Bush's Moral Mandate

[MisterSwig]

CNN and AP exit-polling both show that the most important issue with voters was (religious) moral values. Basically, Bush is moral, Kerry is not. It appears that Bush's popular victory has given him a moral mandate to continue his religious agenda. Witness, for example, the support for anti-gay marriage amendments in 11 states, Bush's very strong evangelical support, and the grass-roots movement to ban abortion, cloning, and stem-cell research. The question now is: How do we combat this mandate?

I think it is crucial that we do everything in our power to slow down the government funding of religion. This means that we actively oppose the Faith-Based Initiatives and ideas like school vouchers, which would forcibly transfer your money into the hands of religious education. Simultaneously, we of course need to promote Objectivism as a moral system that is superior to religion.

[Areactor]

Exactly how do we promote Objectivism? I mean with such odds. I honestly don't think America will bite. I honestly believe the right wing religion fanatics, the socialists, and enviornmentalist will win over America.

[jfortun]

CNN and AP exit-polling both show that the most important issue with voters was (religious) moral values. Basically, Bush is moral, Kerry is not. It appears that Bush's popular victory has given him a moral mandate to continue his religious agenda. Witness, for example, the support for anti-gay marriage amendments in 11 states, Bush's very strong evangelical support, and the grass-roots movement to ban abortion, cloning, and stem-cell research. The question now is: How do we combat this mandate?

I think it is crucial that we do everything in our power to slow down the government funding of religion. This means that we actively oppose the Faith-Based Initiatives and ideas like school vouchers, which would forcibly transfer your money into the hands of religious education. Simultaneously, we of course need to promote Objectivism as a moral system that is superior to religion.

I too am dismayed that the religious right won so many elections and referendums. So now the hard part really starts: keeping Bush accountable to his own Doctrine and never letting him forget the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.

[A.West]

Take the religionists on head-on. Promote reason and science and tie it to progress. Objectivists will be the only people left willing to go on TV (besides Christopher Hitchens) to object to state religion, because the Democrats will be too cowardly or religious to do so. There will be many great opportunities for Op-Eds.

Questions & topics like these are like hanging curveballs waiting for Objectivists to hit out of the ballpark.

[AisA]

CNN and AP exit-polling both show that the most important issue with voters was (religious) moral values.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. If you look at the data, 22% of the voters listed "moral values" as their most important issue. And 80% of those voted for Bush. So, assuming the Bush supporters are the ones that would associate "moral values" and religion, it really means that (religious) "moral values" is the most important issue to about 17.6% of the voters.

That is a long way from any sort of mandate, and we should point this out to our congressional reps.

[MisterSwig]

A FoxNews election day poll surveyed "voters and likely voters" in key battleground states. Again, "moral values" was the top issue in most of the states. It seems that both wings of the media agree on this.

[AisA]

Also reassuring is the fact that only 8% of the voters listed "Religious Faith" as the "Most Important Quality" in a President.

This makes me think that there must be more than religion involved in the “Most Important Issue” preference. Perhaps the "Moral Values" choice reflects a desire for honesty. How many people were motivated to vote by the desire to keep an obvious PHONEY out of office, for instance?

[Yes]

CNN and AP exit-polling both show that the most important issue with voters was (religious) moral values. Basically, Bush is moral, Kerry is not. It appears that Bush's popular victory has given him a moral mandate to continue his religious agenda. Witness, for example, the support for anti-gay marriage amendments in 11 states, Bush's very strong evangelical support, and the grass-roots movement to ban abortion, cloning, and stem-cell research. The question now is: How do we combat this mandate?

I think it is crucial that we do everything in our power to slow down the government funding of religion. This means that we actively oppose the Faith-Based Initiatives and ideas like school vouchers, which would forcibly transfer your money into the hands of religious education. Simultaneously, we of course need to promote Objectivism as a moral system that is superior to religion.

We can do that by writing our Congressmen and Senators regarding these issues if and when they come up.

I am encouraged by reports I read that certain members of Congress have approached Bush and have advised him to lay off the abortion issue and be aware of this related matter when nominating judges for Federal Court positions.

While the matter of faith-based agenda is important, I also think that many were convinced that Kerry was out to raise taxes. That will kill a Democrat's chances all the time.

[AisA]

When you write your congressional reps, here is some good ammunition.

In his press conference today, Bush was asked whether religion could become the basis of another division of the country, given his Christianity (I think that is how the question was phrased). He responded, "No president should try to impose his religion on society." That is a direct quote. I wrote it down. He elaborated on that statement by adding that freedom of religion also meant the freedom not to be religious!

Mr. President, you cannot have it both ways. Give up on your faith based initiative.

[oldsalt]

Here is the question, and the answer Bush gave, that AisA spoke about above (Sorry, no link. I got this from the Fox News.):

"Q: Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide it seems becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. My answer to people is I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me, necessarily, on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. The great--the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, you're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation.

"And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad--I appreciate all people who voted. And I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites us is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you--you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is--that is such a wonderful aspect of our society, and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow."

[MisterSwig]

"PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. My answer to people is I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me, necessarily, on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society ..."

Bush can say things like this because he doesn't believe that forcibly taking your money and giving it to "faith-based" churches and organizations is imposing religion on society.

Though I bet he believes that forcibly taking your money and giving it to abortion clinics and stem-cell research is imposing secular liberalism on society.

[A.West]

That's a good contradiction to exploit when criticizing the policies of the upcoming Bush administration. The government shouldn't take money from people and use it to attack their values or to impose religious values. Maybe you would like to write an editorial about it for the majority of the population that doesn't already understand this.

[Yes]

That's a good contradiction to exploit when criticizing the policies of the upcoming Bush administration. The government shouldn't take money from people and use it to attack their values or to impose religious values. Maybe you would like to write an editorial about it for the majority of the population that doesn't already understand this.

Good idea!

[oldsalt]

Bush can say things like this because he doesn't believe that forcibly taking your money and giving it to "faith-based" churches and organizations is imposing religion on society.

Though I bet he believes that forcibly taking your money and giving it to abortion clinics and stem-cell research is imposing secular liberalism on society.

From what I understand of the thinking of many Christians on this matter, it is their naive belief that religious institutions could be trusted to handle charitable "entitlements" on a neighborhood level, without all the bureaucracy and waste that the government represents. Christians do believe in altruism, of course, but most of them believe that it is a test of virtue for the individual. When my bible-thumping, evangelical cousin was praising the faith-based initiative, I pointed out to her the corruption that came with handling so much unearned money. I reminded her of what happened to the early church once they allied themselves with Rome, and all that flowed from that alliance. I convinced her that the initiative was dangerous to the members of her own church. After many discussions of this sort, about the initiative and the importance of the separation of church and state, I've convinced her that these are not proposals that she ought to be backing. She has convinced others in her congregation using the same arguments.

Before anyone accuses me of sanctioning Christianity with my arguments from Christianity, I will tell you that my cousin knows well what my position is. I made it plain to her that not only did my philosophy eschew these positions, but even her own belief in the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country (reminding her why the religious came here in the first place) made her position untenable and put her own worship in danger. I used the arguments that I learned in Sunday School and what I learned of American history to affect the kind of change I want, without scaring her with my dreaded secularism. So, this has become my ad hoc argument in this matter.

I'll argue philosophy when it is appropriate. At the moment, my aim is to put the kibosh on this overt melding of church and state. Do that, and we'll have time to spread the philosophy.

[Pericles(MBA)]

The question now is: How do we combat this mandate?

I think it is crucial that we do everything in our power to slow down the government funding of religion. This means that we actively oppose the Faith-Based Initiatives and ideas like school vouchers, which would forcibly transfer your money into the hands of religious education. Simultaneously, we of course need to promote Objectivism as a moral system that is superior to religion.

First of all I question how much this is a mandate.

http://www.drhurd.com/news_1073.html

The media is reeling, not able to understand why their superior candidate lost to Bush. They are looking to latch onto any idea, and perhaps some even think the religion spin may dilute Bush's resolve to pursue the War on Terror. However we cannot let people ignore that the central issue of the election was the WOT.

Secondly, I think it is also important to not downplay the impact of rational people on the past election. The principle of "Spoils of War" that allow a candidate to reward his biggest contributors once in office certainly apply here. We likely will see Zell Miller and Rudy Giuliani join the presidents cabinet.

I think that Dr Hurd makes an excellent point in the limitations of religion as leadership. Objectivists should expound on that idea, and not let religion take the credit for rational values.

[Pericles(MBA)]

btw, thought you would find this discussion of interest:

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ultimatebb...1/t/000092.html

[Tom Rexton]

CNN and AP exit-polling both show that the most important issue with voters was (religious) moral values.

[...]

Those polls are seriously MISLEADING.

Notice how "Iraq" and "Terrorism" are given as two separate issues--which clearly indicates that whoever made the poll considers Iraq to have nothing to do with terrorism. If they were combined to one issue "National Security" They would beat out "moral values" by 12%. Also, if "taxes" and "economy/jobs" were combined, they would beat "moral values" as well.

Again, the poll is indicative of a mindset tha considers "Iraq" and "terrorism" as two separate issues, and that "taxes" and "economy/jobs" have nothing to do with each other, too.

[Pericles(MBA)]

btw, thought you would find this discussion of interest:

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ultimatebb...1/t/000092.html

I am hoping to bring forward a discussion of religion on the Reagan board, in order that people there may see the distinction between men like Rumsfeld/Cheney, and men like Buchanan and Dole. Unless the Republicans overcome their failure of religion then the Elmer Gantry's will take over.

Hopefully their moderator is fair person.

[Betsy]

Exactly how do we promote Objectivism? I mean with such odds. I honestly don't think America will bite. I honestly believe the right wing religion fanatics, the socialists, and enviornmentalist will win over America.

Except for one important fact: REALITY is on OUR side and reality is always the winning side.

Also, the various flavors of irrationality usually waste their time and resources fighting each other. I suggest we let them do that as we busy ourselves providing POSITIVE alternatives for ourselves and the rational people who choose to join us.

[Betsy]

If you look at the data, 22% of the voters listed "moral values" as their most important issue.  And 80% of those voted for Bush.  So, assuming the Bush supporters are the ones that would associate "moral values" and religion, it really means that (religious) "moral values" is the most important issue to about 17.6% of the voters.

Observe the results of a poll of about 500 Objectivists who pay to subscribe to Harry Binswanger's List: 78% for Bush and 11% for Kerry.

"Moral values" are pretty damn important to Objectivists too, and they DON'T associate "moral values" and religion, yet Objectivists supported Bush just about as much as "religious" people did.

[AndrewSternberg]

Naming America as GOOD and the 'Axis of Evil' as EVIL is a moral evaluation by Bush. What percentage of those that listed 'Moral Values' as their primary reason for voting for Bush were thinking about THESE types of moral statements?

'Moral Values' is too vauge and not neeccesarily the same as 'Religious' Values.

[oldsalt]

Naming America as GOOD and the 'Axis of Evil' as EVIL is a moral evaluation by Bush.  What percentage of those that listed 'Moral Values' as their primary reason for voting for Bush were thinking about THESE types of moral statements?

'Moral Values' is too vauge and not neeccesarily the same as 'Religious' Values.

I have had a good laugh watching the liberals attempt to define what "moral values" are. They are absolutely clueless and utterly at a loss. The only thing they can come up with are moral values defined by religion, and so are in the process of concluding that they must go to church to see what all the whoopla is about. They don't see how much it exposes their own lack of morality, religious or otherwise.

Slate Magazine (an e-zine) is publishing a series of articles about this subject. They've titled the series: "Why Americans Hate Democrats: A Dialogue" Notice the wording of that title.

My favorite article in the series is written by the novelist Jane Smiley. I've never read any of her books, and after reading her article, I won't do so now. Go read "The unteachable ignorance of the red states", by Jane Smiley.

Her analysis does indeed apply to some religious people, of course. But, like all good little collectivists, she lumps everyone who lives in the red hinderlands under the same rubric (though she specifically exempts the members of her own family ).

[AndrewSternberg]

From the article:

"I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)"

And thats where I stopped.

[oldsalt]

From the article:

And thats where I stopped.

See, now that's why you're just a knuckle-dragging, unteachable, ignoramus.

Isn't she a lovely person? I don't understand why you aren't listening to the voices of reason on the left. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

[aSmythe]

I think it is crucial that we do everything in our power to slow down the government funding of religion. This means that we actively oppose the Faith-Based Initiatives and ideas like school vouchers, which would forcibly transfer your money into the hands of religious education.

While school vouchers are not an ideal solution, some school choice is better than none. Remember that the government takes the money anyway. Then, it forcibly gives it state-run schools to preach a philosophy that is far more insidious than what one would find in a religous school. Also, the decision of *which* school is now made by the parents. Therefore, the philosophy imparted in schools will better reflect the philosophy of the parents.

Given the choices in our neighbourhood, we decided to send our daugther to a catholic school. Certain teachers tell the kids about God and Jesus. It's all so silly that it is almost non-issue. (Really, the challenge is not in refuting such nonsense; rather, the challenge is in having my daughter continue to respect her teacher when she talks about non-religious topics.)

One reason I would vote for Bush even if there was not "war on terror" is because he might take the country a few steps further toward increased parental choice in schooling.