John Danforth, Bush's current Ambassador to the U.N., and a former Republican senator and Episcopalian minister, wrote an op-ed in the NY Times last week highly critical of the influence of the religious right on the Republican party.
My opinion: this editorial slams the nail on the head. I especially like his description of the purpose of government as "to hold together as one people a very diverse country". E pluribus unum. Advancing the cause of one religion simply is antithetical to this purpose.
My question: does anybody here
disagree with Danforth, especially this quote:
Quote:
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/op...ca1732&ei=5070
|
For background on Danforth:
http://www.un.int/usa/danforth.htm