Values and Voters

Being that Fielding has so far refused to, can someone please define these "moral values" that the so-called "very liberal base" doesn't believe in?

And Trent Lott just needs to quit misleading about a connection between Iraq and terrorism. It's unconscionable. They can't possible believe the election gives them a mandate to lie to Americans ... can they?

Donna, I can give a pretty good answer to that question.

In their lexicon,"Moral Values" tends to be very narrowly defined - namely limited to sex and nudity, dirty language, alcohol, drugs, and such things.

While Conservative Christians certainly believe in feeding the poor and needy (enthuistically, I might add), they also tend to not trust the government to handle this aspect.

On strictly economic and social spending issues, conservative Christians tend not to be really finger-pointy , though most (except the bonafide poor) would consider expansion of government programs naive, though not really unbiblical (save perhaps the REALLY, HARD-CORE, warped wingnuts). Generally, the only scenario I can imagine where run of the mill Conservative Christians consider social programs threating is if they perceive such and such an action to "Infringe on Religious Freedom" or if they see it as "Atheist Propaganda").

As for foreign policy, they usually don't get fingerpointy about anything unless it is either explicitly anti-Christian or close to it (i.e. The Communist Threat pre1989, sometimes the UN and EU being the seed for the dreaded "one world government" said to be eventually headed by the Antichrist). For the hard-core right wing, the website of the John Birch Society is probably your best bet for getting an accurate picture of the die hard right-wing Christian mindset. Most Christians would not to to quite the extreme the John Birch Society does, though many will agree with several points they make.

Yes, most of this is off topic. But I though you'd like to hear from a former Southern Baptist :D

Oh, one more thing about foreign policy. ISRAEL is at the forefront of their agenda. Keeping The Book of Revelation in mind, quite a number of conservative Christians (especially the prophesy/700 Club types) see Israel as rebuilding the Temple Mount (currently the site of The Dome of the Rock mosque), Israel being at war with the whole world (Armageddon) and Jesus returning to earth in time to save Israel. I didn't really get into Revealation too deeply, so I'm going out on a limb saying what I'm about to say next. Some believers (depending on the interpretation of Revelation they believe) say the USA has the chance to be Israel's only friend in the Armageddon Conflict. Again, it depends on the interpretation they have of the book, as I've also heard some say that The Rapture will occur before Israel is attacked (thereby leaving a USA a pretty much "all deep blue" nation - sort of like Western Europe, yet another of the Religious Right's bogeymen, for reasons I gave earlier). The rest of the world, they tend to not have any position about beyond how it relates to Israel in the Final Days.

My. God. He really thinks we are all morons, doesn't he?

Liberals are America Bashers? Love that freakin' olive branch. "They said we are a nation where values are important, where we take pride in our faith, ourselves, our country and the men and women who defend it." Implication that anyone who didn't vote for bush has no pride in our country, no values, and hates soldiers. GAA.

And, I like how he's apparently got the telephone to God, since he knows just how God would handle everything.

And, on this values thing - bugs me that bigotry against gays is supposed to be a sign of moral virtue.

And yeah, all that worry about prisoners being tortured in Abu Graib, and Guantanomo, and in Afghanistan - purely political. And, it's the Bush adminsitration that blamed the soldiers. The "liberals" were viewing it as a systemic problem which came down from the upper levels.

Anyone else notice that we're getting rhetoric on Winning the war on terror? How are we going to WIN a war on a tactic. What's that victory going to look like?

And, Philip, I try really hard to not think about the number of people in this country who are NOT working for peace, but are instead working to bring about Armageddon.

Getting off the topic of religion...

Some believe America is bitterly divided when it comes to values or that it's a meaningless word that can't be defined. I don't see it that way. The overwhelming support of traditional marriage by 11 states, including Mississippi, shows us that while our membership in political parties may be split, a huge majority of Americans respect faith and recognize the traditional structures which shaped our country.

BIG difference between Mississippi and Michigan, Trent! (and even Mississippi and other southern states, if CNN's Ballot Measure List is anything to go by. Even the rural areas of Michigan rarely saw support for its gay marriage ban below 20%. South Georgia's figures were similar to rural Miss's (as was most of rural Ark.), but across the nation, opposition DID vary considerably from region to region.

Abu Ghirab: The only sinister things that were exposed were those that DESERVED to be exposed! How can the public NOT be revulsed by such a thing! I and MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of other Americans were HIGHLY embarrased by the episode, while realizing the great majority of our our soldiers in Iraq are quite well behaved.

The bashing by some liberals of traditional America and President Bush

I love it when someone brings up "tradition", because then I can say that just as the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; so traditions are made to serve individuals and communities, not communities and individuals to serve tradition.
Besides Appeal to Tradition is a very well-known logical fallacy. Here's an extreme example of it:

"The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true."

I could go on, but I'll mind my manners and leave something for others to eat (as in "alive"). This is pretty weak even by Trent standards!

I said Even the rural areas of Michigan rarely saw support for its gay marriage ban below 20%.

SUPPORT FOR?? I meant opposition to!!!

One last thing - does any other liberal, post liberal, progressive, neo-progressive, femi-nazi type like myself feel a bit like the Bush supporters severely underestimate us? I feel like they think that since we don't have any values, any faith in god/goddess/higher power, no respect for hard work, no respect for soldiers, etc., that it's all just a big pose? That we're a shallow people, driven by ego? That we must now see the true power of their beliefs, and will therefore drop our non-beliefs and run to their tent?

That's the notion that I find bugging me the most. That the republicans want us to *surrender* - because our beliefs must not run very deep, because they are not real.

It's the attitude I found in Fielding's and Ranch's posts yesterday, and the attitude even more condescendingly delivered here by Lott's piece.

Kate,

I've seen arrogant patronizing attitudes on both sides of the fence. You mentioned the patronization from the right, from the left it must be that all people of conservative faith must be as i described. Also, they seem to have a more intellectual-than-thou attitude towards those "rednecks", etc. Believe me, I've gotten it from all sides.

Then again, what should I expect if on the American Conservative Union's Annual Ratings of Congress I would consistently fall somewhere in the 40s year to year (100 is perfect conservative, 0 is perfect "liberal"). Whatever you may say about this lobbying group, they have pretty damn good summaries about how our senators and congressional delegates are likely to vote!! I HIGHLY reccommend this particular part of their site!

P.S, Donna and Knol in particular will be horrified to hear this, but my beliefs most closely resemble "liberal Republicans" of the Northeast (Connecticuit representatives Christopher Shays and Nancy Johnson in particular). Nobody's Perfect, I suppose <grins>

Philip, yes, the left can be patronizing, can come across as viewing the right as stupid.

But, what distresses me the most is the sense that I'm getting that some on the right don't believe that anyone on the left has any deeply felt values or faith or passion. That we're just a bunch of shallow, latte sipping poseurs. Rarely have I found leftists dimissing rightists as not having passionate beliefs. That's the patronizing that's bugging me at the moment.

"That's the notion that I find bugging me the most. That the republicans want us to *surrender* - because our beliefs must not run very deep, because they are not real." -Kate

I couldn't agree more. You won't catch me surrendering my own values and beliefs especially to Christian bullies. I dealt with that too many years in a "Christian" school. I've been prayed for so much you'd think I'd be iconic at this point. They'll have to burn me at the stake as a heretic before I release my beliefs because of bullying.

The republican party has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians...

I have a question... Once the wedge issues are gone, how will they garner votes without pushing us completely to a religious state?

I plan to email Mr. Lott today and let him know he knows little about our founding fathers and their god. These guys are trying so hard to convince us that this is a god-ruled government without addressing the facts.

I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.† They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.† Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned.† What has been the effect of this coercion?† To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world ...

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves.† [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. -Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance.† I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. -Thomas Paine

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. -George Washington

I don't want to irradicate religion. It does some people amazing amounts of good. I simply want these politicians to realize that I am a gay, athiest that respects the teachings/philosophies of Jesus and Buddha and want the same rights they are passing out... AS A TAX-PAYER, I want those rights without conforming to their religious beliefs.

We need to remove this man from office -- yesterday!

We need to remove this man from office -- yesterday! - Knol

Removing him from his majority leadership post was only the first step. But removing an entrenched demagogue will take years. Among his worshippers, he has achieved the status of a holy prophet- just look at his re-election percentages. The man knows how to sell fear and hatred better than anyone.

Corrosion, you'll notice I snipped the end of your comment. Please refrain from similar sentiments here.

Otherwise, I agree that Lott is clearly a relic of the past, and a painful reminder of how long such politicians have played our people for fools. Take this statement of his in this column:

Voters confirmed Tuesday that we don't want to be some government-dependent, value-neutral, secular and internationalist nation.

Let's break it down:

1. Government-dependent: OK, you can argue how "government-dependent" we should be; we should have that discussion. But what about the corporate welfare he has voted for over the years? And how about all the federal pork that he strives to bring home and seems to be the main reason his constituents love him: we'll be played for fools as long as he brings home the bacon?

2. Value-neutral: Just who is arguing for "value-neutral" here? Many, many people who are opposed to Bush policies do so for moral reasons based on their values. Should we define this as anyone who opposes Bush and Lott's seemingly rather short list of approved values? That's scary.

3. Secular: Ah, I see. If it's not secular, it's sectarian. A sectarian government is a religious government. A religious government is a ... theocracy, of one sort of the other. Where's Fielding when you need him?

4. Internationalist: Now, how would one characterize a pre-emptive war on Iraq waged in order to spread freedom as Bush is describing it? Or the rest of the neo-con strategy for the Middle East that Bush still seems to be embracing even as it falls apart?

Scary stuff.

Dictionary.com's definitions of "sectarian," fyi. I've beginning to love that site:

sec?tar?i?an †† †P†††Pronunciation Key††(sk-t‚r-n)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
Narrow-minded; parochial.

n.
A member of a sect.
One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.
sec?tari?an?ism n.
Source: The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

sectarian
Sec*ta"ri*an, n. Pertaining to a sect, or to sects; peculiar to a sect; bigotedly attached to the tenets and interests of a denomination; as, sectarian principles or prejudices.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

sectarian
Sec*ta"ri*an, n. One of a sect; a member or adherent of a special school, denomination, or religious or philosophical party; one of a party in religion which has separated itself from established church, or which holds tenets different from those of the prevailing denomination in a state.
Syn: See Heretic.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

sectarian
adj 1: of or relating to or characteristic of a sect or sects; "sectarian differences" 2: belonging to or characteristic of a sect; "a sectarian mind"; "the negations of sectarian ideology"- Sidney Hook; "sectarian squabbles in psychology" [ant: nonsectarian] n : a member of a sect; "most sectarians are intolerant of the views of any other sect" [syn: sectary, sectarist]
Source: WordNet Æ 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Donna and Knol in particular will be horrified to hear this, but my beliefs most closely resemble "liberal Republicans" of the Northeast (Connecticuit representatives Christopher Shays and Nancy Johnson in particular). Nobody's Perfect, I suppose <grins>

I think you misunderstand me, Philip. When I had my paper in NYC, I was considered moderate-right by many. You might have missed my libertarian tendencies (or desire to be, if I could see evidence that companies self-regulate), and my strong belief in actual free enterprise. And my support of lean government that both takes care of the needy and helps them help themselves. And my strong support of civil liberties even of shmucks like Klansmen. And my avid belief in respecting different religions and supporting religious freedom at all costs. And my strong (and often-unpopular) support of the impeachment of Bill Clinton -- which was based both on his lying to the country and my belief that a many who would cheat on his wife with his young daughter in the same building isn't someone I want leading the country. (Integrity, integrity, integrity, as Mrs. Kerry said on her deathbed.) And my dislike and distrust of Hillary Clinton, partially because I believe she enabled Bill's B.S. due to her own political ambition and because I think she'll sell out important issues for political gain. I'm also a big personal responsibility gal and can sound like Dr. Laura-sans-the-homophobia. Oh, and I despise the Kennedy royal family and think they have done as much as anyone to hurt progressive causes. (I think the Bushes have a lot more in common with them, than does the Kerry family, as far as I have seen.) I could go on, but suffice it to say, I understand what you mean and am not at all taken back by it.

BTW, my favoriate politicians, bar none, are those who think for themselves, regardless of whether I agree with everything they believe: folks like John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, even Arlen Spector. (No, not Zell Miller; he's a dumb-ass Dixiecrat desperately looking for friends.)

One of my favoriate series of stories I ever did was for the Colorado Springs Business Journal -- about the local municipal (taxpayer-owned) utillity company trying to grow itself into a big company that was going to start all sorts of businesses (Internet services, etc.) and compete with local businesses. They were using their public status to compete unfairly with private businesses and trying to hide their "business" activities from the public because, suddenly, they were "running it like a business." During that period is when I really began a fan of locally owned businessesóand started to understand that free enterprise can be stunted by big, unaccountable municipal projects, by public-private enterprises and by corporations eating at the public trough but without the public interest at heart.

As I always say, we need to be able to hold several thoughts at once. Right now, our yin-yang is off the charts to the right; thus we have to yank it back. But if it was off the charts to the left, you'd see me yanking back to the right. Balance is the goal. Now, ideological simpletons can't even imagine that someone isn't as partisan as they are: therefore, if you criticize Bush policies, then you must be a left-wing nutball. Of course, when I supported Clinton's impeachment, you can imagine the response from my liberals friends, many of whom are still mad at me about it.

But my take is that if we want our elected officials to be smart and think independently, then we damned well to be willing to do it ourselves.

One more thing, and back to work:

Very few people seem to understand the problems behind No Child Left Behind. It's an ideological nightmare. It's designed poorly -- whether you're coming from the left or the right. The problem is, it's a huge money-spender designed to make it look like the government is spending MORE money on education while actually furthering the ideological goal of shrinking (or doing away with altogether) the public school system. So, all this money is being spent -- but on the wrong places. It's not being put into the schools and neighborhoods that need it the most, to help them help themselves. It's rewarding the ones that don't need it. Of course, if the nation wakes up one day and realizes what the ploy it, it may well (pray to God) decide that we have to fix the harm that's being done now in order to keep our public-school system. That, too, is going to be a nightmare and very expensive. We'll pay dearly for not paying enough attention now.

There's nothing smart about NCLB as it is being done. It's overfunded and underfunded; it will either tear down public schools altogether or make it cost much more to repair them. And few people seem to be considering that once those tax dollars start flowing into the private schools, they too are going to have to be held to the same accountability standards as the public schools. That is, of course, unless the First Amendment is overturned by a right-wing Supreme Court, and then the problems will be even greater.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but this kind of mess if what this skewed ideological logic is creating. We need to say "screw partisanship" and start studying and thinking, but we seem to be a ways from that right now. But I'm keeping the faith.

I come from a long line of Right wingers, people so Right that Bush is to left for them..

And I can tell you that their Perception of "liberals" and the "liberal media"
is (& paraphrasing my dad here now):

INFURIATION that most "liberals" - for all their talk of proclaimed "TOLERANCE" & open mindedness -
Sure the heck are condescending & judgmental enough to people who don't agree with THEM, or their guy.

It is all gloom & doom & end of the world - if their man isn't in power. - & not stop Pure, concentrated Pessimism. (CNN)
And they are the 1st to jump down your throat & tell you how ignorant & uneducated you are.

It is blue collar middle America, God fearing, church going 'simple people' that keep this country going, who are the backbone of this country -
so that the ELITE'S can sit in their intellectual ivory towers and look down their nose at the rest of the 'simpletons'.....

And that last Tuesday middle America gave the elitist, stuck up, over educated, liberal East & West coast & their media propaganda machine - The Finger.
To say "stop jamming your anti-bush, negative, gloom & doom down our throats through your media. Cause we'r enot buying it!"


And ya know, I think they're kinda' right.

I'm a middle of the roader, & for the most part just sit back & laugh & watch the mud fly..
- but I know I have been made to feel inferior because I didn't 0 support Kerry -
so much so that I just didn't talk about politics around my friends, because - how DARE I question Kerryism...

anyway, that's just the kinda' stuff I hear at the dinner table with my family....
thought I would share....

ph, Most people who post here come from that family, or some configuration of it. I grew up being called a "nigger-lover" by some of my own uncles because I didn't believe that blacks were inferior. I can't tell you how many times I've had to walk out of a room at Christmas time because people were sitting around the room disparaging black people (or Choctaws), in no nice terms. They were patronizing, spreading gloom and doom, condescending, judgemental -- and wrong. But when I walked out of the room, inevitably, people got mad at me because I was a high-falutin' liberal (or "communist") whose action (because I couldn't bear to hear such hatred, mind you) was rude to them. I was judgmental, trying to show them how ignorant and uneducated they are.

Now, what kind of person should I have grown into: a person that goes along with that kind of thing out of fear of not being accused of being that so-called friggin' elite because my mother hemmed pants for 20 years to help send me to college, or should I be a person who tries to find facts and then is willing to stand up for what the facts indicate are right? I chose to become the latter one.

Just as it did then, nowadays educated people (not in an elitist way, but anyone who seeks facts, regardless of ideology) are disparaged and ridiculed BY THE ACTUAL ELITE -- the crony capitalists who want the rest of us to fight over things like this. There is a new pervasive political correctness -- and I assure you that it is not aimed at Bush conservatives.

The point is, I feel your pain. I know these things are hard, and I know how it feels to be patronized. When I was at Columbia just a few years back, I was patronized by northern elitists (snobs is a better word), who grew up with an Ivy spoon in their mouth and then plain knew more than I did. They were educated better. That didn't mean that had more common horse sense I did (usually the opposite), but they were educated. I learned from them. I also learned a lot of what not to do from them. The professor at Columbia who taught me more than anyone else to date about writing was a miserable person to be around. I learned what kind of person not to be from him.

People don't know what they don't know. There is no shame in not knowing something, ph, such as that the lies behind the Iraqi war were, just that, lies. But where there is shame is in pointedly ignoring facts and defending ignorance and bad decisions that are resulting in our soldiers dying, not to mention Iraqi civilians, in a poorly planned and executed war. If you want to boil down the argument into demonizing the people who have cared enough to gather facts and defending the ones who haven't, then that is your choice. But it sure leaves nothing for the people who care for facts to be ashamed of.

Where there is major shame are in politicians, like Lott above, who play to people's, our people's, worst instincts for political and financial gain -- turning people against each other who should be helping each other, and recasting a very, very serious discussion into a simplistic ideological war over whether the messinger is actually a member of the friggin' "liberal elite." It doesn't matter, ultimately -- it's facts that matter. And no one should apologize for looking for the truth. I don't.

However, there is everything right about trying to find common ground and a way to have a conversation and find compromise. But common ground, and unity, will not be found by folks like you describe asserting that the folks whom you disparage stop paying attention to facts and come over into their corner, or they're going to continue to call us names. And if that hurts your feelings and you want to call me an elite for saying that, go ahead. But it doesn't make it true. And I'm willing to take that risk because I do believe that a lot is at stake right now. If you don't fine, but don't try to kill the other messingers who are really worried about America staying America.

One final comment, ph: It's a bit hard to feel your pain about people being rude to you considering the first thing you posted on this site after the election.

the mud does indeed fly both ways, ph. How'd you feel, being called anti religious and valueless, along with elitest snob? As for negativity, well, the right has Chaney and Limbaugh and Coulter. 'nuff said.

Your larger point is a good one, and Donna's response is excellent.

My 2 cents to add is that I fear a climate that despises intellectual achievement, and a climate that fears thought. That fears the question "why"? And why? And why? Until we get to the root of the problem.

And, yes, I see that on both sides of the fence - I don't think it's a disease purely of the right. But, the rhetoric of the right seems more fearful of being called over-educated than it does simple - to use your terms.

the mud does indeed fly both ways, ph. How'd you feel, being called anti religious and valueless, along with elitest snob?

You're right, Kate. It does hurt. Otherwise, it would be funny to me after growing up in a trailer park rand eading and writing for a mother who never went to school and sitting with her rolling up pennies to buy me a Easter basket to be called an elitist by folks like Lott because I am willing to seek facts and ignore his (or anyone's) rhetoric. The truth is that people with some pretty nefarious motives are framing this debate just as the demagogues did in the 1960s (same ones, really, or their kids) -- they are the ones condescending to people like Philip talks about, convincing them to ignore their own interests and hate people who dared to get educated and decide to think for themselves.

It reminds me of young African Americans who are made fun of by their "cool" peers because they try to study and make good grades. It's the same stankin-thankin' as my late friend Terry Taylor used to call it.

Otherwise, though, we have to attack the condescension as well. I have been responding to some of it from other AAN editors this week who happen to live in blue states and blame everything on red staters. But we're never going to get anywhere with folks like that if we waste all our time spewing contempt for facts and education. People are going to think we're all stupid here if that's what we (or our elected representatives) project to the world. Sad, but true.

Donna, I knew all along you werenít way-out left, and was even aware of your libertarian tendencies (though not actually Libertarian). Itís just that your disdain for both parties, you know.

Kate: My 2 cents to add is that I fear a climate that despises intellectual achievement, and a climate that fears thought. That fears the question "why"? And why? And why? Until we get to the root of the problem.

Philip: Weíre already well down that road. Itís likely a combination of fears that independent thinking threatening ìthe way weíve always done thingsî and the youth cultureís thinking that being intellectual is ìway uncoolî (whatever the hell THAT means!!). Indifference, if not disdain, of intellectualism among adults as well (but youth seem more forcefully vocal about it, though) is probably the core reason Americaís kids score at or near the bottom of the industrial/post-industrial world in acquired knowledge. Until our culture realizes how much damage intellectual apathy (as opposed to merely making poor grades) is hurting our nationís potential, even the best school reform programs will yield limited results at best.

SOAPBOX ALERT

Preamble: Iím well aware of organized community interest in the arts and how it aids intellectual development. So donít accuse me of saying Jackson is generally apathetic toward ALL cerebral aspects of life. Itís that I think science is a critical aspect of knowledge communities neglect... to their peril (particularly economic!). Perhaps Jackson can develop interest in science drawing upon the arts community experience in this area.

