Somebody else take this one on first. I want to be the designated nut-kicker ;-) Hey, SM can't get to all the scrotal sacks that need kicking, and I'm more than happy to volunteer a little Bruce Lee chop socky, if it'll help the cause ;-)

K

Slowman,
First, I'm not sure how accurate the polling on this is. I get the feeling that a certain percentage of people will say "morals" as a deciding factor because it makes them feel morally strong. People frequently answer polls in the way they think paints them in the best light, instead of in truth. That said, I think the "morals" issue is mostly one of identification. One of the Fox News panelists said that people equate morals with "people who look and think like me," and a lot of Pres Bush's supporters get that feeling from him, and a lot of Sen Kerry's supporters didn't feel that way as much about him.
In other words, I think it's broader than just gay marriage, or abortion, or any specific issue, and more about the general feeling people get from the candidate they support. More Bush supporters legitimately identify with Pres Bush. More Kerry supporters wanted a change and a Democrat, but I don't know that they really identify with a liberal, rich, Ivy League Senator from New England.

Respectfully in keeping with the new rules,

slowguy

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, I'm not particularly religious at all (in fact, most of organized religion gives me a pain in my gluteals, these days ;-), but I know I have values and hopes and wishes for how I'd LIKE (not demand) the country to be.

S.G. is correct about the polls. I think they're confusing a kind of likable affinity for Bush and a distinct "coldness" for Kerry that resonated with the voters on election day. Now, considering that polls show that Bush received 79% of the so-called "evangelical vote", that means that somebody else got 21% of the remainder, be it Kerry or Nader or whomever.

Values are not just the province of evangelicals, though, as it seems that many people are made increasingly uneasy by the licentious atmosphere found in movies, tv and music. A lot of people say that it's becoming an almost impossible task to shield their children from the constant bombardment of our popular culture without having to check them into some sort of cloistered community :-)

K

they base their decision on who they would rather have a beer with rather than who has the better policies for the nation. i'm not saying that all republicans are morons. there are some that make over $200k and are fairly intelligent that don't want their taxes raised and are willing to ignore everything else about bush's platform, there are many who make $30k but think they'll one day be rich or that maybe the taxes will effect them. a lot of them vote based on the pro-life/anti-gay marriage stances. but mostly they are people with very little intelligence and education voting based on who they "relate" to. truly depressing.

You're making a pretty big leap in assuming that basically half the country is stupid and the other half are responsible voters. I agree that many voters are uneducated about the platforms of their candidates, but this is not a GOP problem. It is a distinctly American problem on both sides of the aisle. Quite a few of the "liberal" voters voted solely on hatred for Pres Bush and his administration, just like many "conservative" voters voted based on how they feel personally about the President. Most of these people are not actually conservative or liberal, because they don't really have a good grasp of what either of those things really means.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

i'm not saying that all republicans are morons. there are some that make over $200k and are fairly intelligent that don't want their taxes raised and are willing to ignore everything else...

Geez, guy. I'm conservative and voted Republican this last election and I don't consider myself "stupid". Not with 2 post-grad degrees and a JD. I admit I sometimes do "stupid" things, but is there anyone in this room who doesn't? Francois, you're not allowed to speak ;-)

K

what really surprises me is why are the issues associated with moral values the decisive factors in this election, when these moral values are virtually no impact on most people's life when the issues like economy etc. do have a critical impact on anyone's life...

I sure would be the last one to say I never do stupid things...

"what really surprises me is why are the issues associated with moral values the decisive factors in this election, when these moral values are virtually no impact on most people's life when the issues like economy etc. do have a critical impact on anyone's life... "

Because it's easy. It doesn't require you to learn anything about the subtleties of the Kyoto protocols or the landmine treaty or SS or tax policy. It's easy to follow the herd or to say to yourself "I like this guy, and don't like that guy," rather than making an educated decisions which would require,...education.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

BK - as the only guy who responded who actually voted Bush, did you consider moral values as a key issue?

I'd guess your approval for Bush is due maintly to your support for the Iraq war... am I close?

I was a Bush supporter as well, but not for any moral values issues.

---

_______________________________________________

what really surprises me is why are the issues associated with moral values the decisive factors in this election, when these moral values are virtually no impact on most people's life when the issues like economy etc. do have a critical impact on anyone's life...

That's Euro-think, Francois. Americans don't separate amorphous issues like "values" from what they'd LIKE their politicians or their country to be. If everybody here were as pragmatic as most Europeans, Kerry'd have won in a landslide.

Mitterand used to travel around with his mistress, and nobody in France cared, for the most part. Over here, we'd at least like to pretend as if it bothered us still. Same thing with the dichotomy that Kerry presented with his refusal to act on his Catholic belief against abortion and same-sex marriage. Now, not all Catholics agree with the Church's stance, nor are deep thinkers in the Church even of the agreement that all good Catholics MUST. But, that's the way the public debate got framed.

K

shhhhhhhh....she wasn't his girlfriend :-)
The clinton affair looked very funny from France...What's the deal? he had an affair? and? well...he lied...'well, he wasn't gonna tell his wife, was he'...the only argument in France was that she wasn't cute or anything... :-)

I'm curious how you know who I voted for?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, you have publically said you were a Kerry supporter.

Remeber the whole "feeble mind" deal?

---

_______________________________________________

BK - as the only guy who responded who actually voted Bush, did you consider moral values as a key issue?

I'd guess your approval for Bush is due maintly to your support for the Iraq war... am I close?

I was a Bush supporter as well, but not for any moral values issues.

I've been pretty clear that I went with Bush, and put a clamp on the doubts that I had about him, solely for the security issue and the way I want the war on terror to be prosecuted. I freely admit that the whole "moral values" thing is something that I didn't give a lot of thought to.

I never thought Kerry was some sort of Antichrist or bad person. My personal opinion was that I just didn't think he or the Democrats had it in them to stand and fight. Too much baggage, going all the way back to post-Vietnam, for my taste. And I only fought back in this forum when people threw the grenades at me about my choice ;-)

But, I bet a lot of people swallowed hard and hesitated to change horses in mid-stream during this election. The caterwauling and screeching by the losing side is mainly just humorous, to me. The good thing, though, is mid-term elections are only 23.90 months away!! YIPPEEE!!

K

[snip]

doesn't anybody have any goddam values on this forum? what you guys are saying is all very interesting and i'm reading all the replies, but so far i think all the value-minded people are over reading the classifieds.

yes, i think americans are a bit afraid of becoming like france, where our women will stop shaving their armpits and we'll have tits and ass on our freeway billboards (more than we have now). plus, of course, there's the godless swedes and danes who allow everything but farm animals to marry. we don't want to become a nation where marriage ceases to carry with it any sense of tradition.

seriously, i voted for kerry. i do not want to demonize, or make fun of, or discount, or dismiss, the 51%. i want to engage you folks in a discussion and see why it is you voted as you did, so that i can understand why you're so f*^ked up. (just kidding). i want to find out why you voted as you did. i need your help. i need to understand this.

i believe there's a candidate out there who would galvanize 65% or 70% of the vote if he/she could articulate a uniquely american message. but that would include a lot of ideas we all cherish above those temporal ideas that are portable and that we can jettison in favor of more important things.

in other words, is flag burning, prayer in schools, gay marriage, core to our national debate? how really important--to EITHER side--is the question of whether a stone tablet with the 10 commandments sits in the foyer of a county courthouse?

but i digress. let's have some values listed here, gentlemen.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Well, you have publically said you were a Kerry supporter."

Show me where because I'm pretty sure that never ever happened.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Good - I feel perceptive now ;)

Unfortunately we're at 17 posts and not one from someone slowman wants to hear from.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure moral values meant gay marriage and abortion for many or most who said that they were important.

---

_______________________________________________

First our women shave their armpits (I have one at home, I know)
second, our women have real boobs! ;-)
but they have no moral values which is why we like them so much ;-)

i believe there's a candidate out there who would galvanize 65% or 70% of the vote if he/she could articulate a uniquely american message. but that would include a lot of ideas we all cherish above those temporal ideas that are portable and that we can jettison in favor of more important things.



I dunno......I don't think with the way our electorate is fractured, that ANY candidate is going to pull anywhere near those numbers for at least this next generation. We're too specialized in our wants and needs today, and I don't think anybody's willing to go with a "compromise candidate".

As a matter of fact, I'm shocked that Dubya pulled 51%, which was more than any candidate has gotten since 1988. Hell, Clinton never pulled 50% in either of his two runs (49.5% was as close as he got, in '96, against Bob "Viagra Man" Dole and that little Chihuahua, Ross Perot), and we've practically canonized that feller.

Values matter in America. That's the long and the short of it. Even the more clearer-thinking strategists in the Democratic Party admit to that, though they're now blue-skying just how they can frame THEIR values (social justice, abortion, gay marriage etc.) in such a manner as to peel off a bigger slice of Dubya's 51% in the next 2 elections ('06 and '08).

Do YOU think Hillary's got a shot in '08?

K

I am not a born again christian. I am not a fundamentalist christian. I am a practicing Catholic who tries to live the life the other 6 days of the week.

I do not believe that the importance attached to moral values as a voting agenda is a primarily religious issue. (I also think further analysis is going to show that the evangelicals were less significant than is currently thought.)

It is an attempt to correct an imbalance created by the party elites on both sides. I think it is driven by the the extremes of the wacko right and pinko left who have hijacked the Republican and Democratic parties to extremes. Others have commented on how current representatives of both parties would be unrecognizable to their parties of 30 years ago.

Unfortunately for the Democratics, Kerry was more reflective of the extreme than was Bush. Gay marriage, abortion, prayer in schools etc. are symbolic of the lack of balance. Does anyone doubt that gay relationships have existed throughout the history of this country? That abortions were performed? That christians prayed without attacking other faiths? That minorities in each of these areas were the subject of bigotry?

I view these agenda items as an attempt to develop a consensus that allows the majority to exist without being dominated by the minority. There is nothing hypocritical in not persecuting gays while at the same time not endorsing the lifestyle. Similar compromises are possible with abortion and prayer (or broadly speaking religious expression.) Nor does a compromise require either side in the debate to abandon its beliefs. How the compromise is fashioned is an expression of the will of the people.

Why is there a hunger to reach such consensus? I think people are tired of the ever expanding boundries permitted by moral relativism. It is the alternative to never knowing the limits. Uncertianty is uncomfortable.

My bet is that a group of moderate Republicans will rise from the crowd (throwbacks to 60's vintage mainstream Democrats.) to begin the process. The Democrats will likely follow suit in a couple of election cycles with their own version of moderates. (I do not believe that the Democrats will repeat the errors of the Republicans that denied them control of the Congress from the 30's through the 70's.)

This is one white man's opinion. I welcome yours.

