Customer Reviews

Faith and Politics: How the "Moral Values" Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Danforth, who has led a very interesting and impressive life, delivers a very frank criticism of how religion--and Christianity, in particular--has imposed itself on today's most pressing public issues. While I don't necessarily agree with Danforth's assessment on how much blame Republican politicians and religious conservatives deserve, "Faith and Politics" did make me pause and reconsider the direction in which the Republican party is going.

John Danforth has been a participant in Republican politics throughout the rise of the religious right. When the right could help him he gladly took their votes. As he watched the Republican party drift further to the right, driven by its increasingly conservative, religious base he largely sat silent. After his useful political life ended, he wrote this book, questioning the rise of the right and its effect on the Republican party and American politics. While much of what he says is true and much of his analysis is correct, to decry it now that it can no longer do him any good seems intellectually dishonest. Many will latch on to this book because it is written from the Republican, Christian side of the political aisle. In my opinion it is too little, too late.

Danforth begins by asking the question "Is faith a reconciler or divider? (My personal aswer is both). He posits 3 guidelines for the role of religion in politics.

1. We serve a large God, a transcendent God who cannot be shrunken by poliical activists and stuffed into their own agenda.

2. No one should presume to embody God's truth, including ourselves... our political programs however prayerfully inspired are no more than our best efforts to be faithful to God and we should pursue them with humility.

3. We believe God's truth is expansive enough to embrace conflicting opinions, even on hot button issues.

While I agree with the broad approach Danforth presents, the byproduct of his approach is the danger of living a passionless gospel. Eliminate the conservatives on the right and Jim Wallis on the left, much of the passion to create change disappears. Regardless of how we approach the Gospel, ultimately it demands passion and change. He talks about faith in relation to several hot political issues, sharing from his journey. He discusses the seach for certainty, the role of public religion, the Terri Schiavo case (which seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back for Danforth), abortion, stem cell research, gay marraige, peacemaking and the American role in the world with varying degrees of persuasiveness.

I recommend the book with reservations

As a 19 year old college student who is a currently a philosophy major and agnostic, I found this book extremely interesting. I grew up with a family of christianity and a sibling who and will pursue it for the rest of life itself, so needless to say it takes alot to get my attention on the subject.

After reading the first chapter alone I was absolutely blown away at what I was reading. Danforth may be too little too late but at least he made an effort period. His concepts, to me, display the truth about politicians using christianity for profitable gain in any form possible (in a nutshell). He spends much time clarifying his points with text from the bible and making an attempt to interprete their purpose in politics today. The fact that he's a republican is even more impressive that he had the guts to write such a novel.

Please understand...

This book was not written to give answers to all the problems. It figures that people would despise this book because it doesn't give an answer, and typical at that. As a famous artist once said, "Computers are useless because they only give you answers". This book is the inbetween. We as people have become computers only interested in finding the answer ALONE not concerned with the thought process that it takes to GET to the answer. With that mindset, we will never find the answer. It is the INBETWEEN that is the most vital.

To myself, this novel provides yet another vital step to understanding faith and politics in attempt to reach that answer that we seem to try to find. Bravo to Danforth.

Because of his vast experience with both God and government, Senator Danforth knows the difference between the two. He understands that it is the responsibility of religion to inform the political process as to morality without writing the laws by which we live. As a lifelong Christian, he isn't afraid to stand up to the religious right wingers. He tries to interpret the message of Jesus, especially as to healing, from the viewpoint of a modern participant of a representative democracy without being strident and while remaining a humble gentleman. I have recommended this book to a young man I know who has shown some interest in politics as an example of a man who has been able to balance great faith and great success in the public arena.

John Danforth speaks from the heart in Faith and Politics, as he urges us to move forward together rather than fight over wedge issues.

In his career, Danforth has mostly been a lawyer and a politician -- both professions that generally reward aggressive, adversarial stances. Yet in this book, Danforth's thinking draws more on the accommodating, uniting position that most would associate more with his third, much more peripheral career as a priest. Tying those three viewpoints together in a thoughtful, personal discussion on a variety of issues makes for a book that is a pleasant but important read.

The chapters on abortion and gay marriage caught my interest the most. Danforth does not takes sides on these issues as much as question whether they should have the importance they do. That makes sense. Does it really matter to the vast majority of us how these issues are resolved? Not really. Given their relative unimportance, it seems that we could find a way to take the heat and anger, on both sides, away from these issues. A win by either side will, practically speaking, mean little to the losing side.

But as Danforth points out, "church fights" too happen all the time, and often over less than important administrative issues. (As he notes the most ferocious fighters on these battles over church issues are retirees, who presumably have little else to do with their time.) As many college deans and presidents have noted about faculty issues, the most heated battles tend to be on the least important issues. In politics too, the same applies.

As others have noted here, Danforth does not offer much in the way of a solution. And what he does suggest is not the value that this book offers. Instead, the way he thinks and the way he writes on these issues provide us with a wonderful guide on how we should address them as well. With compassion, not just passion. With thoughtfulness, not anger. And looking for areas on which to agree, not disagree.

As a model on how to discuss wedge issues, Faith and Politics has a value beyond what Danforth says on the issues themselves. The words are not too important. How they are said is.

