2007-12-22 15:08:43 · 21 answers · asked by Bee Bee 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nothing at all. Nobody wants a crook, sex maniac, or substance abuser representing them. A real statesman/woman with empathy and a high regard for life and the law who has the intelligence to know when to use force to protect the nation would be a breath of fresh air.
2007-12-22 15:50:34 · answer #1 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There's nothing wrong with having good morals. But how can one evaluate what is a "good" moral. What is a good moral to one is not a good moral to another.
Some religions for example think that being a martyr and killing yourself is a good moral. Some religions look down upon other races or other diversity and consider these individuals to be automatically immoral.
What is politically wrong about having good morals - assuming they are what America would generally consider to be "good" - is the method in which you go about spreading the morals. You can spread and emit strong positive morals without going around using religion and the Lord's name to get there. That is where the political problems come in.
If a religious person is going to have strong morals that is fine - but the problem is when they have to start dragging the Lord's name in or get preachy about it. Through their internal faith they can emote strong morals without utilizing G-d's name to get ahead. Good morals are good, but when religion becomes involved it has political reprecussions.
2007-12-22 23:30:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing is wrong with having good morals. It has been pointed out numerous times above that morals are relative.
I think that morals apply to some positions that are currently political. By defining a position as moral typically results in a knee jerk reaction that the position is religious. And religion is currently politically incorrect.
2007-12-22 23:40:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's nothing Politically Wrong with good morals. It's when people try to push their personal morals onto the rest of the country that you start to have problems. This is a wonderfully diverse country, so it's unfair to expect everyone to agree with your own moral code.
As long as no one is getting hurt or breaking the law, live and let live. That's one of the better perks of living in the USA,FREEDOM.
2007-12-22 23:42:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mir 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Morality is not a religious issue. Knowing right from wrong is a trait everyone has instinctivly built right in. Forcing someone to have good morals is like forcing someone to bathe daily. It is something that should happen as a matter of fact because it is the right thing to do.
2007-12-23 10:44:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can have good morals.
But in a free society, you can't always impose them on others. The price of freedom is that others may not live up to your morals, and if they don't infringe on the right of others, you have to put up with it.
Demanding that the government impose your morals is what's politically wrong.
2007-12-22 23:26:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
There is nothing wrong with having good morals, but what are "good morals"? What may be good morals to you may not be good morals to someone else. Remember, Islamic fanatics & terrorists believe they are fighting for good morals...
2007-12-22 23:28:00 · answer #7 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Nothing. But if you try to force those morals on others, that's a problem.
2007-12-22 23:37:01 · answer #8 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just living human kind were getting used to doing things at own whims and fancy.
Without being aware of the purpose of life in time.
When changes being made.
Took for granted what being done was right.
When all along it was in kicking the butts of God.
Without being aware of it.
Luke 9.55-56
In making the changes.
Thought their rights were being taken away.
When the elders have to correct the blunders and slip-ups with human errors created back in the past being expose in time after the nystery of us-911 for the good of mankind.
Vital for the survival and advancement of living human kind.
Before leaving with time.
When "The young one" living in misery with the missing link could not even solve the mess for their own survival in time.
Luke 6.39-40,41-45,46-49.
What do you think?
2007-12-23 00:13:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Everyone has morals... it just depends upon your perspective/world view.
Whose morals are we referring too?
Evangelical Mayberry Machiavellis or everyday people?
2007-12-22 23:30:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