Denouncing the merger of politics and moral values has become a popular rhetorical tool in America. Separating religion and politics has always been a central belief in the US, but it does not go far enough for some people. Recently, there has been a push to upgrade the idea of separation of religion and politics to the separation of morals and politics (insert joke about immoral politicians here). This belief is most common among Democrats, and they often cite the “separation of church and state” as the basis for this set of beliefs. The problem is, morals and religion are two very different things.
Everyone agrees that murder is morally wrong, but it is also part of various religious beliefs (see the Ten Commandments). Does this mean that murder should be made legal to protect the separation of church and state? Of course that would be ridiculous because virtually everyone agrees that murder is wrong regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.
On the other hand, the belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is a religious belief. Only one religion, Christianity, believes that. The difference between moral and religious beliefs can be subtle at times, but it is usually pretty clear. When an idea transcends multiple religions (gay marriage, murder, helping the poor, etc.) it is probably safe to say it is not a religious belief, rather, it is a moral that many people from many backgrounds happen to agree with.
Many fail to realize that at its core, the moral values argument is a fallacy. Most voters in this country choose candidates and political parties based on ideas. Whether it be the environment, economics, foreign policy, welfare, gun rights, or abortion, parties and voters choose their beliefs based on their sense of right and wrong. Since right and wrong make up a persons moral core, it would be true to say that most people vote in line with their own morals.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Chai
Regd healthcare, you can add public roads and schools to that list.
2 - Phillip Ross
In fact, all law making is moral in that some actions are sanctioned and some are not. Also, all religion is moral in that some behavior is sanctioned and some is not. It is impossible to separate morality from religion. All law making imposes someone's morality on someone else.
Religion is simply a veiw of the world that makes reference to God, and even atheists are defined by reference to God. Thus, atheism is a religion (world view) that is without God. But atheism still has a God substitute of some kind, a highest value or highest authority.
Even voting Libertarian is an expression of both religious and moral values. Libertarians are not against all morality, they are only against all morality that they disagree with. And isn't that the real concern.
Phil
3 - Media Tycoon
You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
4 - SHARK
RE: "...they [Democrats] are responsible for creating the most invasive moral project that exists in our government - the welfare state. ...the three biggest injections of moral values into our government... are Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security."
Look at it this way: we all pitch in to keep the poor, the sick, and the elderly from dying on our friggin' doorsteps.
It could be argued that taxes are a small price to pay to keep the stench from affecting the ambiance of one's gated community.
==========
RE: "...Each one of these programs forces a value onto the citizens of this country that many do not agree with. Certain citizens may prefer to buy a TV, a car, a house, or even to give money to a different social cause, but the government coerces taxpayers to pay for the healthcare and retirement of others whether they agree with the cause or not..."
I'm guessing that you're an extremely YOUNG Republican...?
Cause if you were older, your priorities might be different it you were trying to deal with your 85 year old chronically ill mother.
"Hmmm... a tax I don't agree with, a new TV, or more catfood for mom -- who lives in a cardboard box beneath a freeway overpass."
Compassionate Conservatives... FEH!
5 - Christopher Rose
Phillip: Nicely argued but a little flawed. Law making is, or at least ought to be, ethical not moral.
Pardon the slight diversion but the very words moral and atheist are part of the language of organised religions such as Christianity, Islam or Judaism and both are long overdue to fall into the same kind of amused affection we hold for astrology or pixie dust. Hopefully these false and deceptive cults will one day follow them.
Without the existence of a god, for which there is zero evidence, these early attempts to explain the mysteries of existence deserve some measure of respect for their not inconsiderable achievements, particularly given the false premises from which they arose.
The Media Tycoon, now that I have also read the article and not just your remarks, makes the same error: it is ethics we want in government not "morality" which can be, at best, a purely personal thing not a matter of law.
6 - gonzo marx
Christopher sez...
*it is ethics we want in government not "morality" which can be, at best, a purely personal thing not a matter of law.*
Quoted for Truth
this should be held as "self-evident", but is often lost upon many People... hence much of the conflict in today's american politics on so many levels...
one can NOT legislate Morality, but one CAN create an Ethical system of Laws that serve a society's need for the pursuit of Justice
read Shark in #4 again... the finny Predator of the Aether is Wise, and tends to frenzy amidst fallacy
Excelsior?
7 - Media Tycoon
If your mom is living in a freeway overpass, then you as a child are a failure. Don't make the government responsible for your parents when you should be the one taking care of them.
I would actually be in favor of legally making children responsible for their parents if it could get rid of the welfare state. I plan on taking care of my parents and I don't see why anyone can't do that. I understand that not everyone has a lot of money, but how hard is it to give your parents a spot on the couch to sleep?
8 - gonzo marx
ya know.. i hear so many people talk about this "welfare state".. but i just don't *see* It
however, since it makes so many folks so nutty to think of a societal obligation to make the "pursuit of happiness" more possible for any and all...
why don't we start with the Corporate Welfare that takes up a shitload more fo the Budget than the annual stuff (not counting Social Security, whose insurance style funding has been decimated by those bastards in Congress raping the "Trust Fund" for over 20 years)
start there, cut the pork...
THEN you can come back and be taken somewhat seriously when you want to remove food stamps (check the percentage of military personnel and families using food stamps lately?) or any of these other programs you want to talk about
i'm all for giving a solid and Objective review to ensure the taxpayer is getting a good bang for the buck
but sometimes the Priotities of some people really sicken me...
Metaphor and Analogy incoming: it's like wanting to lose 20 pounds, and rather than excercising and a bit of controlling your diet, instead you choose to lop off an arm.. with the Idea of a leg coming off down the road if you need to lose some more weight.... all the while eating fried twinkies in a tub of ice cream
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
9 - Media Tycoon
To me ethics and morals are the same thing. Explain the difference so I can understand the difference.
As for me being a young Republican...I consider myself more of a young libertarian that votes Republican out of disdain for the Democratic Party. I wrote this because I see the moral values argument as Democratic hypocrisy, not out of an excuse for Republicans to push their morals on others.
10 - Media Tycoon
Everyone’s priorities are different, and you are forcing your priorities on others. I'm all for cutting corporate welfare, but we spend a lot less on corporate welfare than we do on social welfare. Wanting to cut back corporate welfare to cut overall spending will not be effective.
It is like wanting to lose weight and rather than cutting back on the box of cookies you eat everyday, you decide to stop eating the cheese cake you eat once a month.
11 - gonzo marx
morals: set down by an Authoritarian structure or strictue (usually a religious figure)
ethics: code of behavior or customs derived from Reason based upon correct actions to delineate between "right and wrong"
now.. the two can indeed be compatable, and even the same in may instances...
but not always...
example: in christian religion, all the 10 Commandments are "moral" Law...
not so in the American ethic of the Rule of Law
they share a few...
murder, stealing and perjury are the ones that are common to both
some of the others are damn good Ideas, but do not carry the force of Law in the US (such as "honor thy father and thy mother")
and as such show the difference between a moral dictum and an ethical law
now, some would say "gonzo, why not make the 10 commandment into Law?"
well... i'll leave it as an excercise to the Reader to contemplate the problems that woudl arise with the very first commandment... you know the one about "thou shalt hold no other god above me".. and how you square that with the secular 1st Amendment stricture dealing with the "seperation of church and state"
which demonstrates why the difference between religious based Morality and secular structured Ethics needs to be understood
and as soon as you spouted "democratic hypocrisy" in #9 you demonstrated more of a partisan bias than any real desire to discuss the topic
( for the Record: i'm an Independant)
just sharing...
Excelsior?
12 - Ray Ellis
Okay.. I'll make this as simple as possible for you, Media (or do you prefer "Tycoon?")
Ethics are a constant. Morals change from generation to generation, and from culture to culture.
Ethics represent that genome we all possess deep within us--we know instinctively that some things are not conducive to our survival as a species; i.e killing, stealing.
Morals represent societal and political implications, imposed by the powers that be at any given time, and subject to change at the whim of the next power holder. As an oversimplified example, the scandals inherent in a hemline.
13 - gonzo marx
well done, Ray...
/golfclap
as succinctly put as i've ever read it...
Excelsior?
14 - Media Tycoon
I think that is a pretty good distinction between morals and ethics, but I still have a hard time buying it. I could use strong reasoning to justify many Biblical principles. It doesn’t make it right to make them laws. In other words, freedom trumps protection from societies woes. I still believe that a minimalist government is the best way to ensure that someone else's morals aren't forced on others. Even if ethics are derived by "reason", it is your reason, and many others will not agree with it.
Partisan bias...hell yea. As a libertarian, I am bias against those who want to make the government bigger and more evasive. Republicans are a problem, but Democrats are a...for the sake of civility, i will stick to "BIG problem"...at least when it comes to promoting the minimalist government ideas that were the true intent of the Founding Fathers.
15 - gonzo marx
ok for MT in #10
i fully Understand what you are objecting to.. but i don't quite see it that way
those programs you mention (Social Security and Medicare) are part of the Social Contract te people have with our government
you pay in as part of your taxes, and you get the benefits if/when qualified
similar to any Insurance scam, but backed by our government to provide a certain baseline minimum for those who are in Need
it works ok.. could be better, could be worse
but it IS fallacious to scream about dismantling it over money, when as i have stated previously.. and as any investigation into the last 25 years or so of Federal Budgets will show... the government itself has been dropping non-interest bearing IOUs into the "trust fund" to shore up bloated pork spending, thus removing any interest earning capital from being able to finance said programs as intended...
among many GOP strategists , this is known as one facet of "Starving the Beast"
and remains a transparant and cynical ploy easily observed by those willing to look at it for themselves
Excelsior?
16 - Media Tycoon
Food stamps are not conducive of our survival. No one starved before we had them.
17 - Ray Ellis
You throw a lot of terms out, Media, but I have to conclude that you have a very flimsy grasp of any of them. Or maybe you're just confused. If you're a Libertarian, why not vote as such? Voting Republican out of disdain for Democrats merely illustrates that you're not committed to the beliefs of any of the three you cite.
Money talks, bs walks.
18 - gonzo marx
#16 sez...
*No one starved before we had them.*
yer shitting me, right?
are you that naive?
ever been to some very rural areas hit by unemployment, or some drought?
how about inner cities?
seen someone suffering from malnutrition? or watched a parent suffer from such so they could feed their child just a bit better?
now, go and look up how little the entire food stamp program has cost the Nation... and compare it to..
i dunno... a week in Iraq, or some corporate pork
then come back and we can talk intelligently on the topic
as for #14.. might agree abot those sterotypes between Dems and Reps.... 30 years ago
but not now, the last 6 years have shown that the GOP is more than willing to increase governmental spending on an unprecedented scale, added to creating more new policies to invade the lives and privacy of the Public than anything done since WW2
from Schiavo to the NSA wiretapping.. form the "energy bill" that tossed billions towards companies making record profits rather than a simple expedient like...
oh, let's say a tax credit for truckers to shift to bio-diesal fuel.. and a one time tax incentive for service station to use one pump/tank for said bio-diesal
note the Fact that now, american farmers can grow the product for said fuel, and all refining can be done domestically.. multiply the Variable of petro chemical fuel saving and emission benefits for those hundreds of thousands of tractor trailers on the road...
which is a better bang for the buck?
and if simple minded olde gonzo can think of it, why didn't the super secret "energy task force"
on and on
Excelsior?
19 - Media Tycoon
I agree that we shouldn't just get rid of some of these programs, but there needs to be drastic reform. Privatizing Social Security would work for sure, but Medicare is a different matter. I have no idea how to fix that. Some people say healthcare savings accounts. I think people just need to take their health into their own hands. It seems like a lot of people aren't willing to eat right and exercise, but are willing to let the government pay for their healthcare.
The president is a good example of how to take charge of your own health. He is 60 and takes no prescription drugs. He exercises everyday and is in impeccable shape. If every person in America tried half as hard as the president to stay healthy, America would have no healthcare crisis.
Maybe even just as important is the fact that he wasn't always this healthy. He used to abuse various substances as we all know, but he turned his life around. You don't need to be a health nut your whole life, but it is important for people at high risk for certain health problems to realize that they can't just do whatever they want with their bodies and expect to be ok.
I am young, but I do know old people. Some take care of themselves, and some don't. The ones that don't have a lot more health problems.
20 - Media Tycoon
If you can find anything on massive starvation in the United States, please share it.
I don't vote libertarian because it is a wasted vote.
Republicans are a problem, I already said that.
The War in Iraq: the problem is taht war is actually something the government is supposed to do...unlike welfare corporate or social. Agree or disagree with the war, 3.5 years in Iraq is still cheaper than half a year of the welfare state. That being said, I am not pro-military. I don't think we need a military as big as the one we have.
