What Americans Find Morally Acceptable
Gallup has an interesting poll up. They went through a bunch of topics and asked people if they thought each thing was "morally acceptable" or not. They ranked the issues in terms of the difference in percentage of Americans who said something was morally acceptable and those who said it was not.
Here is a link to their graphic:
Gallup summarizes:
I'm not sure I'd agree with them that assisted suicide is "dividing Americans." What they mean is that about the same number of people think it is acceptable and not-acceptable. But when was the last time you lost a friend over that issue? Me either. It doesn't exactly divide us.
Now this one is interesting, they presented a few of the questions by political view:
I was astounded when Bristol Palin announced she was pregnant, and the Republicans were gleeful and supportive. They loved the fact that she was going to have a baby -- but here they are saying they disapprove of that. What's up with that? Let me guess. When you say "baby out of wedlock," I think the average Republican is picturing a poor single mother, in particular a black or Hispanic mother. If you asked them if Bristol Palin -- a well-to-do white girl -- was immoral, I don't think they would be quite so judgmental.
Interesting, they are opposed to aborting and they are opposed to having the baby. And in my experience, the same ones are opposed to contraception -- you remember the resistance the school district ran into when they tried to teach tenth graders how to use a condom.
Republicans also opposed physician-assisted suicide, which is a little puzzling. You would expect them to support an individual's personal choice to terminate his or her own life. Of course you knew they opposed abortion, which is a wedge issue for the GOP and clearly divides them from Democrats and Independents.
Here is an interesting survey comment:
Somehow including the possibility that a woman would have multiple husbands made polygamy even more unacceptable.
Seems to me that rating the morality and immorality of things serves several purposes. Primarily morality is justified as a guideline for deciding what behaviors to engage in, whenopportunity temptation comes up. But we know that the proportion of people who do of many of these things exceeds the proportion who find them acceptable, so morality is obviously not entirely successful at preventing bad behavior. Morality might make a person feel bad after they have done something, maybe it's me but I don't see how that adds value to life, in itself. Morality also allows us to judge others, and this is not a trivial aspect of it.
Some of the rankings on the Gallup list are a little surprising -- most people find morally acceptable such things as single mothers having babies, people buying and wearing fur, gay and lesbian relations, premarital sex, medical research with stem cells, gambling, divorce, the death penalty. In those ways, Americans seem pretty tolerant and nonjudgmental. Most people agree that extramarital affairs, pornography, polygamy, suicide, and -- surprisingly -- cloning humans and animals are morally wrong, and not acceptable. Doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, not so clear, about fifty-fifty.
Here is a link to their graphic:
Gallup summarizes:
Americans are in broadest agreement about what behaviors are morally wrong. At least 8 in 10 U.S. adults interviewed in the May 5-8 survey say this about extramarital affairs, polygamy, cloning humans, and suicide. At least 6 in 10 say pornography and cloning animals are each morally wrong.
Widest agreement about what is morally acceptable, ranging from 60% to 69%, is found for divorce, the death penalty, gambling, embryonic stem cell research, and premarital sex. Also, 55% or better say medical testing on animals, gay/lesbian relations, and the use of animal fur for clothing are each acceptable.
The three most controversial issues -- doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, and out-of-wedlock births -- are the ones on which fewer than 15 points separate the percentage considering the issue morally acceptable from the percentage considering it morally wrong. Attitudes on each have been fairly stable in recent years. Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Moral Issue Dividing Americans Most
I'm not sure I'd agree with them that assisted suicide is "dividing Americans." What they mean is that about the same number of people think it is acceptable and not-acceptable. But when was the last time you lost a friend over that issue? Me either. It doesn't exactly divide us.
Now this one is interesting, they presented a few of the questions by political view:
I was astounded when Bristol Palin announced she was pregnant, and the Republicans were gleeful and supportive. They loved the fact that she was going to have a baby -- but here they are saying they disapprove of that. What's up with that? Let me guess. When you say "baby out of wedlock," I think the average Republican is picturing a poor single mother, in particular a black or Hispanic mother. If you asked them if Bristol Palin -- a well-to-do white girl -- was immoral, I don't think they would be quite so judgmental.
Interesting, they are opposed to aborting and they are opposed to having the baby. And in my experience, the same ones are opposed to contraception -- you remember the resistance the school district ran into when they tried to teach tenth graders how to use a condom.
Republicans also opposed physician-assisted suicide, which is a little puzzling. You would expect them to support an individual's personal choice to terminate his or her own life. Of course you knew they opposed abortion, which is a wedge issue for the GOP and clearly divides them from Democrats and Independents.
Here is an interesting survey comment:
Today's results are generally similar to those from 2010 for most issues. The only significant difference is a slight increase in the percentage viewing polygamy as morally acceptable, rising to 11% from 7%. However, this could reflect a change in wording this year. From 2003 through 2010, Gallup's question about polygamy described it as the practice of a husband having more than one wife at the same time. This year, the phrasing was gender neutral, describing it as a married person having more than one spouse at the same time.
Somehow including the possibility that a woman would have multiple husbands made polygamy even more unacceptable.
Seems to me that rating the morality and immorality of things serves several purposes. Primarily morality is justified as a guideline for deciding what behaviors to engage in, when
Some of the rankings on the Gallup list are a little surprising -- most people find morally acceptable such things as single mothers having babies, people buying and wearing fur, gay and lesbian relations, premarital sex, medical research with stem cells, gambling, divorce, the death penalty. In those ways, Americans seem pretty tolerant and nonjudgmental. Most people agree that extramarital affairs, pornography, polygamy, suicide, and -- surprisingly -- cloning humans and animals are morally wrong, and not acceptable. Doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, not so clear, about fifty-fifty.
posted by JimK at 10:51 AM
24 Comments:
"I was astounded when Bristol Palin announced she was pregnant, and the Republicans were gleeful and supportive. They loved the fact that she was going to have a baby -- but here they are saying they disapprove of that. What's up with that?"
what's up is that they believe in life and rejoice when an unmarried woman decides to keep the child rather than kill it
you'll find pro-family groups assisting and supporting single mothers everywhere across the nation
"we know that the proportion of people who do of many of these things exceeds the proportion who find them acceptable, so morality is obviously not entirely successful at preventing bad behavior"
the other interesting thing?
people who think homosexuality is acceptable, according to polls, and yet how few really find it acceptable within their circle of friends and family
wassup with that?
maybe the polls are goosed
"Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News."
Regarding Bristol Palin...
If asked, most parents would say they do not want their teenaged children to have a child. So, if you poll people, they'll say it's not something they'd approve of.
However, if the pregnancy does occur, what's done is done and all you can do is to celebrate a new life.
Sort of like...if you ask people whether they want a gallon of milk to be spilled on their floor, they'll say "no." However, if the milk is spilled, they're not going to cry over it.
False equivalence, Anon. Somebody may think something is moral and not do it -- for instance, I believe it is moral to eat vegemite, but I don't do it. Of course it is morally acceptable to "be gay," why wouldn't it be? My not being gay, and most of my friends not being gay, has nothing to do with it.
The opposite is not true. People who do things they claim are morally unacceptable are hypocrites.
"Of course it is morally acceptable to "be gay," why wouldn't it be?"
Because it isn't the plan of the Creator for humanity.
As much as I like Lady Gaga's tune, no one was, in fact, born that way.
For various reasons, they are rejecting their true nature.
If you ask a parent whether he thinks it's morally acceptable for his teenaged daughter to get pregnant, he may say "no."
That doesn't mean that the teenaged daughter thinks it's morally wrong, so if the pregnancy occurs, the parent (the one polled) is not being a hypocrite.
A loving grandparent would do nothing less than to celebrate the life of a grandchild, once the pregnancy occurs.
As Sarah Palin's bus tour is in full swing, it appears that the 2012 Presidential race has begun to heat up.
Today, we introduce a new feature to TTF readers. From now until election day in November 2012, we will feature a daily statistic demonstrating that Obama will not be re-elected.
Did you know that if Obama is re-elected, it will be the first time we've had three consecutive two-term Presidents since Jefferson, Madison and Monroe?
How many think he's doing such a great job that he'll buck the trend?
If gayness is not the Creator's plan, why does He create so many gay people?
Maybe God creates so many gay people as a test of faith. Can you do unto others including all of His creations as you would have them do unto you?
If you are not able to do that, it speaks to your lack of compassion for all of God's creations.
Why isn't lying on the list?
"Bachmann is a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject. For example, she's asserted, "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design."
Zack has now challenged Bachmann on her claims. Using a poker analogy and the huge number of scientists who have endorsed evolution, in general, and his repeal effort, in particular, Zack has written, "Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your 'hundreds' of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists."
Given the strength of the hand he has, he doesn't stop there.
"For the next hand, I raise you 43 Nobel Laureate scientists. That's right: 43 Nobel Laureate scientists have endorsed our effort to repeal Louisiana's creationism law. ... Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If you want to be taken seriously by voters while you run for President, back up your claims with facts. Can you match 43 Nobel Laureates, or do you fold?"
It would be difficult for someone with a sincere interest in science education not to take Zack Kopplin's challenge seriously. Having said that, I fully expect that Michele Bachmann will completely ignore Zack, the voice of the scientific community, the combined pleas of 43 Nobel scientists and thousands of religious leaders.
All of this reminds me of a Sunday afternoon a couple of years ago when I was in Lambeau Field with my two sons watching the Packers play the Bears. After a controversial and costly penalty was called against the Packers, the referee began to give a convoluted explanation of his ruling. The entire crowd of 73,000 plus was completely silent while the odd explanation was being delivered over the PA system. Then, all of a sudden, one fan with a booming voice that could be heard throughout the entire stadium shouted, "Stop making sh*t up!"
Representative Bachmann, I urge you to pay attention to that fan."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/michele-bachmans-stance-o_b_868771.html?ncid=wsc-huffpost-cards-headline
"If gayness is not the Creator's plan, why does He create so many gay people?"
who would say something so stupid?
hey, if murder was not the Creator's plan, why did he create so many angry people?
let's read Romans 1:18-28 for some clarification:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done."
I don't see any indication that anyone was born that way.
And there is no empirical reason to believe so either.
day two in our countdown to the non-election of Barackus Obama:
"WASHINGTON -- In a meeting with House Democrats on Thursday, President Obama stressed that his administration would draw a firm line on taxes and revenues both in the buildup to the 2012 elections.
According to multiple meeting attendees, the president reiterated on several occasions that a deal to raise the country's debt ceiling would include revenue increases, even as Republican lawmakers insist that such a deal should be restricted to spending cuts and entitlement reforms.
"I've been very clear about revenues as a part of a balanced package, and I will continue to be," said Obama.
Underscoring his commitment, Obama noted taxes would be a defining area of contrast with Republicans on the campaign trail. He insisted that he would not compromise again on his position that the tax rates be raised to Clinton-era levels."
Anonymous ignores the rest of the passage, Romans 1:29 to 2:4, in which St. Paul goes on to tell the Roman christians to mind their own business, stop whining about what the pagans do, and pay attention to the sins within their own community.
People who quote Romans 1:28 in opposition to queer people put the lie to scriptural objections: they clearly aren't reading the bible, just misquoting to justify their own preconceived notions.
Grab a bible, read the whole passage, you'll see what I mean.
"Bachmann is a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design,"
ID isn't anti-intellectual. It was actually first postulated in the last 70s by an atheist scientist working behind the Iron Curtain.
"she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject"
could you name, uh, one?
"For example, she's asserted, "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design.""
well, that isn't about ID itself but, instead, who supports it
besides, she's right
"Zack has now challenged Bachmann on her claims. Using a poker analogy and the huge number of scientists who have endorsed evolution, in general, and his repeal effort, in particular, Zack has written, "Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your 'hundreds' of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists.""
not that knowledge and understanding is a democratic process but virtually every significant new theory has been initially rejected by most scientists, historically
"Given the strength of the hand he has, he doesn't stop there."
if that constituted a strong hand, we would never make any progress
scientific theories aren't validated by vote counts
"43 Nobel Laureate scientists have endorsed our effort to repeal Louisiana's creationism law."
that's all they could get?
Nobel laureates apparently aren't very compelled by this topic
"It would be difficult for someone with a sincere interest in science education not to take Zack Kopplin's challenge seriously."
really?
why?
"Having said that, I fully expect that Michele Bachmann will completely ignore Zack, the voice of the scientific community"
I thought he was a high school student hoping to get some brownie points with the secular press
I had no idea he was the voice of the scientific community
Who are these Nobel Laureates who endorse "intelligent design?" Someone named Pittman compiled a list in 2007. He came up with 3.75 (0.5 for a bookjacket endorsement, and 0.25 for Einstein of all people).
I couldn't link to it. You can google "Nobel Intelligent Design" for the Word document.
The only cogent argument listed was one for the anthropocentric universe, that the constraints on the universe that allow for the development of human intelligence are so specific that it must have been intended by a creator. I would argue for the beetle-o-centric universe, since the constraints on the universe allowing for the development of beetles are so specific that they must have been intended by a creator. Also the "Moons of Saturn"-centric universe works. It's essentially the argument that what exists must exist, because it exists.
The Mistake of 2010
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a blog post about the “mistake of 1937,” the premature fiscal and monetary pullback that aborted an ongoing economic recovery and prolonged the Great Depression. As Gauti Eggertsson, the post’s author (with whom I have done research) points out, economic conditions today — with output growing, some prices rising, but unemployment still very high — bear a strong resemblance to those in 1936-37. So are modern policy makers going to make the same mistake?
Mr. Eggertsson says no, that economists now know better. But I disagree. In fact, in important ways we have already repeated the mistake of 1937. Call it the mistake of 2010: a “pivot” away from jobs to other concerns, whose wrongheadedness has been highlighted by recent economic data.
To be sure, things could be worse — and there’s a strong chance that they will, indeed, get worse.
Back when the original 2009 Obama stimulus was enacted, some of us warned that it was both too small and too short-lived. In particular, the effects of the stimulus would start fading out in 2010 — and given the fact that financial crises are usually followed by prolonged slumps, it was unlikely that the economy would have a vigorous self-sustaining recovery under way by then.
By the beginning of 2010, it was already obvious that these concerns had been justified. Yet somehow an overwhelming consensus emerged among policy makers and pundits that nothing more should be done to create jobs, that, on the contrary, there should be a turn toward fiscal austerity.
This consensus was fed by scare stories about an imminent loss of market confidence in U.S. debt. Every uptick in interest rates was interpreted as a sign that the “bond vigilantes” were on the attack, and this interpretation was often reported as a fact, not as a dubious hypothesis.
For example, in March 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Debt Fears Send Rates Up,” reporting that long-term U.S. interest rates had risen and asserting — without offering any evidence — that this rise, to about 3.9 percent, reflected concerns about the budget deficit. In reality, it probably reflected several months of decent jobs numbers, which temporarily raised optimism about recovery.
But never mind. Somehow it became conventional wisdom that the deficit, not unemployment, was Public Enemy No. 1 — a conventional wisdom both reflected in and reinforced by a dramatic shift in news coverage away from unemployment and toward deficit concerns. Job creation effectively dropped off the agenda.
So, here we are, in the middle of 2011. How are things going?
Well, the bond vigilantes continue to exist only in the deficit hawks’ imagination. Long-term interest rates have fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about the economy; a recent spate of bad news has sent them down to about 3 percent, not far from historic lows.
And the news has, indeed, been bad. As the stimulus has faded out, so have hopes of strong economic recovery. Yes, there has been some job creation — but at a pace barely keeping up with population growth. The percentage of American adults with jobs, which plunged between 2007 and 2009, has barely budged since then. And the latest numbers suggest that even this modest, inadequate job growth is sputtering out.
So, as I said, we have already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937, withdrawing fiscal support much too early and perpetuating high unemployment.
Yet worse things may soon happen.
On the fiscal side, Republicans are demanding immediate spending cuts as the price of raising the debt limit and avoiding a U.S. default. If this blackmail succeeds, it will put a further drag on an already weak economy.
Meanwhile, a loud chorus is demanding that the Fed and its counterparts abroad raise interest rates to head off an alleged inflationary threat. As the New York Fed article points out, the rise in consumer price inflation over the past few months — which is already showing signs of tailing off — reflected temporary factors, and underlying inflation remains low. And smart economists like Mr. Eggerstsson understand this. But the European Central Bank is already raising rates, and the Fed is under pressure to do the same. Further attempts to help the economy expand seem out of the question.
So the mistake of 2010 may yet be followed by an even bigger mistake. Even if that doesn’t happen, however, the fact is that the policy response to the crisis was and remains vastly inadequate.
Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it; we did, and we are. What we’re experiencing may not be a full replay of the Great Depression, but that’s little consolation for the millions of American families suffering from a slump that just goes on and on.
To the unknown so-called "Christian" Anonymous:
How can you stand being in the same room with yourself? Your sanctimoniousness and judgmental opinions will condemn you in the eyes of your "God.
"Because it isn't the plan of the Creator for humanity." Depends on who you think is your creator and how you interpret "His" word. Those who deign to speak for this "creator" are ignoring their Bible.
If you are going to cite just those Biblical injunctions that fit in with your view of the world and those who inhabit it without making reference to those injunctions that condemn you, you are a hypocrite. e.g.:
Mat 7:1-2 (Phi) "Don't criticize people, and you will not be criticized. For you will be judged by the way you criticize others, and the measure you give will be the measure you receive."
Rom 14:1,4-5,10,12-13 (NIV) "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters... Who are you to judge someone else's servant?.. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind... You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat... So then, everyone will give an account of himself to God. Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another..."
Rom 2:1-3 (Phi) "Now if you feel inclined to set yourself up as a judge of those who sin, let me assure you, whoever you are, that you are in no position to do so. For at whatever point you condemn others you automatically condemn yourself, since you, the judge, commit the same sins. God's judgment, we know, is utterly impartial in its action against such evil-doers. What makes you think that you, who so readily judge the sins of others, can consider yourselves beyond the judgment of God?"
"Depends on who you think is your creator"
actually, it doesn't
everyone knows who the Creator is
"and how you interpret "His" word."
the verse I cited wasn't subject to alot of interpretation- it was perspicuous
remember what Satan said to Eve in the Garden?
Genesis 3:1-
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”"
he was saying that what Eve knew to be plainly true was open to interpretation
those who say simple self-evident truths in Scripture are open to "interpretation" are using a technique of the devil
"Those who deign to speak for this "creator" are ignoring their Bible."
actually, I quoted from it directly
"If you are going to cite just those Biblical injunctions that fit in with your view of the world and those who inhabit it without making reference to those injunctions that condemn you, you are a hypocrite."
not really
my view of the world is that the biblical viewpoint solves all of life's problems
"Mat 7:1-2 (Phi) "Don't criticize people, and you will not be criticized. For you will be judged by the way you criticize others, and the measure you give will be the measure you receive.""
didn't criticize or judge anybody
someone brought up the topic os morality and I was providing the biblical perspective about what is right and wrong
I didn't make it up- or just how well any individual has measured up to the biblical standard, although none of us has.
Was Eve being judgmental when she responded to Satan? in Genesis 3:2,3-
"The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”"
"Rom 14:1,4-5,10,12-13 (NIV) "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters... Who are you to judge someone else's servant?.. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind... You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat... So then, everyone will give an account of himself to God. Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another...""
I don't judge anyone, just behavior itself.
It's between individuals and God whether they are right with God.
We all need to make decisions about what is wrong and right.
It's called life.
"Rom 2:1-3 (Phi) "Now if you feel inclined to set yourself up as a judge of those who sin, let me assure you, whoever you are, that you are in no position to do so. For at whatever point you condemn others you automatically condemn yourself, since you, the judge, commit the same sins. God's judgment, we know, is utterly impartial in its action against such evil-doers. What makes you think that you, who so readily judge the sins of others, can consider yourselves beyond the judgment of God?""
I completely agree with this. You are apparently misinterpretting my words.
"The only cogent argument listed was one for the anthropocentric universe, that the constraints on the universe that allow for the development of human intelligence are so specific that it must have been intended by a creator. I would argue for the beetle-o-centric universe, since the constraints on the universe allowing for the development of beetles are so specific that they must have been intended by a creator. Also the "Moons of Saturn"-centric universe works. It's essentially the argument that what exists must exist, because it exists."
Robert, why do you even bother to embarass yourself by commenting?
It's not that what exists must exist because it exists.
You undervalue the signifigance of intelligent life, perhaps because you resent intelligence.
The universe was clearly designed.
So was life.
Science has no explanation for life.
The problem is that science requires as much faith as religion.
Scientists have spread the myth that life originated spontaneously from some primordial puddle of slush but they have no explanation of how that may have happened nor have they shown that it could.
You just have to take it by faith.
If you believe that God created life, you are at no empirical or rational disdvantage to those who believe the much more fantastical "magic mud" theory.
But there are textbooks across America that imply it is a given.
If religion is not allowed to be taught, why this myth?
Similarly, secular scientists believe consciousness is merely an illusion of electrical activty within the organ in your cranium.
There is no proof of this nor is it rational but these materialists believe we should just take it as given.
But it takes more blind faith to not believe in a soul than it does to accept the obvious.
To not believe in the Creator is an act of the will, not the default setting.
Anonymous, you make almost any discussion impossible. It's a shame, Jim writes a nice blog.
Ayn Rand said "I am against God, I don't approve of religion, it is a sign of psychological weakness, I regard it as evil" when she created a "new code of morality, not based on faith," but on greed.
Watch the video called "Ayn Rand & GOP vs. Jesus" and hear Paul Ryan say:
"Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individuality, and this to me is what matters most."
Helping Granny pay for her food, rent, and medications does not matter to Paul Ryan "most" or even at all. What matters most to him is capitalism and individuality. Ryan prefers Ayn Rand's "new morality" to Jesus's old fashioned morality.
Paul Ryan is wrong. This Judeo-Christian nation should not write and enforce laws based on the anti-religious "new morality" of greed created by Ayn Rand.
"Anonymous, you make almost any discussion impossible."
you've heard of Robert's Rules of Order?
here's Robert's Definition of Discussion:
conversation that reinforces his idiocy
"Helping Granny pay for her food, rent, and medications does not matter to Paul Ryan "most" or even at all."
and by "helping", Beatrice means forcing other people to pay for Granny's expenses
Beatrice "helps" by voting to tax others and sending the proceeds to Granny
"What matters most to him is capitalism and individuality. Ryan prefers Ayn Rand's "new morality" to Jesus's old fashioned morality."
Objectivism and Christianity are, indeed, incompatible.
But so is communism and Christianity.
"Paul Ryan is wrong. This Judeo-Christian nation should not write and enforce laws based on the anti-religious "new morality" of greed created by Ayn Rand."
Intersting Bea is now arguing that this is a Judeo-Christian nation.
Christianity is also opposed to Socialism, but I don't think that will change Beatrice's hatred af resentment of the wealthy.
"Anonymous"
Your superciliousness is becoming boring and puerile!
Do you think anyone who reads this blog takes you seriously? Why not just create your own blog site and moan and groan and pass jusdgement on everyone who does not echo your idiotic comments. You can "write" to your heart's content and your favorite reader (you) will heap the praise on you that you are so obviously seeking.
You are, sir, an obnoxious TROLL.
Where do you get this insane idea, "Anonymous"?
"Christianity is also opposed to Socialism,...)
Is that written somewhere in your cafeteria-selection Book of the Dead?
Exodus 20:15
Thou shall not steal
Post a Comment
<< Home