Is the Christian right the Republican Party’s real political base or have conservative Christians taken over the GOP, forcing the party to meet their demands?
For former Missouri Sen. John Danforth, the answer became clear when the Republican-controlled Congress intervened in the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died after her husband won the right to remove her feeding tube.
“The effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive artificially became a religious crusade and Republicans in Washington responded to a core constituency, even though it meant abandoning traditional Republican philosophy,” Danforth writes in his new
book…
Most of the folks I spend conscious intellectual time with don’t belong to either of the Establishment political parties. Right or Left in political persuasion, most could care less about organized religion. Still, vigilance is required when our Constitution and Bill of Rights are being compromised in the name of somebody’s god.
Danforth, an ordained Episcopal priest and a lifelong Republican who represented Missouri for 18 years in the Senate, argues that the religious right has focused its agenda on divisive issues that polarize Americans and create a stalemate in government.
These issues, such as abortion, gay marriage and the use of religious displays on government property, are “of little intrinsic importance except as wedges” to energize the base by pitting “people of faith” against their perceived enemies…
“If Christianity is supposed to be a ministry of reconciliation, but has become, instead, a divisive force in American political life, something is terribly wrong and we should correct it,” Danforth writes.
Danforth is a moderate and the party he’s devoted his life to appears to be preparing to destroy itself in a sectarian rapture. He just may have a point.
Sorry. The government had absolutely no business getting into the Terry Schiavo case. Michael should have had the last word. Period. Her parents having any kind of legal say ended the day she got married when Michael become her closest relative. The fact that the rest of Terry’s family didn’t like is nothing buy a side note, and should never have been in legal play. I’d be furious at my family for cutting my wife down like that. And if I didn’t want her making those kinds of decisions, a divorce is pretty damn easy to get nowadays.
And Michael was never Terry’s ex. Michael became widowed when she was finally pronounced dead.
As far as the stem cell thing. I want every Congress critter, the President and every judge who votes against stem cell research to sign a contract that they will never use any form of stem cell for themselves or their families.
It’s times like this when I really wish there were personal liabilities for passing certain laws. Vote against abortion, but have your wife or daughter go out of the country for a “legal” abortion and get your tongue cut out or an arm chopped off. I am quite serious.
because “concious intellectuals” arent of the religious-right (or if they are, they’re not bible thumpers)
mmm thumpers… what do you call the guy that “thumps” his atheism? or people who try to “cram [secularism] down one’s throat” ?
just wondering
Frank: Perhaps “brain dead” in the utmost clinical sense would require artificial respiration, but the popular definition of “brain dead” is more akin to a persistent vegitative state. So you score a small point on semantics. However, many body functions are only uncontrollable reflexes, so the parts of the brain that control free will, emotion, action, etc. may be dead while a person’s heart and lungs still operate… I certainly would consider myself brain dead if I was in Schiavo’s state, and I would expect my family to hold to my wishes of not being kept alive by artificial means. Which, by the way, were her wishes, too (and everyone seems to forget that).
#33
There is no one like that.
In this forum, where it is the topic, you get me heralding the great modern wonder that is athiesm and you trumpeting the classic miracle that is theism… But in the real world… No one does this…
Athiests don’t picket Sunday schools for not teaching sex ed. Athiests don’t gather up books to burn. Athiests don’t leave tracts in the washroom at Starbucks. Athiests don’t knock on your door and ask to discuss your rational view of the universe. It just isn’t happening.
We only defend because absent an attack, there just isn’t anything we need to do. When science is taught in science class, sex ed is taught in health, and creationism is taught in church, then all is right with the world.
When we aren’t distracted by the Born Again set trying to impose their narrow Dark Age values on us, then we can focus on the true mission of Athiesm… Which is of course, feeding the hungry, protecting the environment, opening new avenues to education for the poor and lower middle class, and brokering peace where ever strife occurs.
#35 ” . . . then we can focus on the true mission of Athiesm… Which is of course, feeding the hungry, protecting the environment, opening new avenues to education for the poor and lower middle class, and brokering peace where ever strife occurs.”
Ahh . . . so the entire Democratic Party is Athiest! I never knew that. This blog really is informative!
I like that part about brokering peace. So what’s your plan for dealing with Muslims’ death threats against all non-believers (and you can’t be more “non-believer” than “athiest”)?
#36 –
So should I take from your post that you oppose my agenda, and that you are perhaps, on the opposition team? Don’t answer, I’ll assume I am correct.
So are you ready to concede that the agenda of the Republican Party and the Christian Church is promoting startvation, plundering the environment, shutting down schools for the poor and lower middle class, and waging war anytime you see an opportunity?
