BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« Illinois pledge contest results in a three-way tie | Main | Webliography: How big is the burden on Illinois taxpayers? »

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Values belong to all of us, not just `Values voters'

Just for all the fuss it will cause, I plan someday to create the American Institute for Values, Morals and the Family.

Then, from the pulpit of executive director, I’ll promote progressive values, liberal morality and a generously inclusive notion of family.

“You can’t do that!” critics will howl. “Conservatives own those words. `Values,’ `morals’ and `family’ have become code for a set of right-wing positions on such issues as homosexuality, abortion, immigration, education, affirmative action, entertainment and religion in public life.”

“Well they’re just going to have to share,” I’ll respond coolly but in a non-confrontational way. “We have plenty of values and morals over here on the left. We yield to no one in our appreciation of the importance of family and our commitment to helping families thrive.”

I don’t expect a quick surrender.

The right’s hold on “values” is now so strong that most news coverage I saw and heard about last weekend’s second annual “Values Voter Summit” of Christian conservatives didn’t even bother to nestle the word dubiously inside real or implied quotation marks. Fewer than 1 in 10 recent accounts of the summit I found in a national news database bothered to put “so-called” in front of the first reference to “values voters.”

It’s galling. I mean, sure, the activists who assembled in Washington vote in accordance to their values. So do I. So do you, reader, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.

Anyone who casts a ballot is a “values voter.” And to allow one group to squat on that title is to concede without a fight that their values are, if not superior to others’ values, then at least stronger and more important to them than the flimsy ethical whims of their ideological foes.

That’s arrogant nonsense. And a stout opposition to arrogant nonsense will be a guiding value of the American Institute for Values, Morals and the Family.

To show how fair we are, on Day 1  we will issue a stinging rebuke to atheists who are now presuming to call themselves “brights.” We will make a pun about it being a dim idea.

And our charter will decree that, as soon as all smug and self-righteous organizations drop the congratulatory use of “values,” “morals” and “family” in their names, we’ll become simply “The Institute” and devote ourselves to combating the scourge of apostrophe abuse.

Until that time, our mission will be to argue that there is nothing inherently immoral about gay relationships, that true religious freedom requires that government take no position at all about God and that the problems of poverty and unequal opportunity can’t be solved simply by shaking the finger of blame or sounding the trumpet of motivation.

Those are values. So is support for abortion rights, for universal health care, for environmental protection and for individual privacy.

It’s moral to safeguard the rights of the accused and to suffer through some of the discomfort caused when others exercise their freedom of political and artistic expression. It’s moral to try to alleviate real suffering by performing research on microscopic human embryos and to fund necessary government through taxes based in large part on people’s ability to pay.

When it comes to helping families, you can hardly beat good jobs at fair wages, solid homes in safe neighborhoods and a strong system of public education.

You and I may differ on some or all of these points. I respect that. And I respect that you, too, are guided by a set of principles forged by experience and shaped by research, benighted though you may be.

But I -- and here I’m privileged to speak for all the potential members of the would-be, so-called American Institute for Values, Morals and the Family -- can’t respect the effort to stake a partisan claim on such precious words in order to use them as weapons.

There are enough values out here for everybody.



Not too Bright ---"Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are smart guys, but their campaign to rename religious unbelievers "brights" could use some rethinking," by Chris Mooney, Committe for Skeptical Inquiry

Values Voter Summit announcement


Family a symbol of love and life, but not politics

May 23, 2004  by Eric Zorn.

"Family" is one of our loveliest words. It speaks of a warm, enveloping, comforting, inspiring connection--a love relationship, a commitment, a safe harbor, a common enterprise.

Sometimes, sure, it's a messy and maddening entanglement. But even when it's imperfect, family is the foundation of identity and the cornerstone of success.

To many people--people of all faiths, orientations and political beliefs--"family" is the word that expresses that which they hold most dear.

Not money. Not possessions. Not fame. Not career. Not country. Not friendship. Not romance. Not even freedom.


So it's time we took it back.

Sorry, Family PAC and Illinois Family Institute.

You, too, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Family Foundation, Pro-Family Network, American Family Association and Culture and Family Institute.

Set that word down and back away slowly. It belongs to all of us.

You and other conservative organizations have monopolized it for too long, turned it into shorthand for a social and political outlook that excludes rather than includes and hectors those who don't, can't or won't conform to your notions of morality.

"Family values" has come to mean the promotion of abstinence-only sex education, religion in the public sphere, education vouchers, traditional gender roles and censorship. It's come to mean opposition to abortion rights and, particularly these days, resistance to the extension of full civil rights to gays and lesbians.

In covering the landmark beginning of legal gay marriages in Massachusetts last week, virtually every news organization featured the fulminations of officials from the Massachusetts Family Institute ("The piece of paper that says `marriage' has been redefined and devalued!"), while Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute ("A man marrying another man is a far cry from Rosa Parks!"), has become the go-to guy for local journalists seeking quotes from opponents of gay marriage.

The irony is that gay weddings mark an endorsement of family--of the power of that formal and lasting bond.

When two people get married, they are saying to society, "Yes! We believe in the fundamental importance of this institution in building and maintaining family ties. We want to join it and affirm that belief to the world."

And when a culture expands its definition of marriage to include the expressions of lifelong commitment between two people of the same sex, it strengthens families by advancing the acceptance and tolerance of gay people.

Not every parent is as accepting of his gay child as Chicago Ald. Richard Mell (33rd), whose personal and political support for his daughter, who is a lesbian, has become a local legend. But the more our society loses its judgmental attitude about who loves whom and what sorts of unions are most normal, the closer we get to the day when extended families no longer are ripped apart by homosexuality.

