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)