Link Red-StaterWisdoms

Red-StaterWisdoms explores the differences between the Red and Blue states on social, personal and political issues.

My Photo
Location: New York

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

"Red" morality reasons confusing

Letter to the Editor:

After reading Robert Steinbeck’s commentary, “’Red’ morality reasons confusing” in the November 27th edition of my local newspaper, I had to clear up any confusion on how the red states think. It seems determining what is moral and what is not doesn’t come easy for those who think “Blue”. But then, why would it? Blue Staters use moral relativism instead of failsafe moral absolutes. They prefer to nuance an issue like partial birth abortion until they’ve tied themselves into intellectual knots and given the Red Staters a brain freeze while trying to figure them out. Blue Staters like to razzle-dazzle the Red Staters with their “intellectual prowess” believing it keeps them immune from the Red state “stupid virus.”

Mr. Steinbeck took two-columns to analyse the morality and justification of abortion. Red Staters can do it in one sentence: We believe that when an abortion doctor cuts off the arms and legs of a near full term fetus in order to pull the baby out of the birth canal feet first and then crush its skull while the baby’s head is still in the birth canal so it won’t be “technically born” (that’s what partial birth means) is wrong, immoral and barbaric.

Red Staters have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Mr. Steinbeck confessed, “The election showed there is an America I truly don’t comprehend. It’s clear ‘red state’ folks see things I don’t see.”

That’s because he can’t see the forest because of the trees. My apologies for the cliché, but it says it all. Blue Staters would do well if they quit “over analyzing” moral issues in search of a truth—they’re really not seeking. I have yet to meet a Blue Stater who really cares to understand where Red Staters are coming from. They’re far more willing to understand the “root causes of terrorism” than they are of understanding the root causes of what makes America more Red than Blue. An Aunt Mabel in Kansas scares, confounds and angers them more than an al-Zarqawi does in Iraq.

Mr. Steinbeck, Red Staters understand a Blue Stater such as your self. You’re not mysterious nor are you complex. We understand Christianity is far more dangerous to you than Islam. We understand Christmas Carols sung by public school students are so offensive to “the two of you” in the auditorium, one of the two of you will call the ACLU in to seek “corrupted constitutional therapy” to treat your discomfort. We understand you “don’t get” that our Founding Fathers meant the state should never establish a “state church”.

There's more.

We understand some of you would prefer to move to another country than live in America under the rule of the Red for four more years. We understand waving an American flag is offensive to you. We understand you believe we are racist and homophobic. We understand you believe the war in Iraq is unjust and imperialistic. We understand you believe "only" US soldiers commit war crimes. We understand you need a “body count” from Iraq to make Red Staters feel guilty for supporting the war. We understand you hate George Bush and actively work to get him impeached. We understand you’re threatened by the success of Fox News. We understand your love of a conspiracy theory--you made Michael Moore rich. We understand you are not offended by Hollywood’s cat-in-heat moral and live-and-let-live ethical standards. We understand you distrust government, but still insist government solve all social issues. We understand you hate Corporate America and would prefer a more “socialist” approach like Canada or Cuba. We understand that the benefit of “philanthropy” is lost on you.

We understand the Blue States will continue to lose elections until they understand and appreciate Red State morality. Mr. Steinbeck, you have four years to "over analyse" how Red Staters "see things". You better get started.


Blogger Americansoul said...


I like IT!

Hooah to the Red-Stater Wisdom notes, I liked the closer it was a doozy! I found you by random search but will keep track of this blog. Feel free to visit mine, even though I am from the Land-O-Lincoln, a few of us over here tried to turn the Blue a little more Purple with some of the Red-State wisdom. You're a great American!


10:25 PM  
Blogger arednystateofmind said...

WOW!! What more can I say but WOW! Looking forward to your daily contributions to real logic and the opportunity to opine myself!!

10:27 AM  
Blogger Lono said...

Greetings. I came across your site using the 'next blog' button and stayed to read. I wanted to have a dialogue with you, as a 'blue stater'. Though I am from Colorado, which went red... the mentality you are thinking of is my side.

Not unlike us DEms, I think you have a bad stereotype of Democrats. We do not hate freedom or success or rich people. We do not hate babies, born or unborn. You mentioned we do not seek to understand the red staters. More than anything in the world right now, I seek to understand red staters. So much so, that I am reading a book called 'What's the matter with Kansas' by Thomas Frank in an effort to get inside your heads.

You mentioned we are afraid of the success of Fox news. That is ridiculous. We are simply concerend that they portray themselves as neutral in the battle and they are not. It's ok not be neutral. It's ok to take sides... I certainly have. However, I feel one should declare themselves as being biased right up front... as I feel I have here.

We are not terrified of Christians, as I am a Christian. Our concern is with a small minority of very powerful and very conservative interest groups posing under the guise of Christianity to further their agenda. You mention that we think red staters are mostly homophobes and racist. I totally admit it, I think that too and that is a bummer for both of us.

You mentioned that we want a socialist government to fix all of our woes. That is patently untrue, and a common myth about Democrats. Keep in mind that GW has raised the biggest deficit in history, and Clinton created the smallest Federal Beauracracy since Kennedy. So the facts don't agree with you. You might also then say that the deficit is high because we are at war. This is partially true at best. Yes, much money is going to the war effort... but not for American troops by a longshot. The money is being spent on private contractors who are blowing the money at a pace so epic that the GAO (Government Accounting Office) has so many investigations open they are too numerous to mention.

After reading your piece, I feel the real heart of your concern and voting motivation is protection of human life. This is an admirable and agreeable concern.

I am getting long winded again, as always... so I will sum up and allow you to respond. Allow me to make a great analogy by Al Franken in closing > Republicans love America like it is a little baby who can do no wrong and it's every move is to be rewarded. Democrats love America like a teenager; unconditionally still, but we know when it needs corrective action or a push in the right direction.


I welcome your feedback

10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I loved your comments, but it is late. I will "take you on" tomorrow morning. Look for my response. If all goes well, you may very well be "my resident Blue Stater".


12:11 AM  
Blogger Lono said...

That would be awesome, and I look forward to the dialogue!


3:59 AM  
Blogger sallyann said...


When I write my posts I am directing my comments to the Far Left of your party. You may remember them, the Liberals that hijacked the Democratic Party this last election. So if you’re a Centrist Democrat my opinions may seem wrong to you.

Red Staters do not like extreme ideology from either the Left or the Right. Main Stream America operates in the “center” and makes decisions using “common sense”—the native ability to make sound judgments, although you’ll hear both the extreme Right and Left claim ownership of common sense when formulating their ideology. However, you would have to perform some kind of magic to get Main Stream America to believe Michael Moore had an ounce of common sense flowing in his blood. MSA perceives Moore has having a deep-seated case of paranoia as he exposed in Fahrenheit 9/11. And you’d have to have that same magic to get MSA to believe what Jerry Falwell said after 9/11—that the attacks happened because America “turned away from God.” Moore thinks the government is out to get him and Falwell believes God is out to get America. This is extreme thinking, and Red Stater’s common sense tells them that the “truth” is somewhere in the middle or center.

The Democratic Party has been operating in a “field of extremes” for too long. It’s only when they return to “center” do Red Staters begin to take them seriously and trust their message. On occasion, Red Staters have voted Democrats in office. But right now, the Democratic Party, the party that was once the party of the common man, is led nationally by extreme Liberals who “were never in touch with Main Stream America to begin with”.

Centrist Democrats must step forward and take their party back. Otherwise, bomb throwing Liberals with their radical rhetoric will keep Democrats from participating in the democratic process except in very, very blue counties. So remember what I’ve written when you attend a “Parade of Lights” thanks to the ACLU INSTEAD of a “Christmas Parade” down Main Street during this holiday season. Red Staters are furious living under the “tyranny of the minority”. Their common sense tells them that there’s something seriously wrong with this.

I intend to address your other comments one at a time and anxiously await your response to my explanation as to why Red Staters have a bad stereotype of Democrats.

6:27 PM  
Blogger Lono said...

I am fine with the center. It is ok to think Michael Moore is nuts, just like we think that Rush Limbaugh is nuts. You mention you are concerned with extremists of either party... me too! So how in the WORLD could you have voted for President Bush? He has done nothing good for America. Even our close ally in Pakistan said today that the whole Iraq mess has "made the world less safe". That is our ally talking. Financially we are in the shitter because the president is on an insano spending binge for big business contracts. Did you know the top 100 lobbyists in their field are now all running the those departments? There are no longer checks and balances in our system.

Remember in 7th grade social studies they taught us out the three branches worked together to create 'checks and balances' so that no one body was too powerful. That is completely completely gone now. The GOP has the surpreme court, the house, the senate, and the majority of the governships. There is no one to watch over them.

and, I would absolutely love to hear y'all justify that pig Delay having his posse re-write the rules of government so even when he is impeached and charged on felonies for his super illegal campaign raising. I mean, dude was 'rebuked' three times in one month by the house ethics committee and he got voted back in? What the hell is that?

sorry, a little cranky today. My beloved Broncos pretty much knocked themselves out of the playoffs today.

2:24 AM  
Blogger sallyann said...


Sorry about your Broncos….Go Chargers!

Now that I’ve raised your blood pressure let me kick it up a notch by responding to your last comment.

You asked how I could vote for George Bush since you believe he is an extremist. If you agree that Main Stream America makes judgments based on common sense logic and from a “centrist” position…then how can the Left say George Bush is extreme? Main Stream America does not elect presidents with extreme politics, Left or Right….,but they elected George Bush.

Note: I always refer to Main Stream America as the current majority, whichever party gets elected to the presidential office. That is the genius of our democratic system. Americans have the ability to “correct” political ideology gone astray with the vote. You see this all the way through our history. Democrats serve when Republicans overreach and vice versa. However, I do believe that we are drifting towards a national “showdown” because the past two elections were so close .As a nation, we are split down the middle. I believe you think we’re trending to the Right of center, but in actuality you are witnessing a “correction in process”. The Left hijacked the Democratic Party and “went too far”.

Red Staters think George Bush is a breath of fresh air. Liberals think he is a breath of smog burning their lungs. I think that’s the effect the Iraq War has on Liberals….they just don’t have the stomach for it. Red Staters definitely perceive Liberals as wimpy handwringers who cannot grasp the concept that in some cases “war” is necessary. Did you really believe after 9/11 the terrorist were going to “keep quiet”, go back to their caves and mosques and re-think their insane ideology?

The most stunning thing the Left did was direct all their hate and frustration at George Bush INSTEAD of the terrorist. The Liberal mantra was/is “the world is less safe” because of Bush’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve tried arguing that point with “logic”, but that doesn’t work with you guys. So I’ll try to respond with this analogy: Have you ever messed around with a hornet’s nest? If you whack the nest to get “one” hornet….you fight them all. It’s the same principle with the terrorist.

Al Qaeda “stung” the US on 9/11 and we whacked their nest. They’re going to keep stinging us for the next 100 years or until the “culture of hate” is changed in the Muslim mind. Liberals naively believe that “we can talk to them and change their minds.” This is a bunch of whooey! If you think this is a solution, try working as a “deprogrammer” for cults. Jim Jones convinced his “cult” to drink Kool-Aid. Al Qaeda convinces its members to blow themselves up. How do you start “negotiating for peace” with these severely brainwashed people?....put the Kool Aid down and defuse the bomb strapped to your chest before you sit at the round table?

I’d bring up the “terrorist busting” benefits of democracies in the Middle East, but Liberals think we’re speaking pig Latin to them. They just don’t get it even though there are countless historical examples of rogue countries rising to stardom and peace through democratization. Liberals are “okay” with creating democracies….as long as no one spills blood.

You said “There are no longer any ‘checks and balances” in the federal government because the GOP has the majority in the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate and you forgot the Presidency. There is no one to watch over them.” Whose fault is that? You guys keep losing elections! Main Stream America would vote you in if your party was sensible….but it’s not.

An example: Your comment about Tom Delay and his “illegal campaign raising”. Red Staters think that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Both parties do it…Clinton/rents Lincoln’s bedroom and a thousand other examples of illegal campaign raising by both sides. Good God, we just went through the 527 debacle. If that didn’t teach us anything about the folly of reigning in illegal campaign funding, I don’t know what would. And bravo to Congress for re-writing the rules of government for Tom Delay. Red Staters clearly understood that Delay’s indictment was more politically motivated than a case of substance. You should tell your side to get a “centrist message” to get elected instead of using the courts for political advantage.

10:58 PM  
Blogger Lono said...

Well, as you can imagine... I disagree. Let me hit some points of yours.

the left hijacked the party and went to far.

* What specifically are you referring to? I'll have to assume you are thinking of the Clinton years. He put more cops on the street
* abortions were at nearly half what they are today
* he acknowledged that gays are people and have rights
* He took care of Bosnia and got Slobodan stopped
* he made the size of the government smaller than it was in 35 years
* and he apologized for slavery (no one had managed to do that in the last few hundred years)

what exactly is wrong with those goals? Yeah, dude was a porn hound and embarrased us all which is a regret we all have in our hearts. Our side even more than yours... because we loved him and he insulted us. But his work was strong and good and noble. Except of course for the constant cheating on his wife. Of course we now know that Newt Gingrich was having an affair the whole time as well... which he worked to impeach the president.

ok, next point of yours:

bravo to Congress for re-writing the rules of government for Tom Delay

Let the record reflect that this rule was put in by Republicans! It was done during the Contract On America to punish Democrats who are criminals. It is a great law, and a no brainer. If you are a criminal, you can't actively serve in Public Office. So, to see the same Republicans calling for a mulligan on this law for DeLay is insulting to me.

My last concern for the night is your quote here:

You should tell your side to get a “centrist message” to get elected instead of using the courts for political advantage.
What in the world are you talking about? Seriously? Is this that 'activist judges' nonsense the President kept using? The only activist judges I am concerned about are the Supreme Court for stopping the recount and installing Bush in 2000. Now that is an activist judge.

Thanks for letting me vent. I know you don't represent all Republicans or their policies. I am sure you are as decent and passionate about what is right and good for the country as I am. That is why I appreciate this dialogue, because as you can imagine I don't have many Republican friends. I frankly can't stand Republicans because I find the ideology so offensive. Anyhow, the floor is yours _

3:00 AM  
Blogger sallyann said...


Feel better now?

You said: “I’ll have to assume you are thinking of the Clinton years.”

I say: No I wasn’t thinking of the Clinton years. I was referring to this last election. Clinton and his Republican majority were having a pretty good run until Bill started thinking with something else other than his brain. Among your list of “Clinton accomplishments”, I will take issue with this one: “He apologized for slavery (no one had managed to do that in the last few hundred years.”)

Does the American Civil War ring a bell for you?

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, given November 19, 1863 on the battlefield near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, USA

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth.

Lono, could it be that we have already given the “ultimate apology?” Lincoln said, “The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” I’m guessing that some of you forgot.

Red Staters are real tired of being asked to apologize for slavery. And before you poke me in the eye with the standard Leftist retort….”you are a racist”, let me state categorically that Red Staters are not racist. During the Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s, many of us stood toe to toe with some of the worst bigots walking the earth and demanded change. And now we are demanding a little respect back. And if not respect, at least perspective from those on the Left who need a lot of work on the issue of prejudice themselves.

Which leads me to the final remark you made: “I frankly can’t stand Republicans because I find their ideology so offensive.”

I’m going to let your last remark hang suspended in the air for awhile.

8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "Moral Values" That Got Bush Re-Elected are Neither - Moral or Ethical
By Dr. Gerry Lower
Dec 7, 2004, 12:48

A Christian Ethical Morality is a Rejection of Religious "Morality"

The conservative American electorate has loyally and faithfully returned the Bush administration to the White House for another term of dominion by right wing religious capitalism. The notion of "moral values" is credited with playing a significant role in this outcome, the American electorate apparently holding a percent or two excess of those who favor George Bush's conservative religious "morals" over John Kerry's "liberal" secular morals.

More than any other characteristic, these two competing moralities define the "Two Americas" created by the Bush administration's religious agenda, in spite of Bush's promise to be "a uniter, not a divider," and in spite of the religious freedom guaranteed to Americans by the separation of church and state.

As employed, however, the terms, "moral values," reflect a rather awkward conservative American grasp of concepts like "morals" and "values" and their relationships to each other. The conservative right wing is in favor of values, but only as long as those values are "moral," i.e., codified in religious law and enforced with fear of punishment. In other words, the religious right sees morality and legality as essentially the same thing (which they are not).

Morals have little to do with law and everything to do with values. Indeed, all moralities are based upon and derived from values, and it is with values that discussions of morality properly begin. In the interest of tangible unity, there would be almost certain merit in examining America's two moralities and their relationships to each other and to the values of democracy. It comes down to a morality based in law or a morality based in human rights.


Religious morality is based in legalism and penalism to provide an absolute, negative "morality" consisting of things "thou shalt not" do, a "tit-for-tat" morality designed from the start to maintain itself and the status quo of the 2-dimensional cultural world of "good" and "evil" it produces. Old Testament morality has little to say about things "thou shalt" do in the interest of human morality (which properly derives itself from the values of nascent Christianity and democracy, e. g., honesty and compassion).

As the complementary opposite of eastern ethics and "goodness," western law and "morality" is symbolic for behavior that ostensibly has moral content if obeyed. Yet, when taken to its own extreme, when religious ideology is taken as a value, when the law and punishment becomes more important than honesty and decency, a legal "morality" can easily have no moral content in principle and no ethical content in action (e.g., capital punishment, preemptive war, Abu Ghraib).

The entire program of western religious morality is based, not upon empirical or experiential fact, but upon several Biblical era assumptions that were flatly rejected 2,500 years ago with the emergence of science, natural philosophy and democracy in ancient Greece. It would take the western cultural world over 2 millennia to begin to comprehend this knowledge-based approach to ethics, all the while sinning and suffering under the dominion of religious Roman imperialism, European colonialism and "American" capitalism.

In other words, a legal/penal "morality," when taken religiously, has very little to do with being ethical or moral and, therefore, very little to do with values-based concepts of justice. It has traditionally had more to do with vengeance-based "justice" and self-righteous conquest and control (albeit in the name of nascent Christian values).

This is how absolute religious legalism has justified itself for 1700 years, during which time it has played the driving evolutionary role in moving "the people" from tribal to national to global levels of human organization. Having largely fulfilled its cultural evolutionary role, the need for global political unification under the auspices of democracy is apparent and this can only be accomplished by exposing the false assumptions that have sustained religious legalism.

1) Religion assumes that it is possible (and necessary) to legislate morality.

