Posted on 02/16/2006 7:29:43 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
A recent Washington Post profile on Jack Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri and an Episcopal priest, doesn’t pull any punches. “Jack Danforth,” it begins, “wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit. Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism. . . . Danforth [says he] worships a humbler God and [he] considers the [religious] right’s certainty a sin.”
This judgmental tone is all too common these days. And it’s unfortunate that Jack Danforth is going along with it. According to Danforth, our work on issues like embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex “marriage” inspires “nausea.” And he was offended by what he saw as the GOP’s “effort to appease the Christian right” in the Terri Schiavo case. If not for us, Danforth told the Post, the Republicans wouldn’t be involved. Well, that’s true, but when a woman’s life is at stake, I don’t see anything honorable about refusing to get involved.
It’s a good thing that Danforth wasn’t around during the campaign against slavery. Then, abolitionists were chastised for being religious zealots. Abraham Lincoln’s opponents said that he would “impose” his moral views on the nation. Well, thank God that Lincoln had the courage to press for an end to the abomination of slavery.
Half a century earlier William Wilberforce led the campaign against the slave trade in the British Parliament. Moved by his Christian convictions, he took on one of the British Empire’s biggest sources of revenue, and in the process, lost any chance of becoming Prime Minister. He and his companions were derided for their Christian beliefs. As one opponent, Lord Melbourne, said, “Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.” Thank God it did—then and now.
Danforth’s crusade against the religious right is filled with ironies. When George Bush was elected president, I went to the White House with Bill Bennett and others to urge the administration to fight human trafficking and slavery in Sudan. President Bush, moved by his Christian convictions, became the first president to speak out on these issues. And when the administration was considering appointing an ambassador to Sudan to deal with the abuse of Christians, we recommended John Danforth. And he did a great job in part because he had the support of the Christian right that he now thinks is such a terrible thing.
And during the fight to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, Danforth worked side-by-side with Christian conservatives; he had no problem then mixing religion and politics.
Now I don’t want to be critical of Sen. Danforth. He is a fine gentleman with a distinguished record of public service who ably represented our government’s interests in Sudan and at the UN.
And the Christian right surely is not above criticism, and we need to curb our excesses too. But Danforth has gone beyond a reasonable critique to launch into the same tired old diatribe against those who contend for Christian truth in public life—as if you could score points with the liberal media by beating up on Christians, even when you’re one yourself. I think it’s time for the senator to go back and to read his history books, where he will discover that the greatest defenders of human rights in history had been his fellow Christians.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Many of us would consider his uncertainty a sin.
So9
Didn't Danforth help gloss-over the Clinton/Reno/Waco Military invasion and Democrat Government run murder of the Branch Davidians?
Their stated goal is to defeat christian conservatives and replace them with moderates on the house and senate.
BTW, John McCain is also on the same Whitman PAC board.
Yes, being involved in Christian ministry for many years, I think he's earned the right.
**Sigh**
Do you have any spelunking tips to offer, based on your vast experience? I mean, it's obvious you've been living in a cave for the last thirty years or so. You missed his conversion, and his thirty years of full-time Christian ministry.
I don't recall God being humble, except for Christ's volitional act to humble himself and become a man and die on a cross for our sins. Except for that sacrificial act on our behalf, God never calls himself 'humble' in any way. He is a Holy, Righteous, Jealous, and Loving God, but not a humble One.
It not only is often the pot calling the snowbank "black," but it downplays the more important moral virtue of fighting for your convictions with honor. If you're certain something is right and you press for it with class, honesty and goodwill, you should be lauded for it. Danforth appears to me to be a moral lightweight who did the Chrisitain tap dance so he could keep his Red state seat as long as he wanted it.
You make a good point. I would also say to Danforth that there is nothing arrogant about saying that wrong is wrong and right is right. The arrogance comes in making blanket "lokk at how good I am and how bad you suck" pronouncements like the one he's making.
I'd ask Danforth, who is more "certain" that they personally know what is right and wrong for all people: Kate Michelman and Kim Gandy, or Chuck Colson and Jim Dobson?
A good response from Colson. I really dislike Danforth. He has always been more concerned with his Establishment buddies at the NYT and in DC, than Conservatives or his home state of Missouri.
What could be more arrogant than a politician telling someone they are unchristian?
Does God talk to him on a regular basis?
Actually I appreciate the article, not judgmental, merely informative. I like knowing where a politician stands, don't you?
. . . not just some of them, but all of them have been Christians. Who else stood up against slavery as an institution? Pagans? Hindus? Buddhists? Muslims? Nope, none of the above.Indeed, through most of history Christians didn't either. But from the end of the Eighteenth Century some Christians became militant abolitionists. Enough British Christians did so to cause Victorian Britain to be the great opponent of slavery worldwide. Enough Americans did so to precipitate the Civil War. </Thomas Sowell>
**Sigh**
Do you have any spelunking tips to offer, based on your vast experience? I mean, it's obvious you've been living in a cave for the last thirty years or so. You missed his conversion, and his thirty years of full-time Christian ministry.
As Liddy said, if he would run over his grandmother for Nixon, just imagine what he will do for Jesus.
The fact that he has changed his object of idolitry does not make him a nicer person.
SO9
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.