Moral Values? (by Duc Luu)

Moral Values!
Has anyone not heard enough of these two words lately?
November 03rd, 2004, one day after the Presidential Election Day, it once again proved what my sociology professor used to say, "Religions should stay out of politics", was correct.
To understand why I support Church-and-State separation, allow me to bring you, especially all fanatic rightwing conservative evangelists, back to the history of the early Church in the ancient time.
There is a reason why Church should not run the state; and vice versa, for the sake of the country, politics should consider religious agenda as a private matter. Philosophers, George Santayana (1863-1952) and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) for example, throughout times, did not just condemn the early Church's influence on politics and government for no reason. By using its most powerful weapon of all time, religious belief and faith, the Early Church did try to control, manipulate, and dictate how government should be run.
In fact, in the ancient time, one might as well say the Church was the ruler.
Belief and Faith are something that are purely wonderful and beautiful for those who truly dedicate their love to God; However, whether this "belief-and-faith" trick turns out to be another deadly weapon toward others depends on how it is used.
George Santayana (1863-1952) once said, "Christianity persecuted, tortured and burned. Like a hound it tracked the very scent of heresy. It kindled wars and nursed furious hatreds and ambitions. It sanctified...extermination and tyranny...it dreamt of infinite blisses and crowns it should be crowned with before an electrified universe and an applauding God." (1).
Philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) also voiced his critics toward the early Church. He said, "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized by its churches, has been and still is, the principal enemy of moral progress in this world." (2).

Let us use Science as an example for the purpose of this discussion.
We all know what happened to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) when he publicly claimed what the Church believed at the time, the Sun orbited around the Earth, was erroneously wrong. In fact, the earth is the one that orbited the Sun, said Galileo.
Galileo's claim, which was opposite to what the Church believed at the time, put him in trouble. The sad thing was that Galileo died condemned of heresy by the Church. However, it was not so bad that after all, 350 years later after his death, on October 31st, 1992, the Pope had finally admitted that errors were made by the theological advisors who were assigned to Galileo's case (4) at the time. Neverthless, the Catholic Chuch still never admitted that it was WRONG when it convicted Galileo because of his discovery (or the so-called belief at the time if you might prefer in that matter). What Galileo believed simply did not fit in the thought of the society mainstream at the time. His belief was simply and morally "wrong" if one might put it that way.
How does this relate to my point here? Time! Only time can and will have a clear conviction of what would be "moral" or "immoral" between today and tomorrow. Time helps and eventually changes the way one sees things. If time changes, so does our attitude and behavior as we grow older and wiser.
Thanks to science, it proved what Galileo discovered more than 350 years ago was the ultimate truth.
Let me touch on another scientific topic that the early Church also tried to have its hand on in early time: cadavers.
Imagine where we would be today had the Church won its way of disallowing dissection of cadavers in early 13th Century when dissecting cadavers, cutting up dead bodies for medical research, was simply "immoral". The word 'autopsy' probbaly would have not been in today's dictionary. Autopsy procedure would have not even existed in today's crimelab scenes. Would the term "organ donor" exist had the Church won its way of illegalizing the dissection of cavaders? Probably not!

Another subject that might as well be worth talking about: Bible teaching! One of the hot topics that might have brainwashed a few fanatic religious right in a ridiculous and hypocritical way.
One can observe a few rules from one of the Bible books, the book of Leviticus for example. In Leviticus, the Bible forbiddened wearing clothes or garment that were made from two different kinds of materials. Please read the book of Leviticus, chapter 19, par. 19, that says, "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff." Lev: 19:19
Does that mean wearing a shirt that made out of 50% cotton and 50% linen, per se, makes one a sinner? How many of you, who have been wearing clothes that made out with two, or even three, different kinds of materials? Are you all sinners? You make your call on this particular rule.
The book of Leviticus also condemned marrying to widows. Please read the book of Leviticus, chapter 21, par. 14, that says "A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife." Lev:21:14

Voila, a message to all men, you should only marry virgin girls. Those who married divorced or widdow women would have been sinners according to the book of Leviticus. Ah hah, one can clearly see if one follows the Bible strictly, blindfully, without any reasonable doubt according to our current time, that would be tough.
You again, my friends, please be the judge on this rule.

