Simon;"The GLOVES ARE OFF!"

This article comes from Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org

The URL for this story is:
http://traditionalvalues.org/article.php?sid=417

If he is retracting (or clarifying) what was published in the SF Chronicle last week, I guess I'm back on board. Matt Fong never did this.

Feel free to ping
=====
Over the last week, as many of you know, concerns have been raised over a questionnaire supposedly approved by gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon.

I have spoken with him during this time. The following letter addressed to Senator Ray Haynes, I believe, clarifies Bill Simon’s strong pro-family position.

Please feel free to share this information with your friends, family, church members and co-workers in California and throughout the nation.

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

September 1, 2002

Honorable Ray Haynes
California State Senator
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ray:

I want to express my appreciation for your recent letter of support. Your friendship and guidance during this campaign has been nothing less than invaluable. I look forward to working closely with you to provide California with the leadership we so desperately need.

I have always tried to be a caring and compassionate person and to understand the differing viewpoints of people from all walks of life. I want to set forth clearly and unambiguously my strongly held pro-family views that have recently been mischaracterized.

I signed the Marriage Protection Pledge on February 6, 2002, and stand by it. That pledge is to protect children by supporting the ideal of marriage, protect the importance and uniqueness of marriage and to uphold the pro-marriage, pro-child spirit of Proposition 22.

In the primary campaign, I stated that "marriage is an institution that should remain between one man and one woman." I stand by that statement. I supported Proposition 22 because I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Marriage is a special relationship designed to create a loving and caring environment for families to develop and thrive.

I opposed AB 25, which conferred rights based on sexual orientation, and I encouraged Governor Davis to exercise his veto power against it. Unfortunately, he signed it into law. That has been my clear position at all times because I do not believe that other relationships should be elevated to that of marriage. I oppose creating a special class of domestic partnership laws that is defined by sexual orientation or preference.

I do not support a proclamation for Gay Pride Day.

The best family environment for a child is a home with a mother and father. Much of my own personal charitable giving has been in promoting adoptions and working for an environment that helps children to prosper in a loving home. We know that there is a good supply of such homes waiting for children, and we should redouble our efforts to make adoption easier. I want to ensure that every effort is made for the best possible environment for children. Also, I oppose legislation imposing sexual orientation training guidelines for foster parents.

As a state legislator, you have been on the front lines in fighting against the strong, liberal bias in the Assembly and Senate. There are many laws we would like to repeal or change, but as you know, only the legislature can repeal laws. As governor I must focus on achieving real results for Californians, which is what I intend to do.

As governor, I would hire only the most qualified people for each position, as I have in my business.

On the subject of private companies providing workplace domestic partnership benefits, I believe in a free market that corporations can make their own decisions on pay, benefits and working conditions. However, I strongly opposed AB 1080, which would prohibit state agencies from entering into contracts with vendors who do not offer benefits to domestic partner employees. This is another example of government mandates that drive away businesses and cost jobs for our citizens. I support portable health policies so individuals can choose their own coverage.

This letter should clear up any misunderstandings about my positions on the above issues. As a strong pro-family candidate, I took clear stands on these issues during the primary campaign. I will continue to do so, and as governor, I will unequivocally affirm my support for these and other major issues that concern the people of California.

Sincerely,

William E. Simon Jr.

So my ethics come from the Golden Rule which is as valid with God as without His presence. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Since I don't want someone to kill me, I don't kill. Since I don't want someone to steal, I don't steal. And since I wouldn't want someone to taunt me for being different, I'm not going to taunt them for being different, either.

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.

Thus, respect for individual choices unless they directly, tangibly harm others. This is the philosophy that creates the highest level of freedom to all. Since freedom is one of my core values, that's what I support.

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.