Fair enough.

Usually supporting two of these three means that’s the candidate you’d support, but there were many Reps for Kerry (9%) and Dems for Bush (10%).

A big issue are those who support just 1 of Bush’s positions, like the pro-War, anti-Cuts, anti-God Liberal Hawks; and the anti-War, anti-Cuts, pro-God Catholics.

Bush’s victory depended on all of the groups who supported him, but the “moderates” are those who support only one or two of the three. I suggest, article not finished yet, that the pro-God supporters are a bit bigger, and especially that they are more important to the future Rep votes. Pro-abortion Dems are likely to get increasingly fewer Catholic votes than the 48% Kerry got.

tomgrey.motime.com/1100218857#372506 (an ID, not a link?)

Please forgive my tangent. This is not directed at you or anyone making suggestions above, but is a simple attempt, because of my limitations, to awake those who want religion out of the public forum.

Amendment I (U.S. Constitution)

“Congress shall make no law”
1. respecting an establishment of religion,
2. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
3. or abridging the freedom of speech,
4. or of the press;
5. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
6. and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If items 1 & 2 are to be prohibited from the public forum/interaction within the government, then items 3, 4, 5 and 6 must also be prohibited.

In other words, a separation of press and state. No press pools that travel with the President, no press room or press conferences within the White House, etc.

Don’t forget that the original Constitutional Amendments were called “The Bill of Rights”.

Better said … when worlds collide, truth is the battle-field. Ignorance is the vanquished.
————–

URL is in my sig url
—–

Understanding Liberal Amorality

I am part of a political discussion listserv. When the list started I was a liberal. I was pissed about 2000 election. The list serve calmed down until 9/11 since then the liberal on the list have made me realize there is no place for moderate views on the left side of debates.

The left is saying that middle America is stupid, unscientific in their voting decisions. But the fact is it is the left that has lost any modicum of common sense. And they refuse to accept dissenting views. If you say marriage is between a man and a woman you are a gay basher. If you think there should be some protection for unborn children you are a religious zealot. If you believe in tax cuts for the rich you want poor people to go hungry. If you think people should have to identify themselves to vote you are trying to suppress the vote. You can’t say Arafat is a killer without getting Bush has killed more civilians in Iraq than Arafat has.

Its become almost impossible to have a debate with a politically active liberal.

Science has proven that most babies can live outside the womb at 22 plus weeks of gestation but the refuse to give any protections to those babies. So in their mind a person who takes a baseball bat to a woman uterus and kills the baby did not commit murder, they only assaulted the woman.

Arafat is the father of modern terrorism, but to the left he is the same as our minutemen and Bush is worse because he attack Iraq.

It so sad that so many people around they world have become so confused and have lost any touch with common sense.

So when people are saying they voted for Bush because of morality. Its not because they agree with his morality but because he actually believes in right and wrong. He believes there is difference between targeting civilians and civilian caught in the crossfire. Hell even the Bloods and the Crips get it. They might kill a child in a crossfire but they aren’t rolling up and shooting random women on the street. Which is what Arafat’s supporters have done for decades. The left has given up on right and wrong. The lure of “rights” without responsibilities is so strong that they can’t admit that there is something wrong with abortions. This a woman right to choose they say again and again, as if its a hair cut.

How could John Kerry say I believe life begins at conception but I will do nothing to protect those lives. I guess like Clinton who believed people were dying in Rwanda but he was unwilling to do anything to protect those lives. We don’t need leaders who refuse to stand up for what is right. I didn’t vote for Bush for moral reasons. But I understand the people who do. If you don’t have time to become an amateur policy wonk all you have to rely on is does your leader have a moral compass and is he willing to follow it.

“Some non-Christians may be guided by secular humanism, which is no less a religion than Christianity. They may not believe in the Bible but definitely live by a code of ethics and set of values: human rather than religious values. Christians assert that God, as Creator of all things, is the measure of all things. Worlds collide.”

Secularism is a religion in and of itself, baiting its followers in the trap of moral relativism. Maureen Dowd did it this weekend:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/opinion/14dowd.html?oref=login

I talk about it here:
http://reporterette.blogspot.com/2004/11/dowd-disses-conservative-christians.html

God does not exist.

We cannot know whether or not God exists.

All of these statements are about God. None of them can be proved or disproved by science. All of these statements are religious. Everyone who subscribes to one of these statements or any other statement about any deity or absence thereof is making a religious claim.

The same can be said of statements about whether or not God is relevant to law, politics, or education. Can science (or history or law or language) be rightly understood without reference to the God of Nature (or of Providence, or the Supreme Lawgiver, or the Word Incarnate)? Whether you answer yes or no, you make a religious claim.

Secularists (I use the term broadly to apply to those who believe law, education, etc. can be carried on without reference to God.) claim that their views are not religious and then on the basis of that claim, expect others to join them and construct a culture that can be fairly characterized as officially agnostic. As all sides believe that what they believe is correct (otherwise they wouldn’t believe it), I would submit that we cannot solve the problem of how to live together in a pluralistic society where everyone is free to exercise his or her religion unless we first come to terms (as Mortimer J. Adler would say) and agree that all of these views are religious.

Our founders (some of whom were secularists) solved the problem by basing our law on the only reasonable unchanging standard that was available—the Bible, and then carefully protecting each person’s right to freely exercise their conscience (a Biblical concept which was greatly studied in the Reformation) in worship and belief. Further, they protected the Scriptural distinction between Church authorities and civil authorities when they included the Establishment Clause that prevented one Christian sect being established above others as the State Religion, and kept the government out of the business of appointing church leaders and vice versa.

If now we want to change this basis of our government and establish ourselves as an officially agnostic country, secularists need to admit that that is what they are proposing and then make the argument to persuade the majority of us to make the change.

DS – I met Rev. Flake at a school voucher discussion (he was a speaker) and he is a big proponent of school choice. He’s a Dem, but I don’t think someone like Flake is in view here. Limbaugh is referring to irreligious liberals. Just my opinion of Limbaugh’s view after reading so many of his columns.

In other words, liberals can’t be believers in religion.

Wow. I find that, for lack of a better word, asinine.

Rev. Floyd Flake, while in congress, was a Democrat and was called liberal. Limbaugh’s statement means that Flake is living a lie and leading a flock with his lies.