Posted on 04/03/2005 5:15:43 AM PDT by Joe Republc
WASHINGTON - By adopting religious views as political doctrine and legislation, the Republican Party is leading the country on a dangerous path that could trample the Constitution and lead to bitter division, says former Sen. John C. Danforth, a GOP stalwart.
The political success Republicans have had in harnessing the energy of Christian conservatives doesn't justify the GOP becoming their voice, Danforth said in an interview Wednesday.
"It becomes extraordinarily divisive and legislatures get themselves entangled with writing religious documents into legislative form," Danforth said. "It's exactly what the Constitution says we can't do and it's exactly what we can't do if we want to keep the country glued together.
"I'm surprised people have been so mute about this," he said. "I thought if nobody was saying this, I should."
...
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
That's a problem with using religion to make law. How do you decide which religion?
POS rhino ping
Danforth doesn't want Republicans to base any of their positions on anyone's religious views except his own.
Is it OK to institute governments among men to secure the rights with which their Creator God has endowed them?
Is it even OK to assume among the nations of the world the station to which the laws of nature's God entitle us?
If these propositions are false, the government of the United States has no legitimacy.
What say you, Mr. Danforth?
Abortion is not a political issue. Homosexuality is not a policy matter. Each is a moral matter, and to say that religious values have no role in cultural matters is plainly illogical and ignorant.
Making such statements is, of course, totally political.
The statements are therefore not bigoted but merely reflect internal disputes within that particular denomination.
If the justification is that practically everyone is part of a societal (secular) consensus to outlaw larceny, there are also problems. It used to be that there was societal consensus against abortion, fornication, adultery, homosexuality and socialism every bit as much as there still is such a consensus against humans engagng in "sex" with animals. We have now "matured" (degenerated) so as to accept abortion, fornication, adultery, homosexuality and socialism. Soon enough, we will have to protect Fido and Tabby and maybe even the pet goldfish or parakeet from the lustful attention of ever more "enlightened" liberals since we must not impose those dread religious values on those who disagree, right?
It is time to admit that the SCOTUS and other American courts following SCOTUS's lead have been gravely in error in the eccentric view that would drive religion from public life and it is time that the out-of-control judiciary got the firm and final societal and, yes, religious spanking it has long deserved from men and women of good faith.
As SCOTUS says regarding pornography, we may not be able to precisely define "good faith" or "good Faith" but we know it when we see it. That some of us are Catholic, some Baptist, some Methodist, some Episcopalian, some Lutheran, some Jewish, some Islamic, some Hindu and some not religious at all does not mean that a significant number (vast majorities actually) ought not to be heeded as to morality at all and that we must continue to wallow in a SCOTUS created moral sewer that has most recently murdered an innocent woman in Floriduh because she was inconvenient and did so by methods that would get you jailed if you performed such atrocity upon Rover or little Kitty or Scott Peterson or "Judge" Greer for that matter.
As a Catholic, I'd choose Catholic morality. As a citizen, I note that Catholic morality is not just reflective of Catholic belief. You do not have to be Catholic or even a believer to be pro-life, anti-homosexuality, etc. It is time to stick a cork in judicial tyranny. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Maybe no one's saying it, because it's NOT happening. Danforth is, has been and will always be an elite stooge. He's trotted out, when the elite wants a 'non-partisan', 'respected' person to say their opinion. The one good thing he did was support Clarence Thomas, who's proven himself to be a brilliant and serious jurist.
I knew when Clinton named Danforth to investigate Waco, that it was going to be an elite exculpation. And so it was:
Cato Blasts Danforth Waco Report
This story was originally found at Virtual New York.
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 17:05 (ET)
Cato Blasts Danforth Waco Report
By DANIEL KAGAN, Managing Editor, UPI Think Tank Desk
WASHINGTON, April 10 (UPI) -- A new study by the Cato Institute says that the final official government report on the 1993 Branch Davidian disaster in Waco, Tex.-- which exonerated federal officials from wrongdoing-- is "not supported by the factual evidence."
http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/agencies3.htm
"Not supported by the factual evidence", the epitaph for Danforth.
