Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Danforth objects to basing law on religious views
St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 03/30/2005 | Philip Dine

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: christian; danforth; politics; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last
To: Joe Republc
By adopting religious views as political doctrine and legislation, the Republican Party is leading the country on a dangerous path

We can't have laws against murder or theft since they are in the 10 Commandments.

61 posted on 04/03/2005 10:51:11 AM PDT by Alouette (Learned Mother of Zion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Republc

Yeah John, we should base our laws on the results of slanted ABC News polls.
That way we can be modern, and popular in the eyes of the world.
Justice will surely prevail in such a culture.
</sarcasm>


62 posted on 04/03/2005 10:52:42 AM PDT by G Larry (Aggressively promote conservative judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

Well said. Hear! Hear!

After all, we ALL can positively identify M-16 muzzle flashes....etc., etc.


63 posted on 04/03/2005 10:53:11 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

Perhaps it's your non-religious thinking that makes you a very sharp wit.

Keep it up, but try religion some day...


64 posted on 04/03/2005 10:55:18 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Joe Republc

What the heck does he think the laws and Constitution of this country are based on now?


65 posted on 04/03/2005 10:55:39 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

I don't think Danforth is evil.

Compromising and stupid, perhaps.


66 posted on 04/03/2005 10:56:12 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LiberationIT
So I stand by my original question; how do you choose which one?

Well, you could adopt the one used by the Founders of the USA--briefly, the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

67 posted on 04/03/2005 10:57:27 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Go ahead, pass a law involving the government in the relatives decision to stop artificial life support.

If you consider nourishment and hydration artificial life support, we already have laws to prevent this. Especially from birth through age 18, for humans.

Animals have it even better, where their caregiver must provide sufficient hydration and nourishment under penalty of law. You can butcher an animal, or kill it outright. You cannot legally starve, dehydrate, or torture it to death.

68 posted on 04/03/2005 11:11:19 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Repeal the NFA of '34! the GCA of '68! and the '86 ban!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Joe Republc
Well, then, what do we do about that philosophical foundation of our Constitution--the oft-quoted "Declaration of Independence," with its references to a Supreme Being in four distinct manifestations--as "Creator," as "Divine Providence," as "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and as the "Supreme Judge"?

According to Jefferson, "it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion."

Of constitutional interpretation (the role of the judiciary), Jefferson advised:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." - Jefferson

"Ideas have consequences," according to Weaver. Ideas such as those expressed by Jefferson and the other Founders produced the U. S. Constitution and the "miracle of America," an America that symbolizes liberty for oppressed peoples from all over the world.

Does Danforth, or any other 21st Century lawmaker believe that excluding ideas rooted in religious thought from the lawmaking process is somehow threatening to liberty?

If so, he should begin reading the prolific writings of the generation that conceived and brought forth this republic, including those who ratified it Constitution.

69 posted on 04/03/2005 11:11:26 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

That should be "its Constitution."


70 posted on 04/03/2005 11:15:22 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

Good Point!

Liberalism is its own religion.


71 posted on 04/03/2005 11:16:08 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Liberals believe in their good; a good that is void of honesty and character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Joe Republc
Danforth has been opening his mouth quite a bit the past couple weeks.....and what is emanating is political clap-trap and theological heresy.

I wonder what made him crawl back into the public eye and what he's angling for. I thought he was retired and would retire to a trailer in the Ozarks.

I'll bet he wants a top-echelon job with the amoral World Council of Churches.....or something at the amoral United Nations.

Leni

72 posted on 04/03/2005 11:19:18 AM PDT by MinuteGal ("The Marines keep coming. We are shooting, but the Marines won't stop !" (Fallujah Terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; IronJack; Jabba the Nutt

I'll be more specific. How do you make the choice and avoid disagreement?

On this thread alone I see Christianity (with and without Methodists and Episcopalians,) Judeo-Christian and even Liberalism as a religion. Ok, the Liberalism line is probably tongue in cheek, but I doubt you'll ever get total agreement on what is included under the rubric of Judeo-Christian. There will always be disagreement when faith alone is the question.

I know devout Christians that are free market capitalists and devout Christians that are fervent socialists. I recall great pushback when a few ministers (Falwell, Roberts) decided an election had validated their faith. I also recall religious folks of one group pushing back strongly on John Kennedy; worried that he'd be more loyal to the Pope than to the Constitution.

I know Republicans who switched to Democrat because of concerns that the Religious Right was becoming too dominant.

I'd hate to see the conservative movement be set back again because folks are perceived to be confusing an election win with validation of their faith over all others.

You guys go ahead and have the last word; this is too much like arguing taste. I'm checking out of this thread.


73 posted on 04/03/2005 12:45:58 PM PDT by LiberationIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Joe Republc
Danforth is an Episcopalian Priest. Has he been getting pony rides from Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson again? Not Christian not surprised.
74 posted on 04/03/2005 1:23:37 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Amen from the Recovering Episcopalian corner of Free Republic.


75 posted on 04/03/2005 1:26:21 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Joe Republc

Consent of the governed.


76 posted on 04/03/2005 1:28:31 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (Shopping for a new tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

The Schiavo case ought to be particularly disturbing to people who doubt the existence of a Supreme Being, Heaven, and Hell. If there is no life after death, then all any of us has is his or her life here on earth, making that life all the more significant and inviolable to its possessor.


77 posted on 04/03/2005 1:31:43 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Probably at the time Elizabeth I founded the church. She deliberately combined as much of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism as feeasible under herself as the head of the church with the political objective of creating a church that could appeal to as many of her subjects as possible. By doing that successfully she reduced the upheavals surrounding the Reformation and prevented any successful Catholic revolt.


78 posted on 04/03/2005 1:35:55 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Not even a pet rattlesnake.


79 posted on 04/03/2005 1:40:36 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Our lawyer who was Episcopalian, and now is a So. Baptist wrote a letter to the church heads after he was saved and told them the reason that he was leaving was because they were sending his family to hell. I am sure that, that went over well.


80 posted on 04/03/2005 2:22:11 PM PDT by Coldwater Creek ('We voted like we prayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson