THANK YOU for writing this. This'll definitely preach. :)

"...the relative idea of individual freedom from restraint--juxtaposed with the concept of morality (which suggests clear boundaries) is oxymoronic (and moronic)."

Well, I wouldn't call it moronic, exactly, to paint with such a huge brush stroke, but let's say it's misguided framing Liberal aims in this way. It suggests Liberals are about zero restraint.

I think the effort round and about Liberal spheres is mostly about getting that ol' mojo back. About defining for themselves what Liberalism is about rather than shrugging off the Conservative framing. Cuz, apparently, that Conservative framing actually stuck with juuust enough people last time out.

I might get in on some of that "branding" silliness. But if you're looking for a simple (simple-minded) definition of Liberalism, I might put it this way:

Liberals hold the principle of Personal Freedom in highest esteem. Your dreams, beliefs, tastes are your own and should be judgement-free. It's. Oh.Kay.Excessive Greed that exploits another human or the environment is Evil.

(and we're off to the races about Abortion. watch out now; mind your feet)

That's exactly what Liberalism is Memer, couldn't agree more. But the problem is, with liberalism it almost always seems to intrude on other peoples pursuit of liberty. Their views should only be judgement free if they don't include others. Modern day liberalism fails on that point.

I hate to sound extremist (what, me extremist?) but I can't find a better word to descibe the left's morality but anti-christ. What is the counter-culture of the 60's but the rejection of morality?

Is not the left's morality simply childish rebellion?

'You say I should do X? No, I'm gonna do Y.'

'The establishment is corrupt. It says A is right, no B is right'

How can you truly debate somebody when their core values shift like sand in the tide?

Here's the thing, though: You cannot legislate morality.
How HARD is that for the Right to understand? And there ARE vastly different definitions of morality in this country or we wouldn't be so divided. While sodomy may be inherently wrong to YOU, it's a way of life for others. I don't see anything wrong with what Mr. Willis said (well, except for the whole Clinton thing).

Morality IS relative. If it wasn't we'd all be following the same God. But your set is just determined to mow us heathens down. So much for that "season of healing", eh?

Steven, yours is exactly the kind of framing the Left is all in a huff to shake off. Funny, I can't think of a more anti-christ action than to be extremist (in any direction). There's this relish to paint Liberals as having no morals when it's really just that they have (much) fewer restraints re what is "acceptable behaviour" than Conservatives.

Eric, I didn't quite get this part:
"But the problem is, with liberalism it almost always seems to intrude on other peoples pursuit of liberty. Their views should only be judgement free if they don't include others."

Memer, I'm sorry to offend, but Jesus was a radical extremist. When Arafat died, my response was to dance in the street. But then I felt that tapping on my shoulder. Loving your enemies meant him too. Now that's radical!

If I don't support Afirm. Action I'm a bigot. If I don't support gay "marriage" I'm a homophobe. If I don't support socialist security I want to throw old people out in the gutter.

These and many more positions of the left are not treated as political disagreements. Disent and you don't just disagree with them, you are immoral.

No, No. The left judges with the best of them!

You can't legislate morality???

OK, then, it's every man/woman for himself/herself then, and what a fine society that will be.

That is such a lame argument, it is hardly worth addressing. If "morality" can't be legislated, then we don't need police or the courts. After all, if I break into your house, steal all your stuff, beat you senseless and kick your dog, you have no recourse since I am just exercising my vision of moral behavior (if, indeed, those were my morals...).

Every law on our books legislates morality in some way.

Yeah. Ok. Well, um, neener neener to you, too, Steven. Glad you love me, though.

memer, I can give an example. The city I live in puts up a christmas tree every year. And of course a nativity scene cannot be displayed. It's offensive to the "dreams,tastes and beliefs" of liberals. But of course, tax dollars can and must be used to help fund the gay parade and awareness week,despite the dreams,tastes and beliefs of others. So, I will ask the same question of the left,that they ask of the right. Why can't liberals lives w/o forcing their morality on the those of us who don't believe like you do?

Well thank you Glen for saying what I would've said. The "you cannot legislate morality" concept it mistaken. I've said this before myself, but my definition is a bit different.

EB: The reality is that in proof, not only can we legislate it, we do--through laws and community standards of right and wrong. Where do we think state laws against sodomy or theft or murder or prostitution find their origin? Certainly not in the "whatever you feel is right creed", I'll tell you that much. And whether or not we want to admit it, there are some foundational aspects of our country that have framed many of the laws we now enjoy today.

On the other hand, based on the more philosophical approach to legislation, no, we cannot legislate morality in the sense of making man good or evil based on our laws (Read: people are going to do whatever they want to do no matter what the laws state.) Man is just wicked like that. The law is intended for the lawless, not those who keep it. A perfect example is the 10 Commandments. They alone do not make anyone holy or righteous or obedient. But their very presence in the Bible is not only reproof to the contrary ideology, but also directly suggests that there is a right and a wrong and set the standard for judging that right and wrong.

So the bigger picture here is that government to some degree or another has always played a role in determining what is socially acceptable in a society. The whole "laissez-faire" bit has never really worked historically for any sort of good.

To your assertion that morality is relative, I direct you to my two above questions in the post which haven't yet been answered:

It's important to make a distinction between convictions and morality. Convictions are personal and may vary from person to person according what they're dealing with. Morality isn't a variable. So how then does one reconcile the suggestion that a concept can be morally relative when the true definition of what morality really is directly opposes the idea of relativism?

Thanks, Eric, I getcha now. Good question. I have an answer, but it'll take me a bit to compose it and it's time I don't have right now. I'll be back later (less'n somebody else does it for me).

I'm a little confused as to the "confusion" that Ambra alleges in the assortment of Oliver Willis slogans.

They all seem crystal clear to me: respect for the privacy of people in sexual and religious matters and care for the most vulnerable among us. Period.

What other possible reading can you get out of those three statements? And when did respecting the beliefs of others not like you become wrong?

You act as if liberals want to excuse every act whether it could harm others or not. But how does this square with just about every major liberal intitiative ever taken in this country -- I mean, civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights, consumers' rights, etc. -- all of which were attempts to protect people from harmful acts of others with more power and less scruples?

Part of me hopes you guys really, really get your wish of living in a world of absolute black and white morality -- I just hope you agree with the people who decide what that morality is.

Mercury, I understand that from the exterior, the slogans make good sense, but follow me if you will.

1) Religion isn't all-embracing. The "our God gets along fine with your God" ideology is null. Why? Because very few religions believe that. Muslims do not preach that Allah is okay with Buddah. The whole reality of a god (little g) or "God" is that there is an ultimate reality of what this life is all about and that someone in this game is right, and someone is wrong. The Buddhists think they're right, the Muslims think they're right, and the Hindus think they're right. I don't get high on apologetics, so I say, let God be true and every man liar, but there are very educated and skilled individuals who can debate these matters for days, bringing us to the ultimate conclusion that life is not a big bang theory of events that are happening perchance.

So the idea of: "Our God Gets Along Fine With Your God. Or Allah. Or Buddah. Or... Whatever. Religious Tolerance Is An American Value." is silly because when the rubber meets the road, very few people actually believe that. "Or...Whatever"?? C'mon! What a way to run a country...the philosophy of "whatever".

Add to this the fact that while Democrats say "Religious Tolerance is An American Value," the ACLU and their opportunist cronies seek to defy that statement on a daily basis. Not only is that an errant statement based on the recent historical actions of those who tout the Left, it's also hypocritical.

I've never proposed that America swiftly move to instituting a "Christianized Government". Although, whether or not we want to be admit it, I believe that eventually every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess....You can look up the rest.

What I am an advocate of is a clear definition of morality and no one...Not. One. from the "Religious Toleraters" have been able to clearly articulate that according to what I see.

There has to be an open marketplace of ideas in this country. As of right now, there is not an open marketplace of competition. It is a fixed marketplace where only certain "non-threating" ideas are allowed to be peddled.

That must change. Until people want to start playing by the rules, the battle will ensue. Once we do start playing by the rules, there will be a clear winner. Praise the Lord.

Ambra, on your point "religion isn't all-embracing" -- well, that's right! That's why those wacky liberal founding fathers decided that there should be a separation of Church and State, so that ONE religion could not trump all others or have an undue influence on the running of a civil society of consensually agreed upon laws.

The whole idea is that different religions DON'T believe in others' creeds, and they shouldn't have to. Therefore, to avoid strife or oppression by one group over another, you try to get along. You preach tolerance for views, no matter how personal, different than your own. The alternative is the type of religious warfare which caused the Crusades or the strife between Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan.

Your point about the ACLU is equally ill-informed. The ACLU acts to prevent State support of religions -- NOT religion per se. People can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes or churches, but when it comes to tax dollars being spent on religion, that's generally when the ACLU steps in. Would you want your County or State to suddenly fund a new Islamic center or Wiccan center with your tax dollars? I don't gather you would. Well, fair is fair. If some don't get state support, none should. Period. What's "grey" about that?

If you don't want to live in a theocracy a la the Taliban, or Wahabbi Saudi Arabia, or Inquisition era Spain, you need some sort of watchdog organization to keep it from happening in the face of pressure from well-organized and funded religious groups.

On your last point, please demonstrate how there's no "open marketplace of ideas" in this country? You're writing about whatever you want to on your blog, aren't you? No one's telling you not to. Some may disagree with you, perhaps more vehemently than you would like -- but no one's telling you you have no right to say it.

Liberalism in action.

So as to eliminate the potential back-and-forth debating nature of online host hubris, I'll allow others to step in and address some of your other points. There is one that I'll speak to now:

The ill-informed conceptions on the separation of church and state. These words are not in the First Amendment as this section reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The "seperation of church and state lie" is a sword improperly yielded by the the Left. It was actually Thomas Jefferson who co-opted the words "Seperation of Church and State", when referring to the wall or barrier that must be built between the two, and he did so in a written address to a Baptist Convention where he was assuring them that the state would not dictate to them how they ought to worship God or stop them from teaching Biblical values....Uncanny.

The intention of the law is in fact to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. And how prophetic it was as someone a long long time ago was able to forsee that humanity, when left to its own devices will seek to destroy anything in its wake.

However, there was a fear present in the church that America would move towards adopting a national religion like the church of England and ultimately, regulate worship into the crevices of peoples' homes. And thanks be to God, such an amendment helped us not to go that route as the the Church of England is stoic, and nearly dead.

There will always be a worldview perpetuated through government. Liberalism is just as much a religion as anything else because it is predicated upon a belief system (and even the "so-called" absence of a belief system is a belief system).

So you see, government has never been mandated to raise up a wall of protection from "religious nutbags". Our modern interpretations and crafty legal scholars have done a fabulous job brainwashing society to quote a law out of the side of their collective necks.

The ACLU is wrong on so many levels. They only protect the government from the ideas they determine to be threatening, none of which are covered by our Constitutional Amendment. This is a post no one ever asked the ACLU to man. And it is by far, one of the greatest dupes of the last 150 years.

The ACLU has arbitrarily decided what does and doesn't qualify as religion and fight battles accordingly. Perhaps I'll post on the interworkings of true religion and why more things than we care to admit fall under that term, including some of our liberal philosophies. All of humanity worships at an altar. It's the type of the altar that makes the difference.

Interestingly enough, it is of course permissible for new-age philosophies and doctrines to enter governmental orifices, so long as they rub everyone the right way. Sorry, that wasn't how America was founded, and that's not how America will end...

Mercury: right on, right on. (really) well said.
Eric: A nativity scene. Surely you can see how that is exclusionary. Unless you're going to put out "scenes" for every religion, you're putting one ahead of the others. Which is probably fine for you, as it happens to be your religion of choice, but for others? If Liberalism is about anything, it's about making sure minorities get a fair shake.

Re the gay parade, it's just a celebration (tho, frankly, of what exactly i'm not sure. and i really don't get the point of the noodity. but, i guess it's to shout to all who'd listen that they're accpetable human beings, too). Government money put into it is more than made up for by the revenues the city gets back in increased tax revenues. At any rate, the parade ain't exclusionary.

Sheesh, Ambra. You can water down any definition to the point where nothing means anything anymore. Liberalism is NOT a religion. And neither is Conservatism. They are value-systems.

And, by garsh who sez "new-age" anymore?

I dont' get it. In one sentence you say that the doctrine of Separation of Church and State is a "lie", in the next you thank God for the notion because otherwise we'd have a state-imposed church, which many Christians were worried about.

Which is it? Or would it have been okay to have a state church, as long as you approved of the denomination?

Liberalism is not a religion. A religion is based on supernatural notions (by supernatural I don't mean boogeymen or ghosts, just the acknowledged existence of forces outside nature). What you choose to call Liberalism is an aggregation of ideas loosely drawn upon to form a worldview, one which may or may not include religion and which may or may not be informed by it.

Perhaps part of the problem is the insistence that there is such a defineable thing as "Liberalism". Martin Luther King was as much as a Liberal as an atheist Union leader would be. It's simply too wide a spectrum to draw simple conclusions from.

As for the ACLU, I'd love to see where you get your facts on them from. I've seen them defend the rights of Nazis to express their opinions as well as defend the rights of religions to PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIONS -- not to impose them on others, whether by using their tax dollars or through participation in state-funded or sanctioned.

You seem to confuse the desire to give all religions equal treatment with denying fair treatment to Christianity. Sure, everyone worships at some sort of altar, or to put it a different way, everyone has signposts by which they find their way through life.

Why do mine have to be the same as anyone else's, and as long as I don't force you to follow mine, why should you care?

Or perhaps you are arguing for some sort of theocracy, which puts things in a whole different light?

I'd like to pose a question about morality:

What's the difference between lies and deceit?

It's painfully obvious that the republican presidential campaign was filled with deceit; not quite lying, (most of the time), but with crafty means convinced Americans to believe all kinds of lies.

Truth was distorted. Voting records were taken out of context. Incomplete summations of character presented as truth.

Deceitful republican representatives and rightwing radio talking heads have built a long record of disseminating deceit, hurling insults, character defamation, etc, while elevating their own persona as morally superior. Is such deceit moral?

Last time I checked, lying was one of God's no-no's. Stealing, also bad. Could committing the very lives of thousands to a war based on deceit be considered another and worse Thou shalt not?

The republican moral ground is shaky. Stay tuned for next week's question: Denial: Moral or expedient?

Man...this joint is jumpin'.

Here's my lone, hit-n'-run comment:

Mem, I think you're making a very reasonable set of arguments (not that I agree with 'em - you know me better than that ;-), but I'd have to disagree with you on the "gay pride parade-as-non-exclusionary"-bit. It is, by definition, exclusionary. In the larger purview of what government is or is not allowed to do (in a First Amendment context), the bottom line is the question of endorsement. The ACLU files suit against cities that set-up nativity scenes, because, in their view, such a display is tantamount to an official municipal endorsement of Christianity. As such, the issue with a government-subsidized and recognized gay rights parade is the assumption of an official endorsement of that worldview (insofar as it sets up the creation of a gay "culture" - defined and constructed solely on the basis of a set of behaviors). Such an endorsement would, logically, exclude those among us who, for religious reasons, oppose that worldview/lifestyle/behavior. If there are not then parades for the straight, bisexual, or polygamous "communities", it's no different than your nativity scene example.

I think that the beef that many folks on the conservative side have is with the ACLU's/Left's perceived "selective outrage". Government-sponsored celebration is A-OK, unless, of course, that celebration remotely entails anything having to do with Christianity. Then, and only then, does the First Amendment come into play, it would seem, as if the Founders had some sort of unique suspicion of, and disdain for Christianity, which, of course, is simply not the case.

My $.02, anyway.

*Open Floor...any takers?*

Mecury, you're exactly right, you don't get it. Boy oh boy, but I'll share my thoughts on your conerns in a bit as I have to catch up on email responses.

These are all rabbit trails which are perfectly valid, however deviate from my initial point.

So will someone please answer my question I posed both in the post and in my first comment.....

memer, Every religion is not a part of christmas. that's just the way it is. But liberals, instead of doing like you suggest,put up other scenes,they would rather destroy a religion and it's symbols. Destruction is progressive? As far as getting a fair shake, that should not come about through tyranny. If, it is wrong for the majority to force it's views/beliefs on the minority,then the opposite is true. You almost got me on the parade example. I'm just going turn around back on you. Christmas trees with nativity scenes underneath them, is just another way to shout, to all those who will listen, that christians are human beings too! And this particular holiday, with all it's trappings, is a way to express that humanity.

While you busily tend to those e-mails, I'll take a crack at your request for a Liberal 'definition' of morality:

How about "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "Treat the least among you as you would Me."

Again, since I don't believe that Liberalism is a single entity (and neither is "Christianity", for that matter) I think your basic premise is flawed -- but those are some of the most succinct summations I can think of.

You, Eric -- man, can you ever whine.

While I think that going after public Nativity displays is a silly waste of time by the ACLU, whom I generally support, there are Christmas decorations all over town at the holidays. There are nativity scenes at every church. There are zillions of Christian owned TV and radio stations.

But you're going to kick up sand over a couple of Joseph and Mary dummies and some stuffed sheep?!? Christianity's under attack, you're about to be thrown to the lions because some citizens don't want their tax dollars spent on yet another endorsement of a religion that they may not be a member of? Tax dollars that can go to things like law enforcement, schools, etc.?

Christianity has held sway over most of the world for a thousand years now. You can rest easy.

For the record, the point of the post is to address the question of morality. We're going to stay on this topic until I deem otherwise. Discussions on the ACLU, The First Amendment, and the debate on what religion is can be saved for later unless they stay on topic. And trust me, there's lots to say on that, but later...

Mecury wrote: Again, since I don't believe that Liberalism is a single entity (and neither is "Christianity", for that matter) I think your basic premise is flawed -- but those are some of the most succinct summations I can think of.

If the word "Liberal" or "Christian" presents a problem for you, then take out the "Liberal" and just define morality.

Mecury wrote: How about "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "Treat the least among you as you would Me."

It is interesting that you have chosen the words and admonitions of Jesus Christ/Jesu Christo/Yeshua as your definition of morality--the revelation of whom is what the Christian church is currently being built upon.

Jesus is the foremost figure not only in Christianity, but also in the world. He is also the only one who proclaimed His way to be the only way. Not only that, He called Himself Truth and spoke of a clear dividing line between good and evil. So how do you reconcile using His words as your framework for the definition of morality which should, according to many be secular, since after all, America was never founded with any type of moral context or Judeo-Christian ethic right?

Jesus was compassionate and the ultimate example of reaching out to those in need, but in every admonition, His words line up with the demand for a certain standard in life, and not according to our opinion either.

Does the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" apply to babies in the womb?

Who determines what's right and wrong?

Mercury, I'm whining? Oh please kid. If the nativity scene is so insignificant why do ya fight so hard to keep it out of the public sphere. If we are going to talk about what some citizens don't want their tax dollars spent on, I think we should start with tax-funded abortions. There is were you can get your money for more law-enforcement,schools and etc.

Ambra,

Love this site. Stumbled on to it from La Shawn's blog. I'm a 22-year old liberal. Nice to see someone my age also interested in politics and not just the latest Britney Spears song or the hippest fashion trend.

Morality is a tough issue. It will remain a tough issue. However, I too come from the frame of mind that says too often morality is defined in too small of a box. Morality can be very straight forward, ie murder is immoral. Unfortunately, this is where liberals like me get caught up in the abortion debate. I hate abortion. Period. But, I feel, as a man, I can't tell a woman what to do with her body.

But, I will disagree with your belief that morality "isn't relative." I believe it is. Many hardcore Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that if you don't follow their particular scripture, then you're immoral. So, to those groups, morality is essentially relative.

Because there are too many forms of "morality" in this world, I feel it's too hard to satisfy all appetites. I believe homosexuals should be able to marry. Not because they'll cause some huge harm to the definition of marriage (as if our 55% divorce rate hasn't caused enough harm the that definition), but because, as tax-paying US citizens, they should be afforded every civil right as the rest of us. Sure, it may seem overly simplistic, but I think it's also fair.

I agree with what comedian Wanda Sykes says. The best way to protect marriage is to outlaw divorce. Then let's see how quick conservatives would be to change the definition.

You're right about the way liberals use our "catchy ad campaign." Those liberal phrases are laughable and I know I've even repeated them a couple time. But, it does ring somewhat true.

