Maybe, the Religious Right was right about something (but wrong)

[Nikia]

Many of sense that there is something wrong with this country. The media says that Kerry supporters thought that what was wrong was the economy. Bush supporters and the religious right thought that moral values are what is wrong with this country. Even though I voted for Kerry, I am going to have to say that the religious right was right about that. Before you call me a Freeper, let me explain what I mean.
Unlike the religious right, I disagree that the moral values of America will be improved by banning gay marriage, banning abortion, or teaching Creationism in schools. I think that it is ironic that Bush and company sold them on these things because these things aren't what is harming America's moral values at all.
America's moral values are harmed by Corporatism and the values of it. Americans are harmed by values that consider employs worth no more than machines or any other company property. Americans are harmed by values that show no loyalty to worthy people (employees who put in time and hard work for a given company). Americans are harmed by values that show little concern for their communities. Americans are harmed by values that sell bodies and sex as just another commodity. Americans are harmed by values that have no concern for people who are unable to work for whatever reason. Americans are harmed by values that value education only as a tool for employment. Americans are harmed by values which only consider the present, not the next generation. Americans are harmed by values which value things above people. Americans are harmed by values money above all other things.
Yes, I agree with them that there is something wrong with America's moral values. Even if they believe that it is wrong to be gay or wrong to abort fetuses, though, these are minor things in relation to what is really degrading America's moral values. Something is seriously wrong with America's moral values, but it is not at all what Bush and company would have them or any of us believe.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

1. Most of the problems you mentioned seem to be economic.

Corporatism, owner over employee, education for employment...

[Warpy]

3. So is Christianity

when you come right down to it. Think of Jesus chasing the Repuglicans out of the temple. He hated the rich, the owners, the powerful, the ones who set themselves up as lawgivers for the rest of us.

What's wrong with morality in this country is the wingnut insistence that it begins and ends with sex and applies only to other people.

If they bothered to read that book they're always trying to beat us over the head with, they might expand their moral horizons a bit.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

5. Excellent point!

n/t

[mitchum]

6. But that's why the fundies prefer Little Baby Jesus and dying Jesus...

to the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount

[idiosyncratic]

10. Exactly. What was it Jesus said about camel and "eye of the needle?"

I love your last sentence. So true, so true!!

[calimary]

21. If memory serves from catechism class, Jesus didn't hang out with business

people. He prefered the "little guy" - even a dreaded tax collector or two. The only time he went ballistic was against the moneychangers in the temple, and an errant fig tree. The people you describe have only read as far as Leviticus. They haven't bothered their beautiful minds much with the New Testament.

[onager]

22. Contrarian Stuff: The moneychangers were a necessity, etc.

If I remember my Baptist Sunday School lessons correctly, Jesus didn't hate all the rich. It was a rich guy who paid for his tomb and burial shroud. Which never did make it to Turin, but I digress.

The story of JC "going ballistic" on the moneychangers is one of those that sounds GREAT on the surface. Jesus was a liberal! He hated moneychangers! Whee!

But looking closer, it only makes sense if he knew the moneychangers were cheating people. This may have been the case, overall human nature being pretty much unchanged by religion or anything else for the past few millennia.

Those moneychangers were an absolute necessity for anyone who wanted to donate an offering to the Temple. According to Jewish law at the time, it was the worst kind of blasphemy to carry Roman coins into the temple.

Roman coins were engraved with pictures of the emperors, who were officially and legally gods in Rome. This violated the law against "graven images."

If we can believe the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus--an open question--a similar situation had already caused at least one major and fairly bloody riot.

Apparently, soldiers from the Caeserea garrison were moving back to their winter quarters in Jerusalem and carried their legionary standards into the Temple courtyard. Those standards also bore pictures of Roman Emperors, along with other pagan symbols. The locals gathered to protest this desecration of the Temple grounds, and Pontius Pilate ordered the troops to attack the crowd.

Pilate had his own coins minted for local use, but it's hard to see how they solved the "graven image" problem. The local money had a Roman religious image on the obverse (a soothsayer's staff) and a Jewish religious image (a bunch of grapes) on the reverse.

I've read, on Xian websites, that this showed Pilate was sending a message about his sensitivity to Jewish religious feelings. I personally think he was sending a different message--"We're the Romans and we're in charge now. Don't even THINK of screwing around with us."

(Standard Disclaimer: I'm only an amateur historian, and an atheist to boot.)

[Nikia]

4. That was my point of it

Corporatism is the main culprit of the decline of American values in my opinion. It isn't abortion, gay marriage, or the absence of religion in the classroom. Bush policies favor large corporations and their values, which are immoral in my opinion.

[secedeeconomically]

2. What’s you haven pointed out is the downside

of Capitalism. Its no a perfect system, but it has nothing to do with morality. A lack of morality isn't the problem with this country, because morality is very subjective. The problem is with people voting for a moral change to there own financial determent.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

7. I see the posters point and it goes along with yours.

Capitalism is inherently immoral and breeds immoral behavior.

[secedeeconomically]

12. No capitalism is a concept, it’s the execution by some people

that’s immoral. Just as there was immoral execution of Communism, or socialism. At the end of the day, people are people and basically we are all selfish to certain extent. It’s the extend that we are selfish which is a gauge of our morality.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

16. Doesn't it depend on the purpose of the concept?

One could argue that the basic purpose of Capitalism is to ensure wealth to some, and poverty to many.

Another, possibly more naive person, might say that the purpose is to ensure absolute economic freedom.

[secedeeconomically]

20. True wealth will always be held by the few, that’s a basic fact.

This BS that they teach you that everyone can be a millionaire is garbage. In every social system, there has to be a lower, middle and upper class. No society can function if everyone is wealthy and jetting off to the south of France on the weekends. Capitalism is built on the notion that if you work hard enough and are able to convince others to toil for your success, you too will "Make it". Reality is that most people no matter how hard they work will never make it. But a few will, and they inspire the rest. Most millionaires I know are jerks. The old saying that nice guys finish last is mostly true.

[purduejake]

8. Well capitalism can work better than this.

It has before under Clinton.

[secedeeconomically]

14. Who got really rich? Think about it?

[unpossibles]

9. morality is subjective

but what I see this as is the worship of greed. When money is more important than anything or anyone else, we are heading for disaster.

I often ask people who are socially liberal, yet voted for Bush because of financial reasons (which in itself is funny) if they would poop in their own living rooms for $20 or if they would punch a stranger for $10. In my opinion, it's the same thing.

It's not just capitalism either - greed and corruption happen under every system.

[secedeeconomically]

13. I don’t get your analogy, can you elaborate?

[unpossibles]

23. sure.. sorry

I guess what I am trying to say is that people who vote for someone who (1) potentially increases their pocket cash yet (2) stands for things they themselves do not believe in are being greedy.

In other words, I know a couple of people who are pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, yet voted for Bush based on economic reasons (which alone I do not understand).

The analogy is would you do something you consider vile or wrong for money? If not, then why support someone else who will?

[jdj]

17. I call it bitchery.

For lack of a better word.

There is so little discussion about his human tendency, yet unchecked it ruins culture and culture and country after country.

That grouping to swindle people as a way of life and the bonding (male and otherwise) that allows groups to justify keeping most of the goods while the workers they exploit just make it by.

Rebels left England because of monarchy and instead they created a hierarchy of horatio alger type everymen. White guys here are the bitches of the corporateers and if you aren't then you are out of the circle and a personal failure. There is shame in being a white guy not loyal to the inner circle of chosen white guys, of refusing to be the head bitch Bush's butt-boy. For them it's either be someone's bitch or be bf'ed (they think, but it's 'and' instead of 'or').

It is so strange how this country honors individualism yet white men are so wimpy and scared to stand alone in the "give me liberty or give me death" fashion like our forebears. We need a new image to aspire to, the one where common men rebel against a king is archaic and no longer relevant. We need one where common men rebel against their seducers, the ones like Bush who pretent to BE them, but who really aim to ENSLAVE them.

[Nikia]

11. But what we have is not true Capitalism

We have a system that gives an organization called a corporation certain rights. Previously, corporations were supposed to operate for the benefit of society or their charters could be revoked. Sometime after the Civil War, corporations were given the same rights as human people without some of the drawbacks such as natural death, imprisionment for crimes, or the death penalty. Corporations no longer had to serve society, only profit.
Currently, corporations give money to influence givernment officials. They threaten or bribe local officials to give them benefits by promising to locate in their community or threatening to leave if they are already there. They ask for special privleges as and laxening of certain regulations. Government operations operate with the assumption that the Corpartion is good and should be supported by being given tax breaks and privleges to help the economy. World governments lead by the United States have promoted free trade so coporations are free to become international citizens bound by even fewer regulations.
Sometimes I do wonder if true lasseiz-faire capitalism where there would be no corporate personhood, no preference of some businesses over others, and real criminal penalties for businesses breaking the law would be better than what we have now.

[secedeeconomically]

18. I agree completely

Capitalism in theory is a good thing I believe. But just like every idea, it needs certain check and balances. What’s happening today is Corporations are basically serf regulated. They write the rules that they operate in. That’s a recipe for disaster. I believe that CEO's and board members need to be held not just financially liable for the criminal activities of the corporation but criminally as well.

[Anakin Skywalker]

15. Point Well Taken.

I have been throwing the "moral values" glove at Rethugs and Freep@$$es for a while now. I ask them what is so moral about outsourcing and betraying your fellow Americans. "Moral" is subjective to them.

[razoroccam]

19. Religious right

You sound a lot like Ralph Nader

[Bridget Burke]

24. Please explain.

There is a Religious Right. And what does Ralph Nader have to do with it?