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.
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 
).
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.
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.)
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.
Christopher Hitchens has a very good article on this issue here.
Here is a key excerpt:
But all faiths are not always equally demented in the same way, or at the same time. Islam, which was once a civilizing and creative force in many societies, is now undergoing a civil war. One faction in this civil war is explicitly totalitarian and wedded to a cult of death. We have seen it at work on the streets of our own cities, and most recently on the streets of Amsterdam. We know that the obscene butchery of filmmaker Theo van Gogh was only a warning of what is coming in Madrid, London, Rome, and Paris, let alone Baghdad and Basra.
So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left.
He further says:
George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled.
This is a very pithy point:
The “antiwar” faction even recognizes this achievement, if only indirectly, by complaining about the way in which it has infuriated the Islamic religious extremists around the world. But does it accept the apparent corollary—that we should have been pursuing a policy to which the fanatics had no objection?
I could counter his arguments by pointing out how Bush has not been strong enough in his war on terror, and that he may end up turning Iraq into a theocratic state, however his arguments are superb, given their target.
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.
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.
Government financing inevitably means government control. Today, millions of children are schooled outside of the government’s institutions for collectivist indoctrination. However, once private and parochial schools begin accepting federal dollars, you can say goodbye to the independent primary and secondary school. Just as government attaches stipulations to every other activity it sponsors, it will surely insist on certain “standards” in the curriculum, admissions policy, employment practices and virtually every other aspect of the school where the federal dollar is spent. School vouchers will convert private schools into perfect clones of public schools.
Christopher Hitchens has a very good article on this issue here.
Here is a key excerpt:
He further says:
This is a very pithy point:
I could counter his arguments by pointing out how Bush has not been strong enough in his war on terror, and that he may end up turning Iraq into a theocratic state, however his arguments are superb, given their target.
When Hitchen’s is good, he’s very, very good. That was a brilliant article.
I don’t worry about Iraq becoming a theocratic state ala Iran. There are too many factions in Iraq for them to decide which side of the theocracy to accept. The Sunni and Sha’i sects of Islalm represent the most basic division in Islam, a division that occurred in the power struggle for the religion when Mohammad died. To have a theocracy, they would have to say that one or the other is the correct interpretation and the other side wouldn’t sit still for it. Iraq has been secular before and I suspect they will be mostly secular again, just so that everyone can live together.
As disappointing and frustrating as it is, I don’t see how we could insist that they forego any and all religion in their government. The separation of church and state is a wholely new concept for them. If we are still arguing the matter in the US, when our constitution explicitly forbids it, how do you imagine that we can force it upon a people who not only doesn’t have a tradition or constitution of it, but whose beliefs and culture expressly forbids it.
This is a transitional phase in the reformation of Islam itself, comparable to the Protestant Reformation. Hitchen’s is right to call what is happening within Islam a civil war.
In fact, I’ll add one more bit of praise for President Bush to Hitchen’s: Bush has done more for women’s rights in the world than all the humorless, braless sob-sisters on the left could ever hope to have achieved. The silence from the feminists, even the promotion of the idea that genital mutilation and “honor” murders are just cultural practices to be tolerated is a condemnation of the entire movement and shows these people for the hypocrites and charlatons that they are.
The silence from the feminists, even the promotion of the idea that genital mutilation and “honor” murders are just cultural practices to be tolerated is a condemnation of the entire movement and shows these people for the hypocrites and charlatons that they are.
Are feminists actually promoting toleration of Islam? This is horrific.
Are feminists actually promoting toleration of Islam? This is horrific.
Yes. My sister occasionally watches Oprah. She said that a prominent feminist on one show made excuses for these practices. Even Oprah had the decency to demure.
Ask youself when you last heard a peep out of that bunch. These people have never had a problem voicing their displeasure over anything from equal pay to the number of stalls in women’s restrooms at sports arenas. Why on earth would they be so conspicuously silent over these horrors (at least, those who haven’t become apologists for Islamic culture)?
