To respond to StevenNick99: I was struck by your quotation, which came from Barry Goldwater. I agree. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. We must be vigilant to defend that one quality that makes a society a great one. But the kind of extremism you advocate, extremism in defense of oppressive social constraint, is no virtue. Our Constitution contains the prohibition that the government make an establishment of religion. Yet time and time again, lawmakers harp upon Judeo-Christian values as a legitimate source of law in a Republic. This mustn't be. When you exult Judeo-Christian ethics, you indicate a preference for a system of ethics over the others. Many people find Judeo-Christian ethics to be unreasonable and offensive, because they are often rigid and inapplicable in a more complex modern society. To avoid such controversies over arcane doctrine, secularism would be an acceptable alternative grounded in right reason. When a government says that abortion should be a criminal act, children in schools shall pray, and people will be treated unequally because they are attracted to people of the same gender, they are using an argument rooted in belief. Justify it? It can't be done, because precepts of this nature are rooted in a bias towards a particular system. Thought simply isn't involved. But under a secular spirit of the law, one can examine the complex interests of all parties, weigh them against all the others, and announce an appropriate balance. To say we Democrats don't understand values is offensive. We understand different moral standards and we are not hidebound by the old. We believe and have the great good graces to say that you Republicans have values. We might also believe that your intentions aren't firmly planted in malice. But your actions, which seem to be children of manifest inequality and vengeance, just won't meet the needs of a pluralistic society. Continue to fight for Israel and unacceptance if you wish, but it is beyond a doubt that history shall prove you wrong.
First, you operate from a misunderstanding of the first amendment if you think that this country's current secularism is anything close to what the founders intended. The only prohibition included in the first amendment regarding religion is one against an official federal religion. It in no way prohibits individual states from declaring an official denomination or religion. Now, I'm not advocating that any state should declare an official religion, but you can't use the Constitution of the United States of America as evidence supporting your secularist view of American society.
As far as your charge that in extolling the virtues of Judeo-Christian philosophy I "indicate a preference for a system of ethics over the others." You are quite right in that charge.
Ideas are not all equal. If all ideas, all philosophies carry equal weight, who can pass judgment on any action? Who can justify the law, and the act of punishing the offenders of that law, if all ideas and, consequently, all actions, carry equal weight. You cannot logically tell me that I am wrong in insisting upon the supremecy of Jedeo-Christian ethics if all value systems carry equal weight. Is liberalism "better" than conservatism? If not, how can you logically argue in favor of voting for a Democrat over a Republican? We all pass judgment on ideas, on value systems, and systems of government whether we like to admit it or not. You have judged Judeo-Christian values and found them lacking. So be it, but don't produce some ridiculously inconsistent argument as to why I'm wrong for defending those values.
Without God there can be no morality; Without morality there can be no law; Without law, there can be no order. We find ourselves in such a contradiction: Without morality (all those pesky things that "ought" to be), there can be no rationale for an egalitarian, post-modern "Not good, not bad, just different" philosophy. And yet, what such a philosophy proposes is, not just the end to "out dated" ideas of morality, but alsoan end to the very reason for its existence.
You can say all you want about Christianity or about generic Judeo-Christian values, but please, have some kind of coherent philosophy.