Why does our government worry more about Adam and Steve instead of coming up with a way to ensure adequate healthcare for all our citizens. These points reek of cliched sentiment, but I believe there is validity in their general premise.

Great site...I actually enjoy hanging out on conservative blogs more. I guess I have to know what the "enemy" is thinking!!! LOL

Thomas Jefferson attended worship services in state buildings and even passed a Sabbath law while President.

It seems his idea of 'separation of church and state' was not the same as ours.

Infact it can be seen quite clearly that the 'establishment clause', as understood in that day, was not interpreted as it is today--rather is was interpreted literally, [i]state cannot establish religion[/i].

Ambra, I could have easily have chosen similar words from the Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim traditions, since the Golden Rule idea is pretty well-traveled.

I chose the words because I agree with them, no matter who spoke them. If everyone lived in accordance with them, we'd all be a lot happier.

That doesn't mean I have to accept that such thoughts could only have come from a supernatural being and therefore I have to blindly obey every sentence quoted to the guy in the book. I would agree with those words if my next-door neighbor had said them. They just sound like common sense to me.

As to "the only way to the Father is through me" and the like, well, I'm not up enough on my scriptural scholarship to know how verifiable that is as something Jesus actually said -- as I'm sure you know there are MANY words, parables, and attitudes in the Gospels that are more reflective of the writers than of the actual words of Jesus himself. There are also many instances of mistranslation from the original scriptures.

But even if he did, so what? I don't use morality as a way of insuring my spot in Heaven. I see it as more of a way of living here on Earth with my fellow man. If Jesus actually did say "no heaven without me", well, fine. I can respect the rest of his story without buying into that. We'll see who's 'right' after the rapture, or whatever.

Who decides right and wrong? I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. People base their beliefs on many sources, religious, cultural, philosophical. Once you get beyond the basics of the Golden Rule, which, again, seems to thread through many traditions, I don't know who decides. Do you?

As far as babies in the womb, I think the Golden Rule applies. I would differentiate a baby from a few day old clump of cells, maybe -- but I would say it applies. (I don't like the idea of abortion myself, but I'm a man, so I believe a woman should be able to make an informed choice.)

And Eric, yeah, you're whining, kid. I personally don't care whether or not you want to put a nativity scene on every block, fine by me. I'm not the one trying to shut them down. Why don't you put one on your front lawn? No one could make you get rid of it, and you'd be shouting out what great humans all Christians are.

Think about it, kid!

As far as getting rid of "tax-funded abortions", I'm sure more tax money is spent on 5 Apache helicopters than on abortions. I don't care for abortions or Apache helicopters...maybe somebody can work out a trade of some sort?

Please please please somebody tell me this cat did not just compare abortions and apache helicopters. Tell me we're not that out of touch...

Please, someone tell me...

Oh, calm down about the helicopters. It was a little joke.

Mike M. wrote: "there are too many forms of 'morality' in this world"

Ya dern skippy! And that is only because we've craftily created 80,000 definitions of a very simplistic concept. Moreover, Liberals especially have long refused to define the very thing they are currently attempting to co-opt.

But in its truest sense, the idea of morality cannot have multiple definitions. We may have given it that many meanings, but that doesn't necessarily make those meanings true.

Mercury: The golden rule may be well traveled, but who said it first and under what circumstances and context? We're not talking Hammurabi's Code here, we're talking about the originator of every sub-branch of religion. There is a clear cultural context against which every passage of scripture should be examined. What does it say to us as a culture that the Bible is the top selling book of all time?

You referenced Jesus because He is indeed, the chief cornerstone of our watered down versions of morality in this country.

And you're right, if we're going to speak more specifically on the "Golden Rule" as Jesus delivered it, I agree that life lived in accordance to His words would be a lot more pleasurable because we'd be living life according to the Truth and not some wishy-washy, mamby-pamby, personal moral "truths".

How did the talk of heaven get into the picture? That's really not the issue; the issue is how we live on the Earth.

Do I know who decides what is right and wrong? You betcha.

And what does anyone's gender have to do with deciding if an issue is morally right or wrong? Ahhhh yes, there's the rub. Liberalism wishes for morality to be relative according to creed, race, background, size of pinky toe, and city of origin...but no one can figure out how to hold up the arms of such a philosphy because...well, it's contrary to whole idea of what morality is in the first place.

Jared: Thanks for your thoughts on the ACLU. You brought up some points that will make for good fodder. Still, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding what exactly everyone's beef is with the litigation patrons of the Left.

Heh! I was wondering when the abortion stuff was coming. Took a while, but that ol trump card had to be outted at some point. Ambra, you dislike the relative, so let's just get the concrete definition of morality from a dictionary and moveon.com :

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

There. So I guess we're arguing about whose system or set of standards is "better."

p.s. If I recall correctly (and b'lee you me, my memory is suspect), Jesus' the-way-is-thru-me talk was aimed at those who want to know. for seekers. he wasn't about forcing others to go his way. do what you wanna do, i paraphrase, but god'll getcha in the end if you don't act right. there are zillions of examples of Jesus breaking away from his own Jewish code of behaviour/morality to show compassion to "sinners."

Overall, I don't get the vibe that he was a finger-wagging, tut-tuting judgy-mcjudge (ok, i'm makin up words here). afaik, it was about live and help (others to) live.

Eric, J: I meant that it's not exclusionary in the sense that it's not an either-or situation as it would be with (say) a nativity scene. For the "big 3" religions, there's only one December-time Holiday season. You can run a gay pride parade in parallel with others, or any time at all in fact. If there was only one time of the year to hold a parade, then, yes, your exclusionist argument would be very powerful.

Mike M: careful, man. conservative-watching gets addictive ;-)

"What does it say to us as a culture that the Bible is the best selling book of all time?"

That it speaks to a lot of people and that we live in a society that is predominantly Judeo Christian.

"You referenced Jesus because He is indeed, the chief cornerstone of our watered down versions of morality in this country."

I referenced Jesus because, as I said, I agree with his words, and I was brought up in the Judeo-Christian culture of the West. Many others have said stuff that's pretty much the same -- Mencius, in China, and Buddha both almost exactly paraphrased the Golden Rule hundreds of years before Jesus' birth.

So is it the words and ideas, or is it the person who happens to speak them that is important? And if you found out that Jesus really was just an ordinary person, not "The" Son of God, would you still follow his teachings?

As far as a "Liberal" version of morality being unable to function, I just don't know what you're talking about. I know plenty of "Liberals" who live admirable, moral lives. I know Christians who do not. I don't pretend that any group has a monopoly on morality.

Anyway: thanks for the stimulating discussion.

Mercury: Finding out that Jesus was just an ordinary man nad not the son of God would mean finding out that God is a liar, in which case, He's not God, in which case there is no God. This is of course a claim that the intellectually honest agnostics can't even prove. So to me, it's a silly hypothesis because my life is the proof. The question you pose however, is a good one that should be pondered in the mind of every believer and follower of Jesus Christ.

So you admit that we live in a society that is predominately Judeo Christian, yet all other moutpieces would lead us to believe that the Christians of the world are forcing some ideology on the masses. It just isn't so...

You wrote, "As far as a "Liberal" version of morality being unable to function, I just don't know what you're talking about. I know plenty of "Liberals" who live admirable, moral lives. I know Christians who do not. I don't pretend that any group has a monopoly on morality."

Right. This is the "I know lots of good people" argument. So I ask, what is 'good'?

Moreover, the fact that there are "Christians" who do not live moral lives doesn't disprove the presence of morality (AKA a clear right and wrong). No group has a monopoly on "morality" because we're all subject to it, but I will say this, philosophically, somebody has the true definition, and we will all be held to that standard sooner...or later.

Until then, I suppose most people can just continue "being a good person" "not hurting others" and "keeping their rooms and clean."

It's alllllllll good. ;-)

I especially love the "moral" Christians who are "consumed" of the devil at crossroads of their lives.

Jimmy Swaggert, Bill Bennett, Bill O'Reilly anyone???

I've never cheated on anyone, turned to gambling as an addiction or told someone how to use a "falafel."

What shocks me most about the Christian conservatives (not speaking for all of them) is their splendid ease and speed in which they define their own brand of morality and then go against it so quickly. At lease when liberals like MYSELF (not speaking for all of us) sin, we don't have pre-written morality codes to make us look like hypocritical a**es.

Ambra,

You say morality is "a clear right and wrong." Can there be no gray area with anything?

For instance, I have a gay friend who would love nothing more than to marry his partner. The two of them have been together seven years, longer than some of my straight-friend couples. They spend every Sunday at a soup kitchen and both hold social-worker positions with the government (hardly great paying jobs).

Now...two good people castigated by society because of their sexuality who help so many others in return. This is why I believe morality is truly in the eyes of the beholder, with certain limitations of course. I don't accept the opinions of Christians who call two good people in love "immoral." I may respect their opinion, but I don't accept their belief that morality be so narrowly defined.

I'm not saying there aren't some black and white reasons for clearly defining morality. For instance, murder is by no means moral. Because one person is enacting their will wrongly against another...that's one definition I have of immoral. Well, I could go on and on, but I'll stop.

1. Who determines morality.

Society does through culture and convention, passed down and refined over the course of millenia. And I actually believe that much of what has been passed down to us as religious doctrine is a LITTLE bit more than that culture and convention. Now where King Jr. like liberalism comes in is that people believe that we have to revisit those customs every now and again in the interest of social justice. Conservatives like Edmund Burke believe that we are simply not smart enough to try to change hundreds of years of refinement.

2. Religion is by definition intolerant...or absolute.

No. And I'm paraphrasing here. MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS are by definition intolerant of other religious perspectives. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam acknowledge only one God (the same God actually). No other ones exist. All other ones are false. Hinduism isn't based on this belief. Taoism isn't based on this belief. Yoruba isn't based on this belief. The Ancients didn't practice this belief either.

3. Even morality based on religion changes and is far from absolute. It was considered immoral in Judaism to wear two cloths cut from different fabrics. Some Christians take the idea that women should not teach as a moral belief--and this has obviously changed for the most part as the status of women have improved.

The truth is, it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God. The biblical doctrine of faith entails: Faith is the evidence of that which is unseen. Unseen! No believer can for a certainty 'prove' the existence of God. That doesn't mean there is no 'evidence' of God. There is plenty of evidence.

