St. Louis -- BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2d
Ed%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors
In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.
It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.
I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
(end of excerpt)
[editor's note, by liberalpragmatist]Danforth has the ire of many on the left for his support for Clarence Thomas. Aside from that, however, he had a strikingly moderate record in the Senate. He sponsored the 1991 Civil Rights Act and voted against the flag-burning amendment. He consistently stood up for separation of religion and politics, despite being an ordained Episcopal Minister. What he says here speaks volumes about the radicalization of the Republican Party. While Danforth remains a Republican, his former Main-Street-Conservative views now put him at odds with his party.
Danforth is a conservative, even if he is a moderate one. There are bound to be disagreements and were he running for office, I don't know whether or not I would vote for him. But I respect him for voicing his opinion on this. He obviously has integrity and a sanity that is unfortunately lacking in today's Republican Party.
This is a nice profile on Danforth for those who are unfamiliar with him (registration required):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32779-2004Jun10.html