It is not possible to legislate morality, an experiential fact known since ancient Greece. If this religious assumption were true, after millennia of religious legal dominion, the world ought be an exemplar of legislated morality and peace by now, but it is not. Instead, the world is being torn apart by religious "morality" with its embrace of vengeance, self-righteousness and preemptive violence. In this regard, it is difficult to distinguish between the major branches of Abrahamic religion, i.e., Judaism, JudeoRomanism's "Christianity" and Islamism.

Under the dominion of religious capitalism, it is only possible to "legislate" legality and loyalty, and only then by coercing and imposing obedience through the use of fear, fabrication and threats of punishment. Law thusly imposed has little to do with the values of democracy and nascent Christianity.

2) Religion assumes that it is possible to codify a law that is appropriate to all people in all times and all places.

General applicability (leave alone universal applicability) has never been a characteristic of the law. An example comes from the Mosaic Decalogue's "Thou shalt not kill," ostensibly the direct dictate of God. With every declaration of war, this is the first law to be abandoned in the name of both self-righteous conquest and self-defense. While religions take the law absolutely, there is no such thing as an absolute law, particularly when the rich and powerful are able to circumvent the general applicability of the law.

This is in contrast to the world of human knowledge and natural philosophy in which there are many concepts that are universally applicable. Consider, for example, the fact that all people on earth were delivered here via the feminine half of humanity. All people on earth began their journey as a fertilized human ovum. All people on earth have participated in the beyond-breath-taking internal processes of genomic information expression that code for a human baby.

3) Religion assumes that obedience and morality are the same thing.

Obedience and morality cannot be the same thing. In being obedient to law, the best that can be consistently achieved is obedience. People oppressed by unfair laws, imposed religiously under threat of retribution, have always managed to survive by being obedient (at least in public), even if that stance required obedience to liars, scoundrels and tyrants. Without this obedience, feigned or blind, absolute legalism could not have served imperialism, colonialism and capitalism.

Recognition that legality and morality are not the same thing was central to the emergence of science and democracy in ancient Greece. Five hundred years later, this recognition was central to the emergence of nascent Christianity as a rejection of absolute legalism, vengeance-based moralities, self-righteousness and marketplace values. Eighteen hundred years later, this same recognition was central to the emergence of Jefferson's nascent Christian democracy in America. Obedience for obedience's sake is slavery.

4) Religion assumes that there is no such thing as a bad law.

It is true, of course, that the bulk of western cultural evolution, in moving from absolute religious law to human rights as a political bottom line, has involved the elimination of bad laws. These are the laws that would exile those with disease, laws that would imprison those in debt, laws that would punish those who dissent, laws that would discriminate against the working poor and laws that would favor the already-too-rich rich. Taken together, religious despotism produces a legal "morality" that mocks the values of honesty and compassion and human rights.

There is, of course, ample precedent for good laws consistent with the values of democracy. Religious laws are a posteriori (after the horrible fact), looking for a smoking gun and someone to punish in the name of "justice." The laws of choice in a democracy are a priori laws (before the horrible fact), designed to mend the social fabric, nourish fairness and prevent the people from falling through those holes that lead to disenfranchisement and self-denigration.

5) Religion assumes that the absence of law and order is anarchy.

Anarchy is not the opposite of law and order. Anarchy is the reciprocal of tyranny. Anarchy is visited when individuals "lord" it over society and its justifiable needs (e.g., "The Lord of the Flies"). Tyranny is visited when society "lords" it over individuals and their justifiable needs (e.g., Judeo-Roman imperialism, European colonialism, "compassionate" conservatism and crony capitalism). Either way, "the people" are out of the equation.

Jefferson and his revolutionary peers declared open war, not on anarchy, but on all forms of "tyranny over the human mind." To place the highest emphasis on human values and human knowledge, to place the highest value on the nourishment of human rights rather than law, is not to open the doors to anarchy, it is to close the doors to tyranny. It is to open the doors to Democracy, as a proud example of a collective anarchy, when the people take control of their own government.

While the agenda of "compassionate" conservatism would maintain a religious tyranny in the name of a "controlled society," its operational arm, crony capitalism, is about as close to an individual anarchy as is possible to achieve. In other words, a religious tyranny has, at its core, an individual anarchy comprised of "tin god" individuals in service primarily to themselves (e.g., Kenneth Lay and Enronomics).

Taken together, it is clear that the very foundations of law, as an approach to societal order, are mere assumptions that have never born the test of time. It comes down to the difference between employing fear and fabrication to coerce obedience in and loyalty from the people or employing human values and knowledge to help the people think and decide for themselves, help them find common sense and common agreement in the knowledgeable human truth.

It is the difference between seeing the people as children who need to be told what is right and wrong and seeing the people as citizens able to make their own decisions about right and wrong if provided the honest truth. It is the difference between religion and nascent Christianity. It is the difference between despotism and democracy.

The emergence of nascent Christianity was a rejection of the values of both ancient Judaism and ancient Romanism (which together provided the millennial exemplar of a legal "morality" steeped in immorality). The legal morality of Judaism and the imperial morality of Romanism saw it necessary to imprison and execute the first Christian as a political dissident. For promoting human rights and a compassion-based ethical morality, the Savior of today's religious right was silenced by those promoting the same religious agenda that the religious right now promotes.

Three centuries post-crucifixion, during Constantine's reign over Rome, the universal authority of Judaism was assigned to Roman law and the values of nascent Christianity were held high to justify Roman imperialism. The result was the emergence of Old Testament Roman "Christianity" which, from the onset, employed its defense of nascent Christian values to pardon its self-righteous imperialism, as it would later employ the same defense to pardon colonialism and capitalism.


Within a democracy, the only legitimate basis for morality resides not in law but in human rights as set forth in nascent Christian doctrine and as employed by Jefferson's Declaration in defining American values. Human rights (in the interest of honesty) transcend both western law (in the interest of control) and eastern ethics (in the interest of acceptance), being derived logically by dialectic synthesis of complementary opposites, in this case the values of western religious and eastern ethical systems (

Establishing a political theory based in nascent Christian human rights and, at the same time, based upon the separation of church and state, was the genius of America's Revolutionary founders. It produced, for the first time, a nation based in human values divorced entirely from religious supernaturalism and absolutism. Religious differences were no longer justifiable as a basis for conflict, except as played out on the Sunday afternoon softball diamond. This is the miracle of America, the miracle that made America the envy of all people longing for freedom.

That Christian miracle is precisely what the Bush administration has destroyed in America, by re-establishing the same religious self-righteousness that silenced the first Christian, the same religious self-righteousness that conquered the western world at the tip of a double-edged sword, the same religious self-righteousness that held the American colonies in bondage. Breaking away from that religion-based bondage in the name of human rights is what set America apart from the western world.

The Bush administration has destroyed the dialectic human values of democracy in America, largely in the name of religious capitalism. This is seen by a philosophically-challenged American press and right-wing public as being somehow a perfectly natural progression of Jefferson's democracy. It is not.

The Bush administration has lumped all of western Christendom into one despotic Old Testament heap as if the Protestant reformations had never occurred, as if America was founded by Catholics on behalf of the Papacy. This is seen by a compromised American press and right wing public as being somehow a perfectly natural progression of western religion, from conservatism to liberalism to conservatism. It is not.

The Bush administration is not mildly disliked but outrightly detested by about half of the American electorate and the bulk of the people in the educated world, but not because of its religiosity per se. The Bush administration is detested because it has broken the freedom contract and it has imposed its religiosity on the people to justify itself, its despotic policies at home and its unilateralist policies in the world. In doing so, it has compromised America's image as a democracy and perverted America's involvement in providing global leadership.

Moral failures ultimately cause the downfall of all despotic regimes, as they will cause the downfall of George W. Bush's administration. This is the only possible outcome when the values of the regime become more important than human values, when the regime itself becomes more important than the people it governs.

The beauty of Jefferson's Democracy is its basis in nascent Christian human rights and in religious freedom. As long as we accept and honor the dialectic human values of natural philosophy and democracy, then we are free to believe as we see appropriate in the spiritual realm and the realm of personal "Why" questions, as long as we impose those beliefs upon no one else.

Several native American tribes in the southwestern U.S. believed that if a couple loses an infant in childbirth, they could bury that infant in the earth beneath their home and the next child that they conceived would be the one that they had lost. Today, of course, we do not bury infants beneath our homes and science tells us that this belief could not be true. Even so, it remains a potentially healing concept for a bereaved couple to accept, as long as they do not propose making their belief into a law.

Natural philosophy necessarily provides a natural theology with a great deal of room in it for individual belief. As Jefferson knew, we each have our own personal relationships with deity. We each have our own personal origins and purpose in life, our own reasons for being here. In natural theology, it is our agreed upon collective values that count the most, and not so much our individual beliefs with regard to personal "why" questions.

Old Testament Roman religion has had its day in the sun, wrong about most everything empirical, even wrong about the nature of the Christ and the Christian message, as Jefferson and Franklin well knew. With religion's "end of man" and natural philosophy's "beginning of human," we must all learn to live with our own God, the God of all people. We must learn to live with ourselves. Our only moral obligation is to be honest and caring, to think for ourselves, to make our own judgments of other's "moral" judgments and to be true to ourselves in word and action.

The human values of nascent Christianity, natural philosophy and democracy are neither liberal or conservative, they are neither male or female. They are human values, and human is the only way God can be.

9:01 PM  
Blogger sallyann said...

I've just been "razzle-dazzled" with intellectual prowess. I'm going to need "remedial help" before I can respond to Dr. Gerry Lower's comments. I wonder if Dr. Lower can change a tire?

3:56 PM  
Blogger Lono said...

I gotta be honest all, I didn't even read that one. After about the second paragraph I got bored. Once I saw how long it was... not even interested.

Sally Ann, no one is asking you to apologize for slavery. I am just pointing out that Clinton took the initiative, which I admire.

Also, when Gore ran... I could see why people weren't interested in him. Even I as a loyal Dem didn't think much of him at all. Once our state was polled so completely Repub I went and voted for Nader. The reason for that wasn't because Nader is great (dude is nuts, and I have lost all respect for him) but had he got 5$ of the vote it would have created a federally funded third party. That would have been cool.

But I honestly think that John Kerry was a great candidate without question. Somehow it seemed Karl Rove made this election about gays. Too many people think if Democrats get elected we are going to make everyone get gay married. Even Kerry was opposed to gay marriage. What he WAS for, and every good Democrat is ... civil unions. The thinking being, gay couples should be able to pass assets to each other. IE, if there is a life long committed couple and one dies, the other should get the life insurance. That (to me at least) is the crux of gay rights. To say gays can't get married is the same as saying blacks shouldn't get married, or tall people shouldn't vote.

As for my last comment, the one you left hanging - I know it sounds drastic... but after watching the President and his administration set EVERYTHING aside for rich folks and corporations I am rather bitter about our prospects in the next few years. Remember, there were many great empires before America. England used to run the world, Rome too. Now they are tiny little tourist destinations. I want America to be great again.

9:53 PM  
Blogger BadKnight said...

Hello SallyAnn.

After reading a few of your "RedStater/BlueStater" comments, I can't help but ask myself if that viewpoint is terribly simplistic. The election was very close; and, of course, the majority of states went "Red".

However, it seemed to me that with such close races in
so many states that this really reflects a high level of uncertainty as to the best path to follow rather than the absolute division into "red" and "blue" thinking that has been suggested. Or am I all wet?

10:39 PM  
Blogger sallyann said...

Welcome BadKnight:

It seems that my Blue Stater friends, and I have many, are having a difficult time trying to figure out why George Bush won the election. Many of them have said, "I just don't get it." Each has confessed that they do not "understand" a Red Staters mind. After the election and it became known that Bush had won because of a "moral values" margin, Blue Staters immediately assumed that the moral value issue had everything to do with Christian "morals or principles", as if every Red Stater was a "born again Christian." This is wrong headed thinking.

Although the issue of separation of church and state is very important to Red Staters, it wasn't the main issue as much as it is a collective "backlash" to the Blue Stater's Far Left ideology. Michael Moore, Hollywood, Massachusetts judges and the ACLU are the Red Stater's mortal enemies .

As I've written in this blog, Red Staters or Main Stream Americans do not like extremes on either end of the political spectrum. You have commented that you think this viewpoint is "terribly simplistic". And I will agree with you. However, it immediately points out the differences between us and how we make political, moral judgements. Red Staters are black and white thinkers, while Blue Staters "nuance an issue" in order to "see all sides."

I can "nuance" with the best of them, but I prefer to keep my explanations/opinions simple in order for Blue Staters to understand why John Kerry lost and George Bush won. This plan, I am finding out, is a struggle for Blue Staters. They throw their hands up in the air and say, "It can't be that simple."

But it is that simple. Main Stream America prefers the "center" and distrusts the extremes of the Far Right and Far Left.

Examples: Main Stream America, MSA, prefers birth control or abstinence over abortion NOT the extreme of partial birth abortion or the use of abortion as a birth control method.

MSA prefers civil unions for gays NOT same sex marriage.

MSA prefers that children be allowed to sing Christmas Carols in public schools NOT the extreme of banning them.

MSA prefers to support a president during wartime NOT the extreme of anti-war dissent.

I could sit here all night and list every issue MSA prefers, but you can easily do it yourself by recognizing the center of every issue...that's where you'll find Red State mentality.

You stated that you felt the close election "reflects a high level of uncertainty as to the best path to follow rather than the absolute division into 'red' and 'blue' thinking."

I do not see it as uncertainty. I see the close election as an expression of absolute certainty on the part of the Red Staters. It is crystal clear to Red Staters there is a "culture war" in progress. A division that's been festering for 30 years. We have "hit the wall" so to speak. I hate to use so many cliches but "we're just not going to take it anymore."

It is that simple.

12:51 AM  
Blogger sallyann said...

Lono: I'll respond to your post tomorrow. I'm running late. Had to check out an MVA.

12:57 AM  
Blogger sallyann said...


I understand your vote for Nadar. I voted for Ross Perot during the Bush/Clinton election. Even though Perot was a squirrelly little guy, I liked what he said. He shifted the focus onto issues that resonated with a lot of folks. I loved his charts! At the time, I didn’t know I was wasting my vote, and no doubt, the only reason Bill Clinton got elected. If I remember right, Perot got 20% of the vote, which was significant. Perot’s message, I believe, changed both the Republican and Democrat parties. Back then, I was real tired of “politics as usual.” I couldn’t tell the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. It seemed both parties were sliding along on worn-out messages. Perot came along, thanks to daytime TV, and shot adrenaline into a major chunk of the populace whose voices hadn’t been heard in a long, long time. To me, Perot, was the epitome of common sense, and he shot straight from the hip, and that appealed to me. One of the reasons I like Bush now.

I think Perot represented the “center” at that time. That’s why Republicans and Democrats have stuck to centrist messages since then, even more than before Perot.

Karl Rove didn’t make this election about gays. The Massachusetts’s Supreme Court and Mayor Gavin Nusum from California did. Karl Rove/Bush reacted by calling for a Constitutional Amendment to protect man/woman marriage to publicly and politically set the Republican position and generate a dialogue on the issue. That’s all they did. The eleven anti-same sex marriage initiatives around the country were organized by independent grassroots organizations. The same-sex marriage issue fell in Bush’s lap.

Here’s a Red State news alert for you: Most Red Staters I know, including Bush, are for civil unions. Had the gay community promoted/lobbied civil unions instead of same-sex marriage, they would have won. The other mistake gays made was making it a “civil rights” issue. A number of Blacks were against same-sex marriage because of their strong connection to the Church and were offended by gays comparing their plight for equality as being a civil rights issue. In their minds, Blacks perceive themselves as being the greater “victim”.

Like I said, most Red Staters I know are for civil unions and have been a long time. Many of us have gay members in our families and love them unconditionally and want what’s best for them. I understand that to be legally married in the eyes of God and the Law would help eliminate the negative stigma of “being gay”. But I think the gays put the cart before the horse, with a lot of help from the Massachusett’s Supreme Court and the mayor from California. Many Red Staters felt that the court and mayor’s actions “crammed it down our throats.” Red Staters prefer a “democratic process” that allows the majority to decide. Gays should have lobbied for civil unions.

You said in your last post: “after watching Bush and his administration set EVERYTHING aside for rich folks and corporations I am rather bitter about our prospects in the next few years. Remember, there were many great empires before America. England used to run the world. Rome too. Now they are tiny little tourist destinations. I want America to be great again.”

Holy Cow I say. Let me ask you a question: Do you have a major corporation operating in your hometown? If you don’t, look to the next city/town over to the right from where you’re sitting…..wait a minute….make that to the LEFT of where you’re sitting. Ask yourself what would happen to the people in that town/city if that corporation moved out. Here’s another question: How many great empires do you know of that were built around “Social Service” programs?

6:22 PM  
Blogger Lono said...

I am not anti-corporation. I am not anti-success. Those are common myths about us Dems. What I believe in is corporate responsibility. The Enrons and Tyco's and MCI's need to be held accountable. I work for a major corporation, and I believe we are an excellent corporate citizen.

I think no matter how wonderful a corporation is, and how many they employ, they still need to:
pay taxes
be fair to their employees
not receive tax breaks for moving jobs overseas
not discriminate

now if you can do those things and still be successful, then rock on.

Second thing, you mentioned Ross Perot. I gotta comment here because Ross was a big opponent of NAFTA. Remember his quote about how if we pass NAFTA there will be a '
great big sucking sound' of American jobs heading south? Guess what, Ross made his fortune running a company called EDS (Electronic Data Solutions) who handle IT and stuff like that. They moved almost all of their operations India. Trust me, they are one of our vendors. If Ross were so concerned about American jobs, where is he now? He was a bigger phony than Nader.

Sorry for slow response. I have had a devil of a cold and haven't been in fighting shape for a few days.


7:02 PM  
Blogger sallyann said...

Lono: Hope you feel better. Just have one question....can you explain to me why businesses are moving whole factories and part of their labor forces overseas?

8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The great hue and cry over abortion, according to its pious opposition, is all about "the culture of life" - one of those key codewords. Abortion is wrong because it ends life prematurely, it denies potential human beings the chance of life. Angry mobs assemble outside abortion clinics to harass - or worse - both doctors and patients in order to get across their message of moral consternation. It is most curious, then, that these moral crusaders do not assemble on behalf of those many millions of poor children with working single mothers who struggle daily to keep them fed, clothed, and cared for. Quite the contrary, the Right assembles precisely against these children and their mothers; against their demands for better jobs, higher wages, and affordable childcare and healthcare, condemning them as "lazy", "undeserving" or "uppity" - though these women should, after all, be judged "moral" for not having had abortions. "The culture of life," it seems, is a culture of promoting life when it does not actually exist, and abandoning it when it does.

But abandonment is only the more compassionate side of conservatism's stance. The passionate voices of our zealous crusaders for an "unborn child's right to life" are nowhere to be found when real children are being bombed, starved, or otherwise obliterated in a painfully unequal war between the world's largest military behemoth and a small defenseless country - unless those voices are railing in favor of exterminating the Muslim heathen from fiery pulpits. In the twelve years separating our last incineration of Iraq from our newest one, the UN and various aid groups calculated a toll of several hundred thousand children who died as a direct result of US-led economic embargoes; the British medical journal The Lancet recently estimated about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the war since its inception; and it has now been revealed that "[a]cute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago." Where are our moralists now? Where the outraged "good Christians" insisting on the "sanctity of life?" Perhaps preoccupied counting the millions accrued from denying it.

9:48 AM  
Blogger Lono said...

Why are they moving jobs and factories? No brainer... the labor is insanely cheaper everywhere else in the world but America. I understand a business' motivation to make the best profit, but not at the cost of jobs and livelihoods. Also, any company that moves their workforce overseas to up their profits should have tax breaks eliminated. GONE.

This subject is extremely close to my heart, because I have been laid off three times in the last three years.

8:41 PM  
Blogger sallyann said...


I still don't understand why Far-Left Blue Staters are so resentful of major corporations and rich people. Their reaction to wealth and power strikes me as "arrested developement" as if corporations and rich people are the bullies on the playground waiting to stuff some poor kid's face in the snow bank. I don't think Blue Staters have a real handle on capitalism and a free market society. I think they're too "sensitive and ignorant" of the dog eat dog world of corporate economics. Corporations aren't in business to "make your life secure." They're in business to make money and stay in business.

I can remember one employer telling a group of us disgruntled employees who were complaining about workload and wages, that if he fired all of us he could replace us in "nine" minutes. I always remembered him saying "nine". Then he said, "Go ahead and unionize. This paper would be out of business by the end of the year because we couldn't pay union wages. Then where would you be?"

Half of us thought he made a good point, and the other half continued to believe that the company safe was full of cash and they were just being greedy. But there was plenty of evidence that he was telling the truth.

Should American corporations stay in country? Absolutely. But what if they can't to stay competitive? Global economics are changing. We're competing against slave labor for God's sake. China is gearing up and will kick our butts economically because we won't be able to compete.

The worst of it is our school systems are in cardiac arrest. Our kids can't compete. We're not the best and brightest of the world anymore. Asians and orientals are imported by corporations because of their exceptional skills. Our local CEO of a Fortune 500 company was quoted,"Our kids can't cut it anymore." We're in serious trouble with our educational system, yet the Left does nothing except criticize "No Child Left Behind."

Lay offs suck. I know. We've endured many. That's why we went into business to have more control over our financial situation. Now that we're in business I understand "corporations" better. It is a dog eat dog world out there.

11:19 PM  
Blogger BadKnight said...

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

While I certainly don't want to begrudge you the opportunity to bask contentedly in the euphoria and personal glee you've obviously acquired from the outcome of the November election, I nonetheless need to point out that I think you missed my point.

While I appreciate your voicing the sentiments of Main Stream America in that ''re not going to take it anymore - it's just that simple', my reference to the distinctly polarized Red-Stater/Blue-Stater view as being simplistic was not a call-to-arms to liberal versus conservative rhetoric. (Or, if you prefer, to some variation of reformed liberal versus pseudo-centrist conservative rhetoric.)

Rather, it was my observation that the solutions to the issues aren't as clear-cut in the minds of many as a simple Red-Stater/Blue-Stater choice. It appears to me to be more like (if I may coin a phrase) 'bewildered ambivalence' in the minds of many.

Of course, you may tend to agree with Senator Mitch McConnell's view that 'pundits and academics who see a nonpartisan "Purple" America, rather than one dividing between Red and Blue, are searching for an excuse' (Newsweek magazine, Jan 3 2005, p.43).

I, however, can't help but wonder if there might really be more to this "Purple" America notion than meets the eye. Or the main stream media.

12:26 PM  
Blogger sallyann said...


You say there might be more to the Purple State hypothesis than meets the eye. I’m assuming you believe Red-Staters and Blue-Staters are closer together ideologically on issues than either side is willing to admit. If that’s the case, then the next logical question is: What issues do we blend to Purple?

Is it the abortion issue?

Is it the gay marriage issue?

Is it the separation of church and state issue?

Is it the War on Terror issue?

Is it the War in Iraq issue?

Is it the Patriot Act issue?

Is it the multi-culturism issue?

Is it the size of government issue?

Is it the tax issue?

Is it the pro-military/anti-military issue?

Is it the state of our education system and the effect of No Child Left Behind issue?

Is it the personal accountability/victim excuse issue?

Is it the environment issue?

Is it the torte reform issue?

Is it the Christmas issue?

Is it the alleged voter fraud issue?

Is it the media bias issue?

Is it the Oil for Food scandal/issue?

Is it the redistribution of wealth issue?

Is it the “America is arrogant” and unilateralism issue?

The only Purple I see is in the Christmas issue. An overwhelming majority of Americans, according to the polls, want Christ kept in Christmas in the public square, especially in our public schools. I used to believe that as a nation we were on the same page concerning the War on Terror. I have since abandoned that belief which leaves nothing else on my list that could appear Purple to me.

When you reviewed my “list”, I dare say you weren’t ambivalent or were you bewildered where you stood as a Blue-Stater or a Red-Stater. Even if you took a “centrist Red/Blue state” position on each of these issues, there would still be major differences on how these issues/problems would be solved.

We are a divided nation now, in my opinion, because “blood has been spilled by war”. And to coin two phrases: This is where the rubber meets the road and the men are separated from the boys. We are divided by the interpretation of patriotic loyalty and the will of the American people. We are a divided nation now because secularism is at war with religiosity. We are divided by moral absolutes and moral relativism. As a nation, our differences are all encompassing. Each issue is on fire with emotion, even inconsequential issues like whether or not there’s media bias.

The Color Purple does not translate to “compromise or commonality”. At this historical juncture in the road, the art of compromise is dead. And after 40 years of constant, unchallenged Liberal rhetoric, to the point where they thought “THEY were Main Stream America”, (the reason for their bewilderment and the onset of P.E.S.T.), this election proved we have nothing in common with each other anymore.

