June 22, 2005


The former Republican senator from Missouri penned this column for The New York Times which can be counted upon to highlight anything in which one Republican bashes another or suggests the current leadership is too "extreme". The theme of the article seems to be The Love Commandment means cork your beliefs, lest anyone else become uncomfortable. Sorry, Senator/Reverend. The democratic process is, by its nature, often loud and racuous and inevitably people are going to have their feelings hurt. But it is through this process "the People, through their elected representatives, deal with matters which concern them" as Rehnquist once so succinctly put it. The people, through their representatives, wrestle with the great issues of the day, not the least of which include when life begins and the circumstances under which it is allowed to end (or in Terri Schiavo's case, made to end). When the courts usurp the deliberative function of the political branches, the result is not settled law, but endless litigation. The annual fights over abortion, 32 years after Roe v. Wade, are but one example.

Posted by LMC at June 22, 2005 08:36 PM

Senator Danforth's article leaned heavily on the "Love Commandment" - apparently Christ's teaching to love one's neighbor as yourself. Then in the examples given (Terri Schivo, stem cell research), the "Love" motivation justifies the means and the deliberate outcome, in the name of the motivation.

I respect Senator Danforth, but on this I strongly disagree. This thread of logic suggests that there are no moral absolutes in these areas, beyond our "love" motivation. Taken to its logical extreme, it is not the act itself that is right or wrong, but whether it was done with a feel-good intention. The danger here is that when we are faced with a difficult decison, the right road which is hard, and an easier one which is expedient, the temptation will be to rationalize the easier road.

Posted by: KMR at June 23, 2005 08:43 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?