Posted on 11/08/2004 1:05:52 PM PST by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK - Family values, traditional values and now, "moral values." Most American adults would say they have them, and yet that two-word phrase is the focus of an ideological tug-of-war heightened by President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election, with conservatives declaring principal ownership and liberals scrambling to challenge them.
"We need to work really hard at reclaiming some language," said the Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the liberal-leaning National Council of Churches.
"The religious right has successfully gotten out there shaping personal piety issues — civil unions, abortion — as almost the total content of 'moral values,'" Edgar said. "And yet you can't read the Old Testament without knowing God was concerned about the environment, war and peace, poverty. God doesn't want 45 million Americans without health care."
Many of the advocacy groups that helped mobilize conservative voters for Bush concentrate on a narrow range of issues — notably opposing abortion and gay rights. Conservative leaders say these were the main issues on voters' minds when many, in exit polls, designated unspecified "moral values" as their foremost Election Day priority.
"Those who view the appeal to 'moral values' as mere political manipulation and ideological posturing have a basic misunderstanding of people of faith," said Janice Shaw Crouse of the conservative Concerned Women for America.
"The 'moral values' that were a top priority in this election — abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex unions — are rooted in deep religious beliefs."
Such statements of moral grounding have frustrated Democratic-leaning activists — in past campaigns and particularly this year. They question the vagueness of the "moral values" exit poll question and contend that their own political priorities, such as fighting poverty and discrimination, have moral weight and popular support.
Proponents of same-sex unions, for example, believe it is moral to afford partnership rights to two men or two women who have committed themselves to each other and, in many cases, are raising children.
"We have a thing or two to say about the 'moral values' involved with permitting a couple who wish to build a life together to enjoy full legal standing as a family," said Ron Schlittler, director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
Similarly, abortion-rights advocates believe it is moral to allow the option of abortion to a poor, newly pregnant woman, rather than compel her to bear a child she didn't plan for and cannot afford to raise.
"When the religious right co-opted the term 'pro-life,' that was a coup," said the Rev. Carlton Veazey of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (news - web sites). "Sometimes 'choice' sounds too casual."
"We have to go back and examine what we are we saying, why is it not resonating," Veazey added. "We don't just cave in and say they've got a monopoly on morality."
Asked if their rivals on the left indeed held viable moral values, several conservatives replied with a qualified "yes," suggesting the liberals' social concerns were valid but not as important as opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage.
"We believe in biblical principles; I'm sure they believe in biblical principles," said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America. "But I don't understand how they can defend abortion and homosexuality. That's wrong."
The Rev. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said poverty was far less urgent a problem then abortion, which he considers genocide.
"The other side has not been deprived of the opportunity to make their case," he said. "Voters can think for themselves."
Some put the issue even more starkly.
"There is no reconciliation between good and evil," wrote Mary Ann Kreitzer of Les Femmes, an organization of conservative Roman Catholic women. "Voters rejected the party of gay activists, radical feminists, the Hollywood elite, pornographers, death-peddlers, anti-Christian bigots and apostate Catholics."
For some moderates, the values debate is less simple — they may oppose abortion and gay marriage yet share liberals' view on other issues.
Mike Allen of Catholic Charities of Trenton, which serves the needy in southern New Jersey, said his organization's mission entails seeking "a more just and compassionate society" on for the disadvantaged.
Regarding partisan promotion of "moral values," Allen said, "Oversimplifying is a technique that seems to win elections."
The Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit weekly America, said John Kerry (news - web sites) could have been more effective at portraying his goals — fairer wages, better health care — as "moral values."
"The Democratic Party seems almost embarrassed talking about family issues or religion," he said.
A future battleground in the values tug-of-war will be for black and Hispanic support. Some conservatives believe wariness of gay marriage will enable Republicans to steadily win more of their votes.
"You're seeing a bridge being built between African-Americans and evangelicals who tend to be Republican," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "Right now that dialogue is focused on marriage, but as we share and learn, you'll see it broadening."
However, the Rev. Stephen Bouman, a New York-based bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, worries that conservative Christians' definition of "moral values" may be too narrow to accommodate those of different faiths and backgrounds, including new immigrants.
