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 ...
There are problems with most methods of making those choices. You mention two, religion and majority consensus. Neither one works well. I prefer a method based on individual rights.
It appears to me that Danforth's point is that using faith alone to make law is not a good idea. That doesn't mean that faith can't guide some one; but law made by one's faith may not be shared by others and problems will result. People with different faiths are unlikely to reach agreement on matters purely by faith. The differences will not reconcile. So I stand by my original question; how do you choose which one?
What is so hard about this to understand?
Let me get this straight. Political activism that reflects religious views -- you know, like the ones in the Declaration of Independence and the writings of the Founders -- are "dangerous" and a threat to the Constitution. But activism promoting godlessness, perversion, humanism, immorality, and self-indulgence will be our salvation?
Not so, Mr. Danforth.
The Constitution limits congress in this issue, not we, the people.
Get a clue!
How about the one that was used to frame this nation? How about the one that has been pre-eminently successful through a dozen wars, depressions, revolutions, and cultural tsunamis? How about the one professed by the majority of the people who constitute this polity? (Hint: it's not Orthodox Druidism.)
Which one was that?
And please don't give me all that bilge about how Thomas Jefferson was a Deist blah blah blah. There was not a single practicing Hindu, Moslem, Daoist, or Sikh among the Founders. Yet every one of them professed faith in a diety -- most within the framework of an established Christian denomination. Yes, there were exceptions -- Jefferson being one -- but it is not arguable that the cornerstone of this republic lies upon Christian footings. The Colonies were established by religious separatists. The states were in many cases defined as enclaves of a particular religious order. Our legal and cultural heritage descends from the religious context of the age.
We are a Christian nation.
Furthermore, the First Amendment's establishment clause was never intended to remove religious influence from public policy. It was written to prohibit a state-imposed religion after the manner of the Anglican Church in England. Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion.
Are Methodists and Episcopalians included? See posts 4 and 19 above.
Yeah, but he NEVER provided evidence that anyone is DOING that. He's actually as a pawn of the elite, saying what they think, but don't have the credibility to say. So, they shove the reliable Danforth out there, hey, he's an Episcopal Priest you know, to say what the cultural (self-annoited) elites want to put out.
It would be the same, if Danforth said the GOP shouldn't make laws legalizing cannibalism. For itself, it's a good point, but who's advocating legalizing cannabalism. LiberationIT, I don't know how old you are, but don't be taken in by this shell game.
In answer to your question, yes, Methodists and Anglicans (Episcopalians) are included.
I cant pay much attention to a person who calls themselves "unbelieveable scum on the other side".
Sounds like a slogan for a moron.
Right, no evidence, but it appears to be more an opinion.
It does bring up an important point; that is that non religious people, or, perhaps people in non mainstream religions; are very concerned that people in power will use their faith to impose their will on others. The religious right, I believe, need to be mindful of a potential backlash in this respect.
My point is that if faith is used to make law, it will lead to disagreements as we have no way to agree on whose faith should be preeminent.
This not a right or left thing, or a faith issue. We have here many people on the right who are people of faith and conservative. There are people on the left who are people of faith and liberal. I see no basis for those two sides to come to agreement. So, if either side uses their faith alone to make law, there will be disagreements.
No, I'm not making that mistake. I'm using this thread to point out that in matters of faith there are disagreements; in this case within the same faith (using the Christianity definition.)
My point, and it seems to me Danforth's point as well, is that faith alone does not make good law.
Nobody said it did. But if faith does not make good law, its absence doesn't either. The basis of any law is morality. Law without morality is a contradiction in terms, not a moral construct but simply the regulation of behavior. (As a side note, lacking any moral authority, law becomes simply an exercise in coercion; the law of the jungle prevails, and might makes right.)
And the root of Western morality is religion. Specifically, the Christian religion. It is only natural -- and indeed desirable to all but a few -- that that religion promulgates a morality that in turn is translated into law.
Danforth, an ordained Episcopal priest, has always been a RINO. Nothing new here.
Danforth would have been better than Souter. 90 percent wrong beat 100 percent. Danforth is an elitist hack. Souter is a communist.
Actually, the agenda is to replace God with man, preferably Cogniscenti, (such as Danforth.)
Just because the Ten Commandments exist does NOT mean that enshrining "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in secular law makes it a "religious" law.
Evidently Danforth's elementary logic course is either a way-too-distant memory, or he never passed.
You might want to look at this link for a perspective on what happens when religion is NOT the binding force in a society.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1376542/posts
You will note that most Judeao-Christian moral principles have been replaced (foolishly) with positive law.
Thus, the moral imperative to respect your fellow-man (the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th) have been replaced with EEOC and Sexual Harassment regulations.
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.