My point here is simple. Time changes! What the Church saw thoudsands of years ago, which was not neccessarily wrong at the time, does not neccessarily mean it would be valid or reasonable in today's standard. What the Church saw thousands of years ago was obviously different than what we are seeing today. It is normal and reasonable that we adapt and be open-minded with what changes to best fit our current situation; However, it is unfortunate and shameful that "pick-and-choose" has become a typical stereotype in the majority mind of the religious gimmick so that these fanatic rightwing conservative evangelists can manipulate, twist, and word the true meaning of the Bibles so that their followers would blindfully support their dirty political gains.

The question to ask is that Why do we condemn homosexuals as sinners using Bible as an excuse, and on the otherhand, wear clothes that were made out of two different kinds of materials; or married widows or divorced people in that matter, without having any sense of comparison since both rules are from the same source? Didn't all rules come from a very same Bible book? Are we just simply ignoring one rule (because it fits our need) and condemn another rule just because others happen to be different than we are, and we can discriminate them? If this is not hypocrite then I don't know what is.

I tried to ignore the thought that this country is now a deeply divided country but after November 02, 2004, I saw a humorous electoral map, from one of the blogs, that somehow hilariously convinced me so. Not that we are deeply divided because we are different by nature. No! We are polarized because we were "brainwashed" differently and therefore we see and interpret things differently. The one that has the most powerful influence, faith-and-belief-under-God gimmick, is the one that knows how to play its political game under the name of 'God'.
Here is another version of the hilarious map (5) I have seen on the web - just from a humorous point of view, no punt intended, whether it reflects to my next discussion point is still in debate



Since John F. Kennedy, after three democratic presidents, Lynden Johnson (Texas), Jimmy Carter (Georgia), and Bill Clinton (Arkansas), this country has not elected any democratic president who was outside of the "Bible-Belt" states or the so-called Red states.
Whether those fanatic religious rightwing extremists who live in Red-States region legitimize their prejudice via their hypocritical religious "belief" is still in doubt; but one thing I know for sure is this: Living in the blue-state strong hold Democrat region (North Midwest, Northeast, and West coast) does not mean these blue-staters have less moral values and faith than those who live in the red-state strong hold Republican region (Midwest, South, and Southeast area). In a same token, just because rightwing conservative evangelists who proudly brag about their religious moral values, faith, and regular-church-going habits openly and publicly in the red states does not necessarily mean they possess a higher moral values and faith than folks who live in the blue states. I have friends and relatives who live in the Northeastern part of the country, rarely speak out of their regular-church-going habits or visiting Buddhist temples on a regular basis, sound rough with their blunt attitude when they talk; look rough with their 'dont-care" face, but within those meaningless appearance features holds the golden hearts that were willing to help and give unconditionally to others in need. These folks did not even make themselves noticed by others, or bragging themselves out loud about their good deeds, charitable works, or the so-call "moral values", or "faith".
On the contrary, I have also run into folks in the Sunbelt red-state regions who are well dressed, well spoken, elegant, and well knowledgeable of their church's activities; but beneath that gimmick "veil", there also have plenty space of the stingy hearts, selfish souls, and narrowed minded that tend to give others nothing but simply words to polish the image of God's love that the Mighty One Himself does not even need any help to preach it.
Abortion activists got dead threats; abortion clinics were bommed and harassed; abortion doctors got killed; In several parts of Southern states, including Texas, blacks are still, off and on, being discriminated; gays and lesbians, if not living in big major cities, are still being singled out, harassed, losing jobs, and even murdered, just to name a few. For what? and By whom? For the single purpose of "living by what the Bible says" and by the very same mind-set of people who believe that Bible - athough written thoudsands of years ago - was still the ultimate "truth" that allows them to use as an excuse to do what they did simply because others happen not to be the same as the majority is.
Yet, despite all that, many Republican legistalors in parts of the Southern states were reluctantly adding gays and lesbians as part of their protection under hate-crime bills. Is this not one of the "moral values" that we are talking about? Moral values are someting one can speak up, brag about it as much as one could, but what counts is how one acts as well.
Give Republicans credit for knowing how to play their best political card on the deck to get the best out of the evangelical voters who turned out effectively on the election day. These evangelists and evangelist-alikes were proud of what they called the defeating of what they painted their opponent as a "liberal", "less moral values", and has "no faith" in God. Whatever the labels they would like to put on the Democrats. It is best political card of "moral values" (against the abortion,pro-choice and homosexuals,pro-gay-marriage) where the majority of blindfulness religious believers did willingly vote against their own interests and their rational thinking.

Do the red-state religious right wing conservative forget that the 'moral values" also includes the compassion for those who are struggling with the minimum wage? The care for elderly people who are battling with the rocketing healthcare costs? The weeping sorrows and the emotional wounds of unfortunate mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and children who had to burry their loved ones from the the pointless war? The discrimination of minorities, homosexuals in order to refuse their right to live with their loved ones while they still are subjected to be part of the society, including paying the same tax bracket as everyone else does? And last but not least, do these fanatic conservative religious right-wing people forget that their "moral values" also includes the care and the love for millions of sick patients whom Alzheimer, Parkinson, Diabetes, and Spinal Cord injuries suffer, just to name a few, has been going on while stem cell research seems to be only hope, at the moment, to bring their wish fulfilled one day?
Another point worth of mentioning on this discussion is that while the rich and the conservative right wing Republicans proudly brag themselves as the "moral values" self-righteous people, when it comes to education, yes, education I repeat, they will have no hesitation to send their kids to best schools in the America - Princeton, Harvard, or Yale, to name a few - that happen to be in the blue states; the very same states that they pitifully and deliberately labeled on their Democrats as part of what they call "liberal", "less moral values", and "don't believe in God." If this is not simply a polictical game to twist voters' mind, then I dont know what is. Ofcourse, after all, the right-wing conservatives know what is best for their kids. Otherwise, they would have not sent their kids up there to the best school, but to Iraq or to other wars. You go figure, my friends.
So the right-wing double-standard conservative evangelists folks can reason whatever their claim is on their concerned-list of agenda, but boys, do not falsely, blindly, and worst, ignorantly brag and claim that it was the "family value" and the "moral values" that made them come out and voted against their own interests and rational thinking.
Was it "immoral" because their rational thinking tells them so? or was it "immoral" because "their own" Bible simply says so?
Family Values? Now let us see who walks the walk of the so-called "family value".
According to the Associated Press, the data supplied by the US Census Bureau suggested that the Bible Belt states are the ones that have the highest divorce rates. These conservative states are briefly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.(6)

I. Here is how the states that Bush and Cheney called "liberal", the ones that have no "family values". These states turn out to be the ones with the least divorce rate. And guess what, Massachesetts is the best of all that has the least:
Rank/ State/ Divorce Rate:
1) Massachusetts 2.4
2) Connecticut 2.8
3) New Jersey 3.0
4) Rhode Island 3.2
5) New York 3.3
6) Pennsylvania 3.3
7) Wisconsin 3.4
8) North Dakota 3.4
9) Maryland 3.5
10) Minnesota 3.5

II. And now, let us see who has the worst (highest) divorce rate in our country:
Rank/ State/ Divorce Rate
36) Texas 5.4 So the Bush's land ranks 36th out of 51 states
39) Mississippi 5.7
40) Kentucky 5.8
41) Arizona 5.8
42) Florida 5.9
43) New Mexico 6.0
44) Idaho 6.2
45) Alabama 6.2
46) Indiana 6.4
47) Wyoming 6.5 And the Cheney's land ranks 47th out of 51 states with the worst (highest) divorce rate
48) Tennessee 6.6
49) Oklahoma 6.7
50) Arkansas 7.1
51) Nevada 9.0

