Posted on 10/16/2006 5:13:17 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
On Sunday, C-Span 2 featured former three-term republican Senator, John Danforth, to talk to Chris Haynes of the First Amendment Center, to discuss his new book entitled “Faith and Politics” that assails what he sees as the sinister dominance of the apocryphal “religious right” within the Republican Party. It was noted and discussed that he is an “ordained Episcopal priest.” Ann Coulter has already made an observation that most people accept that the Episcopal Church is “barely a church.” They have homosexual marriages, homosexual priests, homosexual bishops, and it represents one of the decaying mainline denominations that have surrendered and abandoned core tents of the faith.
The epiphany that finally convinced him to write this book was his view that “politicians and religious activists” decided Terry Shiavo should “live.” We’ll, what’s wrong deciding she should live as opposed to being starved to death by her husband, which probably put her in the state she was in through his abuse, based on his claim she wanted it that way, and the fact he took money meant to provide care for her and pocketed it all while shacking up with a new wife. We must forget people responded to the desperate pleas of Terry Shiavo’s very own Mother, her Father, and her Brother!
The only validity was his assertion that republicans violated principles by expanding the jurisdiction of federal courts in the matter, which isn’t going to help matters, but evidently he has a problem with religious people or elected representatives taking up the case of a woman being literally starved to death. Does he not see, as someone who claimed to be pro-life, that we have a vested interested in opposing euthanasia, or protecting the life of this woman on behalf of a family powerless to stop the death of Terry?
He highlights the fact that he wrote an op-ed in 2005 that appeared in the N.Y. Times saying among other things that the American people won’t allow this to last. Okay, so he thinks he’s spreading some brand new message by denouncing the “religious right” in the newspaper of celebrated apostles such as Dowd, Rich, and Krugman? Maureen Dowd goes on rampage after Kerry loses telling Chris Matthews that good liberals like them are going to heaven while the “moral values” voters are going to burn in hell under the calculus that boundless immorality, not piety, and supporting the Abortion holocaust are the key to an everlasting life in heaven. This is how Danforth is “pushing back” against polarization by turning to the N.Y. Times because evidently bashing the boogieman we know as the “religious right” is not considered “divisive”, or “polarizing”, and it unites Dowd, Rich, and the editorial board against those crazy evangelicals.
When questioned about the timing of his book, right in time for the 2006 congressional election, he denied any such motivation although he did admit that such a book would get more attention during an election year. Uh, you think? So the interview then turned to what Danforth calls a “ministry of reconciliation,” because that’s what Christianity is supposed to be according to John Danforth although reconciled to who or what is unclear. So, as you can imagine, the ministry of reconciliation remained a great mystery and he continued his denunciation.
He said the first problem is that “they” think God’s agenda should be a “political agenda.” He added that there is no problem with religion affecting public life, but he then incoherently babbles on that “they” see God’s truth as “their own” and shun all alternative views. Of course people of faith accept God’s truth as their own…just how does an ordained priest find it shocking that the faithful acknowledge such truth…he’s an Episcopalian. So he continues that it is destructive of the “middle” and the middle isn’t even defined or defended.
Let’s try it out: if you take the position that abortion is murder, how do you find common ground with say, Hillary Clinton, who believes that it is a right that goes so far the government should pay for it and that teen girls shouldn’t have to even notify their parents? What is the middle? Join the middle…we support murder…sometimes…other times we’re pro-life. The middle is nothing more than some convoluted, feel-good bull!
He also says it is bad theology explaining how the “religious right” attacks opponents and makes them out to “enemies of God.” I just wonder how Danforth, or others like him, believe that people who are wholly supportive or condone the murder of nearly 50 million unborn babies makes them “friends of God?” Do you think the God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, for sexual immorality according to the New Testament, is warmed by Planned Parenthood making abortion a billion dollar industry, even harvesting the “parts” of the unborn? Other faults including is dreaded “they” think they “possess God’s truth” in a “totally certain way.” Gee, John, everyone can possess the truth of God, open up your Bible for crying out loud!