If someone had said I'd be reading a book on politics and religion, much less buying it, from a former Missouri Senator who is (or was) a Republican, as I'm a lifelong Democrat, I'd have told this person that he or she was not right. Anyway, this excellent book by the former Senator, and Episcopalian minister, is "on point", with its analysis of how religion and politics have been [both] misued; especially by the "far right", i.e., fundamentalist, so-called, "Christians". In analyzing the problem, Mr. Danforth gives concrete examples of how this divide: between fundamentalists and the rest of us, weakens our nation. Further, he offers a "path" to "reconciliation". I'm guilty as the next, characterizing people of the GOP, as he says: "nuts", because they wouldn't agree with me on many issues, e.g., war, poverty, abortion, and others; which he does not "shy away from" these issues, which is good. Many might feel he has betrayed his "GOP"/"Republican" principles, but he has (to me) attempted to distinguish his views from his colleagues of a more "conservative" ilk.
Compared to today's Republican party, which been "hijacked" by a right wing element that is stronger than than even the one that elected the late Ronald Reagan in the 1980's to the Presidency. Familiar names, from those times, e.g., Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others, have become even more radical, and who see anyone, e.g., a moderate, or G-d forbid, "liberal" Republican (not to mention Democrats and Independents) as "godless". He rightly says this does not help our country (the U.S.), much less contribute to "true" "Moral Values", e.g., which his book, and the one I plan to read (soon) by Robin Meyers, on the "Religious Right", point out is a favorite "buzzword" of the neocon, intolerant, practitioners of religion [particularly where it relates to politics]. He right says too, that to "hate" anyone, which I'm guilty of but am trying to change [though I don't "hate" anyone, even if I disagree with them], merely on religious and political differences, is wrong. People can agree to disagree without resorting to maligning people (especially those of us who call ourselves Christians. An excellent book, highly recommended to anyone who is willing to put the partisanship and the religious disagreements to one side, to move our nation forward, on those things on which all can agree (and there are some things, surely, that we can).

This seasoned politician and man of faith demonstrates from his own experience how faith-based certainties applied to hot-button political issues have stymied the process of compromise that is essential to enact legislation which is truly beneficial to society. Yet he is certain that believers who walk humbly before and in service of a God who, according to such belief, is infinitely more wise and knowledgeable than they are will promote understanding among all who partake in the political process, thereby engendering the compromise that gets the job done.

The Moral Values Debate Continues

Can anything good come from the man that played a key role the process that led to the confirmation of staunch conservative Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court? Politics aside, the short answer is yes. Danforth's background as special envoy to Sudan, where he worked to broker a peace deal ending one of the longest running civil wars in history, puts him in a good position to address the issue of religion as a source of reconciliation. So, too, does his long tenure in the United States Senate which saw the rise of the religious right within the Republican party and its polarizing effect on national politics.

The book will surprise many readers as Danforth speaks most forcefully from his priestly formation and with a prophetic voice against poverty. "Helping the poor is clearly a religious value... From the blistering condemnation of those who 'trample the poor' and 'lie on beds of ivory' in the book of Amos to Jesus' consignment of those who do not feed the hungry and clothe the naked to eternal punishment in Matthew, both Old and New Testaments are consistent in their message. Mistreatment of the poor is a grievous sin. So is ignoring them" writes Danforth.

Equally surprising to some may be his more moderate views on issues such as homosexuality and stem-cell research. Both wedge issues that divide the nation and churches as well. Having watched his brother's life destroyed by ALS, from a personal perspective, Danforth declares with passion "no theologian however learned; no church council, however authoritative; no bishop or archbishop, however holy will ever persuade me that protecting a frozen embryo that will never see the light of day should take precedence over my brother Don. Similarly, Danforth's show more moderation on the issue of homosexuality and family than most within the Republican party calling a constitutional amendment on marriage "gay bashing". He writes, "if allowed to do so, without the premature intervention of the courts, the opportunistic interference of politicians and the divisive interference of religious leaders, the vast majority of Americans would work out, in a mutually respectful way, how they deal with issues of sexual orientation. I believe the broad outlines of such an agreement would include the following:

Establishment of the principle that discrimination in all forms, including sexual orientation, is wrong and should be unlawful; Governmental recognition of committed same-sex relationships, including the creation of legal status with regard to property rights, pension benefits, insurance and inheritance; Development by religious groups of ways to bless committed same-sex relationships; A strong emphasis on the importance of committed, long-term relationships and the disavowal of sexual permissiveness, whether straight or gay; The honoring of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Danforth acknowledges the fact that "nothing has matched gay marriage as an example of the emotional heat created by the mixture of religion and politics" but does not acknowledge the difficult fact that too many of our citizens just don't want to talk about it.

While I do not agree with many of his positions, I was among the hundred or so people who attended the public launching of Danforth's book at the Chicago' Union League Club last Fall and gained a sense of Danforth's humility. That humility comes across well in "Faith and Politics". Consistent with his citing Paul's admonition in his letter to the Philippians "to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Danforth later writes in a quasi-creedal statement writes "while I am a believing Christian, I acknowledge the distance between God's reality and our perception of that reality. I do not believe that any faith, including my own, monopolizes human understanding of God. I believe that God created and embraces all humankind, and that religious bigotry against anyone is more than uncivilized, it is in opposition to Christianity."

We may know Danforth the politician, but this work made me wonder what we may have missed of Danforth the priest.

I found the book an easy and enjoyable read. I purchased the book mainly to get a better grasp of Dansforth's opinion on stem-cell research (he supports it), a troubling topic for many of us who struggle with aligning our values for all stages of life with that of the rapid advancements in medical science. He gave a compassioned and reasoned discussion that left me with some things to gnaw on--good food for thought. The book is not solely about stem-cell research (only one chapter is devoted to the topic), but about many faith-based issues that collide with the politics of today. What he writes for the most part would seem obvious and few would overly disagree with his message, but it is not what you hear in today's media. I would recommend the book to anyone interested in the interdependent issues of politics and morality, or just want to hear a more congenial voice on today's pressing political issues.

The first politician who proclaims a faith without wearing it on his sleeve in some time. I wish he was running for President in 2008.