I could argue that strengthening families is why we need to provide quality day care for working parents, why we need to work hard to maintain strict government neutrality in matters of faith and why we should offer non-ideological sex education to children and reproductive choice to women.

I could make the case that it reflects good family values to shift more of the tax burden to the rich, to support stem cell medical research and universal health care, to devote our energies to boosting public education and to protect our natural environment against industrial polluters.

I could, but I won't.

"Family" is too important to too many of us to drag its name through the muck of our bitter socio-political debates, let alone to yield it to one side or the other in the culture wars.

No one owns it. The left doesn't own peace and compassion, the right doesn't own the flag or the family.

The word "family" resonates profoundly in all of us--married, single, gay, straight, adopted, "biological," living alone or in crowded households bursting with the exuberant chaos of children. To have family, to be family with others, is to be fully human.

Mom always taught me to share. So, shall we?



Abortion Rights? You have no right to murder a helpless innocent baby by abortion or any other way. If one does that, one should be on death row for capital murder.

I think this organization needs T-shirts. Or at the very least a Facebook group.

Yawn. Rev Spitz your argument is old and tired. Let women have ownership of their bodies. Old white men are the last ones who should be making decisions affecting these women. Hillary said it right: we should aim to reduce the number of abortions taking place through safe sex education and abstinence, not by banning abortion. Go Hillary.

The number one "liberal value" is hypocrisy. When my kids were little, we lived in West Rogers Park. Judge Milton Shadur ruled that the city must institute a busing plan to desegregate the Chicago Public Schools. This essentially drove what was left of the middle class out of the Chicago school system.

Where did Judge Shadur live? Glencoe, of course. Did he send HIS kids to school with large numbers of low income children? Fat chance! Did he care about the hardship he was causing people like me? Yeah, right.

You probably think I am a racist for refusing to send my kids to the Chicago Public Schools. But what about liberals like Shadur? No one ever calls THEM racist. Why is that?

I love this idea. And I love that'd be based in Chicago... or maybe NY or SF or LA, because, God knows, we're not real people here, not salt of the earth types; all we know about is Gay Pride parades and sex shops and trading spouses. We're not honest, coffee-shop Americans, with authentic opinions, because we live in cities.

Great idea.

Rev Spitz,

I'm having a hard time figuring out whether your post is heavy sarcasm or an extremely serious contradiction. I would have opted for the former till I read the name...

If it's the latter, 'nuf said about the "so-called" "pro-lifers" (sorry Eric).

Before we all start calling one another baby killers or Bible thumpers, please keep one thing in mind: a lot of people on BOTH sides of the abortion issue arrive at their convictions the hard way -- by having an abortion, or knowing someone who has.
Some of them are almost certainly reading this blog, and every one of you readers probably has an acquaintance who has been affected by abortion (i.e. lost a child or possible grandchild) -- but you may never know who they are. Please keep that in mind before you start lobbing your next verbal grenades.
I say this as a pro-life supporter who, although I have never had an abortion myself, know several people who have been so affected.

Mark, I say hurray! There is someone else in this world that has read and understand Hillary's stance on this issue. I have talked til I am blue in the face that her Pro-Abortion stance doesn't mean she is about killing babies. She is a very intellectual women who understand that she doesn't need to use a hammer for everything. Use the right tool for the right situation. As far as the column go I am excited to know that we have people like Eric around. I am a progressive Moderate who says, I have values too - just because I am not on the far right doesn't mean I am wrong. - People have a great day!

There was bussing Chicago? School bussing? Really? Way back in 1968 was the last time I saw a white student in a Chicago school.

But anyway, I agree with you EZ, the fact of the matter is that as liberals, as progressives we do have values. We do believe in families.

It is a shame that the right has co-opted those terms as though they are the only ones who have values or any sense of family. They have co-opted the word 'patriot' to mean blind support of the executive branch instead of an allegiance to the Constitution (well any part other than their beloved 2nd Amendment).

Your idea of morality is having a big government to handle our problems. They already tried Socalism in many countries - and it failed - because somebody needs to pay for it. You want more money to be poured into the schools in Chicago? You must be insane! School choice is the answer compared to the failing yet very expensive public school system. Would you like the taxpayers to pay for you also to come over to wipe your butt for you also? You being pro-abortion and all, please explain why someone is charged with double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman. After all it's basically ' a nothing' growing inside of her, right?

This has echoes of George Lakoff and I couldn't agree more. Extreme right wingers have become skilled at giving destructive or narrow-minded ideas positive-sounding descriptions that over time cause negative feelings in folks who don't happen to agree with those ideas. We liberals might need to come up with different terms until the poison has been sucked out of the words that rightly belong to all of us, conservatives and liberals, who are for liberty, justice, freedom for ALL - not just your tribe - and the pursuit of happiness with harm to none.

Rev. Spitz, are you on drugs? Unless you're being sarcastic, then great post.

GOP does not own religion. Neither do the Dems or any othe political party. The law of the land clearly states sepration of church and state. Those who think they are holier than thow are usually the first to, and usually fall the hardest.

Value is just the tool we use to try and define what something is worth. How valuable something is of course is a different matter.

The Christian right has proven over and over again that they have less than Christian values to offer to the politicians….they are after all an extremely blood shed oriented group, what with resolving all world problems with illegal wars and societal problems with the death penalty.

Christian values....well it is the 2nd commandment from Christ of course...to love your neighbor. But through all of their actions it is a known fact that "love" is not a “valued” word to "rightwing" so called Christians. How can a person be a Christian without love? And saying “love” and “loving” are two very different things.