Yes. My sister occasionally watches Oprah. She said that a prominent feminist on one show made excuses for these practices. Even Oprah had the decency to demure.
Ask youself when you last heard a peep out of that bunch. These people have never had a problem voicing their displeasure over anything from equal pay to the number of stalls in women’s restrooms at sports arenas. Why on earth would they be so conspicuously silent over these horrors (at least, those who haven’t become apologists for Islamic culture)?
Disgusting. I had hoped that 9/11 would be a wake-up call. To my dismay, most of the nation’s “intellectuals” either never woke up, or are consciously trying to destroy us. They worry about things like the number of stalls in women’s restrooms, while making excuses for acts terrorism and brutality.
Very scary stuff.
I don’t worry about Iraq becoming a theocratic state ala Iran. There are too many factions in Iraq for them to decide which side of the theocracy to accept. The Sunni and Sha’i sects of Islalm represent the most basic division in Islam, a division that occurred in the power struggle for the religion when Mohammad died.
What about the Islamacists and Wahhabi? Both of these are virulently anti-Western. Do they lie within one of those two larger sects? Al Qaeda, for instance, is Islamacist, and inspired by the philosopher Sayyid Qutb.
As disappointing and frustrating as it is, I don’t see how we could insist that they forego any and all religion in their government. The separation of church and state is a wholely new concept for them.
Well, since Iraq was somewhat secular prior, maybe it wouldn’t be so hard. However, I do believe we should write their constitution for them, if we’re going to go the nation building route, which it appears we are. Present them the blue print for freedom and try to make it work. Even if it doesn’t work, at least they’ll have the blue print, and they may go part of the way. But, the primary reason for this is that we have to think of our self-defense first. They are the enemy, after all.
If we are still arguing the matter in the US, when our constitution explicitly forbids it, how do you imagine that we can force it upon a people who not only doesn’t have a tradition or constitution of it, but whose beliefs and culture expressly forbids it.
It won’t hurt them if we enforce freedom there. Quite the contrary. There will be back lash, of course, but they are the enemy, and we aren’t there to play games.
In fact, I’ll add one more bit of praise for President Bush to Hitchen’s: Bush has done more for women’s rights in the world than all the humorless, braless sob-sisters on the left could ever hope to have achieved. The silence from the feminists, even the promotion of the idea that genital mutilation and “honor” murders are just cultural practices to be tolerated is a condemnation of the entire movement and shows these people for the hypocrites and charlatons that they are.
Modern day leftists are pathetic. They contradict themselves at every turn, and end up supporting the most heinous crimes. They long since have lost any claim to the moral high ground.
Btw, to back you up on this, Gene Simmons, of the group KISS, stated some months back that Islam is a vile culture that treats women worse than dogs. He said this on Australian radio. The result was that all of these so called “intellectuals” were outraged by his statements. Never mind that they were accurate! Here is a link. I personally was happy to see someone speak the truth for a change!
What about the Islamacists and Wahhabi? Both of these are virulently anti-Western. Do they lie within one of those two larger sects? Al Qaeda, for instance, is Islamacist, and inspired by the philosopher Sayyid Qutb.
Well, since Iraq was somewhat secular prior, maybe it wouldn’t be so hard. However, I do believe we should write their constitution for them, if we’re going to go the nation building route, which it appears we are. Present them the blue print for freedom and try to make it work. Even if it doesn’t work, at least they’ll have the blue print, and they may go part of the way. But, the primary reason for this is that we have to think of our self-defense first. They are the enemy, after all.
It won’t hurt them if we enforce freedom there. Quite the contrary. There will be back lash, of course, but they are the enemy, and we aren’t there to play games.
Modern day leftists are pathetic. They contradict themselves at every turn, and end up supporting the most heinous crimes. They long since have lost any claim to the moral high ground.
Btw, to back you up on this, Gene Simmons, of the group KISS, stated some months back that Islam is a vile culture that treats women worse than dogs. He said this on Australian radio. The result was that all of these so called “intellectuals” were outraged by his statements. Never mind that they were accurate! Here is a link. I personally was happy to see someone speak the truth for a change!
