Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers

[struggle4progress]

By JOHN C. DANFORTH
Published: June 17, 2005
St. Louis

<snip> Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators. <snip>

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics. <snip>

John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html?incamp=article_popular_5


I would really like to believe that this is sincere -- but in my cynical way, I suspect that the Republican noise machine is simply gearing up to repeat "Republicans are moderates" in preparation for 2006 ...

[ellenfl]

1. why do you think it's not sincere? were you a constituent?

he seems to be saying what i have heard other moderate religionists say and is exactly how i view the encroachment of religion into politics lately.

he is an episcopal minister, which, i believe, means he would be more progressive thatn the radicals in congress now. he is no longer in congress (too bad, i think) and so probably has no obvious agenda. i do not believe he has aligned himself with the rr.

maybe some of his constituents can weigh in here.

ellen fl

[struggle4progress]

2. His comments would have been applicable last year -- or the year before.

But he and almost all of his fellow Republicans decided to wait until well after the November 04 elections to raise their voices. That looks to me like putting party loyalty ahead of any of these other concerns.

In fact they have all generally went along happily with all the stinking garbage until Republican stock started to fall in opinion polls this spring.

And now, suddenly, bunches of Republicans are claiming to be "moderate." Rightwing nutcase Walter Jones of NC, for example, is getting tons of credit on these boards because he's pushing a resolution that would call for W to announce a troop withdrawal timetable before the November 06 elections -- I think Jones just wants the issue defused at voting time.

While I completely agree with what this former Senator says, I just wonder whether this piece (appearing just in time to reinforce a number of other Republicans who are saying "We're moderate! We're moderate!") isn't part of the 2006 campaign. Whether or not he believes what he says, I simply wonder if he kept his mouth shut until given the green light ...

[struggle4progress]

3. John C. Danforth (Center for Media and Democracy)

... Danforth is an ordained Episcopal minister, an heir to the Ralston-Purina pet food company fortune, and a "Pioneer" for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, meaning he pledged to raise at least $100,000 in "bundled" donations ...

Some of John Danforth's controversial stances in the Senate included voting against sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa in the mid-1980s, voting to cut funds for United Nations peacekeeping in the 1990s, and voting to limit U.S. support for international family planning programs. Based on these stances and Danforth's current close association with several large corporations .., law professor Marjorie Cohn warned that Danforth is "right-wing zealot in moderate's clothing" ...

Danforth is a friend and mentor to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Both attended Yale Law School, and Thomas worked as an assistant in Danforth's Missouri Attorney General's office (a post he held from 1969 to 1976). Danforth "almost personally salvaged" Thomas' Supreme Court nomination after Anita Hill charged Thomas with sexual harassment ...

Danforth "serves on the corporate boards of Cerner Corporation, The Dow Chemical Company and General American Life Insurance Compnay," in addition to Time Warner and MetLife, Inc.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_C._Danforth

[GOPBasher]

4. I'm sure he's sincere.

He doesn't gain anything for the Republican party by admonishing the religious right.

[struggle4progress]

5. '... In his book "Resurrection: The Confirmation of Clarence Thomas," ..

.. Danforth described praying with Thomas and their wives in his office and playing "Onward Christian Soldiers" on a tape recorder before Thomas made his final defense at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Danforth's defense of Thomas went beyond praying; he tried "to force a vote before the Senate had been able to hear Hill's accusations," and "also threatened to refuse to support a civil rights bill if moderate Democrats opposed Thomas." In his book, Danforth admitted displaying very un-diplomatic behavior when Thomas' nomination was challenged: "I completely lost my temper in a table-pounding, shouting, red-in-the-face profane rage." Danforth wrote that he saw his role defending Thomas as "a warrior doing battle for the Lord" ...'

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_C._Danforth

Danforth's use of "Resurrection" imagery, to describe the Thomas nomination, suggests that his grasp of Christian theology is weak, at best, and after seeing him describe the nomination fight as a "battle for the Lord" I'll frankly have trouble seeing any daylight between him and the rightwing Fristians.

Of course, when I see a corporate attorney, who as a Senator refused to support sanctions against apartheid (perhaps because big chemical companies who wanted the raw materials were paying his bills), I'm not immediately inclined to believe whatever he says.

His brief stint as UN ambassador tells me tells me how he stands in Bush's view (somewhere, that is, along the axis joining the two other famous "moderates," Negroponte and Bolton, whose nominations bracket his): to judge from recent history, his assignment at the UN appears to have been to attempt to stir up an "oil-for-food" scandal. And his anti-internationalist and anti-family planning stance while in Congress certainly don't proclaim "Christian love" to me.

So what does he "gain .. for the Republican party by admonishing the religious right"? I'll say it again: I think he's encouraging the Republicans to reposition themselves (cynically) as "moderates" in 06 ...