For any politician to be proud of being supported by people who cannot love and who are encased in a world of violence isn't really something to hold up as a high valued commodity.

No one's saying that you can't call yourself and your pinko buddies value voters. It's just that no one's going to buy it. You say it's galling. I think it's galling that you call yourself "progressive" when you want to drag us back to socialism. Winning the language war is half the battle.

Where can we send our checks? I love this idea.

I gotcha values for ya right here, buddy!

1 Timothy 16:10- "For the love of money is the root of all evil"

Luke 6:24- "But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation"



Proverbs 28:8 ("usury" is collecting interest on a debt) - "He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor."

Conservatives worship money. They are the wolves in sheep's clothing Christ warned us about. The necktie is Satan's leash, the symbol of wealth and power. A man who wears a necktie does not worship God, nor does he follow the teachings of God's son.

Look at the so-called "Christian", Pat Robertson, calling for a certain South American dictator to be assassinated. How can a Christian call for murder?

Look at George Bush, who executed more men than any other Governor of the state that executes more men than any other state, who went on to start the Iraq war. This is a Christian? These are "family values"? Look at all the Republicans who condemn homosexuals (Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, lest ye be judged") who are then caught cheating on their wives! Homosexual acts are minor sins, while adultery is one of the "big ten", right up there with murder.

None of the Conservatives' values are supported by scripture. Indeed, Christ taught forgiveness and compassion.

And you, sir, might I suggest that you grow a beard or mustache? Shaving is removing a secondary sexual characteristic, and the Bible warns men to not make themselves look like a woman. A bald-faced man wearing a necktie is no Christian.

Thank you for so succintly putting my feelings into words! "Morals" and "Family Values" are terms that have been hijacked by people who think they are the bellweather of those terms - and they are not!

Thank you for this column. It reflects perfectly what I thought when I saw a Tribune headline referring to "Values" voters last week when it should have referred to conservatives.

Like you, I vote my values, which include tolerance, charity, community, and many more.

I applaud your idea for the "would-be, so-called American Institute for Values, Morals and the Family." While you're at it, perhaps the Institute could win back for us liberals our stake in the American Flag. I see at as a symbol of freedom and my shield and protector when I wish to express unpopular ideas. Unfortunately, the conservatives seem to think they own that, too.

OK, we have a "pro-lifer" posting here. A pox on both your houses! Pro-life my a.. er, donkey!

Why are those who proclaim to be "pro-life" also for the death penalty? Why are those who are "pro-choice" in support of the drug laws?

I'm pro choice (in both abortion and drugs; I'm a libertarian) but anti-abortion. It ain't a "pointy shovel" you lying weazels!

Why can't men have reproductive rights? If she wants the baby, she has it and he pays for it for the next 18+ years, even if he doesn't want it. If she doesn't want it, it's aborted even if he wants it and is willing to raise it.

He has no choice at all! She has all kinds of borth control, from pills, implants, IUDs, "morning after", surgery, female condoms (and why can't you find these at the drug store?), and more, while a man has 3 choices for birth control: 1. abstinence 2. Condoms (requires her consent, some "choice") and PERMANENT SURGERY.

Why can't men have reproductive rights?

Rev Spitz is absolutely right though. Why is a person less of a person simply becuase he or she isn't born yet? Tha'ts outright hypocracy.

Interesting how "values" voters want to impose their "values" on everyone else, and scream like stuck pigs when anyone would even suggest that there are other values also worth considering, and heaven forbid, if those values contradict theirs. I'm a born-again Christian anti-war progressive liberal and I too have a family, morals and values.


Typical hypocrite. He is against murdering "babies" but supports the government killing adults. Where does it say in the Bible that it is OK for the government to take a life.

How do I join? Really, I mean there are so many of us that just get sick when a group of people that have supported protests at miltitary funerals, attacking and stalking doctors, and preach hate calling themselves the 'moral' center of this country. They are nothing but religious thugs that need to have their biggest weapon taken away. American values are (taken from the Constitution not the Bible) freedom and liberty. So - the question should be "what do we do next to start the revolution?"

GREAT idea! What's especially funny is that I can't see how conservatives could do the same thing in reverse. What would they call their "Institute"...the Center for Tolerance? The Peace Coalition? The very words would make them shudder.

Dear Mr. Zorn:

Good idea so far. Your institute should do the following:

(1) seek out the very best arguments of the opposition,

(2) set forth those opposing arguments in their very best form and,

(3) refute them in detail point by point.

Merely refuting caricatures of conservative positions will not do. Of course, conservatives should do the same regarding liberals. If both sides did this then I predict -- not a merging of positions -- but perhaps a trend towards convergence.

A good example of this was your "abortion rights" debate with a representative of the Catholic Church. Other examples are the FEDERALIST PAPERS and the ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS which were newspaper essays. The one drawback is that it would require too much intellectual heavy lifting from those on the right and the left.

"benighted though you may be"...

I can only hope that some day I can be as enlightened as you. I guess you can agree to disagree with people as long as they measure up to your sense of intellectual understanding of the issues.

ZORN REPLY-- Lighten up, Mark.

I couldn't agree with you more, sign me up! I am so tired of conservative Christians presenting themselves as the only ones with moral values - what about not judging others! I am a mother of 2 college age daughters who have been raised as Christians but my husband and I have worked hard to make sure those "values" include open mindedness and lack of judgment toward others, that its more about our actions toward others than how others choose to live their lives.
Thank you for comments!!!

Great idea, EZ. Although I'm no liberal, I agree that no one should claim or even imply a monopoly on values, patriotism, etc.

Suggest that, to annoy the Oral Roberts/Bob Jones types, the EZ-led AIVMF invents and employs a semi-secret liberal greeting---like using your index finger and middle finger (of your left hand, of course) to form a V (for values, of course---although the Pat Robertson types will claim that it stands for peace, pacifism, gay marriage, HillaryCare socialized medicine, teaching sex ed to kindergarteners, unconditional surrender to radical Islam, etc.)

Sorry, perfesser, but this fight has been over for a long time, and you lost, my friend.
I don't feel as I have lost, because I never thought I had any values anyway, except for love of my fellow man and an abiding respect for life, individual freedom, and rational belief in the sciences.
It has always been pretty much live and let live with me.
I retreat now to find a place to make my last stand.

I have no meaningful disagreement with Eric Zorn’s statement of values but I bitterly oppose the process of government forcing everybody to pay taxes to support the bureaucratic, ineffective morass of federal, state and local government programs that were adopted - albeit with the best of intentions - to achieve a better society!

Existing government programs are far too ineffective and far too costly at every level of government. We need to radically rethink how to achieve our mutual value based goals. Over taxing the most productive in our society and giving the tax money collected to government bureaucrats to just isn't getting the job done.

I forgot - in your zeal to wipe out apostrophe abuse, you need to enlist Bob the Angry Flower. You can find him at http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
"Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots!"

No argument re values. Hitler's values were totally valid to him and his followers. As were the values of Oskar Schindler. And the values of David Duke. And of all the KuKluxers and skinheads, and you- name-it.
The disagreement is not about everyone's right to hold values -- except for Eric-types who want to play semantic games. The disagreement is about morals. Many of us believe there are moral rights, and therefore moral wrongs. So, Zorn and I may hold different values. That's ok. But that reality does not change the truth. Some things are morally right. Some things are not morally right. Eric might not like this, but it's the way it is. Otherwise, we have to permit Hitler and Saddam and Stalin and Charles Manson to hold to their values. We need then to be prepared to suffer the consequences those values produce.
Smug? Self righteous? Arrogant?
Good words, Eric. Sounds as if you're looking in the mirror as you write.

Oh, all right. We won't call atheists "Brights." How about humanists? Or realists?

"...the problems of poverty and unequal opportunity can’t be solved simply by shaking the finger of blame or sounding the trumpet of motivation."

Nicely phrased, Eric.

But I think that poverty and unequal opportunity are two very different things. I believe the government has a responsibility to afford everyone a level playing field. That a public school in Englewood has a budget half that of a public school in Winnetka is an abomination.

Once government levels the playing field, however, it should get out of the way and not attempt to make equal opportunity into equal outcomes.

S. Sherman, please wipe the foam off your mouth.

Judge Shadur, as insufferable as he can be at times, and as much as he may remind some of us of the Talosians from Star Trek's "Menagerie" (the aliens with the brains so huge that you can hear their thoughts without them talking), is to be praised for the courage he shows in making decisions he believes to be well-grounded in law, no matter the sniping he takes from people like you. He has the right to live where he wants and send his kids to the schools he wants, just like you.

Your party has managed to install quite a few of its boys into Article III judgeships in the past few years since you stole the 2000 election. Your party has been busy turning the Justice Department into a political arm of the White House and its effort to create the "permanent majority." So please stop whining. Judge Shadur has more principle in his little finger than any of the leaders of your party, which has run this country into the ground for the past seven years.

Nobody has a monopoly on morality is a verbal masterpiece! Thank you Eric. Values of tolerance, acceptance, peace, charity,and the pursuit of quality of life constitute the essense of the very best of our humanity.

Sam Harris agrees with you on the "Brights", and actually advocates doing away with the term atheism altogether:


How dare you claim to have values that conflict with mine, that's un-American.

When us conservatives have our way all of you left-thinkers will be illegal, then we'll find out who really loves America and her freedoms because only people who think exactly like us will be allowed to exist.

The rest of you will be in camps where you belong. Only people like us who detest freedom are the ones who really love it.

Need an assistant executive director?

People who vote are expressing values. Agreed wholeheartedly. Have voted in every election I was eligible to vote in, and dragged my kids to the polls with me when they were young. I seem to have raised a couple of people who now also vote in every election they're eligible to vote in.

Morals? I'm tired of people thinking that because I don't practice religion the way they think I ought to, that I have no morals, no ethics, no values, and no respect for family. (Family should include non-standard-brand members! - Dick Cheney's daughter included)

Mr. Zorn, here's some ideas that might actually help our city promote a more values oriented society. How about using your column to bring folks together by not making everything a them vs. us war of words? How about openly promoting the theory that only through compromise and working together can we begin to solve the very complex issues which plague our great land? How about admitting that by stoking the fires of ideology you inflame and milk situations to sell newspapers?

ZORN REPLY -- I've been more open to dialogue and sharing views from all sides than just about any columnist I can think of. Opposing views are aired here all the time and I've published dialogues with smart people who disagree with each other and with me.

To S. Sherman

I have spent the past 34 years in Rogers Park. My wife and I raised 2 children, a boy and a girl here. BOTH attended Chicago public schools.
At no time were either of them in peril, accosted, or led astray by the people they were surrounded by in that school system. They made many friends of diverse ethnicities and retain may of those friendships to this day.

Because we as parents were involved in virtually every aspect of our childrens' lives, protecting and guiding them. We were committed and it paid off.

My son, now 27 has a Business degree from Northwestern and a M. B. A. from Kellogg, and my 23 year old daughter is working on her graduate degree in Sociology at the University of Illinois.

I wouldn't have traded their upbringing here for any other place on Earth. They got experience in the REAL world that others choose to shelter their childen from. (Sorry about the grammar)
I've seen the culture shock that these coddled kids go through once they enter that world. My kids had no problems adjusting whatsoever.