As some of you may recall, I surveyed a certain ìHigh-IQî science magazineís subscription patterns for 277 metropolitan areas nationwide. Within itís size category (1/4 to ? million), guess where Jackson ranks on this list of 64 cities nationwide? At Ö THE ... Bottom! -- this despite that Jackson ranks 12th of 64 in % of 25 and Overs with a College degree. Most other cities in the region also rank quite low on the subscription lists within their respective size category. This is hard evidence supporting what lifeís experience already told me all along: Jacksonís culture, and the Mid-Southís in general, has littleÖif anythingÖ organic enthusiasm for matters scientific. How many millions of dollars per year is this attitude costing the area?

Maureen Dowd pulls no punches:

W's presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches.

America has always had strains of isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism. But most of our leaders, even our devout presidents, have tried to keep these impulses under control. Not this crew. They don't call to our better angels; they summon our nasty devils.

Jimmy Carter won the evangelical vote in 1976, and he won it in Ohio. He combined his evangelical appeal with a call for social justice, integrating his church and laboring for world peace. But W. appealed to that vote's most crabbed insecurities - the disparaging of the other, the fear of those godless hedonists in the blue states out to get them and their families. And the fear of scientific progress, as with stem cell research. [...]

Back in 1994, Newt Gingrich said he wanted the government to mold the moral character of Americans and wipe out remnants of the "counterculture McGoverniks." He got derailed, but now he and his pious friends are back in full cry, messing with our psyches and excluding themselves from the rules they demand others follow. They'll eventually do themselves in, but will they do us in first?

The "return to leeches" snipe is priceless, one must admit.

Speaking of priceless, don't miss The Onion's headlines right now.

Donna, I knew all along you werenít way-out left, and was even aware of your libertarian tendencies (though not actually Libertarian). Itís just that your disdain for both parties, you know.

Philip, I thought you knew me better than that. But just in case. ;-D

You're right: I do disdain both parties, especially now. And they're both in trouble. The Dems have focused on the wrong friggin' issues (it's about economic populism, stupid!), and the Republicans own this Pottery Barn now, and their moderate wing are about to start looking the devil of their deed right in the eye. And has anyone noticed the mess in Iraq lately? Er, hello. Time to stop dancing on the Democrats' grave and start figuring out how to putting them dishes and vases back together, if you get my drift. We in trouble over there if Bush voters haven't noticed. And I don't see a whole lot of help on the way.

Choices will have to be made by both parties. Personally, I'd rather say screw 'em all and start the neo-prog movement. <grin>

I meant: "devil of their DEAL"

Hey Philip, did you see these maps?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

Everyone will like them, but Philip, aka Mr. Data, should appreciate the data analysis and visualization.

We're not divided into red and blue states - we're all pretty much purple.

I figured this fit under this blog...

From the C-L's Letters to the Editor (booo! hissss!):
I see from your Nov. 4 editorial that your endorsement of George W. Bush did not even last a full week ("Election '04: Bush wins ó a nation needing unity"). You write: "Bush must recognize that compromise is essential to governance. He (Bush) must come to the center to build support for his policies and lead the whole nation." Good grief, you still don't get it!

Bush (and other Republicans) won by an overwhelming majority because he is in the center. The Democrats are so far left that they have no idea what the center is. Tell me, should Mississippi State team members give back 31/2 points to Florida just so they can get along?
...
The conservative movement took root under Ronald Reagan and has grown under "W." The agnostics and other single-issue groups will one day scatter from the Democratic Party and be blown around by a soft breeze.

There is no cohesiveness among Democrats. None. No message. None. No messenger. None. No soul. None. No personal responsibility. None. No leadership. None. No direction. None. No idea. None. The Democrats are never "for" anything. They are always "against." That is why they lost.

This is what we're dealing with... How you like them values?

My favorite line from the post above:
"Bush (and other Republicans) won by an overwhelming majority because he is in the center."

I literally spewed an expensive, elitist, liberal, east coast latte from my nose when I read that line! DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID!

Also, Kate, I saw similar maps online and thought they were interesting. Red states aren't nearly as red as they'd like to believe.

Of interest to me -- why the areas around the Mississippi River seem to be overwhelmingly blue... I must admit that I was even a little surprised at how blue Arkansas was.

And yet another similar Letter to the Editor:

I was a Louisiana Democrat for 42 years. The party left me in 2000, and I switched my party affiliation. I am now a Mississippi Republican.

U.S. voters have spoken overwhelmingly and with great finality in this 2004 national election, making it abundantly clear that we Americans do not want what the liberal and leftist socialist Democrats advocate, desire and represent.

The losers need to understand why they lost this election, adjust their thinking and actions, and try to work amiably with the winners.
...
The Democratic Party would be well-advised to moderate its positions on most issues, adjusting them toward the center of the American mainstream.

Liberals, leftists and socialists in the Democratic Party and in the media need to realize the election is over, and they lost. They should get over it and move on.

All patriotic Americans should immediately yield to the will of the clear majority of our citizens and states, and respect our duly elected President George W. Bush and this Republican administration.

Knol,

I can answer that for you, since this is where I grew up. The River Counties and Parishes - from just north of Natchez all the way to Memphis (barring Vicksburg) are majority African-American. It's as simple as that, especially in a hyper-polarized region like The Delta. The whites in this region are just as likely to vote for the same-sex marriage bans and Bush as other whites in the Mid-South region.

The hyper-white precincts in my hometown Delta parish (where my strongest social connections were) had only 10% opposition to the gay marriage ban and only 9% support for Kerry. As you can imagine, the few people who trend to the left are in the ideological closet.

RE: The Majority......I LOVE IT when somebody pulls that line!!!!!!!

First: To get "Star Trek-ish" about it ... You Will Be Assimilated By The Borg! Resistance is Futile!

Second: James Madison (I think it was him, but I could be wrong) said it was government's duty to protect the rights of the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.

Third: Some quotes I got from a buddy of mine -- all of which I heartily agree with in their full force.

"It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which the m****es of men exhibit their tyranny." - James Fennimore Cooper

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

and finally, the bluntest one of all... THE COUP D'GRAS IN MY VIEW....


"Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (I'm sure this one really hits home to Black Mississippians)

Kate, thanks so much for it. I did not see this, but suspected it.

Yup, just what I thought. The purple along the Mississippi River is where lots of Blacks live. But, as expected, the color coding in the South falls starkly along racial lines -- to the point where you can almost tell racial percentages by how blue or red they are on that map (with the exception of the overwhelmingly White Ozarks region (Ark seems to be one of the few states in the south with a strong White Democrat contingent). Any presidential candidate who can reach across racial lines (as Clinton could) is a MUST for the Democrats (outside the Clinton-Gore home states, they took Louisiana and Missouri in both his campaigns, and gained Georgia once)

Philip, there are many quotes regarding tyranny and majority/minority rights. It seems Madison was very aware of the dangers of a majority with no concern for the minority. Here's one from Madison I've had stored in my database of quotes for quite a while:

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
-James Madison

If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
- James Madison

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
-James Madison

Thank you both for sharing all those quotes. It's as if the country needs one big civics lesson right now to remind folks that our founders knew that the majority is often, well, wrong. Or at least selfish and self-focused.

While we're sharing quotes, I just saw this one on the Sojourners site. It's rather beautiful even if you're not Christian:


Commit your way to the Lord;
††trust in him, and he will act.
He will make your vindication shine like the light,
††and the justice of your cause like the noonday.

Be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him;
††do not fret over those who prosper in their way,
††over those who carry out evil devices.

Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath.
††Do not fret - it leads only to evil.

- Psalm 37:5-8

BTW, I never thanked Corrosion for correcting the name in the Joe Hill quote my friend gave me ("don't mourn, organize"). I knew "Jim Hill" sounded a bit like one of our high schools. ;-) I must say, that seems to be the quote of the week. I'm seeing it everywhere, and it's right on.

Here are a few quotes that fit the discussion. Take them for what they are worth.

James Wilson, one of only six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution said:

ìFar from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends and mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other the divine law as discovered by reason and the moral sense forms an essential part of both.î

Benjamin Rush was Surgeon General of the Continental Army, signer of the Declaration of Independence, the ìfather of public schools,î treasurer of the U S Mint, and helped write the Pennsylvania constitution. He said:

ìThe only foundation forÖa republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.î

James Madison said:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." (1778)

"Religion is the basis and foundation of government." (June 20, 1785)

I think what these two meant is that religious beliefs, as opposed to Christian Morality, can motivate people to behave in a civilized decent manner; namely it can motivate people to not commit sins<b> that do harm to the rest of society<b> (don't steal, don't treat others cruely, don't engage in any actions that cause people to be angry to the point where they are tempted to commit crimes against other persons, and so forth).

Such-and-such may well be a sin. But the real question is "Is the sin one that affects a third party (i.e. God being the First Party, the sinner him or herself the second party, other humans affected the third party"). I seriously doubt that Madison, et al intended for the government to have laws against sins that don't affect third parties.

Philip,

Perhaps you are right, but there have been a large number of prominent politicians from the founding fathers on down, as well as from across the political spectrum, who have seen the Bible as a guidebook for right and wrong regardless of "third parties."

Franklin D. Roosevelt in a 1935 radio broadcast said, ìWe cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the RepublicÖ[W]here we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.î

Perhaps you are right, but there have been a large number of prominent politicians from the founding fathers on down, as well as from across the political spectrum, who have seen the Bible as a guidebook for right and wrong regardless of "third parties."

You are continually confusing the arguments between leaders and others using the Bible, and other inspirational texts, as "guidebooks" for making good decisions with the idea that the American government should codify one person's religion (and definition of "sin") into law that applies to everyone regardless of beliefs. That is radically different, and if you look at it from outside your own religious lense, that should become clear to you.

Ladd,

Civil law has to be based on something. Our founding fathers felt that they were basing their rights and freedoms on a power higher than their own (endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights). I go back to the James Madison quote that our civil laws are based upon the Ten Commandments of the Bible. No doubt the Christian faith of our first pilgrim settlers and the Christian fervour of the Great AWakenings in America played an immense role in the establishment of our current system of government. I would argue that whether directly or indirectly, Christian thought was very much a part of our system of law from the very beginning.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

You are right that I am looking through a "lense." I am coming from a particular perspective just as you are coming from a different yet equally particular perspective. I do not mean to be arrogant, but I do think that the preponderance of the evidence coming from our founding fathers and right on down to recent history seems to side with my perspective. Christianity and the Bible which guides it have played a major role in the founding and working out of our government.

I have to agree with Andrew Jackson when he said in reference to the Bible, ìThat book, Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic restsì (June 8, 1845).

M, I'm curious if the quotes (especially from Madison) were from the stump, his personal memoirs or letters to specific individuals. In Madison's personal writings (not speeches), you'll see a disdain for mixed religion and politics.

Here's more from Madison's personal letters:

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history [attempts where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government]. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820]

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

M, if there's one thing I hate about Jackson, it's not the potholes, the "crime", the abundance of half-filled churches, or the lack of mass-transit... It's that our city is named after Andrew Jackson. A primary figure in the 'Trail of Tears' and a slave owner, I'd hardly associate him with good, Christian values and healthy governing...

But, here's a few more quotes from Jackson relating to government that seem appropriate in our current political era of big business and faith contributions and corruption;

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.

There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses.

Andrew Jackson, pressed by clergy members to proclaim a national day of fasting to seek God's help in combating a cholera epidemic, replied that he could not do as they wished "without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the general government."
-Source

Knol,

The Madison quotes are from his writings. In all fairness, I agree with you about Madison's desire not to impose religion on anyone. In speaking to the General Assembly of Virginia, he said:

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account be rendered."

Madison would have fought against forcing anyone to profess faith in Jesus Christ or to forcing anyone to be a member of a particular church, etc. However, the civil law is still based upon moral law. While no one was forced to be a Christian, the law did force them to follow a legal system that was based on Christian morality.

The same was true of the pilgrims. Only thirty-five of the hundred or so people on board the Mayflower were actually part of the original group of Christian Separatists. The other 65 or so had been recruited by the financial backers to help insure the financial success of the new settlement. The separatists did not try to force or coerce the others to becoming Christian separatists, but they did set up a system of government based on their Christian faith (The Mayflower Compact). This FIRST great democratic "civil body politic" began with the words, "In the name of God, Amen....Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith...do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic."

I guess my point is that no Christian should try to force their particular religion on anyone else, but the law does have a responsibility to uphold morality, and the morality that our founding fathers established was based on the Christian Scripture for which theye were willing to risk their lives and fortunes to uphold.

Knol,

As far as Andrew Jackson is concerned, I would also agree that he was not a perfect man. Like all of us, there are many things he can be faulted for, and some of his faults were pretty egregious. My point was simply that a large majority of American statesmen, including men from Washington to Jackson to Lincoln all the way to FDR, Truman, LBJ and on down the line have acknowledeged the central role of the Bible in our nations governance.

M: Civil law has to be based on something.

Of course it does. You are trying to bait-and-switch what I'm saying. I've never said that civil law shouldn't be based on anything; I may be blonde, but I'm not that naive. ;-) It can, in fact, be based on a variety of somethings.

When you start your response with a logical fallacy, what follows gets less convincing.

M: The Madison quotes are from his writings.

Which writings? Do you have a link? The context and timing would be interesting, as Knol points out.

Not to say you're falling into this trap, but the founding dudes are often misquoted by people who are trying to justify establishing one religion and must twist the "historical" reasons to try to justify it. And then it gets passed on and passed on.

Ladd,

My apology. I did not mean to say that you would base civil law on nothing. The point I was trying to make, although I obviously botched it, was that our founding fathers based our system of law not on a wide variety of somethings, but rather upon the Christian Bible for which virtually all of them had an immense respect and which most had a profound faith in.

My point was simply that a large majority of American statesmen, including men from Washington to Jackson to Lincoln all the way to FDR, Truman, LBJ and on down the line have acknowledeged the central role of the Bible in our nations governance.

But what you're doing, as is common with people who want to establish one religion above all others and perhaps unintentionally, is taking what they have said out of context and twisting the meaning. Just because someone believes in the Bible, and its teachings, do not mean that they do not understand the traps inherent in using the government to *enforce* the teachings of one religion, based of course on the flavor of the day. That is, it used to be slavery to be justified, Jim Crow, now discrimination against gays.

And, M, I don't believe you ever explained how allowing homosexuals to marry is granting "special rights." I've been waiting for days for an explanation of that fundamentalist sound bite.

Ladd,

The MAdison quote come from "The Papers of James Madison" (Chicago University Press, 1973).

Ladd,

A homosexual already has the same rights as a heterosexual. They can follow the same marriage laws that have been on the books since the founding of our country and the addition of the various states. It is the homosexual lobby that is working to change the well established law of the land to allow for same sex marriage.

Furthermore, with the effort to make crimes against homosexuals "hate crimes" they are afforded extra protections that the rest of us are not. It seems to me that all crime is motivated by hate and should be dealt with equally.

our founding fathers based our system of law not on a wide variety of somethings, but rather upon the Christian Bible for which virtually all of them had an immense respect and which most had a profound faith in.

"Based" here is a strong word, although I agree that their biblical beliefs helped drive their decisions. Nothing wrong with that. However, at the same time as their writings prove, they also understand the need for balance between freedom of religion and establishment ... and that people throughout the ages were going to try to twist their words and beliefs out of context in order to try to establish their own religion as THE one. They were smart.

From what I understand, they also drew governing expertise from Native American tribes such as the Choctaws who already had an admirable government system, and were one of the most capitalist tribes before Europeans destroyed their moral and economic foundation. Smart people know that there are many sources of knowledge, and that morality cannot be defined for eternity by the politicians of the day. If that were the case, the South would still have slavery.

Ladd, You say, "Smart people know that there are many sources of knowledge, and that morality cannot be defined for eternity by the politicians of the day."

I agree with that as well as with the fact that no politician is perfect. They make mistakes. However, I realize that I am looking through my particular religious lense, but I have to be honest with you that I believe morality was defined for all eternity, not by politicians, but by the God who created us and who gave us His precepts of morality in the Bible. Many of our founding fathers and subsequent politicians and perhaps even still a majority of Americans agree with me.

I've got to run for a while, but I have enjoyed the conversation.

A homosexual already has the same rights as a heterosexual. They can follow the same marriage laws that have been on the books since the founding of our country and the addition of the various states. It is the homosexual lobby that is working to change the well established law of the land to allow for same sex marriage.

Huh? This doesn't even make sense, M. Are you saying that they can follow the laws that discriminate against them just as easily as anyone else? You could also apply that to Jim Crow laws. In fact, many of the same folks behind his movement against gay rights did just that.

Furthermore, with the effort to make crimes against homosexuals "hate crimes" they are afforded extra protections that the rest of us are not. It seems to me that all crime is motivated by hate and should be dealt with equally.

I used to agree with you on this, and pissed off gay readers in the past by opposing "hate crime" legislation. But I changed my mind for two, or should I say three, reasons: Matthew Shepard, James Byrd and the fact that I realized that it is fallacious to argue that all crime is motivated by "hate." It's not. It's often motivated by greed, hunger, stupidity, religious zealotry, and all sorts of other human instincts.

Now re Shepard and Byrd: After these heinous crimes happened, which were undoubtedly motivated by hate, I realized that a civil society must step up against crime motivated specifically by bigotry. We hear all the talk of "deterrence" by the death-penalty apologists (despite the dearth of evidence that backs them up), but we also need to look at how to prevent hate crimes that tear apart entire communities (such as Jasper, Texas; a great PBS doc on this, by the way) and infest angry young people who have been raised to be bigots. As a civil society, we must do everything in our power to prevent actual "hate" crimes and to educate people on what is -- and what is not -- hate.

For instance, someone said on this site last week that being anti-homosexual is not bigotry. That's incredibly naive. Being anti-a-group-of-people is bigotry and needs its own remedy, preventive and after-the-fact. A civil society depends on it.

I'm still not disagreeing with you entirely, M. I believe there are many important moral lessons in the Bible, as well as other texts. For instance, Thou Shalt Not Kill is one of the best reasons I can think of not to require one human being to execute another one. The risk of making an error is another. The way the death penalty discriminates against the poor is another.

But politicians are prone to cherry-pick those moral lessons (or read them literally, instead of the way they were obviously meant) as they're doing now -- sadly, to support more nefarious notions. Today, for instance, we have a vice president with a lesbian daughter who is willing to support an extreme GOP platform of discrimination because it will buy his party votes. Why? To support the greed of corporate American and the oil industry. It is extremely offensive for them to take advantage of people's faith and religious beliefs in such a way. I'm supposed people of fundamentalist faith are not offended at how they're being used. I predict they will be not so far in the future.

The fundamental issue here is still how to balance everyone's religious freedom with the fundamental need not to establish one religion in a democratic, civil government. You have not given a convincing reason, yet, other than your personal religious beliefs, that your religion should be tha law of the land. You say we're arguing from different lenses -- this is true. But I am not trying to use the government to push my spiritual beliefs, which I have not addressed here (other than that I believe that helping the less fortunate is the highest moral value one can hold). There is a gaping difference. You can't really have this argument if you are not willing to step outside your own religious beliefs. It's a paradox otherwise: I believe the government should promote/enforce my religion because it's my religion isn't the most convincing, or logical, argument to make.

When you return, by the way, please answer my special-rights questions. It's rather vital to this discussion. Also, I'm still a little fuzzy on what you meant by "a homosexual already has the same rights as a heterosexual." You lost me there.

See you later. I'm out.

By the way, thanks for the source on your Madison quote. I'll check it out when I get a minute.

Out now.

M, I have a few questions, I'd like to pose...

How does "turn the other cheek" fit into our war on terror? We were attacked therefore we attack back? Not very Christian.

How does it fit into dropping bombs on innocents in Iraq? We were attacking Hussein and we have killed nearly 100,000 people in the process.

How does "love thy neighbor" fit into the situations above. As well, how does "love thy neighbor" fit into the death penalty, No Child Left Behind, and our poverty-ridden urban and rural communities? How does cutting funds that help those struggling in those areas fit into the teaching of Jesus?

How can you say this country is a Chrisitan nation when the majority of our legislators (mostly "moral" Republicans elected by the majority of presumed Christians) are not following Christ's teachings?

It's one thing to say our nation's laws were established or influenced by the Bible (though it actually has very heavy pre-Christian Germanic and Roman tribal influence -- since they influenced Europe's common law which eventually influenced US law) but it's another to claim we are a Christian nation when even an athiest can see that our government is acting on greed rather than Christ's teachings.

I think it would be easier to trust the "Moral Majority" if they weren't so darned immoral and deceitful and hypocritical... Live by example and I think we'd all find it easier to stomach because there is no actual threat in the way Christ lived and what he taught. The threat is in zealous actions by greedy individuals and organizations using Christ as their wool to get to the Flock.

If we are anything, we are a nation of greedy hypocrites not willing to live by example and practice what we preach. Some of my hardened athiest friends would say that means we ARE a Christian nation in jest. I would never go that far though it does seem much easier to be greedy and hypocritical if all you have to do is go to church on Sundays to make up for it (some actually live this way).

You can't blame the moral mess on "the gays" or abortions or terror. You can't punish those people either without holding a big, fat mirror up and taking a long hard look at yourself and the state of your Churches eventually. If we are a Christian nation and have been since Day 1, why the hell are we in such a moral, spiritual, financial, and social mess since Day 1?

This issue is common in nearly every other Christian nation (and theocratic nation) that has existed. As soon as Christians infiltrate the system and bend it to their needs, the Church becomes corrupt and collapses or breaks into sects along with the governing system.

As Silver said in the recent JFP issue, "Beware the forces of good." If you are a Christian and respect and love the Church, you should be doing EVERYTHING in your power to stop the two from getting in the proverbial bed with each other.

I'll just chime into say that I don't see a definition of marriage in the 10 commandments.

And, I'm still at a loss as to why we want to government involved in what should be a sacrament of the church.

And, yay Knol and Donna.

Yeah, I'm thinkin' God can handle this on His own.

And anything we can do to lessen promiscuity is good for society.

Here's to love and commitment.

OK... upon re-reading, I realize I used a pretty broad brush to paint Christians. I DO realize there are plenty of Christians that are good, moral people and are not deceitful and greedy. Just wanted to clarify in case my general statements were mis-taken.

Hey there folks... an interesting site... long, a lot of info though on the founding fathers (dudes as Donna calls them, lol) separation of Church and State, etc., etc...

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

I'll post some specifics in a sec... But, All here may find this site interesting, but, just for discussion's sake....M...could you take a glance?
Thanks

On the topic of good quotes, I'm listening to Tavis Smiley, and Cornel West just shared one of his favoriate Bible verses:

"Be in solidarity with the poor."
ó Proverbs 14:31

Amen, brother!

And, Jen, that's a great link. Thanks. I've seen those various pointsóabout the re-writing of the founding dudes' religious sentimentsómade in different places, but having it collected in one place is very useful. And I encourage everyone to take a read of it, regardless of your religious beliefs.

OK... Wow! As much as I've learned about Jefferson in my own personal studies and in jr/high school and college classes, I can say I never knew he edited the Gospels of all miracles and what he viewed to be supernatural or dogmatic. I'll have to print this and compare the two for a weekend of analytical fun. (I'm such a geek!)

Here's another link to more info on Jefferson's Bible by PBS.

You are a geek, Knol, and we love you for it. Don't change a thing. ;-)

Jen,

I did check out your link, but it is nothing I did not already know. I have pointed out, even in blogs on this site, that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were notable exceptions to the orthodox Christian faith of most of our founding fathers. I even have a copy of Jeferson's edited Bible. Benjamin Franklin's views of Deism are well documented and are considered heresy by Christians. However these men did have a profound RESPECT for the precepts of the Bible, even if they did not have a deep FAITH in the Bible itself.

As for Roger Williams, it is also well documented that he went off his rocker theologically speaking toward the end of his life.

I can't remember, but there were one or two other men that were mentioned on the site. I appreciate the site pointing out this handful of exceptions, HOWEVER, there were 55 framers of the U. S. Constitution. At least 50 and perhaps 52 of them were Christians, not humanists, not deists, not agnostics - Christians. Five non-Christians and fifty Christians working on this great document on which we base our government. The fact that three to five non-Christians were involved in the process of framing our constitution does not negate the fact that the Christian faith profoundly influenced the United States Constitution.

BTW, M. E. Bradford, a professor at the University of Dallas, has compiled a book on the lives of the members of the Constitutional Convention titled "A Worthy Company." He examines each of the men individually and shows that at least 50 of the framers were indeed Christian men. I don't know that our Christian heritage has vere realy been disputed much until recent times.

I have a few things to take care of. I know I need to answer the questions posed by Knol. I'll do it as soon as I have time.

An interesting link from the Christian Science Monitor regarding the Ten Commandments, the Constitution, and Judge Myron Thompson...

"I checked yesterday with my research team," Dr. Dobson announced. "There are only two references to religion in the Constitution." The first, from the preamble, he said, refers to securing "the blessings of liberty," which, he asserted, "came from God" (although there is nothing in the document to support that view.) The other was the First Amendment's establishment clause that, he said, "has given such occasion for mischief by the Supreme Court."


However, Dobson's researchers missed - or ignored - Article Six of the Constitution. That's the one barring religious tests for public office and set in motion disestablishment of the Christian churches that had served as arbiters of colonial citizenship and government for 150 years.


Mainstream historian Gary Wills writes that the framers' major innovation was "disestablishment."


"No other government in the history of the world," he writes, "had launched itself without the help of officially recognized gods and their state connected ministers."


Christian Right historian Gary North agrees. The ratification of the Constitution was a "judicial break with Christian America." Article Six provided a "legal barrier to Christian theocracy" leading "directly to the rise of religious pluralism," he declares in "Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism." Indeed, history shows that the framers of the Constitution sought to establish religious equality among citizens and in government. But, as Christian nationalists seek to eviscerate the capacity of federal courts to protect the religious freedom and equality of all Americans, we can expect that one of their main tactics and goals will continue to be the revision of history itself. Source

M., we're going in circles. There's influence, and codifying that influence into law. And, let's at least talk about Judeo Christian influence, since, well Jesus was Jewish. And, we could throw in Islam, as one of the three Abrahamic faiths, which was influenced by Judaism, Jesus, and the early christian movement.

My point being, christianity has no lock on the ideas that were written into the constitution, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Another intersting piece from Richard V. Pierard a history professor at Indiana State U as published in Christian Century:

The instances of writers stretching the facts of the past to make them fit into some preconceived Christian model are legion. For example, Whitehead declares that neither Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin were deists and that "they at least believed in the personal God of the Scriptures even if they denied the deity of Christ." The proof of Franklinís piety is his oft-cited plea for prayer at the Constitutional Convention. Historians realize that this was a tactic to cool tempers at a time when the deliberations were deadlocked, but the evangelical barrister states that Franklinís resolution calling for prayers each morning before proceeding with the dayís business in Congress passed, and that the practice of having prayer before the daily sessions of the U.S. Congress continues to this day. Actually there is no record of a resolution providing for prayer. Franklin himself wrote afterwards that "the Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary," yet Whitehead claims that Franklinís "remarks are clearly derived from the Scriptures" and reveal that "very likely he was operating from Christian presuppositions himself." Further, he "made an appeal for prayer based on the Scriptures," because he was speaking to a group of men "who were predominantly Christians." As for Jefferson, Whitehead says he shared a high view of Christianity, which his statement evidences: "I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just," The writer concludes that to call them "true deists is as erroneous as to call Karl Barth an evangelical Christian" (The Separation Illusion [Mott Media, 1977], pp. 20-21).
...
On the other hand, evangelicals who promote a warped view of American history in an effort to undo the court rulings on church-state affairs ignore a fundamental point made by Roger Williams more than 300 years ago: "No civil state or country can be truly called Christian, although the Christians be in it." The vague theism of the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution was in effect a civil religion, and this they did establish. The civil faith did draw from the ideals of theism, but it is wrong to assume that therefore the country was founded on Christian beliefs and thus is a Christian nation.

And yet another good read by Ed Buckner, Ph.D.:

In summary, this is not a Christian nation precisely because the framers understood that if any government enforces or even encourages any religious belief or lack of belief, everyone's religious liberty is put at risk. To those who think it would be better if we agreed to call this a Christian nation, ask them a few questions:

-Do you want agents of any government to make religious decisions for you?
-Do you want any government to help you, directly or indirectly, as you try to persuade others of the truth of your religious beliefs?
-Do you believe parents are not always the proper source of religious instruction for young children, and if not, do you want government agents to decide which parents are wrong or inadequate regarding religion?
-Do you want government agents to try to force a preference for religious beliefs on anyone?
-Do you believe any government should tax citizens to pay for encouraging others to accept religious beliefs not shared by those being taxed?

Any who agree that the answer to each of these questions is "No!" must also agree that this is a free country, not a Christian nation.

Wow Kate! Nice sounding argument, but it is WAY off. Yes, the Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can all be traced back through Abraham. If I understand correctly, you said, "we could throw in Islam" as an influence into our founding documents because it is shares Abraham in common with Judaism and Christianity. My question for you is, "How many framers of the Constitution were Jewish, and how many were Moslem? In fact, I would love to know of even one Moslem who had anything remotely to do with America's founding, or even our first hundred years of history.

The first mosque in North America, the Al Rashid, wasn't even built until 1938.

http://www.muslim-canada.org/alrashidmosque.html

Given thes facts, I don't see how you can say that Islam was a deciding influence on our constitution.

M., you might want to read the sentence that I wrote that said:

"My point being, christianity has no lock on the ideas that were written into the constitution, and I'd like to keep it that way." Cause, well, that's my point. Says so, right there.

And, I think you're living in denial if you think Judaism didn't influence Christianity. Second point, read carefully: Christianity has LOTS IN COMMON with other religions. That's why I brought up Abraham. We are the world, and all that.

Back to the first point: Christians do NOT HAVE ANY INHERENT MORAL SUPERIORITY. Therefore, I do not want the interpretations of some denominations of Christianity codified into law. Which brings us to Knol's point - that the Christian and non Christian founders and framers of the constitution did not want that either. So, I'm really really unclear why you keep bringing it all up.

Kate,

I am bringing it up, because if I understand correctly, that is what this blog is about.

As far as being in denial about Judaism's influence on Christianity: You have mistakenly assumed that I did not agree. Of course Judaism is an influence on Christianity. Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Judaic law. I wholeheartedly agree.

The point I made, and which still stands is that Christianity was THE predominant faith of our founding fathers and therefore is the faith that most influenced our founding documents.

Knol,

Sorry to take so long to answer your questions. There were several in your 1:20 p. m. posting this afternoon. I will copy your post and insert my answers.

Knol: ìM, I have a few questions, I'd like to poseÖî

Knol: ìHow does "turn the other cheek" fit into our war on terror? We were attacked therefore we attack back? Not very Christian.î

M: Using this same logic you could say that Matthew Sheperd should have just turned the other cheek. I donít think either of us agrees to that. I would say that God has given the government the role of maintaining order. God has given government the sword to enforce that order. Those who break the peace must face the discipline of the governing authorities. I base this on my own logic, but it is backed up by Romans 13 (I know, I know. Paul wrote Romans. Iím just telling you where I am coming from).

Knol: ìHow does it fit into dropping bombs on innocents in Iraq? We were attacking Hussein and we have killed nearly 100,000 people in the process.î

M: I donít know of any legitimate authorities who have accused the U. S. Military of intentionally killing civilians in Iraq. It is unfortunate that many have been killed, but far more innocents have been killed by their own countrymen with roadside bombs and attacks than the U. S. Military has killed. All of the deaths of innocent civilians are a shame. I agree we should do all we can to protect the innocent. By the way, where did you find that ì100,000î figure. I havenít heard anything remotely close to that. I would be interested in finding out more about it.

My guess is that far fewer innocent people will have been killed in Iraq when this is over than would have been killed by Hussein if he were allowed to stay in power.

previou post ctd:

Knol: ìHow does "love thy neighbor" fit into the situations above. As well, how does "love thy neighbor" fit into the death penalty, No Child Left Behind, and our poverty-ridden urban and rural communities? How does cutting funds that help those struggling in those areas fit into the teaching of Jesus?î

M: I have argued the death penalty issue in the ìMourning in Americaî blog, but here it is again. Exodus 20 (The Ten Commandments) does indeed say "Thou shalt not kill." The Hebrew word used for "kill" there is ratsach. It literally means "murder." A literal translation could read, "Thou shalt not murder." Capital punishment is not murder, and in fact, in the very next chapter (Exodus 21:12) we read, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."

The explanation is that God forbids us as individuals to murder other human beings, but commands the government to enforce discipline to protect society. This is reinforced in the New Testament in Romans 13 where we read that the government does not bear the SWORD in vain. Obviously the sword is an instrument of death.