Slowman,

I undrstand what you are saying about moral values. The people writting in to this topic may be from the doughnut (Not the middle of the country). I have lived in a few different parts of the US now, though more in the Northeast, and can attest to differing values and ideas. I am now in NYC and you would have tought Kerry was running uncontested here. Prior to here I was in W's backyard, Austin. I think Karl Rove and co did a great job portraying Kerry as way left, anti-business, and incappable of sticking with a decision. True or untrue that was the impression I got. Another thing I think many people don't realize is that middle America is very conservative, christian, and not like the west coast and the north east. I keep reading editorials here wondering how people in the middle of the country could be so out of touch. It is just the opposite, the coasts are out of touch with the majority of the country.

Personally- I voted Bush because I knew what he stood for, he is probusiness, against more taxes, against double taxation (dividends and inheritance), tort reform, and I like his health care plan better (an area I have to know for my job).



JW

---

JW (on the comback trail)

First off, I think you are reading way, way too much into a flawed question. Had I gotten that question, I might well have checked moral values as well, though if asked to make a list, that wouldn't have been on it. At least in that form.

Iraq and terrorism were separate issues on the form. What if you think they are one and the same? Do you flip a coin?

Given the question and the context of the election, I think I would have dropped back and punted to moral values. Why? Because it sweeps in the other issues. In this election, the Democrats nominated someone I could never trust with the security of the country. I couldn't trust Kerry any more than Clinton or as far as I could throw either of them.

I am hoping the Democrats won't repeat this mistake next cycle, but the signs are not encouraging. One of the signs is the fact that you are even asking this question. It is deflecting you from the serious problems in the National Democratic Party. It is giving the losers yet another vehicle to condescend to those who voted for the winners. Gee, they must be poor, ignorant, racist, homophobes to think that way, blah, blah, blah.

I am not suggesting that is where you are coming from, but that is the analysis from many of the talking heads. They just don't get it.

The Democrat's campaign against Bush was largely a campaign of hate. Hate is a poor motivator, at least in America. We are much better than that collectively. We don't like seeing a perfectly decent human being, who is our president, being trashed like that. It is immoral.

Turn on the television these days. I have to change the channel 5 times if my nieces and nephews are in the room due to age appropriate material.

Look at the magazine rack at the checkout stand in the grocery store. I've been "smacked" several times by my fiance as my tongue hangs out gazing at the hotties on the covers of 'Shape' magazine. Fine for me but is it something you want our kids to look at and gain impressions from as they ask "Daddy...what does it mean when they say 'how to have the best orgasm of your life..." My sister is a 2nd grade teacher. She had kids trying on condoms in the bathroom last year.

Is this just life in the 21st century or is it a moral value issue?

As I enter into marriage and contemplate having kids these are the issues that I'll have to deal with...how do I as a parent fight what sells magazines, dvds, and movie tickets? I'll figure out a way but it's my impression that the American public is tired of fighting the battle. They long for a return to a time when things were simpler and "morals" weren't something that were debated or thought of..they were something that were taught and expected. It wasn't an option.

It goes way beyond religion. I know agnostics, atheists, jews, muslims, protestants, Catholics, etc....Some of them are moral...others could brush up on the definition. Religion and morals are independent of each other. There are religious leaders who are scumbags and non-relgious people who are saints.

I have no idea how or why moral values suddenly became an issue as the exit polls indicated. It came out of the blue. Frankly, I never thought Bush or Kerry weren't moral.

Those who stand up and state that they stand for something are a dying breed. Those who do so are branded as zealots or extremists. Quite frankly, when someone stands up and states that this is what I stand for is a breath of fresh air.

Why is there a hunger to reach such consensus? I think people are tired of the ever expanding boundries permitted by moral relativism...

There's a law professor named Volokh (I think he blogs a site called "The Volokh Conspiracy") that wrote a great essay about so-called "moral relativism" and how even relativists come at their positions from the framework of a moral compass.

Here it is: [Eugene Volokh, September 17, 2004 at 2:34pm] Moral relativism:

Conservatives often accuse liberals of "moral relativism." Now I surely disagree with most liberals on many specific moral issues. But I'm puzzled about exactly what the commonly heard charge of moral relativism in general, as opposed to a charge of moral error on a particular issue, means.

I take it that it can't be that liberals don't believe in moral principles. They surely do: Most liberals, for instance, believe that race discrimination is wrong, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, legal interference with a woman's right to get an abortion (at least until a certain gestational age) is wrong, and so on.

Now it's true that, to liberals, some of these principles admit of exceptions — but surely this is true of conservatives, too. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all agree, for instance, that killing is generally bad, but the definition of when killing is evil and when it's permissible (or even laudable) necessarily has to be pretty nuanced, so that it properly treats killing in self-defense, killing in war, and the like. In fact, some liberals of the pacifist stripe may employ a more nearly absolute prohibition on killing (at least of born humans) than conservatives do — in my view, that's their moral error, but it's not an error of moral relativism.

Likewise, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians endorse what one might call "situational ethics" at least in the banal sense that the morality of certain actions turns not just on the simple three-word summary of the act ("X killed Y") but also on aspects of the situation: Did X have moral justification to kill Y? Did X have some excuse, for instance that he sincerely believed that Y was about to kill him, though he was regrettably mistaken? Are there other reasons why we would say that X's actions aren't as evil as some other similar actions, for instance because X is a 5-year-old who couldn't really understand what he was doing? (Many liberals might set the threshold for when a child is too young to be fully tasked with the moral weight of his actions differently than conservatives, but I take it that all of us would have some such threshold.) Or might there be something significant about X's motives that diminishes, even if it doesn't eliminate, his moral culpability, for instance because X beat someone up because of a genuine provocation (e.g., the beating victim had insulted X's daughter) as opposed to for money or because of a cold-blooded desire to inflict pain?

It's true that some people do employ a sort of cultural relativism, in which actions are made right or wrong by the country or culture in which they happen. This is far from a purely liberal principle, though; in fact, sometimes it's liberals who are most universalist in their calls for human rights. Moreover, while I'm generally not wild about this approach, it seems to me that at least as to some things it does make sense: Separation of church and state is a good principle (at least in some interpretations) for the U.S., but I'm not sure that it should necessarily be equally applied to other countries (for instance, to require England to entirely disestablish Anglicanism). But in any event, this is too tangential a matter, and a matter too divorced from the liberal/conservative divide, to be what the "moral relativism" claims are all about.

So is there anything to this charge about liberals being "moral relativists," or at least being so materially more often than conservatives? (I'm not asking whether isolated liberals have at times made truly moral relativist arguments, whatever they may be, but rather whether liberals generally are more likely to endorse such views.)

Or is this just a neutral-sounding allegation that really masks disagreement on specific contested moral issues? And if it's the latter, wouldn't it be more candid and more helpful to specifically say "I think liberals make this moral error on this subject for this reason," rather than levying empty accusations of "moral relativism"?



Hope this helps! I actually had this guy as a guest lecturer in one of my legal ethics classes at old National University. Pretty smart. Though I'm pretty dumb, it seems ;-)

K

Sorry - I don't feel perceptive any more :(

You posted "If I'm a Kerry supporter, I'm not going to patronize someone who tells me I'm feeble." I seemed to have glossed over the "If" when I read it.

Mea culpa

---

_______________________________________________

ok...what do you define as appropriate material? genuine question.

I am very puzzled that in the US, saying f..k or s..t on TV, or showing a pair of boobs, a butt is immoral, yet, kids can watch CNN with people dying for real..
I saw people taking their kids to see the Grudge (and the kids really scared) or Lord of the Rings, Saw etc. but if there is nudity, God forbids...

as far as I am concerned, I would more concerned with a Country where citizens think they need weapons to defend themselves, because we leave in a violent world, or where kids play violent games, than with a country with teenagers get their first sexual experience at 13 and the rest of the country is a bunch of people obsessed with sex.

I think James Dobson has your answers, Slowman.

http://www.family.org/...letters/a0034077.cfm

Well, I have values. I am pro life. I am opposed to gay marriage. I think we ought to be allowed to say the word God in school. I think we ought to be able to have Nativity scenes. I think we ought to be able to display the ten commandments and say under God in the pledge.

Still, I would vote for someone with an opposite position on a lot of those issues. I could vote for Guliani (sp?) or Schwartzneggar (sp?).

I could never vote for someone I couldn't trust though. That is why I think I would have checked the moral values box in that poll. I could never trust a candidate or a party so motivated by hate. I could not trust a candidate who had Christmas in Cambodia (he didn't), who was at the signing ceremony of the first Iraq armistice (he was actually in Boston), who was 30 yards from Buckner when he blew the ground ball (he was actually in Washington), who met with the UN Security Council (he didn't), who ran advertisements in Florida talking about Bush's proposed 45% cuts in SS and his raising of the retirement age to 72 (no such plan.)

You get the idea. How do you get this answer across in that multiple choice question? You answer moral values.

I listen to a couple of hours of conservative radio every day, and live in a state that went almost 70% for Bush.

What I hear often is that values = trust in Bush to do the right thing. Simply, people feel that Bush is a man that shares their values and they trust him. They just didn't feel that way about Kerry.

"Or is this just a neutral-sounding allegation that really masks disagreement on specific contested moral issues? And if it's the latter, wouldn't it be more candid and more helpful to specifically say "I think liberals make this moral error on this subject for this reason," rather than levying empty accusations of "moral relativism"?"

Hope this helps! I actually had this guy as a guest lecturer in one of my legal ethics classes at old National University. Pretty smart. Though I'm pretty dumb, it seems ;-)

Briar Rabbit Kahuna,

Nice article. The professor illustrates the problem with generalities, but I believe there is more to it than disagreement with liberals on a laundry list of social issues.

It is exactly the spirit of individual freedom that both creates the environment for divisive diversity and the need for an established center (recognizing that society is dynamic and will always change)

It is because the bulk of the nation is willing to say in some degree "Hey, it's America, do what you want" that extremists are empowered beyond what their numbers justify, creating the backlash we are now seeing.

I agree with your rational for voting Bush. I am not convinced he is the best choice, just better than Kerry.

Now, throw down on the moral issue. ;-)

Now, throw down on the moral issue. ;-)

Lord knows, I surely don't have an absolutist viewpoint on most things, but morality, at least in my worldview, is probably one of them. Is there such a thing as "moral" war? Sure there is. Is there such a thing as a "moral" killing? I believe so.

And I also believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court dealt the most telling blow AGAINST gay marriage we've yet seen. This probably would've avoided being thrown into the morality arena had it not been for the MSJC's intemperate and ill-considered ruling. And now, to the disappointment of Dems everywhere, the Reps have just the issue with which to energize their base for years to come.

