[Dialogue] Danforth: Politics and Religion

[Terry Bergdall]

Many of you (particularly those in the US) will find this interview 
with John Danforth, a retired Republican senator, to be 
interesting.  It is about his concerns over the marriage of 
convenience between the Republican Party and the religious right.  Terry

Below is the link to the story.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertainment/stories.nsf/books/story/118FCE6A1D7E213C862571EB00070B87?OpenDocument

Here is the story.

When John Danforth was a student of religion and law at Yale, the divinity
school dean told him: "Being a minister and a lawyer is an interesting
combination. It's like being a striptease saint."

Danforth made both work (and kept his clothes on) as a U.S. senator and an
Episcopal priest. Primarily a politician, he let religious beliefs
influence his opinions, but he avoided a religious agenda.

Now retired, he's spent the past year or so rethinking that touchy
combination for "Faith and Politics" (238 pages, Viking, $24.95). As a
Republican senator in Washington from 1973-95, "we would have found the
notion that people should 'vote Christian' at least strange and probably
offensive," he writes.

Now, he says, Republicans are captives of the Christian Right.

The book, which goes on sale Tuesday, is part memoir and part call to
action. A moderate who was ambassador to the United Nations and worked for
peace in Sudan, Danforth has faith in compromise and broad coalitions. He's
70 now, and his speeches won't be given from a Senate or church lectern but
during what he expects to be a grueling book tour.

While he discusses his support of stem-cell research in a nine-page
chapter, his motive for writing the book is more than a single issue.

Distinguished in a dark suit and maroon tie, he's full of purpose this day
at Bryan Cave, the law firm of which he is a partner. The only
incongruities seem to be his racy red socks and his frankness on how his
own Republican Party has "lost its moorings."

Q: What is your main message?

A: Religion has the capacity to be a divisive factor in the
world and our country or to be a reconciling factor.

Q: What do you mean by "a reconciling factor"?

A: The possibility of very different people finding common
ground and dealing with difficult subjects. To the extent that religion
gets involved with politics, it generally is very divisive.

On the other hand, if religion is a way of thinking about ourselves and our
relationship to other people and to the world, it can be a reconciling
factor. That's really the question: Should religion be reduced to specific
political agendas, or does religion give us the basis for dealing with one
another respectfully and with a degree of humility?

Q: Religion and politics are two subjects themselves that are hard to
reconcile. Have you been thinking about this your whole career?

A: For decades, I've been thinking about these two subjects, but
not with the urgency of the past year and a half. This was triggered by the
Terri Schiavo case; that was the specific tipping point in my own thinking.
That was when I thought, "Something has gone very wrong here."

Q: But these signs have been around for at least a decade or so, haven't
they?

A: Maybe I was obtuse. People like Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell have been involved in Republican politics for a long time. Of
course, abortion has been a political issue since 1973. But in my own mind,
it didn't have the urgency until the Schiavo case. In the past year or so,
what was maybe a general interest of Robertson and others in politics and
one particular issue, namely abortion, has been transformed into something
much more detailed and much more a full-fledged political agenda.

You have Terri Schiavo, the stem-cell issue, the gay marriage issue, the
Ten Commandments in courthouses - all occurring about the same time.

But, I thought, particularly with Schiavo, something different had
happened: Namely, basic Republican principles had been tossed overboard at
the bidding of Christian conservatives.

Q: What are the basic principles you are most concerned about?

A: The involvement of government in life-and-death decisions.
The involvement of the federal government in what was a state issue. Also
that the federal courts were used to trump the state courts.

Q: At one point in the book, you say that if politicians take up time
arguing these social issues, they don't get work done on Medicare, Social
Security and the budget.

A: It's part of it. But it's more than just a question of
pre-empting time. It has to do with destroying whatever common ground
remains in American political life and doing so intentionally.

This is not just a problem of the Republican Party; Democrats have it, too.
Witness the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in
Connecticut.

If we are going to move forward as a country and address serious questions
like, 'How do you deal with terrorism?' which I don't think we're even
thinking about constructively, a person like Joe Lieberman really should be
in the Senate. But he was chucked for wandering off the Democratic
reservation.

