What about those who don't believe in God?
Centralized planning has created shortages; decentralized planning creates plenty. To assume that there is a central leader who's all wise and powerful seems like a concept from the olden days, when Kings ruled and claimed they got their power from God.
I don't want to go back to the good old days, do you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Enough about my personal philosophy. How is this relevent to the clash between Davis and Simon?
Well, understand that Simon is on a mission. He wants to try and right the economic wrongs that this state has suffered from. He wants to help education. I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, but that's the basic agenda.
Simon is imitating George W Bush and Ronald Reagan. They had a small, manageable set agenda they wanted to pursue. WHy? Because they could actually accomplish something that way. Clinton tried to do everything, and you may have noticed that in 8 years, he accomplished next to nothing.
You may not like his agenda because the social issues you support are largely absent. But that's like taking a ship that's on the rocks and having long discussions about the morality of the passengers, instead of getting them all off. That's our situation today.
The sad fact, from your point of view, is that neither candidate is supporting a religious agenda. Both of them have things that are far more important to deal with, such as whether the state can survive without going bust. You should judge them accordingly - which candidate is more likely to solve the state's problems?
I'll tell you one thing: That ain't Gray Davis. He has a proven record of being unable to solve any problem. Instead, he just pushes their consequences into the future, with disasterous results for all.
So vote for Simon, even if you don't like his social positions. After all, Davis' social positions aren't any better.
D
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).