So we are damned by John Danforth for our “idolatry,” which argues is a result of our transforming God’s truth into action in the political arena to protect human life from the new child sacrifice, Abortion, or because we stand up for the institution of marriage, which is being “put asunder” by secular progressives and supremacists on the court. An example of non-idolatrous, middle of the road, god’s truth is God’s truth not ours, religious inspired political agendas in his example a low income tax credit he supported in 1991, which was about “building a center” and had nothing to do with “campaign points.” John, you need your head examined!
Accordingly, many Christians are just like John Danforth and he is in that wonderful “mainstream” of sodomites for he believes the mainstream is being muted from countering the “religious right” with “building centers” although the media has continually warned of the impending doom then defeat of the “religious right since the 1980s. So it is his mission to amplify the chorus of idiots on the left who have milked it for all it is worth, maybe he was on to something when he said it sounds dumb when he calls himself a “moderate.” That might be where he is actually on to something!
Finally, he was asked to go over a few issues starting with Abortion. He started by proclaiming himself to be pro-life, but he then quickly rebuffed that by stating the “choice position” is “here to stay.” We’ll, if people identified themselves as pro-life, but pretended that the wholesale slaughter was here to stay…then it is here to stay, but is pessimistic and cynical to act as if we can’t undo abortion just as quickly as Justice Harry Blackmun had his abortion in the Roe decision. I suppose a faith in a higher power is just something John Danforth can’t relate to or possibly believe would have any effect on the murder of the unborn. He said the decision in Roe stand, making a valid point that Chief Justice Roberts said Roe is established law and he saw a right to privacy hidden in the Constitution. Then he pulls a Howard Dean and discredits himself by claiming most states would “severely” restrict abortion anyway, when prior to the decision in Roe, most all states did, and that hardly suffices to justify or rationalize the atrocious ruling in Roe, which wasn’t even a constitutional argument.
He offered the great advice of focusing on the causes of pregnancy as opposed to focusing on the deliberate murder of the unborn in abortion clinics all over the U.S. and the guest interviewer approvingly noted that Hillary Clinton has built a center by focusing on such causes…that’s what they mean by middle…what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.
Then this man had the audacity to claim that pro-lifers don’t want jurisprudence when in fact it has been the secular/progressive pro-abortion people who don’t want jurisprudence….when decisions like Casey and Roe show quite clearly the left doesn’t want any jurisprudence…they are perfectly willing to use the courts to achieve their agenda and we simply want the restoration of jurisprudence and we want justices and judges to be beholden to the law as opposed to being free to make it up as they go and amend it where they see fit. So that leads him to his conclusion that we are the reason that judicial nominations are divisive!!! No, it isn’t People for the American Way or Ted Kennedy who slimed the valiant Robert Bork in 1987 or Tom Daschle’s campaign of obstructionism, but it is those of us that want justices who don’t legislate from the bench that are the cause of the vicious democrats using the courts as a backdoor to sneak in their agenda.
Next, it was embryonic stem cell research. I was pleased at the irony given that previously, C-Span 2 featured the author of the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Science” who spoke at the Eagle Forum, and he touched on this junk science and the politicization of science as it relates to sucking at the tit of government and being dependent on politicians. He made the point that embryonic stem sells are claimed to have the “potential” to become any cell in the human body, therefore, they claim that they can “nudge” or somehow “direct” cells and provide cures for things like diabetes even though there is not a single clinical trial or proven example of this – and it follows through that they want complete funding and then you’ll never hear about this “miracle cure” again.
You will quickly learn that Danforth had a brother who died from Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ASL). So his sentimentality, like that of Nancy Reagan, coupled with this naïve and foolish believe in unfounded claims that embryonic stem cell research is some magic bullet, make him a supporter and we should point out that this is the debate is misleading anyhow…the issue isn’t whether such research can be conducted, but whether or not the federal government should subsidize such research, and President Bush has allowed partial funding and the Arnold pushed and received a $3 billion initiative thanks to California voters to fund such research. He says there is more in the Bible about cures than there is about “cells in a dish,” which sounds like abortionist language calling the unborn “bundles of cells,” as so he believes from such a firm scriptural perch that he we should fund such research and that it becomes political because after all…he is building a “center.”