What was the SJC thinking? The Mass. state constitution was written in 1780. I don't know if there was a way to recognize a gay marriage clause in a 224 year old document, but they sure found it, apparently :-)

Is the debate on gay marriage a debate about morals, or moral value, or morality? What about assisted suicide? Abortion? And do all of these relativist positions give many of us pause and maybe even make us a little queasy, when we contemplate the ramifications of a wholesale ability to kill unborn fetuses on one end and do a "Soylent Green" on old people at the other? Couldn't we admit that the ever-increasing pace of modern life, and the not-so-quickly-increasing ability of our society to deal with it, be part of the problem here?

K

Moral values to me is not believing in moral relativism. Personal and professional accountability based on laws, not feelings.

I'm not religious at all. It never was about religion. Far from it. For me it was about the least amount of socialism available.

I must be an anomoly to the pundits, but then again, I live in a blue county in California.

---

Sean

"I could never trust a candidate or a party so motivated by hate."

see, this is what i see as the root of the problem. i would suggest you've been duped. not that the democratic party isn't guilty of every dirty trick you'd want to accuse it of. but you realize, don't you, that the democrats believe just as ardently as you do that the republicans are guilty of the same exact thing, described almost the identical way?

now, let me ask you, in your heart of hearts, do you really believe that john kerry is motivated by hate? i did not vote for bush. however, i do not believe he's motivated by hate. i quite disagree with a lot of his views and intentions, but i don't believe he's inherently hateful. do you really think kerry gets up in the morning fixed on the folks he hates and champing at the bit to have his revenge?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm not saying I agree with it, because this sort of thing has been engaged in by almost every President since the founding of the Republic, but in this superheated age, something like this could be what makes the center-left a little bit jumpy when they note that Republicans control the White House, The Congress and the Supreme Court:



Anyone ever seen the movie "Elmer Gantry"? Between Kerry and Bush, this past year, I thought I'd landed smack in the middle of a scene from it.

K

Or, how 'bout this guy? He certainly generates a visceral reaction ;-)



K

People are concerned by Pres Bush's beliefs the same way some people are concerned by the idea of a Catholic in office taking orders from the Pope. They fear that a President that is very religious might not be able to separate his religion from his responsibilities to the American people.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I am not as articulate as most of you, but let me try to explain my position as a Bush supporter.

Since it seems to matter to you guys I am a member of the United Methodist Church.

I openly admit that I think being homosexual is not natural.

I also openly admit that the best neighbors I have are a gay couple that live across the street.

I don't believe in abortion as a means of birth control.

I remember years ago reading ads for the Peace Corps. Those ads said "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life". When I listen to the democratic message I can't help but feel like they want me to line up so they can hand out fish. When I hear the republican message I feel like I am being given the opportunity and responsibilty to catch my own fish (even though I may fail).

I have two daughters. An older man I used to work with once told me how he votes. He said " I look at the candidates and ask myself this question. If I had an emergency and absolutely had to leave my children with one of these guys for a week, which one would it be"? Would you rather have Bush or Kerry looking after your loved ones?

If asked, I would have said I voted for Bush for moral reasons. But I don't get the impression we mean the same thing when we say that.

When I listened to the republicans I heard a clear message. I didn't agree with all of it but it was the same everyday. I have to respect a person or group that sticks to their beliefs.

When I listened to the democrats I seemed to hear something different everyday. I got the impression they were just saying what they thought I wanted to hear

Sorry for the numerous typos and the bad grammer but my 5 year old is in bed and waiting for Papa to rub her back.

I'm out.

"Dobson: This disregard for traditional values should not surprise us."

is the "traditional value" the dog dobson has in this fight? tradition is quite separate from doctine. is dobson fighting for the preservation of tradition? in the south, the 1965 vintage version of dobson would have meant the preservation of segregation. in 1865, the preservation of tradition would've meant the preservation of slavery. in 1765, the preservation of monarchy.

so, if we can agree that there are times when traditional values are better, and at times they're worse, isn't tradition for the sake of tradition a shaky idea on which to rest one's political platform?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Visceral, really? I like Rummy. I like the way he speaks to the press and to congress. He doesn't nuance anything.

---

Sean

Well said. BUt, I think that this feller STILL has an effect on the Republican base: ;-)



I luv ya, Bill!!

K

And, truthfully, A LOT of people weren't too thrilled with the dog that the Dems threw into the fight. This picture, while humorous and disrespectful, was what those on the right seemed to feel about the candidate that the Dems propped up. Where have all the Dem lions gone?



K

So, um, visited the gay marriage threads yet?

---

_______________________________________________

"When I listened to the republicans I heard a clear message. I didn't agree with all of it but it was the same everyday. I have to respect a person or group that sticks to their beliefs."

i'd like to ask you about that "same everyday" message. i remember in 2000 when the bush message was non-governmental interference, either internally or externally, with a special emphasis on "we will not use our military for nation building," a clear reference to clinton's nation building in the slavic countries.

and yet i saw bush almost immediately slap a 30% tarif on imported steel, and as regards nation building, well, we haven't been this involved in nation building since the marshall plan.

not that the democrats haven't looked silly in their pandering. kerry wearing the fatigues while out duck hunting was shameful.

the difference to me is that republicans appear more hawkish, and in so doing appear tougher. so do you really think the republican's message was clearer? and that they have been true to their word and unwavering in their message? or do you like the republicans because you think they'll be tougher?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

No, I never thought Kerry was motivated by hate. That would apply to far too many of his supporters.

Is suggesting I have been duped considered civil?

Kerry seems to be motivated by the need to be someone. He is very insecure. In at least two of the debates, he dropped lists of names that seemed like he was trying to pick up girls at the bar. The same mentality applies to his list of places he says he was at, when he clearly wasn't.

There are two kinds of people that run for high office. Those that want to be someone, and those who want to do something. We had one of each in this election.

Bush definitely went off the plantation and pandered with the steel quotas. Same with the Medicare bill. In all fairness, he did specificly campaign on those points. True, I didn't believe him at the time, but I learned that the man means what he says.

I did like the no nation building as well. Then something happened on 9/11 that changed everything. When the underlying facts change, it is no weakness to change policy.

"No, I never thought Kerry was motivated by hate."

the reason i asked the question is you wrote, "I could never trust a candidate or a party so motivated by hate." perhaps it was another candidate to whom you referred. :-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Then something happened on 9/11 that changed everything. When the underlying facts change, it is no weakness to change policy."

i don't think 9/11 changed the realities of war in today's world. the question you have to ask yourself is, "would iraq have happened absent 9/11." there is a fact of war now well apparent in today's geopolitics: if you break it, you own it. 9/11 doesn't change this. 9/11 or not, if you invade iraq, you've got to rebuild the nation afterward. hence, you can NEVER make the sophomoric claim that you will not use the military for nation building, unless you can guarantee the nation will never need to go to war under your administration.

it's academic whether or not 43 was spoiling for a fight in iraq. that said, and altho i voted against bush twice, i was in favor of going into iraq at least in some limited way, but not for any of the reasons 43 enumerated. my reason was, saddam signed a peace treaty with 41, and the treaty listed several subject-to clauses, which were abrogated, hence, you pay the price.

however, if you're against nation building, there are ways to punish iraq without invading it. if you're against nation building you're against invasions. no other way around it.

what's my point? both sides are capable of saying one thing and doing another. yet, as you point out, both sides are required to reevaluate things as the situation on the ground changes. i rather thought all the charges brought by both sides regarding the other's capacity to stick to their word was silly and unhelpful. i just wish the press would've been harder on this point. i don't think that bush was a tough guy and kerry was a pussy. i think they were both tough guys, and the press was one big community pussy.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

As a relatively conservative occupant of "flyover" country I will answer that to the best of my ability.

First...I don't buy into the bullshit of either party. It's more of a lesser of two evils.

I am a Christian (no one I know has ever actually refered to themselves as a born again Christian and I know many thousands of them, but it could be a local thing) and generally lean toward the conservative side of things.

Abortion. As a physician and a father, I realize the sometimes medical necessity while abhorring the procedure as a whole. I don't believe that making abortion illegal is the answer, but it shouldn't be as easy as ordering a double shot from Starbucks either. I also think that anything AFTER the first trimester should be illegal. That being said, I would never support someone who thinks it is okay for any partial birth abortion under any circumstances. You can't really make a case for medical necessity, because at that point because medical science has given a very high survival rate to most 3rd trimester infants. At that point it is just out and out murder.

Which raises a second point (and slightly off topic). How can someone think partial birth abortion is okay, yet support a double murder charge for killing a pregnant woman? That is totally contradictory. The idea that one child was 'wanted' is without merit in that argument.

EDIT: This didn't come out very clear. so I deleted the diatribe on the whole gay marriage thing. Bottom line is this. I think marriage is a religious institution and should be left as such. That is defined as a union between a man and a woman.


As far as W and Kerry, my view is this. In my opinion, Bush is definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least he believes in something and stands by his convictions. Kerry believes in whatever his poll numbers tell him as far as I can ascertain. After watching him over the last several months, he comes across to me as a stereo-typical (and to many of my colleagues, family and friends) pseudo-intellectual liberal who thinks he knows how to run my life and spend my income better than I do.

As far as the erosion of morals in general, look at the world around you today. I am certainly no prude, but sex is so pervasive in everyday life, you have to wear a blindfold not to be inundated with it. No one teaches manners anymore. How many children know which fork to use when dining in surroundings other than plastic and golden arches. Competition is stifled among the youth for fear of making someone 'feel bad'. We have reality shows that promote voyeurism. The level of violence that we are exposed to on a daily basis is utterly revolting. And to top it off, the entertainment industry/media thinks that is just okey-doky as long as they sell more product. I am convinced that moral relativism will eventually drag this country under. (and we will become the national equivalent of a mom and pop store after walmart came to town...but that is another discussion for another day).

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

slowman;

You had asked for input from one of two groups -- so here is mine as a born again Christian:

My vote in this election was determined by a Christian worldview which encompasses several dimensions including but not limited to morals. In fact I would respectfully submit that trying to analyze election results one-dimensionally, i.e. in terms of moral issues alone, will be a struggle as a lot of people I know tend to view the world through several prisms such as economics, justice, education, environment, compassion, morals etc. There are competing worldviews to be sure....some have argued that in fact atheism, secular humanism, and scientific materiliasm compete directly with a religious worldviews, but tend to mask this fact under the guise of objectivity. But I am not here to argue the philosophical case; I can only state my thought process which is that a Christian worldview most consistenly explains in a comprehensive and integrated fashion my experience that creation, consciousness, truth, morals, altruism, love, and God exist as both as concepts and in day-to-day practice. Stated somewhat differently, I personally find that a worldview of say scientific materilism does a pretty poor job of beginning to explain why morals even exist, much less why even little children without any religious indoctrination can easily grasp the basic concepts of right and wrong.

I also respectfully would ask your clarification term of fundamentalist. Do you mean this as the label is conventional applied in the media, as in anti-intellectual? I would argue unabashedly for the use our reasoning abilities combined with our direct experience. I would also like to make this observation -- with apologies to Einstien -- that Christians suddenly didn't become more conservative on the issues this particular election. Rather, Einstien's independent observer might say that in the last 40 years secular thinking drifted far enough to the Left to give the *relative* appearance that the Right became more moral when in point of fact it has remained pretty much where its always been.

So to wrap us this initial post and answer your question; did Bush and the Republicans win my vote by representing my worldview? -- well, at best they align with some of the basic concepts of a Christian worldview. Does that constitute a religious agenda? I don't think so becase you will also find that within that worldview we all have individual understandings on given issues of what Jesus and the Bible teach as a whole.

-- When I listened to the republicans I heard a clear message. I didn't agree with all of it but it was the same everyday. I have to respect a person or group that sticks to their beliefs.

Interesting points of view, and I think there are MANY who feel as you do. For me, the message coming out of the Bush campaign is just one of the reasons I did NOT vote for the President. Most of it conflicted with the other information I was receiving from the other news outlets.

Somewhere along the line George W Bush lost credibility with me and I think I can honestly say it was during his campaign with Al Gore before he even became President. Like many I rallied around him during the 9/11 aftermath, but it didn't last long because of his use of fear to control the country and to get us behind his agenda with Iraq. I did place some faith in the President regarding the Iraq war however I was very concerned with the isolationist nature in which our foreign policy was being conducted. The fact that we found no WMDs and really had no plan to stabilize the country only made me more skeptical of the Bush Administration. Any trust I had was completely gone at this point and IMO they have not owned up to their mistakes and have shown no ability to re-assess a situation when new facts come out.

In reality though, there were many other reasons I would not have voted for Bush including his gay marriage stance, abysmal environmental record, and the fiscal irresponsibility shown in the first term.

"the difference to me is that republicans appear more hawkish, and in so doing appear tougher. so do you really think the republican's message was clearer? and that they have been true to their word and unwavering in their message? or do you like the republicans because you think they'll be tougher?"

I believe that W's lack of desire or inability to see "nuance" with respect to the war is a good thing. I think Kerry was scarred by his Viet Nam experiences, in uniform and out. As a result, I truly do not believe he will be as effective as W.

I think you only have to look at the voting percentages in Utah to see where the so called moral values vote went. In this case I think it is safe to say that morman values more closely match Bush's campaign than Kerry's.

As one who voted Bush, but not necessarily due to moral values, here is how I see the difference: Bush is stronger anti-abortion. Bush is stronger anti-gay marriage. Hollywood hates Bush big time, and not many relate Hollywood to high moral values these days. Bush is more of a traditional "family man."

Is it THE most important thing? Long term I would say yes. Our country is becoming a nation raised to MTV values. You only have to look at the economic success of the Koreans in the last 10 years to see why they are on the rise while high paying jobs in the US are continually off-shored. I use Koreans as an example because I have first hand experience with their culture. Their kids out study our kids 10 to 1. Our schools are a joke to them. Hyundai has moved from being a new car company to the US with the worst quality, to second only to Lexus in quality and customer satisfaction, at 1/3rd the price. Economically we are going to get our asses kicked, and we deserve it. Their kids are up at 5:30am getting tutored in English, ours are watching MTV until midnight learning how to act promiscuous and beligerant. Yes, Koreans have TV's, but every single show is the equivalent of a "G" rating. It used to be the same way in the US, but we have let it go. We've let lower moral values dominate, and it's going to cost us in every way imaginable.

-- As one who voted Bush, but not necessarily due to moral values, here is how I see the difference: Bush is stronger anti-abortion. Bush is stronger anti-gay marriage. Hollywood hates Bush big time, and not many relate Hollywood to high moral values these days. Bush is more of a traditional "family man."

I'm interested in how you can cite hollywood as a group of people without high moral values, but can overlook the moral values it takes to send American men and women to war when we didn't have concrete evidence of an imminent threat to harm us. I fail to understand how many can hold the moral values of anti-abortion/anti-stem cell yet there seems to be no outrage about sending young kids to die in a war.

Someone help me understand this?

-- Is it THE most important thing? Long term I would say yes. Our country is becoming a nation raised to MTV values.

I agree this is a problem, but how is voting for Bush going to change family values around our nation? Family values come from the family, not from our government! There are many things contributing to the degradation of the family, but abortion, gay marriage, and stem cells aren't on the list.

How will your vote for President Bush change family values around the nation?

Kerry embraced Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, commented how Hollywood reflected the values of America, and never denounced the serious hatred problems in his party. He badly needed a Sister Solja (sp?) moment.

So he is not a hater, he simply goes along with them, embraces them, and wanted to ride their hatred into the Whitehouse. It is not as bad as being a hater oneself, but it gets pretty close.

Well, in a literal sense, you are right. I guess I didn't interpret his no nation building remark that way. I interpreted in to mean no Somalias, Kosovos or Haitis. He hasn't done those kinds of operations.

Absent 9/11, there almost certainly would have been no Iraq war. The violation of the Peace Treaty that you mentioned was one of the reasons for the invasion, but it was way down the list and would never have been sufficient by itself in a pre 9/11 world.

If you want to bash him for violating a campaign promise, you are on solid ground with Campaign Finance Reform. He promised to veto that disaster, and he signed it instead. Second worse thing he ever did.

Not when the majority of the constituency shares that tradition.

So why is it that the states that voted for Bush have the highest divorce rates? Isn't marriage one of those moral value issues? Is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

The Republican party marketed itself (rightly or wrongly) as the keepers of the moral flame. By implication, that made the Democratic party the sinners.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Since when Science's job was to explain moral values and right and wrong??

Please note that I am not comparing the Republicans with the Nazis.

Here are two quotes from Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister during the Third Reich:

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

" ...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."

Also, I don't think that choosing a President based on who would make a better babysitter is the right way to go.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

If you aren't comparing Republicans to Nazis, than why are you using quotes from a key player of the Nazi party?

because they apply anyway. not 100% of what was said or done by every single nazi was completely wrong. Hitler came up with the idea of having a car for everyone: the volkswagen (literally the car of the people), should everyone stop buying them? They restored the economy of the Germany (which is why they got the initial support of the people) when the Allies had put Germany in the toilets after their capitulation after WWI...

anyway, these quotes make a lot of sense...

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

The Republican party clearly and simply stated their platform in this election. The citizens of the United States knew where the candidate stood and how this person was going to govern for the next 4 years.

More than anything citizens want clarity and a sense of direction. This was Bush's strongpoint and simple message that ulitimately won him the election.

Because I find the parallel in their methods of communication to be chilling, not because their underlying principles are the same or even similar: of course they are not. Goebbels was a master at convincing the people, and a truly evil person, and I saw (in the debates, in the announcements by White House spokespersons, etc.) the same methodology used over and over again by the Republican party: repeat, repeat, repeat. Cheney may not have explicitly said "Iraq was behind 9/11", but he and others continually used "Iraq" and "9/11" and "terrorism" in the same sentence.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

We live in an age and time where there are threats to our security and well being. This was evidenced by 9/11.

We can no longer sit back and wait for the enemy to come to us. Like it or not, that is the world we live. We can no longer pretend these threats don't affect us. This message is repeated time and time again because it's a serious issue that people need to be reminded.

Dan,

The answer "Moral Values" was a polling error.

Most people are going to choose moral values if given a choice simply because they don't want to think that they didn't choose moral values as the reason for their vote. It is the answer that makes them feel good about themselves.

I agree with you. What are "moral values"? I live in Ohio so I am fairly certain that my moral values are different than those of people living in California, New York or the deep south. Not that any of us are wrong, we all just look at this wide wonderful world differently and that is what makes this such a wonderful country.

Cheney most often asserts that al-qaeda had ties to Saddam, but there are a few quotes were he ties Saddam to 9/11.

This is from http://bushoniraq.com/cheney1.html

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

"We live in an age and time where there are threats to our security and well being"

This has ALWAYS been the case. The enemies change that's all...

It's OVER. They got their next 4 years, and a clear path until at least the '06 elections. Pelosi and the other hardcore Dems can plot and plan all they want, but I have a feeling Dubya's gonna take these next two years, until he enters official "lame duck" status, to stick it straight up her and Harry Reid's wazoo if they don't play along.

All along, he's been inching Pelosi and that wing closer and closer to self-marginalization, and they've happily handed him the rope with which he'll try to hang them. She's not as smart as she thinks, and I'd put more hope in Reid and the more centrist Dems than anything Nancy P. will be able to accomplish. Besides, she's got Harold Ford scheming behind her back to pull her down, especially if she and the DNC can't pull a rabbit out of the hat for the '06 House elections. They've got to at least be able to win a couple of seats back from the Reps. If they don't, there'll be wholesale bloodletting on the Dem side.

Like I said, the Reps control every single lever of power in the Federal government. Let's see what they can with it.

K

I think it's broader than just gay marriage, or abortion, or any specific issue, and more about the general feeling people get from the candidate they support.

That is it.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

What do you mean by "It's OVER"?

We shouldn't discuss what our leaders are saying? We shouldn't examine the past?

I agree the babysitter analogy might not have been the best to use but I was trying to illustrate trust issues. I just did not trust what Kerry was saying.

As an aside, I did not vote for Bush in 2000 and I have never voted straight ticket in any election.

I am not against the democratic party. In this election I just did not feel comfortable with their candidate. Have you ever been in a situation where everything seemed right (no pun intended) but you still didn't buy in. That's is how Kerry left me feeling. I believe the demo's picked the wrong guy.

It's water under the bridge RB. We can't change where we are at the present time. Rehashing this particular subject isn't going to change anything.

What do you mean by "It's OVER"?

It's a play on the line that Nancy Pelosi used to describe Harold Ford's battle to be named House Minority Leader instead of her. She's too cocky and arrogant, and the Reps use her like a golem is used to frighten bad little Jewish children.

Ford's much more moderate and centrist-appearing, at least. Evan Bayh's another good 'un in the Senate. Why's it always gotta be the Pelosi and Boxer types with the Dems these days?

K

Brian,

I think it matters a great deal.

Just my opinion, but Democrats/Kerry did not do a good enough job informing the voters about this administration. From this point forward, I believe we will have to become more vocal whenever we see the right, in my opinion, playing very fast and very loose with the truth.

But you're right, this conversation doesn't belong in this thread.

I personally feel that Christians legislating their morals are doing so OUTSIDE of the Bible. Jesus sought to make or change no laws. Show love. Do good. Draw people to the Word of God. The word of God will show them what is right/wrong. That's the message as I see it. God does not want people forced to live in accordance to God. God wants people to choose to live in accordance with God.

God knows that people will choose "not God" ... but that never influences God to remove the ability to choose. Seems to me, too often, man wishes to take away that which God himself doesn't remove.

Christians are as divided on this issue as any other issue. It is a hot topic discussion piece. Like most issues, it's one that goes round and round and in the end few, if any, have really considered the other side let alone changed their stance.

