Moral Values, Religious?

I guess i depends on what value you are talking about.

moral values

'moral values' is both a concept and code phrase similar to 'law and order'.  there's nothing particularly moral or valuable about making civil laws that exclude an entire class of citizenry.  similarly, despite its shameful use in the 60s and 70s, there was nothing lawful nor orderly about invoking racial hatred. 

I guess i depends on what value you are talking about.

Well, it's as vague as "moral values." That's what was listed as an option on exit polls and that's what are talked about when debating about whether religion is necessary for morality.

'moral values' is both a concept and code phrase similar to 'law and order'.  there's nothing particularly moral or valuable about making civil laws that exclude an entire class of citizenry.  similarly, despite its shameful use in the 60s and 70s, there was nothing lawful nor orderly about invoking racial hatred.

So, what's your point? Morality doesn't exist? This isn't about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. It's about how supposedly, when one says they voted for Bush because of moral values, it's entirely about religion (even though religious faith was an option on the exit poll), but when one talks about the moral values of a group, such as the Boy Scouts, then people no longer equate moral values with religion, but insist they can originate from a variety of sources.

Ahman Messy, eerrr... sorry I'm an Athiest I mean Right on Messy.

I would like to point out that Family Values does not equal Anti-abortion, it raising your children to respect others and be good to others ect.. That also can be learned from good parenting, not only from the Bible.

'moral values' is both a concept and code phrase similar to 'law and order'. there's nothing particularly moral or valuable about making civil laws that exclude an entire class of citizenry. similarly, despite its shameful use in the 60s and 70s, there was nothing lawful nor orderly about invoking racial hatred.

What? When did racism enter this post?

That's My Two Cents

Hmm...

This is an interesting question. I think that you're confusing the categories (either you or me ). As I see it (being a christian), "Moral Values" have to do with how you live your life and how you treat other people. Values and Religion are far different things. As I understood the exit poll, "values" are just what they say--what a particular candidate holds to be important to them in their life. Religion, therefore, would fall under the category of values, but values do not fall under the category of religion. It's like the square and rectangle. the square (religion) is a more defined shape--there are many less options of how to draw it. The rectangle Is less specific, and therefore it can't be *just* religion.

Clear as mud?

Fillibuster, I agree.

I think the problem now, with the DNC, is that they are equating Moral Values to Religion. I.e. they believe thier lack of Religion is what defeated them. Now it seens like every Big Democrat player is suddenly religious again. Every weekend I see an article on Hillery Clinton attending a mass or I see Rev. Sharpton/Jackson wearing their coller again (I can't remember the last time I seen them with the coller on, before the election).

IMO, it was thier lack of being civil to others is what did them in, not thier lack of Religion.

That's My Two Cents

Excellant article. It points out how those who refuse to learn, will always find a way to fulfill Orwells double Speak.

They claim Moral values, yet they also claimed that Bush got 100% of that vote. I dont remember seeing any poll that showed Bush getting all the Moral Values vote, that just seems to be a guilty assumption on some people's part.

Bleat after me: 2 Legs are better than 4.

I would like to point out that Family Values does not equal Anti-abortion, it raising your children to respect others and be good to others ect.. That also can be learned from good parenting, not only from the Bible

exactly.   unless youre using 'moral values' to mean only a specific set of moral values defined by a candidate or campaign to mean support for a specific agenda as it was in this past election. 

where 'law and order' came in was merely as example.  when politicians in the 60s used it--and the way it was interpreted by and large by voters--law and order didnt mean advocacy of a well run lawful socieity; it meant keep the rioters outta my suburb.

Orwells double Speak

reread orwell please.  there's nothing to fulfill.  Moral Values that are neither moral not valuable is a perfect example of the genre.

That's what I thought at first and was thinking, that's so awesome that our country actually has and votes on moral issues. But, the more I thought about it and gained knowledge the more I realize that a lot of Kerry supporters voted on the "moral" issue, because to them "morality" is a mother being able to choose and that the war on Iraq is "immoral" so in turn, that really could have been a "moral" issue for them. Not allowing gay marriage could be considered "immoral" by some.

The term moral values can mean so many different things to so many different people that it means next to nothing as a statistic.

That's what I think, anyhow.

~Sarah

Exactly! Sure, it's probably true that many believe Bush had better moral values because of his religious faith, but it's also probably true that people thought Bush was less of a flip-flopper and was more sincere than Kerry. Rabid celebrities also tend not to be considered the crux of morality. That's why people shouldn't act as though the gay marriage issue was the only moral issue in the election, especially since gay marriage was shot down in states that voted for Kerry too!

Hey, moral values were the most important thing to me in this election, and I voted for Kerry.  For me it was an issue of, war on false pretenses, or war with honor, and I thought Kerry could give honor.

Anyway, that's just my view.

Cheers

Hey, moral values were the most important thing to me in this election, and I voted for Kerry. For me it was an issue of, war on false pretenses, or war with honor, and I thought Kerry could give honor.

Yes, this is an example of what I meant: that "moral values" mean so many different things to so many different people.

So, basically, I think the American people took whatever it was (a very wide variety, by the way) that was important to them (ie: gay marriage or opposing it, war or opposing it, abortion or opposing it etc.) and called that their "moral value". Maybe, by placing that name ("moral value") on whatever their opinion was made it seem more important or heart felt. Just a thought.

~Sarah

Reply #12 By: jeblackstar - 11/30/2004 4:23:52 PM Hey, moral values were the most important thing to me in this election, and I voted for Kerry. For me it was an issue of, war on false pretenses, or war with honor, and I thought Kerry could give honor.

How can some one who comits treason, give honor? Talk about false pretenses.

How can some one who comits treason, give honor? Talk about false pretenses.

Any of us could have said that... but that's not the point of this at all. Start a new article about treason and Kerry if you'd like, but stick to topic.

~Sarah

Morality and religion can be linked, although I personally don't think that they should be. In the case of people who say Bush won because of the moral vote, they equate it with religion because his particular statements about morality were clearly meant to appeal to a religious base. The Republican party pushed harder for the religious vote; this is why morality and religion are equated in this case.

Morality and religion can be linked, although I personally don't think that they should be. In the case of people who say Bush won because of the moral vote, they equate it with religion because his particular statements about morality were clearly meant to appeal to a religious base. The Republican party pushed harder for the religious vote; this is why morality and religion are equated in this case.

Again though, as people have stated, both Bush and Kerry supporters, moral values wasn't simply about Christian values though, but many others. Besides, there was a "Religious Faith" option in the exit polls, so if religion was the main issue for them, then they could have chose that.

Reply #15 By: BigDreamer415~ - 11/30/2004 9:44:03 PM How can some one who comits treason, give honor? Talk about false pretenses.<BR> Any of us could have said that... but that's not the point of this at all. Start a new article about treason and Kerry if you'd like, but stick to topic. ~Sarah

Excuse me? I'm not the one who went off topic here. I was just responding to someones post. And since you are not the originator of this post, it isn't up to you to call me on it. This post belongs to *messybuu* not you. *Messybuu*, I apoligize for the possible hijack.

Reply #12 By: jeblackstar - 11/30/2004 4:23:52 PM Hey, moral values were the most important thing to me in this election, and I voted for Kerry. For me it was an issue of, war on false pretenses, or war with honor, and I thought Kerry could give honor. Anyway, that's just my view. Cheers

Excuse me? I'm not the one who went off topic here. I was just responding to someones post, get over it.

that was cute. Actually... jeblackstar was responding to my comment basically giving an example of what I was trying to say, which was relevent. I don't think messybuu intended for this to be a "bush is better because...." "kerry's better because....." I could be wrong... I'm just sick of those stupid threads... but it's not mine, so maybe I shouldn't have opened my mouth in the first place.

~Sarah

Gold Star for Sarah.

By making ridiculous charges like treason, dr, you have wandered far afield of the point.

Cheers

Reply #20 By: jeblackstar - 12/2/2004 11:25:53 AM Gold Star for Sarah. By making ridiculous charges like treason, dr, you have wandered far afield of the point.

I may have wandered off point but as to ridiculous, I think not. What he did to have these charges talked about is proven fact, not fiction.
And I say once again all I was doing was responding to your post in that you mentioned "honor"

Did you serve in a war drmiller?  Were you alive during Vietnam even?  John Kerry is not the only veteran to have spoken against the war, and there are documented cases where US troops did do things that he spoke about.  For that matter, the idea of Vietnam has undergone a strange transformation in the past 30+ years.  People now speak about how we could have "won" Vietnam if we hadn't had those darned hippies, or if we'd escalated the conflict, or whatever.  But these people have forgotten, or never known, that there were all kinds of outside factors that caused the United States to lose the Vietnam war.  Fortunately for those people I'm a history professor who likes to show off, so here's a few of the reasons: The Soviets were rattling sabers in other portions of the world; the guerilla warfare, though not terribly strategically effective, was incredibly effective as far as morale goes; more people were upset by the people we installed in power in South Vietnam than really believed in communism; United States forces had never been trained to operate effectively in the environment in which they operated; China was becoming a military power that didn't appreciate the United States mucking about in their portion of the world; the US completely failed in their effort to win over the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people when they leveled large portions of the jungle without regard as to whether there were combatants or not, that's just a few, but there are many interesting books on the subject.  Oh, and even assuming that John Kerry did not do the thing which got him his medals, he would hardly be the only Vietnam vet, or veteran of any war, who had fabricated a story to get a purple heart, or even higher awards.  If Kerry executed a brilliant and bizarre conspiracy to cover up what had really happened during Vietnam, and the story was only coming out now, decades later, than wouldn't Kerry have been clever enough to completely dominate the election?  Through fraud, misdirection, or whatever?  Repeating baseless, and I do declare them baseless, as, by the way, did the US Defense Department, accusations, does not make them true.

Cheers

there were all kinds of outside factors that caused the United States to lose the Vietnam war

without wishing to further digress from the topic at hand--and with all due respect to jeblackstar's scholarship--there is one additional, extremely critical factor that needs to be addressed if the issue is treason:  the 68 nixon campaign's illegal interference with and sabotage of the paris peace talks by promising--thru back channels--better terms should nixon win the election. 

Reply #22 By: jeblackstar - 12/2/2004 4:28:20 PM Did you serve in a war drmiller? Were you alive during Vietnam even? John Kerry is not the only veteran to have spoken against the war

To answer your questions no and yes. Were you? What he talked about to the senate comitee is not the charge. He wanted to protest the war....that's fine. What I'm talking about is while *still* on active duty in the US military he went to Paris and held secret and *unathorized* meetings with N Vietnamese officals. By the articles of the "uniform code of Military Justice" that is considered treason

Reply #23 By: kingbee - 12/2/2004 4:44:12 PM there were all kinds of outside factors that caused the United States to lose the Vietnam war without wishing to further digress from the topic at hand--and with all due respect to jeblackstar's scholarship--there is one additional, extremely critical factor that needs to be addressed if the issue is treason: the 68 nixon campaign's illegal interference with and sabotage of the paris peace talks by promising--thru back channels--better terms should nixon win the election.

Kingbee you need to read reply 24