John Danforth on Religion and Politics

SESSION 3

What the Framers Meant written in 1883, Supreme Court chief justice Joseph Story described America before the Constitution: “In Throughout our history, the challenge to America’s gov- some states, Episcopalians constituted the predominant ernment has been to hold together in one nation people sect; in others, Congregationalists; in others Quakers; of different interests and, increasingly, members of dif- and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry ferent religions, ethnicities and races. In the eighteenth among contending sects. It was impossible that there century, the framers of the Constitution struggled to should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jeal- accommodate both mercantile and agricultural inter- ousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the ests, as well as states with relatively large and small national government were left free to create a religious populations. So they created a system of government establishment.” in which competing interests would be represented in the two houses of Congress, and people of every point So the Constitution of the United States provided that, of view would be able to participate in choosing their at the federal level, religion and government should be government. With the infl ux of immigrants and the separate. There would be no religious test for holding emancipation of slaves in the nineteenth century, the public offi ce. The government would not establish reli- enfranchising of women and the civil rights movement gion, nor would it interfere with the right of the people of the twentieth century, and Hispanic immigration, the to practice their faiths freely. Nothing could prevent feminist movement and increased awareness of gays in religious people from participating in the affairs of pol- recent decades, we have become a more diverse coun- itics. Indeed, that would be their constitutional right. try, both in fact and in our self-perception. The task of But government would not be identifi ed with religion, holding ourselves together, so brilliantly addressed by and religion would not be tainted by government. our forebears in the eighteenth century, is no less impor- tant today, and far more complex. Recent Attacks

The framers of the Constitution, particularly James by Christian Conservatives Madison, were well aware of the power of religion to In recent years, the wisdom of our founding fathers has split a nation apart. America’s early colonists had come been challenged as the Republican Party has identiﬁ ed from Europe, which had known religious conﬂ ict for itself with the political agenda of Christian conserva- centuries. Some colonies and states in America, before tives. For several decades, Christian conservatives such adoption of the Constitution, imposed taxes on people as the Reverend Pat Robertson, the Reverend Jerry Fal- regardless of their faith to support one denomination or well, Ralph Reed and, more recently, Dr. James Dobson another. In Virginia, Madison and Thomas Jefferson had have been active participants in American, and par- led the effort to abolish taxes that supported religion. In ticularly Republican, politics, focusing their attention his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, mainly on the issue of abortion. But in recent years,

1 Copyright © 2007 www.TheThoughtfulChristian.com John Danforth on Religion Permission given to copy this page for use in class. and Politics, 3 they have moved beyond a single issue to endorse an Throughout my time in the Senate, abortion was an issue expanded political agenda. on which Republicans did not agree. And I remember one brief period of time when we heatedly debated the Followers of the Reverend Jerry Falwell have distrib- subject of prayer in public schools. But by and large, reli- uted a bumper sticker bearing the slogan “Vote Chris- gion was not a political subject in those years. Certainly, tian,” thereby conveying the clear message that there is our party had no religious agenda. In those years, we a Christian way to vote as opposed to a non-Christian would have found the notion that people should “vote or anti-Christian way to vote. There is no need for the Christian” at least strange and probably offensive. bumper sticker to spell out the details. The agenda of the Christian Right is well known. It is to oppose abor- Since that time, the breadth of the Republican Party tion, early stage stem cell research and gay marriage, has narrowed. Gone are Javits, Case and Brooke; gone and to advocate the display of the Ten Commandments are Baker, Dole and Danforth. The band of Republican in courthouses and the teaching of intelligent design in senators most people would call moderate now num- public schools. bers a half dozen or so, and many would say good rid- dance, for as our party has narrowed its breadth, it has When I arrived in Washington in January 1977, I was increased its strength. In 1977, I was one of only thirty- in the philosophical center of a broad range of Republi- nine Republicans in the Senate, and our party was an can senators. To my left were people many Republicans insignifi cant minority in the House of Representatives. today would call liberals: Jacob Javits of New York, Clif- Now we have a majority in both houses of Congress.* ford Case of New Jersey, Edward Brooke of Massachu- setts and Lowell Weicker of Connecticut. To my right This improved electoral status has occurred as the were conservative stalwarts, including Barry Goldwater Republican Party has identifi ed itself with the Chris- of Arizona, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, Jesse tian Right, a development starkly exemplifi ed by the Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas. Then government’s extraordinary intervention in the case of there were the senators who, with me, were somewhere Terri Schiavo. Responding to the demands of prominent in the center of our party, people like Howard Baker of Christian conservatives, Republican leaders rushed Tennessee, Bob Dole and his Kansas colleague Jim Pear- legislation through Congress in a frantic effort to keep son. Of course, such diverse Republicans had differences a woman hooked up to a feeding tube, despite the fi nd- of opinion on various issues, but we respected each other ings of Florida courts that she was in a persistent veg- and we respected our differences. A set of core beliefs etative state and had previously evinced a will not to that nearly all Republicans shared held us together. We be kept alive artifi cially. President George W. Bush fl ew were internationalists who believed that America had a from his Texas ranch to Washington on Air Force One responsibility to be a force of strength and leadership in a to sign special legislation transferring jurisdiction of world then threatened by the Soviet Union. We supported the Schiavo case to the federal courts. By intervening an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and in the life and death decision of a specifi c individual, free trade. We thought that legislators should create the by transferring government power from the state level law and that judges should interpret it. We believed in to the federal level and by conferring on a federal court limited government, in keeping taxes low and the bur- jurisdiction to overrule a state court, Republican lead- den of regulation light, and we thought that many of ers gladly abandoned principles that for decades had government’s decisions should be made close to the peo- bound their party together in order to meet the demands ple, at the state or local levels, not in Washington. I recall of Christian conservatives. They accomplished this Jacob Javits, one of our most liberal Republicans, saying feat with extraordinary ease. It did not even require a that ours was the pro-business party. I think that was a recorded vote in the Senate, where each member would fair statement. We thought that more economic growth have registered agreement or disagreement with the would occur, more jobs would be created and more legislation in a manner the public could see. It was done opportunity would exist if the private sector thrived than by voice vote, and with the exception of John Warner of if the federal government grew. These were, and I think Virginia, no Republican member of the Senate raised still are, the beliefs Republicans hold in common. the slightest objection to the proceedings.

2 Copyright © 2007 www.TheThoughtfulChristian.com John Danforth on Religion Permission given to copy this page for use in class. and Politics, 3 It Works passage of more than three decades since Roe v. Wade has largely settled the matter, both in the courts and in And why should they object? Why argue with suc- public opinion. Other issues—opposition to gay mar- cess? This is the point most frequently made by people riage and the use of religious displays and observances who justify the union of the Republican Party with the on government property—are of little intrinsic impor- Christian Right: it works. It produces electoral victory. tance except as wedges. In each case, the issue energizes The traditional Republican Party, they say, was a loser. the base by pitting the “people of faith” against their The thirty-nine senators who congenially represented a enemies. The Christian Right’s strategy of splitting apart broad party in 1977 were far short of a majority. Success- the American people has worked. ful politics, they say, requires building coalitions, so it is good strategy to build a coalition of traditional Repub- As I am writing this, two items have crossed my desk that licans who share views about fi scal and foreign policies illustrate how the interjection of religion into politics can and those who have become Republicans because the turn ugly. Stem cell research is a live issue in Missouri that party advances their religious agenda. They reason that will be decided by voters later in the year (2006). Donn without the numbers of voters and the energy of Chris- Rubin, who is Jewish, chairs the Missouri Coalition for tian activists, Republican ideas about taxes, spending Lifesaving Cures, which supports stem cell research. I have and regulation would not prevail. been a very visible spokesman for the Coalition, and have appeared in television ads saying that attempting to cure But this is not a coalition of traditional Republicans and fatal diseases such as cancer and ALS is consistent with the Christian Right in the nature of a merger of equals. my pro-life position. On December 18, 2005, the Columbia This is the takeover of the Republican Party by the Chris- Daily Tribune published a letter to the editor written by a tian Right. That is the signifi cance of the Terri Schiavo case. Baptist attacking “Donn Rubin’s anti-Christian bigotry.” It was the total victory of Christian conservative activism As the letter to the editor reached me, the following e- over broadly shared Republican principles, a victory won mail arrived from a man in St. Charles, Missouri: with no resistance from traditional Republicans. I am dismayed to hear you proclaim your “pro-life” A modern mantra of Republican politics is “We have to voting record in one breath and to support the will- appeal to our base,” and by “base” is meant the Chris- ful destruction of human life for the sake of stem cell tian Right. So before elections, Republican strategists research in the next. These two positions are contrary to one another, and you, of all people, should realize say that they have to turn out the base. When there is a that. I suggest you look to the Catholic Church for battle over a Supeme Court nomination or over impor- the defi nition of what it means to be truly “pro-life.” tant legislation, they say they have to energize the base. Your mediocrity with respect to the “pro-life” move- Indeed, single-minded attention to the base has become ment sends confusing signals to people of faith. In the central strategy of the Republican Party. But the the words of our Creator, “thou shalt not kill.” I don’t more determined the effort to please the base, the more know what part of that statement could be deemed unclear to an Episcopal minister! No matter what so- diffi cult the effort becomes. As Christian conservatives called good may come from research involving stem have increased in importance to the Republican Party, cells, it will always cost a life to save a life. No mat- they have been more demanding of the party. ter how much suffering may need to be endured, the relief of the suffering at the expense of another’s life The Christian Right has championed a set of divisive is not a decision placed in the hands of man. issues that test the fealty of politicians. Often called Jack, I voted for you every time I had the chance. I am wedge issues, their purpose is to split the country apart. sorry to say that had I known your true feelings about Politicians who vote for the wedge issues know that “pro-life” issues, I most likely would not have. they will win the support of the Christian Right. Politi- cians who vote against them can expect the opposition Will Christian Liberals Use of the Christian Right. One of the wedge issues, outlaw- ing early stage stem cell research, is currently of great the Same Approach? importance in that, if successful, it would block the Christian liberals have lagged behind conservatives both search for cures of terrible diseases. Another, abortion, in developing their own political agenda and in capturing has retained its function as a wedge, even though the a political party. But a similar potential for divisiveness is

3 Copyright © 2007 www.TheThoughtfulChristian.com John Danforth on Religion Permission given to copy this page for use in class. and Politics, 3 shared by the Left and the Right. In October 2005, the Religious people have engaged with government since Washington National Cathedral hosted a conference on Moses confronted Pharaoh. One of the books of the Bible progressive Christian values, which the sponsors of the is called Judges. Two are called Kings. That is govern- conference intended to counter the efforts of the Chris- ment. Acting for God, the prophet Samuel anointed Saul tian Right. The invitation to the conference began in and David kings of Israel. In the Old Testament, God was positive terms, but note how quickly it slipped into stri- the ultimate ruler, and kings answered to God. As God’s dency. It stated that the purpose of the conference was agents, the prophets told kings where to go and where “to work as a united front for social justice, and publicly not to go; which battles to ﬁ ght and when to surrender; disavow those on the Right who have attempted to co- what to build and when; and how to treat the poor, the opt the name of the Church in America.” “To work . . . fatherless, the widows and the aliens. And when kings for social justice” is certainly a positive objective, consis- did not do as they were told, the prophets, again acting tent with the teachings of Christianity. To “publicly dis- for God, confronted them and meted out punishment. avow those on the Right” is the repudiation of people, The idea of incompatible realms of religion and govern- not the pursuit of a cause. ment is not supported in the Old Testament.

In his recent book, God’s Politics, Jim Wallis, an evangelical Nor is it a tradition of Christianity, not since Constantine Protestant, rightly says that God is neither a Republican established Christianity as the religion of Rome. In our nor a Democrat, but then he proceeds to set out a political own time, Christians, believing they were furthering the agenda that is by any lights liberal and is, in his view, reli- demands of their faith, have championed a variety of giously and politically “correct.” Deeply religious people political positions—not just the conservative agenda of come to different conclusions about how faith should the right but also opposition to war and the death pen- infl uence public policy. Some committed Christians con- alty, and support for civil rights, environmental protec- clude that their religious beliefs guide them toward con- tion and increased assistance to the poor. servatism. Others, like Jim Wallis, are politically liberal. The problem is not that Christians are conservative or lib- Are We Dividers eral, but that some are so confi dent that their position is or Reconcilers? God’s position that they become dismissive and intoler- ant toward others and divisive forces in our national life. The question is not whether people of faith should engage The tendency toward theocracy is not monopolized by in politics, but how we go about doing so. Beyond the the Christian Right, and it is no advance to supplant the obvious choices of whether we are liberals or conserva- self-confi dent religious agenda of the Right with a reli- tives, Republicans or Democrats, is a more basic deci- gious agenda of the Left. To do so is to say to the conser- sion, one that is more consequential to our common life vatives, “Your basic approach is good, but your politics than how we might align ourselves on the issues of the are bad.” The problem of American politics is not the dif- day. It is whether, in the practice of our religion, we are ferent positions people take—disagreeing on positions is a divisive or a reconciling force in our country. Religion the nature of politics. The problem is the divisiveness that is now a divisive force in American politics, but that is makes civil discourse, much less reasonable compromise, not to say that it should be so. As we relate our religious so diffi cult today. Wedge issues split us apart, and when faith to our politics, we can choose whether we are rec- the wedges are driven from two directions at the same oncilers or dividers. time, the split becomes even more forbidding. To a degree, our choices will refl ect our individual tem- That religion is now a divisive force in American politi- peraments. Some people like nothing more than a good cal life doesn’t mean that in order to avoid fracturing the fi ght, and what better to fi ght about than the combina- country, religious people should stay out of political con- tion of religion and politics? When I was in high school, troversies and attend only to the personal side of religion. there was nothing more fun for me than heated politi- Some faith groups—the Mennonites, for example—have cal arguments with my classmate John Rava. He was a chosen the course of disengagement from public life. But Democrat. I was a Republican. Most kids enjoy sports. I many people of faith believe that politics is a religious as enjoyed arguments. Yet John and I were friends. I think well as a civic duty. Tradition supports that conviction. most people who like politics enjoy arguments. But the

4 Copyright © 2007 www.TheThoughtfulChristian.com John Danforth on Religion Permission given to copy this page for use in class. and Politics, 3 nature of politics today is different from arguments and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and among friends. It is the no-holds-barred nastiness that one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.” we witness, for example, in battles over the confi rma- However, as the passage continues, it is clear that Jesus is tion of Supreme Court nominees. In the midst of the speaking of the primacy of love for him over every com- fi ercest struggles, with their wedge issues and extreme peting allegiance, and it’s not advocating divisiveness for rhetoric, Christians are attacking their opponents, not its own sake: “Whoever loves father or mother more than for their policies, but, as in the case of Donn Rubin, for me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daugh- alleged “anti-Christian bigotry.” ter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does As some people are temperamentally combative, others not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. are naturally good natured, even many who are in the Those who fi nd their life will lose it, and those who lose competitive world of politics. They enjoy the give-and- their life for my sake will fi nd it” (Matthew 10:37–39). take of good arguments, but they conduct themselves By far, the more prevalent message in the New Testa- with restraint and understand the importance of mutual ment urges reconciliation. In John 17, the High Priestly respect in resolving differences. More than confl ict, they Prayer, Jesus prays for the unity of his followers “that enjoy fellowship—the opportunity to come together they may be one.” Unity is a theme in Paul’s epistles, in common space—regardless of differences. These, which were written to hold together fracturing churches I think, are the people who attend the weekly Senate of his time. Notably, in 2 Corinthians 5:19, Paul wrote, prayer breakfast. It is not an occasion of deep theol- “[I]n Christ God was reconciling the world to himself ogy, but of close relationships, where religion is not the . . . entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.” The wedge that drives them apart, but the glue that binds theme of reconciliation receives special attention in them together. Ephesians. The Epistle to the Colossians tells us that in Christ “all things hold together.” The problem with temperament is that it is a matter of feeling, good feeling or bad feeling, and it is given to If Christianity is supposed to be a ministry of reconcilia- change. The most confrontational person one moment tion, but has become, instead, a divisive force in Ameri- can be the most congenial person the next, and vice can political life, something is terribly wrong and we versa. Whether religion is a divisive force or a reconcil- should correct it. I think there are two aspects to what is ing force depends, in part, on our individual tempera- wrong: fi rst, our certainty that our political agenda must ments. But it should rest on something more substantial be God’s agenda, and second, our ineffectiveness in pro- than the shifting sands of our own moods. So we should claiming the message of reconciliation. consider not just how we happen to feel, but what our religion tells us about divisiveness and reconciliation. About the Author Should religion split us apart, or should it hold us John Danforth is an ordained Episcopal priest, former three-term together? U.S. senator (R-MO), and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In 2001, President Bush appointed Danforth as special As is often the case, we can fi nd different texts in the envoy for peace in Sudan, where he worked to broker a peace agree- Bible to support confl icting propositions. In the New ment that, in 2005, ultimately ended the twenty-year civil war. Testament, this is the case with respect to whether Endnote Christianity is a divisive or a reconciling religion. A Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Pen- case for divisiveness can be made by pointing to Mat- guin Group (USA) Inc., from Faith and Politics by Senator John thew 10:34–36, where Jesus says, “Do not think that I Danforth. have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come Copyright © John Danforth, 2006 to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man * This material was written before the 2006 election changed against his father, and a daughter against her mother, the balance of the Senate.