"One thing Jesus was absolutely clear about was helping the poor, and the welcoming of strangers," Bouman said. "Maybe this election was a wake-up call to have a serious conversation about what morality means, to look at what sort of country we're becoming."
The letters and articles that question the victory of President Bush are another indication of the lack of intelligence and knowledge within the left wing of the democrat party. The people have spoken – with somewhere around 60,000,000 voting for our President, and for the first time in over 16 years a President has over half of the popular vote. If one looks at the voting maps you will see that somewhere around 85% to 95% of the counties in the United States were RED. The votes for democrats came from enclaves within big cities and counties that are full of hate America, hate the American people, and blame America first, left-wingers.
It is a shame that these left-wing demigods who disparage the American people as know nothing idiots are themselves the champions of Communism, Socialism and anti-Americanism. The democrat party that I knew of Truman, Kennedy and Roosevelt has retreated into a mob that blames America, supports the internationalism of our precious freedoms, and want the United Nations to provide our security. They want to have group freedom, like Communism, and not individual freedom, which has made out country great.
The American People have spoken, look at the map; except for small, geographic insignificant, areas of the United States it is all RED.
If the democrats want to regain their previous status they need to get rid of the elite hate America, radical left-wingers who have take over the national party.
Ripping an unborn baby apart limb from limb on the other hand is a grave sin no matter how you couch the terms.
And even given its poor design, the results are being blown WAY out of proportion. 22% gets morphed into a huge majority somehow. You are right that some on the right are only too happy to promulgate the myth. But it is a myth.
Maybe it does, but Jesus never forced anyone to behave or to help the poor. He tried to persuade them.
True that! they just don't get it do they.
I agree with you, however, that minority 22% tipped it in Bush's favor. And that's what all the fuss is about.
How dare you interject critical thinking onto this forum sir! Don't you know that you're supposed to be an ignorant, brain washed, Bible thumping knuckle-dragger, that only grunts a vote for the GOP when manipulated into doing so by Svengali Rove?
Now stop asking questions and go back to drinking Budweiser and watching NASCAR on Fox...
I have been reading Free Republic for a long time, and now I'm finally inspired to register and reply. I think that the notion that "moral values" played a big part in the election is certainly true. However, the mistake that the left and it's propoganda machine, the MSM, seem to be making is in defining what that really means.
They think it is merely defined by things like abortion and "gay rights." The moral values I see as being the key in this election are the moral values of President Bush. Unlike his opponent, when George Bush states a position, you can BELIEVE it is his position. Whether you agree with it or not, you know he will stand by it. His opponent, on the other hand (like most liberals), tells people what he thinks they want to hear, and each statement can change hourly depending on whom he is speaking to at the time.
So, yes, I believe "moral values" was a big part of the reason that President Bush won, the moral values of honesty, trustworthiness, and personal conviction which were totally lacking in his opponent.
simple ...
Helping the poor should be an act of voluntary charity...
Not legalized theft by the government.
It's very simple. We are OBLIGATED to help the poor. However, it must ALWAYS be out of charity and NEVER out of force.
Look in the Old Testament. The only moral laws that were there were against direct harm. There were no moral laws forcing doing right. There were laws about not cheating the poor, but no laws about not giving them money.
God said that it is HIS job to punish those types of wrongs.
In addition, the government, remember, is secular. So, helping people through the government does not give God glory, nor does it help the recipient in all the ways that private organizations can.
If you look at the blue-vs-red state maps, and combine it with the philanthropy index, you'll find that the red states give a whole lot more of their disposable income to help people out voluntarily, in keeping with scripture.
Case-in-point: My son's school offers tuition-free therapy/schooling to special needs kids. It does this COMPLETELY through private donations, because if they were to go through the government or United Way, they could not minister to the children spiritually, and could not enforce spiritual hiring practices.
>They [liberals] question the vagueness of ..."moral >values"...
And therein lies their blankness...and frankly so long as they are scratching their head over what "moral values" means they will never understand.
What is vague about the two terms "moral" and "value"?
"Value" that element, philosophic, ideological, theological, or personal to which I ascribe a preeminence in my personal appreciation of the world.
"Moral" that aspect of my internal life which informs my behavior both personally and socially, internally and externally and provides an internal compass as to what is appropriate in my relationship both with myself and with the world at large.
There that wasn't so hard, now was it"? And I don't believe those definitions could be construed as "vague".
OK, and here comes the full disclosure part: readers will note I make little reference to any external mystical source for providing me any guidance or point of view. I include the term "theological" to make the definintion more embrassive, but not necessairly for myself.
I take responsibility on myself for myself. I am a atheist who is also a conservative. I do not see those postions as being mutally exclusive -- far from it.
I have read the posts of many people here who are obviously mystically devout. I take their posts and their positions as being truthful reflections of the opinions to which they have arrived.
It is just of no consequence to me how they arrived at them, because we arrived at the same point of agreement through whatever process.
Thank you for your time...
Even if its right on the money the question is too vague to mean anything. I would have chosen "moral values" over any one issue, because I'm not a single issue voter, and that's the only choice which comes closest to defining as a whole why I'm not a leftist. Redistributing income isn't moral, for instance. Taking children away from their parents to brainwash them into neomarxism isn't moral.
It ain't all about abortion and gay marriage.
How do you know that? You have no data to support this.
Votes are interchangeable. One vote is as good as another. A vote for one reason is as good as a vote for another reason.
That means you can't really point at any 22% of the votes and insist that they, in particular are the votes that swung the election to Bush. Says who?
Again, 34% of voters were primarily concerned with either Iraq or terrorism. Ramesh calculated in the Corner (can't get a link at the moment - Corner is down?) that something like 57% went for Bush (IIRC). Since this was greater than Bush's margin of victory, why not point to Security Issues as having "tipped it in Bush's favor"? It's just as plausible and defensible.
Meanwhile as I said before, the "Moral Values" people went 80-20 in favor of Bush. Granted that's a big majority but what if "Moral Values" went 85-15 for Bush in 2000? (We don't have data for 2000 because M.V. was not an option then.) If Bush lost ground with "Moral Values" people compared to 2000 (which could be true for all you or I know) would it still make sense to say that they "tipped it in Bush's favor"? Of course not - it would make more sense to say that Bush won based on other things, in spite of losing ground with Moral Values people.
Again, the exit poll is worthless, the answers were poorly constructed, and the results are not very meaningful. Everyone is just going off half-cocked. Scratch that - more like quarter-cocked, if that.
Caring for the poor is first, and foremost, an individual responsibility, not something we foist upon the collective will of the people. Goverment is the least effective way of dealing with the problem. Besides, one's standing before God does not in any way depend upon physical wealth or lack thereof.
BINGO!!!
AP used the word "liberal"? ::blinks::
What these "advocates" don't understand is that one of the 10 commandments says "You shall not murder", which is exactly what they're recommending. They simply can't comprehend that it is not "moral" to murder due to an inconvenient pregnancy. There is no "rephrasing" that can change this.
Besides that, anyone with strong faith realizes that God is big enough to help them through any situation in life - event being a "poor, newly pregnant woman". They can rely on Him and their church to get them through what may seem like a tough situation without having to resort to murder.
Christ Jesus wasn't addressing a political convention. Christ was Rabbi, speaking to those suffering in hard times. (Hungry for the word of God.) He told us to love God with all our hearts and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves. He gave us the Golden Rule, and told us to help the poor. He didn't say the government should do this, but each one of us individually. We managed for centuries without Federal health care. Since the government has become involved in it the cost to all has skyrocketed. This has nothing to do with our Lord.
I'm not quite sure what the left is hurt by.
I mean when your political party advocates the diminishment of the word of God from social life. The destruction of innocent children, and the strong defense of serial killers, and the mass acceptance of homosexuality. . . Well yeah you really shouldn't be surprised when people aren't going to tag you with the perception of having moral values.
Let's not forget the stalwart moral supporters of the DNC as well. E.G. The porn industry.
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.