Some of my most moral friends, in the sense of ‘belief in a right and a wrong and a willingness to choose the right’, are those that are also agnostic/atheistic/theistic-but-nothing-beyond-that. So you’ve certainly got a fair point in that sense. I don’t auto-think, “oooooh, immoral heathen!” and I appreciate when others don’t think “oooh, crazy person who believes in things they can’t see!” And this is why we can all get along, ostensibly.

I don’t want to defend Gingrich here. Please don’t take my comment this way.

I can *sort of* see where the comment is coming from, although either something was left out, or it lacks inclusion. People of faith have the belief of life “gifted” to them from god, and inalienable rights given through this gift. There is a benefit and consequence to certain behaviors.

I think where this sort of thought breaks down is the belief that non-believers don’t share some sort of appreciation of the gift. It assumes that non-believers don’t share the same belief in behaviors having a benefit. i.e. the golden rule. It’s odd that often belief systems tend to shut our minds so intensely that rationality tends to be thrown out. This seems like the case here with Newt. Purposefully or not, I do not know.

The biggest problem I’ve ever had with republicans is their tendency to say they’re liberty supporters but then attempt to legislate morality. I’m not saying DeMint is considering passing any law to ban gay/pre-marital-sex-having-people from teaching, it just brings to light the dichotomy that plagues the current GOP.

At this point, I’m willing to look past it and file it in the “things to consider” file. That is, unless he starts to push for moral regulation. Then we’re gonna have a problem.

It’s important that people of principle maintain our founding core beliefs/culture of an equal, free, open and tolerant society, where merit and open debate determine policy. That is our history and should be our current and future message to the world.

Equally important is to understand the history, animating principles and future envisioned by those that oppose and would change our core values to something else.

The key questions: Are all parties playing by the same rules? If not, what is the correct way to defend our culture against attacks by those who may not share it? The lessons of history reveal that even tolerant democracies have had to war against intolerant, totalitarian ideologies.