"St Jack" and the Bullies in the Pulpit

The Washington Post recently printed a terrific article about Jack Danforth – a former Republican senator from Missouri who brings some level-headed sense to the debate over the role of religion in politics and the GOP. Danforth’s words are important because his point of view is formed by his work as an Episcopal priest and a conservative. He opposes abortion and led the charge to confirm conservative Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991.

Jack Danforth wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit. Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism.

As a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. senator and diplomat, Danforth worships a humbler God and considers the right's certainty a sin. Legislating against gay marriage, for instance? "It's just cussedness." As he sees it, many Republican leaders have lost their bearings and, if they don't change, will lose their grip on power. Not to mention make the United States a meaner place.

Danforth told the Post that his dismay over the Terri Schiavo case, and whether to remove the brain-dead Florida woman from life support, pushed him to join the public debate about the ultra-conservative religious role in politics.

Danforth saw the Schiavo case as meshing with the right's opposition to gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research.

"I think a marriage is between a man and a woman, but it's beyond me how the whole thing has become so politicized and people have become so energized by it. Because, what difference does it make? How does it constitute a defense of marriage to legislate in this area?"

In Missouri, where Danforth won five statewide elections, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage passed overwhelmingly last year. Yet he believes most people would say no if asked, "Do you believe we should just be nasty and humiliate people and degrade them because of sexual orientation?"

Later in the article, Danforth called the Christian right's approach to politics a sin.

"With confidence that it is the mouthpiece for God, it endorses candidates, supports constitutional amendments and mobilizes campaigns to keep poor souls hooked up to feeding tubes," Danforth says. "It calls its opponents 'enemies of the people of faith.' Today that is the style and, I think, the sin of the Christian right."

The Post article ended:

Does it matter what Jack Danforth thinks? He commands no political army and rules no territory beyond his writing desk and the occasional pulpit. He is up against the most polished political operation of modern times, facing the likes of Rove and House Republican disciplinarians such as Tom DeLay.

Jim Wallis, the left-leaning author of "God's Politics," declares hopefully that "the monologue of the religious right is finally over and the new dialogue has just begun. The answer to bad religion isn't secularism, it's better religion. Moderate and centrist evangelicals and Catholics are going to shape the future."

I agree with Wallis that Danforth’s views are important because they mark the end of the “monologue of the religious right.” I do, though, disagree with Wallis on one point.

It’s true that the answer to bad religion is better religion, but I also believe that secular Americans also have a role and responsibility. I suspect that the true answer to bad religion is twofold: Better religion and a kinder, more understanding secular approach that both upholds secular principles and honors the right of religion to exist.

My blog-writing time is quickly running out for today. For more on my ideas on this topic, look at “The Lesbian and Fundamentalists” and “Can You Be Civil When the Opposition is Fighting to the Death” posts.

A hat tip to Nancy Jane for pointing out the article.

Coming Soon: Your Future & the Kansas Legislature

As Thomas Frank describes in his book "What's The Matter With Kansas," what happens in the bull's-eye state is important for the entire nation. We're not only smack in the middle of the continental United States (bull's-eye!), we're also a bit of a political barometer, charting the change in air pressure before political storms arrive on the national scene.

Monday marks the start of the Kansas legislative session, and what an exciting one it will be. It's an election year. The governor, a Democrat, is facing the overwhelmingly Republican House and Senate. The majority Republicans are facing an internal, and probably, bloody struggle. Schools may or may not be funded to adequate levels. Our school children may or may not be the targets of religious brainwashing. Our judges may or may not retain their independence. The dreaded TABOR may or may not pass and take money away from services people need. And last, but certainly not least, thousands of law-abiding lesbian and gay Kansans may once again find themselves in the cross-hairs of the Religious Right.

All of that is why I'll soon be instituting a new feature called "YourFuture" that will examine events in the Kansas Statehouse. If you live in Kansas, my advice is to pay attention and to keep your representative and senator's phone numbers close at hand. The amount of money you have to spend, whether or not your children have decent schools and even your personal liberty are at stake.

No matter where you live, though, what you see here may well have a strong impact on your future. Stay tuned.

UPDATED: 1/6/06

Why the culture war is a lousy idea

Fighting for what you believe isn’t a bad idea. Standing up for yourself is not even close to awful. But what has begun to scare me lately is the way the Religious Right and even progressives like myself have come to rely on the term “Culture War.”

The problem is the implication of the words.

In war, the goal is for my side to defeat, annihilate, conquer and/or occupy your side. Meanwhile, your side is trying to squash me, grind me under your heel or, at the very least, force me to do whatever you want.

There are no half measures in war. All’s fair in war. While sometimes there may be an armed truce, the implication is that one side wins and the other side loses. It’s a fight to the death.

But the Religious Right; progressives; feminists; proud lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered Americans; homophobes; the KKK, moderate people of faith and liberal church members; not to mention Democrats, Republicans and Independents all live in the same country.