The conservative double standard evangelists can beat the drum as loud as they could but the data speak for themselves.
Despite all this, if one, however, follows the "Bible" truthfully, as evangelists claim they would, I assume, then read the book of Leviticus, and follow exactly what it says - ALL rules must applied. Please do not just pick and choose certain rules and use the name of God as an excuse to manipulate the faithful followers. This is what I meant the danger posed by religions when they know how to fit in the political system.

If it is truly the "moral values" that the red states concern about, oh boys, these evangelical folks surely have gotten a long way to go. The best way to remind themselves is go back to their "bible-beating" prejudice root, do a research, and track down the history of the early Church in the ancient time and see how much the Church owed Galileo and how far the Church has gotten to go.

Moral Values? To me it sounds like another form of influence that was legitimized by a religion that currently upholds the majority power on its hand and determined what others have to believe in. With the dictatorial gimmick dated back in the early ancient time, "pick-and-choose" attitude has become a stereotype of a few narrow minded ignorant evangelists in order to gain, or at least, try to hold on to its power that seems to be slipping away as time goes on. Here is my philosophy, if there is no fear of having something slipping away, there would be no need to fight that hard to hold it back, agree?
And if it is true that their "moral value" or their "belief" is the ultimate truth, then why is there fear of losing it? Let their own religions, or the so-called "moral value" be what it meant to be. No matters what others do, it still stands as it has always been under the Holy God, Am I correct? Is this the truth that one wants to protect? or is this the name, the gimmick, the fake label that one tries to protect?

Another valid theory that is also worth discussing is that the label 'gay-marriage' also presents itself some sort of "trouble" and disadvantage within itself trying to win the battle over general public's opinion. What hapenned in MA, CA, and other states across America in a short period of time appeared to be a "threat" to social "mainstream" that the majority of public, especially the evangelists, was simply not ready for this kind of move yet. The issue then in turn makes anti-gay activists have a reason to stand up for the battle that they have all been fighting along: anti gay-movement and anti gay-rights.
In the end, it is still an undenial fact that every average person, despite their own sexual orientation, can easily feel, see, and predict that things have, are, and will be changing in a way that society will come to a point that it could no longer ignore but face the fact of life: Homosexuality exists. Homosexuality has been and will always be part of society. Did one ask to be born straight? If one can answer this question, then the very same answer should be true to the other end, Did one really ask to be born homosexual?
Once again, time is the factor that helps healing the gap. Majority of public feels strongly opposed to the issue because it is happening so fast, so quick, and so overwhelmingly that we simply could not accept, change, and adjust our attitude toward such behavior as of yet. However, that does not mean that it will not happen.

From what I've presented, observed, and pointed out, you make your own conlusion now: who is now trying to go against the way things are and the way life is? And who is simply going with the flow of life? Are those who admit the fact of life (that homosexuality exists) and move on? Or are those who are still in the denial stage that homosexuality has no stand in society and trying to use all source of excuses, Bible is the most powerful one, to go against the battle of time?

