Little Red Blog

In a pathetic clamor to avoid being seen as a religious conservative, or worse, a conservative Christian, many a pundit and politician are balking at current Republican efforts to hold strong to the moral foundations of our nation. It is reprehensible when it comes from a citizen of little note, like me, but even more so when the froth brews from the mouth of a former Senator. In today’s New York Times, former Senator John Danforth follows the folly into the land where Republicans are not principled at the core, instead choosing only those portions of their ideology that are commonly supported without a necessary underlying faith. [HT: Hugh Hewitt.]

Senator Danforth is unlikely to ever note my thoughts, yet I am given to address them specifically to him. As such, here is my reply:

Senator,

Like many conservative Republicans, I am an advocate of the three disparate, yet rightly connected, issues you began your opinion column with - the banning of federally funded embryonic stem cell research, not the same as adult stem cell research, supporting an amendment to the Constitution to support marriage, and the Congressional actions to permit federal court review of the Terri Schiavo case. Where I draw issue with you is your assertion that Republicans are following a conservative Christian agenda by taking these positions. While I am not by any means an important conservative, I can assert that my support for these issues, and I believe that of many others, is not driven by a Christian ideology or worldview but instead by the same principles that frame your view of shared Republican values during your time as a Senator.

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.

Those principles, which I fully agree with, are built upon an underlying and inner course within each of us that when aligned to Life and Liberty yields a basis also for each of the issues you have taken issue with. We conservatives accept that government is at its best when its role is limited to the protection of its citizens.

It is the protection of its citizens that drives my belief that embryonic stem cells should not be used for testing. While I oppose federal funding for such research, I do not oppose any and every State having the right to permit the testing or even fund it. Although I would oppose it in my own State, Colorado. Advocacy of embryonic stem cell research, funded by the federal government, neither supports the principles of limited government or the notion that human life, no matter how it came to be formed or its viability, is to be protected. This position strikes at the core of our rights with or without a religious or Christian understanding of life’s value.

Likewise, the support of a marriage as being between one man and one woman should not be assumed to be a Christian ideal, as you rightly note that religious liberals advocate exactly the opposite. The most vocal voices on either side of the issue may be those either incapable of supporting their position outside their faith, or perhaps they are driven entirely from their religious worldview. That being said, I support the Constitutional amendment as a last recourse to prevent the further attacks by courts around the country which abrogate the law, the votes of the people, and the clear assurance that while norms are not required for all, they are as a point of fact the norm. I do not oppose laws that provide legal protections for non-marital relationships between same-sex partners. Yet I cannot stand by and watch as rogue judges ignore the law in an attempt to create that which has never been. Indeed, that is the place of the Congress, and should it decide to press the issue with an amendment, I would support.

And finally sir, to the issue of Terri Schiavo. Like many a conservative and liberal alike, we are conflicted and challenged by this case in a way unlike any other. As for my position, I supported the Congressional action because it was an attempt to ensure that the courts in Florida were not ignoring the rights of a Floridian. It was generally a toothless effort that without teeth fell on deaf ears in the 11th Circuit. By supporting this action, the Congress acted to protect life, to give one last hearing to the unheard. If that to you is a Christian agenda worthy of alarm, then let it be.

Senator, we Republicans are not falling prey to an intrusion of religion into politics. We are instead experiencing a willingness to assert the fullness of the values that we should all use as barometer for governance. As a minister, you recognize the difference between what is legal and what is sin. The current Republican efforts you take issue with are guided not by an understanding of sin, but rather an understanding of the moral depth behind the founding principles of our nation and a desire to support them. These issues, like your support for ending the genocide in Darfur, are important to me because they tell me about our world, our nation and our desire to make the world more free and just.

Signed.