In God We Trust

April 10, 2005 9:03 PM

"In the Name of Politics"(NYT) Rev. John C. Danforth, the outgoing US ambassador to the UN, Republican Senator for 18 years, native Missouran and Episcopal minister worries that the Republican Party is turning very literally theocratic. In this short editorial he states "the only explanation ... is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law."
(Just as a side note, we're taking applications.)
posted by blacklite (52 comments total)

Previously mentioned as a comment in the end of this thread, but I think it got lost in the whole Pope/Schiavo/whatever/April Fool's mess.
posted by blacklite at 9:05 PM on April 10, 2005

it was a great and true editorial.

more on this at Theocracywatch-- ...But the theocratic right is not a movement of tolerance. In the words of the Christian Coalition field director, Bill Thomson, the "leftist" foes should be destroyed:

You're going to run over them. Get around them, run over the top of them, destroy them - whatever you need to do so that God's word is the word that is being practiced in Congress, town halls and state legislatures. That's your job.
...
posted by amberglow at 9:12 PM on April 10, 2005

John Danforth's brother, William, was the Chancellor of Wash U, where I went to college. "Chan Dan", as we called him, was surprisingly practical and down-to-earth for a man of his stature. Apparently, his little brother's the same way.
posted by notsnot at 9:21 PM on April 10, 2005

Religion, always at war with science.

I'm afraid Wall Street has made a pact with the Devil by signing on with these death cult zealots.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:23 PM on April 10, 2005

From Frank Rich's editorial today:

"These fables are of a piece with the violent take on Christianity popularized by "The Passion of the Christ." Though Mel Gibson brought a less gory version, with the unfortunate title "The Passion Recut," to some 1,000 theaters for Easter in response to supposed popular demand, there was no demand. (Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that at many screens the film sold fewer than 50 tickets the entire opening weekend.) "Passion" fans want the full scourging, and at the height of the protests outside the Schiavo hospice, a TV was hooked up so the assembled could get revved up by watching the grisly original on DVD."
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:33 PM on April 10, 2005

"Join Dr. Kennedy this week for the Coral Ridge Hour and meet the real Thomas Jefferson. You might be surprised to learn the real story behind the so-called "author" of the Separation of Church and State."
posted by jaronson at 9:51 PM on April 10, 2005

That was a great read. I'm as stunned as he that the deficit we now operate under is less of a concern than gay marriage, time and again, according to what's spoken up about on the floor of Congress.

I'm also stunned that there is no overt attempt to capitalize on any of this malaise in the Grand Old Party by the democrats, and wonder if it will take a splitting off of the pragmatist Republicans to create a third party, secular and reality-based, to which current Democrats of a like mind could also join.

Most arguments over why it'll never happen makes me cringe, since I used to dream of what could be accomplished if only a single party could just attain control of all three branches of government... That was inconceivable not too long ago.
posted by Busithoth at 9:53 PM on April 10, 2005

notsnot, what years were you at Wash U? I was there 87-91, so I remember Chan Dan well!
posted by scody at 9:53 PM on April 10, 2005

93-98. The new guy runs the place too much like a business and not like the first great learning institution west of the Mississippi.
posted by notsnot at 10:15 PM on April 10, 2005

good link on salon for those who don't mind an intersistial to get to it, and another here for more appropriate fearmongering on our new bible thumping overlords.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 PM on April 10, 2005

"Join Dr. Kennedy this week for the Coral Ridge Hour and meet the real Thomas Jefferson. You might be surprised to learn the real story behind the so-called "author" of the Separation of Church and State."

Jaronsen, let's take a minute to look at Jefferson, shall we? While believing in a Creator and believing in Jesus' teachings on morality, Jefferson utterly disbelieved the superstitions and mysticism of the Bible. Which includes the resurrection. That makes him a great Christian in my mind, but not one at all in the mind of any organized Christian church. He even rewrote the Bible, editing out all the magic and miracles, leaving in only Jesus' moral philosophy. It's called the Jefferson Bible.

And then there's this quote:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813

Yeah, I think he's pretty damned clear what he thinks of something even smelling like theocracy.

A couple more quotes for good measure:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Jefferson was a Deist. He was also an enemy of most organized religion, including that going under the name Christianity. He was an enemy of any organization that asked you not to question, and he clearly felt that religion had no place in deciding governmental priorities, needs or policies.
posted by the_savage_mind at 12:01 AM on April 11, 2005

Thanks for this excellent post Mike.
posted by joedharma at 12:33 AM on April 11, 2005

good article, but it's not an editorial. Editorials are the consensus opinion of the editor(s) of a newspaper and represent the paper/station/magazine's official opinions. This is an opinion piece, the equivilent of a letter to the editor from someone important or saying something important. It's put on the same page(s) as an editorial next to columns, which are chronic opinion pieces. This is a small pet peeve of mine as a columnist.
posted by trinarian at 1:41 AM on April 11, 2005

trinarian: I think you mean simply small peeve rather than small pet peeve. A peeve is something you find irksome; your pet peeve is the one on top of your peeve list.
posted by iconjack at 2:58 AM on April 11, 2005

iconjack: I know, I know... it's correct the corrector time - but I can only have one pet peeve? Jesus, man, you guys need to send memos out about these things next time.

I need to be more picky then. Really, this is serious stuff. Can Fox News be a pet peeve? What about Republicans? Can Atlanta be a pet peeve? At least give me Houston. I know we're speaking of millions of people both directly and indirectly, but can their sum properties maybe be one aggregate singularity of a pet peeve? We'll call it Trey's Unified Pet Peeveness Principle. I'll even built a website. It'll be a gift from me to progressives and liberals everywhere... a singular pet peeve to place all their political frustrations. I could make millions...
posted by trinarian at 3:20 AM on April 11, 2005

What you do to the least of my brethren you do unto me. Sooner a camel fit through the eye of a needle then a rich man make it into heaven. You can't serve God and Mammon. Turn the other cheek. Thou shall not kill.

I can't wait for Christian rule.
posted by effwerd at 3:52 AM on April 11, 2005

I can't wait for Christian rule.

I expect you're being cynical, but Christian rule isn't a prerequisite for moral conduct.
posted by Rothko at 4:07 AM on April 11, 2005

Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.

Well my dear, how convenient indeed. I like expecially the combination of these words.."current fixation" ..if it's a fixation it shouldn't be -current- but rather -permanent- or at least that's my understanding of something fixed. But I guess I'd get cornered by the "meaning police" telling me one shouldn't exchange fixations for principles.

Yeah sure...so don't sell your fixations as if your party was deeply religious and expecially directly connected to religious people with politics agenda. Have the guts to say in public and with a lot of media coverage "if you want to vote as, do please...but don't expect us to follow you in your activism because we really only want your vote we don't share mathematecally equal morals or objectives"

So blood and public debt for oil, betrayal because part of votes are going out control (not that they were in control to begin with or any attemp to moderate was introduced) really a fine party indeed.
posted by elpapacito at 6:04 AM on April 11, 2005

posted by troutfishing at 6:33 AM on April 11, 2005

What frightens me is that, in ten years, we're going to look back with nostalgia on these days and think (but not say aloud, to prevent prosecution) "Man, I wish we had stopped this beforehand."
posted by FormlessOne at 6:42 AM on April 11, 2005

good link on salon for those who don't mind an intersistial to get to it
posted by delmoi at 10:39 PM PST on April 10 [!]



Grammer Nazi: interstitial isn't a noun. It's an adjective.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 6:47 AM on April 11, 2005

spelling nazi: grammAr.

/pettiness
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:01 AM on April 11, 2005

/priceless, fingers_ (and interstitial is a noun, nowadays)

This was interesting, and related, on Bush's historically low poll ratings: ... But the calm also reflects a political calculation among Bush's strategists. In their eyes, mass opinion doesn't matter as much as the attitude of the voters motivated to turn up on election day. As long as the president pleases his base, strategists believe they can produce an electorate that is more sympathetic to Bush and the GOP than the country is generally. That means Bush and his party can survive ratings with the general public that might sink other presidents.

"These [job approval] numbers are an interesting discussion, but what matters most is who composes the electorate a year and a half from now," says Matthew Dowd, a senior strategist for Bush's reelection campaign.
...
posted by amberglow at 7:09 AM on April 11, 2005

posted by H. Roark at 8:45 AM on April 11, 2005

H. Roark wins.
posted by borkingchikapa at 9:07 AM on April 11, 2005

a splitting off of the pragmatist Republicans to create a third party, secular and reality-based, to which current Democrats of a like mind could also join.

And I've already got a name picked out; we'll call ourselves The Libertarian Party.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:07 AM on April 11, 2005

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.

That first Jefferson quote made me think that, just like the US Government, if these pseudo-Republicans didn't like the church they attended, they'd probably find ways to overpower and change that too. With that in mind, it seems that their motives are more personal than religious - they just happen to have a bunch of friends that think the same way. It might just be that I disagree with them, but that seems like some sort of distributed cult of personality.
posted by bitpart at 9:07 AM on April 11, 2005

FormlessOne writes " What frightens me is that, in ten years, we're going to look back with nostalgia on these days and think (but not say aloud, to prevent prosecution) 'Man, I wish we had stopped this beforehand.'"


