Liberals Dismayed by 'Moral Values' Claims

[Khephra]

NEW YORK -- Family values, traditional values and now, "moral values." Most American adults would say they have them, and yet that two-word phrase is the focus of an ideological tug-of-war heightened by President Bush's re-election, with conservatives declaring principal ownership and liberals scrambling to challenge them.

"We need to work really hard at reclaiming some language," said the Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the liberal-leaning National Council of Churches.

"The religious right has successfully gotten out there shaping personal piety issues -- civil unions, abortion -- as almost the total content of 'moral values,'" Edgar said. "And yet you can't read the Old Testament without knowing God was concerned about the environment, war and peace, poverty. God doesn't want 45 million Americans without health care."

Many of the advocacy groups that helped mobilize conservative voters for Bush concentrate on a narrow range of issues -- notably opposing abortion and gay rights. Conservative leaders say these were the main issues on voters' minds when many, in exit polls, designated unspecified "moral values" as their foremost Election Day priority.

"Those who view the appeal to 'moral values' as mere political manipulation and ideological posturing have a basic misunderstanding of people of faith," said Janice Shaw Crouse of the conservative Concerned Women for America.

"The 'moral values' that were a top priority in this election -- abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex unions -- are rooted in deep religious beliefs."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-whose-values,0,4992779.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

[CO Liberal]

1. No - They're Rooted in Deep BULLSHIT

And the GOP is full of it.

This is the DU member still known as CO Liberal.

[auburngrad82]

2. lol. I like you.

You have a way with words that is very similar to mine. I'm not going to beat around the bush and candycoat everything. Keep up the good work and screw the Right!

[CO Liberal]

9. Thanks!

I intend to - if you look up my profile, I have "pissing off conservatives" listed as one of my hobbies.


This is the DU member still known as CO Liberal.

[flygal]

64. LOL - pissing off conservatives!! My dad (looong time liberal)

has a shirt that says "doing my best to piss of the religious right". God love him ;)

[Nay]

4. Exactly -- rooted in the deep bullshit that piles up under the feet of

racists, homophobes, nazis, and other assorted neanderthals. These fucktards couldn't care less about the environment, etc., because they are not about 'values' -- they are about PROPAGANDIZING THEIR DESIRES as values, nothing more.

[Anakin Skywalker]

17. BUSHIT! BUSHIT!

Or as I like to call it -- Bushit.
:)

[Piperay]

3. Those 'morals' are rooted in intolerance

bigotry and racism and those things are NOT religious beliefs they are NOT anything a REAL Christain believes in.

[idiosyncratic]

6. Yeah . . . what you said.

[maxsolomon]

5. "G-D" isn't concerned about the quotidian

"...yet you can't read the Old Testament without knowing God was concerned about the environment, war and peace, poverty. God doesn't want 45 million Americans without health care."

i call BS on this asserion. the pantheist in me says that whatever god is, he isn't taking sides on the health care issue.

no gay marriage, no aborions, no debate. agree 100% with this statement, or YOU HAVE NO MORALS.

[Zorra]

7. Fact: Republicans are war supporting killers of innocent civilians.

Liberals are not.

The argument is over.

[NorthernSpy]

20. Ooops... That's a little TOO much morality, friend!

Opposing Constitutional change banning gays from marrying: not enough morality! You need to develop moral valyooooz.

Considering support for the war immoral: too much morality! Cut it out, damn it!


Funny how that works, huh?

:eyes:

[bemildred]

8. Bullshit. nt

[Sleepless In NY]

10. morals?

Red states have the highest divorce rates and teen pregnancies. Lowest divorce rate? Massachuettes, the state bush loves to bash. Ironic? you bet. If republicans really want to prevent divorces, they ought to ban them instead of same sex marriages. I'm fed up with this fake morality issue. Democrats ought be enlightening people as to what phonies these people really are, instead of trying to be like them. If i have to hate gays in order to win elections, I'd rather lose.

I read a thread here today: "Reach out and sneer: Dem radicals speak to the Red States" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x83724 exscellent article. In one of the post was a site , and I dont want to offend anyone, the title is coarse, as well as the language, but it says everything I feel and what the democrats ought to be defending: http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

[struggle4progress]

13. As a gddmn yankee transplanted into dixie, suh, I should like to say ...

... that the south might be surprisingly reachable if we tried harder to reach. My town, fifth largest in NC, voted 2:1 for Kerry. There are many decent rural Southerners, some of whom are indeed quite conservative, but I am not at all convinced that they are all forever against progressivism -- they're just not always well informed and they can be a bit touchy about folks impugning their intelligence etc.

On other issues in your post, I largely agree.

