John Danforth, former Senator from Missouri and an Episcopalina minister, attracted quite a bit of favorable attention with his op-ed piece criticizing the Christian Right: Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers New York Times 06/17/05.
And it does sound like a serious Christian statement on the hazards of trying to legislate religious beliefs into law. He also is right in his concluding paragraphs:
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.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
And I'm glad to see he uses the term "Christian right," which I prefer to Religious Right.
My problem is that this is the same John Danforth who was the chief sponsor of Clarence Thomas to be a Supreme Court Justice. Clarence Thomas, who is regarded by those who aren't partisan Republicans as one of the least qualified jurists to ever sit on the high court's bench. And the Clarence Thomas who is probably the most reliable advocate on the Court of theocratic ideas. The best friend of the Christian Right on the Court.
I'm all for conversions. But, Senator Danforth, it would have been much more beneficial if you had recognized the dangers of the Christian Right when you were in the Senate and could have done more to prevent their takeover of your Party. And you could have refrained from promoting their cause by fighting to place Thomas on the Supreme Court.
So, once again we have nice "moderate" talk from a Republican, who the mainstream press is glad to spotlight because they like "counter-intuitive" stances by politicians.
Then there was the to me somewhat strange Senate vote last week to apologize for not passing federal anti-lynching legislation in earlier decades. I'm with David Neiwert on this one: Failing in the present Orcinus blog 06/13/05.
There are hollow gestures, and then there are appallingly hollow gestures that only highlight the grotesque incompetence of our nation's political leadership.
Today the Senate managed the latter, when it voted to apologize for its manifest failure in never having passed an anti-lynching bill.
Having done so, the question immediately becomes: Just when do you think you'll get around to passing one?
Noting the fine sentiments expressed in connection with the Senate's resolution, he comments:
Gosh, it almost makes your heart swell with civic pride to read such uplifting thoughts.
At least, until you realize that these same Republicans just last October managed to kill, yet again, the most recent iteration in the ongoing effort to pass a genuine federal hate-crime statute.
Hate crimes, it should be clear, are the direct descendants of lynching. Lynching always was about "keeping the niggers down": its purpose was to enforce official and unofficial racial segregation, to terrorize minorities into abject subjugation. Even as lynching -- which in its heyday was a mass community celebration involving thousands of upstanding citizens -- became increasingly stigmatized and the practice relegated to smaller handfuls of extremists, the objects of this kind of hatred have grown in number, now including not just blacks and Jews but Asians, Muslims, and gays and lesbians. But the purpose of the crimes -- whether mere cross burnings or horrendous murders -- has always been to terrorize minority communities into subjugation and, ultimately, elimination.
Congress never passed an anti-lynching law. The closest thing to it on the books can be found in the criminal provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which largely limit federal investigations to cases involving violations of federal laws or crimes occurring on federal property.
The Christian Right along with other conservative Republicans have adamantly opposed any kind of hate-crimes law.
Neiwert's book Death on the Fourth of July (2004) talks at some length about hate-crimes legislation, including it historical connection to the failed attempts to pass a federal anti-lynching law.
So my question remains for the "moderate" Republicans: what good is all this sweet "moderation" if it doesn't actually accomplish something?
No comments:
Post a Comment