What's really frightening is to imagine what answer you will give ten years from now when your son look into your eyes and ask "Why haven't you done anything to stop it while you could?".
posted by nkyad at 9:09 AM on April 11, 2005

Oh, come on Danforth, get with the team! Now's your chance to be part of the beginning of America’s moral reformation! (Guest starring Alan Keyes and Ann Coulter).
posted by Otis at 9:11 AM on April 11, 2005

wonder if it will take a splitting off of the pragmatist Republicans to create a third party, secular and reality-based, to which current Democrats of a like mind could also join.

Would this be a socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative party?

That would be sweet. It'd be the best of both parties.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:29 AM on April 11, 2005

What's really frightening is to imagine what answer you will give ten years from now when your son look into your eyes and ask "Why haven't you done anything to stop it while you could?".
posted by nkyad at 12:09 PM EST on April 11 [!]

I would explain to my son to grow up a bit and see how things aren't black and white, how not all things in the course of human events can be "stopped," how stupidity/religion/fear/suffering, etc. will not be exiting the world stage anytime soon--no matter what any of us "does." Most of all, I'd try to find an existing culture/people that are a countermeasure to superficial consumerism and say, "Behold and marvel at the dinosaurs, for they have been tagged for extinction." (Assuming our papers are in order and such people exist at the time, of course).
posted by a_day_late at 9:35 AM on April 11, 2005

a splitting off of the pragmatist Republicans to create a third party, secular and reality-based, to which current Democrats of a like mind could also join.

And I've already got a name picked out; we'll call ourselves The Libertarian Party.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:07 AM CST on April 11

Since when are Libertarians reality-based? Seems to me, as someone with a former attraction to libertarianism, that a lot of their platforms are pie-in-the-sky "the market will do the best thing for humanity"-based.
posted by papakwanz at 9:43 AM on April 11, 2005

Big L libertarians are the marxists of the Right, small l libertarians are a different matter...
posted by stratastar at 10:01 AM on April 11, 2005

Since when are Libertarians reality-based?

Libertarians recognize the reality of individuals always pursuing their (perceived or enlightened) self-interest and trust individuals more than governments to make and bear the consequences of economic and moral choices for themselves.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:04 AM on April 11, 2005

Individuals like all these folks, or like Tom DeLay (or any of the people now holding power), for instance? History shows us that we can't trust individuals alone--they'll always rape and pillage to get what they want.
posted by amberglow at 10:44 AM on April 11, 2005

Libertarians recognize the reality of individuals always pursuing their... self-interest

Well, there's a grand way to create hell on earth.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:50 AM on April 11, 2005

History shows us that we can't trust individuals alone--they'll always rape and pillage to get what they want.

Correct. That condition is called "anarchy."

Now when individuals use the State to extort wealth or "moral behavior" from other individuals, that's called "statism," the preferred mode of the Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

Libertarians recognize the need for a strictly limited amount of government; generally just enough to reasonably protect individuals from force and fraud, but they always regard government as a necessary evil.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:55 AM on April 11, 2005

Would this be a socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative party?

Wouldn't that describe Bill Clinton pretty well?
posted by callmejay at 10:58 AM on April 11, 2005

Clinton successfully slowed the rate of increase of government spending a bit. I'd call this "fiscally moderate."
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:03 AM on April 11, 2005

the_savage_mind: JaronsenDr. Kennedy, let's take a minute to look at Jefferson, shall we?
posted by jaronson at 11:08 AM on April 11, 2005

Much has been written about the passing of the Republican baton from the Rockefellers to the theocrats. Same thing here. The Danforths have been kind of a St. Louis version of the Rockefellers in their wealth and their concern for the public welfare.

(BTW, for those W.U. grads who posted re their affection for "Chan Dan," -- John's brother Bill -- his wife unfortunately passed away last week.)
posted by kozad at 11:48 AM on April 11, 2005

a splitting off of the pragmatist Republicans to create a third party, secular and reality-based, to which current Democrats of a like mind could also join.

And I've already got a name picked out; we'll call ourselves The Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party is anything but pragmatic. I was a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party for awhile, and their utter lack of pragmatism is the main reason I no longer contribute money. They're too attached to being the "party of principle" to consider that someone who only scores 93% on a Libertarian Purity Test might actually be more electable than a die-hard Zero Agression Principle zealot.

Case in point: the 2004 election for Indiana's 7th District. Republicans nominate Andy Horning to run against the popular incumbent Julia Carson. Andy Horning had previously been a Libertarian candidate for governor and senator in Indiana, and has fairly libertarian views on many issues. Does the Indiana LP do the obvious thing, choose not to field a candidate for that district and throw their support behind Horning instead? Of course not--they have to have their own LP candidate. Idiots.

