raveneye

John Danforth, Bush's current Ambassador to the U.N., and a former Republican senator and Episcopalian minister, wrote an op-ed in the NY Times last week highly critical of the influence of the religious right on the Republican party.

My opinion: this editorial slams the nail on the head. I especially like his description of the purpose of government as "to hold together as one people a very diverse country". E pluribus unum. Advancing the cause of one religion simply is antithetical to this purpose.

My question: does anybody here disagree with Danforth, especially this quote:

For background on Danforth:
http://www.un.int/usa/danforth.htm

Willravel

He is quite heroic to make a stand like this. I support what he said above totally. God's place is church.

meepa

That's a nice article, and I agree with you that it illustrates what is (at least perceived to be) one of the biggest problems with the Republican Party. Many "liberals", and I think this applies to some who post on this board, are not so much against what Danforth is describing, i.e. small government. Sure, they might not agree with that political philosophy entirely and think it's the government's or society's obligation to step in at various points, e.g. education or poverty. But I think the vast majority of moderates, and those who consider themselves somewhat left-wing, feel give-and-take on these issues as they come up and are wholly open to debate.

What I reckon is the most insulting and agitating to "leftists" is the clear giving-in of that same party to Christian interests. That process sets bells ringing off in a lot of people’s heads & is what, I think, causes the most heated backlash against the "right". If the Republican Party magically removed its "morality-segment" overnight, I would put money on the vast animosity that those against Republican agendas have would dissipate.

After that, the only ultra-divisive issue would be the war, which I think if one looks closely, isn't so much a Left vs. Right issue at all. It seems to me that a lot of conservatives aren't happy because this war is driving up costs and spits in the face of small government/little deficit. Conversely, some on the Left, while realizing war is never a good thing, do have hope that Iraq may somehow pull through with a representative, or at the very least less-oppressive, government.

Anyway, I don't mean to digress and turn this into a thread about the war, but I was just trying to illustrate that if there's on aspect of the Republican Party that really drives a wedge and alienates people, it's their trend towards being a political extension of the Christian movement, which I think is how Danforth put it.

For the record to illustrate my own bias in my interpretation, I am pretty vehemently opposed to the integration of religion (in our case, Christianity) into politics. This aspect of the Republican Party just really ticks me off. And while many people would instinctively consider me a "liberal" because of this, I tend to prefer limited, unobtrusive government (which the Republican Party bills itself as, but in my opinion has been the antithesis of this ideal lately). While I don't agree with everything the Republicans say outside of the religious thing, it is that aspect that turns me away the most from them. And before anyone tries to jump down my back: No I don't love Democrats either, or Libertarians, or Communists. Don't try to fit me into a nice political category because I don't fit in one.

In conclusion, for those of you who can't tolerate my longwinded rambling, I think this is a good article that just about every fair-thinking American without a theocratic agenda will agree upon.

Paq

wow...definitely kudos to him

__________________
Live.

Chris

Ilow

That is really brave of him, given the current state of the Republican party. I wonder if the fact that he's a representative in an instutution that this regime has tried to marginalize will factor into the impact of his stand.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Fourtyrulz

I think the most condemning part of the article comes in the last couple paragraphs:

I couldn't agree more with Danforth's article. This is the exact problem I find with most people who align themselves with the Republican party these days. I've even discussed it on the campus Republican organization's message board, to my own dismay at finding that most are Reps. because of these hot button religious issues.

To quote a reponse to my question, "Why are you a Republican?": And judging from the other responses my question received, I wouldn't be surprised to find this one as being the typical answer if a national survery were done.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

analog

His views ARE the same, and whether or not he spends "every minute" wondering about gays, he will still vote them down.

The only good thing I can see in him is that he recognizes the church folk creeping into the purposes of the government.

Other than that, not much better than what I normally hear.

p.s.- he used the word "sacrament" to describe marriage, and he's playing the "too much religion" card?

sprocket

Think you misread something. The author of the op-ed peice didnt use the word "sacrament" anywhere in that article. He specifcally called it the "institution of marriage". Re-read FourtyRulz's post

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

NCB

I swear that when I read the posts in the political forum, that I must be living in a parallel universe.

Where has the boogeyman (AKA the Christian Right) imposed it's will on people? Gay marriage amendments?? Voters approved thos measure by overwhelming margins in all states. Are they part of this great boogeyman monopoly that some of you believe we're living under?

Where else does this great boogeyman lie? In our schools? Hardly; little girls nowadays get either a stern warning from the principal if she would happen to even utter out loud a prayer before lunch or get sent home with a note from the principal about the child's inappropraite behavior.

No offense, but the Left in this country who believe they're being squeezed by the CR really need to seek some sort of paranoia counseling, because there is absolutley no evidence that this country is becoming the Christian theocracy that they believe it is transpiring.

__________________

Manx

Maybe. I think the universe that the political forum resides in is the one where the President flew back from his vacation to sign an emergency bill from Congress that violated seperation of powers for the purpose of religious intent to control people's lives. You may have seen a few staunch conservatives here on TFP discussing their own displeasure with that action.

Is that not the universe you reside in?
Is this case of a little girl receiving a stern warning or being sent home with a note of inappropriate behavior from a principal for uttering aloud a prayer before lunch something that actually happened, or did you just decide to make that up?

Willravel

Tell me about it! And I'm liberal!! I wouldn't let it bother you. Sometimes people see things a lot differently than you even think is possible. Try to see it as a glass half full situation.
If a state voted overwhelmingly to deport all Islamic Arabs from the US, would you be behind that? What about requiring prayer to God (Christian God) before all meals? The boogyman was the one who put the measures forward in the first place. They should have never been considered.
Agreed. People should be allowed to pray at school when it is appropriate. I'm not sure why people are up in arms about that. If I'm in 3rd grade and I close my eyes and fold my hands in prayer before diving into my $0.90 piece of meat, it doesn't hurt anyone. Just like it doesn't hurt to wear turbans or yamakas.
If your homosexual and want a civil union, you're being squeezed. No paranoia about it. That one example should be enough, but it won't. How do you feel about the envornment? I hope you don't care for it. U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right are united and unswerving in their opposition to environmental protection. Why would that be? Why does the phantom CR not worry about the environment? Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse. That is harmful legislation based on Christian fundamentalist beliefs.

There is a really good article about the CR and the environment at the Grist magazine website. Grist is an environmetal magazine.

Fourtyrulz

No evidence? I think this Republican senator's personal testimony is proof enough. Re-read Manx's post again about Shaivo if you are still unsure. Or even better yet read through my thread about the book Mind Siege by Tim LaHaye. The attitude that American government should be a thoroughfare for religious dogma as legislation is very real.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

NCB

Glad you asked.....

1. Case of Raymond Raines, 4th grader at Waring Elementary, St Louis , MO, 1994. He bowed his head before lunch to thank God forhis food. Teacher saw this, singled him out in front of all the other kids, and then sent him to the principals office.

2. Kayla Broadus, kindergartner,Saratoga Springs, NY, 2002. Said the "God is great..." prayer before snack time in form of two other kids (gasp!!). Teacher saw this, silenced and scolded her, and then reported the "infraction" to the schools lawyer.


Next......

__________________

Kadath

Two in eleven years?! Dear GOD, when will the oppression of right-thinking Christian children stop? Wait, did I say two?

On the subject of Raymond Raines: I question your sources. Even when I search the Rutherford Institute's website for Raines I cannot find anything.

I grant that Kayla Broadus happened; one case of an overzealous teacher does NOT make a strong case.

__________________
it's quiet in here

NCB

Y'all are one's trying to make the case that this country is turning into a Christian theocracy. Thus the burden is on you to make the case. ManX simply asked if I made that story up, and just came back with two cases that I knew of. I can also give many more examples of how the schools are suppressing any mention of God anywhere on the school property.

__________________

Manx

OK, you didn't make it up, the people involved in those incidents were clearly overstepping their bounds. Of course, the people involved in those incidents are not a part of the government. So I still don't see the relevance to the subject here. I once had my hat taken by a teacher and was told I could receive it at the end of the school year. Come that time, they had lost it. That doesn't mean schools are stealing students property. And it doesn't say anything to a question of whether the government is or is not stealing hats.

You asked for proof of the religious influence on gov't. I provided it. You ignored it.

NCB

Is this your proof that govt is being taken over by a Christian theocracy?

Sorry, but your opinion on why another man acted the way he did does not in anyway constitute "evidence".

__________________

Manx

Fortunately, it doesn't begin or end with my own opinion on the matter.

NCB

Amen to that

Now where is this proof that you presented?

__________________

Manx

I provided it, you quoted it and dismissed it as my own opinion. To which I pointed out that I am not the only one with that opinion, indeed, many conservatives have that opinion.

Are we going to move to the next stage of this discussion, where you retract your statement that denies religion is influencing gov't or where you simply respond with "well, my opinion is different" - or are we just going to continue repeating ourselves?

Willravel

If your homosexual and want a civil union, you're being squeezed by the federal government. No paranoia about it. That one example should be enough, but it won't. How do you feel about the envornment? I hope you don't care for it. U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right are united and unswerving in their opposition to environmental protection. Why would that be? Why does the phantom CR not worry about the environment? Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse. That is harmful legislation based on Christian fundamentalist beliefs.

There is a really good article about the CR and the environment at the Grist magazine website. Grist is an environmetal magazine.

Does that work as proof for you, or should I find more?

shakran

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.asp?id=539

(Federal judge orders school to allow kindergartener to pray before snack)

So what you're saying is that two teachers who happen to be ignorant of what the 1st amendment really says (oh hell, I'll give this one to you - those two teachers are idiotic assholes who are suppressing those kids' rights) means that all "liberals" are evil and are trying to abolish god. If you'll note from the article, a federal judge (a member of the group you guys are always accusing of being activist judges who write their own laws) has ordered the school to allow the kid to pray. The school is the one that's in the wrong, the "horrible liberal judge" is trying to stop the school.

It can often help to make your case when you only tell half the story - -that is, until someone digs up the other half. ..

NCB

ie..you got nothing. Thanks

Unless you consider that in people 11 states and over 65% of them are part of this Christian Right theocracy, then yes, you need to find more.

Enviro protection?? Other than you saying it's so, please provide examples that the boogeymen are oppossed to protecting the enviroment AND how that ties into a Christian Right belief system.

Will, I don't expect you or anyone else to find concrete examples on this. I think the problem with y'all is that you assume that a GOPer=a member of the CR. It's like me assuming that all Dems believe in immoral behavior. Thus, the very thing that the liberals tend to hate (generalizations and stereotypes) ius the very thing that they become when it comes to conservatives.

__________________

Manx

Yes. Me and most liberals and quite a few conservatives got nothing ... on you and your alternate universe.

I suppose you were looking for evidence such as signed and notarized statements by all the GOP leaders declaring their allegiance to religious control of government - and anything less than that is "nothing".

In that case, yeah - you're right. I got "nothing".

tecoyah

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha