U.S. Senate.
If Senator Danforth were really committed to addressing the problems he perceives, rather than just complaining about them, it seems he wouldn't have chosen to take his attacks on conservative Christians to the pages of the WaPost.
But his views, expressed in this Washington Post piece, can best be labeled in one word: Intolerant. To conservative Christians who want a voice in politics, he says, "You're not welcome. Go away." He's more outraged, it seems, by those who oppose embryonic stem cell research than those who support partial birth abortion.
It's hard to imagine a senator being lionized if he had denounced the political participation of any other group -- Muslims, Catholics, Jews. And when, exactly, did Senator Danforth become the arbiter of who does, and doesn't, have a legitimate place in the Republican Party and in national politics generally?
This passage of the story seemed to me particularly revealing:
He recalls a more pleasant era of coalitions and compromises that gave way to ever fiercer partisanship starting in the early 1990s after Thomas was already on the bench. He dates the beginning of the downslide to the arrival in the Senate of sharp-tongued former House Republicans.
Hmm. Yes, things were so much more pleasant when Republicans knew their place (a common view in Washington, as I pointed out here). The problem is that the "coalitions and compromises" always ended up pushing America to the left. The people of faith whom Danforth won't tolerate are the ones who have been merely trying to maintain a cultural status quo, in eras when the left has been trying to push gay marriage, push prayer out of the public square, and establish an abortion right that extends to injecting scissors into the back of a full-term baby's head and then sucking out its brains. Is it really so wrong to object to these things, Senator Danforth?
In any case, people of faith -- whether liberal Republicans like Danforth or conservatives -- should both be welcome in our party. No one has the right or the standing to tell the other to "get out."
P.S. The reporter's agenda is made clear from his treatment of the Thomas hearings. Here's the quote:
Wall Street Journal reporters Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer spent three years investigating the allegations against Thomas, concluding in their 1994 book "Strange Justice" that "the preponderance of the evidence suggests" Thomas lied under oath. The book sits on Danforth's shelf, unread.
Yes, well, that's a little bit like trusting Alger Hiss' version of the Whittaker Chambers story, isn't it? Yet it seems that Danforth is even apologizing for his support of Justice Thomas -- which, for my money, was his most important achievement in 18 years in the U.S. Senate.
If Senator Danforth were really committed to addressing the problems he perceives, rather than just complaining about them, it seems he wouldn't have chosen to take his attacks on conservative Christians to the pages of the WaPost.
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:15 AM
7 Comments:
Carol, your 1st link is incorrect. I googled John Danforth Christians and turned up a NYTimes Op-Ed by JD from last March.
Here
Interestingly (for me anyway - ha), I became a Christian later in life, and I was more of a moderate conservative before then. The meaning life takes a new turn when you turn your life over to Jesus.
It also reminds me of the link I e-mailed you here about the Christian Union being suspended for refusing to change their constitution to allow transgendered as members. Very much the same as the secular political attacks against Christians in the U.S.
copioneer...
Thank you for the corrected link. I'm not so sure that Danforth is really against Christians, but he certainly misunderstands the issues, imo. If the religious right was acting in a vacuum and trying to impose it's religious positions on the rest of the country, I might agree with him. In fact it seems to me that the religious right is trying to reinstate legal positions that have been disrupted by activist judges. At the time of the Schiavo case, it seemed to me that there were questions raised which deserved consideration, and when that consideration was given, it raised further questions. Were you aware, for example, that prior to 1998 the feeding tube was considered an "ordinary" means of life support? A law was passed in 1998 making a feeding tube "extraordinary", and by existing law, extraordinary means need not be used to maintain life. Hence the Schiavo situation. Why did the Fla pass that law in 1998? Who sponsored it? Were you aware that there is a large population of Scientology in that Fla County, which supposedly includes the judge who authorized the removal of the feeding tube, and that one of the scientology beliefs is that a defective person should not be supported/allowed (I'm not sure just what the limits here are)to live? Then again I have to ask - why pass that change in 1998? What/who prompted it?
Also, when Congress tells a federal court to look at a case "de novo", how is it that they can simply ignore it?
Anyway. We've heard nothing more about any of this. I think we should have. I think Danforth is mistaken in thinking that this is purely a private situation.
How can it be that a man living with another woman and having children with her can be considered the final decision maker in his legal wife's life/death situation? Hasn't anyone thought that this might need further consideration?
On the other hand...Christians have been under some pressure for some time - maybe having the Muslims making demands for "respect" that have some teeth will allow for a comparison that will result in more consideration for Christians...maybe. It's one thing to say "you're out because of separation of church and state". It's another to try to say "oh the muslims can stay because they'll kill us if we say no, but the Christians can't stay because they pose no danger". That isn't going to cut it, I think.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
>>Because you are in absolutely no position to make moralistic judgements of a husband enduring the worst situation imaginable.>>
My position is not based on morality or lack therof. He was living with a woman in a situation that should have established a common-law marriage. Obviously, since he can't commit bigamy, and hadn't divorced, he couldn't be married to the second woman. It _does_ seem to me though, that given his relationship to the second woman, there should be a question raised about his relationship to the first woman given a life or death situation in which he has the decision making power. Legally, that is. I understand the law as it stands - I question whether it should be as it is.
His morality or lack thereof is his problem, not mine.
SueK, I'm sorry for my previous post.
After thinking about it over night I realized I had probably read more into your comment than was there. I logged in this morning hoping to delete my post before you read it, but I see I failed in that.
As a husband, the Schiavo case touched a nerve. Michael Schiavo was reviled as a philanderer. So-called "christians" claimed he was in it for the money. These same "christians" claimed that Michael beat his wife or that he purposely didn't promptly call the ambulance when Terri collapsed, hoping she would die.
What was Michael Schiavo's great sin that caused all of this? All of these attacks took place because Michael Schiavo was (according to multiple court findings and the original ad litem report) attempting to carry out the wishes of his wife.
>>As a husband, the Schiavo case touched a nerve. Michael Schiavo was reviled as a philanderer. So-called "christians" claimed he was in it for the money. These same "christians" claimed that Michael beat his wife or that he purposely didn't promptly call the ambulance when Terri collapsed, hoping she would die.>>
Well, as a wife, I had some interest in the case as well!
Ok...there are two basic assumptions here....one is that he was just trying to follow his wife's wishes, which she had expressed to him, but had not put into writing(so there was no proof of her wishes). The second is that he had some ulterior motive for wanting her dead. Do you know of any facts that prove one or the other? I don't....
The law, of course, states that as her husband, he had the right of final decision over many facets of her care. Many of those decisions seemed very puzzling to me, and made me wonder if the state should have some other possibility of assigning that responsibility if there was concern about motivations. Look at the case of the little girl in NY...her father - who was responsible for her condition, and who would be charged with murder if she died as a result of his assault and battery - is the one responsible for making the decision about whether life saving measures should be taken. Obviously, there's a conflict of interests. Of course, the NY case worked out quite differently, and the courts did eventually get involved.
There may not be a better way, but it seems the avenues for a change of responsiblity are very limited. Maybe they should be...the exception may prove the rule, so to speak.
The Schiavo case was tragic indeed, and to be honest, I didn't really understand the inflexibility of either side. The parents firmly believed she could improve, and it seemed to me that the husband blocked those efforts. The husband said Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive that way, but if she was truly brain dead, what difference could it make? The state (or insurance co?) actually had a better case, in that they were apparently paying for maintenance of life of a brain dead person...but again, look at the NY little girl. She was considered brain dead, but that may not be the case.
Sometimes there are no _good_ choices - just choices between bad and less bad, I guess.
Post a Comment
<< Home