Politics & religion

acco40 · September 18, 2006

After reading the "Eagle Scouts" and seeing Michael Moore being debated and more political squabbling, I thought I'd stir the pot some more! :-)

One of my favorite politicians, a life long Republican, is coming out with a book. I had a chance to meet him when I was in high school and he was running for Missouri attorney general. It was the same election as Nixon / McGovern. I was very leery of Republicans and thought his view on Government spending for private schools was way off base. As a side note, his brother was the Chancellor where I got my graduate degree. We need more public servants like him. Some of his thoughts on religion, gays, etc.

Q: In your book you write that 'no political agenda can claim to be God's will.' That argument is not going to persuade people who believe it can.

A: No, you're not going to persuade everybody, but let's have other people weigh in on this discussion, too. Let's hear from the people who do not believe that the kingdom of God can be reduced to a political platform. And let's hear from people who believe that the commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves takes precedence over bashing gays, for example.

Q: How would that look, then, if more people were interested in reconciliation? Can you give an example?

A: Let's stick with the gay issue. This issue has become politicized for the purpose of appealing to the Christian conservative base of the Republican Party. It's difficult for me to imagine that, aside from that effort, that many people really think that gay marriage should be incorporated into the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution is about the structure of government; it's about the relationship of the government and the people. It's not about behavioral issues.

The gay marriage issue gained currency in Republican politics because only one side was heard from. It's time for other people to say, 'Wait a second.'

I feel the same about stem cells. Some people say that the Christian position is against stem cell research. That's true for some Christians. But a lot of Christians would say: No, when Jesus sent the disciples out into the world, he sent them out, in Matthew's Gospel, to heal every disease.

I'm not for muzzling anybody. I'm for having people who believe that America has become too polarized - and for religion to be more than a series of wedge issues - to be more outspoken than they've been to date.

Q: What are your thoughts on gay marriage?

A: My personal view is that marriage is between a man and woman. But that's neither here nor there. I also believe in not humiliating people, and I believe in honoring people and understanding that some people are just not drawn to people of the opposite sex.

The government should recognize that when there's a committed relationship, certain legal rights should go along with it. And then let the churches figure out what they mean by marriage.

Q: Has the Episcopal Church made decisions in recent years that you disagree with?

A: Oh, yeah. But my view of the Episcopal Church is that its tradition is to hold within itself a whole variety of views. And I think that's good. There's a big gap between God and our understanding of God. We have to recognize that there are a variety of ideas that people can have and still be faithful people.

Q: What role do books have today in shaping or moving cultural discussion?

A: The written word is really important. I hope that we're not reduced to not only talking heads, but shouting heads.

The subject that I'm into now - the relationship between religion and politics - is going to benefit from serious public discussion, (from) books that are written, op-ed pieces, ordinary people who think about this question.

In that sense, I am very Jeffersonian: If the American people inform themselves and think about this question, it's going to turn out fine. Now is the time for moderates to think and speak.

Q: What if the response is detrimental to the Republican Party?

A: What's the use of the Republican Party: to serve its own aims, simply to get itself elected? Or is its aim to serve the nation and the world? I don't think creating a sectarian political party serves anything beyond helping to win an election.

For a short-term strategy, this is a good one, to appeal relentlessly to a narrow base. But (in the long term), it's going to backfire.

SR540Beaver · September 18, 2006

Acco,

You failed to identify the author.

packsaddle · September 18, 2006

Not related to the original post but it fits the thread topic...I think the Pope is having an experience regarding theology and politics. Just in case anyone is interested, his entire speech (the one that ticked off so many Muslims) can be found here:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

fgoodwin · September 19, 2006

Its John Danforth (any reason, acco, you didn't mention him by name?).

While its true he's a Republican, he's also an Episcopalian, so he's a "liberal" Republican, if such a combination isn't considered a contradiction in terms. In other words, a RINO ("Republican in name only").

The fact that he's Episcopalian goes a long way toward explaining his feelings toward Fundamentalists and others on the Religious Right.

When Danforth says the "other" side hasn't been heard from in the gay marriage debate, I guess he forgets about the landslide losses that issue received everytime it was put to a popular vote (with the nominal exception of OR or WA, where it still lost, but by a narrower margin).

The few times that gay marriage "won" was when it was legislated from the bench -- one wonders how exactly *that* is supposed to square with hearing from both sides?

fgoodwin · September 19, 2006

Religion and Politics: John Danforth speaks out

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertainment/stories.nsf/books/story/118FCE6A1D7E213C862571EB00070B87?OpenDocument

http://tinyurl.com/mpz24

By Jane Henderson

POST-DISPATCH BOOK EDITOR

Sunday, Sep. 17 2006

When John Danforth was a student of religion and law at Yale, the divinity school dean told him: "Being a minister and a lawyer is an interesting combination. It's like being a striptease saint."

Danforth made both work (and kept his clothes on) as a U.S. senator and an Episcopal priest. Primarily a politician, he let religious beliefs influence his opinions, but he avoided a religious agenda.

Now retired, he's spent the past year or so rethinking that touchy combination for "Faith and Politics" (238 pages, Viking, $24.95). As a Republican senator in Washington from 1977-95, "we would have found the notion that people should 'vote Christian' at least strange and probably offensive," he writes.

Now, he says, Republicans are captives of the Christian Right.

The book, which goes on sale Tuesday, is part memoir and part call to action. A moderate who was ambassador to the United Nations and worked for peace in Sudan, Danforth has faith in compromise and broad coalitions. He's 70 now, and his speeches won't be given from a Senate or church lectern but during what he expects to be a grueling book tour.

While he discusses his support of stem-cell research in a nine-page chapter, his motive for writing the book is more than a single issue.

Distinguished in a dark suit and maroon tie, he's full of purpose this day at Bryan Cave, the law firm of which he is a partner. The only incongruities seem to be his racy red socks and his frankness on how his own Republican Party has "lost its moorings."

Q: What is your main message?

A: Religion has the capacity to be a divisive factor in the world and our country or to be a reconciling factor.

Q: What do you mean by "a reconciling factor"?

A: The possibility of very different people finding common ground and dealing with difficult subjects. To the extent that religion gets involved with politics, it generally is very divisive.

On the other hand, if religion is a way of thinking about ourselves and our relationship to other people and to the world, it can be a reconciling factor. That's really the question: Should religion be reduced to specific political agendas, or does religion give us the basis for dealing with one another respectfully and with a degree of humility?

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.

Q: What are the basic principles you are most concerned about?

A: The involvement of government in life-and-death decisions. The involvement of the federal government in what was a state issue. Also that the federal courts were used to trump the state courts.

Q: At one point in the book, you say that if politicians take up time arguing these social issues, they don't get work done on Medicare, Social Security and the budget.

A: It's part of it. But it's more than just a question of pre-empting time. It has to do with destroying whatever common ground remains in American political life and doing so intentionally.

This is not just a problem of the Republican Party; Democrats have it, too. Witness the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

If we are going to move forward as a country and address serious questions like, 'How do you deal with terrorism?' which I don't think we're even thinking about constructively, a person like Joe Lieberman really should be in the Senate. But he was chucked for wandering off the Democratic reservation.