Individual morals do not trump the rights granted by the constitution.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I am a Roman Catholic who lives in the South. My county often boasts more churches per capita than any other (of course, a lot of counties boast that). I have also been a Boy Scout leader. Needless to say, I do know A LOT of people who go to churh weekly and believe in traditional moral values. Here's what I think the issue boils down to.

Many people feel that the US is on a downward moral slide. Gay marriage (an oxymoron to most), the words "under God" in the pledge, sleaze on TV and in the movies, assaults on the Boy Scouts, negative media depictions of people of faith, etc., are all issues that have contributed to this feeling. The news media, Hollywood, the left-wing "intelligentsia" (and many people who post here) have portrayed those who would oppose the above as bigoted, uneducated, knuckle-dragging, nose-picking rednecks. John Kerry surrounded himself with the Hollywood liberals and stated "these are the people whose values I share." We reacted to all that. What you saw was us doing was what we do as loyal, hard-working, patriotic members of the silent majority--voting, and voting in droves. We do not march in the streets. We work, we raise kids, we go to Scout meetings, go to church, say the pledge, stand up for the flag, and vote. We got caught with our pants down in 2000 by staying home. We won't forget that for a while.

Now, let me qualify the above by saying that the moral issue was not my number one issue. George Bush is far closer to my belief on virtually every issue than the most liberal Senator in D.C. I have a Master's degree and am a Senior Executive Fellow of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. I do not drag my knuckles when I walk.

Some of those people really belong in the green party.

I say kick them to the green party, and let the democrats become the centrists as the republicans move even further to the right.

Now all of a sudden Arlen Specter is too liberal for them. Wow.

It's not the Democrats or Kerry's job or focus to inform the voters about the other administration. It's their job to inform the voters about Kerry's proposed administration. That is the fatal flaw of their campaign and strategy.

No one...to this day...understood what the United States would be like under a Kerry administration. All they could do is point out flaws in Bush's...

---

.
.
http://www.karsten-kessler.de

"I believe we will have to become more vocal whenever we see the right, in my opinion, playing very fast and very loose with the truth."

Look in the mirror first. Clean up your own house or you will never win. If you don't think Michael Moore, Dan Rather, and the Boston GLobe/NYT "play fast and loose with the truth" then there is no hope for you.

Now all of a sudden Arlen Specter is too liberal for them. Wow.

Specter will be fine. He played to a section of his electorate back in PA. He'll keep his upcoming Chairmanship, and he's supported every nominee that the Prez has sent his way. Some on the right are still a little ticked over the Bork thing back in '87, and they see an opportunity to get in a few kidney punches before they let him up off the deck.

Specter also went to bat for Thomas in the '91 lynching, uh....I mean "hearings" for his Supreme Court nomination. But, I suppose some of the moonbats on the hard left in the Democratic Party don't go after the more moderate Dems once in a while?

K

I don't know Brian, I would say the Bush campaign succesfully defined Kerry.

It's their job to do if they want to win.

True, but the south doesn't listen to Moore or the Boston Globe.

In my state,

We listen to Fox.

We have 3 local stations playing local and national conservative talk all day long.

We have 1 conservative newspaper.

Moore, Dowd, NYTimes, et al, are NOT players down here.

www.kkessler.de

I guess the Germans are still ticked that we didn't take their advice and run Dubya out of office ;-) They still don't get that many people in this country probably voted for Bush just to irritate France and Germany, and the EU in general, even more.

Americans: A stiff-necked and obstinate people. But we sure as hell know how to fight a war!! Yee-haw!!

"I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" Kahuna

What you saw was us doing was what we do as loyal, hard-working, patriotic members of the silent majority--voting, and voting in droves. We do not march in the streets. We work, we raise kids, we go to Scout meetings, go to church, say the pledge, stand up for the flag, and vote. We got caught with our pants down in 2000 by staying home. We won't forget that for a while.

IMO, a very accurate and well-written paragraph.

The 2000 election was close because it was a foregone conclusion that Bush would win easily.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

That's what people would like to think they do, but someone is watching all of the crap that Hollywood puts out, buying all of the songs with sexually-explicit lyrics, and generally consuming all of the things that supposedly demonstrate the decline of our society. It's not just Democrats, blue-staters, or the liberal elite that is buying, watching or otherwise participating in all of these things.

Also, going back to the divorce rate statistics in the red-state part of the country, people seem to be doing something other than living a quiet family life.

Francios;

>> Since when Science's job was to explain moral values and right and wrong?? <<

My point is precisely that science fails to have a credile explaination and worldview for why higher conciousness, morals, altruism, and the concept of God exists much less how they operate. To be fair, you can trace this dichotomy back to Greek dualism (Forms and Matter) that introduced the seperation of the objective (scientism) from the subjective (values).

Having tried and considered several of the alternative worldviews my personal conclusion is that a Christrian worldview provides the most consistent and integrated explanation for why things are the way they are but more importantly gives coherent guidance on how to make decisions and live on a day to day basis.

it doesn't fail, it's just not its goal. period!

it's like if you told me cars fail to fly. they are not designed to do so that's all.


as far as I am concerned many of the christian views of the world fail to give a consistent explanations for many many things...with this approach and without Science, we'd still be talking about a flat earth...

We do not march in the streets. We work, we raise kids, we go to Scout meetings, go to church, say the pledge, stand up for the flag, and vote.

but someone is watching all of the crap that Hollywood puts out, buying all of the songs with sexually-explicit lyrics, and generally consuming all of the things that supposedly demonstrate the decline of our society.

Too many people are doing both. working, raising kids, going to church, doesn't prevent many people from doing what the second paragraph explains. I agree.

Practice what you preach. Lead by example. Too many Pharisees, not enough disciples.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Your point assumes that people always conform their behavior to what they believe. Not true.

One can still be moral and have failings. A voter can also expect his president to be a better person than the voter is. I certainly have that expectation. In Bush's case, that expectation is met. In Clinton's case it never was met. In Kerry's case, it is hard to say, but I certainly have my doubts.

Francios;

In my observation science is departing from the realm of the objective by trying to find explanations for the subjective -- witness attempts and explanations for evolutionary physcology, evolutionary sociology, the so-called selfish gene, etc. As you point out, this is not the goal of science, but if you survey the literature you will find it happening nonetheless.

The flat-earth argument is a specious attempt to paint science and religion being in opposition to one another (history of how the flat-earth arugument developed is here http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html )

An interesting point I'd like to raise is WHY the pundints and media missed the development of moral and worldview dimension in this election. Witness the fact that media exit polls were flat out wrong in calling the election for Kerry. This seems to point to wishful thinking on their part. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the simple fact that is that they don't actually do any primary research by attending churches or other faith-based events left them unawares regarding issues that many people, in fact the majority, think are relevant and important.

Actually the poll everyone quotes, conducted by PEW, was skewed because they had asked a very general question (i.e. Did you vote based on morals grounds? Of course every Rep and Dem did) against several specific questions (ex. Did you vote GOP/DEM because of the number of American Deaths in Iraq?). If you group all the specific questions into their general question category the results showed that most people voted based on Iraq , second was Terrorism .....economy....etc. Very last was morals.

In a poll a general question always beats a specific question.

psychology, sociology etc. are not sciences.
Scientists develop models that attempt to represent what we see, solve problems etc.
Mathematics, physics, computer science, biology are sciences...

Sure there are scientists that attempt to use what they do to solve other problems, and end up in cul de sac...

The Flat earth argument is not specious. Science and religion are not in opposition. Many great scientists had no problem concilling the two. Einstein for example...although his faith pushed him to reject some important aspects of quantum physics...

I have not problem seeing people that are both scientists and religious. I do have a problem with someone who rejects something which has been proven on religious grounds (hence the earth is flat argument). However most christians, jews etc. finally adapt their faith to new scientific discoveries.

I do not pretend that Science solves everything. Far from it. But I do not believe either that religion is the answer to everything.

As for your last point: this is just media BS...neither Science, nor Religion, just some people who obviously have forgotten what deontology means and just want an audience.

However, your argument about moral being a Bush argument but not a Kerry's one is way off. It's not because Kerry didn't mention God in every speach that he is not a moral man.

Stop! Using facts and common sense you are going to have to force the Dems into coming terms with the fact that Kerry was just a bad candidate and a horribly ran campaign.

The truth that America is not divided and one half is smarter than the other. The real world is better than your ego being saved with numbers frim worthless polls.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

see, i have the same concerns about bush, his moral values, etc.--it seems to me as if he feels as if he knows better and has to take care of me in spite of myself. i have spoken with other conservatives/republicans that have made statements to that effect. by example, to a large extent, that's what is going on in iraq--bush thinks he knows what's best for the iraqi people. he believes they want freedom/democracy, when there really is no evidence to that effect.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I wonder how long before the traditional answer
"it's because Iraqis don't know any better and when they will be taught democracy and our great occidental values, they will embrace God and forget Allah"...

sounds like if you are straight and a gay dude hits on you...you say sorry, I am straight and he answers 'It's because you didn't try'...(true story for me...I stopped there ;-))

i disagree that there was any silent majority that made its presence known in this election. while voting turnout was higher(although not by any great degree) than other elections, 35-40% of the eligible voters still didn't vote. that's a greater % of the electorate than supported either bush or kerry(or pretty close to it--bush might have had 35% of the eligible electorate to actually turnout on his behalf). with so many non-voters, it seems to me that both parties have a fundamental disconnect with the voting population. maybe that's the penalty of having a two party system. maybe a strong 3rd party would resonate with the remainder of the electorate and push voting turnout to the 90-95% range. regardless, both parties aren't doing an adequate job of reaching the people.

i'd venture to guess that the large number of non-voters might be a reason mr. slowman posed this question. someone earlier on said that they didn't think anyone could obtain the 65-70% of the vote that slowman posited in one of his postings in this thread. maybe not, but the fact is that the votes are there for the taking for someone with the appropriate message.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Just because the nazi's and republicans used similar techniques to get their message out means nothing. It is basic psychology. when I was in business school we had people teach us how to present to a group. It is really just basic psychology. In fact I believe the man who taught me also taught W or at least coached him.

Simple things like not presenting to much. Slided should only have this many words across and this many lines down. That when speaking people remember the first and last things you say but not much from the middle etc.

JW

---

JW (on the comback trail)

here we basically agree. I think freedom is something that you have to want. It can't be handed to you. That is basically my whole problem with the current war. If Hussein needed to be removed, assassination is an effective means. I don't know what the Iraqi's really want, but they don't seem to be interested in being democratic, at least from my limited perspective. Putting in puppet governments has never worked. Look where it got us with Iran and our attempt with Cuba.

For the record, I am not a big Bush fan, and quite frankly, Bush vs. Kerry was not, in my opinion a choice of the 'better candidate' but more of a "lesser of two evils' .

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

Francois, love you guy, but that is the dumbest post you have made on this forum.

