For one, I want them to talk to me about how they will rigorously protect separation of church and state.

Do you also want them to tell you how they would "rigorously" (I think you meant vigorously)protect the free exercise clause of the first amendment?

I don't believe that there exist correct 'answers' to moral questions. I do view the general trend of right and left somewhat like you do. The question becomes at what point does leniency turn into enabling or at what point does being strict cause someone to give up hope. It's all very situation and complex. I believe it is best if you have elements of both. Now if I could just understand that Yin and Yang thing....

I am not being intentionally obtuse, but I don't have the faintest idea what the author is talking about. [A] real virtue is timeless, unchanging and always applicable. In the presence of real virtue, language, religion, belief, race, gender, and culture all become irrelevant.

If real virtue is, in fact, timeless, it must predate the big bang or whatever caused life, the universe and everything as we know it and as our predecessors knew it. Before the big bang, there were presumably no people and hence interpersonal relationships have nothing to do with real virtue. Ditto Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule as articulated by Jesus and many others before and after him. So defined, real virtue similarly has nothing to do with separation of church and state, preservation of the environment, reluctance to engage in nuclear warfare for purposes of imperialist conquest, support for our troops, or family values or anything else of interest to modern society.

Even if the author doesn't really mean timeless, the point is still difficult to comprehend. Murder, rape, pillage and the like have not always been considered bad (except by the victims). In the not too distant past, soldiers were paid that way. We now view these sorts of thing with distaste, and quite properly so if society as we know it is to be congenial.

I submit that true virtue is an evolving concept, dependent to a great extent on some of those factors from which the author would divorce it, language, religion, belief, race, gender, and culture. . . .

Despite the shrinking globe, we still have our tribes. For a tribe, or a society, to survive, there has to be some commonality of virtue. In different tribes, or societies, monogamy and sexual equality are esteemed; in others, they are rejected as silly and/or blasphemous. In a society capable of survival, there needs to be some commonality of tradition and moral behavior. Virtue has to have some meaning which we, mere mortals, can understand and from which we can derive some moral guidance; and it has to be reasonably consistent with the norms of the society in which we live.

I do agree with the thesis that during the political silly season, there has been lots of crap spewed by folks who think in bumper-sticker terms of reference, and that none of this babble is helpful in determining their character.

Dan

Doug,

It is very simple. Yin is something you mix with tonic water, and Yang is a contraction of the verb to yank, meaning to pull quickly and jerkily. It is occasionally used as an unflattering reference to citizens of the U.S., even descendants of victims of the War of Northern Aggression.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

Dan

Pam, I also didn't follow this article. What do you see as virtual virtues and real ones?

I am happy to offer a clarification.

Real values are "timeless" in that they are not subject to, nor defined by, a specific time period in human history. For example, the tale of the Good Samaritan in the Bible is admirable in any time period even if it is more notable in some time periods or cultures than in others.

It doesn't matter if a caveman came across a suffering stranger from another clan and helped him, or if a man in the year 5610 does the same for an alien he comes across in another galaxy -- the quality would be largely seen as a virtue. Thus, I would argue, compassion for a suffering being is a true virtue and outside the realms of language, culture, religion, gender, and time.

Conversely, a virtual virtue is something that sounds good but is often bad-- if not downright malicious -- in its intent or application. It is often a platitude, a twisted version of a real virtue, that eases the feeling of guilt or otherwise rationalizes a less than desirable act.

The most glaring example in human history is the virtual virtue version of the idea of patriotism. Many people, mostly country leaders, twist a real issue such as patriotism into a virtual virtue to cover the most heinous of deeds. Hitler immediately comes to mind, as do many others.

The Bush administration is also guilty of this through the Patriot Act, the detainment and torture of people in secret prisons, and the constant bashing of any opposition inside this country (think of the outted CIA agent just to squelch her husband's criticism of the war in Iraq), to name but a few instances.

How, I ask you, can endangering your own CIA agent be patriotic? Yet, in the minds of the Bush Administration it was a patriotic act that the rest of America just "doesn't get." In their eyes, Scooter Libby is a bona fide patriot! That my friend, is a whopping virtual virtue in action!

It could be argued that these instances are simply examples of diabolical manipulation or lies. I say virtual virtues are a cover for manipulation and lies -- that's the whole reason they exist.

This is why I am so disgusted -- and yes, even fearful -- of how candidates toss about virtues, issues of morality and their religious practices. It's all too surface to mean anything. I rather get to the core of their character -- as best we can -- before we vote for them.

So, my article pushes the candidates to skip the bumper stickers, campaign buttons and speeches about their religions and instead put forth definite plans supported by moral reasoning and facts.

I'm dreaming I know -- but it certainly won't happen until some of us take a stand and demand it. I'm trying to take that stand.

Pam (if I may take the liberty of using your first name),

The most glaring example in human history is the virtual virtue version of the idea of patriotism.

We agree, for the most part. But then, I also agree (largely) with Dave Nalle's article posted today.

Perhaps a dialog would be fun.

Dan

Dan,

I think such a dialog would be great fun. I'm game if you guys are.

As to using my first name, that is perfectly fine with me and most welcomed. I took the same liberty and I hope such is not offensive.

I look forward to a lively and informative discussion!


Pam

Pam,

I'm looking forward to it too. I have to vanish for a few hours, but when I get back I will try to post something.

Dan

Pam,

Before getting into a discussion of what is moral or virtuous, a little bit about me to illuminate the context. I was raised in a more or less Christian household, and attended an Episcopalian boys' school for the last two years of high school. Even before then, my doubts about religion had begun to take form, and I have been an Agnostic or Atheist, depending on how the terms are defined, for about fifty years. The headmaster, an Episcopalian priest, was quite tolerant of my developing views and, while we discussed them rationally, he never attempted overtly to make me adopt his. I respected him tremendously for his tolerance of a young kid trying to find his way. To me, tolerance of differing views is perhaps the most important of the enduring virtues. It encourages discussion, which is the best inducement to reject or accept opposing views. Parenthetically, that is why I spend so much time with Blogcritics.

Religion has long been both a blessing and a curse in society, and it has not been my experience that believers and non believers these days generally interact with others in ways which are substantially different. There have, of course, been exceptions.

The moral teachings of the various religions are meaningful to me, subject to the following caveats:

Do they encourage,or at least permit, people to live together in freedom and to do pretty much what they want to do, so long as they do not thereby prevent others from doing so? If so, I respect them.

Do they have dogmas, which must be accepted regardless of the absence of physical evidence or human experience to support them, and are their moral teachings based on those dogmas? If so, I don't much like them.

Do they spout "Sunday truths" which nobody in his right mind could take seriously, such as "take all that you have and give it to the poor," or recite creeds which even the preacher would have in all candor to acknowledge that he doubts? If so, I don't much like the moral precepts based on their Sunday truths and creeds.

We all tend to view "good" and "bad" through eyes colored by the precepts we learned during our youth. Most of us never learned that it is wicked to marry the cousin of one's deceased wife. Most of us, accordingly, don't see that as bad. We all learned that theft is wicked, and try to refrain from stealing things. Most of us in Western society came to understand that it is bad for a fifty year old man to marry a ten year old girl. We have laws against that sort of thing in the West, but in some parts of the world it is considered just peachy. We learned that bigamy is bad, and we have laws against that sort of thing as well. Nevertheless, it is fairly common in some places, and some minor religious groups in the United States deem bigamy perfectly good and right. Since our objection to bigamy is, for the most part, based on religious doctrine, I don't think that we should criminalize it as we have.

I agree that "common sense" is, or should be, a major factor in distinguishing good from bad. However, common sense is only to a very limited extent if at all inherent. Much of it is learned. When I flood my car when trying to start it, common sense tells me either to wait a few minutes and try again, or to depress the accelerator to the floor and try to start the car again. These things are common sense because I have learned, through experience and instruction, that they work. They would not be common sense for someone who has never driven a car. Common sense would not persuade a Muslim not to stone a woman convicted of adultery. In that part of the world, women sometimes get stoned because they commit adultery; in the West, women sometimes commit adultery because they get stoned.

I have rambled on and on, but I guess that my basic view is that good and bad are like obscenity. Based on our upbringing, our culture, and our "common sense" we know it when we see it, but rigorous definition is almost impossible.

Dan