My contention is that the death penalty actually shows a greater respect for life, because it says that human life is so precious, that if you take an innocent life, then the highest possible punishment (oneís own life) will be forfeited.

Previous post ctd.

As for no child left behind: no child, should be forced to stay in underperforming even violent schools. I think the schools should be forced to perform or else the children's parents should have the option of moving them to a safe school where they will get a good education. Innercity kids should have the same opportunities given to them by the governmment that suburban kids are given by the government.

I lived in the inner-city for several years before moving to Mississippi and worked with underprivileged kids. My heart goes out to them.

You also mentioned cutting funding. I think the funding process has actually hurt more kids than it has helped. Here is what I mean. We have encouraged mothers not to marry their babyís father because it would cut back her welfare benefits. On the other hand, the more out of wedlock children she has, the more checks the government sends. Then, if the children do not do well in school, the mother is rewarded with yet another check to help raise a their child because of their slow intellect. We have placed the poor into a situation where we reward them for self destructive behavior, but when they try to get a job or get married they are punished. To me this is cruel and not ìloving our neighbor.î

I have seen first hand, families who would not let children do homework or allow them to be tutored, because they wanted to keep them in Special Ed. and keep what they called, ìthe stupid checkî coming in. When I first heard this, I was dumbfounded. Furthermore, much of the money that is supposed to be used for the children is actually used for dead beat uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.. who often live in the same household with the childrenís grandparents and live off the welfare checks instead of getting jobs.

I am not trying to say this happens in every case, but it is far too common. I donít think government checks are the answer. I think individuals getting involved in these families lives and teaching and helping these kids is the real answer. I did it for five years and found it to be very rewarding, but very disheartening at times as well.

Knol: How can you say this country is a Christian nation when the majority of our legislators (mostly "moral" Republicans elected by the majority of presumed Christians) are not following Christ's teachings?

M: I agree. I donít know that I could say that our country is a Christian nation. I think it has gained that title based on the influence Christianity has had on our founding and subsequent history. I think this association with modern America being the model for Christianity is quite scary. When Moslems see what is coming from American movie theatres and porn sites on the web etc. and then they consider that America is a ìChristian Nation,î it is no wonder that they see Christianity as a vile religion.

As for Republican politicians, I donít believe they would all claim to be Christians. I think Christians tend to vote Republican, not because they are diehard Republicans, but because Republicans have tended to lean more to conservative Biblical morality in their platform than the Democrats have. If a Democrat was more conservative than his Republican challenger, I have no doubt that most Christians would vote for the Democrat.

Knol: ìIt's one thing to say our nation's laws were established or influenced by the Bible (though it actually has very heavy pre-Christian Germanic and Roman tribal influence -- since they influenced Europe's common law which eventually influenced US law) but it's another to claim we are a Christian nation when even an athiest can see that our government is acting on greed rather than Christ's teachings.î

M: There is something to be said about capitalism being based on greed, but greed motivates a person to work, whereas socialism motivates a person only to be lazy. Take Jamestown for instance. When all the food goods were held in common storage, the colony almost died. Only when John Smith took charge and enforced the Biblical principal of ìif any would not work, neither should he eatî (2 Thess. 3:10), and forced every able bodied man to grow the food that they personally would live off of, did the colony turn the corner.

Knol: ìI think it would be easier to trust the "Moral Majority" if they weren't so darned immoral and deceitful and hypocritical... Live by example and I think we'd all find it easier to stomach because there is no actual threat in the way Christ lived and what he taught. The threat is in zealous actions by greedy individuals and organizations using Christ as their wool to get to the Flock.î

M: Jerry Falwell was the leader of the Moral Majority. I know he is a sinner like us all, but I have never heard even a hint of major moral indiscressions on his part. I keep up with Falwell and Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University fairly closely. I think you would be hard pressed to say that Falwell is a hypocrite.

However, Christians are human too. We all make mistakes, and many Christian leaders have made some egregious ones. I would agree that some are even hypocrites. BUT, just because SOME are hypocrites does not mean that ALL are. I donít throw away all my cash, just because some cash is counterfeit.

Knol: ìIf we are anything, we are a nation of greedy hypocrites not willing to live by example and practice what we preach. Some of my hardened athiest friends would say that means we ARE a Christian nation in jest. I would never go that far though it does seem much easier to be greedy and hypocritical if all you have to do is go to church on Sundays to make up for it (some actually live this way).î

M: Sad but true.

Knol: ìYou can't blame the moral mess on "the gays" or abortions or terror. You can't punish those people either without holding a big, fat mirror up and taking a long hard look at yourself and the state of your Churches eventually. If we are a Christian nation and have been since Day 1, why the hell are we in such a moral, spiritual, financial, and social mess since Day 1?î

M: Again, sadly, I have to agree with you. The church in America has not always been the church it should have been, nor is it today. There are plenty of professing Christians who indeed go to church regularly for whatever reasons, yet they live no differently than the world around them. This grieves me too!

Knol: ìThis issue is common in nearly every other Christian nation (and theocratic nation) that has existed. As soon as Christians infiltrate the system and bend it to their needs, the Church becomes corrupt and collapses or breaks into sects along with the governing system.î

M: Perhaps you are referring to Anglicanism versus Protestantism in the civil wars in England? Maybe not, but I would concede that historically when the church becomes powerful, or even popular, it often falls into moral decline, whereas when the church has faced persecution it has grown both numerically and in conviction.

Knol: ìAs Silver said in the recent JFP issue, "Beware the forces of good." If you are a Christian and respect and love the Church, you should be doing EVERYTHING in your power to stop the two from getting in the proverbial bed with each other.î

M: Interesting choice of words.

Also, consider this. Would having a Christian government also mean banning all use of interest? The Bible had laws against usury (charging interest). In the Middle Ages, the Church prohibited Christians from practicing usury[1]. Imagine the chaos in our financial markets (and subsequently the whole global economy) if THAT were enacted as law! But somehow, I doubt you'll see that many Christians calling for enacting THAT law of The Bible. The Bible was addressed to a people in a specific time, place, and (most importantly) CULTURE!! This culture had different customs, values, etc to such a great extent that even the most ordinary social practices in our culture would be greeted with FIRM DISTASTE in theirs, and vice versa.

[1] Incidentally, many historians believe that's why Jews historically have had such a strong presence in the financial sector. They almost never owned land back then (which of course ruled out their working the land), so how else could they earn a living)?

FROM MY E-MAIL

Ideally, all laws enacted by the government would conform completely
to the truth. However, this is not possible because the governed people
cannot ever know the complete truth, and often believe facts that are outright false or utterly improvable. Both the governed and the government would agree that no law should exist unless it conforms to the truths of human nature.

<SNIP>

The problem comes when the truth-values of claims and philosophical bases enshrined in law are in dispute. If governments enshrine in law too many truth-claims that too many people disagree with, then there will be enough angry people ready to go against their government, possibly to the point of armed revolt.

Therefore, if a government is to conform to its legitimate purposes
over the long run, it can only enshrine into law only the minimum set of
truths; those that were proven demonstrably to be true, at least to some degree by at least a considerable number of people initially (though in the long run, those truths/laws must be seen as objectively true by the majority of people).

This is where issues of religion and government come into play. Many
religious beliefs are at the very least improvable. Therefore, these
beliefs are rendered false in the eyes of many people, regardless of the
actual objective truth-value. Therefore, governments, especially in our day and age, would be ill-advised to enshrine religious truths into law,
especially since governments can have no legitimate control over what people think where religion is concerned.

The point I made, and which still stands is that Christianity was THE predominant faith of our founding fathers and therefore is the faith that most influenced our founding documents.

M, I don't understand why you're arguing so hard to prove this point, regardless of the degree of truth to it. It's a red herring in a church-state debate. And you ignored much of what was in Jen's posting (the church-state separation points) to simply assert, once again, that some of the founders were Christian. Not the point! Irrelevant! Even staunch Christians among the founders, and in our society, who value religious freedom (more than forcing their religion down other people's throats) recognize the importance of keeping a particular peron's religion from ruling the governmentówhich is the point at issue here, not who believes like you do. Your beliefs are irrevlant to this church-state discussion (as are mine), and THAT'S SIMPLY NOT THE SAME QUESTION as whether any of them were guided by their faith, Christian or not, which you are trying to prove incessantly. Let's stipulate that, so that we can actual talk about the issue at hand, eh?

So far, you are chasing your tail, logically, here. I respectfully suggest it's because you are caught inside a parodox i.e. you're trying to use your set of beliefs as the reason to argue that the government should enforce your set of beliefs. You can't do that and get anywhere. Either people of your own faith are going to agree with or not. People of any other faith, including other stripes of Christianity than yours, are obviously going to disagree that our government should enforce your religious rules. It's simply not up to you, or me, or anyone else to decide which faith the government enforces. Once that happens, America is no longer America.

It simply makes no sense to spend all this time trying to convince folks of different faithsónot to mention those of the same faith who value constitutional rights and religious freedomóof something that other Americans are not going to allow to happen in order that the freedom of religious guaranteed by the First Amendment is protected.

Also, I don't see your answer anywhere in all this to my simple question: How is allowing two homosexual people to marry "special rights"? Being that it's the basis of much of your argument, please enlighten us as to your reasoning.

Also, you never explained the other statement you made above about how homomsexuals already have equal rights. Please take a few minutes and clarify for the sake of discussion.

Homosexuals ought to folow the same laws that are already on the books, just as we all do. They are free to marry within the context of a natural male/female realtionship just like anyone else. The fact that they choose not to, I believe is indeed their choice.

I know the argument is that this would not be natural for them since they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. I would counter that homosexual acts themselves are not natural.

As far as the founding fathers argument is concerned, the point remains, as we have both agreed, civil laws have to be based on something. The fact that the Bible and the Christian faith was such an integral part of our founders lives tells me that Christianity was a big part of what they based our civil law upon. Again, I agree that they were not trying to force everyone, or anyone, to become a Christian, but they did base the civil law on certain Christian morals and the government did and has enforced those morals to maintain a civilized society.

M, you have stated before and once again that it is the homosexual acts themselves that are not natural... correct?

M, you have also stated, I believe in another blog, and I am paraphrasing here, that there is nothing wrong with 2 homosexuals dating and having a loving relationship....correct? Because it's not the PERSON that's wrong, but the ACT itself, correct--the sex act?

Please answer these questions so that I may continue with clarity...

"I know the argument is that this would not be natural for them since they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. I would counter that homosexual acts themselves are not natural." -M

M, a homosexual relationship consists of many natural things: love, patience, and, in general, coupling. I don't like heterosexual sex but you don't see me trying to convert everyone to homosexuality because heterosexual sex does not come naturally to me.

In a world founded in chaos, I find it impossibly hard to accept your terms of what is natural since there is no litmus test or standard for what is natural... It's based on the origin of the perspective and the experiences of the viewer. The Supreme Court felt the same when they eliminated "unnatural sex" from the legal vocabulary... Have your definition but do not try to define me, my partner, my relationship, or an entire group of people and community. That's just sick and borderlines fascist reason!

