Danforth said ..., "There is something about a political party adopting a particular religious agenda, a sectarian religious agenda, as its own, that is divisiveExcuse me? I was not aware that any political party ran its agenda past any particulat religous group. I, as a Christian, have a right and even an obligation to do what I can to sway my government to making proper laws. Yes, proper by my definition. I hope that my definition of what is proper is also Biblical. Just because the RATS are finding that Christians aren't becoming integrated in their party is no reason that Christians can't be active in any other party.
I'm glad Danforth is retired. With statements like this, I suspect he's a RINO.
"I, as a Christian, have a right and even an obligation to do what I can to sway my government to making proper laws. Yes, proper by my definition. I hope that my definition of what is proper is also Biblical."
Absolutely! What I also find amazing as a non-practicing Christian, is how the Left (and people like Danforth) take any moral "judgment" and turn it into a religious-based argument that should be dismissed.
While much morality has a basis in religious doctrine, that doesn't make all morality a religious issue. If it did, liberals should be held to the same standard for trying to enforce their morality on the rest of us.
In fact, the very foundation of their morality is based on their own religious ideals of humanism and secularism. If religion is one's personal/philosophical belief on how one should govern his/her life and relations with others...plus their Deity, than liberalism shouldn't get a pass. Instead of believing in a God, they believe in government; instead of praying to the heavens, some pray to Mother Earth. Heck, even Mussolini described Fascism as a religion.
If morality is religion, than why do liberals get special consideration for the advocacy of their religion; and if it's not, why don't Christians and others get that same consideration.