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 ...
I wish I could say that I know Democrats who switched to Republican because of fears that the Secular Left was becoming too dominant, but that would require 1) that I admit to knowing Democrats; 2) that any Democrat would be put off by a shift toward secularism; 3) that any Democrat so disposed would have sufficient courage of his convictions to actually leave the plantation.
However, the bugaboo about domination of the GOP by the "religious right" (whoever the heck THEY are) is a red herring. Faith in ones' beliefs does not make one a fundamentalist, nor does it mean an obsessive desire to impose ones' religiosity on others. Give people credit for knowing where to draw the line.
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.
If anyone believes that, they need to reread the admonishment to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Christ didn't run for office, and God doesn't endorse a political party.
All of this is rhetorical, of course, since you've checked out of the thread.
Well, there's a lot of confusion here over what's faith and what's not.
Seems to me that one can break this down more easily, by beginning the way the Founders did, which was to acknowledge that there is a Higher Being (various names were used.)
No one is REQUIRED to believe that, of course--but if laws reflect the supremacy of Man, then you will have situations like Schiavo even more often.
And if the atheists and agnostics will hold still for just one minute, the informed Christian will state that the Golden Rule happens to be the first and most important law of Christianity.
Even atheists would prefer the Golden Rule to rule by, say, GWBush, or X42, right?
Your logic is correct, but the atheists will not go that route. Rather, they have determined that since life here is all there is, it may as well be 'productive' life.
That's why the Hemlock Society, and Kervorkian as its branch, exist.
I wish I could say that I know Democrats who switched to Republican because of fears that the Secular Left was becoming too dominant,
Irrelevant and immaterial to both of you!
40% is liberal, 40% is conservative, and 20% swings the election. Dems vote (R), and Pubbies vote (D), depending on the issue.
And don't forget, there are a LOT of people with neither label.
The surprising thing about atheists is how much faith they have. My general feeling, although it's moving toward being more religious, is that it's unknowable whether there's an after life or not; hence, its' a bad idea really to antagonize he who may be in charge of the afterlife. Atheists absolutely reject the idea of a Supreme Being. Imagine how SOL any of them will be if he dies and discovers there is a Heaven and Hell, a God and a Devil.
bump de bump
INTREP - see my tag line
And yours isnt?
I can disagree with a pope like John Paul II on matters such as death penalty and what has been reported to have been his views on war. He and his moral teachings and those of his predecessors are, for me, the starting position and the default position. The decision of a nation's leaders to go to war is affected by the doctrine of just war but, whatever liberal enthusiasts might wish, the Catholic Catechism reserves the actual judgment as to making war, as must be, to the nation's authorities who bear the moral responsibility for such decisions which must be justified by the principles of just war. The death penalty to be inflicted on those guilty of capital crimes is simply not doctrinal. Popes have led the Papal States and then the Vatican City for many centuries and it is persuasive that the death penalty was enthusiastically applied by those popes even to teenaged robbers. Opposition to the death penalty was a preference of JP II who had seen far more death than he would have wished in the Holcaust and various wars.
Opposition to the death penalty is not doctrinal. Societies have a practical moral obligation to execute the worst of the worst. Grown up societies have, as a first obligation, the protection of citizens from enemies domestic and foreign and have an obligation, when necessary, to use the military in the pursuit of the safety of citizens and others.
All that having been said, any disagreements you may have will have to be viewed as why God invented democracy (just joking!). If some people in a society believe that they have a right to commit atrocities such as abortion or the homicide of Terri Schindler (Schiavo), their position should be defeated democratically, leaving them three choices: obeying the enacted law or leaving or violating the law and paying the consequences. That principled people may disagree should not require society to be paralyzed in service to eccentric minorities.
I hate abortion with a purple passion. I do NOT run around vandalizing abortion mills much less assaulting or killing the babykiller doctors. I hope to live long enough to see them jailed (preferably in the general jail population) and to see abortion abolished here. Maybe I will be disappointed. I do NOT have to lose sleep over how this will affect the income and lifestyles of the babybutchers or the "choices" of those carrying the offspring in their wombs to a death by slicing, dicing and hamburgerization. But, hey, that's just me and the kind of guy (a former fetus) that I am. Others may have different views.
Let's get the elitist tyrants in black robes out of the way and decide the abortion issue democratically, and the dehydration method of spousal homicide by judiciary as well, and lavender "marriage" and so many other social issues. It's time to party!
"When things like this are said about Catholics, they are referred to as bigots. Seems to work with you as well"
Now now, Cathoicism is unquestionably a religion, The ECUSA is more of a lifestyle choice. No need to throw the B-Bomb.
The fact that Danforth is an episcopal minister, as well as a republican without resolve is entirely congruent with the nonsense that he is spewing.....
You absolutely crack me up.
If those exact same things were said about Catholicism, you (or some others) would absolutely be in a rage, with the words "anti-Catholic bigot" sputtering from your lips. Perhaps even justifiably. That you have zero problem (in fact are in agreement) with referring to other denominations thusly (and I'm sure that, if pressed, you could list at least another half dozen or so denominations you feel the same way about) just doesn't sit right with me.
If there is a Christian God in Heaven (I'm on record here at FR as an agnostic), I'm pretty sure He'll not be asking your denomination when you get to the pearly gates. I think God's calculus runs a lot deeper than that.
Time to go give Ry Cooder's interpretation of Denomination Blues a listen.
"You absolutely crack me up."
Then you'll find this hilarious! I'm not Catholic, I'm an ex-Episcopalian, so I know a bit about what I'm talking about.
You on the other hand, an avowed agnostic, have no context to understand what you are talking about, you just think you do.
I suspect you just like stirring the pot - which is fine with me, but you better bring proof that I or anyone else would behave in the manner you describe if you are gonna make an accusation like you just did.
Since you offer nothing to back it up, I submit that you have no credibility from which to draw to make any of the scurrilous charges that you purvey in your post.
I stand by my criticism of the Episcopal church, if one can even call it that anymore because I know what I am talking about, and experienced first hand the early stages of what it has become, and paid close attention after I left.
I would recommend that maybe you look into joining the Episcopal church. Belief is optional.....so you might feel right at home.
kiss my white anglo-saxon protestant backside and take your uninformed blather to some thread where you don't have to feign indignation, you aren't very good at it.
I do find your entire post hilarious.
That I am now an avowed agnostic doesn't mean I have always been one. You were an Episcopalian. Now you're not. People change. Sometimes for better, sometimes not.
I was raised, confirmed and sang in the Episcopal church choir associated with the Episcopal high school I attended. I then went to a college associated with the Episcopal church. LOL at your wild and totally incorrect assumptions about my religious background.
Do a user search on sinkspur (hey there sink, pinged you because you tend to be the lightening rod in any RCC thread - hope you don't mind me using you to demonstrate a point here). So much for your notion about scurrilous charges.
I feigned no indignation, as I felt none. You provided enough righteous indignation for both of us. Sometimes it is a bit easier to be objective when you don't have a horse in the race, you know.
The funniest part is that you state "you better bring proof that I or anyone else would behave in the manner you describe if you are gonna make an accusation like you just did. " and then close your post with "kiss my white anglo-saxon protestant backside and take your uninformed blather to some thread where you don't have to feign indignation, you aren't very good at it." LOL. Why would I need to demonstrate anything like that when you amply prove my point for me. Too funny.
Your charges were scurrilous and have nothing to do with my asking you to kiss my WASP backside, which, by the way is still an operative, though figurative request.
You can't call people bigots etc. and provide no evidence to back it up.
That you have such extensive experience with the episcopal church shows to me you just want to argue over whether Danforth is a putz or not. If you don't think so, just say it. The rest is just BS.
kittymrib wrote: "He's an Episcopal minister, so what can you expect? He HAS no religious precepts to follow."
bigot: noun: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
My work here is done. Evidence complete.
Any other legwork you need done, just give me a holler.
You clearly have lost touch with much more than your God.
I don't expect anyone takes you seriously, I certainly don't take your proof seriously.
Oh no! A freeper (who is unable to read, apparently) doesn't take me seriously.
Therapy, here I come!
One thing we can be sure of, you sure take yourself (way too) seriously. Enjoy.
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.