(even I never claimed that much was true)
Which, by the way, were her wishes, too (and everyone seems to forget that).
According to Michael Sciavo. They weren’t written down.
Frank, I checked with my wife who is an RN and spent 11 years in ICU. Even though a person may be declared brain dead, they might still be breathing on their own. Breathing and heart rate are autonomic responses and not dependent upon the brain, although they may be.
Also, different physicians have different levels at where they will cease care. Often this coincides with the physician’s religion.
I don’t think I need a medical degree to say she wasn’t dead. I don’t care whether her husband tried to keep her alive at that point, but I would expect him to remain chaste while she was alive. The conflict of interest is huge here.
#19 Television isn’t a church. The fact is Democrats do all sorts of campaigning in black churches at election time.
Frank: Well, apparently her wishes were voiced well enough to her husband and her friends that the courts consistently ruled she did not want to live in a persistent vegetative state. Have you read much about the case at all?
#41: OK, show the evidence then.
In addition to what I said in #42: If I were to go around to all my friends and family and indicate my wishes were to not be kept alive in a similar situation, that would be enough evidence for the courts to agree without me writing anything down.
Is this the post about Danforth and the religious right in the Republican party?
If it is, I have to say I completely agree with him. My family have been Republicans since around 1858. They are religious(I’m still working on my thoughts), but religion was never a guiding force as to how they voted. My most recent family(Mom, Dad, Brothers and Grandparents) have considered themselves Progressive/Conservatives. The religious right has taken over that party, and the Conservatives and Progressive’s have no where to go anymore(the Dems have been hijacked by the far left Nationally and state level).
I have felt for some time that a party needs to be formed of former Democrat conservatives and Moderates and Republican conservatives and Moderates. They could revive a name used back in the begining of the Republic….the Democratic/Republicans.
Let the radical left and the religious right have their wedge issues and fight it out, while the Moderate/Conservatives restore some sense and honor to this country again.
#30
> I have pointed out that if one is “brain dead”, one will
> not be able to breathe independently, and must be on a
> machine in order to breathe. Terry Sciavo was not.
Not true. As #39 pointed out, the brain provides both voluntary and involuntary control over body functions. It is very possible to be “brain dead” in the sense of having no cognitive ability, no voluntary brain capacity but still be able to breathe independently and even react to simple stimuli. Terry Shivo was very dead in the sense that she had absolutely no cognitive ability whatsoever. Autopsies revealed that her mind was utter mush. Keeping her alive was far crueler that accepting what the physicians had said long ago: everything that made her unique was dead in all but body functions.
#40
Exactly how do you take morality out of politics. Isn’t politics about government and the laws it creates? Laws are just that a statement about a societies morality. Morality is derived from a person’s belief system, if they are Christian true believers then it’s comes from the bible and the command of Christ. If you are a secular atheist then where does your belief system come from and what’s to say you version is any better than anyone else’s. Hitler and Stalin were both atheists and we can see where that went.
Danforth says that Chrit’s ministry was one of reconciliation. But reconciliation with what? That reconciliation is with God and only with God and to obtain that reconciliation and keep it you have to accept Christ as savior and through love of Christ obey his commands, which are God’s commands. By definition this means that abortion, gay marriage and a host of other things are to be opposed by anyone that loves Christ, perhaps within the law but still opposed.
And it is the use of religious displays on government property that defines a people. If this is offensive to the majority of people then we must assume the majority of people are not of that religion.
As for the destruction of the Republican party, this is due to the current Mexican invasion and the refusal of anyone within the Republican party to up hold the law in referance to it. This in turn is leading, as much anyting Clinton ever did, to the breaddown of law and justice in this country.
traax you are one ignorant git. At least you well illustrate exactly what Danforth is writing about.
> If you are a secular atheist then where does your belief
> system come from and what’s to say you version is any
> better than anyone else’s
Bullshit. *All* belief systems are a derived from a combination of sources including the Biblical sources. People do not live in a box. Just because you are Christian does not mean that your *sole* source of morality comes from the Bible.
A lot has changed since the Bible was written and it clearly does not account for numerous situations including something like Terry Shivo. In fact, if we were able to query the original writers of the Bible about this situation they would have more than likely said to kill her. I suspect that the concept of artificially keeping someone alive would have been considered an attempt to play the role of their deity.
> And it is the use of religious displays on government
> property that defines a people
Huh? What exactly do you mean by “defines a people.”? I can think of numerous ways of “defining a people” none of which require public display on government property of one religion’s or group of religions’ paraphernalia.