[TaleWgnDg]

39. exactly . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=31720&mesg_id=31720

[Arroyo]

68. Until this election

I never impugned their intelligence. Now they have to do a lot of convincing to get me to believe they're not a bunch of ignorant lunatics.

[jdj]

69. I believe liberal christians need to stomp their asses.

verbally. Someone like Kerry can't do it, he's a catholic yankee, and as such, way too polite. People need to throw their b.s. back in their faces. I think it would be a tragic mistake for dems to go around all pious all of a sudden as a strategy, and it would offend Jews and Muslims and atheists, of whom there are reportedly 30 million in this country, not to mention all other religions. But why in the hell don't dems have anyone out there brow-beating them for praying in the streets, being money-changers, not helping the poor and feeding the masses like they should, not rendering to ceasar like they should, being so judgemental when they shouldn't...the bible opens for dems too, and dems need an ex-evangelical out there shutting them up with their own book every time they open their mouth and spew the red ink.

[bemildred]

14. Not "dismayed" either. nt

[RedCon1]

24. Choose your battles

Your attitude is disturbing to me. I believe that gays have the same rights as everybody else but I also believe in winning elections. We can't win this gay marriage battle and the longer we keep fighting it, the more damage we do to the party. We need to nominate a more moderate Democrat the next time around. I truly believe that Americans want to vote for a Democrat but they can't because of the image that Mr. Clinton spoke of recently. Believe it or not, there are Democrats out there that put a man's right to keep and bear arms above a man's right to marry another man. It's hard to believe for some of you, I know.
The Democratic party has been the party of the working class for the past 60 years. That reality is overshadowed by the perception that we are the anti-second amendment/ pro-homosexuality/welfare/taxation party. Can you see how this works against us? The moderate Democrats must take the primary races away from the radical left or we can expect continued defeats. As our defeats mount, our ability to recover from them will diminish. In time, there will be no recovery and we will all enjoy an extreme right-wing militaristic reality and that is unacceptable. Furthermore, if the extreme left chooses to resist moderation, our division will easily be exploited by the Republicans. Moderation or death, you decide.

[koopie57]

25. In 2000

Gore received the largest numbers of votes in spite of all the missing ballots and other cheating bullshit. In 2004 there are significant questions about the numbers of votes Kerry got versus the little pewk. It seems to me people are voting for the democrats. Now it is a matter of getting a fair election so the winner with the most votes gets the nod. I'm really sick and tired of people acting as though democrats aren't doing things right to get people to vote for them. That is just more bullshit!

[RedCon1]

27. Just more bullshit?

That's the divisive attitude I'm talking about. Bush won by 3.5 million votes this time around and the only discrepancies I've seen are 4,000 votes in Ohio and some exit polls that seem askewed. You can cry foul all you want but it isn't going change anything. Furthermore, the Democrats lost a hell of a lot more than the Presidency this time around. They lost Senate seats, House seats, and now they're going to lose Supreme Court seats. This was a devestating blow to the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton isn't going to bring us out of it; but, A moderate Democrat with economic savy and a pro-second amendment record will likely win in 2008 by a landslide.

[koopie57]

29. yes, more bullshit

nothing will bring us out of this except having fair elections. They have been finding Gore ballots from the 2000 election over the last four years. So far as only 4,000 votes in Ohio, that is a beginning. Why was it so hard to get enough provisional ballots, what was the need for the overwhelming numbers of republican pole watchers, why the dirty tricks of changing polling places. What about votes that were cast for Kerry but were given to bush, -1 for Kerry AND +1 for bush.

Give me a plausible explanation for why the exit polls were skewed. Why all of a sudden are they inaccurate? Did all those waiting in line for hours decide to play a prank and fib to those conducting the exit polls? Sometimes stinks and we can make all the changes we want in choosing more moderates to run for office, changing on homosexuality, etc., but until we have a fair election, we are not going to win.

[RedCon1]

37. OK

I agree that there is something stinky in American politics and I have been screaming my head off for 4 years about the 2000 Florida fiasco but I would still like to see a more moderate candidate in 2008. I honestly have no problem with homosexuals but I do have a problem with people trying to destroy the second amendment and I have a really big problem with the national debt and the need to increase it as a result of this war. I see deficit spending as being pivotal to the conservative agenda. By bankrupting America, they will be able to undo the New Deal once and for all and return us to the uncontrolled capitalism of the pre-depression era. Memories of the Shirtwaist fire and of the Paint/Cabin Creek mine strikes are etched indelibly in my mind. I see the war as not much more than an excuse to borrow more money in order to bring about this reality. I am hesitant to start making accusations about cheating until more info is available. I will tell you this, if it is proved that cheating occurred in my beloved home state of Ohio, we had best be prepared to do more than cry about it for another four years. I actually had a feeling that it would come to this but I was really hoping that it wouldn't. We'll just have to see what transpires I guess.