LMAO...are you implying i don't know what a libertarian is...be specific, or don't bring it up.
21 - gonzo marx
ok.. after reading #19, i guess i hafta agree with Ray here... it appears that you are woefully uninformed in many areas, and such needs to be remembered when discussing things with you...
the numbers have already shown that no proposed plan for "privatizing" social security does anyting other than cost more than the current system while adding a large percentage of the money that should be used for the people receiving the benefit woudl be skimmed off by the private investment firms handling the funds
this scam was sniffed out pretty early... if some new version comes out that DOES work, both numbers and effect wise... i'd be glad to read it
but it ain't out there yet
as for health and healthcare...
i ageee, folks can take better care for themselves than they do.. but your statement...
*If every person in America tried half as hard as the president to stay healthy, America would have no healthcare crisis.*
shows the naivete of youth...
it's called "disease"
no matter how much you excercise, or take care of yourself.. some things just can't be helped
a large portion of what is wrong with healthcar ein our nation srtems form the simple fact that somewhere in the 80's, being a Doctor went form being a Vocation to being a Business..
that simple paradigm shift, added to some others... is the root cause for many of the problems
the next biggest factor, is indeed, that many Americans don't properly take care of themselves...
again... note the societal influences of marketing and business practices in the food Industry for other Variables...
there's MUCH more to many of these Issues than you seem to be Aware of in your rather simplistic viewpoint...
but i AM encourgaged that you apper at least willing to open you eyes and Learn and Discuss the matters...
that IS a good sign
Excelsior?
22 - Media Tycoon
LMAO...everything is so complicated blablabla..look at me i'm so smart. you people are rediculous.
SOME PEOPLE SAY PRIVITIZING WON'T WORK, SOME SAY IT WILL.
I may think of things in black and white (actually I don't think I do), but you just think things are white. "NO SOCIAL SECURITY HAS TO STAY THE WAY IT IS!!!"
Why do you think people invest in 401k's?
1. Social Security is crap, and people actually need to be protected from it because it is absurd.
2. Private accounts work.
I am complicated, and you are simple-minded. The people that know the most about teh stock market get rich off it. The people that know the least are people like you who hide your money under your matress.
Privitizing will cost more in the short run, but it will ensure real security in the future.
If you are ready to stop using your cheap tricks, then i will calm down. If you continue to pretend that you are so much smarter than everyone, I WILL make you look dumb.
23 - gonzo marx
hey calm down or not...
show your Proof please...
otherwise yo are making unfounded statements and peurile attempts at attacking ad hominem rather than discussing the Issues...
note: i mentioned an Observable variable and stated my need to modify and qualify in order to communicate effectively, and you turn around and retort with unsubstantiated declaratives...
so, to utilize your own Idiom as expressed in the last comment...
*STFU n00b, get schooled and th1nk b4 ya leap, froggie*
nuff said...
Excelsior?
24 - Clavos
I think people just need to take their health into their own hands.
A good thing to do, but it doesn't always prevent a medical catastrophe, e.g.:
A woman in my family was stricken with a rare form of cancer six years ago. After surgery and radiation treatment, she did fine for five years, then a year ago was suddenly paralyzed from the waist down (a paraplegic). Docs determined her paraplegia is the result of damage to her spinal cord from the radiation, because the tumor was right next to her spine.
Since then, she's been in the hospital 7 of the last 10 months, is unable to live without round the clock help, and her medical bills have exceeded $300K (this time--over $500K total) and are continuing. She has been on SSDI for the past 3 years, after 3 years of private LTD from her employer.
If it weren't for Medicare, she might not be alive today.
This woman is relatively young (50s). She took care of her health, exercised, saw doctors regularly, etc. In short, did all the right things, and still wound up needing the "safety net."
Sometimes, you just get sick, no matter how well you take care of yourself, and if it's serious enough, even the middle class can't deal with it and pay all the bills without help.
25 - Media Tycoon
You are the one that started calling me simple-minded for thinking differently than you. I just went to your level. Just because someone thinks Social Security should be a personal issue rather than a government issue doesn't make them simple-minded. I know all the sides of the issues I talk about. You assume too much. On a side issue...
Is there a book that all liberals read that tells you to call people simple-minded? Why do libs always resort to the "simple-minded" argument?