The Aftermath 


She picked up on the common interpretation that the election was won by "Faith and Moral Values", by winning those who place values, notably faith-based values, above everything else.

...There are a whole lot of people who believe that giving tax cuts to the rich and a deficit to the grandkids is a matter of values. There are a whole lot who put our faith, secular and sacred, in the most religiously diverse country in the world."

...Basically, we use them to justify our preferences, and we ignore them when it suits us. Especially, we take refuge in the time-honored practice of defining our adversaries as "evil".

...We need our citizenry to be as committed to our national ideals of government as they evidently are to their diverse religious values. And above all, we need to bring to the forefront the tolerance of those diverse personal religious values. 

The places I read on the web are full of the gnashing of teeth over the election results. But the best piece I've seen this week came from Ellen Goodman. She picked up on the common interpretation that the election was won by "Faith and Moral Values", by winning those who place values, notably faith-based values, above everything else. Frustrated by this, she retorts:

"there are a whole lot of folks who believe that starting a preemptive war on false premises is a moral issue. There are a whole lot of people who believe that giving tax cuts to the rich and a deficit to the grandkids is a matter of values. There are a whole lot who put our faith, secular and sacred, in the most religiously diverse country in the world."

I resonate strongly with this sentiment. It seems to me that there is tremendous hypocrisy on the loose in our nation, and has been for as long as I've been here. We profess to religious, especially Christian moral values, but we are very selective in applying them, and we feel no obligation to be consistent. Basically, we use them to justify our preferences, and we ignore them when it suits us. Especially, we take refuge in the time-honored practice of defining our adversaries as "evil". In one stroke, we relieve ourselves of any responsibility to negotiate or cooperate with those so-defined, and indeed we incur an obligation to annihilate them. And we are quick to lay down the gauntlet that "you are either with us, or against us".

But, as Ellen points out:

"among the not-so-red voters are those who believe in legal protection for gay couples, who value a child with diabetes over a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic. They regard poverty as a moral issue and tolerance as an American value. They don't want their country racked by the fundamentalist religious wars we see across the world. And they need to hear the moral framework for these views."

To me, these are powerful words, with an important message. It is clear that values matter, even if they are often ignored or manipulated to justify thier selective violation. As someone said: "rules were made to be broken". Still, there is a tremendous need to articulate and reinforce the secular, democratic, values upon which our republic was build by the founders. We need our citizenry to be as committed to our national ideals of government as they evidently are to their diverse religious values. And above all, we need to bring to the forefront the tolerance of those diverse personal religious values. For this, Ellen has a prescription for the future:

[It's] time for the losers to go back to basics, to restate their views into a basic simple, straightforward language of values and morals. It's the time to parse what we believe in. Especially right and wrong. It's time to get up and start all over again. Because that's what grownups do."  

Posted: Sat - November 6, 2004 at 08:18 a.m.         | |

©