[Marthe48]

31. if they cooked the Pres. vote, why stop there?

nt

[Marthe48]

32. if they cooked the Pres. vote, why stop there?

nt

[VivaKerry]

38. Okay, let's throw the gays to the wolves.

Who will be next on their LIST? And that IS the point.

[RedCon1]

40. Hold on now,

You are letting "them" choose your battle for you by that logic. It's better to choose a battle that you can win and make "them" fight your fight. A battle over health care or economics would be better especially if it was fought by someone with a pro-second amendment record. I am quite sure that the homosexuals can defend themselves from the wolves BTW. Your analogy is a bit overly dramatic. Furthermore, by putting the gay rights issue out in the forefront, you likely do their cause as well as ours a disservice (sadly).

[koopie57]

42. How does that saying go?

They came for the Blacks and I didn't do anything cuz I was not Black
They came for the Jews and I didn't do anything cuz I was not Jewish
Today they came for me ..???

It was something like that anyway.

[RedCon1]

47. let's not be overly dramatic or anything

I don't think anybody is "coming for" the gays. There are no gas chambers or concentration camps. There are just some individual states that have said they don't want to recognize same-sex marriages. Furthermore, as long as America maintains a strong second amendment, nobody will ever be coming for anybody. Why don't we talk about that instead of gay rights BTW? Politics is all about give and take. If you support the rights of red necks to own assault rifles, I assure you, they will be much more inclined to support your right to marry someone of the same sex. Democrats are constantly underestimating the power of the damned second amendment over middle America. Quit it for God sakes! Ugh!

[koopie57]

50. hummmm

no one is coming for the gays .... gee, I must have imagined all those news reports about gays being violently murdered. And I hardly think that red necks would do anything reasonable and tolerant just cuz they can own assault rifles. And I have a feeling the last thing a gay person would be comfortable with is red necks owning assault weapons.

Quit if for God sakes! Ugh! Why? There is nothing about you to indicate to me that you are the answer to America's problems. Your logic is very simple and brings to mind the term "tunnel vision".

[RedCon1]

56. you know jack

Tunnel vision? This coming from someone whose single issue seems to be the rights of gays above and beyond anything else. I have made maybe a dozen posts here so far and you think you know anything about me? Riight...Yeah, you're really the answer to the Democrat's problem alright Koopie. We all saw how well your agenda worked. There is nothing about you to indicate to me that you have any political savvy what-so-ever at all. You're just who we need.

[bitchkitty]

44. And if were a minority race?

Substitute the words "black" or "Jewish" or "Asian" instead of "gay" or "homosexual" in your post.

I'm with the poster above - if I have to hate gays to win elections, I don't want to win.

[RedCon1]

49. Who said anything about having to hate anybody?

Nobody said you have to hate gays. Nobody is being hered into gas chamberes here. Nobody is being carted off to concentration camps. All I'm suggesting is to quit harping about homosexuality as if it's the central issue of the Democratic party. There are much more important issues in America right now believe it or not. I am inclined to think that people who refuse to give this issue a rest are working to undermine the party itself as well as the cause of the homosexuals. We all lose together you know?

[sunnystarr]

75. It doesn't matter. Why can't you understand that

the last two elections were fixed??? You can put what you think is the perfect candidate up for election and they still would lose. Jesus himself would lose and be locked out of Jesus Land.

Fight the bandwagon intent on finding out what's wrong with the Dem platform and who would be best to put up next. Fight the centrist urge to move to the right because no matter what we will be labelled "Liberal." Kerry had many many centrist views. It doesn't matter.

The election was stolen... again!!

The only thing to focus on is exposing the fraud along with making changes in our election process by a complete overhaul that will ensure fair elections where every vote counts.

Until that happens we will lose no matter who we put up or what we stand for.

Their goals are to destroy the Dem party and have only ONE party ... theirs. They are winning right now and will continue to win until we stop being sucked in by the bs and FIGHT for our democracy.

[GiovanniC]

77. Read This

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2605746

[George_S]

82. kick

[Sleepless In NY]

11. bemildred love the article you posted today

Reach out and sneer: "Dem radicals speak to the Red States" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/

Awesome article, thank you!

[bemildred]

15. Pure luck.

And I like a good rant. And considering the amount of crap
"liberals" and such have had to put up with from these
sanctimonious swine, it was due. the only thing I didn't like
was the labelling of "Red States" and "Blue States", that is
crap, an artifact of the ludicrous election system we are
saddled with.

[DireStrike]

12. Dismayed? LTTE time.

[Skidmore]

16. Dismayed? I think not....

try pissed at the willful lying of the right wing and the press.

[Gloria]

18. First, separate the religious institution of marriage from the legal

contract that exists separately. Then it's easy to answer the crap that only the RW believes in marriage by saying...."Really? Well, we belive marriage is for a man and a woman, too..."...Of course, it's the churches that do all that stuff about procreation etc. But the LICENSE to marry is the state, not the church. So, we don't have to argue the church stuff.... We've been playing on their turf! Which means, gays could go to a justice of the peace and get their "contract" validated. Just like straight couples do...without church. (And, I bet the Unitarian Church would be happy to perform a "binding" ceremony after a gay couple are joined under a license. Spirituality doesn't necessarily have to be abandoned.) See next point...

2nd--don't use the term "civil union." Too technical and the word "union" is already tainted. As is "relationship"....Better would be that gays want the "right to have a binding committment" which is much more laden with good connotations. Part of this Binding Committment would be things like the right to take care of each other's health (insurance), the right to support them during illness (hospital visits), and the right to nurture any children.

By the way, what happens to all those BIG CORPORATIONS that have granted equal partner status to gay couples??? If the BIG CORPORATIONS are doing it, how much will it cost them to start messing with all this?? The money angle is not to be taken lightly!!

3) With regard to abortion...there are plenty of religious groups who are pro-choice. By the way, I've always hated that term...I say, the phrase to use involves the RIGHT TO DECIDE. Anyway, the issue should become that RWers have NO RIGHT to curb the beliefs of OTHER RELIGIONS. This is a question of FREEDOM of RELIGION....so, paint them as the oppressor on this front.

[Frumious B]

19. Marriage vs. civil unions

Marriage is a religious ceremony...Period. Government should recognize civil unions for **everyone** without discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual couples. If a couple wants to take the extra step of getting the religious "marriage" ceremony performed on top of the civil union then that's up to them, but it should come with absolutely no additional privilleges from government.

[VegasWolf]

52. The separation of the terminology is a good idea. But you can't use

license without an adjective, too many different types of licenses,
and marriage license carries the bad word.

The term 'Civil unions' seems bad too.

The repukes are great at words that hide the true meaning of
things, like "no Child left behind." Brilliant!

Let's ask some freepers on this board. At least they wouldn't
be totally worthless that way.

My wife and I got out 'marriage license' and then we went downtown
and were married by Elvis. Life is great!

How about 'Civil Commitment License'?

[jdj]

71. iow, they need to be put in their place.

I am so worried dems will try to be GOP lite since the election got stolen and we want to internalize that so we can have control over it.

You are so right, they don't have the right to curb other religions.

They hate America as it is, the are the most stinkin unpatriotic people on the planet.

[mzmolly]

21. This is a good article, glad the issue is being addressed ...

"One thing Jesus was absolutely clear about was helping the poor, and the welcoming of strangers," Bouman said. "Maybe this election was a wake-up call to have a serious conversation about what morality means, to look at what sort of country we're becoming."

I agree, we need a conversation about what "moral" is.

[Demeter]

22. Not MY Moral Values!

It's a sad world when fascisim and bigotry are deemed to be moral values, while peace, prosperity, health and the welfare of all people, animals and the environment are considered immoral.

[Child_Of_Isis]

23. We don't have any morals.

We can't find it within ourselves to hate gays or love wars. AND we have terrible issues with allowing poor children to go without food and medical care. We are doomed, I tell ya. Doomed.

[onager]

26. Uh...if "moral values" are really all that important...

...then why aren't the Fundies celebrating the election of Sen. Alan Keyes?

[RedCon1]

30. My biggest issue

I don't think you have to hate gays but I do think you have to stop making their problems yours. I could personally give a sh*t less one way or the other about gays because I'm not gay. Furthermore, I don't care about abortion because I'm not a woman and I don't care about the Iraq war because I'm not over there fighting in it. What I mostly care about is the national debt and how it will impact everything else in our not-so-distant future. You think it's bad now, give them another 4-8 years to continue their trickle down economics and see how bad it can get. Winning in 2008 and putting an end to this fiscal madness is all that really matters to me. I guess I wouldn't sacrifice the second amendment for that though so I can't blame you for feeling as strongly about your own issues.

[Child_Of_Isis]

35. So, it's only an issue if it effects you directly?

How very republican.

[koopie57]

43. That is what I was thinking too

Earlier I read a post of his where he said he wanted an apology from someone for calling him a freeper. And his main concern is financial. Most people on this board are living from hand to mouth, and anything else is a luxery.

[RedCon1]

51. freeper? hand to mouth? REPUBLICAN?

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about koopie; however, I have spent the past three years fighting against Republicans on every conservative board on the internet so don't even think about calling me a Republican. I'm just not as liberal as you would like I suspect. I suppose I was a bit out of line about not caring about those issues because they don't affect me but I am really concerned about the possibility of another major defeat in the 2006 mid-terms and I think winning should be the highest priority now. If you want to address something that I said, then feel free to form a coherent statement and let me have it. Don't call me a Republican though. BTW, if you don't see the grave implications of out-of-control deficit spending, you are seriously missing the big picture.

[koopie57]

55. oh oh

Well, I certainly am aware of the problems caused by of out-of-control spending. It is hard to focus on any one issue though cuz there are so many issues from which to choose. I think that the big picture is not out of control spending. We can tend to that in due time. It will hurt our pocketbooks, but we can deal with it. What can't wait is the blood bath in Iraq, the homeless, AIDS, poverty, working poor, health care. People are dieing.

And you can be as liberal or conservative as you like. I take issue with some of your comments and pointed them out to you. And if I call you a republican or not doesn't change where you stand on the issues.

So far as another major defeat in 2006. A fair election will tend to that. Changing our platform will not make any damn bit of difference. We won on this platform, but it was stolen from us.

[RedCon1]

59. you're missing the big picture

The deficit spending has a strong potential of coming to a point where it prevents us from doing anything about the issues you are concerned with. It will put an end to everything good that the Democrats have created since FDR. It is the means by which the neo-cons will secure total control over America and return us to the days of Morgan and Rockefeller. You can forget about health care, you can forget about helping the homeless, you can forget about fixing poverty. I have 16 posts of a paragraph or so each BTW so you have no idea where I really stand on the issues yet. Furthermore, regarding the issue of a possible stolen election, I am not one to jump to conclusions. When the facts are in, I will form an opinion on that matter. If, however, Kerry isn't willing to confront the administration about it, why should I? It all starts with him.

[AndyTiedye]

61. Then You ARE Saying We Should Abandon Gays

I suppose you want us to support the FMA too. :puke:
When they want to put back the sodomy laws and lock them up
would you have us go along with that too?

When they want to ban abortion and birth control, do we
cave in there?

What about mandatory religious indoctrination in schools?
Never mind, we've already got that in some schools, it replaced
science class.

They won't be satisfied until they have it all, you know.

[RedCon1]

63. we don't have to let them have it all

"They won't be satisfied until they have it all."

I'm not saying we should abandon anybody. I'm saying we should reach out to the Republican voters who want to vote for the Democratic party but can't because of the second-amendment issue. These people really don't care about the gay union thing and some of them are even for it believe it or not. Apparently, non-married heterosexual couples have been negatively affected by some of the language in these referenda as well as homosexual couples. Furthermore, many of these people really don't care about the morality issue as much as you might think. Not too many people are actually excited about an American theocracy. I feel strongly that a pro-second amendment candidate could secure Ohio and seriously disrupt southern solidarity as well, two worthy goals. It would not be necessary to sacrifice gays either although, it would be necessary to quit making their issues the focus of the Democratic platform. Is this too much to ask for?

[AndyTiedye]

66. Kerry DID Support the 2nd

What more could we have done to placate the gun-owners?
The NRA will always back the Republicans, no matter what we do.

[RedCon1]

81. Placation is a bad way to look at something like this

Kerry has a dicedely anti-second amendment record. That is the criteria by which the NRA judges its support for a congressman, by their voting record. If there is a Democrat out there that has stood up for the second amendment consistently and has the proof, the NRA will support him because they are not exclusively Republican, they are exclusively second-amendment.

[Child_Of_Isis]

72. We didn't make the gay issue the focus of the Democratic

platform. The PUKES made it theirs. The dems only issue with gays is that they refuse to discriminate and show hatred toward them.

[RedCon1]

83. Not exactly,

Actually, the pukes made it our issue and we allowed them to do it. They have consistently attached negative labels to the Democratic party that have stuck. The fact that we have millions of rabid gay single-issue voters inluencing our agenda doesn't help this label/image problem either. The Democratic party needs to clean up its image and gays need to quit using us exclusively as the mouthpiece of their cause. It isn't helping gays because it isn't helping the party. The Democratic party needs to reach out to mainstream middle Americans, not push them away. It isn't right to sacrifice all of the good that Democrats stand for over this single issue. So much damage has already been done that it probably doesn't matter anyways.

[RedCon1]

53. BTW, don't call me a Republican

yeah, I thought about deleting that but didn't. I was peeved at all of the ladies that chose to help elect Bush. I live in Texas so there are plenty of them. I guess I would just like to see them reminded about what Roe V. wade is all about, their right to control their body, not the Governments. I'm a little ticked off at the whole gay marriage thing too. I think we played right into their hands with that one. It shouldn't have turned into the nation wide referendum that it turned into.

[suegeo]

28. I am a dirty whore to the wingers.

According to these so-called moral values reight winger poops, because I did not vote for their emperor, I am a dirty whore.

My values are corrupt and I am filthy.

The question remains: will charities still take my money? After all, if I earned this money, it was because I am a whore. If I didn't earn the money, I stole it.

[VegasWolf]

60. Oh no, they'll take your money, maybe with gloves on, but they'll

take it for sure!

[d_b]

33. It's the propaganda stupid

[BiggJawn]

34. Again, they've defined the debate for the Ditto-Head Nation.

"Liberals" are against "Morals". Bush is a very moral man. therefor, if you don't LOVE bush, you're not a moral person.

funny how that works, isn't it?

Is Rudi Giulliani a moral man? Why, most Rethugs would agree that he is.

But I don't think he is as moral as me. Why? Because I took my marriage vows a little more seriously than he did.

But yet I'm the "immoral" one.

Yeah, funny how that works, but the Die is Cast, as they say, and the Ditto-head legions have their OS update installed and re-booted...

[VivaKerry]

36. May I recommend the best read ever on the whole subject?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x84050

This article made my week! I am going to give it to every born again I can find!

[Kurovski]

41. I'm not dismayed, I'm PISSED

for 30 years we've patiently listened to the Wing-nuts deride and yuk it up over liberal values such as fairness and assisting those in need as Christ dictates--and now these politically motivated clowns are going to go all pansy-assed when they get a taste of their own medicine?

I'm speaking to politicians, hacks and high payed bullshit artists, not my fellow Americans with whom some one may still have civil discussions.

But as for Bush, etc, to them religion equals a political tool and they are most interested in Jesus as bludgeon. It's offensive to this Christian.

(Hi, Kef! I hope your surgery stuff is going well)

[cubsfan forever]

45. Rethugs and moral values? Horseshit! n/t

Professor 2

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

46. How 'bout reclaiming the title "moral values" by rewording theirs as...

...MORON VALUES.

JB

[nikraye]

48. Exit Polls: Flawed or Not?

"Conservative leaders say these were the main issues on voters' minds when many, in exit polls, designated unspecified "moral values" as their foremost Election Day priority."

The mainstream media has harped ad naseum about how, according to exit polls, it was "moral values" that gave Bush such a decisive win and, conversely, proved to be Kerry's (and hence, all democrats) Achilles' heel. But didn't the mainstream tell us ALL that the EXIT POLLS WERE FLAWED because, early on, they projected Kerry as the clear winner when, in the 11th hour, Bush *surprisingly* surged ahead. How could this happen, they all asked. The polls must be horribly, horribly flawed! they all screamed (through Rove's megaphone). Some news orgs, namely CNN, even went so far as to, after the fact, change their exit poll results. (Gee, CNN...did ya think no one would notice?)

Yet when it comes to this "moral values" malarkey--which, hello!, came from the SAME EXIT POLL as the *erroneous* Kerry-win projection--no one questions its validity? Can't have it both ways, kids! Either the poll is flawed, or it is not.

Which is it??!!

[MADem]

54. Forget the polls, we can WIN WITH THIS ISSUE

We are the party that opposes war, we prefer to beat swords into plowshares, we care for the poor, weak, wretched, we prefer people over corporate lucre...we are on the JESUS side of ALL social issues. All we have to do is start pounding away NOW, defining the playing field, and repeating, like a MANTRA, that a moral person does not invade countries and kill innocents, a moral person helps the needy, etc., etc.

You know damn right well there are plenty of horny GOP toads up on the Hill--the hookers will be out in full force during the inaugural festivities, and they'll make a bundle (I think the Dems aren't as good in the hooker department, perhaps because they don't have to pay for services as much).

Michael Moore would do well to outfit his many operatives with those fancy hidden cameras from the Spy Shop and a nice tux or ballgown, and insert them into the fray. I'll bet the footage would be VERY interesting. A lot of those so-called "moral" congressional leaders would probably be very chastened if you could see them when the cameras are not obviously rolling.

[sr_pacifica]

57. I like what Rev. Edgar said

The Democratic Party's version of "moral values" needs to be focused on war, poverty, civil rights, environmental protection, etc. It wouldn't hurt to throw some faith-based politics on our side if it is based on these truly moral issues.

[Cronus Protagonist]

58. This liberal ain't dismayed, and I hold a higher moral ground than they do

I don't want war, they love it. It's as simple as that.

Jesus would roll over in his grave at the sight of his followers today, if he'd stayed in it, that is.

