<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
I sent the e-mail below privately to a V2020 subscriber. I present it below with the identity of who I sent it to removed. I don't think I am revealing anything that violates anyone's privacy or reveals the identity of the person involved:<BR>
<BR>
-------<BR>
<BR>
These issues can be very divisive and complex. <BR>
<BR>
What is the dividing line between church and state? Are not many of the laws enforced by government derived from the ethical codes of religious tradition(s)? So how can we divide church and state? If we cannot totally divide them, what religion or religions do we reference for the ethical standards for government? No one can agree on this, at least not totally enough, unless you live in Iran, or some sort of theological dictatorship.<BR>
<BR>
And if we then agree on total diversity of lifestyles derived from differing ethical standards, then how do we decide between them when they conflict in practice in the community? Does the government backed by the people create the ethical standards we live by? So basically this approach says ethics is decided by the vote. Or by the dictator if you live in a dictatorship. But most people do not look at ethics this way. They feel their religion is the main source of their ethics.<BR>
<BR>
But what about between governments? If each government in effect then becomes its own creator of ethics if we vote for our ethical standards, or have them dictated to us, and if different governments have conflicting ethical codes that lead to war, where is the outside arbitrator of ethics to decide who is right and wrong? We could bring in God again, or some appeal to naturalistic ethics, but there are problems with either approach, namely each God of each religion has differing values, and no one agrees on what the naturalistic ethical standards are.<BR>
<BR>
Love and kindness to all, or survival of the fittest? Might makes right, or pacifism? <BR>
<BR>
Christ Church wants to bring down the public schools in Moscow. I happen to think the public schools are a needed and good institution. Therefore I will speak against Christ Church's power in Moscow. Of course they have a right to exist under our system. But I have a right to speak against them. They want to destroy institutions I think are valuable.<BR>
<BR>
I want to avoid personalizing this whole debate. I am sure many of the members of Christ Church are good decent people who would help you if you were stranded on the road. I know Joan and Saundra and Rose are good people, and they have all helped me, even sometimes stranded on the road! <BR>
<BR>
Hopefully human beings can maintain a sense of decency and respect for each other even when they vehemently disagree. It is when this basic decency breaks down that we have atrocities. If Moscow was hit by massive floods or other disasters, I trust we would see Christ Church people along side the Moscow Civic Association people helping out those in need.<BR>
<BR>
But I will not cooperate with Christ Church in bringing down the public schools (which is really just one problem out of many I have with the ethics they promote). But if they draw thousands more to the Moscow area, they can defeat school bond levy's left and right with their voting block. As Moscow grows, eventually the public schools will need more funding. And Christ Church has a national stage that could result in them drawing thousands to Latah County. This is not just wild speculation. Nor is Christ Church's connection to racist groups in the USA wild speculation.<BR>
<BR>
This is the world of politics, and it is often not the nicest game in town. I wish politics was a much nicer game, but "nice" in politics is not the real world of human society.<BR>
<BR>
This debate could go on and on forever ... so, thanks for your reply, and I will leave you with the above comments.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></HTML>