And you WON'T catch me trying to define other people or communities through the legal system. Again, it comes down to respect. Honestly, I don't care if you "tolerate" me but I do demand the same respect I give and I do demand respect as a tax-payer by our governing body.

And, again, we are not a Christian nation nor have we ever been. There are Christians, they are involved in our systems but that does not negate the fact that we are not a Christian nation or that we do not have a Christian system.

Christ taught love not war. Christ taught forgiveness not hate. Christ lived by example not by force. I hardly see many Americans celebrating and embracing these virtues as they cast judgement and seek control over others liberties and pursuit of liberty rather than liberty for ALL.

Sounds like God made a huge honkin' mistake when s/he made gay people then. Or maybe, God didn't make gay people? Or made them, but then imbued them with unnatural desire so s/he could laugh?

I reject that God.

My God made everything, made a universe of infinite possibility, and loves it all.

I agree with ladd, all this talk about whether the "founding fathers" (an amorphorous term; I prefer "framers of the constitution") were Christian is simply a red herring. It is irrelevant to the issue of church-state separation, and to the issue of a gay marriage amendment. If M Brady wants a national religion, let him organize a state convention or petition his congressman to introduce a constitutional amendment that repeals the religious test prohibition in Article VI and strikes the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" from the First Amendment. Until then, let's let the issue lie.

I really would like to hear, however, about the issue of values and politics. I believe that the broader issue of social and cultural values is becoming increasingly important in politics and public policy. After the 1994 Republican sweep in the congressional elections, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared that the Republican party had become the party of ideas, and that liberalism had lost its values. Democratic social policy had failed because of social and cultural pathologies that Democrats refused to address because of a committment to value-relativism. I believe that there some real social and cultural problems that we need to address, and public policies can play a part in this. Arguing whether James Madison believed in God in not productive.

First, I hate that M is not available at this point because I am about to not be available for a couple days to continue our discussion.

Second, Justin I see exactly where you are coming from. Whether or not "they" "believed" in a "God" and who's "God" that was seems logically to be irrelevant to the issue we are trying to get down to. However, if, as you say, we have some saying "liberals have lost their values," and that "Dem. social policy had failed because of social and cultural pathologies..." I believe we reached that point by so much trying to pinpoint those accusing, citing the reasons/reasoning/rhetoric and debating that and also what it is based on. We need to deal with the "symptom" obviously but also the root cause.

Jen-
That's right: we need to look at the root causes of these social problems. Moynihan's point is that these root causes might be cultural, or even moral, rather than solely economic, as social policy has previously assumed (Moynihan is a Democrat, by the way). We need an open discussion of these societal values.

I agree with ladd, all this talk about whether the "founding fathers" (an amorphorous term; I prefer "framers of the constitution") were Christian is simply a red herring.

I agree about the founding fathers label -- and every time I type "founders," I must admit that I think about Deep Space Nine. That's probably why I've taken to calling them "founding dudes." ;-)

I believe that there some real social and cultural problems that we need to address, and public policies can play a part in this. Arguing whether James Madison believed in God in not productive.

Thank you, Justin. You are so expressing what I'm feeling as well. Let's talk about *values* and what it does/should mean in our society. It's really ludicrous that the word "values" and "morals" has been boiled down to abortion and gay marriage. That's letting a whole lot of responsibility corporations and leaders off the hook.

So, let's talk about "values." What are they? Which ones are most important to all of you?

I'd start with economic justice and equal access to the means and tools to earn a decent living and get good health care. I think the absolute most important value is "solidarity with the poor." I can't image one more important.

Provocative column in the Dayton City Paper. The slave-state analogy should sting like a bee in these parts.

Astonishing as it may seem, the 2004 election map of red and blue states eerily mirrors the pre-Civil War map of ìfreeî and ìslaveî states and territories. Tellingly, every one of the 1860 slave states and territories voted for George W. Bush, while all of the 1860 free states and territories voted for John Kerry with the sad exceptions of Ohio and Iowa, which regressed to red.

Only now we can refer to the red states as ìanti-gayî states.

The map reminds us that weíve always had two moralities in this country. One cherry-picks the Bible for convenient political purposes and the other wants to move beyond the hate and injustice to a healthier, happier country.

With that map in mind, it now seems completely shameful that church ministers, many of them black, bit on Republican fear-mongering and urged a yes vote on Ohioís Issue One to define marriage between only a man and a woman ó particularly when we know that, in 1860, anti-abolitionists used the Bible to justify keeping blacks in slavery.

For the most part, Democrats have always taken the approach of advantageously ignoring the Christian right except when Supreme Court Justices were to be named.

This election should make it obvious to the Democratic Party that they must deal, not with the Christian right, but with the perceptions they have engendered about Democrats by means of their twisted interpretation of Christís mission. Their narrow understanding of Christianity affects modern Americans in a way even Richard Wagner, one of Adolph Hitlerís inspirations, would admire.

Homosexuals ought to folow the same laws that are already on the books, just as we all do. They are free to marry within the context of a natural male/female realtionship just like anyone else. The fact that they choose not to, I believe is indeed their choice.

I assume this is your definition of "special rights," M -- that people are seeking "special rights" if they seek to change laws already on the books that the "majority" decided were good for society?

I've heard this reasoning before -- from people defended Jim Crow and resisted the Civil Rights Movement. Then, bigots said (even using the Bible to justify their actions) that blacks had "separate but equal" rights -- that as long as they went along with the program, and didn't ask for too much, that they had enough legal protection. That they wanted something "special" -- beyond what society, and tradition and even God thought they should have: the right to vote, the right to spend their money at the same establishments as whites, the rights to attend the same public schools. (Or take it on back to the folks who opposed women's suffrage; same argument; those babes wanted "special rights," per your reasoning).

Like with homosexuals now, right here in Jackson and Mississippi, bigots would be nice to blacks and accept them AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T TRY TO GET OUT OF THEIR PLACE, or change the law, or ask for actual *equal* rights. When they did started asking for "special rights," the boycotting, and the taunting, and the harassment and the violence began. And make no mistake: the people doing the taunting laid the groundwork for the violence, whether they meant to or not. Whenever society, or groups in society dehumanize certain groups as people are doing now with homosexuals (equating them with animals and criminals and such), then other folks with less restraint with act out against them. That's called "hate crime," and that's what happened with both Matthew Shepard and James Byrd. And that's why I changed my mind about "hate crimes" being treated a bit differently than other types of crimes. You have to go after the "hate" (or "bigotry") and the crime.

Back to your definition of "special rights," though: It is simply not logical to say that because someone is trying to change a law to allow them to do something that other groups can do (marry the person of their choosing), that it is asking for "special rights." At least be intellectually honest and admit that you do not want homosexuals to have *equal* rights to marry, unless they agree to marry someone of the opposite gender. The "special rights" thing is a nonsencial sound bite.

Ladd--"So, let's talk about "values." What are they? Which ones are most important to all of you?"

Let's have some definitions here to start off with. We may have seen these already, maybe not. And good morning, all.

mor?al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mÙrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mrlis, from ms, mr-, custom. See m-1 in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jen-Notice the first line of the definition states that morals are of or concerned with the "JUDGEMENT..." and also the origin of the word from Old Latin mor = "CUSTOM"

val?ue ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vly)
n.
An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.
*Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.
*A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: ìThe speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibilityî (Jonathan Alter).
Precise meaning or import, as of a word.

values

n : beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something); "he has very conservatives values"

origin: from Old French, from feminine past participle of valoir, to be strong, be worth

I'll throw in my two cents on definitions.
Values is a general term. Generally, I think that it refers to things on which we, as human beings, place worth.
This thread, however, had focused on a particular kind of values, which I call moral values, or mores. Mores can be defined as generally accepted rules for conduct or action.
Another term that is often thrown around in this type of discussion: morality. I define morality as a standard or system by which to judge mores.

Interesting, Justin. Yeah, we have used these words alot in this discussion. Just wanted us to kind of have a common base to start from.

Back to Donna's questions... I am not going to call out certain factions or point fingers ... but when I hear one side or groups saying another side or group has no "values" just because they may vote for abortion or gay marraige for example... what pops into my head is "What happened to feeding the poor?, What happened to taking care of the environment?, What happened to assisting impoverished nations?, Taking care of the sick, elderly, mentally ill? Hell, what happened to freakin' HONESTY... ?? What happened to a little something called respect for the rights of others??? Are these no longer values????"

M, when you visit again, please don't forget my questions from Friday. thx

OK, re that James Madison quote in dispute ... an alert reader just sent me the following background on it: apparently it's not real. [This info may take a few screens to share, but it's important, so bear with me.]

Starting here, it's verbatim:

That purported quote, which has never been found in "The Papers of James Madison" or any other primary source of Madison's writings or speeches, appears to have been fabricated. Indeed the editors of "The Papers of James Madison" searched for the quote and "did not find anything remotely like it." See the following discussion excerpted from "Public Education and the Public Good", Robert S. Alley, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. pp 316-318 (Robert Alley is a distinguished historian at the University of Richmond who made an attempt to track down the origin of this quote.)

Everything following is taken from "Public Education and the Public Good", Robert S. Alley, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. pp 316-318.

C. The Ten Commandments Hoax

In July, 1994, the organization Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) pointed out that Rush Limbaugh had incorrectly attributed to James Madison a quotation concerning the centrality of the Ten Commandments to "American civilization."(245) Quickly rising to Limbaugh's defense were several California residents who wrote letters to the Los Angeles Times. One writer prefaced the alleged quotation with the following: "Here (as quoted in The Myth of Separation by David Barton) is precisely what Madison said."(246) The bogus quote followed: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."(247) What the writer, Rick Crowell, did not tell us was that Barton cited as his only sources for those words two twentieth century writers, Harold K. Lane in Liberty! Cry Liberty!, (248) and Frederick Nyneyer in First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association.(249)

MORE/verbatim:

Responding to the public hubbub, editors of The Papers of James Madison, John Stagg and David Mattern, referred all inquirers to a letter dated November 23, 1993, in which Mr. Mattern wrote concerning the alleged quotation: "We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private."(250) This expert response has not dampened the ardor of those who privately would have Madison affirm their own distorted version of American history. Crowell accused Mr. Mattem of "revisionism at its worst."(251) I offer here a reconstruction of the convoluted trek of the words in question.