What will our home become if we fight this Culture War the way all wars are fought? Will we tear the United States apart? Or will we simply become fascists and use force to impose our will on others?

We can’t get away from the fact that we live in a multicultural soup in this country. Many of us disagree, and these disagreements aren’t simple intellectual debates. We disagree vehemently and with passion. We disagree about the things that make up our core identities. We disagree about things that make up our souls. For you to give in or for me to give in would feel like committing a form of suicide.

If we can’t give in, though, and turn the United States into a homogeneous culture, then how do we learn to get along?

The first step has to be to stop using the term “Culture War.” We have to realize that we aren’t in a struggle to the death, that I’m not trying to destroy you, and you’re not trying to destroy me. I am willing to bet, or at least I hope, that all any of us really wants is the chance to live the way we want to live and to have our choices respected.

That’s why I think it’s long past time for us to let go of the term “Culture War.” I’ve been as guilty as anyone else of using it. I called a 1997 book The New Civil War. I used the term in this blog in a calculated effort to gain attention.

I have to admit that I haven’t found another term that I want to use instead. Maybe it will take a while to find the right one. We could say that we’re in a “cultural struggle” because we certainly are. Perhaps, though, it would make more sense to talk very calmly about a “cultural controversy.”

Whatever term we eventually use to describe this situation, I think one thing is certain. If we keep talking as if we’re in a war, we’re going to act as if we are. There will be no compromise. There will be no peace. There will only be violence and hatred, and in the end, no one will win. There will be only blood.

Corruption Watch

I’m changing the headline on my “Abramoff Watch” posts to “Corruption Watch,” which seems a bit more appropriate. For more on the Republican lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, who has just pleaded guilty to fraud and is expected to soon begin implicating other Washington insiders, take a look at these links.

Religious Right Implicated in Widening DC Corruption Probe
Talk To Action recounts the possible involvement of anti-gay crusader Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the California-based Traditional Values Coalition. Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition who is now running for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, is also implicated.

The Washington Post provides a good overview of the story and the players, including Sheldon and Reed in this story and this one and this one.

AP reports that George W. Bush & House Republicans are rushing to get rid of Abramoff money.

Talking Points Café provides an overview.

The New York Times talks about “Tremors Across Washington”

Abramoff Watch

UPDATE: Abramoff pleads guilty .

As everyone in the world knows, today the new year starts off with lobbyist Jack Abramoff expected to plead guilty to numerous felonies. At some point, he is expected to sing sweetly about his deals with his GOP allies. He is appearing before a federal judge in Washington, D.C. about, well, now. (12:15 p.m. EST) We may get more details when the Justice Department holds an expected news conference later today. Stay tuned for further developments.

Screaming at George W - or - A Fantasy About Real Family Values

If you’re not reading Alternet – and you really should be – you missed two interesting stories today. The first hit home to me as the mother of a just-turned 20 year old.

I was fascinated and worried by what I read in a review of the new book by Tamara Draut called “Strapped: Why America's 20- and 30-Somethings Can't Get Ahead.”

Reviewer Jodie Janella Horn writes:

In the five years since I graduated from college, the same argument has arisen again and again. I insist that it's much harder to make a living now versus when she was my age in the mid-'70s. My mom disagrees, and continues to wonder why I haven't taken her advice and purchased a home.
…

This ongoing fight with my mom had reached an all-time high recently because my husband and I have begun to panic about our future. Unless, somehow, we can genetically engineer offspring that needs neither food nor diapers, our hopes of being able to afford a child are not great. In addition to cash flow issues, my job does not provide paid maternity leave, and our insurance doesn't cover much, let alone pregnancy.

As a result of this stress, I have developed a recurring fantasy of taking President Bush, grabbing him by the hair and slamming his face on his desk repeatedly while screaming, "Family values? I'll show you family values. I'm moving to Canada so I can afford to have a family."
…

Draut lays it out like a pro without indulging the whininess that so often creeps into my voice when I try to convey my generation's situation to my mother. The problems for us youngsters are as follows: College is expensive and induces debt, paychecks aren't rising with the cost of living, rent and home prices are prohibitively high, starting a family is costly, and finally, We Are All In Debt (sing it to the tune of Weezer's "We Are All on Drugs" if it'll make you feel better).

Frankly, I’m scared to death about the debt my kid is going to face. So far, we haven’t had to take out loans for college. With tuition going up 20 percent or more each year, along with the sky-rocketing cost of everything else, his college fund is dwindling. I don’t know how he’s going to get through school without piling up huge debt, and debt = limited choice, which = limited life.

The real kicker is that the reviewer notes that “young people have lost faith in politics and government as a mechanism for enacting real change in our lives.” This echoes a conversation I had with my son last week and is a real concern. Living in an age of the Republican government “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich,” no one can afford to stand on the sidelines politically.