Article

2004-12-17 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-12-17 09:31|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Excerpt from conclusion: "...liberals... need their moral superiority like oxygen, and they cannot have it cut off by mere facts."

Posted by Tom 2004-12-17 11:42:59 AM|| 2004-12-17 11:42:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Americans politically redefine "morality" and "ethics". "Ethics" are seen as a politician obeying the law, and creating and enforcing laws based upon what society wants, within the self-imposed limits of the Constitution. Ethics is an objective thing. "Morality", however, is seen as subjective ethics, varying between religions, sects and philosophical belief systems. For this reason, Americans tend to be distrustful of those politicians who run on "morality" issues. What exactly do they represent? A secular, modernist, even agnostic belief system; a harsh, fundamentalist theocratic order; someone comfortably orthodox but agreeable with the coexistence of religion and government; or an atheist-Marxist, prudish and fanatical? Each of these can claim "morality", after a fashion, and with greater or lesser honesty; but if they claim to be "ethical", and are not accused of crimes or arrested, the assumption is that they *are* "ethical".

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-12-17 1:15:24 PM|| 2004-12-17 1:15:24 PM|| Front Page Top

00:06 Bomb-a-rama
23:56 Cyber Sarge
23:45 James
23:41 jackal
23:37 Aris Katsaris
23:36 AJackson
23:33 jackal
23:29 lex
23:25 lex
23:24 lex
23:18 Atomic Conspiracy
22:54 Atomic Conspiracy
22:52 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:52 Laurence of the Rats
22:45 Atomic Conspiracy
22:44 Atomic Conspiracy
22:22 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:16 Pappy
22:16 Barbara Skolaut
22:06 Pappy
22:02 SC88
21:56 Stephen
21:51 Aris Katsaris
21:47 gromky