I can't wait to hear where this "traditional answer" came from, since I have never heard it. Please tell me you are joking.

My answer when hit on by the gay guy in Boston was that might girlfriend (now my wife) upstairs might not appreciate it.

Hey, it was a weekend morning, I had just finished a run, and he was out there hustling. You have to respect the guy.

Just wondering, did that analysis apply to Afghanistan as well? Did the recent vote with 10,000,000 voters influence your analysis?

How many of the other 80 odd new democracies that have come into existence since the end of the Carter presidency were also not interested in democracy?

The Dems used these "Nazi" techniques in 1992, and it worked very well for them. Clinton was, and still is, a master a this.

The problem they had this year was a candidate who didn't know when to shut up - like Gore in 2000 or Dole in 1996. Watching them speak made me cringe...

Francios;

Good points....we have some common ground :) I do wish to prevent a misunderstanding of the following argument which I never asserted:

>>However, your argument about moral being a Bush argument but not a Kerry's one is way off. It's not because Kerry didn't mention God in every speach that he is not a moral man.
<<

My position was never remotely that Bush is moral or Kerry is not. Maybe that came from elsewhere in this thread. My vote is that Bush's worldview, in my own analysis, has better alignment with a holistic Christian worldview than Kerry's. I think Kerry is a fine man and is to be commended for throwing his hat into the public ring. But to use your terminology, Kerry's deontolgy didn't seem to be on as firm a footing as Bush's. Perhaps it indeed is but it didn't seem convincing enough to the electorate to swing enough votes in his favor.

-- My vote is that Bush's worldview, in my own analysis, has better alignment with a holistic Christian worldview than Kerry's.

How does waging of war fall into any Christian worldview? I am not a religious person and I really don't understand how for Christians it is ok to send people to die in a war but it isn't ok to have an abortion. Abortion is a horrible act but I want someone to explain to me how it is different than sending people to die in the Iraq war. Even if you believe the war is necessary for survival, how does it fit within the Christian beliefs?

This isn't meant to ridicule or condescend but I genuinely do not understand this at all.

Some additional thoughts I had while riding my bike:

1. The first modern president to make "morals" an issue was Jimmy Carter in 1976. He was also the last Democrat to carry the South and the last Democrat to get over 50% (50.6) of the popular vote.

2. Since 1980, Republicans have owned this "issue." In that same time frame, the Democrats went from a 15 point lead in party affiliation to a tie with Republicans. The county I live in was 9:1 Democrat when I established residence in 1979. It is now about 7:3 Republican. Some of the trend has been due to new people moving in, but a lot of it has been Democrats switching to Republican. Virtually all of them will say "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

3. Morals isn't really so much an issue, as some have pointed out, but the "lens" through which all other issues are viewed.

4. What surprises me is not that the Democrats now seem to have caught on that values count, but that it took them so long.

5. I may gloat about the results of the election, but I think the country needs a strong two-party system. As a former internal auditor, I know that even the most honest person, when left unchecked, may become corrupted. If for no other reason than to ensure a vigorous debate over issues, we need two opposing views. Comparing the other party to Nazis, or a sitting wartime president to Hitler, won't win you any points in the heartland.

"I'm interested in how you can cite hollywood as a group of people without high moral values, but can overlook the moral values it takes to send American men and women to war when we didn't have concrete evidence of an imminent threat to harm us. I fail to understand how many can hold the moral values of anti-abortion/anti-stem cell yet there seems to be no outrage about sending young kids to die in a war. "



I don't see how you can possibly compare the two. Hollywood and television pilfer society for a profit. It matters very little to them whether they are influencing people in dangerous ways, as long as people are watching and the money is rolling in, they are doing their duty to their stockholders. They push the limits further and further every year.

Bush, on the other hand, made a decision, in conjuction with his advisors, based on the data he had at the time. That data pointed to an Iraqi threat. The British intelligence was similar. I would say it would be immoral to do nothing and let that threat develop, when it can be stopped now at the cost of a few thousand soldiers. Having an army as a deterent isn't very effective if your enemy never engages the army. Do you think the next evil dictator is going to think we are bluffing?

I would say it is much less moral to be condemning those protecting your freedom and security. Concrete evidence of an immenent threat...what is that? Does Bush have to personally witness a nuclear missle test? Witnessing Sadam poison thousands of Iraqi's is enough for me, they should have finished him then.

well, sorry art, but the 'Iraqis don't know answer' was given numerous times in the threads about why the war, is the war right etc.
I didn't make it up.

Note that I am yet to say a comment from you was dumb, but you (and others here) have no problem doing so...talk about civil discourse...

-- I don't see how you can possibly compare the two. Hollywood and television pilfer society for a profit. It matters very little to them whether they are influencing people in dangerous ways, as long as people are watching and the money is rolling in, they are doing their duty to their stockholders. They push the limits further and further every year.

I don't disagree that Hollywood can be very detrimental to society, so are video games, news broadcasts etc. War is the same thing...it is really showing young kids that its ok for us to kill people if we do not agree with what they are doing.

-- Bush, on the other hand, made a decision, in conjuction with his advisors, based on the data he had at the time. That data pointed to an Iraqi threat. The British intelligence was similar. I would say it would be immoral to do nothing and let that threat develop, when it can be stopped now at the cost of a few thousand soldiers. Having an army as a deterent isn't very effective if your enemy never engages the army. Do you think the next evil dictator is going to think we are bluffing?


Unfortunately, this answers my question. Its ok for a thousands of Americans to go to die but it isn't ok for someone who has an err in judgement and gets pregnant to have an abortion. God would condone the death of Iraqis and American soldiers because we "thought" they had weapons, but he wouldn't condone an abortion caused by a mistake. It seems to me that you are picking and choosing when to apply value to human life?

I read way too many of these threads. Didn't see it. Tell me it ain't so. I can't believe any group of people said they would give up Allah. Even if a few posters said it, does that qualify as tradition?

Do you have a link?

Apologies if this was not civil, though actually I do think you called on of my posts stupid just the other day. Of course, maybe it was.

no the second part was to add some sarcasm...although some posts suggested that if they discovered the teaching of the christ...

the part that was not suggested was that "they don't like it now, because they don't know any better"...

I'll dig up some of the 'best' answers...

why are the issues associated with moral values the decisive factors in this election, when these moral values are virtually no impact on most people's life

It's exactly that attitude that bothers so many people. (I'm not a "Christian Fundamentalist. I've been accused of being a fundamentalist Catholic, but I admit the existence of no such creature. And I didn't vote for Bush.)

If moral values have virtually no impact on most people's lives, why is the Left so damn worried that Christian values might be in ascent?

The moral values of any society have a huge and pervasive effect on the people within that society. It's fantasy to believe that we are all just individuals, each making our own moral choices in a vacuum, and can remain unaffected by all the other moral choices individuals make. That isn't what a society/culture/people is. Nor can a people remain any sense of unity or cohesiveness in the absence of a prevalent set of values, or under a scheme in which morality is perceived to be strictly a private and individual affair.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I could care less about who/how many people subscribe to Christian values...what I don't want is our laws based on the teachings of the Christian Church. It's fine for you to believe it, but don't expect ME to live by YOUR code of Christian ethic. One can be a good, decent person and live their life in manner that is productive within society without having their values be driven by being Christian. Not being a Christian and being a "decent person" are not mutually exclusive.

In short, I'm not concerned by Christian values being on the ascent, I'm concerned about the influence of Christian values on public life being on the ascent...you know, that whole separation of church and state thing.

Note to Self: Ryan, you stupid idiot. You keep saying the same things over and over. Get it through your thick head that people will believe what they wish to be true, and pointing out the reality of the situation is just wasting your time. Go spend your time more wisely and go run. I swear I have to keep telling you these things over and over and you won't listen.

---------------------------

I am thinking that Christians and non-Christians see "Christian Values" as being almost completely different things. To me Christian Values come from the teachings of Christ ... which include A LOT of things that are nowhere near influencing legality ... and never have.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

 
"why is the Left so damn worried that Christian values might be in ascent?"

I can't buy alcohol on sundays or any day after 9pm or any holiday.
I can't get a tattoo.
I can't watch "The Tin Drum"
I can't view pornography.
Stores are only allowed to sell beer that is less than 3.2% alcohol.

These are all laws here in OK. That's just off the top of my head -- I'm sure there's more.

I can't buy alcohol on sundays or any day after 9pm or any holiday.
I can't get a tattoo.
I can't watch "The Tin Drum"
I can't view pornography.
Stores are only allowed to sell beer that is less than 3.2% alcohol.

Not appreciating the horror of your situation, I guess.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Interesting read. From Slate.

Bush's Secularist Triumph
The left apologizes for religious fanatics. The president fights them.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2004, at 7:34 AM PT

Many are the cheap and easy laughs in which one could indulge at the extraordinary, pitiful hysteria of the defeated Democrats. "Kerry won," according to one e-mail I received from Greg Palast, to whom the Florida vote in 2000 is, and always will be, a combination of Gettysburg and Waterloo. According to Nikki Finke of the LA Weekly, the Fox News channel "called" Ohio for Bush for reasons too sinister to enumerate. Gregory Maniatis, whose last communication to me had predicted an annihilating Democratic landslide, kept quiet for only a day or so before forwarding the details on how to emigrate to Canada. Thus do the liberals build their bridge to the 20th century.

Who can care about this pathos? Not I. But I do take strong exception to one strain in the general moaning. It seems that anyone fool enough to favor the re-election of the president is by definition a God-bothering, pulpit-pounding Armageddon-artist, enslaved by ancient texts and prophecies and committed to theocratic rule. I was instructed in last week's New York Times that this was the case, and that the Enlightenment had come to an end, by no less an expert than Garry Wills, who makes at least one of his many livings by being an Augustinian Roman Catholic.

I step lightly over the ancient history of Wills' church (which was the originator of the counter-Enlightenment and then the patron of fascism in Europe) as well as over its more recent and local history (as the patron, protector, and financier of child-rape in the United States, and the sponsor of the cruel "annulment" of Joe Kennedy's and John Kerry's first marriages). As far as I know, all religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place.

But all faiths are not always equally demented in the same way, or at the same time. Islam, which was once a civilizing and creative force in many societies, is now undergoing a civil war. One faction in this civil war is explicitly totalitarian and wedded to a cult of death. We have seen it at work on the streets of our own cities, and most recently on the streets of Amsterdam. We know that the obscene butchery of filmmaker Theo van Gogh was only a warning of what is coming in Madrid, London, Rome, and Paris, let alone Baghdad and Basra.

So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).