The Far Left generated the Purple maps in an effort to gain political equilibrium. Rather than find political footing in the center, they have opted to color America’s red counties purple to show their ideology is righteous and blameless and creeping outward to the “back woods of America.” When in reality, Red-Staters understand that purple means—the county didn’t go Blue….it went just a little more Red. To a Blue-Stater, that may not be a mandate, but to a Red-Stater it was verification that traditional American values are alive and well because we believed these principles were in a death throe. It was a “call to arms.” Make no mistake about it.

12:31 AM  
Blogger BadKnight said...

Hello again, SallyAnn,

Re: "I’m assuming you believe Red-Staters and Blue-Staters are closer together ideologically on issues than either side is willing to admit."

If that was my belief then your reply would have been most eloquent.

However, the reason I am saying that "purple" thinking is apparent is that, whereas which side of the issue chosen is often clear in peoples's minds, many seem to be on one side of the issue on one point, clearly on the other side for another point.

The clarity of position on individual points breaks down on the large scale when you realize that their thinking vascillates depending on the specific issue at hand. That's where I believe "purple" thinking comes in.

And, by the way, as a self-described "reformed liberal", can you honestly say that YOUR thinking on each of these issues is now THAT crystal clear?

4:45 PM  
Blogger Lono said...

Republicans have been working against education as long as I can remember. Honestly, you know that. Republicans don't like state run ANYTHING. I understand that. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. As for your quip about 'no child left behind'... I can do best by quoting John Kerry

"I think No Child Left Behind is a terrific idea. I want to actually FUND it though."

9:15 PM  
Blogger sallyann said...


The answer to your question is "yes". Why do you find that so hard to accept?

7:24 PM  
Blogger sallyann said...


You stated "Republicans have been working against education forever." Why would you say that? you agree that the "Left" has controlled the public education system for the last 30 years? And if that's true, which it is, why was it necessary to pass a non-partisan bill called "No Child Left Behind?" Have you read the article I posted titled "Education-Then and Now"...I know it's long, but it's worth a read. One last question: Why do you believe NCLB is unfunded?

7:35 PM  
Blogger Lono said...

That it is almost entirely unfunded is a fact even the President doesn't deny. You say Dems have controlled education for the last 30 years. In my experience, that is far from the truth. Education is mostly state based, and I grew up in Arizona... which was militantly Republican all through my school years. I watched them chip at school money every single year. I watched classes and programs get cut every year. I watched fees and taxes rise with less and less services.

The reality is that Republicans don't want to be in the business of subsidizing anything public. Look at social security same thing. It is ok. As I said, I understand the thinking... the thinking is that people need to be more self sufficient and rely less on the government.

However, cutting funding for education and sex education especially only hurts America. Bush says he is pro-life... but he has gutted so many programs that his administration saw many many many more abortions during his term than during Clintons.

Also, here is a quick Democratic look at why we think education is valuable to all of society. If you create (and subsidize, there it is I said it) better educational opportunities for people you have people with better jobs. This means less crime (because people won't have to steal to get by). This also means that you have more people working and more people making more money... this is good for the tax base.

Look at our deficit, look at the problems in the schools, look at our image around the world... and the President wants to send us to Mars. Let's take care of the humans first, then worry about the martians.

10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Lono: Welcome back....Am going to post your last comment about NCLB and other public school issues in the main part of the blog. So look for it on the first page of the blog. It will be my post of the day. I'm doing this because I'm currently involved with "school issues" here in the area and want a "Democratic" point of view. I also want the comment stream more to the front of the blog for easier access. Look for my response in the comments....Sallyann

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To paint "Blue-Staters" as somehow being un-American because of their views is exactly why we are so afraid of "Red-Staters." Why can't you decide to pray in school, abstain from sex, not have abortions, believe what you want & leave the rest of us out of it? Because you want to impose your moral beliefs on all of us! It isn't enough that you believe in your God, but you need to transpose His teachings into what is OUR secular society. This is exactly what we are trying to keep from happening in Iraq! If it is good for them, I hope you can see that it is good for us.

1:18 PM  
Blogger sallyann said...

Less than a year after the Twin Towers fell to the ground, a Blue Stater carried this poster in an anti-war march in New York City. The poster read: We Like New York Better Now That The Towers Are Gone! That is just one example out of the million anti-American remarks that have been made by the Left since 9/11. Forgive the Red Staters for calling the Blue Staters un-American. But....if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...then it must be a duck!

Listen closely to what your party is saying while it hides behind "free speech". Listen closely to the Michael Moore's and the Ward Churchill's and then with an objective conscience, try and convince Red Staters that the Blue Stater's dissent is healthy and good for the country. I can only speak for myself, but after I've listened to the rants on American Imperialism, the constant monologue "that Bush lies", all the anti-war rhetoric, and especially "America had it coming" I feel sick to my stomach. But the Left has always blamed the victim. That's why we had to start a "Victim Rights Movement" back in the 80's.

Why do you suppose the "moral values" issue popped up after the election? Why are the Democrats losing elections? Why are they scrambling around trying to find a message that resonates in the Red States? Because Liberals had been real vocal and real active during the past 30 years chipping away at the American family and its traditions and we cried "foul."

You asked: "Why can't you decide to pray in school, abstain from sex, not have abortions, believe what you want and leave the rest of us out of it?" Well, my friend....THAT'S WHAT WE WERE DOING until your party decided we were too stupid and misguided to be trusted with the future of our culture. So you stepped in and took prayer out of the school AND the public square, then you decided that we should be "liberated from our sexual inhibitions". You gave us the "Sexual Revolution". Our kids loved it. They are now completely uninhibited and enjoy having sex at the ripe old age of 13 while they listen to Hip Hop in the back of the school bus. Of course, we weren't having abortions because we weren't having "that much sex", but, as you know....that changed with the Revolution. But you knew better and helped us with that too....we've aborted 43 million babies because you taught us we weren't responsible for our actions...just our bodies.

And NOW you ask that we leave the rest of you out of it. You should have thought of staying out of it 30 years ago. We don't want to impose anything on anybody. We just want to put our lives back to a time when most kids didn't have sex at 13 and prayer in school was a good thing and abortion as an over used birth control method didn't exist. You've always had your "secular society" just refused to believe it. The Iraqi's will have a secular society and if they're smart they'll stop ideologies like yours from ripping the soul out of their culture!

11:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home