Show your support for the president, wear a FUCK BUSH button!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
(We usually ship same or next day by first class mail)

[Nicholas_J]

62. One thing that is most important

The left has largely abandoned religion, allowing the right to abscond with religious language.

It is very important to hit them hard on exactly what their values are, and particularly where they have failed in their Christian values. They have a moral compass with only one pole and that pole points in one direction alone. outwards. It concerns itself with the behavior of others, but not their own behavior. When it comes to Christian values, they have completely lost the values of the social Gospel which is thevfargreater porion of their own gospels thatn the value system that they have appled to politics. Itr is very impartant for democrats to accurately pinpoint and find data on the number of people who die of pverty related conditions, or by waiting too late to treat conditions that end up killing them. It is very important to quantify this and throw it up against their value system. They all point at the number of deaths caused by abortion, but they are not shown the number of miscarriages caused by malnutrition and other poverty related conditions. It is very important to show how many lives are lost by their avoidance of Democratic issues. Democrats lose because the things they fight for are not quantified in tems of life and death. The issue of abortion could be made to pale compared to deraths caused by poverty.

And these care the only two issues that the values voters fight on. The hypocrisy of fighting for these values alone must be pointed out by democrats.

Democrats must get back o the point where the issues that it fights for must be considered as equally rooted in religious belief The fact that abortion itself is not mentioned in the bible at all and honmosexuality only three times cannot bre compared to the over 100 times that the Gospels alone call out for social justice. WE have to gain the high ground by aligning the social programs that Democrats support , with the social gospels. A very sort list of Christian calls to help the poor can be found here:

In Luke 4:18 Jesus quotes prophesy in Isaiah, "...he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor," and indicates that the scripture has been fulfilled in the presence of those hearing his words. In Luke 7:22 Jesus tells the disciples of John to tell John that "...to the poor the gospel is preached." Jesus began the Sermon on the Mount with the Beatitudes, the first of which is "Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20; also with variation "poor in spirit" in Matthew 5:3). Jesus' intent in these passages apparently is to communicate to the poor good news about an afterlife rather than relief of their human condition.
But in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus also says to "Give to every one who begs from you" (Luke 6:30) and to give to the needy, but to do so in secret (Matthew 6:3-4). In Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21, and Luke 18:22 Jesus tells a rich young man to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. Similarly, in Luke 12:33 Jesus tells his disciples to "Sell your possessions, and give alms." Luke relates Zacchaeus' encounter with Jesus which concludes with Zacchaeus' promise, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor" (19:8). These passages do seem to focus upon relief of the human condition rather than telling good news.
In the parable of the sheep and goats related in Matthew 25:31-40, Jesus says that the righteous will inherit the Kingdom because "...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren , ye have done it unto me" (verse 40). The message here seems to make the connection between the possibility of an afterlife and relief of the human condition.
As recounted in Luke 14:13, Jesus tells his host, a Pharisee who has invited him to dinner, that "...when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee." In the parable following this passage, a man has a banquet, but none of the invited guests attend; so in anger he directs his servant to "...bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the blind, and the lame" (verse 21). In these passages, physical infirmity seems to be coincident, if not synonymous, with poverty.
Jesus contrasts the sumptuous life of a rich man to that of Lazarus, a beggar covered with sores (Luke 16:19-31). Mark (10:46) and Luke (18:35) relate Jesus' encounter near Jericho with a blind man (Mark identifies him as Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus) sitting by the roadside begging. In John 9:1-8, Jesus passes a man blind from birth, which invokes the question from the disciples as to whose sin caused the blindness; Jesus anoints his eyes with "spittal" and after the man washes he can see; subsequently the neighbors identify him as one who sat and begged. The focus of these stories and encounters seems to be upon healing infirmity rather than relief of poverty.
One day while teaching in the temple, Jesus noticed a poor widow who contributed two copper coins, all that she had (Mark 12:42-43; Luke 21:1-4). The poor widow in this story serves as a model of generosity.

http://facweb.furman.edu/~dstanford/relecon/poor.htm



The entire case against homosexualty is limited to:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:27
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it abomination." - Leviticus 18:22
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so abomination unto the Lord thy God." - Deuteronomy 22:5


The first things that Democrats have to do is to align their values with th bible, and to devalue the values of conservatives as compared to these.

[sr_pacifica]

65. We can do it.

The repugs have always made the democratic positions for helping the underdog as "costly" and a burden to the taxpayer. They need to have the ol' gospel thrown back at them and shown that it's the moral and right thing to do. This has always been behind the democratic platform---to act from ideals of social justice, but religion has never been worn on the sleeve. Maybe the party needs to do a little of that.