One probably should not rest too much on the similarity between Bin Laden's last video and the newly available DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11. I would only say that, if Bin Laden had issued a tape that with equal fealty followed the playbook of Karl Rove (and do please by all means cross yourself at the mention of this unholy name), it might have garnered some more attention. The Bearded One moved pedantically through Moore's bill of indictment, checking off the Florida vote-count in 2000, the "Pet Goat" episode on the day of hell, the violent intrusion into hitherto peaceful and Muslim Iraq, and the division between Bush and the much nicer Europeans. (For some reason, unknown to me at any rate, he did not attack the President for allowing the Bin Laden family to fly out of American airspace.)

George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries. The "antiwar" faction even recognizes this achievement, if only indirectly, by complaining about the way in which it has infuriated the Islamic religious extremists around the world. But does it accept the apparent corollary—that we should have been pursuing a policy to which the fanatics had no objection?

Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL. I dare say that there will be a few domestic confrontations down the road, over everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the display of Mosaic tablets in courtrooms and schools. I have spent all my life on the atheist side of this argument, and will brace for more of the same, but I somehow can't hear Robert Ingersoll* or Clarence Darrow being soft and cowardly and evasive if it came to a vicious theocratic challenge that daily threatens us from within and without.

Correction, Nov. 9, 2004: The original version of this article incorrectly referred to Robert Ingersoll as "Ralph" Ingersoll.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest collection of essays, Love, Poverty and War, is published this month.

Stores are only allowed to sell beer that is less than 3.2% alcohol.

What????!!! That itself is a crime.

BTW, what the hell do tattoos and booze have to do with Christianity? Oh yeah, nothing.

---

_______________________________________________

You know that slippery slope you're always talking about, Vitus?

Apply it to the christians values crowd, and you end up with the taliban.

I think it ties in to the "your body is a temple" bit in the bible.

Tattoos aren't allowed because they 'deface' the body.

Alcohol isn't allowed because it's a vice.

You can also throw gambling in there.

i look at it this way. if i am opposed to a gay lifestyle and the state permits gay marriage(or tacitly approves gay marriage by refusing to prohibit it), it really doesn't affect me, because i am still opposed and no rights are taken from me. but if i am gay and a prohibition on gay marriage is passed, rights are removed from me.

another example: suppose i believe porn is sinful. refusing to ban porn doesn't affect me, because i still think it's sinful, i won't look at it, and i will ensure my kids never see it. but if i am a porn afficionado and a more expansive ban on porn is passed, i then have rights taken away.

it's my opinion that the left/social libertarian positions permits people to live as they see fit and thus, their moral standards don't really affect most people's day to day lives. the religious/right/socially conservative platform, on the other hand, forces people to live a certain way or by a certain ethical code, and thus the ascendancy of christian values would have an affect...

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Apply it to the christians values crowd, and you end up with the taliban.

Can we agree that there needs to be a prevalent value system, not necessarily Christian, in order for a society to survive intact?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Now you sound like some religious fanatic. Some groups have used that expression to try and control everything people do (no smoking, no drinking, etc). That is doing something that is OUTSIDE of the Bible.

The body is the Lord's temple, so keep it SPIRITUALLY pure.

If what you were saying was literal Christians would be against fast food, twinkies, preservatives, McDonalds, etc.

How dare you dedgrade the Lord's Temple with that Super-Sized #5 you hethan. Release from him, you wicked Spawn of Satan! ... sounds like a Jim carrey bit.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

yes.

Well, that's progress, anyway.

What values do you propose we adopt in lieu of Christian values?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You act like it's either/or.

And I've told you my politics are Rawlsian.

Oklahoma isn't the South. ;-)

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You act like it's either/or.

Because it IS either/or. Either Christian values, or something else.

And I've told you my politics are Rawlsian.

By which I take it that you think morality has no place in the public sphere?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

>>TTTorso wrote: How does waging of war fall into any Christian worldview? <<

As an individual Christian, I acknowledge that a literal reading of the New Testament gives no reason for supporting any war. Jesus is quoted in Matthew 5:44 as saying, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." And Paul writes in Romans 12:14, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them."

As a Christian citizen, Romans 13:1-7 specifically teaches that human government is ordained by God and that we are to obey government because government does not bear the sword in vain. Human governments are given the responsibility to punish wrongdoers. Many Christians believe that governments, which protect religious freedom and other human rights, deserve our support, even when this means going to war.

No it ISN'T!!! It's NOT an all or nothing affair.

Just because all "A's" are "B's", does NOT mean that all "B's" are "A's".

For example: All baseball players are union members, but not all union members are baseball players.

We can agree on some of your christian principles, such as not killing or stealing from one another, but disagree on others, such as homosexuality.

You can read more about Rawls elsewhere.
http://web.missouri.edu/~philrnj/rawls.html

You're views on Rawls are way -off.

It is in the Big 12 South. ?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

when these moral values are virtually no impact on most people's life when the issues like economy etc. do have a critical impact on anyone's life...


I'd have to disagree. I think this country is swirling the drain morally and it affects me and my family continually. This country is being ruled by lawyers and the courst and I feel it's not working out too well. The President's ability to appoint judges is very important. I'm hoping he'll appoint better judges then a liberal president would and perhaps the downward spiral will slow down.

where did matthew did 5.44?? how was the course?

sorry...couldn't help it....

No it ISN'T!!! It's NOT an all or nothing affair.

We can agree on some of your christian principles, such as not killing or stealing from one another, but disagree on others, such as homosexuality.

Naturally, but the fact remains that we, as a people, are going to have some sort of consensus on issues like homosexuality, and that consensus is going to be the result of a commonly held value system. The value system comes first. You don't agree with injunctions against killing and stealing because you look at those issues from a Christian perspective, you disagree with them because your value system deems them to be wrong- you just happen to have come to the same conclusion as Christians.

You're views on Rawls are way -off. That may be. How do you envision a Rawlsian society operating?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Was there a clause in there excluding the Nazi government? Certainly obeying Hitler wouldn't have fallen in line with the teachings of Christ.

Was there a clause in there excluding the Nazi government? Certainly obeying Hitler wouldn't have fallen in line with the teachings of Christ.

Well, just so long as you're not trying to be inflammatory or anything.

FWIW, this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"But there are limits to civil obedience, and to the competence of civil authority. As domestic obedience is not to be carried to the extent of rebellion against the civil government, so neither is the State to be obeyed as against God."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-ag1.html

Plenty of links/articles regardings Christians, The Bible, and Government.

As a side ... particularly interesting articles regarding Christianity and the history of our govnernment and the ability to be a "Christian Nation" (i.e., formed on Christian principles, Christianity is the majority religion, etc) while allowing for the freedom of religion of others.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Historically even persecuting governments have served God's purpose as even a cursory examination of the Assyria, Babylonia, and Roman empires will reveal. In fact each of those events were prophesied well in advance to the nation of Israel - repetitive warnings to that afforded them ample opportunity to alter the course of their history. In the case of the Nazis no such prophesy exists so then you have to make you own call based on prayer and doctrine or some other basis. Was Hitler a just man? You tell me. Was Saddam a just man? You tell me. Does Bin Laden have a politcal mandate to speak for Islam? You tell me. All I can tell you is that ulimately for me it is a matter of conscience.

I think you missed my point, or maybe I just didn't make it very well (probably the latter). I think Afghanistan was/is necessary. From a purely moral perspective, I think going into Iraq will ultimately be a good thing. Hussein is a villain and needs to be drawn and quartered (or buried to his neck in fireants...take your pick). My opinion is that you can only lead the horse to water, you can't make him drink. At some point the Iraqi people are going to have to take a stand and take the lead and we need to get the job done and get the hell out as soon as possible. We have tipped the scales in their favor. At some point we have to seriously decide when it is time to back off, get our troops out of harms way and let them decide their own fate. Once we have tipped the scales in their favor, it should be left to them to decide their future. As for Afghanistan, there were mulitple factions fighting the taliban before we even went in there...unfortunately the taliban were winning. The Iraqi's on the other hand, or at least some, seem to be complaining really loudly about their new freedom. Maybe they really do want democracy, but I think it remains to be seen.

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

I think vitus provided the disclaimer above that is satisfactory. As far as prophecy goes, there are a lot of things in Revelation that have people worried about our current global situation. When I get myself a new Bible I'll brush up on that and ask more questions here. A bit off topic from this thread, but have you read The Bible Code Jeff? Kind of interesting in a far out mathematical way.

Correct. The 'REAL' south is Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia south of, and including Atlanta (some union sympathizers loitered in north georgia, so they are right out.) and Memphis, TN.....oh yeah...we let South Carolina in because they started the war. ;)

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

I would agree with this. The only thing I would add is optimism. My daughter (16 years old) gives me endless grief about my optimism. She is 16, so I suppose she must be right.

Still, freedom is not an imposition. I believe the Iraqis will step up. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that they will, but you are right. It remains to be seen.

Dan,

I agree that the Christian faith and the term "Christian" has become watered-down and misunderstood. My pastor uses the term "Christ follower" now. It may just be semantics, but it makes a point and avoids the "religion" and emphasizes the relationship with Jesus Christ.

Now as to "why it matters..." If you do away with moral absolutes, if everything is relative -- including morality -- then the nation is headed down a dangerous path. Someone on the regular slowtwitch forum has a sign-off that says something like "today's heresy is tomorrow's truth." To a "liberal" that might sound optimistic. To me, it sounds terrifying.

Consider this "poem" by a guy named Steve Turner. Really think about it. What should we believe in?

CREED:

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin
We believe everything is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher,
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens, they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in "Masters and Johnson."
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the terrorists would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.

We believe that there is no "absolute truth"
excepting the "truth" that there is no "absolute truth."

We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky,

And when you hear: State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage!
Gangs go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker



Peace --
Ray

"I think marriage is a religious institution and should be left as such"

Can you explain that statement? I was married in a Courthouse but not in Church. Am I not married in your eyes?

Now as to "why it matters..." If you do away with moral absolutes, if everything is relative -- including morality -- then the nation is headed down a dangerous path.

This is the crux of my struggle. I believe in freedom ... the ability to do almost anything unless it infringes upon another's rights. To do that the citizens must display a tremendous amount of responsibility and virtue. As a group, we are not ... or at least we are continually sliding backwards.

I do not feel that it is the govenrment's job to sit back and let America turn into a cesspool of immorality. IMO, people also have the right to live in a place where they don't have to be a hermit in order to avoid it all (call it "pursuit of happiness" if you will).

It's quite obvious where the founding fathers intended morality to come from. We're continually getting away from that and a "nationwide" morality must come from somewhere. As you say, morality is relative. One person may think sex with a willing minor is just fine, whereas others do not ... just one example.

My struggle is "where is this morality permitted to come from?" The majority (democracy)? The Supreme Court? Congress?

We talk as if morality is not legislated ... but I hear very few complaining that heroin is not legal, that one cannot marry their sister, cousin, or multiple women, etc. Ceratain immoralities, such as adultery, divorce (dramatic negative affect on society) are permitted, whereas others are not.

I'm wondering where the line gets drawn and who draws it?

