[AIG]

Elections may be "immaterial," as you said, to absolute moral principles, but in a democratic society, elections are the means by which yours and others' moral, economic, political, social, etc. views get expressed. That's all I said. Sure, moral principles may have some metaphysical reality in and of themselves, but politics is a practical art so the Founders chose elections as the means for expressing moral and other views in reality. Politics is politics, and religion is religion. You should not confuse religion with politics. And insofar as most elections are concerned, they are decided upon economic issues more than upon moral issues. As I said before, Bush Jr. seems to have higher, firmer moral positions than his dad, but do you really think that that's going to save him if the stock market stays depressed and people's retirement funds are lost forever? Moral absolutists like yourself often have trouble reconciling metaphysical moral principles with practical, strategic political thinking. This is why Congress has yet to overtun Roe v. Wade, among other things. But it's not so damaging if you and other moral absolutists start to take real-life political considerations into account. America today works on the basis of elections. Elections are the ultimate means for how decisions are made in a democratic society. The Founders purposefully designed it that way, so you can't ignore elections. You can entertain all the moral ideas you want, but at the end of the day, you have to pay attention to elections. And in elections, the will of the people more often turns on economic issues than moral principles. Being a saint will not help prevent Bush from getting booted from office in 2004 if retirees don't recover their retirement money soon. Remember the phrase, "it's the economy, stupid!" America exists so that its people can be happy, particularly economically, and if America's political leaders don't deliver the economic goods, America's people tends to boot them out of office!

[Jeff Head]

You seem to have a difficult time with reading comrpehension.

I do not ignore elections, I understand there import and the part they play in this republic. What I simnply said was that, either way, they have no bearing on moral principle. The elections certainly can make a difference with the conditions we live in.

Your pronouncements sound more akin to moral relativism than most anything else in your attempt to render them (the moral principles) of less consequence. If they could be rendered relative ... they ould have little or no meaning, and therefore are rendered to little conseqeunce. This is a classic Marxist tactic.

That's fine, you re free to lean that way (with respect to this issue). But religion, morality and the welfare of this nation ... and its politics are and were designed to be related to one another ... just not controlled. It is clear that by failing to recognize this, or even acknowledge it as part of the founders intent that you misunderstand that intent and the very basis and fabric for what they created. Go back and read their quotes that I have given to you. Start in post 184.

Morality is absolute otherwise it has no meaning and (as you would like to imagine) it has little consequence in the overall picture. There are folks that would like that to be true ... but it is a false notion. It is only our understanding and our application of moral principle that is not absolute. The further away we are from applying it ... the more trouble we as individuals and as a society run into. That's the way America was designed to operate. It was established for a "moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other". It would be well for us to remember it as a people and apply it as a free will choice. It is the only way it can work.

By the way ... America does not exist to make us happy. It exists to make us free. We will be happy as a people and a nation to the degree that we choose to apply that freedom by following the Author of true happiness and His moral code. Any coursery reading of the founders and their intent make this plain. Religion and politics were not meant to be divorced from one another ... only that the political institution would not create a "state church". Most oft, people who push for a total difestiture are those who have little practical commitment to their religious feeling. By and large, our founders were certainly not numbered among such.

This will be my last post to you on this issue. We have been over the same ground ad infinidum. I am content to now let my words stand as they are.