[Nicholas_J]

80. Yes a campaign that exposes the hypocrisy of the religious right

And its twisted system of values has to be exposed from the pulppits of the mainstream churches, who will likely be the first to abandon Bush if the shallowness of their position is made public by showing exactly how they do not even want to be seen alighning themselves with these 3000 dollar suited huckters of the evangelical churches.

Among the many things that isnecessary to expose is the luxuriousa lifestyles led by the Pat Robertsons of the world, and their total abandining of any semblence of the gospels.

I have been strongly musing the wriring of a book exposing the religious right, and while my skills as a writer lean to the pedantic, rather than anything else.

I have a title "HakenKristianity" the Twisted Cross of American Values" And I have already set up an outline for the book based on the 2000 election, pointing out the "five non-negotiable) platforms that so called Christians used as a yardstick to gauge candidates"

First I I plan to look into the actual amount of scriptural support for those five non-negotiables.

THe-n a breakdown of scriptural calls to social justice and compare the number of times that thisw call is made to those which discuss Homosexuality and the sheer lack of attack on abortion at all in the scriptures, to the numerically advancesd number of times social justice is mentioned in the scriptures.

Then a study of the amount of death and illness caused by the Christian abandoning of the social gospel. Along with the number of miscarriages caused by poverty related conditions. This is abortion by legislation, and in fact could also be a kind of murderingboth mother and child by legislation.vThey went nuts trying to pass that Laci and Connors law, yet will not acceprt responsiblity for the murder of tens of thousands of unborn infants a year due to the poverty they support.

Another key point is that while homosesuality is mentioned as sin in the bible, and there are scriptures that can be interpreted as being critical of abortion,m there are no scriptures that call anyone to take any actions about somenones homosexuality or the act of abortion. Allscriptures regarding these factors can be placed in the category that theologians call passive scripture.

Howeever the bible is replete with verses that talk about poverty and social justice and where they do they actually call people to action. They demand that in order to fullil ones religious obligations under their own scriptures, they are called to take action. many times. This is another issue that needs to be addressed strongly. The bible also calls that those who would follow scriptures focus on teir own failings and do not focus on what one beleivesto be the sinfulenss of others. In fact it is prohibited to do so. So one can clearly make a case that the bible does not call dofor anyone to "DO" anything regarding someone elses sins. but only about ones own.

It is going to take sometime to put such a book togetther. Sometimes I wish had Al Frankens staff to research this stuff.

In order to give this books a semblence of auithority, I may have to become a minister in one of those cheezeball five dollar ministry churches.

Bless you my DU flock

[Old and In the Way]

67. Here's how we address the "moral values" argument

Fix the voting machines.

[orpupilofnature57]

70. Hello, anybody ever heard of the 60's pic-a-century 17 18 19

and probably this century too,Arron burr shot Hamilton not republican's as a whole,and their uppity view's.HOLD THE FORT,freedom from persecution,the pilgrims,remember.

[Thoth]

73. My LTTE on Christian values

I want to thank Bush-voting Christians for clarifying what constitutes real “Christian values” for me. Now that I stand corrected, it’s clear that taking from the poor to give to the rich, lying to the American people to start a war, poisoning Middle Eastern countries with radioactive depleted uranium, taking their oil by force, bombing civilians, developing new nuclear weapons, discriminating against people not like ourselves, neglecting the Earth’s life support systems, fear mongering and stealing elections are core Christian values that every ethical person can support. I used to think that Jesus preached wimpy values like peace and concern for the less fortunate. How wrong I was! Thank you Bush voters for clearing that up for me.

I'll be sending this to local papers in NH and the Boston Globe.

[Sterling]

74. Send this as well

[snippy]

76. Proclaiming one's superior morality is immoral. Pisses God off too.

A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; . . . Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

Isaiah 65

[Catfight]

78. This morning on CNN I can't remember her name, there was a liberal

who was talking about the dems vs. repugs. Anyway, there was a black man conservative and he said the the liberal, that liberals need to stand up for themselves and be proud to endorse same sex marriage. The lady went off stating that's not what the democrats are about, and she kept arguing the point with him. I was appalled that she didn't say, "YES, dems are for equality and safety for ALL Americans, not just christians." Our dem representatives need to have some fucking backbone and morals. I agree with the repugs there, as long as we have people who have hypocritical views of themselves, we don't have a party that stands on principle. It's either equality for ALL people, or go to the repugs for the party of hate and intolerance.

[LeftHander]

79. Exit polling BS....is what this is...

Moral Values started showing up on election night with the exit polls highlighting "moral values" as an issue and those that though moral values was an issue as to how they voted...

"Gun owners with moral values voted 87% bush..." was the crap they were saying on all the networks....

Yeah lie about war torture peopel and then claim to have the lock on moral values...

WHAT CRAP!