Previous Next Latest

Danforth Holds Forth on Religious Right

9/28/06, 11:35 am EST

So there’s a new book coming out by an evangelical Christian Republican politician. Oh, but this time he’s against the religious right. It’s hard to figure out John Danforth, the former Missouri senator who gave us Supreme Court (in-)Justice Clarence Thomas. In his new book, Faith and Politics, the conservative Danforth once again hits the religious right for its bullying of the Republican party. And Danforth adds:

The problem with many conservative Christians is that they claim that God’s truth is knowable, that they know it, and that they are able to reduce it to legislative form. The popular question, ‘What would Jesus do?’ can be difficult enough to contemplate with respect to everyday interpersonal relations. It is mind boggling when applied to the complex world of politics.

True, that. Well, let’s ask John:

ROLLING STONE: You say it’s hard to figure out what Jesus would do. But I think we know what Jesus wouldn’t have done — say, invade Iraq. Support torture. Stuff like that. Oh, and it’s at least an open question whether Jesus would have helped to install Clarence Thomas as one of the Supremes.

JOHN DANFORTH: I have exactly the same view of Clarence Thomas that I have had for 30-some years. . . . I know him, and I love him as a human being. I stood by him, and I am proud of that


Previous Next Latest

Comments

ArchiesBoy | 9/28/2006, 7:27 pm EST

I’m pretty much against the bulk of what Barry Goldwater stood for, but in one thing I’m totally with him. He once said, “The Religious Right scares the hell out of me!” And in that he was dead on. The Religious Right is why we have to fight for the separation of church and state with everything we have.

C Co... aka I Smell Propaganda | 9/28/2006, 10:11 pm EST

Danforth has some good points and I like how he chose to word them as well. The RS interview portion was disgusting and full of cheap shots however. Notice no question mark in this sample “question.” That should tell you something about RS.

TinFoilHat | 9/30/2006, 11:48 pm EST

Yeah, but Thomas is a NUT!

Capitalist Pig | 10/1/2006, 7:49 pm EST

TinFoilHat | 9/30/2006, 11:48 pm EST

Yeah, but Thomas is a NUT!
————-

By “NUT” you mean he is not a liberal activist judge that finds “rights” in the constitution that are not there. The real Supreme Court (in-)Justice is Ruth “ACLU” Ginsberg.

TinFoilHat | 10/1/2006, 11:28 pm EST

Cap,
Thomas believes that the “federation clause” was intended as the right to create individual churches in each state. You know, like Banks. So you have the first federal church of Minnesoda, or the Federal Methodist Church of Arizona. This is REALLY what he thinks. This guy is a NUT, I’m telling you. He knows less about the constitution than YOU do!

TinFoilHat | 10/1/2006, 11:30 pm EST

Cap, by the way, the term “activist judge” has no real meaning since it has been bandied around by both sides for their talking points. Why don’t you try to be more specific, huh?

Capitalist Pig | 10/2/2006, 7:10 am EST

TinFoilHat
“He knows less about the constitution than YOU do!”

Which would be alot more than you do. I bet you believe in the right to privacy, which appears no where in the constitution, or the seperation of church and state, again not in the constitution.

TinFoilHat | 10/2/2006, 12:04 pm EST

Cap,
We’ll have to discuss constitutional law on another day. I just spent like two hours on my last response to you defending LBJs Great Society. I don’t have any time left today. Suffice it to say that if we depended upon a verbose reading of the constitution for every right in this society, we wouldn’t have anything. And you, who claim you want to reduce the BIG BROTHER effect are going to argue that we have no right to privacy?

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement