[lit-ideas] Re: Not in the USA??

 
In a message dated 3/31/2005 3:07:29 PM Central Standard Time,  
vcaley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Steven:
<Surely we can't be headed down this  path??>

Surely we are. This administration and its minions are  determined to have a
theocratic dictatorship.  And people who think  they are nuts, in my
opinion, are not paying sufficient attention.   


Hi,
Well, I think there are more people who care and will defend against that  
then one would think.  They may be a bit 'slow' on the uptake or may not  have 
been able to really figure out what to do (though some of them are pretty  
bright), but I think it will be intriguing to see if we end up with a "New"  
Republican Party or if a bunch of the moderates will end up becoming  
Democrats...
 
I just got in via ILL Christine Todd Whitman's book and think it will be  
very interesting.  I also read this today in the NY Times  (Have you  read 
this, 
Julie?)
 
[his foundation does really good things...though they shifted a bit and now  
pretty much only give in St. Louis]
 
Trying to find the 'good',
Marlena in Missouri
(waiting for the first poem...soon, soon...)
 
March 30,  2005
 
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR  
In the Name of  Politics 
By JOHN C.  DANFORTH 
{PRIVATE  "TYPE=PICT;ALT=S"}St. Louis â?? BY a series of recent initiatives, 
Republicans  have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative 
Christians.  The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a 
constitutional  amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research 
involving both  frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the 
extraordinary effort to  keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.  
Standing alone,  each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the 
Republican Party and  beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. 
Rather 
they are parts of a  larger package, an agenda of positions common to 
conservative Christians and the  dominant wing of the Republican Party. 
Christian  activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, 
would not be  likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political 
agenda is merely  the natural convergence of conservative religious and 
political 
values.  Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism 
of the  churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, 
pragmatic  Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has 
contributed  to their successes. 
High-profile  Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, 
including departures from  Republican principles like approving Congressional 
involvement in private  decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a 
state 
court, can  rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious 
power  blocs. 
In my state,  Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced 
legislation to  criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are 
artificially produced  in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the 
human 
uterus. They argue  that such cells are human life that must be protected, by 
threat of criminal  prosecution, from promising research on diseases like 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's  and juvenile diabetes. 
It is not evident  to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to 
identifiable people  suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always 
been pro-life. But the  only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a 
petri dish to babies in  the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into 
statutory  law. 
I do not fault  religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted 
the pharaoh,  faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. 
Nor has  political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious 
liberals have  been politically active in support of gay rights and against 
nuclear weapons and  the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to 
try 
to influence  political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.  
The problem is not  with people or churches that are politically active. It 
is with a party that has  gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it 
has become the political  extension of a religious movement. 
When government  becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it 
raises obvious  questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of 
constitutional  issues, a political party should resist identification with a 
religious  movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own 
sectarian causes,  the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold 
together as one  people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a 
uniting influence,  but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians 
to 
advance the cause  of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of  
another. 
Take stem cell  research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such 
research would give  strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would 
punish people who believe  it is their religious duty to use science to heal 
the 
sick. 
During the 18  years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with 
each other. But  there was much that held us together. We believed in limited 
government, in  keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We 
encouraged the private  sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We 
believed 
that judges should  interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists 
who supported an  engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free 
trade. These were  principles shared by virtually all Republicans.  
But in recent  times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to 
become secondary to the  agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I 
worried 
every day about the  size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single 
minute worrying about the  effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today 
it seems to be the other  way around. 
The historic  principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope 
for a prosperous  and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious 
agenda has turned us in  the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to 
rediscover our  roots. 
John C. Danforth,  a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in 
January as United  States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an Episcopal 
 minister.
 

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: