3/14/2001 -  TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
State Funds Gay-Sex Indoctrination For Teens       Post to Main Thread   Reply to TM

Not only disgusting and scary that such an activity would be sponsored with tax dollars, but very disappointing that a Republican governor would be the host.

It is the support and sponsorship of events and programs such as this, while even thoughts of religious moral content are banned and penalized, that are the nestegg for the behavioral problems of the future.

It deprives parents of the ability to educate their children in the way they see best, it instills indecent behavior in the kids at a very impressionable and irresponsible age and is an absolute abuse of taxpayer dollars.

6/27/2001 -  PKT, San Jose, CA writes ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to PKT

In the late 19th century, so the story goes, it was proposed to close the U.S. Patent Office because everything worth inventing had been invented so the need for a patent office had passed. It was believed civilization had reached its zenith and everything that came afterward would be anti-climactic or just improvements on already existing models. This is called 19th century arrogance, but this attitude is common to every time and place. We think of ourselves as the ultimate in terms of intelligence, knowledge, understanding and behavior. We are fools.

Yesterday’s rules don’t apply to today and today’s rules won’t apply tomorrow. Time and circumstance change everything, hence the “moral relativism” so decried by conservatives has and always will be part of society. Morals, manners and practices change over time and must change or the culture will become stagnant and dead. Does anyone really want to return to a society based on 19th century values and beliefs? Even returning to a 1950s value system wouldn’t work in today’s America.

Every generation defines itself and defines its own reality. Nineteenth century America defined itself as god-fearing, expansionistic, imperialistic and white. In this context social and governmental policies allowed for atrocities and genocide against Native Americans and minorities that we can’t even comprehend today. Men, women and children were not only massacred but also mutilated. A white man could kill a non-white on any pretext and do so without fear of arrest or punishment. All these acts were carried out in the context of a strong Christian society where churchgoing and religious identification were much stronger than today and “moral truth” carried more weight than today. People really did believe in heaven and hell, but were still able to justify violent acts based on “absolute” truths.

Every social institution from marriage to such basic concepts as how we define humanity has changed and evolved over the centuries. There are no absolutes, only acceptance of the social contract for a particular time and place. Conflict comes when two different societies interact and the stronger overcomes the weaker and either through assimilation or intimidation replaces the old structure such as Western society meeting tribal societies. Or, if allowed to, the weaker smaller society can withdraw from the mainstream as Orthodox Jews and Amish have done.

The trouble with William Bennett and other moral absolutists in the culture wars is that they base their whole debate on a narrow interpretation of morality as defined by their version of Western society here and now. Without taking into account other times, other cultures, other beliefs, other interpretations of the same source material, and without looking at our own bloody past their argument is meaningless. For example, it’s fine to say the institution of marriage is in jeopardy but without looking at the total history of marriage and how the institution has evolved any defense of what is perceived as the norm is just an exercise in rhetoric.

It seems to me that much of the culture war argument is based on a Hollywood version of reality a la 1932 to 1960. Films portrayed America as a place where there were no gays, non-whites were happy servants, criminals were always caught, drugs didn’t exist, bad girls rarely survived and adulterers were punished by the last reel. To make matters worse draconian laws that regulated behavior upheld this view. Gays could be sent to prison for life, miscegenation laws dictated whom one could marry, sodomy laws dictated how to behave in bed, Jim Crow laws kept non-whites in servile positions, and many states had laws against adultery.

What is truth? Truth is what the dominant culture decides it is, no more no less. When the culture changes truth changes. Those with divergent views can adapt, withdraw or struggle, as Christians did for several hundred years in Europe until their version dominated. And even the version of Christianity that eventually won was based on interpretations, councils, meetings and compromises that arrived at the “truth,” and that truth was later challenged by the Great Schism and the Reformation.

The bottom line is society is like water and seeks a certain level of balance. The “truth” that can provide shelter, comfort, security and peace for the greatest number will always be the winner.

6/27/2001 -  C.D.M., Evansville, IN replies to PKT 6/27/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to C.D.M.

I'm sorry, but this has to be the most cockamamie liberal tale I've yet read in a post.

And take that as a compliment. I've read crazier stuff, but it's all written by nitwits, which you certainly aren't. It's your obvious intelligence and ability to communicate that worries me, because you buy this stuff.

One could easily take from your denial of established truth in any form beyond what's dictated by fad the assumption that, when youngsters can no longer add, 2+2 can equal anything the majority of the idiots decide it ought to. The last properly educated person on the planet, insisting the answer is "four", will be stoned as an antiquated defender of obsolete notions.

By the same token, though not as obvious as the fingers on your hand, you can insist that adultery, open and normalized homosexuality, having kids without marriage or even love, and coddling criminals is the new "truth" while blaming all of the obvious ills that are directly traceable to these failings on the "vast right-wing conspiracy" (thank you, Hillary).

Humans, while inventive, usually interesting (like yourself) and certainly vibrant, are inherently fallible and predisposed to what feels good short term. To shackle truth to human whim guarantees only one thing ... that it will steadily erode to nothing, and take the human race with it.

6/28/2001 -  PKT, San Jose, CA replies to C.D.M. 6/27/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to PKT

There is a difference between empirical truth and moral truth. Empirical truth is that 2 + 2 will always be 4, rocks will always fall when dropped, and for every action there’s an opposite reaction. Manmade laws can’t repeal natural laws. However, moral truth is a slippery slope that shifts and changes as society changes.

Let’s just take one example, marriage. The only “truth” is that humans tend to form lasting relationships of various types. Over the centuries these relationships have taken different forms and been institutionalized for different reasons. To say that a monogamous, heterosexual union blessed by church and state is the only “moral” form of marriage is to ignore thousands of years of human history and changing behavior. What is normal or moral is determined by the society at large through the self-correcting mechanisms of that society.

Understanding the ambiguous nature of moral truth is by no means an excuse for any kind of behavior. Murder, theft, arson, child endangerment, etc., are forms of behavior that every society tends to discourage. A civilization that condoned rampant murder, for example, wouldn’t exist long because everybody would be dead. But very civilized societies have existed that condoned legal killing in the form of duels and vendettas. Again, the time, place and circumstance determines the level of behavior expected.

It’s hypocritical to say that in the past or the future that the moral compass will always point to the “truth” because that truth is constantly being bent to conform to the situation. Religions and governments in the name of control and power were practicing situational ethics long before the term was coined. It’s an interesting footnote that totalitarian regimes are just as strict in their regulation of personal behavior as the most restrictive religions are. Despots and extreme religionists understand that controlling personal behavior is just one step towards total control of all facets of society. Given the choice between a free-wheeling libertarian lifestyle and a puritanical/Marxist regulated moral truth, I’ll take the freer alternative any time.


7/15/2001 -  C.D.M., Evansville, IL replies to PKT 6/28/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to C.D.M.

Your well-written response may contain more "truth" than you intended, or at least truth of a different slant.

1. If it is a "truth" of marriage that humans tend to form long-term monogamous relationships, then please join us in decrying divorce and single-motherhood, as well as promiscuity in all its many forms. We welcome your support, as our "truth" in this regard is being eroded to nothingness today, at a high cost in tax dollars and society morality (oops).

2. The monogamous, heterosexual relationship, and the repugnance towards homosexual activity, is *supported* by "thousands of years of history" -- largely unchanging in that regard - not the other way around. I'm not unconscious of the fact that some historical societies turned a blind eye to homosexuality, but that is hardly the rule.

3. There is no direct correlation between totalitarianism and religion. If there were, history would not record that every modern totalitarian state either discouraged or banned outright the practice of religion (other than the worship of that state). Totalitarianism is a command society; participation in religion is voluntary. Where it was not in days of yore, that was simply another form of totalitarianism that has no place in a free America. Dictators seek to control society. Religion seeks to offer spiritual hope and, to the small extent that they seek moral laws, to protect the future of that society from inevitable degradation. Never perfectly, of course, as religionists are human also.

4. To me, the underlying concept of the permanence of morality is defined by a statement you made yourself -- by "self-correcting mechanisms". Look around. Much of what I would define as "immoral" in the timeless sense is clearly destructive -- AIDS and other venereal diseases; poverty and despondency for broken families were it not for robbing others of their taxes; personal destruction from an excess of drink, drugs and similar indulgences; and arguments like these over the very existence of any moral truth due to the loss of spritual reality.

If you accept as I do that nature (I call it God, you're welcome to call it nature) corrects that behavior which violates it's inclinations -- "self-correction" -- then you must also accept that there is an inherent morality. Perhaps we fail at identifying it correctly, driven as we are by our own inclinations and self-centeredness, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hard fact and mere perception meet head-on at those "self-corrections".

Is there, then, any real difference between the inevitability of being squashed if you step off a cliff, and the likelihood of catching a deadly disease if you fool around or stick dirty needles in your arm? Nature is at work day and night.

7/16/2001 -  PKT, San Jose, CA replies to C.D.M. 7/15/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to PKT

This ongoing debate about “truth” shows just how imprecise communication and language can be when dealing with symbolically loaded words and concepts. Everyone can agree on the dictionary definition of truth, but when it comes to specifics communication comes to a screeching halt. I maintain, and history bears this out, that there is no universal moral truth when it comes to human behavior. Every society determines the morality for a particular time and place.

Returning to the marriage issue, monogamy isn’t the norm for many religions. And even the concept of marriage for all classes is relatively new. The original purpose of marriage as a sanctified ritual was to determine inheritance and property rights. In much of America and Western Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries common law marriage was as common as it is today, if not more so, for the lower classes who had nothing to gain or lose by legalizing relationships. As with many social institutions, the popularity or lack of popularity of marriage is linked more to economics than a universal moral truth.

This would be nothing more than a fascinating philosophical discussion if it weren’t for the fact that various interpreters of “truth” have a say in public policy. Witness the current debate over stem cell research and the total ban some religions have on any type of birth control. The moral truth of a few is being forced on the majority through laws, policies and regulations not only in America but worldwide, i.e. the Taliban, fundamentalists of all religions, and others of that ilk. This problem is further compounded by reluctance, at least in America, to have frank open discussion of the pros and cons of various issues minus the symbolically loaded rhetoric. Discuss birth control, sex education, abortion, all the hot button social issues in terms of what is best for the public good based on real situations and problems rather than blanket denials or affirmations of fixed positions based on conflicting views of the truth.

Perhaps as a way to start this debate I would encourage every pro-lifer to come up with 10 reasons why abortion is justified and every pro-choice advocate to find 10 reasons why abortion is never justified. Do this for every morally based issue from capital punishment to pornography; force yourself to see the other side, even if you find it morally repugnant. I don’t know if this method will arrive at a “truth” but perhaps it would lead toward a mellowing of the debate and a softening of hard positions for both sides of the issues. Perhaps the ultimate truth isn’t found in fixed positions but in compromise, cooperation and mutual understanding.


7/17/2001 -  H.S.R., Tuscaloosa, AL replies to PKT 6/28/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to H.S.R.

Your mention of the tendency to form "lasting relationships" struck a chord.

I not only agree, but think it helps explain such things as monolithic communities and nationalism. That being the case, it also helps explain the resistance to government intervention in community decisions and the resistance to the thing called "multi culturalism".

I'm not sure you meant it that way, but I think you hit right on the head. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with people who think alike grouping together, and we ought to respect that rather than forcing them to be "diverse", as long as they don't reach out and cause trouble with another such group that's leaving them alone.

What do you think?

7/19/2001 -  C.D.M., Evansville, IL replies to PKT 7/16/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to C.D.M.

Your final suggestion is an interesting one, and certainly at the root of most accepted norms of conflict resolution. But I fear that, given the polarity of the issues involved, and the stance on received morality by both sides, that any attempt to "feel the other side's pain" would simply be a meaningless recitation of pat phrases, devoid of understanding.

After all, just taking abortion: If I am convinced by all that is holy that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, then how would I ever agree to meet "choice" supporters halfway? Beyond protecting your own life -- the only reason I could conjure for abortion -- where is the proper "halfway point" for murder? Isn't murder one of those things that we *all* accept as received morality? Even today?

You see where I'm leading with the example. One cannot simply ignore the concept of established truth or morality in order to hold a discussion.

In fact, as has been said elsewhere on this site (I don't recall where), this is not a contest between one side's acceptance of absolute truth and the other's rejection of it. It is a contest to determine which side's perception of truth will, as you say, determine public policy. A century ago, middle ground was possible because there wasn't much ground between the poles. That far less true today.

You indicate that the toughest stance on received truth/morality comes from religious fanaticism, ie. the Taliban. No argument that such as they hold a pretty rigid stance on what they see as truth. But were the "truths" of communism any less rigidly enforced? Even the "truths" of political correctness surrounding us today? Can you think of any "truth" held by the left which is hardly unanimous or supported by hard fact, but to which they will brook no discussion or argument? Not very difficult, is it?

I can't think of any better justification than the back and forth we have joined here to remind ourselves that America's founders did their level best to create a system of minimal government, a system that definitely did not attempt to heal everyone's shortcomings and manage every social ill. Clearly they did so to avoid the arguments over "truth" that have to come when there is so much opportunity for "policy decisions" to affect everyday lives.

The right to live your own "truth" comes with the obligation to leave the other guy alone, and that's where this discussion comes full circle. You have reminded us that a few should not force their morality on the majority. I quite agree. Left and right always seem to agree on that in America (okay, not in Afghanistan!) But then the left continues on to tell us why they're right to saddle us with Affirmative Action, with ADA, with wage and hour laws, with public-purse support of fringe lifestyles, illicit art and biased media (NPR), and with all manner of anti-discrimination laws (beyond the acts of government). Somehow they don't see that as enforced morality or "truth", even though the arguments they present sound exactly like the right's arguments for *their* moral realities.

The truth is, in America we need to live by our own truths, as individuals or communities, and leave the other guy (and his community) alone when it doesn't threaten our nation's survival.

Could I finish with a note to the site's editors (if they're watching)? Couldn't this discussion also be posted against "morality" or elsewhere where it could be more easily linked than from Bennett's article? I've enjoyed the exchange, and someone else might also.

[Editors' Note:  Actually, we do read our visitors' comments. The last few posts in this fascinating discussion have now been duplicated into "Morality". Thanks for the suggestion, and keep writing!]

7/19/2001 -  PKT, San Jose, CA replies to C.D.M. 7/19/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to PKT

When debating societies argue the thorny issues the evening often ends with “Be it resolved...” and the audience votes on which side is the winner, if real life were only so easy. We agree on our right to disagree but are light years apart on the fundamental issues. I see myself as a left-leaning moderate, hardly a doctrinaire liberal, and I think the majority of the American people fall somewhere within that definition. The majority support abortion but have qualms about it; the majority support some forms of gun control but don’t want the right to bear arms taken away; the majority don’t want government intruding in every facet of life but accept some form of government regulation to control certain actions. Nothing is black and white, we live in a world of gray where choices, decisions and “truths” are arrived at amid a host of conflicting forces.

I certainly don’t want to dwell on the abortion issue, but that seems to be the basic dividing line in America right now. Let’s take a hypothetical case. A woman gets pregnant for whatever reason. Let’s say, for sake of argument, she was using some form of birth control but it didn’t work. The woman already has several children and doesn’t want another. In fact, another mouth to feed would create extreme hardship perhaps resulting in needed medical care for the other children being withheld or delayed. She explores her options ranging from abortion to adoption to keeping the child. Adoption seems an answer but adoption agencies are overburdened as it is and, to add even more problems to our poor woman, there is a better than 50 percent chance her child will have an inherited birth defect or disease that will make adoption for that child difficult if not impossible.

Pro-life advocates are quick to support the life of the fetus, but what about supporting that life after birth? Pro-lifers tend to be fiscal as well as social conservatives and may be against expanding welfare, state sponsored day care, expanded health services, better access to health care. These issues go hand in hand with the decision to abort or to continue to term, and not just for our hypothetical woman but also for thousands of others who must make hard decisions based on hard economic realities. One can argue that the state isn’t responsible for the child since it wasn’t responsible for the pregnancy, but if abortion isn’t allowed then the state does become responsible for it is de facto forcing an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy.

So what’s my point? First, don’t have knee jerk reactions against abortion, or any moral issue for that matter, without considering all the ramifications. If you are opposed to abortion then fight for birth control education and access, better childcare, expanded health care. Limit the need for abortion, find the alternatives and fight for those alternatives just as hard as some fight to block abortion clinics. Look at all sides of the issue and not just the “abortion is murder” absolutism that ignores the very real personal tragedies and painful choices that precede such a drastic action. Abortion is not a single issue for it touches on every facet of public policy from privacy to welfare to health care to taxes to education to criminal justice and on and on and on.

I might add that liberals need to go through the same process in analyzing their positions. Abortion on demand no more answers the other social needs than a blanket prohibition would just as total gun control doesn’t completely address the problem of crime.

And so the circle goes back to the original issue, moral truth. The only truth that has emerged so far in this debate is that we poor humans are still as muddled and divided as ever while the problems continue. And perhaps that is just as well for a total “moral” victory by either side would result in a whole new set of problems and catastrophes and a whole new debate.

7/20/2001 -  DR, ARLINGTON, VA replies to C.D.M. 7/19/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to DR

amazingly one sided.

is your contention that the left "continues on to tell us why they're right to saddle us with Affirmative Action, with ADA, with wage and hour laws, with public-purse support of fringe lifestyles, illicit art and biased media (NPR), and with all manner of anti-discrimination laws (beyond the acts of government)" the same as the right saddling us (or trying to, at least) with such american ideals as forced prayer in public schools or legalized discrimination against groups whose morality or lifestyle they don't approve or agree with (can you say the salvation army and bush's faith-based initiative)? your very own words describing what the left supposedly supports: "fringe lifestyles", "illict art", and "anti-discrimination laws" shows a prejudicial pov that belies the philosophy that you and most conservatives give lip service to but never actually practice: leave the other guy alone.

7/21/2001 -  C.D.M., Evansville, IL replies to DR 7/20/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to C.D.M.

I don't know of anyone who is really interested in forcing prayer in public schools -- and most of my acquaintances are religious. This seems almost to be one of those anecdotal issues the media loves -- find one instance (or imagine it) and blow it into a national scandal.

What we do expect is the right to pray if we wish, including the right of groups to pray together, without being denied the same use of school property and equipemtn that would be offered to an avowedly secular group.

Better yet, keep your public schools and allow us the right to choose schools that suit our preferences. That includes, by the way, letting us keep our public school fees (taxes). Like magic, this whole argument would evaporate. That is, if the only problem liberals had was being around public prayer. We all know that the issue goes much deeper into flat out anti-religion and pro-indoctrination. That's why they will resist school choice to their dying days.

Actually, most of us -- not the ones the media seem to find -- think schools should stay out of the prayer business, as well as the condom business, the sexual "enlightenment" business, the environmental activism business, the pro-abortion business, and all the other feel good stuff. We think schools should teach the basics and build good citizens that are taught to respect their parents and elders, to work hard and behave, to reason and think for themselves, and not just recite dogma. That much bigger issue is what is really behind school choice with us. But I wander from the subject.

How can you compare Bush's faith-based initiative, and the Salvation Army outfall, to forcing private parties to accept your morality?? Bush's thing is voluntary. No one needs apply if they don't want to. And the Salvation Army just learned the bitter lesson that I think most of us saw a little earlier ... you accept government hand-outs, they come with strings that may oppose your belief system. You believe in separation of church and state. Actually, so do I. I say leave the tax money with the citizens to contribute as they see fit, and keep the government out of it. *More* arguments solved.

I suggest you stop listening to Dan Rather. Most conservatives are a lot more libertarian than you give them credit for, and live the "leave the other guy alone" ideal as much as faulty humans can. Rather needs to search out special examples to promote his agenda. Unfortunately they are not hard to find, but are hardly representative of the bulk of ordinary conservative lives.

PKT has a point. On the meaning of morality, humanity today is muddled. As individuals or homogenous groups, most of us are not particularly muddled. The important thing is to concentrate on us being Americans where it is necessary to do so -- as in to defend our country and keep it strong -- and leave the rest of it alone.

I have to believe our Founders saw that, and wisely gave the government too little power to tinker with society, imperfect as it is. Major adjustments can and have been achieved with constitutional amendments. Modern liberalism changed all that, and the arguments can only get worse, not better. The need to hammer all of society into one mode of thought and behavior at all levels of interaction is not the sign of conservatism, but one of leftism and totalitarianism.

The biggest hypocrisy coming from the left is jsut what DR mentioned -- that conservatives, the religious, or the so-called "right" (can you define that??) want to force all the details of their morality onto everyone. No, we're the libertarians. The left has a much larger laundry list of "moral" issues, and a passion to hammer everyone into the same mold.

Even the left calls conservatives "individualists" and ridicules us for that. Individualists who want to enforce one-size-fits-all morality is an oxymoron. The moral laws we would enforce are only those that would protect our lives, liberty and property from assault, and the human race from extinction.

7/25/2001 -  webgear, Big Rapids, MI replies to PKT 6/28/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to webgear

What more do you need to know about "truth" and "morality" than something like the Einhorn story? The guy whacked his girlfriend to death (and whacked a couple of others within an inch), and the left tripped over themselves to defend him and spring him on low bail. So how did he pay back his supporters? He ditched the country. Over in France, the leftists are still fawning over him, and the Seagrams lady is still sending him money. One French guy said "maybe his girlfriend deserved it (to get murdered)". And we saved this country from the Nazis?

My point is this: As you argue over "truth", it is clear (and has been to most of us) that liberals will avoid the question forever. To them, support for socialism obviously comes before truth, before morality, and before the law. Einhorn's 20 years of freedom and hero worship prove it. Hopefully he'll now get what he deserves, a noose.

Don't ever expect to trap a liberal into admitting there may be such a thing as truth or morality.

7/26/2001 -  DR, ARLINGTON, VA replies to C.D.M. 7/21/2001 ...
Truth       Post to Main Thread   Reply to DR

cdm, you need to check out the real world a little more.

yesterday, a panel of the us court of appeals for the fourth circuit (the most conservative circuit in the country, by the way) upheld a virginia law requiring a proverbial "moment of silence" in all of our public schools. the court justified its decision by stating that the "moment of silence" was not about prayer but could be used in any form a student wished. what's interesting about THAT particular myth is that during legislative hearings on the bill (which federal appellate courts almost always examine as part of the basis for their decisions, in trying to determine the actual intent of the law), it was clear that prayer was truly the impetus behind it. the final law cites prayer as one of the options students can avail themselves of during the "moment of silence", and in fact, there are already documented reports that some teachers are encouraging their students to pray openly. what's interesting about that is that the law specifically forbids only CERTAIN types of prayer expression. the kids must remain in their seats during this time, so that a catholic student couldn't kneel to pray, a jewish student couldn't sing a psalm in honor of his/her faity, and certainly we couldn't have a moslem student bowing before mecca. virginia is just one example. it took the ohio supreme court to overturn a state law mandating that the 10 commandments be posted on the wall in every public school classroom. this aren't anecdotal stories, cdm, this is american, circa 2001.

to compare the use of schools and school property by secular groups like the chess club, the football team, or even a gay student group to allowing a religious group to use those public resources is ludicrous, as is your contention (which is far more conservative than it is libertarian) that this "liberal" belief is about being "anti-religion and pro-indoctrination." no liberal i know gives a damn who you pray to (which isn't something one can say about most conservatives. amazing, isn't it? christians -- whose religion just happened to come along thousands and thousands of years after most everyone else's, believe that christianity is the only religion, and that the rest of us are surely going to hell).

you profess to be a libertarian, yet you'd try and stop my son from obtaining a condom at school, taking a sex ed class, learning about abortion, etc., etc. talk about pro-indoctrination! if you don't want your kids to be involved with that, then don't let them! get more people who believe like you on your local school board (apparently that seems to be a problem). or send your kids to private school, which can indoctrinate your kids the way you want them to be. that's your choice, just as i have mine. it's the same garbage i'll bet you espouse about tv, movies, music, sexual choices and behavior, pornography, drugs, etc., etc. you profess choice, as long as it's one of the choices YOU want people to have.

that simply isn't choice.

11/14/2001 -  Mike Fuller, Crowley, LA writes ...
Griswold v. Connecticut       Post to Main Thread   Reply to Mike Fuller

The information provided by "Common Sense Americanism" is non objective and reactionary. The only sense I feel is the want for the writers and editors to regress to the elimination of all individual rights and liberties that our founding fathers fought for. Just be glad that they were liberal or else you wouldn't have the right to print your one-sided stance on this issue, which is aginst the opinion of our government. I was looking for information on this subject, not an opinion. I prefer to draw my own conclusions based on neutral inforamtion. You should try it sometime; maybe you would disagree with your own writings.

[Editors' Note:  Pardon us. We didn't realize we were not entitled to an opinion. Opinions, by the way, are information as well, seeking to add relevance to the facts they reflect. You are, of course, abundantly welcome to your opinion as well.

Reactionary. Has a nice ring to it. To us it means reversing our rush to socialism and reclaiming the visions of our Founders.]

5/31/2003 -  TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
Ashes to Assets       Post to Main Thread   Reply to TM

...just goes to show - the government should not have given anything to the relatives of the 9/11 victims. Or, at the most, the equivalent that a soldier would have received for giving their life.