In citing David Barton's The Myth of Separation as the source, Mr. Crowell apparently missed the fact that Barton did not include the words, "of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government."(252) In a video tape Barton inserts "of all our political institutions" but still omits the "capacity of mankind."(253) This video version was read into the Congressional Record by Representative Dannemeyer on October 7, 1992.(254)

Barton's sources are two, or three, depending upon how you sort out his confusion. Apart from citing the Lane volume of 1939, he offers as his other source Frederick Nyneyer's First Principles in Morality and Economics; Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association. (255) In fact, his source appears to be an article entitled "Neighborly Love and Ricardo 's Law of Association". (256) Far from appearing in a source by Nyneyer, the alleged quote is found in the latter article and drawn "[f]rom the 1958 calendar of Spiritual Mobilization."(257) Barton's attempted documentation becomes exponentially more curious. He seems to have no clue as to his sources. When approached about his mythical additions to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, he deleted the references in a later edition of his tape.(258)

The connection between the Ten Commandments and James Madison has been variously advanced by numerous commentators from the political right over the past several decades. In 1964, Clarence Manion wrote:

"As Madison stated in the [T]he Federalist, our entire political experiment swings upon our capacity to govern ourselves according to the moral law.... The only people who can afford the great luxury of a civil government strictly limited by law are those people who recognize and are willing to live by their natural, God-imposed obligations and responsibilities under the Ten Commandments."(259)

MORE/verbatim:

There is nothing in The Federalist Papers remotely resembling what is argued by Manion. Madison never mentioned the Ten Commandments in any of The Federalist essays. There are, however, two points to be made. First, Manion, while claiming to cite The Federalist Papers, does not have the temerity to quote Madison. Second, while Manion espouses generally the same sentiment about the Ten Commandments as does the Barton material, the references to the Decalogue are utterly different from the Barton version.

Proving that a quotation does not exist is a daunting task. If you cannot find it in any extant manuscripts or collections of Madison's works, just how does one prove it will not turn up in someone's attic tomorrow? Of course you cannot. That is why the Madison editors were careful in how they phrased their response. But, after all, it is incumbent solely upon the perpetrators of this myth to prove it by at least one citation. This they cannot do. Their style is not revisionism, it is anti-historical.

We likely have not heard the last of this nonsense, but it is important to press the new media frauds to document what they claim. Because they cannot do so in most instances, time may ultimately discredit the lot of them.

Footnotes:

(245) Howard Rosenberg, "Limbaugh Devotees Rush to his Defense", L.A. Times,July 111, 1994, at F1.

(246) Id. at F1.

(247) Id.

(248) David Barton, The Myth of Separation 308 (1992) (Citing Harold K. Lane, Liberty! Cry Liberty 32-33 (]939)).

(249) Frederick Nyneyer, First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association 31 (1958).

(250) Letter from David Mattem to Gene Garman, Nov. 23, 1993. A copy of this letter was supplied to the author by Mr. Mattem, current editor of The Papers of James Madison.

(251) Rosenberg, supra note 245, at F1.

(252) BARTON, supra note 248, at 155.

(253) Barton, supra note 82, at E3072.

(254) Id. at E3071.

(255) BARTON,supra note 248, at 308.

(256) 4 Progressive Calvinism 31 (1959)

(257) Id.

(258) See supra text accompanying notes 233-36.[*]

[*]The supra text cited in note 258 as taken from "Public Education and the Public Good", Robert S. Alley, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. pp 314-315.

MORE/verbatim:

One other remark about the Danbury Letter is in order here. David Barton in America's Godly Heritage(233) comments upon the Danbury Letter with outrageous disregard for the facts. After totally missing the point of the Danbury Letter, Barton incorrectly asserts that in his reply Jefferson explained that the First Amendment was to prohibit the establishment of a national denomination only.(234) He also fabricates a long list of things Jefferson supposedly used to explain the First Amendment. He quotes Jefferson as saying that "such a wall would protect the church from the government, that there would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices (whether public prayer, the use of the Bible, etc.)."(235) It is appalling that the Jefferson Letter, readily accessible to the public, should be so abused. Barton's claims have no relationship to truth but can be floated easily to support political agendas concerning school prayer. Under pressure from critics, it is reported that Barton has now withdrawn some of his lies about the letter to the Danbury Baptists.(236)

Footnotes

(233) Barton, supra note 82, at E3069

(234) Id at E3071.

(235) Id.

(236) " Sects, Lies and Videotape" Rob Boston, Journal of Church & State, Apr. 1993, at 8, 9.

(259) Clarence Manion, The Conservative American 197 (1964).

--
Hope that helps. dl

For what it's worth, David Barton and his work has long been the subject of debate. Here's an article from Beliefnet that might be of interest to you.

Somebody explain to me how this, House Alters Its Rules to Shield DeLay, makes the republicans the party with moral superiority.

House Republicans changed a party rule Wednesday to allow Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas to remain as majority leader even if indicted in an investigation of campaign finance violations in his home state. The new rule, approved in a closed-door meeting, represented the first significant action taken by emboldened Republicans since they increased their House majority in the Nov. 2 elections.

Kate, I feel your pain. Please note that I've added a new thread just as place to put the numerous examples of friggin' unbelievable hubris coming out of the capitol of the free world:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=4572_0_27_0_C

Hypocrisy in America??? Nah. New York Times today:

Many Who Voted for 'Values' Still Like Their Television Sin

The results of the presidential election are still being parsed for what they say about the electorate's supposed closer embrace of traditional cultural values, but for the network television executives charged with finding programs that speak to tastes across the nation, one lesson is clear.

The supposed cultural divide is more like a cultural mind meld.

In interviews, representatives of the four big broadcast networks as well as Hollywood production studios said the nightly television ratings bore little relation to the message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters.

The choices of viewers, whether in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, New York or Birmingham, Ala., are remarkably similar. And that means the election will have little impact on which shows they decide to put on television, these executives say. [...]

o if it is true that the public's electoral choices are a cry for more morally driven programming, the network executives ask, why are so many people, even in the markets surrounding the Bush bastions Atlanta and Salt Lake City, watching a sex-drenched television drama?

"Desperate Housewives" on ABC is the big new hit of the television season, ranked second over all in the country, behind only "C.S.I." on CBS. This satire of suburbia and modern relationships features, among other morally challenged characters, a married woman in her 30's having an affair with a high-school-age gardener, and has prompted several advertisers, including Lowe's, to pull their advertisements.

In the greater Atlanta market, reaching more than two million households, "Desperate Housewives" is the top-rated show. Nearly 58 percent of the voters in those counties voted forPresident Bush.

I am happy to say that I have never seen "Desperate Housewives" or a single reality-TV show. Does that mean I'm elitist or moral??? I'm confused. <grin>

Donna, you obviously ARE very confused and need to immediately call up Trent and Haley to show you the correct path.... ;-)

I did, on the other hand, waste an hour of my obliviously confused life and slowly deteriorating brain cells watching one episode of "Desparate Housewives." I find it interesting that you include it in a sentence with reality TV, because I found it to be not much more than a nightime soap opera, with the same addicting qualities present in daytime soap that are now present in most reality TV. I got away before the monkey got on my back, thankfully. I was lucky enough, though, that the episode I got to see was the now infamous (at least thanks to Monday Night Football) "Towel" episode. Are we to honestly think according to these numbers that all these people giving outrageous outcry to what happens before or during halftime of a football game are not the very same people (give or take) who are keeping these very same shows on primetime?

Jen, I was in the salon the other day and heard the (conversative) women in another room lambasting liberals for all the immoral stuff on the television. Funny thing is that I agree with them that there is crap on TV, especially during the day, that ought not be easily available to kids. We got cable again recently after doing without TV for a long time, and I'm amazed at how morally and intellectually vacant so much of that crap is. However, what killed me is that those women are avid Fox News watchers, and apparently have no clue the effect that FOX has had on what is appearing on television. They also seem to be clueless that the "free market" (and corporate welfare and big-money lobbying) is behind much of what they're (not?) watching on TV. I'm a Libertarian when it comes to this crap -- that is, don't watch it or support the advertisers that bring the crap on there. Speak with your pocketbook.

I'm also offended when people lump the makers of such garbage as "Desperate Housewives" into "media."

There was a good Frontline piece on all this recently. Oops, I'm being elitist again. ;-)

Fox News... nevermind. What I would like very much is for people to look into who OWNS the televsion stations, and not just locally but the conglomorates. Companies I'd be willing to say we'd probably never pair with "media" owning or sharing in TV, radio, newspaper and having imput and control over what we see and hear and read. First, I'd be willing to say most of these are not liberals...Second, yeah, the last time I checked, I had a channel button AND an on/off switch. THINK PEOPLE!!

You're right, of course, Jen. It is about corporatization and who owns what what. The further ownership gets away from the people, and being local, the less accountable media area.

Here's a page on Columbia Journalism Review's site on "Who Owns What?" that is very enlightening:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

It's a good place to start. You bring up a vital point, by the way. Media literacy, as we call it in the non-corporate media, is very important. People need to understand their media, their motives, their owners, and so on.

Very interesting site, indeed. Thanks.

and these are just some of the reasons I, for one, love JFP... to throw some truthful flattery your way... ;-)

Oh, stop. No, don't.

<grin>

Thanks.

Everyone, make sure you click on the Gannett listing:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/gannett.asp

Local, indeed.

Amazing.

Here's a site I came upon during the Sinclair Broadcast Group's attempt to run an anti-Kerry film on 62 of its local stations a few days before the election. Just happened these localities all seemed to be in swing states. Anyway, seems to be a pretty good site.

http://www.freepress.net/

This article, for instance: http://www.freepress.net/news/5490 on many ABC affililates refusing to air Saving Private Ryan.

"Much of the American public lost the ability to view Private Ryan because, under new FCC rules, context, quality and parental warnings repeated ad nauseum no longer matter. For children, programs that feature contestants eating bugs are fine, commercials for erectile dysfunction are okay, but Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielbergís love letter to Americaís veterans, airing on Veteranís Day after two prior previous broadcasts with few complaints, is today verboten."

"For highly organized pressure groups such as Reverend Donald Wildmonís American Family Association, whose Web site and e-mail ìAFA Action Alertsî urge people to file complaints with the FCC whether they saw Private Ryan or not, the goal is to prevent everyone else from viewing what they donít approve of. And they have willing accomplices at the FCC and in Congress. Itís censorship by Big Brother, pure and simple."

"The real Private Ryans and his fellow veterans of World War II fought so that their children might continue to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Today, those childrenóand the broadcasters who serve themómust continue that fight."

Could it be that some in this country didn't want others in this country do see the reality of war, BushCo forbid....., and so we blamed it on our children hearing bad language????

By the way, all, after Thanksgiving we're going to seriously plan the series of panel discussions about the role of religion in society. We've had some preliminary meetings to plan. If you have good people to suggest to participate (especially younger ones), please e-mail .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) with their names and contact info.

I finally found where we were talking about the media. Why in the world were we talking about it here?? lol ;-)

Anyone heard of this film?

"Director Robert Kane Pappasí ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE is the consummate critical examination of the Fourth Estate, once the bastion of American democracy. Asking whether America has entered an Orwellian world of doublespeak where outright lies can pass for the truth, Pappas explores what the media doesnít like to talk about: itself."

"Meticulously tracing the process by which media has distorted and often dismissed actual news events, Pappas presents a riveting and eloquent mix of media professionals and leading intellectual voices on the media. "

"From the very size of the media monopolies and how they got that way to who decides what gets on the air and what doesnít, ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE moves through a troubling list of questions and news stories that go unanswered and unreported in the mainstream media. Are Americans being given the information a democracy needs to survive or have they been electronically lobotomized? Has the frenzy for media consolidation led to a dangerous irony where in an era of more news sources the majority of the population has actually become less informed?"


http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/home.htm

Order a free media action toolkit here:

http://www.freepress.net/tools/order.php