The Wahhabis are out of Saudi Arabia and are an extreme fundamentalist sect. They gained power by blackmailing the Sauds, who paid with money and a share in power in order to consolidate their hold on the country. They’ve had a tiger by the tail ever since. Now, of course, half of the ruling family actually believe that drivel and has backed the Wahhabis all over the world. They are not a part of the original split in Islam, i.e., the Sunni and the Shi’ite sects. Whoever is in Iraq from that sect is there as a martyr. This doesn’t mean that there may not be trouble from them in the future. For instance, the Wahhabis flooded the former Yugoslavia when we stopped the war there, offering money to rebuild mosques and schools – provided they were in charge. Many communities kicked them out. Some did not. They also rushed into the troubles in Chechnya, and we’ve see the results there. Chechnya had a legitimate claim for independence from Russia, but they forfeited it when then allowed terrorists to take over (by killing the legal Chechan leaders, by the way). Now they are just one more terror state that must be dealt with – by the newest incarnation of the terror state of Russia. What a world.
The two major sects promoting terrorism are the Shi’ite in Iran and the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia. For now, it appears that most of the Shi’a in Iraq don’t want to have anything to do with those from Iran. They’ve been victimized by Iran and most aren’t eager to trade the tyranny of Saddam for the tyranny of the Ayatollas.
As for Iraq being secular before, that certainly helps. I agree that we ought to have taken a firmer hand in the constitution of the new government, along the lines of what we did in Japan. MacArthur isn’t running things there, however.
I’m not happy with the way we’ve gone about things. I understand the overall strategy; we’ve turned things over to them so that they will have a stake in their future. I read the Iraqi blogs and I see a future there. There are some who are eager to take up the political fight. There are also communists, fundamentalists, and all the other -ists. I don’t know what will happen. I do know that Iraq won’t be in any position to hand out WMD’s to terrorists, or even the dollars they skimmed from the corrupt international community. That much is a plus. The policy of the Bush administration is a huge gamble, however, and our people are paying the ante in treasure and lives.
The bottom line is that there’s nothing I can do except keep writing letters to the president and my various representatives. I’m sure that they always sit down and give my wisdom due consideration. 
There is nothing I’ve said that hasn’t been said better, and with more authority, by others.
No matter how unhappy I am with the way the politics play out, I will never stop backing the mission. To do so is to turn the efforts of our military into genuine sacrifices on the altar of my philsophy. Once a country commits its military, I think we are obligated to see it through. To do otherwise is to perpetrate another Viet Nam, where however immoral it was for us to go there in the first place, once we were there we ought never to have come away in defeat. For me, it is a greater immorality to turn the deaths of 52,000 of our citizens into worthless chits, paid out and receiving less than nothing in return. It also makes us responsible for the subsequent chaos, and the enslavement and death of those we pledged to help.
The greatest consequence of surrendering was the country’s loss of confidence and pride in itself, and we are paying for that now. I often wonder if we would find ourselves in the war we’re in if we hadn’t shown the world that we could be defeated. The methods used against us now, especially the manipulation of the news, all stem from that war.
The left has a lot to answer for! From the feminists who apologize for mutilation and murder, to the Kerryites who stripped our military of the support of its fellow citizens, to the media who refuse to report objectively, to the university professors who gave them all legitimacy and intellectually disarmed the country – all have a hand in giving the Islamists reason to think they could get away with attacking us. As a result, the country is in a fight for its life, Western Civilization is in danger of seceding to rank atavism, and we Objectivists are in an historic battle for the mind of man.
The moral mandate given to Bush is a mandate to reclaim the character of America by continuing the war. There are those who want to claim a victory for religious values, but the facts don’t back that view. For all of the mistakes that have been made, people want us to win. The ignorant, knuckle-dragging, “unteachable” red-necks of fly-over country know that walking away, no matter how tricked out in diplomatic apologetics the surrender would be, it would mean the death of us as a country and as a civilization.
God Bless America! We haven’t lost our soul after all.