It really was interesting when he gets to homosexual marriage. He opposes amending the Constitution to protect marriage, because he believe that is discrimination and he flip-flopped on this view because he now “realizes” that there is some elusive “gay gene” and therefore being a homosexual is much like being born black or brown just like rape, incest, and pedophilia. The before mentioned author who spoke at the Eagle Forum debunks the claim that they decoded the Human Genome…or decoded again, or re-decoded. Although, there must be a homosexual gene even though biologically such a gene makes absolutely no sense. So we are told by Mr. Danforth that we shouldn’t discriminate through the law although we do discriminate against polygamy and incest, rightly so I might add, and I suppose he shall rebuke God for discriminating against the sodomites, but he would know since God’s truth isn’t his truth?
He makes a typical liberal play by saying homosexuals don’t effect his marriage, but then again he doesn’t understand that we are less concerned with Mr. & Mrs. Danforth and more concerned with protecting a 2,000 year old institution from being completely destroyed and perverted by this confused, backward effort on the part of secular progressive types to broaden marriage to include homosexuals and eventually every other assortment of sexual pervert known to man. He did say marriage is between a man and a woman, but he couldn’t answer that such an understanding only comes from the Bible although he supports faux pas homosexual marriage by simply labeling them civil unions.
So we learn the amendment is just a “hateful appeal” by the “religious right” and we should sit back during the final assault on marriage. He does believe fully, however, in concern over Sudan although he believes that U.N. peacekeepers are the answer and that the “only way” to get them in is with the consent of the Islamic Regime that is murdering tens of thousands.
His final what to do is just banal: be active in politics, Christianity should reconcile (whatever that means), Christianity is “damaging when divisive,” and be concerned with the “misuse” of religion unless you believe that religion is being misused to endorse homosexual marriage, to name one example, but remember that John Danforth says he would bless any homosexual “couple” who would come tom him…and he thinks we’re idolaters!
The party needs an enema. Flush out the RINOs, especially the fossils who are retired from politics but still spew filth!
I guess Danforth must have finally finished his holy mission of covering up the facts of the Branch Davidian massacre.
I guess they want us to to be the minority party, and to be a declining one at that. How do they expect to attract new people? Do they honestly believe that secular humanist WASPs will join who are not already in? The growth of the party will be rightist legal immigrants to are recruited as they become citizens. They happen to be conservative Christians as well. Think Africa, for example.
Danforth whitewashed the KKKlintoon murders at Waco. He has no truth in him.
Why is this CINO/RINO in the news so much lately? Waste of ink and space.
The Episcopal church is circling the drain (rightfully). The descent into apostasy is accelerating---soon they'll "barely be Christians".
And yes, I used to be an Episcopalian. They lost me when they started signing up "priestesses".
Same here - his name was too familiar to me - which meant he had to be "part of the problem".
Amen, brother....I was seating near him at the Cardinal game last night and really wanted to ask him why Reno couldn't wait out the Davidians instead of storming the compound.
Episcopagan!!! That Fits like a GLOVE!! Danforth is railing against Christians!!! He makes me sick.
Danforth is a liberal pro-choice guy who has always been confused with regard to reality.
Don't forget, his vote in the Senate gave away the Panama Canal.
Too bad Jack didn't just dry up and blow away when his time was finished.
I heard Dennis Prager interview him a couple of weeks ago. Prager took him apart piece by piece with carefully reasoned questions like "why is a secular political agenda more noble than a religiously informed political agenda?". Danforth was lame and unconvincing.
Here is a possible rebutal to the 'religious right':
http://www.neoperspectives.com/Social_Conservativsm.htm
I heard that interview also. You are right. Danforth's ignorance was plainly on display. Prager exposed him as a fool.
Feh. I'm not so much mad at Father John as I am disappointed. The guy sure has come down in the world since he was Clarence Thomas' confirmation sherpa.
Who else here thinks Danforth is a closet-queer?
Every time I've seen that lispy RINO speak I'm certain he's gone to the dark side.
Some folks say the 04 campaign was the dirtiest ever.
I think '06 will make that one seem tame by comparison.
Can't wait for '08.
Danforth was close to being on the ticket as VP in 2000.
John Danforth is a Christian like Noam Chomsky is a Jew.
I take it like this...you can particapte...he says they should do so, but only if you follow HIS prescription of working toward a "center."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.