Post-Election Analysis

[Elfhelm]

As you can see, I was just editing my previous post to include a comment to that effect.

In our county, the vote on measure 36 was 2/3rds No. The rest of the state voted 2/3rds Yes, and they won. But of course, the gay people live mostly in our city. They are our neighbors. We know them personally. That would tend to make a difference.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think infidelity is wrong and harmful.

I think gay marriage is wrong and harmful.

I don't "scream" about either one , however, I realize that a law against infidelity is pretty unenforceable and totally impractical. Laws against gay marriage are entirely 100% enforceable and practical.

I also think thinking hateful thoughts is harmful. I don't scream or talk about making a law against that one, either.

I don't think one can legislate morality, only certain aspects of it, like laws against theft, etc.

But more harmful to society than a bad economy or war?

Interesting.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

But more harmful to society than a bad economy or war?

Interesting.

See - the problem was that the economy wasn't bad. The democrats tried making it seems bad - but overall the economy really isn't bad. Unemployment stands at 5.4%. As for the war - half of America still supports the war in Iraq - so for most people that wouldn't be an issue in the polls - over half the people when polled about Iraq felt that Bush would also do a better job handling Iraq than Kerry. So the war issue did not play favorably into democrats hands - and neither did the ecoomy - even though they tried to make both the issue. I voted on the war and I voted for Bush - that was the one thing I cared about.

Democrats basically voted on "anyone but Bush" mantra - and not for Kerry or his policies. You can't win an election like that.

[Starr Polish]

No, no. I know the economy is on the upswing. I should have said "economy" instead of "bad economy." Sorry about that.

I just find it interesting that these "moral" issues (which are based off one specific type of morality) are more important to so many people. Even if one does support the war, I think it should be a higher concern than whether or not two men want to get married. In one, lives are being lost. In the other, it's only a problem for most people because of religious ideals (and yes, JD, I know you aren't religous. This is why I said most ).

Whether or not someone voted for Bush or Kerry on the war issue, I think that should be more important than the gay marriage issue.

I feel the same way about the economy...because even though it's steadily getting better, it does not mean that it will stay that way.

Whether or not one supports Bush or Kerry on these issues, I think they should weigh more heavily in the minds of US citizens than moral issues (that are subject to more relavitism).

I agree that the Democratic party was relying to heavily on "anyone but Bush." My mother tends to lean Democrat, but disliked both Kerry and Edwards immensely, so voted for Bush. My father is a Republican, but would have voted Dean had he gotten the Democratic candidacy.

[Elfhelm]

Deflection. She said war is immoral and you said people support it. The point isn't whether people support it. The point is that it's immoral. If she starts to argue about how many people support it, the whole point is lost. In my opinion, Christians who oppose war ARE adhering to the teachings of Jesus. And they will hold on to that belief even if every other person in the world disagrees. So your deflection will not work on her. But good luck.

[Elfhelm]

Oops, she beat me to it. But I think I was right. As a Christian, she takes the edict "love thy enemies" to heart. Peace, Starr! You rock!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Deflection. She said war is immoral and you said people support it. The point isn't whether people support it. The point is that it's immoral.

She never said that the war is immorral - she said that more people should be concerned about it. I do not feel the war is immoral - some wars are necessary - and I believe this is such a case. I think the democrats wanting to go into appeasement mode - instead of fighting against the attrocities in the Middle East is immoral though.

[edit]
Elfhelm - no where in her initial post I responded to did she say anything about the immorality of the war - nor in her clarification to me did she say anything about the immorality. YOu were the one that brought up immorality. So I wonder - who is trying to deflect the debate, while I was merely responding to what she ACTUALLY said.

[sun-star]

The thing I don't get about this 'moral issues' question...

Why do people define it so narrowly? Surely almost every decision you make about voting is based on a moral choice. Whether a war is right or wrong, for example, is about the biggest moral issue there is. Economic policy is all about the kind of society you would prefer to see, and the way you believe the poor can be best helped: that's a moral issue. Scientific research is a moral issue; so is education. It's not all about gay marriage. I know that if someone asked me what my priority in voting is, I'd say it was 'moral issues', because to me that's inseparable from the decision I'm making. Isn't it possible that some of the 22% who chiefly voted on 'moral issues' were thinking the same way?

(NB: I'm not saying every issue is a moral issue - constitutional questions don't tend to be, for instance. But I think we should widen the scope a bit.)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by sun-star

The thing I don't get about this 'moral issues' question...

Why do people define it so narrowly? Surely almost every decision you make about voting is based on a moral choice. Whether a war is right or wrong, for example, is about the biggest moral issue there is. Economic policy is all about the kind of society you would prefer to see, and the way you believe the poor can be best helped: that's a moral issue. Scientific research is a moral issue; so is education. It's not all about gay marriage. I know that if someone asked me what my priority in voting is, I'd say it was 'moral issues', because to me that's inseparable from the decision I'm making. Isn't it possible that some of the 22% who chiefly voted on 'moral issues' were thinking the same way?

(NB: I'm not saying every issue is a moral issue - constitutional questions don't tend to be, for instance. But I think we should widen the scope a bit.)

Well it's the media and the pollsters who have defined what the "moral" issues are - so you should complain to them. I don't think anyone went to the polls and said "I'm going to vote on the 'moral issues' - they went to the polls and merely voted on what was important to them. The media has made this "moral issue" into more than what I think it is. But anyway - they always like things to be fed to the masses in bite size bits, easily digestiable - which cute slogans and tag lines - hence they came up with "moral issues".

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well it's the media and the pollsters who have defined what the "moral" issues are - so you should complain to them. I don't think anyway went to the polls and said "I'm going to vote on the 'moral issues' - they went to the polls and merely voted on what was important to them. The media has made this "moral issue" into more than what I think it is. But anyway - they always like things to be fed to the masses in bite size bits, easily digestiable - which cute slogans and tag lines - hence they came up with "moral issues".

Wasn't complaining. If we move away from the term 'moral issues' as the media defines it though - don't you vote on what's morally important to you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Wasn't complaining.

I didn't mean to imply you were actually.

If we move away from the term 'moral issues' as the media defines it though - don't you vote on what's morally important to you?

I never look at it as what is moral or not moral - it's whether I support it or not. Is it moral for the government to tax people who have worked all their lives to better themselves. Now that they have these things that they've put blood, sweat and tears into - and in som cases come close to losing everything to have a better life - to have the government come and say - "okay - now that you've done all the work - we think you should give most of your hard earned money to them - because they have less". That could be a moral issue too. I don't believe in redistribution of the wealth - except for people that absolutely CAN NOT work - because of a mental or physical disability.

But I do agree with you. Anyway - what is moral to one person is not moral to another.

[Elfhelm]

eh? Rian equated "harmful" to morality. Starr asked wasn't war more harmful. I assumed she was maintaining the equation. Maybe I was wrong.

But I bet she does think war is immoral. There are many Christians who think so. The day Bush invaded Iraq, the Quakers said it was wrong and so did the Pope.

There are also many non-Christians, as I mentioned the Baha'i, the Unitarians, and others, who are pacifistic by definition.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I never look at it as what is moral or not moral - it's whether I support it or not. Is it moral for the government to tax people who have worked all their lives to better themselves. Now that they have these things that they've put blood, sweat and tears into - and in som cases come close to losing everything to have a better life - to have the government come and say - "okay - now that you've done all the work - we think you should give most of your hard earned money to them - because they have less". That could be a moral issue too. I don't believe in redistribution of the wealth - except for people that absolutely CAN NOT work - because of a mental or physical disability.

"I don't believe in redistribution of wealth" - that's a moral choice. I'm using 'moral' in a neutral sense, meaning 'what you believe in', not as a synonym for 'good'. My suggestion is that everyone votes on what they believe in, unless they're total party loyalists who just vote for their party because they hate the other guys

Or would anyone like to disagree? Anyone think it's possible to keep morality out of voting decisions?

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

eh? Rian equated "harmful" to morality. Starr asked wasn't war more harmful. I assumed she was maintaining the equation. Maybe I was wrong.

But I bet she does think war is immoral. There are many Christians who think so. The day Bush invaded Iraq, the Quakers said it was wrong and so did the Pope.

There are also many non-Christians, as I mentioned the Baha'i, the Unitarians, and others, who are pacifistic by definition.

Bingo. Although I should have made my point a bit more clear, Elfhelm is correct.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

eh? Rian equated "harmful" to morality. Starr asked wasn't war more harmful. I assumed she was maintaining the equation. Maybe I was wrong.

But I bet she does think war is immoral. There are many Christians who think so. The day Bush invaded Iraq, the Quakers said it was wrong and so did the Pope.

There are also many non-Christians, as I mentioned the Baha'i, the Unitarians, and others, who are pacifistic by definition.

The Quakers are anti-war period - regardless of the war. So to say that they're against the war in Iraq is meaningless. If we went by the quakers - there wouldn't be a United States today because they were completely against the Revolution.

Also - the bible does NOT condemn all wars. You can get anything you want out of the bible - to justify anything. If I want to say why the war was moral - I can find passages to support my argument. The bible means nothing in my eyes and should NOT be used to determine US foreign policy. I find it ironic that now you are trying to use the bible to condemn the war in iraq - after giving your diatribes about the religious right supposedly taking over the country with their religious beleifs. But hey - I guess people use whatever they got to justify their points - even if they resort to completely contradiicting their points of view.

[Starr Polish]

The Bible does have guidelines for war...which the war in Iraq does not fall into. Saying the war in Iraq is biblically justified is is like saying the Qu'ran justified the 9/11 attacks. They're both fallacious.

Note: I'm not saying YOU'RE saying that, JD. Just clarifying.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

The Bible does have guidelines for war...which the war in Iraq does not fall into. Saying the war in Iraq is biblically justified is is like saying the Qu'ran justified the 9/11 attacks. They're both fallacious.

Why is the war not defensible by the bible? it wasn't against the civilians of Iraq - you can argue and it has been that the war is both a protective measure and to stop the attrocities which were being committed by Hussein. Bush 41 wanted to take out Hussein int eh first Gulf War - but was prevented by the allies and Congress. Becuase of that - millions were killed by Hussein through the years. So which was the immoral decision - to sit and watch as people's hands are cut off, people hoisted up and let drop from 5 stories, people dipped in acid while alive until they die? Is letting that go on moral?

[edit]We are not attempting to take over iraq - anymore than the war against Meloshivic was to take over Bosnia and Serbia. So was that war jusified - remember now - Meloshivic never attacked anyone outside his country. It was a preemptive attack because the surrounding European countries were afraid that the civil war would spill over into their countries.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Why is the war not defensible by the bible? it wasn't against the civilians of Iraq - you can argue and it has been that the war is both a protective measure and to stop the attrocities which were being committed by Hussein. Bush 41 wanted to take out Hussein int eh first Gulf War - but was prevented by the allies and Congress. Becuase of that - millions were killed by Hussein through the years. So which was the immoral decision - to sit and watch as people's hands are cut off, people hoisted up and let drop from 5 stories, people dipped in acid while alive until they die? Is letting that go on moral?

The Bible teaches that an effort to avoid war and maintain peace should be attempted first before going into battle (Deuteronomy 20:10-11). However, the Bible also teaches that the complete destruction of an enemy may sometimes be necessary (Deuteronomy 20:16-19). So, it could go both ways, I suppose.


Generally, non-military personnel (such as women and children) are to be spared (Deuteronomy 20:14). While the women and children of the Old Testament era probably didn't appreciate their status as spoils of war, they likely found it preferable to death.


Deuteronomy 20:19-20 tells us that there should be no unnecessary destruction of the environment during times of war.

The Bible allows for those who do not wish to fight to choose not to do so (Deuteronomy 20:5-8). Today we might refer to such people as "conscientious objectors."


The Bible teaches that representatives of the Lord should be available for the armed services (Deuteronomy 20:2). Today we know these individuals as "chaplains".

I believe there is scripture in the New Testament, but I am far from an expert on the Bible, and am still trying to find what I remember from youth group studies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

The Bible teaches that an effort to avoid war and maintain peace should be attempted first before going into battle (Deuteronomy 20:10-11). However, the Bible also teaches that the complete destruction of an enemy may sometimes be necessary (Deuteronomy 20:16-19). So, it could go both ways, I suppose.

We tried to avoid war - there were 12 resolutions before the UN over the course of 10+ years. It took 1 year of negoatiations before we actually went into Iraq. Bush even gave Hussein a way out - leave iraq and there would be no war - but he didn't. Maybe not long enough for some people - but for some - being attacked by Iraq still wouldn't have been justification. There has to be a deadline - and EVERYONE - including Hussein - was perfectly aware of when that was. it was NOT a sneak attack.

Generally, non-military personnel (such as women and children) are to be spared (Deuteronomy 20:14). While the women and children of the Old Testament era probably didn't appreciate their status as spoils of war, they likely found it preferable to death.

And we have been sparing them. It is not the US who is purposely killing civilians. Before you claim that if there is a chance of any civilans being killed - then war is immoral - let me remind you that millions of civilians were killed in just trying to defeat Germany during WWII.

Deuteronomy 20:19-20 tells us that there should be no unnecessary destruction of the environment during times of war.

Again - we are not the ones destroying the environment - but you might want to look at how we are RESTORING the environment in southern Iraq where the marshes and wetlands were dammed up by Hussein.

The Bible allows for those who do not wish to fight to choose not to do so (Deuteronomy 20:5-8). Today we might refer to such people as "conscientious objectors."

We have a full volunteer army - the people there have chosen to be in the miliatary - which is the sole purpose of being in the military is to go to war. If anyone didn't want to go into Iraq - then they shouldn't have joined the military.

The Bible teaches that representatives of the Lord should be available for the armed services (Deuteronomy 20:2). Today we know these individuals as "chaplains".

Which we have as you said - Chaplains.


So - so far there is nothing that the US has done which is against the Bible here.

[edit]I should add to that based on the cease fire agreement of the first gulf war - the war was never ended and we didn't have to give anyone notice or time. Hussein did not adhere to the resolutions which was a requirement to officially end the Guld War.

[Starr Polish]

I originally had this as an edit in my message, but I'm afraid it will get lost, so:

I would also like to note that I am a United Methodist. The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church states: "We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy and insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them."

The scripture I have shown was not the best example I could have given. There are no straighforward "red letters" (meaning words Jesus himself spoke) pertaining to the specifics of war. He did, however, preach peace, understanding, and forgiveness, however. (And I will be the first to admit these are all things I need to work on).

I am not saying what Hussein did was justified, and I am glad he is gone. Even though I think that trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 was a bit...off, it is a good thing that we have gotten rid of Hussein (this is something I am CONSTANTLY reminding Democrats on my campus of).