[Mb-civic] NYTimes article by former senator

[Linda Hassler]

 From the just-retired U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Danforth, on 
what's happened to the Republican Party, a woefully-written piece in 
today's NYTimes.
 From Linda Hassler

In the Name of Politics
    By John C. Danforth
      The New York Times

      Wednesday 30 March 2005

      St. Louis - 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.

  
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6426 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050330/8c36cb94/attachment-0001.bin