Posted on 10/26/2005 6:29:55 PM PDT by jern
Danforth Criticizes Christian Sway in GOP Oct 26 8:51 PM US/Eastern Email this story
By DANIEL CONNOLLY Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK
The influence of evangelical Christians in the Republican Party hurts the organization and divides the country, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth said during a visit to the Bill Clinton School of Public Service on Wednesday.
Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri and an Episcopal priest, met with students during a seminar and held a luncheon talk at the graduate school.
"I think that the Republican Party fairly recently has been taken over by the Christian conservatives, by the Christian right," he said in an interview after his talks. "I don't think that this is a permanent condition but I think this has happened, and that it's divisive for the country."
He also said the evangelical Christian influence would be bad for the party in the long run.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracy Schmitt declined comment.
Danforth, who recently served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made similar criticism of the party in an opinion article published by the New York Times in June. In that article, he called for religious moderates to take part in public life.
People of faith have an obligation to be in politics, he said.
"I think the question arises when a political party becomes identified with one particular sectarian position and when religious people believe that they have the one answer, that they understand God's truth and they embody it politically," he said.
"Nothing is more dangerous than religion in politics and government when it becomes divisive," he said. "I'll give you examples: Iraq. Northern Ireland. Palestine."
Danforth, considered a conservative on social issues, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976 and served three terms. In his final term he played a key role in defending Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas against claims of sexual harassment during bitter confirmation hearings. Thomas eventually was confirmed.
Under Democratic President Bill Clinton, Danforth was appointed special counsel in an investigation of the deadly 1993 siege at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas.
The current President Bush appointed Danforth as special peace envoy to Sudan and later as ambassador to the United Nations.
Danforth was sworn in as ambassador in July 2004 and resigned in January. Wednesday, Danforth cited his age _ now 69 _ and his desire to move back to his St. Louis home as his reasons for leaving.
He most recently has worked for the Bryan Cave law firm in St. Louis. Former U.S. Sen. David Pryor, D-Ark. and dean of the Clinton School for Public Service, invited him to visit the school.
The school, housed in a remodeled red brick train station on the grounds of the Clinton presidential library, opened in August and currently has 16 students enrolled in its two-year master's degree program. It is a branch of the University of Arkansas.
"I thought that the students were bright and highly motivated and it was encouraging to have the opportunity to spend some time with them," Danforth said. "I thought the physical facilities were wonderful."
The school plays an important role, he said.
"I think it's important to encourage and inspire people who have an interest in public service and to equip them for public service," he said. "But in my view more important than any particular curriculum item is to be encouraged and strengthened as somebody who wants to participate in public service."
Well I guess we can battle it out - in the end if you lose the Christians you will lose - period. The principled conservative christians are the ones who will stand in the rain or snow and miss work to vote for someone. Wishy washy moderates will not so if the Republican party wants to dis us then Im sure the conservative party would take us with open arms.
As opposed to the presence of militant environmental, racist, gay and pro abortion demagogues in the Rat party that unite the country.
People of faith have an obligation to be in politics..
… speak if spoken to, vote like we tell you, don't hold us accountable - and for goodness sakes - don’t stick to your beliefs.
"Nothing is more dangerous than religion in politics and government when it becomes divisive," he said. "I'll give you examples: Iraq. Northern Ireland. Palestine."
Yeah, all those Evangelical suicide bombers are a real PITA, not to mention divisive. And those Evangelicals will riot and loot if given half a chance... I mean, look what they do at the G7 and WTO meetings
"I think it's important to encourage and inspire people who have an interest in public service and to equip them for public service,"
Unless of course, they are Evangelical…
Those are the least of my reasons, although among them. More so, I'm talking about...
1. The push for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. That should be reserved for Sunday School.
2. Evangelicals saying that the Earth and the Universe are only 5,000 years old. Ridiculous.
3. The concept of "left behind" and all that "rapture" nonsense.
BTW, Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer didn't do very well in the primaries, proving that a predominately religious platform doesn't do very well with Republican voters.
the hard-core religious right is the conservative movement.
So you're saying that evangelicals won't vote for a Republican like Dole and just sit home instead and let the Clintonistas win? Wow, that's some allegiance to conservatism you have! It almost seems that you count the number of times a candidate mentions God before you decide who to vote for?
And BTW, Ronald Reagan was defined by much more than his religiousness. It's not fair to his great achievements to narrowly define him like that
"Please don't take the bait. This public insulting (look at the venue!) is part of the plan to split off the E.C. vote in order to put you know who in the WH."
Very astute.
This criticism is coming from a priest turned politician,who ran as a Republican and then was cover man for the Clinton's and the government in the Davidian massacre.
Also he was the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. for four years while the oil for food scandal was in full swing, deciding to retire when it starts to break.
Now since he retired he hangs out at the Clinton library in Arkansas.
I don't think he's in any position to get in a rock throwing contest.
He's typical of the political and religious leaders who only wants the sheep that follow the sound of their voice, not Christ's sheep that follow the sound of His.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
I have an aunt who worked for Danforth, decades ago...she and my uncle both have a lot of the respect for the man.
This same aunt and uncle also stood as my godparents four years ago, when I was baptized at their Episcopal church (it was my church too for a while, but no longer).
They are getting up there in years, and while they watch the news, they are not "plugged in" like I am...so they can do something that I can't---be sad about what is happening to their church nationally, and at the same time still respect someone like Danforth. Who is clearly part of the problem, no matter how nice he may have been to work for. I am torn about whether or not to disillusion them. Not least because it may end up only disillusioning me.
Gotta love how Danforth says he supports same-sex blessings, but wouldn't perform them himself. I suppose he thinks that keeps his own hands clean.
Agreed! And personally I shouldn't be but am shocked that a man with Danforth's background and opportunities can be so morally corrupt.
Danforth the gun grabber. No thanks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510415/posts?page=18#18
Crosslinking RINO Waco whitewasher Danforth articles.
Me, astute?
You are my new best friend.
When the believers pulled out of the Whig party, that party vanished. Believers gave birth to the Republican Party, and it will vanish when they leave it.
Others have noted that it is not the evangelicals who are drumming Danforth out of the party. If the GOP has a big tent it is because we tolerate the Danforths. We find them embarrassing, but we tolerate them.
You do have to wonder why Danforth would take aim at the philosophical core of the Republican Party, and do so in a speech given at the Bill Clinton School of Public Service. That almost sounds like something from Scrapple; its impossible to believe that a Republican would accept an invitation to such an event, but they do; guys like Danforth and Bush Senior seem determined to give Clinton a legitimacy he will never have. Bush Junior has even gone to that well too many times.
And never doubt that when guys like this take aim at the "religious right" and the "hard right", they are aiming at all of us, the religious and the irreligious alike. If you are a constitutionalist, if you believe in limited government, if your political philosophy is liberty with a moral center, or morality rooted in liberty, to these guys you are the "hard religious right" even if you never darken the door of a church.
One last thing; you can call yourself a priest, you can display your certificate on the wall from Saint Acme Seminary, you can draw a salary for performing priestly duties, but you are only a priest if God says you're a priest.
Come on senator, this is way too easy ...
Just off the top of my head
- - Stalin: 40+ million dead
- - Hitler: 10+ million dead
- - Mao: 60-100+ million dead
- - Khmer Rouge: 6+ million dead (50% population)
Now these were cases even Danforth might have agreed could have used some some hard core Catholicism or some real Evanglical Christianity.
Historically, Godless barbarity far exceeds anything we have ever seen in Christian/Jewish conflicts
The only religious barbarity that has approached godless barbarity is from the muslim faith or godless folks who claimed the muslim faith. See the Mogolian Emperor Tamerlane.
RileyD, nwJ
I loved it this morning when Paul Harvey was reporting Danforth's comments on his program, Jim Quinn here in Pittsburgh opened the mike and played his BS detector in the background, it was so funny yet true. I'm glad to see Christians, religious Jews and many others who are strong in faith re-assert themselves to try to turn America back to what it was before the 1960's.
I'm saying that is what happened. It is the job of the candidate to WIN votes, not the obligation of the voter to prop up the anemic also-ran Senate has-been, though funny, to offer up as a sacrificial lamb.
"Religiousness?"
Ok, I'll give you that RR was much more than a lot of things, but he rolled in his grave when you hit the post button and violated the 11th commandment.
You may forget which wing he had to overcome to gain the nomination in 1980. It certainly wasn't us Jesus Freaks.
Danforth is not making sense.
We are Christians. We vote. No one should be surprised that after we vote, we expect our leaders to follow through with what they promise.
As has been noted, many Christians would sit at home on election day, but I believe that the drive to vote for the Republican party is due to activism within the Democratic Party more than the activism among the "Religious Right."
The last Presidential election drew more on both sides to the polls than before. The Christians in the Republican Party made the difference in the last two elections. We had a greater impact than the Christians who voted Democrat and certainly more than the Christians who stayed home or voted 3rd party.
I believe that the Christian and other believers - especially the pro-family and pro-life - have only begun to impact elections.
We make up a very large block within the Republican Party - and within the Democratic Party once the Hispanics and the Blacks realize that the history of social activism within the Democratic party has been completely overshadowed by what is being called social engineering.
It's not just abortion, euthanasia, utilitarian eugenics and frequent redefinition of what it is to be human enough to protect from organized killing.
For some reason the left and the right have not noticed that voters turn out for traditional marriage ballot initiatives. That even those who are "pro-choice" and who split their "prolife" stance to allow embryo harvesting, come to the polls to vote against same sex marriage or civil unions. How long before the "moderates" notice that the groups pushing for tolerence in marriage are the same ones pushing for abortion, and then notice the connection between abortion, the "right to die" and all the other social eugenic agendas?
So let me get this straight; when the Left seeks to impose gay marriage/civil unions through constitutionally-unfounded judicial activism, that's not divisive, but for conservative Chrisitians to lead the fight against it (and all they do is lead, because afterall the overwhelming majorities by which people have rejected gay marriage by definition encompasses more votes than evangelicals are capable of delivering, as it crosses many demographic and political lines) through the proper, democratic channels is divisive?
Having the Courts impose abortion on demand isn't divisive, but attempts to return the matter to the states, and in the meantime to pass the most mainstream of restrictions are?
Having Courts misuse and abuse the Establishment Clause to ban nativity scenes and prayers before high school football games isn't divisive, but insisting on judges who are not so hostile to Christianity is?
This reminds me of one of those ridiculous MTV Youth forums I once saw where some participant asked a GOP spokesman why they pursued a 'divisive' anti-aff action agenda -- as if the policy of granting racial preferences isn't divisive at all!
The position you and Danforth seem to hold is that its okay for the Left to impose a radical cultural revolution through any means necessary, and if conservative Christians meekly accept it, then they are good citizens, but if they dare fight back, then they are guilty of creating division.
Howard Dean couldn't have said it better himself, though he has in fact said pretty much the same thing.
I agree with you that for many in the GOP establishment it is a source of great shame that they must rely on conservative Christians to win elections, and would much prefer others to take their place.
But the GOP is sadly mistaken if they think that there is a ready replacement block of voters available. For all of Bush and the GOP's pandering, Hispanics still favor the Democratic party by wide margins, and there isn't really much reason to expect that to change any time soon.
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.