What I really think is that the effort is afoot to diminish respect and reverence for life, which is part of a larger agenda and I am sorry that Danforth cannot see this.
^^^^^
Very true. All of a sudden certain values are being designated as 'religious' and so must be 'separated' from government. How relentless has been this process from the day just 50 years ago when prayer was removed from public schools.
We must continue to challenge this attack on 'religion' by claiming that our opponents are creating a state religion of secularism, which is just as unacceptable to the Founding Principles.
One example of the perversion of the Constitution: pornography is acceptable speech, but political commentary is restricted.
Danforth is a generation behind the tide of modern conservatism. His words this week put him in the category of those 'country club republicans' that 'working class' democrats used to dislike. Both parties have changed and the Danforths, Chafees, Todd Whitmans must feel very left out of the party today.
Danforth was the RINO stealth (i.e., Souter) candidate for the Supreme Court. We can thank God his day has passed.
"Not supported by the factual evidence", the epitaph for Danforth
^^^^^
Good one!
Speaking out and applying a moral perspective in the public square is not "legislating religion", but rather legislating and imposing its opposite. It is disenfranchising a particular set of voices in a democracy.
Wrong.
According to the St Louis paper, here's what Danforth objected to as religious laws:
"He cited the GOP's stance on gay marriage, stem cell research and the case of Terri Schiavo, in which Congress intervened over whether her feeding tube should be restored."
Let's see, even in California, almost 70% of the voters voted against gay marriage. Two, the debate over stem cell research divides people of goodwill of all and no religions. Three, Congress voted to extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to allow them to take a new look at cases like Schiavo's to insure that the civil rights of American citizens are violated.
This is Danforth's best shot? That's all he can come up with to damn the religious right's mouthpiece, the GOP? It's more pathetic than I thought it would be.
Full disclosure, I'm a not very religious, secular, libertarian-minded conservative.
There's more:
"Danforth, an Episcopal priest, wrote that he didn't blame religious people for expressing their political views, but faulted the Republican Party for having "become the political extension of a religious movement."
Gee, that's White of Danforth not to blame religious people for expressing their views. He probably would even invite one to dinner, but would he allow his daughter to date one?
If you can stand it, more follows:
"What brought him and other Republicans together in the Senate, he wrote, were shared views on small government, limited taxation and regulation, judicial restraint, strong national defense and free trade."
Sorry, I don't recall Danforth as a small government, anti-tax guy. "Judicial restraint"!!! For Pete's sake man, that's what the whole gay marriage and Terri Schiavo issue is about. The legislature is trying (half-heartedly) to defend itself and the American People from the ursupation of power by Judges. Gay marriage is being forced upon us by courts in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts, the People and their representatives have been forced to turn to legislation to maintain the law. Danforth the Blind can't see this? No, he's too busy toadying up to the NY Times and his elite pals.
"That wise Men have in all Ages thought Government necessary for the Good of Mankind; and, that wise Governments have always thought Religion necessary for the well ordering and well-being of Society, and accordingly have been ever careful to encourage and protect the Ministers of it, paying them the highest publick Honours, that their Doctrines might thereby meet with the greater Respect among the common People." --Benjamin Franklin
Lets see Michael and his brother ,and his companion, Judge Greer, Michaels lawyer, 19 other judges who wouldnt intervene. The Bush Brothers, ---who did intervene , but wouldnt send in the Army or the National Guard--All Democrats and anyone who didnt agree with the far right, and now Danforth all EEEEEEEEEEEEEEevil.
Nothing like making a political football out of a poor woman who had suffered enough.
Go ahead, pass a law involving the government in the relatives decision to stop artificial life support. One day you will wake up wondering what happened.
He was also one of the champions of the now, thankfully defunct, "yacht tax" on new boats that almost drove the boat building industry out of business. Of course, possibly because he was from Missouri where his consitutents tended more to spend their money on land yachts (big RVs) than water yachts, he never supported extending that vile tax to RVs. Yes, I own one or more big boats.
Well there we have it. Line drawing is beginning. Can we count on this asshat to support the President's nominees?
Nailed it, Jim
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.