Replies

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.

Sure, moral principles are absolute. They're absolute by definition or else they wouldn't be moral "principles." That's not the issue here. The issue here is that those moral principles guided the Founders in constructing America's system of government which calls for elections as the means to decide important issues of the day. I merely pointed out that economics is often the most important issue in any election. What's wrong with you just admitting this? Can't you both acknowledge moral principles and the fact that economics is often the most important issue in moral principle-inspired elections simultaneously? Economics dictates how Americans live on a daily basis and often determines their happiness. Most Americans hope to achieve the "American Dream," which in most cases means "hitting the jackpot" in one way or another. Most importantly, US Presidential elections often come down to the question, "How are you (the American people) doing economically?" As we speak, Republicans are worried about losing the House because of the economic issue of corporate scandals and the lousy stock market performance. These are simple fact you seem unable to comprehend, but even any teenager knows that Bush Sr. lost because he neglected the economy.

Most Americans acknowledge moral principles, but they also acknowledge America's electoral system. The electoral system is not perfect but it's the system America has, for good reason. They don't say that merely because someone acknowledges that electoral decisions don't go one's way that acknowledging the reality of the electoral system and and that economics plays a big role makes one a "moral relativist."