Again, I'm basically a libertarian (freedom contain only by the equal rights of others) ... but I also feel that the government is not required and let the country go to "hell in and handbasket" (to use an old phrase) just because people have become more selfish, immoral, and irresponsible. Most citizens of other countries never worry about such things because they are told what they will do .... here, we share the burden of making the decision.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear. You don't have to agree with my opinions...that is why they are called such.

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

I think his question was fair - You said that you think marriage should be a religious institution. Do you not consider someone not married in a religious institution (I assume you would recognize Jewish, Muslim, christian etc marriages all with equal merit) not married? If so, I think we've found a true source of differing opinions that won't be reconciled...at that point I think I'd feel a little better...

I, as a Roman Catholic, believe that marriage is a sacrament, just like Holy Communion and is given by God, not man and to be between a man and a woman for the purposes designed by God. Therefore, I believe that the government has no business being in the marriage business. I do not recognize civilly-performed "marriages" as marriage. I have no problem with two people formalizing a mutual living arrangement through the government (recognizing that it is their perogative to follow or not follow the teachings of a religion or church), I just don't believe it is a "marriage."

If a man and a woman unite "before God," regardles of whether or not they believe in the same God, church, or version thereof that I do, then I have no problem with them calling it a marriage.

No, I do not consider it a 'marriage', but like I said, it is purely opinion. As for the Jewish, Muslim etc. , those are a religious union.

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

Fair enough...i respect your right to view marriage through the lens of your faith. I guess where I have issues is that since marriage is currently recognized by the gov't and certain rights are ascribed because of that recognition, certain sectors of our population aren't able to garner those rights because of their sexual orientation. I just think that it’s wrong when the rights of the masses are being defined thru the religious lens of the few...but that has been thoroughly hashed in another thread...

ok, another question- I was married in a Christian church, but neither my wife or I are Christians. The church was simply a location that would appease family members that are religious. Sure we said the words, but our marriage is based on our word and commitment to each other and not to some higher being. Am I married in your mind? Not trying to flame, just trying to understand...

To me it boils down to two things. One, is being gay a trait or a choice? Two, does "gay marriage" provide the same level of societal benefit that nuclear marriage does.

If being gay is a choice, as I believe, then I would say that gays have voluntarily given away their "rights" to gaining benefits from marriage. Also, I would argue that gay "marriage" does not, or at a minimum has not been proven to, provide the same societal benefit as traditional marriage. Therefore, if government tax policy is set up to encourage behaviors that benefit society, then gay "marriage" should not get the same preferential tax treatment as traditional marriage.

Then again, one could make the argument that government tax policy should be entirely neutral and not encourage or discourage any type of personal behavior. I would support that. Problem is, that would unravel a lot of the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" precepts that so many Democrats hold sacred.

To me, this is just another example, similar to abortion and AFDC, where people seek to have no negative consequence as a result of engaging in anti-social behaviors.

Nice post.

I'm guessing for the reasons you decribed in your post, the shift has gone from calling them "marriages" to "unions".

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

"I do not recognize civilly-performed "marriages" as marriage."

I'm jumping into this discussion rather late. Under your definition my wife and I are not married. Since both of us are atheists we had a ceremony performed outside by a JP. We wrote our own marriage vows leaving out any mention of god. Whether or not you think we are married, we are considered married legally.

I just don't get this whole debate about gay marriage. The gay population is a tiny minority of the overall population. I highly doubt that every gay person even wants to be married. Why is there such a huge problem with allowing a miniscule number of people to be married in order to achieve certain benefits that are only allowed through marriage?

The bigger problem as far as I see it is abortion. Since the advent of Roe more than 44 million people have had their civil rights denied. My understanding is that is this country all men (people) are CREATED equal. The exact wording does not say BORN equal, but CREATED equal. Then, after being created, we are supposed to have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, in my opinion, over 44 million people were CREATED and then denied the right to life. A huge civil rights violation.

Why is this important to an atheist? Because I believe there is no god or everlasting life, etc., I believe that all we get is the life we have. Therefore as humans, we should cherish human life, not seek to destroy it.

As for the election. We essentially had a choice between bad and worse. You can form your own opinion about who won. I don't recall reading anywhere in the constitution about having our country ruled by only two parties, but yet that's what we have. I really think the vast number of people don't feel they are properly represented by either party and certainly there is a huge number of independents who essentially have no representation. Spending huge amounts of money apparently is what gets a person elected. Since the lesser candidates do not have the same financial ability as the major parties, their voices are nullified. Until elections are made fair for all candidates we will continue to get the same kind of bad or worse choice we had this time.

Don

"Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear."

Well, there is no harm in making sure I understood you correctly, is there?

"You don't have to agree with my opinions...that is why they are called such."

I totally agree with that statement. I was not passing any judgement on your opinion. Maybe it is just semantics. Replace my "marriage" with "civil union" and define "marriage" as a religious union and you and I both agree, provided the "civilly unioned" people have the same rights as the "married" ones.

Do you think that religiously married people and civilly married ones have different rights in the society? If they differ, would you care to explain how?

as a Roman Catholic, believe that marriage is a sacrament, just like Holy Communion and is given by God, not man and to be between a man and a woman for the purposes designed by God. Therefore, I believe that the government has no business being in the marriage business.

As much as I hate to call out a fellow Papist, you do realize that isn't what the Church teaches about marriage, right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Whether or not you think we are married, we are considered married legally."

I agree--under the laws of your state you are and therefore, under the equal protection clause, by the laws of every other state. My point is that "God's Law," whether you believe in it or not (up to you) and the state laws (or man's law) are not in agreement on the issue.

"...in my opinion, over 44 million people were CREATED and then denied the right to life. A huge civil rights violation. "

I couldn't agree with you more on that whole topic.

Not sure I understand. PM me on that and we'll discuss.

Rights? No. I don't see anything in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the rest of the Amendments that currently speaks to marriage.

Priveleges? Possibly. Depends on what you mean by "the society." If you are speaking from the view that society = government and government = society then probably no. If you are asking the question from the view that society includes other instituions including churches/religion, then probably yes.

Using your definitions, I was thinking more in terms of government. I surely understand that from a Church/Religion point of view, there is a big difference between a civil union and a religious one.

How can otherwise intelligent people believe such a nonsensical premise. Did you choose to be straight? Could you choose to be gay right now?

---

_______________________________________________

jhc...i hear ya...that's the wall we kept running into the previous discussion about gay marriage...makes no sense to me, but at this point, a lot of people believe it and aren't changing their minds...

"I just think that it’s wrong when the rights of the masses are being defined thru the religious lens of the few...but that has been thoroughly hashed in another thread... "

Could you please point me to that thread? I seem to have missed it and would like to check it out!

"Whether or not you think we are married, we are considered married legally."

"I agree--under the laws of your state you are and therefore, under the equal protection clause, by the laws of every other state. My point is that "God's Law," whether you believe in it or not (up to you) and the state laws (or man's law) are not in agreement on the issue."

I'm assuming your argument about being married "under God" vs. being legally married has something to do with the gay marriage debate. Maybe I'm missing something, but don't gays simply want to be married legally? Or are they wanting their marriages to take place in churches? I haven't really followed the whole "gay marriage crisis" because I think it's much ado about nothing.

Don

Since the advent of Roe more than 44 million people have had their civil rights denied. My understanding is that is this country all men (people) are CREATED equal. The exact wording does not say BORN equal, but CREATED equal. Then, after being created, we are supposed to have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, in my opinion, over 44 million people were CREATED and then denied the right to life. A huge civil rights violation.

We couldn't be futher apart on the religion issue, but we couldn't stand closer together on the abortion issue. People are funny like that, huh? Awesome paragraph. I appreciate it.

44 million. Damn.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I don't think anyone can reasonably expect a religion that teaches that homosexuality is a sin to give religious sanction to a gay marriage.

The issue is legal marriage sanctioned by the government.

---

_______________________________________________

What is the definition of "gay?" Doesn't that mean someone who, given a choice of having sexual relations with one of two genders, opts to have sex with someone of the same gender? Has someone proven that all people are hard-wired one way or another? If so, I must have missed it.

Glad to know you think I'm otherwise intelligent, though.

Glad to know you think I'm otherwise intelligent, though.

Any time.What is the definition of "gay?" Doesn't that mean someone who, given a choice of having sexual relations with one of two genders, opts to have sex with someone of the same gender? Has someone proven that all people are hard-wired one way or another? If so, I must have missed it.

Define gay? How about "having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex" I'm guessing that you did not choose to have a sexual attraction to women, right? You might have a choice about who you sleep with, but not about who you're attracted to. Can you reasonably argue otherwise?

---

_______________________________________________

I just see it as a learned or trained response, not a genetic hard code as some people suggest. Things that are learned or trained can be unlearned or untrained, if one so chooses. There are many things I found unappealing in my life that I now enjoy, and therre are things I once found appealing that I no longer do. My opinion--so let's just agree to disagree.

"The issue is legal marriage sanctioned by the government."

Why is this such a major issue? It's only likely to affect a miniscule number of people. I just don't see where it will have any impact on anyone beside the people getting married. There is a gay couple living across the street from my house. Whether they are married or not makes no difference to me. If all they are seeking is a legal document that will give them certain benefits only available through having this document, where is the harm in that?

Don

I just see it as a learned or trained response, not a genetic hard code as some people suggest.

That's fine Brian. I actually view that theory as slight different than the "voluntary choice" theory and think it's much more reasonable. I'd just add that a lot of people think there probably is a genetic component (twin studies and such), even if it's not 100% "hard wired" as you put it. I say that because I'm personally very doubtful it can be "untrained". (I also don't know why it should be untrained, even if it could - Leviticus aside I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about any sexual orientation, but that might be a different topic)

---

_______________________________________________

While I can't say I represent a state that wasn't anything other than deep blue, I think you hit on an interesting point.

You're basically suggesting that traditional values represents an opposition to what most people would today, at least in polite society, deem social progress. I think its interesting that embedded within the word "conservative" is the notion that the preservation of the status quo, despite the forces in a changing world, is a worthy goal. And I think it's more than a semantic issue. If you parse it, you end up considering that such a preservation is in contravention to the idea that maybe everything isn't all right, and that there are in fact some institutions desperately in need of fixing.

But the problem is that to do so you need to go up against a lot of incumbent forces with a lot to lose. So they can bring up this sort of homey word - "conservative" as an intellectual ideal, sidestepping the fact that some things actually need fixing.

As you point out, its because people opposed this conservatism that blacks and women can vote and can eat at lunch counters with whites, or that they can own property, or a whole variety of other changes that we now generally revere. The problem at the time is that if I'm a white male landowner, why the hell would I want to dilute my power, right or wrong, justice or no justice?

I guess my point is, as an extension to your point, that right and wrong and intellectual and moral value have very little currency when it comes to social change and the shifting of power. It just comes down to what you can make happen.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"