Daring to consider this interpretation of scripture, how is it that some Christians, (the holier than thou type), condemn others for not believing in or basing their moral compass upon what no one can know?

As I recall, Jesus wasn't too pleased with the religious types of his day. Whitewashed tombs, he called them.

I'd like to amend the last sentence of my earlier post.

From: Denial - Moral, or expedient?

To: Denial - Immoral, or just a funny feeling that goes away if you don't think about it?

Much like the abortion debate, this looks like an unwinnable topic.

Why?

Because on one side (the correct side in my view) are people who believe that there ARE moral absolutes spoken by a living God who commands us to follow His Word.

On the other side are the moral relativists who apparently "make it up" as they go along. It's the old "if it feels good, do it" philosophy, where whatever I do is OK as long as it makes me feel good.

Artie, your assertions are misleading, at best. In your mind it seems that we can't have moral certainties since not everyone agrees on what the Bible says, and after all, Jesus didn't like the "religious" types in his day. I have news for you -- the people Jesus held in contempt were NOT Christians. They were, in modern Christian parlance, unbelievers. Your earlier post about lies and liars is tired leftie rhetoric that was soundly defeated at the polls.

Much like the abortion debate, this looks like an unwinnable topic.

Why?

Because on one side (the correct side in my view) are people who believe that there ARE moral absolutes spoken by a living God who commands us to follow His Word.

On the other side are the moral relativists who apparently "make it up" as they go along. It's the old "if it feels good, do it" philosophy, where whatever I do is OK as long as it makes me feel good.

Artie, your assertions are misleading, at best. In your mind it seems that we can't have moral certainties since not everyone agrees on what the Bible says, and after all, Jesus didn't like the "religious" types in his day. I have news for you -- the people Jesus held in contempt were NOT Christians. They were, in modern Christian parlance, unbelievers. Your earlier post about lies and liars is tired leftie rhetoric that was soundly defeated at the polls.

Mike M said: "one person is enacting their will wrongly against another"

(Emphasis mine) Wrongly??? Wrong to what subset of people exactly? Definition please.

The truth is that if we take the moral relativist's route in defining morality, there will be an increasing amount of depravity in this world as time progresses.

A couple of good reads...

1) Overview of the Ten Commandments

2) The Seven Deadly Sins

Those of you who espouse a faith-based Conservatism, do you really feel strongly that the average Liberal has no moral value system at all? The vast majority of your moral code I argue is about the same as a Liberal's.

memer said: Those of you who espouse a faith-based Conservatism, do you really feel strongly that the average Liberal has no moral value system at all? The vast majority of your moral code I argue is about the same as a Liberal's.

--------

Of course they 'have' a value system. It is written on their hearts (Rom. 2:14-16). Do they follow these values? Rarely, and relatively.

I can name one commandment that liberals do not follow that you probably are not aware of--Thou shalt not kill. (Which is correctly translated "Thou shalt not murder") Murder, being understood in the Ancient Near East (ANE) culture in both the extreme form as we understand it, and in another form, as 'slander' (ever heard the phrase 'assassination of character'?). One only needs to take a glimpse over the discussion forums that are high populated with liberals (infidel forums, somethingawful) to see the evidence for this.

In short, when you look at the conservative values side-by-side to those of liberals, there is NO THIN LINE.

Alex, those extreme Liberals are mirrored by extreme Conservatives. They're not hard to find. Both sides use the holier-than-thou rhetoric. Come now.

Al, are you a pacifist? Do you root for the soldiers in Iraq to kill all insurgents? Are there circumstances in which it is ok/necessary to flout that commandment?

The edge of that hypocritical line cuts both waze.

Here's a little moral relativism for all:

When Moses presented the 10 Commandments, (the most important, IMO, Thou shalt not kill), how was it that some 40 years later, God awarded an entire land to the Israelites, but they had to 'kill' everyone there and their animals too?

Does Thou shalt not kill have some proviso's, some relativism? OK to kill sometimes? Perhaps God wanted the Israelites to stand on their earlier teaching and say, "No" to God? Perhaps God was, and is still very much disappointed that the Israelites were relativistic about the bloodshed and the Commandments?

And then, what about Thou shalt not take God's name in vain, by saying God damn it or whatever? A liberal interpretation of that Commandment instead suggests that "taking" is more literally interpreted as "believing in God", "Taking faith", rather than saying God in connection with derogatory sentences, God damn you, etc. Which abuse of the 10th Commandment is more offensive? The curse word under duress? Or, pretending to be a faithful believer and then lying and stealing anyway, breaking other Commandments as the pious do on a regular basis?

Moral relativism and denial are rampant with so-called 'Christian' organizations.

In regards to legislating morality, the answer is we do it, and we have to do it.

However, we cannot legislate virtue, and that is at least as important. The distinction to an armchair philosopher (such as myself) is thus.
Morality flows from God via His Word in the Bible (an external source). Virtue though, comes from within us, and is a measurement of why we follow His Word. For example, in a society where the penalty for theft is having a hand removed, there may be less thefts than in our society. But the reason for less theft is not virtue (i.e. people deciding that stealing is a sin, and their love of God trumps their covetousness) but because they fear losing a hand (fear of the immediate consequences). Thus fewer breaches of morality does not (necessarily) indicate a more virtuous society.