> If this is offensive to the majority of people then
> we must assume the majority of people are not of that religion.
This is a misrepresentation. I would bet that almost to the last person that no one has a problem with people being religious per se. However, I would also bet that everyone has a problem when people attempt to impose their religion upon others by wanting it printed on money, by putting up displays on government property, wanting to control broadcast content based on their own version of their religion’s morality, wanting a pseudoscience theory about the origins of life taught as science in schools etc. You want to be religious? More power to you, just don’t try to impose your religion on others.
Thomas –
Keeping her alive was far crueler that
I disagree that starving and dehydrating her was the “less cruel” alternative.
Lauren –
So why didn’t he divorce her? (Answer – he wanted the money from the malpractice suit.)
I don’t think I need a medical degree to say she wasn’t dead. I don’t care whether her husband tried to keep her alive at that point, but I would expect him to remain chaste while she was alive. The conflict of interest is huge here.
Comment by AB CD — 9/25/2006 @ 5:03 pm
What the eff word does his chastity have to do with her being brain dead with no hope of recovery?
When Danforth writes about the Church opinion steering the course of thought, this is a great example. If Michael Shaivo took up with another woman is irrelevant to the case and only serves to make the opponents look even worse.
#50, So why didn’t he divorce her? (Answer – he wanted the money from the malpractice suit.)
Comment by Frank IBC — 9/26/2006 @ 6:06 am
He started the proceedings something like five or six years earlier. As the legal guardian it was his call to carry out her wishes. It was the parents that continually challenged the court rulings. The settlement was long gone after all the intensive care she received and the constant challenges.
Frank: I disagree that starving and dehydrating her was the “less cruel” alternative.
Even considering that it was her wish to not be kept alive in the fashion you wanted? So people have a right to live…but not a right to die?
The only reason his wishes prevailed over the parents is because he was her husband. Shacking up with another woman weakens that.
#35, there is
I suppose you are one of the folk that think Hitler was a Christian? nevermind that he wrote his own bible.
I’ve had plenty of encounters with people spouting their non theistic beliefs, men handing out non-theistic tracts.
And by the way “feeding the hungry, protecting the environment, opening new avenues to education for the poor and lower middle class, and brokering peace where ever strife occurs.” are quite heavily Christian agendas. caring for the poor and hungry is something Christ taught sternly. there are rules in the book about the environment. Most of modern science was started by Christians wanting to know how God’s creation works. Several established and respected schools were started by churches.
charity in action: organizations like the red cross, or salvation army were started by Christians….
the atheists have things like the ACLU, which tries passionately to remove any trace of religion from any organization it can touch, even in cases where its presense is documented to better society at large, fe: prisons… there are faith based programs in prisons that are proven to lower the rates of repeat offenders in participants…. proven to reduce crime, this is good for society, theist and atheist alike, yet the atheists don’t want it. I can’t see how that corresponds to your asserted atheistic agenda.
no, the real problem, the problem that exists on both sides is that both sides want to convert the other and neither in America, neither the theists at large, nor the atheists at large are fulfilling their stated agendas. At least what little compassion I do see is mostly funded by the theists and mostly handled by theistic organizations.
Theists and atheists, they are both broken, they are both weak, they are both full of hypocrites, but at least I get compassion from the theists. Diety aside, I’d rather be associated with the theists, I’d rather be associated with compassion. Compassion, which, is the stated desire of God, and thus, where people find God.
pardon my spelling and grammar, I went to a non-theistic university.
#55 I suppose you are one of the folk that think Hitler was a Christian? nevermind that he wrote his own bible.
Do you care what he was? Does it matter? Yes. He was born a Christian and never denounced Christianity and he died a Christian. Did he embody the virtues of Christ and the Christian faith? No. Not according to 99.9% of the Christian world, although at least one Christian organization might disagree… The Klu Klux Klan. On the off chance the the Heaven and hell myths are true, he’s still going to burn because one thing we can all agree on… he was evil.
Why are Christians so terrified of owning up to the skeletons in their closet? Your history is rich in great leaders and brilliant minds. It is also rife with scumbags. Just deal with it and move on.
I’ve had plenty of encounters with people spouting their non theistic beliefs, men handing out non-theistic tracts.
Did this occur while you were blocking access to abortion clinics… because otherwise, I don’t believe it.
And by the way “feeding the hungry, protecting the environment, opening new avenues to education for the poor and lower middle class, and brokering peace where ever strife occurs.” are quite heavily Christian agendas. caring for the poor and hungry is something Christ taught sternly. there are rules in the book about the environment.
