Reply #9: We're in closer agreement than you may know [View All]

[me b zola]

...or maybe not, let's give her a go.

Of course government is based on values, and we all have them and it defines how we live our lives. The thing is, I believe that almost universally, people share the same values regardless of what religion they practice or if they believe in a creator or not.

We want (need) safety & security--that we are physically safe from threats, that we have the ability to provide for our families, that we have safe shelter, that we have access to medical care, that our social security (we've had to come to accept that our pensions are now in the bonus packages of CEO's) will be there when we get old so that we have a little something to try to get by on. We all value a safe/healthy enviroment so that we may live a long, healthy life.

We all value family--there are many forms of family but we all value family, we all value those bonds that tie us to a small group of people who care for each other and depend upon each other.

We all value education.

I could go on, but you get the point. Many people believe that it is their religion that instructs them to have values that are seperate or somehow different than people without religion. I know a few athiests, and they are fine people who are not murderers, thieves, or in any other way lacking the same values that I imagine you hold. So values, per se, are not bad things at all---it is just when someone wants to impose their religious teachings on others that the others begin to lose their rights.

"Where religious values go wrong is when they attempt to undermine official church-state separation, such as having God in the pledge, on the money, or as a big slab of ten commandments granite in a public courthouse."

I agree. It's just that when you hear a politician talking about values it has always been(up until recently when Dean began explaining a deeper meaning of values) code for their religous beliefs--they believe that it is wrong for them to do something, therefore you can't either.


I did not mean to suggest that a politician would be forbidden to speak about religion, but do you really think that they would feel the need to pander if the zealots were no longer among their voting constituents? I think that politicians would be forced to speak more about the issues and less about catch phrases. It would be more likely that in my senerio the voters who remained would be inclined to vote on the real issues and not be caught up in voting for a candidate or a local measure because their preacher said that God would be angry (guilt, intimidation, fear) if they didn't vote "correctly".


Yes, I think we are pretty close to agreeing on the details, even if you don't agree with my premise :)