Or, go to any libertarian discussion board. Ask whether creationism and/or evolution should be taught in public schools. I guarantee you'll get an answer along the lines of "In an ideal libertarian state, there won't be any public schools. Some private schools will teach creationism, and some will teach evolution, and you can choose to send your children to whichever one is in line with your preferences." Which is all well and good, but we don't live in an ideal libertarian state. Ask them what public schools should teach, given that there currently are public schools, and libertarians don't currently have the political clout to eliminate them (though perhaps they might influence how they're run) and you'll get no clear answer. Libertarians (both big- and small-L) spend far too much time thinking about the ideal libertarian state--simply assuming that if they talk about it enough they'll eventually convince enough people of their philosophy and all of a sudden their ideal will become reality--and very little time considering what steps toward a freer society are politically practical at the moment and how those small but practical goals might be achieved.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:15 PM on April 11, 2005

As a non-American, I find Libertarianism a very curious phenomenon. You see, this side of the pond, "libertarian" is what the anarchists used to call themselves. In fact, there isn't really all that much difference between American Libertarianism and Anarchism, just one point: Anarchists were also against private property. I think that in that point they were more consequent than the American Libertarians: after all, what, if not the might of the State (through police and legal system) guarantees private property?

ZenMasterThis says: Libertarians recognize the need for a strictly limited amount of government; generally just enough to reasonably protect individuals from force and fraud. Thing is, are you sure? From a strictly Libertarian POV, what would you consider "fraud"? If somebody sells something under false pretenses, would you call that "fraud"? Would you then regulate advertising, for instance?

Frankly, I don't think Libertarians are pragmatic in any way, and the American variety are also religious zealots. It's just that their religion is that of Mammon.
posted by Skeptic at 1:06 PM on April 11, 2005

From otis's "Center for Moral Clarity" link:
From the section on Bioethics
All humans, including future clones, have value because they are made in the likeness and image of God. This value is not dependent on how that person began life, whether he or she is wanted or unwanted or looks like.

They can write that, and yet be capable of hating so many people. Unfriggingbelievable.

The section on religion:
Throughout history, God has honored people and nations who seek Him and His will. The men who founded the United States sought God, and He has greatly blessed this country and its people.

Well, except for them there Indians. And Negroes. And Jap Americans in WWII.
Etc.

The section on gay marriage
If marriage were a civil right, than what would stop group marriages or what would stop someone from marrying their pet?

Hmm, given the choice between marrying my pets or any of *these* people, I know whom I'd choose in a heartbeat.
Gawd, this would be funny if these whackjobs didn't have the ears of those cynical pieces of crap in Washington.
Please God, if you are there, take these people away in the Rapture so the rest of us can live in peace and quiet.
Amen.
posted by NorthernLite at 1:38 PM on April 11, 2005

I WANT TO HAVE H. ROARKS BABY GERBILS
posted by quonsar at 1:38 PM on April 11, 2005

Frankly, I don't think Libertarians are pragmatic in any way

I guess I read right past the "pragmatic" part before. You're right; libertarians are principled, not pragmatic.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:56 PM on April 11, 2005

my father ran for city council last year in a very small river town south of Jacksonville, population maybe 5000 or so. Though it was a non-partisan election, the Florida Libertarian Party told him he was running for the highest position of any Libertarian in the state.
posted by trinarian at 2:15 PM on April 11, 2005

trinarian: you're right, it's not an editorial, and I do know the difference. I am not sure why I slipped up there.

I regret the error.
posted by blacklite at 5:26 PM on April 11, 2005

Group hug, everybody!!!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:09 PM on April 11, 2005

Reality vs. Photoshop.

"H. Roark wins." - Not. Roark has a nice touch with Photoshop. My picture is from a real recruiting effort, by Christian Reconstructionists, that targets US Special Forces members.
posted by troutfishing at 7:54 PM on April 11, 2005

Real religious war. Fuck, just what's needed. The religious extremists are going to force Armageddon on the whole world. Selfish pricks.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:14 PM on April 11, 2005

Religious war? Nah. What we have here is a tiny minority of zealots who are capable of making a lot of noise and a media who are all to willing to give the bloviators air time. So what if they want to usurp the Constitution with self-evident moralistic faith driven biblical hallucinations.

Go ahead. Try your best to jam your evangelical god goo down the throats of all us heathens. Knock off a few judges and doctors in the name of justice and life. Step into my living room and tell me what I can read or watch on TV. Join me in my bedroom if it turns you on. Replace our school's textbooks with your bible. Right.

I don't give a shit about you or your beliefs. But, I know, you'll pray for me. How condescending of you. Fortunately, when your rapture comes you'll be gone. Thankfully.
posted by whittenb2 at 11:24 PM on April 11, 2005