Posted on 03/31/2005 5:25:55 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
THE TERRI SCHIAVO TRAGEDY has been seized on by long-time critics of the "religious right" to launch attack after attack on the legitimacy of political action on the basis of religious belief. This attack has ignored the inconvenient participation in the debate--on the side of resuming water and nutrition for Terri Schiavo--of the spectacularly not-the-religious-rightness of Tom Harkin, Nat Hentoff, Jesse Jackson, and a coalition of disability advocacy groups.
The attack has also been hysterical. After Congress acted--ineffectively, it turned out--Maureen Dowd proclaimed that "theocracy" had arrived in the land. Paul Krugman warned that assassination of liberals by extremists was not far off. And the Internet frenzy on the left was even more extreme.
Into the fray came former Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth, an ordained priest, and much admired man of integrity. In yesterday's New York Times, Senator Danforth blasted the control that he asserts is now held over the Republican party by religious conservatives. Danforth specifically criticized the congressional action on behalf of Schiavo, a proposed Missouri bill that would halt stem cell research, and concerns over gay marriage.
All of these charges--from the most incoherent to the most measured--arrive without definition as to what "the religious right" is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors. Danforth's position is, apparently, that the agenda of the left on these matters ought not to be resisted, which means that it will be enacted. "For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group," Danforth intones, "is often to oppose the cause of another." That is inescapably true. To come to the defense of the unborn, as Senator Danforth correctly notes he always did during his legislative career, is to oppose abortion on demand. To come to the aid of the Christians in Sudan is to oppose the wishes of the Muslims who sought their destruction. Every political conflict is a choice between competing moral codes.
So Danforth's essay is really a poorly-camouflaged complaint that his positions on stem-cell research, gay marriage, and Terri Schiavo are not the positions of the Republican party. It is fair for him to try and persuade people to endorse his positions but it is wrong and demagogic to attempt to question the right of people of faith to participate in politics. That is certainly what Dowd, Krugman, and others want to accomplish, and although Danforth asserts that "I do not fault religious people for political action," the intention of his essay is to encourage the Republican party to reject the efforts of religious people to influence the party's agenda.
There is little chance that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Bill Frist or Dennis Hastert are going to heed Danforth's advice. But a strain of thought is developing that the political objectives of people of faith have second-class status when compared to those of, say, religiously secular elites. Of course, not only would such a position have surprised all of the Founding Fathers, it would have shocked Lincoln and Reagan, too.
The speed with which issues that excite the passions of people of faith have arrived at the center of American politics is not surprising given the forced march that the courts have put those issues on. It was not the "religious right" that pushed gay marriage to the center of the public debate; it was courts in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. It wasn't the "religious right" that ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed; it was a Florida Supreme Court that struck down a law passed by the Florida legislature and signed by Governor Jeb Bush which would have allowed Terri Schiavo to live. And it isn't the "religious right" that forced the United States Supreme Court to repeatedly issue rulings on areas of law that would have been better left to legislatures.
These and other developments have indeed mobilized new activists across the country, many of who see a vast disparity between what they believe ought to be public policy and what is becoming that policy by judicial fiat. They have every right to participate in politics, and they can be expected to refuse to support elected officials who ignore their concerns.
Attempts to silence them, marginalize them, or to encourage others to do so are not arguments against their positions, but admissions that those positions represent majorities that cannot be refused a place at the law-making table.
A totally non-religious person with any empathy at all will see the cruel injustice being perpetrated in Florida.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I still see absolutely no reason at all to be worried about the so-called "Religious Right". Since the founding, various religious-based groups have been accused of trying to impose a theocracy on this country. The first example of this kind of irrational hatred can be found in those who wanted to mandate the Anglican Church as the official religion because they feared the Baptists would try and impose a theocracy. Since then, the impending theocracy argument has been trotted out regularly pretty much once a decade.
Since the detractors have been proven to be wrong for over 200 years, I see no reason to believe them now. Nobody accused Down or Krugman of being smart, however.
The talk show hosts have been ginning up the sheeple over this, to a state of raging hatred, to the detriment of rational discourse.
As opposed to your perfectly rational statement that accuses anyone among us who disagree with you of being sheep.
Gee, now that really furthers rational discourse!
/Sarcasm
Who might disagree with you. No matter. No doubt everyone can pounce on a missing "s".
We should ask Dowd that since we have arrived at a theocracy, what happens if we skip church on Sundays. And can we not still drink beer, listen to rock and roll and go naked in our yards...
I suppose she's wrong as usual because if I were compelled to do any of the above, I do not anticipate an arrest.
People need to gather the facts, think for themselves, not be told how to think. A huge difference.
I don't think anyone is telling anybody how to think. Radio does not tell people how to think. I've never been a fan of the idea some folks have that folks who choose to listen to those programs are somehow dumb or would come to a different conclusion if they listened to a different source.
You'll find plenty of folks on here who think that folks tune into the radio to be told how to think, though.
All of these charges--from the most incoherent to the most measured--arrive without definition as to what "the religious right" is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors.
So, basically, the liberal elites and the secularists are the only people who can legitimately weigh in on any issue. My friend, those days are now over!
No longer will we sit back and watch this country be driven into the ground by the depraved left who even deny the basis of the founding of the country.
It's time that each Congressman and Senator was asked for his views on how to control the Judiciary when they ask for our vote at election time.
Congress has shirked its duty for too long. Congress has the constitutional authority to control the court system and it hasn't done so. The results is a rogue court system where "the tail wags the dog".
Common law comes from Canon Law. We are at the point where almost no one dare inquire as to the origins of our own system of law, or the implications.
I'm more fearful for the future of our country right now than I've ever been.
Talk show hosts notwithstanding, not a few people find it hard to maintain a genial bonhomie in the face of judiciary-sponsored extermination. And a whole host of people who listen to convervative talk shows are themselves mining the Internet for facts, depositions, eyewitness accounts, et al. that will never see the light of day on the Big Three networks and the NY Times, who'd love to fashion "rational discourse" solely around the scintilla of factual information they purvey.
Note: this topic is from 3/31/2005. Thanks Unam Sanctam.Maureen Dowd proclaimed that "theocracy" had arrived in the land. Paul Krugman warned that assassination of liberals by extremists was not far off. And the Internet frenzy on the left was even more extreme... former Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth, an ordained priest... blasted the control that he asserts is now held over the Republican party by religious conservatives... specifically criticized the congressional action on behalf of Schiavo, a proposed Missouri bill that would halt stem cell research, and concerns over gay marriage... Danforth's essay is really a poorly-camouflaged complaint that his positions on stem-cell research, gay marriage, and Terri Schiavo are not the positions of the Republican party... the intention of his essay is to encourage the Republican party to reject the efforts of religious people to influence the party's agenda.
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.