Q: In your book you write that 'no political agenda can claim to be God's
will.' That argument is not going to persuade people who believe it
can.

A: No, you're not going to persuade everybody, but let's have
other people weigh in on this discussion, too. Let's hear from the people
who do not believe that the kingdom of God can be reduced to a
political platform. And let's hear from people who believe that the
commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves takes precedence over
bashing gays, for example.

Q: How would that look, then, if more people were interested in
reconciliation? Can you give an example?

A: Let's stick with the gay issue. This issue has become
politicized for the purpose of appealing to the Christian conservative base
of the Republican Party. It's difficult for me to imagine that, aside from
that effort, that many people really think that gay marriage should be
incorporated into the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution is about the structure of government; it's about the
relationship of the government and the people. It's not about behavioral
issues.

The gay marriage issue gained currency in Republican politics because only
one side was heard from. It's time for other people to say, 'Wait a
second.'

I feel the same about stem cells. Some people say that the Christian
position is against stem cell research. That's true for some Christians.
But a lot of Christians would say: No, when Jesus sent the disciples out
into the world, he sent them out, in Matthew's Gospel, to heal every
disease.

I'm not for muzzling anybody. I'm for having people who believe that
America has become too polarized - and for religion to be more than a
series of wedge issues - to be more outspoken than they've been to date.

Q: What are your thoughts on gay marriage?

A: My personal view is that marriage is between a man and woman.
But that's neither here nor there. I also believe in not humiliating
people, and I believe in honoring people and understanding that some people
are just not drawn to people of the opposite sex.

The government should recognize that when there's a committed relationship,
certain legal rights should go along with it. And then let the churches
figure out what they mean by marriage.

Q: Has the Episcopal Church made decisions in recent years that you
disagree with?

A: Oh, yeah. But my view of the Episcopal Church is that its
tradition is to hold within itself a whole variety of views. And I think
that's good. There's a big gap between God and our understanding of God. We
have to recognize that there are a variety of ideas that people can have
and still be faithful people.

Q: What role do books have today in shaping or moving cultural
discussion?

A: The written word is really important. I hope that we're not
reduced to not only talking heads, but shouting heads.

The subject that I'm into now - the relationship between religion and
politics - is going to benefit from serious public discussion, (from) books
that are written, op-ed pieces, ordinary people who think about this
question.

In that sense, I am very Jeffersonian: If the American people inform
themselves and think about this question, it's going to turn out fine. Now
is the time for moderates to think and speak.

Q: What if the response is detrimental to the Republican Party?[</B>]

A: What's the use of the Republican Party: to serve its own
aims, simply to get itself elected? Or is its aim to serve the nation and
the world? I don't think creating a sectarian political party serves
anything beyond helping to win an election.

For a short-term strategy, this is a good one, to appeal relentlessly to a
narrow base. But (in the long term), it's going to backfire.


John Danforth

Age: 70

Family: Married to former Sally Dobson. Five children and 13
grandchildren.

Education: Princeton University, 1958. Bachelor of Divinity from
Yale Divinity School and Bachelor of Laws from Yale Law School, 1963.

Career: Attorney general of Missouri, 1968; U.S. senator, R-Mo.,
1976-1995; special counsel in Waco investigation, 1999; special envoy to
Sudan in 2001; U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2004. Currently
chairman of the Danforth Foundation and partner at Bryan Cave law firm.

An Episcopal priest, Danforth has had connections with various churches;
while in the Senate, he was honorary associate at St. Alban's Church.

Book discussions and signings

3 p.m. Sept. 24, United Methodist Chruch of Green Trails, 14237 Ladue Road,
Chesterfield. Free. (314-469-6740)

7 p.m. Sept. 29, St. Louis County Library, 1640 South Lindbergh Boulevard.
Free. 314-994-3300. Copies of book must be purchased from Left Bank Books,
or at event, to be signed.

12:30 p.m. Oct. 7, The Big Read book festival, Central Avenue in Clayton,
Author tent A. Free. 314-863-0278.