Several years ago, when I was practicing the craft of journalism in a small town, a co-worker who was disappointed with the community's exceedingly shallow dating pool planned a trip to Nevada. His primary purpose was the opportunity to patronize one of that state’s legalized brothels. Several of us at the office asked him why he would be willing to spend a significant percentage of his biweekly paycheck on a sexual encounter.

"You always pay for it," he responded with the world-weary cynical air of one who has picked up the tab on dinner and a movie one time too many.

We've all heard of the moral majority and values voters. Somehow, somewhere we forgot that we are all value voters and that we all have a stake in morality. The conservative movement shrivelled a nation’s soul ending and breaking countless lives. While it might seem rather abstract to identify as the worst sin committed I feel that vast and possibly lasting damage has been done by the Republican abuse of the concept of morality. The destruction and perversion of concepts and the language that represents them takes away our ability to think like newspeak.

If a third world nation is bombed that is a moral issue. If the world fries because of greed that is a moral issue. If a nation starves and goes sick because of an embargo that is a moral issue. If people go hungry, if people have broken souls, if become objectified cogs in a system these are a moral issues. All the big issues of government are moral issues. Because morality has become about sex and culture conservatives can appeal to "values voters" with impunity even while they lie, steal and pervert the processes of democracy. I feel that an adulterated concept of morality is one of the reasons why we are so fucked up right now.

Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Revd Rowan Williams, has denounced U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and stated that they have lost the moral high ground since 9/11.
See Greg Peters post on this issue here.

and read my take below:

There has been a lot of debate on Dkos lately regarding religion and what role, if any, it should have in politics or government.  Most seemingly agreed that religion and politics are a dangerous mix, as many genocidal wars have been launched in the name of religion, and that there should be a separation of religion and state.  Another conclusion that could be drawn by many is that religious discussions always seem to evoke tremendous emotional comments and responses.

A recent religious debate touched on many things, such as what is the definition of a Christian, and ultimately raised an important question.  What is moral and who gets to decide what that means?   Discussion, including poll follows after the break.  

Sometimes I can't believe that I am truly reading the words of people who claim to support America.  Alexander Hamilton had it right - "If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." How many people have actually read the Constitution? How can you claim that your actions are to uphold the Constitution, when you have never read, or truly understood its meaning? I know some of you are thinking, 'does the Constitution really have an objective meaning?' The answer is most certainly yes; read anything Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, or even Washington had to say about the matter, and you will understand that they had a specific purpose in mind for our Constitution and our country.

This is part two of my essay on conservative principles. Aloysha, after reading part one, refered me to a 2004 essay by Philip Agre on the same subject and I recommend this as another thoughtful approach that uses most of the same background.

An interesting thing happened as I did my research on conservative principles: George Will came up as being the most reasonable of the bunch and in many places I use excerpts from his essays as a foil to the more extreme conservaives. It is Will who stagtes plainly that Captialism Destroys Tradition.

As the reader will see, conservativism is actually an unstable alliance between conflicting principles, which we should be able to easily shred in debate over first principles.

This is my first Diary Entry, and I hope you find it to be worthwhile reading.  I have been disturbed by the direction of this country for some time, and have been doing lots of reading and thinking lately. You see, I grew up in the liberal bastion of Northern California, became more moderate as I became an adult and had some career success, and now that we've gone through a 6-year tragedy known as the Bush administration, I have returned somewhat to my liberal roots.  Now, after all the reading and all the thinking, I have something to say....

(cross-posted @ Goodtithings.com and FreedomDemocrats.com)

I’m not exactly sure how to write about this. Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority and seminal leader of a group of people I think are completely out of touch with reality died today in his office at Liberty University. Of course, any death is met with a touch of sadness, as he is sure to have family and friends who loved him dearly. And on that note–a purely humanistic one–I give them my condolences.

I am not torn over whether his death is sad in that sense. I am torn over how to write about his legacy, since I am completely opposed to his conception of the "good"–that is, what is best for America and humans generally.

In full disclosure, I work for the Unitarian Universalist Association -- a liberal, non-creedal denomination, serving more than 1,000 independent congregations.

The UUA's president, Rev. William Sinkford, wrote a letter last week to each member of the US Congress, asking they take an accounting of our moral debts from the Iraq War -- both what we have done (in terms of lives lost, destruction wreaked and money squandered) and what we failed to do with those same resources.

The data in the Moral Balance Sheet was completely researched in-house, but we encourage people to pass the information along.

Sinkford's letter and "Moral Balance Sheet" document below the fold

All right, so this was a couple years ago.  But I think Wes Clark is the only candidate to have made the cover of a gay magazine, and probably the only general to have that honor, as well.  

The cover shot is of The Advocate, February 3, 2004.  Unlike Hillary and Obama, Clark isn't afraid to be a progressive.

I was afraid Jerry Baby would fade away in some Virginia Twilight Home For The Viciously Obese.  I needn't have worried.  Jerry ("Did I say Ellen DeGenerate?  Gosh, a slip of the tongue, I swear on this Bible") Falwell has grabbed onto scummy Newt the way Norma Desmond got her hooks into Joe Gillis in "Sunset Blvd."

The pre-world war two conservatives were elitist, individualistic isolationists. They had great contempt for the masses. Once the masses became the middle class this became untenable and conservatives had to acquiesce to the revealed reality that the masses weren't really specifically created by God to do mankind's heavy lifting. The "most important books" section on the"Intellectual Conservative" website has some interesting narratives about this sea change in conservatism.

The "new conservatives" came to the fore after World War Two and found common cause in the assertion that traditional morality had been declining, at least during the 20th century, and America needed to return to its former moral ways. Russell Kirk re-introduced Edmund Burke to those with a conservative bent.

William Buckley began to publish the "National Review," putting together a hodge podge staff of social misfits. The Intellectual Conservative also traces Buckley's journey from Traditionalism to NeoCon.

I'll bet that 90% of the people who think of themselves as conservative don't know the principles upon which conservatism is founded.

For most conservatives the one fundamental belief is in the existence of an objective and transcendental moral code.

That's fine, but conservatives immediately plunge into some doubt about how, exactly, mere humans can apprehend this transcendental moral code.

Some conservatives say that we apprehend it entirely through revelation; others say through reason; and others says through the distillation of thousands of years of experience.

It's upon foundations such as this that conservatives develop their approach to secular problems. My synopsis of the intellectual foundations of conservatism appear below,

I'm still young and stupid, so forgive my ignorance if this is all common knowledge, and feel free to educate me in the finer points of moral philosophy.  That being said, I've recently decided that every moral system, every ethical line of thought, is born from the idea that we want humanity to survive.  Even if there is some prejudice, some hate for a certain part of humanity, everyone who develops a sense of right and wrong develops it thinking that it will be better for people.  So someone can sacrifice themselves for the lives of others even though it obviously goes against their personal interests.

I'm going somewhere political with this i promise.  Kant said that it's not enough to be moral or ethical, that there has to be some value behind those morals to make someone behave in a good way.  This meant religion for the vast majority, or at the least a belief in a higher power of some kind, and that belief was not a bad thing if it brought about morality.  

The home of brave is what America used to be called.  Many think the reference to 'brave' is a reference to our physical courage, our brawn, our mighty superiority.

No. It is a reference to our moral courage.  Our moral toughness.   Our moral bravery.

Being moral is not a reference to religious belief.  It is a reference to right and wrong, a concept that exists among those who have faith and those who do not.  

My favorite writer, Mark Twain, remarked "it is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare."

I started out writing a comment to Kos's excellent post, There's a reason this is a long-term movement.  I had been chewing over the import of the top three diaries from the morning as I ate my lunch.  It struck me that there is a huge meta-issue that has not been adequately discussed.  What if the fear on the part of Congressional Democrats to take a principled, unequivocal stand against torture is the chink in the armor of a Democratic landslide?  What if this failure, in the final days of September, is the real "October surprise"?

More below the fold ...

A simple poll on the Iraq War.

Human beings are not moved by facts. This is the closest thing to a true fact that you will ever encounter in your human existence. The facts, ma'am, just the facts are just too boring, too inconvenient, too depressing, too...factual--or as Mr. Colbert may already have said (Dr. Omed doesn't have cable)--too facty.

We, as a people, as an allegedly sentient species, don't want too much factiness. We do not want to be told the facts; we want to be told a story, a story with a happy ending; or at least a story with a good moral. I don't blame us; the facts are hard. We want some factric softener added to the wash, so our thoughts about them will come out fuzzy and warm. "God" is our favorite brand of softener when it comes to the really hard facts. God comes in many brands, and each brand claims unique and exclusive features and offers periodic enhancements to keep the devotion of its customers, but mostly what we want is to make those cold, hard facts fuzzy and warm.