Posted on 08/29/2002 6:03:39 PM PDT by runningbear
Gray Davis continues to distort the truth and make false accusations against me, and ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The GLOVES ARE OFF!
We have unveiled a new ad that strikes at the core of Davis Pay-to-Play antics in the Governors office. The ad, titled This Whole Thing Stinks, highlights Davis willingness to sell even our childrens health to the highest bidder.
This Whole Thing Stinks
A Gray Davis board stopped a big oil company, Tosco, from dumping more dioxin into our water.
But, the very next day, Tosco gave more than $50,000 to Daviss campaign.
The Davis board quickly reversed itself
and allowed Tosco to increase cancer- causing dioxin dumping 400%.
click here to contribute Simonforgovernor.com
I NEED YOUR HELP!!
Your most generous contribution will help me keep this ad on television.
As you may have read, MY CAMPAIGN IS COMMITTED TO CONTINUE RUNNING ADS FROM NOW UNTIL THE ELECTION. But we cant do that without sufficient financial support from concerned people like you. We need your help.
Please click hereSimon to contribute and donate whatever you can, $25, $50 or $1000. If at all possible consider a monthly contribution. Your help now is CRITICAL TO THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION!
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
P.S. PLEASE HELP ME remind Californians that Gray Davis has used his office to raise millions of dollars at the expense of the citizens of our state.
Your help right now is crucial. Go to: http://www.simonforgovernor.com/responsecontribute.php?134 today! You will also be redirected to an online video clip of our new ad after youve made your contribution!
True. There is also Gary Copeland, Libertarian for Governor
The Golden Rule is from none other than Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God (God in human flesh), 2nd person of the Godhead. From Him, this philosophy makes sense becuase He is God and moral absolutes flow from His character and person. From you, however, it makes no sense since you do not hold to moral absolutes. From your point of view, it may be a good thing to "do unto others," but what is another person disagrees with you?? hmm? What if another person holds to the morals of Marquis de Sade? Who is right? Can you say it is absolutely wrong, from the moral relativist point of view, to do someone harm? No. This is contradictory. You can only say it is wrong FOR YOU. Since other people do not hold to your personal moral preferences, it may not be wrong for them. So, your ethics fall apart at the seams.
If we accept that our ethics come from God, then if God does not exist, ethics do not exist either - and I think we would both agree that is a dangerous idea indeed.
But ethics do exist and to deny it is to deny the reality of human experience. You are living a hopeless dichotomy because you are not living a life that is true to your human-ness. Our human intuition and makeup demand that right and wrong exist in the objective sense. As I pointed out, ethics make no sense without absolutes. Since ethics do exist, then God also exists because God is the only logical source for ethics.
What about those who don't believe in God?
Absolutes exist independent of human belief. They exist -- period. Those who do not believe in God are living a dichotomy. If God doesn't exist, then humans are mere machines. Period. Do you like the implications of that inevitable conclusion? I'll bet you don't. If humans are machines, then the love you feel for your family is meaningless -- it is a mere chemical process in your brain. Life is also meaningless, as is the "grief" you feel for a lost loved one. All is nothing. Nihilism is ysour only refuge. So, people who reject God reject the reality of their own life experience. No way around it.
I vote on moral principle and only moral principle. I will not vote for any candidate who supports the murder of the unborn or special rights for homosexuals. Period. End of Simon.
You still haven't explained why it is wrong to harm others. Also, why is freedom good or right? Who says so? You? What if I say different? What if I am J. Stalin and want to take away your freedom? Without absolutes, your opinion doesn't carry any weight at all. Every time you make a statement you bring up more ethical questions. This is because your principles are not based on universal absolutes, they are merely unexplored presuppositions. The founders of America clearly saw that freedom and rights come from the "Creator." But you reject this perhaps because you are operating on the presuppositions ingrained into you during your education in America's secularized naturalistic insitutions of education.
Do you see how close this comes to an absolute? I don't know anyone who wants to be killed or have his property stolen. But it's a firmer foundation than God, because many people believe in different Gods with different rules. Does that give them a right to behave according to those rules in our country? No, because we have laws based on the Golden Rule, and it's very much a part of our culture.
No, I don't see how it becomes an absolute. By definition, "absolute" means "universally existent and applicable". Murder is wrong...that is an absolute that would still exist even if every single human on earth denied it. A moral principle cannot be absolute unless God exists. Yes, people believe in different Gods but the Law of Non-Contradiction does not logically allow that they all be true because they contradict each other as to the nature of God. For example, Islam and Christianity cannot both be true - one can be right or both wrong, but both cannot be right. So, I suppose that it would depend upon if you believe in a false god or the real God. The only way to determine which one is the real God is to examine the evidence.
You did not answer my questions in my original post to you. Please answer them.
No, because we have laws based on the Golden Rule, and it's very much a part of our culture.
The Golden Rule is from Jesus Christ, and since our nation is founded upon biblical principles. But this does not apply to the "new tolerance" and the laws giving special rights to homosexuals. (By the way, I do not hate homosexuals nor do I ridicule them). They have always had the exact same rights I do under the law - they can marry anyone they want -- of the opposite sex.
If Simon advocates homosexual rights and agenda, he cannot at the same time be an advocate for the family. These laws destroy the traditional family, and with it, all of society will eventually be destroyed. Homosexuality is a moral issue and will always be a moral issue. Simon will lose MANY MANY votes over his sellout to the gay agenda, and it will be Matt Fong Redux. I do not prostitute my values for the sake of voting a bad governor out of office. If the people of Calif. are too ignorant or stupid to know that voting for Davis is bad for California, then California will get what it deserves. That's the way it works in our system. Our Republic is predicated on the notion that the people will be moral, and once they are no longer moral, the system can't work (I give you re-election of Clinton as one good example of the depravity of America).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.