When one looks at Galileo's case, one should buckle up, live happily, and be contented with the ultimate fact that one day truth will prevail; simply not because one is being singled out as "out of the mainstream" at the moment, but simply because one should know that "moral values" today might as well be defined differently when tomorrow comes.
It is just a matter of time when people become more flexible, tolerable, and acceptable when they have more chances to deal with the fact that time brings into.
Growing up with Buddhist philosophy, I do not see things in an 'absolute' state as I already stated on my home page. I rather see things from the middle-path point of view where the "right" or the "wrong" is simply something that is determined by the majority of the social "mainstream" at the time. What is "wrong" or "immoral" today does not hold a perfect stand forever. What is "wrong" or "immoral" today does not neccessarily mean that it will not be legalized, tolerable, and accepted tomorrow. It all depends on how long it takes, how open a mind is, and how compassionate a heart would be to let it come in their world.
Galileo was "wrong" and condemned at the time but his ultimate and unshakable truth still stands out and obviously prevails vigirously today. Until the day that the Church officially cleared out his record, admitted that the errors were made by the theological advisors, it has gone 350 years, but that is still time. Remember the Church ONLY admidtted that the errors were made by these theological advisors. Remember the Church did NOT officially admit that the conviction of Galileo was WRONG. So keep in mind, all fanatic religious evangelists, your Church has a history of stubborness like anyone else, slowly to recognize the truth and admit mistakes made to others, so what give you right to judge on others?
Seeing things from the positive side of view, I have a message for pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage activists: If it took the Church 350 years to admit what happened to Galileo was wrong, what makes one think that the Church's view on abortion, homosexuals, and stemcell research can be changed in an instant? a decade? or even a generation? 350 years sounds like a lot of generations to me. So hold on to your breath and wait just like Galileo had waited till the day his ultimate truth prevails; just like sciences and innovative idealists had waited till the day they are benefit from autopsy's concept that brought the light to medical and ciminology field. The very same unnovative thought that the Church originally opposed back in the old time.

If Galileo case was finally cleared out and admitted by the Church, that gives hope to pro-choice, pro gay-marriage, and pro stemcell research that one day, all of these saga will become normal, or should I say "moral"?, as time goes on Once again, it is just a matter of time.
What immoral to me, at this present time, is that when one casted a vote that officially banned two loving people who committed their lives to each other to share common things within. I believe every single living creature has its own purpose on this universe. Right-wing conservative evangelists can argue that same-sex couples cannot produce children. This sounds like a legal argument? However, have they look at priesthood? or monkhood (Buddhism), are these people "out of the mainstream" as well since they are not allowed to marry and will not bear children? Hmmm.... the argument does not stand wuite well, does it? Additionally, there are also millions of homeless and foster children who need a roof to stay, a loving family to be cared for; gay and lesbian couples are a perfect fit to fulfill such need from unfortunated children who are being abandoned. Yet, once again, in many part of the Southern states, legislators still outlaw adoptions be gay parents.
One has to ask from his or her own rational thinking: Would a child be better off being raised by two moms or two dads or would a child be better off being raised by a single mom, single dad, or worst, no mom and no dad at all?
Would a child have a better chance to get education by living with someone or living on the street?
Oh common, practice the common sense here, would you?
My final words: If Nature, Creator, or God Himself had not had His way of figuring things out, He would have not planned His seeds on this Milky Way in the first place.
To the fanatic evangelical conservative folks, please save the world from having another headache by simply stop being God's police or God's Watchdog. God will eventually take care of things Himself; Otherwise, He would have not been a Holy Mighty One that we all wordship and put our "faith" in His power, would He not?
Instead of wasting my time telling others how to live their own lives, I rather spend my time enjoy what life brings on earth. Though I never brag how much I believe in God. Neither do I need to convince you that I have faith in Him. I would trust Him in my own way that I would have no doubt He would sort things out eventually. If you believe in Him so much, why not let others be who, what, or why they are the way they are; because deep down in this Universe, shouldn't God have their part settled already?
Tell me, Are you a true believer who has real faith in God now?

Just a few thoughts of mine.

References:
(1) & (2) The Rejection of Pascal's Wagner - The Historical Record -
retrieved from http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/history.html
(3) Science and Reason - The Suppression of Astronomy -
retrieved from http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/galileo.html
(4) Galileo Galilei
retrieved from http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html
(5) Voice and Vision in Decision - I support Kerry-
retrieved from http://sandhill.typepad.com/sandhill_trek/2004/11/jesus_land.html
(6) Divorce Magazine
retrieved from http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS2.shtml