Sponsors

Danforth Says He is No Longer Obtuse about the Christian Right Email Print

Former Senator John Danforth (R-MO),  has a book coming out on Tuesday: "Faith and Politics: How the 'Moral Values' Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together."  This is not good news for the religious right, for which he has some strong criticisms consistent with his speaking and writing of the past few years. As a former GOP sentator, U.S. Ambassador to the UN and an Episcopal priest, his words carry some weight. While I am glad that he is speaking out, and I have no doubt that he will add a thoughtfulf and helpful voice to the contemporary discussion of the role of religion and public life, my main criticism is that he should have and arguably could have done a lot more, a lot  sooner. Nevertheless, I say better late than never. Perhaps Danforth's high profile public criticisms of the religious right and the polititians that pander to it, will help others find find their voice. Who knows, maybe even some Democrats can be helped; particularly those who have not yet succumbed to the temptation to throw their principles overboard while attempting to appeal to conservative "values voters."  

Danforth offered this explanation to his home town newspaper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, as to why he only recently has come to be speaking out: "Maybe I was obtuse," he said.  That, and Terry Schiavo.

More on the flip.

Q: Religion and politics are two subjects themselves that are hard to reconcile. Have you been thinking about this your whole career?

A: For decades, I've been thinking about these two subjects, but not with the urgency of the past year and a half. This was triggered by the Terri Schiavo case; that was the specific tipping point in my own thinking. That was when I thought, "Something has gone very wrong here."

Q: But these signs have been around for at least a decade or so, haven't they?

A: Maybe I was obtuse. People like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have been involved in Republican politics for a long time. Of course, abortion has been a political issue since 1973. But in my own mind, it didn't have the urgency until the Schiavo case. In the past year or so, what was maybe a general interest of Robertson and others in politics and one particular issue, namely abortion, has been transformed into something much more detailed and much more a full-fledged political agenda.

You have Terri Schiavo, the stem-cell issue, the gay marriage issue, the Ten Commandments in courthouses - all occurring about the same time.

But, I thought, particularly with Schiavo, something different had happened: Namely, basic Republican principles had been tossed overboard at the bidding of Christian conservatives

Raw Story has some excerpts:

Some people have asked me whether America is a Christian country. The answer must be no, for to call this a Christian country is to say that non-Christians are of some lesser order, not full fledged citizens of one nation.

I believe that homosexuality is a matter of sexual orientation rather than preference," he writes. "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, in my view, comparable to discrimination on other civil rights grounds. It is wrong, and it should be prohibited by law.

I think that the only purpose served by the campaign for the amendment is the humiliation of gay Americans, advocated by the Christian right and eagerly supported by its suitors in the Republican Party," he adds. "In reality, it is gay bashing."

Here are some more quotes from the book being distributed by the Associated Press:  

This is not a coalition of traditional Republicans and the Christian Right in the nature of a merger of equals. This is the takeover of the Republican Party by the Christian Right. That is the significance of the Terri Schiavo case. It was the total victory of Christian conservative activism over broadly shared Republican principles, a victory won with no resistance from traditional Republicans.

There is a difference between being a Christian in politics and having a Christian agenda for politics. There were times when I believed that on a particular issue, I was doing God's will. My attempts to address the hunger crises in Cambodia and Africa were times of such belief, but such times were very rare. For the overwhelming majority of my time in public life, I had no certainty that my side was God's side.
God calls us to be faithful without handing us a political agenda. At least that's how I see faith and politics, but it is not how everyone sees faith and politics. Christian conservatives believe that God's will can be reduced to a political program and that they have done so. In their minds, there is indeed a Christian agenda for America and in recent years, they have succeeded in pressing it upon the Republican Party. It is an agenda comprised of wedge issues, which, when hammered relentlessly in political forums, divide the American people.

Again, while I welcome Senator Danforth to the conversation, I just want to say that it has been going on for a long time without him, that is, while he was still obtuse.

[Crossposted from Talk to Action]


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Stoller and Sirota Get it WRONG on Rahm Emanuel | MA Gov: Late Deciders Breaking for Patrick [Updated] >
 Display:
John Danforth is the man who made Clarence Thomas possible. To be entirely fair, though, it was other men and women who made Clarence Thomas a reality.  I'm referring to the leading Senate Dems at the time whose incompetent majority leadership had put all its chips on Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harrassment by Thomas.  The televised "Hill Senate Hearings" went down in flames before a national audience -- making Thomas's confirmation a mere formality.  


Nevertheless, Danforth shamelessly ployed the Thomas affair like a riverboat gambler  -- when everyone knew that the GOP wanted Thomas confirmed in order to pre-empt the appointment of a more mainstream, pro-civil rights African-American to the Supreme Court.


The truly tragic thing is:  Clarence Thomas won't be filling Thurgood Marshall's shoes in this or any other lifetime.


Danforth the politician never quite meshed with Danforth the priest.  In 1982, Danforth was in real trouble for re-election to the Senate. In fact, with a week to go he was polling slightly behind his opponent -- Lt. Governor Harriet Woods -- who had been surprisingly successful in Missouri politcs as an ERA supporter, handgun control proponent, and pro-choice advocate.  And it certainly didn't harm Woods' reputation that two of her sons had made it to the NFL.  Meaning:  she was not your "average" feminist.


Danforth's campaign committee hit Woods in the last days of the campaign with an avalanche of negative ads.  Laying off TV, his campaign focused instead on mailing screaming flyers about Woods' pro-choice stance throughout heavily Catholic South St. Louis -- even having people going door-to-door in the last few days of the campaign. Many of Danforth's door bell ringers  were genuine "pro-life" supporters.  Danforth paid for the rest. Jack had deep pockets; he was a scion of the Ralston-Purina empire.


What really stunk, though, was the Danforth campaign running in outstate Missouri.  There his organization targeted Bible Belt conservative voters with ads reminding them that Woods was also Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum's cousin.  It was probably only a generous and above-the-belt gesture by Danforth to inform voters that Woods might be a "liberal."  But it actually downright sanctifying of the Reverand Jack to intimate that Woods was actually a clandestine "liberal Jewess."  Woods is a Jew married to a Gentile and Danforth wanted to make sure her married name didn't fool anybody.


Danforth is an opportunist who made his fortune the old-fashioned way.  He inherited it. Many people who know him wouldn't believe him if said he was hungry.  The Danforths practically own Washington University in St. Louis. That institution will stand much to gain from a state amendment to allow corporations and universities to conduct stem cell research -- which is why Danforth is the campaign's on-air spokesman.  Danforth mentions he's a priest in every damn one of his pro stem cell ads.


If he's still a practicing priest, I'd hate to have to meet his "congregation."  I don't own any $1000 suits.  And if he was still running for the Senate from Missouri you wouldn't be seeing his book.

by FlyCatcher on 09/18/2006 11:54:10 AM EST

 Display: