John W. wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>  > John W. wrote:
>  >
>  >> The issue I have is that what is/isn't moral is so narrowly
>  >> defined, at least politically, and I'm concerned people vote for a
>  >> President based on his perceived moral values,
>  >
>  >
>  > Why is that a cause for concern?
>  >
>  >> which are most likely learned not by a study of the facts but by
>  >> what they are told by a minister or other person with a strict
>  >> personal agenda. I think everyone should their conscience and base
>  >> their decision on moral values; but I'm not sure they really know
>  >> the facts before doing so.
>  >
>  >
>  > What do facts have to do with morals? Take any moral proposition, for
>  >  example, "Rape is wrong". What empirical method would you use to
>  > find the data to conduct the necessary "study of the facts" to know
>  > whether or not the proposition is correct?
>  >
> Whether or not morals are based on facts is irrelevant to what I was 
> saying. 

Really? Then why did you talk about moral values "which are most likely 
learned not by a study of the facts but by what they are told by a 
minister or other person with a strict personal agenda"?

> But people believe, for example, that Bush's opposition to gay 
> marriage is a fact. Of course it may or may not be; but people believe 
> that he is opposed. That is what I was referring to.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. Are you 
trying to say that the President's opposition to gay marriage is in doubt?

-- 
Kevin
"This is the best election night in history."--Democratic National 
Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Nov. 2, 2004, just before 8 p.m. EST