The goal of any society, especially a Christian one should be to uphold the highest morals (as they protect society from itself) but to also encourage virtue in its citizens, as that allows society to grow.

It's obvious that some have misconstrued self-righteousness with morality. The differences between most christian denominations is over doctrine not morality. Catholics may believe that doing as they do will assure one of reaching heaven while the Lutheran feel otherwise. This is not the same as determining morality.

What the ACLU liberals conveniently ignore is that if they want to change our constitution, they need, no, MUST persuade the rest of us to ratify this change in worldview in accordance with existing law. Running to sympathetic activist judges to subvert this process is the root of this growing divide between christians and multi-kulties.

The bitter pill to swallow is that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, without which, our founding fathers correctly surmised that t'would all be for naught.

What cracks me up about liberals sprouting the Jesus was a liberal lie is that they don't even know half the truth. And I quote: Matt 5:17-19 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Aside from the 10 commandments, most of the Mosaic Laws were founded on logical principles that really served to act as a roadmap for life in general, not in morality.

For instance, mixing the wearing of two different fabrics can cause electrostatic damage to the skin and who knows what else. Or doing things the kosher way eliminates/minimizes unhealthy nasties that the people of the day couldn't even imagine, such as bacterias & germs, but leads to a healthier life.

One more general point, while Islam is somewhat related to Judeo-Christianity, it really is a bastardized co-option of God's promise to Abraham, both literally & figuratively. (That is the curse of Abrahm' lack of faith, to have his seed hounded and persecuted by the seed of his own bastard child -- in that sense, we see the folly of sowing one's oats indiscriminately.) Neither Jews nor Christians recognizes Islam as a legitimate heir to Jehovah, especially, since Islam categorically rejects the Judeo raison d'etre. Truth be told, nor do Orthodox Jews recognize Christians. The difference there, however, is that the orthodox are still waiting on the Messiah, while we Christians say that He done came and gone.

Artie: there's a difference between murder on a person to person basis (which usually is a manisfistation of hate) and capital punishment at a state level. The commandment for Isreal to kill all the inhabitants and animals was a death sentence from God for the stench of their sinfulness -- to wipe them from the face of the earth.

If you read further, you will also see that some of the Jews were moral relativists and they spared what they sought to keep for themselves. The consequence of that sin was God commanding the rest of the Jews to stand way, way back as the earth proceeded to open up and swallow the disobedient Jews.

This goes back to the 10 commandments that God is a jealous God and will brook no dissent. The NT also supports the notion of capital punishment, for we are compelled to obey our leaders for God has put them in authority to wield the sword of justice. By the same token, leaders are also warned to be just or suffer the wrath of God.

Whether one chooses to believe it or no is ultimately irrelevant, since one day all knees will bow and proclaim God, whether one thinks God is Jehovah or Krishna.

Lester: Sorry, Yoruba is a tribe, not a religion (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=deskbar&q=define:Yoruba). Furthermore, while the traditional Yoruba kingdom is predominately centered in SW Nigeria, its' reach has extended as far west as Sierra Leone and eastward to Central Africa Republic, long before globalism became a cliche. Twi (Ashanti) & Yoruba served as a language of trade in Western Africa, Swahili in East/Southern Africa & Arabic in the North, long before the colonials set foot.

Anyhoo, the proper term for their form of animalist/pagan religion is JuJu. Their sense of morality is similar to the 10 commandments -- well, 6 out of 10 is close enuff. But from a Judeo-Christian perspective, this is the cultural artifact or dilution of the traditions handed down from Adam & Eve/Noah and family.

Ambra: Our morality stems from the 10 commandments as averred by each and every one of our founding fathers. While morality is absolute, there are shades of what is accepted/interpreted as moral.

The reason I mention A&E/Noah is that even tho we have no record of it, it is plainly obvious that those people knew what God's worldview was and some chose to follow it and many rejected it.

Ultimately, there can only BE one truth, the difficulty lies in proving which. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to note that of all the other religions, none offer a rational explanation for in-the-beginning, or for that matter nor an end to our earthly existence. Not Bhudda, Tao, Juju, secularism or even atheism.

However, Judeo-Christian theology offers not only the explanation, but the raison d'etre and the concept of morality (knowledge of good & evil). Worthwhile links include:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml
&
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20041201.shtml

The reason for Moses' 10 commandments is that after decades of submersion in Egyptian culture (Pharoah=god, Isis et al), God needed to reset the Isrealites' sense of morality to His worldview.

Also note that way back yonder, an Egyptian king was sufficiently distressed to learn he had taken another man's wife to marry and would surely die if he consumated the marriage. That was Abraham & Sara -- Abrahm feared for his life & possessions and passed off Sara, who was beautiful, as his sister. Even here, we see the interactions & consequences of morality.

As for other religions and Hammurabi's regurgitation of God's divine moral code, I suggest that if I AM exists, then the others, including conservative/liberals have plagarized or otherwise, reconstructed His words in the light of their own wisdom. Hence Pascal's wager looks to be imminently logical.

I'm done, didn't mean to carry on so long