Of course, I know. There should have been an eleventh commandment about having a sense of humor. Most Christians (including Catholics) as well as most Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Unitarians (they don’t identify themselves as Christian anymore), Wiccans (they are my faves because they are so cute)
Your PR problems start where guys like Robertson and Falwell are involved. I’m not at all convinced that altruism fits into there mission scheme… The more conservative side of Christianity prefers to trade conversion for charity. The message is, you won’t starve, if you believe in what we believe in.
Most of modern science was started by Christians wanting to know how God’s creation works. Several established and respected schools were started by churches.
And most scientists subscribe to a faith. And our best hospitals are church funded. What’s the point?
the atheists have things like the ACLU, which tries passionately to remove any trace of religion from any organization it can touch, even in cases where its presense is documented to better society at large, fe: prisons…
Bullshit. You are either misinformed or just plain lying. The ACLU is one of the most important vanguards to liberty in our society, and they are focused most heavily on First Amendment issues.
They catch a lot of flack for championing the causes no one else will lend thier voice to. But that’s because, unlike the average schmoo with their misguided allegience to populist logic, the ACLU understands that fidelity to our stated societal mission of ensuring civil liberty means standing up for the voice of very cause most of us would find reprehensible.
The ACLU doesn’t stand up for Nazi’s. They stand up for the right of Nazi’s to have a voice. If they didn’t, they would be able to stand up for anyone.
there are faith based programs in prisons that are proven to lower the rates of repeat offenders in participants…. proven to reduce crime, this is good for society, theist and atheist alike, yet the atheists don’t want it. I can’t see how that corresponds to your asserted atheistic agenda.
I don’t know what cases you are talking about, but what athiests and enlighted Christians alike are opposed to is a disregard to the Establishment Clause. No one shall be restricted from practicing a religion, and no one in a prison is restricted. What will not be permitted, for amazingly good reasons, is even the appearance of the government of the United States at any level establishing or endorsing a religious ideology or dogma. How do you not get why that is critical to a free society?
no, the real problem, the problem that exists on both sides is that both sides want to convert the other and neither in America, neither the theists at large, nor the atheists at large are fulfilling their stated agendas. At least what little compassion I do see is mostly funded by the theists and mostly handled by theistic organizations.
Again, bullshit. Evangelicals are on a crusade to convert everyone. If they can’t convert, they persecute. Athiests don’t give a damn what you believe, just stay the hell out of public schools and government institutions. As an athiest, it is noteworthy that i have never had a significant disagreement with a Methodist or a Catholic or a Jew in so far as our collective rights and social responsibilities were concerned. It’s just the thumpers who need to be put in check.
Theists and atheists, they are both broken, they are both weak, they are both full of hypocrites, but at least I get compassion from the theists. Diety aside, I’d rather be associated with the theists, I’d rather be associated with compassion. Compassion, which, is the stated desire of God, and thus, where people find God.
And i resent, yet again, the backhanded insult that the holier than thou clan likes to levy against athiests. Christianity, as a whole, doesn’t offer any more compassion than anyone else, and your accusation that I lack compassion is patently false. Thiests and athiests are pretty much the only kind of people there are, and all people are flawed… But athiests aren’t without compassion.
Do you think there are no athiests who volunteer with the Red Cross?
Do you think there are no athiests who serve in their nation’s military?
Do you think there are no athiests who are firefighters or policemen?
Do you think there are no athiests who teach?
Do you think there are no athiests who are doctors or nurses?
Do you think there are no athiests who volunteer at a soup kitchen?
If so, you are wrong. But that isn’t a surprise.
#56: Check and mate. Well played!
#55
> I suppose you are one of the folk that think Hitler
> was a Christian? nevermind that he wrote his own bible.
Actually, yes. It is a fact that Hitler was a devout Christian and felt that he was doing God’s work in punishing the Jews for what they did to Jesus.Try reading Mein Kampf.
> the atheists have things like the ACLU, which tries
> passionately to remove any trace of religion from any
> organization it can touch, even in cases where its
> presense is documented to better society at large,
It is NEVER better for government to show favoritism towards one belief system at the expense of other belief systems. In other words, I question your interpretation of what is “better” for society. Further, as OhForTheLoveOf mentioned, your ideas behind the ACLU’s mission is incredibly distorted. Primarily, their goal is to ensure that people do not subvert the core tenaments of the Constitution.
I know compassionate atheists and discompassionate theists. I merely spoke from my *aggregate* experience, which you denied me. Your attack has not educated me, but only affirmed my experience.
Don’t you see?