Whether a judge making decisions that affect your child's life is liberal or conservative should have ZERO effect on how they come out of it on the other end IF you are doing your job as a parent.

quit whining about liberal judges and decide that YOU will be the determining factor in what kind of children you'll raise.

Yeah! The smugness of the conservative crowd has been a thorn in my side long enough.

They have "take back the night" rallies on college campuses to promote safety.

Let's have a "take back the right" rally on Daley Plaza to reclaim words like "right" and "values" from the oppressive anti-rights, anti-equality crowd.

Can we make room in the value equation for people who not only believe in something other than christianity, but who don't believe in a religion at all? We're not all hex-casting pagans out here ... some of us simply choose to live free from religious doctrine. It's very liberating. "Bright," "atheist," call it what you want. I call it "spiritually connected, without religious dogma."

An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell him or her what to do. Religion assumes people need to be told how to live, too, so it's strange that so many vehemently religious people are against "big government," which involves things like tax-based programs to help the less fortunate.

I guess they''d rather tithe to ensure the less fortunate are not just helped, but coerced into obeying their religious doctrine. And they're calling that "values"?

Universal healthcare would mean sharing healthcare facilities with people from all walks of life. Some people still seem to prefer using their privileged status to secure state-of-the-art healthcare for everything from heart surgery to an ingrown toenail, leaving the majority of society to make do with healthcare that ranges from lesser to nonexistent. Pro-life, huh?

Zorn's article about values belonging to everyone is on target.

You're out on the links, aren't you?

ZORN REPLY -- Yes...Played Forest Preserve National, as the old timers call it. What a deal! $20 these days, and the course, always great, is in pretty decent shape for late October. I struck the ball many times to celebrate.

Yawn. Mark your argument is old and tired too! There's only so many positions one can take on an issue like abortion. You've got your heels dug in pretty well yourself.

Abstinence??? People laughed when Bush was advocating abstinence. I just think this is funny.

Hey EZ,

Instead of fantasizing about your organization, organize it and have your own "Value's Voter Summit". Then some conservative columnist can come up with some meaningless fodder for an article.

One of the best recent development in the culture war is the emergence of confident and confrontational atheists. It's better that the left is actually honest about their atheism instead of pretending to be religious. No one buys that Edwards or Clinton are religious (Obama is different). They should be honest about it. That is the left's values--secularism. Sing it proud, Zorn. It's honest. It's just a loser.

Also, why should the press have to put quotations or "so-called" around the name of a conference? When the National Organization for Women meets should the press say that it represents "some women"? Or when the AFL-CIO says that they're fighting for interest of the workin' man, should they say unions who claim to have the interests of blue collar workers? Of course not.

It's the title and to put quotations or so-called into is injecting a bias against the Values Voters conference.

ZORN REPLY -- Why would you say that about Clinton and Edwards? I mean, I have no particular knowledge of their spiritual inner lives, and I'm trying to infer how you think you do. Sure, Clinton fooled around on his wife. So did Newt Gingrich, to name just one philandering Republican who swears to a strong belief in God. What is it that tells you that someone's faith in genuine and that someone else's faith is a pose?

An organization dedicated to fighting the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the right wing? Where do I sign up?

I love how progressives talk about how conservatives don't allow them to be the way they want to be, yet you don't allow us our freedoms.

You don't want us to have guns. You want us to use our hard earned money to pay for other's health care, abortions, welfare and retirement. You won't allow a moment of silence where everyone can choose to do what they want...pray to whichever god they want or merely twiddle their thumbs. You want us to accept other's religions and other personal choices yet you don't accept ours. You try to silence our speech on the airwaves with legislation requiring radio/tv stations to provide equal time for liberal talk as they do conservative (even though Air America showed no one wants progressive radio).

I've said it many times before...the far right and the far left are more similar than anyone realizes. both are rich, closed minded individuals that want everyone to think like them.

Sounds great to me, Eric!

It's been annoying me for a long time that Democratic and Liberal politicians haven't taken a stronger stand on their values (as if there were such a thing as Values with a capital "v"). It's as if they've been afraid of the word itself.

I'd join your Institute in a second, although you need to be careful- it almost sounds like you're saying that you'd do it simply out of spite, which is rather juvenile. I agree with your point- that SOMEONE should create such an organization!

Abortion is god's plan. God loves abortion and abortionists. They are his plan for over-population. We know that god loves abortionists. If he hated abortion, he would never have allowed abortion to be invented. Since it was invented, god must love it.

I love abortion. You should too. It's god's will. It's god's plan.

I think the people throwing around the word socialism need to educate themselves on what it means and where it still applied. As for the institute - I don't need one to tell me I'm moral, or have values. I don't need to look to others for my self worth. Let the Right have their words, they've devalued them to the point where have little real meaning left. But if a secret handshake is part of the package then I might reconsider.

ZORN REPLY -- We'll throw in a tote-bag and a decoder ring.

First, on Clinton and Edwards. I think they are phonies. Sorry. I don't claim to know everything about their spiritual lives, but if you believed that BS when Hillary said "I don't feel no ways tired..." or when she and Bill would hold hands and hold the Bible and go to church together in the middle of the Lewinsky thing..., well, you're a more generous soul than I. I think they have internalized secular values.
Oh, and Zorn, how do you feel about People for the American Way? Are they allowed to be called that? If that's the American Way, then Congress is the Politburo. Should that be in quotes or so-calleds?

ZORN REPLY -- Oh, so you just have a sixth sense for phoniness, and anyone going to church during a great personal crisis has GOT to be a phony? Any Republicans strike you as poseurs in the pews? What about the Reagan Family Values?
PFAW is a good counterexample...well played. They sound JUST like a right-wing advocacy group. But references to them are almost always followed by an explanation.

With many of those posting here ripping the right-wingers who call themselves Values Voters (and justifiably so, in my opinion), I hasten to point out that the Left often does the same thing---my favorite example is the old Norman Lear group led by Hollywood liberals: People for the American Way. What, like those who disagree with Lear are un-American? Of course, Lear's group was largely formed to meet the challenge of the equally offensively named Moral Majority, so on and on we go with the endless partisan gamesmanship. Great stuff, eh?

Since you are now framing values as not inherently bad, perhaps you will drop the use of pejorative terms like "smug", "arrogant" and "self-righteous", which are frequently applied by liberals to those who identify a set of values, try to live up to them and encourage others to do so. Throw out "finger-shaking" too. If you want to be recognized as having values and morality, it's only fair you stop staking a partisan claim on NOT having all those nasty attitudes that supposedly go along with them.

You mean I'm not allowed to have feelings about who is a phony? Why not? Clinton was ostentatious about carrying the Bible around at that point. Hillary's "no ways tired" was grating. Edwards is a snake-oil salesman.

I think Reagan loved his wife too much and was unable to communicate with his kids. I think Giuliani would be well-served not to pretend to be Catholic. I think Larry Craig and Senator Vitter shouldn't spout about family values. Gingrich shouldn't have left his wife on her deathbed. Happy?

ZORN REPLY -- Of course you're free to form opinions and spout them at will, I was just asking what, specifically, make you think that Edwards and Clinton are faking their religious sentiments other than a clearly partisan feeling on your part that they're phony (Clinton was quoting an African American poet when she said that line, by the way...I chided her for putting on a bit too much dialect at the time, but how you jump from that to doubting her sincerity on matters of faith, well, I don't know. At least you now seem to be willing to admit it's based on nothing but themost superficial of observations.

On the comparison between Value Voters and People for the American Way:

On a Washington Post chat recently, one fo their reporters, I think it was Peter Baker but I could be misremembering both which reporter it was and if Peter Baker is the name of the reporter I am thinking of, he casually referred to what value voters want, meaning religious conservatives. When someone called him on that kind of slanting, he seemed incredulous that that was slanting and not simply what they were called.

I can't imagine reporters ever talking about voters for the american way, as a reference to liberals without realizing the absurdity of slanting things that way.

So really the imbalance is not with groups naming themselves in ways that spin, it is with other people, journalists included, buying into the obvious spin.

It doesn't bother me that conservative christians call themselves value voters. It does seem absurd that other people, presumably people with values of their own which often disagree with the so-called value voters, do not see the problem with accepting the claim.

Liberal "values"? You have to be kidding. The basis of the American liberal movement is the sneering rejection of standardized morals. So smug. So self-rightous. So hopelessly out of touch.

ZORN REPLY-- "Standardized morals"?

Just for once I would like to see the Religious Right discussing the matters that Jesus was concerned with. Jesus, who was pro-abortion or at most neutral on the subject, was REALLY interested in the poor. He was a communist who wanted people to have communal property and think spiritually. He hated the Right Wing Fascists of the time, the Pharisees and Saducees, and wanted to overthrow the established churches, especially those who preached the Prosperity Gospel.

Those are the values that your new institute should be preaching. I'm with you.

I can only hope that "values voters" lose their jobs, have kids who get kicked out of school and turn to criminal behavior to make ends meet, lose their inheritances (since few, if any actually worked for the money they have) and then make for themselves without asking for a handout. These people, whose sanctimony has ruined our political system, should really exercise their patriotic duty and not taint our vote and destroy the future of this nation with their simple-minded, sanctimonious, destructive policies. If they hate our freedoms, there are a plethora of nations that they can move to without destroying what the U.S.A. was intended to be. (If this cop-out works for "conservative" blowhards, why not on the other side?)

Unfortunately, like everything else with these people, what they want supersedes patriotism and the good of the people of this nation. They just want to establish a false sense of superiority over others being that they lack redeeming values of their own.

Now, having failed at everything else, the "values voters" are turning to bigot politics to secure their false sense of superiority. These are the same people maligning hard-working immigrants and revisiting the politics of 50 years ago in the current generation.

Republicans kill babies. Their wars drop bombs on them. Their policies deny food for them.

IF I were a Republican who had no morals whatsoever (but wanted to make it appear as if I did), I too would be looking for a foil to project my guilt upon. But the truth is, I'll bet their beliefs cost more children their lives last year than abortions did. But hey, so long as these blowhards can look down on someone else, they're content with being hypocrites.

Brian seems to assume that "secularism" is a bad thing.

"An 'ism,' in my opinion, is not good." But here's the thing: Atheism and secularism are not the same thing.

Secularism as defined by Webster's: "The belief that consideration of the present well-being of mankind should take precedence over religious considerations in civil affairs or public education."

Here's a little news flash for ya: The United States Constitution is the legal document we're referring to when we talk about the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state means that religion is a private domain (unless it involves illegal activities, for instance, which require government intervention), and government is a public domain.

Christians like to argue that the founders of our country were christians, and so yadda yadda yadda. Well, they put their values into words quite clearly, so read 'em and weep. Read anything ... try reading, please.

Calling liberals or people on the left or Democrats or Greens or libertarians "secular" isn't much of an insult, really. It just means that we are tolerant of religions that differ from our own, and of people who are not religious. Sounds like utopia to me!

I have friends of many, many creeds. My faith is in humanity, nature is far out, and religion is a system of oppression. In my opinion.

That doesn't mean I look down on people who are religious -- I just expect them to respect my right to go through life without being forced or coerced to conform to their beliefs.

Been there, done that, wised up, moved on. That's my life. I don't expect it to be the same for everyone, unlike most christians I know, who arrogantly believe anyone who doesn't follow their religion is wrong.

Eric, on 28 February 1996, you wrote a terrific column, "Value Shoppers Find Bargain in Golden Rule". It explained why the Golden Rule is a fine, non-denominational, all-purpose touchstone of right and wrong for those of us who guide our lives by genuine morals and values, but do not affix to them a religious brand name. Perhaps that column is due for a reprint. I suggest it be the founding document of your new American Institute for Values, Morals and the Family. I can't wait to flaunt my membership card!

True Values?:

Sen. Larry (stall) Craig
Rep. Mark (page) Foley
Rush (vicodin) Limbaugh
Alberto (uhavenorights) Gonzales
Bill O' (loofah) Reilly
Ann (jperfect) Coulter
VP Dick (wannabuygas) Cheney
Tom (huntthemdogsdown) Tancredo
George (macaca) Allen
Karl (halliburton) Rove
Duke (rollsroyce) Cunningham


The difference between the values of the right and the values of the left can be summarized in one word: tolerance. We have it; they don't. As an example, if you are against abortion, don't have one. The Republican candidates for President scare the hell out of me.

EZ is absolutely right. I spent the weekend being outraged by the media coverage of the Values Voters summit. Just because I don't share evangelicals' values doesn't mean I don't have values. I put respect for others' opinions at the top of my list of values. That is what America is all about.

Here's what I've never understood: People who claim to be "pro-life" (and thus anti-choice) yet once the babies are born, they want nothing to do with them. These are the same people who want to eliminate (or severely reduce) public funding for luxuries such as health care for children, the disabled, and/or working adults who can't get it on their own, public schools, and food stamp programs, to name a few. HOWEVER, they always seem to find plenty of money to fund an illegal war (can someone please explain to me how war is pro-life?) and lower taxes for the wealthiest 1%.

I heard Stephen Colbert once describe the difference between conservatives and liberals best. He said that conservatives tell you what Jesus said while liberals do what Jesus did (i.e., taking care of the sick, poor, elderly, etc.).

jessica, the people you're referring to are more properly labeled 'pro-birth' than 'pro-life'. That clarifies their true beliefs.

Eric, you are right on target!

I only read about twentyfive percent of the posts.

Both sides are imposing their values on others, via the government, and are destroying America. Neither side knows what freedom is. Neither side values the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and limited government.

Liberals are the worst.

I admitted nothing of the sort. Being ostentatious about carrying a Bible around at a time when people are doubting you is a pretty good sign of phonieness. Hillary's fake laugh oozes phonieness. Her grating ingratiating reading was phony. How am I supposed to prove someone is a phony other than by what I see? And why aren't you allowed to question someone's faith without having a spittle-flecked liberal asking how dare you do so?

ZORN REPLY -- You come into my house, Brian, you have to be ready to field challenges with something other than utterly offhand observations. I'm skeptical of the depth of faith of a LOT of people who profess to have it -- whose deeds and manner don't suggest to me that they take seriously the precepts of the faith they purport to follow. But I don't know. Imperfect people -- sinners -- often have very deep, very sincere faith, yet fall short of their own ideals. IN fact I'm guessing most people of faith (and most people without faith) regularly fall short of the standards they set for themselves. Democrats and Republicans. It's a leap to go from there to saying they're phony (or particularly phony...most politicians have some of the phony about them). It's a bigger leap to judge someone by her laugh. As far as I'm concerned, your views and how you've expressed them on this topic speak very well for themselves. I'm only flecked with spittle because of the way you've been sputtering at me.

How 'bout this? Those on the Right will drop their claims to ownership of "values" and "morals." Then, those on the Left will drop their claims on control of the "bigot" labelmaker and the determinants of intelligence. Sound fair?

I'm not much of a joiner, but I'd sign up for your organizaton immediately. These are values that I wholeheartedly support.

"Brian seems to assume that "secularism" is a bad thing."

I don't necessarily think secularism is a bad thing, but I think the absolutist secularist of the left, as typified by the ACLU, is a political loser. I also think it is what the left wants but hides behind a veneer of religion.


The First Amendment says nothing about an absolute separation of church and state. I not only try reading, I did it. It says Congress can't establish a religion. It doesn't say that if a city wants to have a creche at Christmas, that's grounds for a lawsuit. For a 170years, the separation was understood in that way--no establishment of a religion. The left picked a fight, and those who favor traditional values fought back.

As the term is most often used, values voters are those who oppose expansion of gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, and other than "traditional" (however defined) values.

Values voters are just one of the special interest groups what make result of our political nomination process the grotesque hydra it is. Other special interest groups are AARP, the physician and lawyer guilds, unions, pharamaceutical firms, and insurance companies. And that is just a few of the key domestic policy interest groups.

In foreign affairs, one of the heavy hitters is the pro-Israel lobby. Evidence of this lobby's potency is seen in the lengths to which the leading political candidates seek to outdo each other in their support for Israel and presently, their sabre rattling at Iran.

The effect of the political nominating process is to filter out any candidate who strays too far from the "right' positions. Candidates such as Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul don't have a chance of winning their party's nomination, even though their messages (while different) resonate with many voters.

The Unity08 movement (www.unity08.org) has some potential to improve the process and shake up policy that is driven by special interests. Utilizing the internet and direct nomination by citizen delegates, Unity08 is putting together a slate of one Democrat and one Republican to run as President and VP.

This version of "direct democracy" has the potential to radically disrupt special interest group power. Whether this potential will be realized remains to be seen. One possibility is a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket. Paul and Kucinich would end overseas military adventures quickly, and bring the troops back home.

With a war that is not popular, or particularly promising behind us, we can then have a national debate on what to do with health care. Kucinich and Paul have fundamentally different perspectives, and we need to get beyond shallow condemnation of "for profit" medicine, or British style systems.

Unity08 may provide a path out of the woods, but we are not out of the woods yet.

W.J. Malan
Author, The Audacity of Truth

Eric--Where do I sign up? Will you require dues? I will be pleased to be a part of the "American Institute for Values, Morals and the Family" lead by you. I am not a native Chicagoan, but I wish I were. The fact that you are one of the people here brings me back time and time again. Thank you for being an articulate, sensible being. Tamara from California

We're all imperfect, Eric. We all fall short of our ideals. That wasn't my point at all and didn't say that Clinton was a phony because he fools around.
I don't doubt that you consider Mitt Romney's positions phony. I do. I don't know his heart but his positions are where they are for purposes of the election. I think the same is true for Edwards and Clinton on religion. I don't know why that view is so objectionable. I've given concrete examples of Clinton phonieness. That doesn't satisfy you, but you seem to have some impossible burden of proof.

ZORN REPLY-- No, you say he was photographed attending church during the Lewinsky storm...as far as I know he attended church fairly often while in the White House and even if his attendance was sporadic (Reagan almost never went...used to claim it was a security problem, which I've no doubt that it is), is it so unusual that he'd seek solace in his faith and the church during a time of particular trouble?
I do consider Mitt Romney's political positions to be or to have been phony, insincere. But I'd never presume to question whether or not he truly adheres to the Mormon faith or whether he's just a atheist poser...I wouldn't know how to test this proposition even if I wanted to explore it. Maybe..I dunno, maybe his laugh sounds forced to me and that should be enough. Or his hair. That's it. His hair makes him a phony. Good day!

"Good day!"

What are you, a Dickensian character.

Well, if you believe that Clinton is sincere, bully for you. I don't get why questioning someone's faith has such a high burden of proof, but well, good enough.

I said, good day sir.

I hate to ask this, but what is Forest Preserve National called amongst the "non-old-timer" set?

It's amazing how this almost turned into an abortion debate, isn't it?

"Wipe the foam off your mouth." Hah! Yuk Yuk,That's a good one.
Sorry, my friend. I laugh at us both.

Can anyone define "traditional values?" Are they anything like "standardized morals?"

The ACLU defends religious freedom, as stated in the Constitution. Look it up.

Tory, don't be so dogmatic. There are people out here that will stand by you in a fight whom you might otherwise denounce as being a liberal. It's not all so cut and dried, although when society descends into chaos, a man will shoot his own brother.
How about dropping the labels and seeking justice and righteousness while at the same time making sure your weapons are loaded.
Remember, your neighbors and fellow Americans who defend the Constitution and understand freedom are who you need to find, and there are a lot of us out here who are just as fearful of and as sick of the gummint as you are. Drop the divisive labels. They're using them against us.

It's not Dickens, it's Paul Harvey!

Or no?

ZORN -- The golf course is George Dunne and the "Good day!" I'm most familiar with is from the movie version of Willie Wonka.


I have respect for you because, unlike most liberals, you are not a "chicken hawk" with regard to social action. You were willing to put your own kids on the front line. I am sure you are being honest about your personal experience but the achievement scores at the Chicago schools and the amount of reported crime in and around the schools tell a different story from the one you tell.

You must admit that you are in the minority. When I used to go to parents' night at my kids' school in Buffalo Grove, it was like a Senn-Mather-Sullivan-Von reunion. All of the people my age who had gone to those schools were sending their own children to school in the suburbs.

The funny thing was that most of those people professed to be liberals. The typical liberal attitude is that integration is wonderful thing -- for children who are less valuable than their own.

"(Shadur) has the right to live where he wants and send his kids to the schools he wants, just like you."

Yes but did he have the right to ruin the school near my house while leaving the one near his own house unscathed?

Look. The only reason Shadur lived in Glencoe and I lived in West Rogers Park was that he had more money than I did. (One of the great "liberal values" is looking down one's nose at those who have less money). The only reason Shadur did not include Glencoe in the busing plan was that he lived there. Plain and simple. As far as he was concerned, the peons in Chicago could be made to suffer but he was certainly not going to make HIMSELF suffer.

I remember when Jimmy Carter was elected president and he felt he had to set an example so he sent his daughter Amy to the neighborhood public school near the White House. Of course, she had bodyguards there.

By the time the Clintons came to office, they didn't feel they had to set an example because busing plans had already destroyed most of the urban public school systems. The Clintons sent Chelsea to the expensive Sidwell Friends Academy. And why not? They had the money. Did anyone really expect liberals with money to send their child to school with the children of peons?

As is often true, Mr. Zorn, you have expressed thoughts that exactly echo my own in language that is plain and simple and all the more eloquent for that. I think it is particularly tragic that we law-abiding, socially-conscious, caring, generous and tolerant Christians/Jews/Muslims/Pagans/Humanists have stood by--tacitly permitting a minority of nasty, angry, negative, and close-minded people who obviously are not biblical scholars for sure, to hijack these terms and turn them into "weapons of mass denigration".

While reading your column decrying how the Right has stolen the word "Values" I came across the most outrageously hijacked word of the past century ("gay"). A shame that I can no longer view in the same innocent vein one of the more delightful movies of my youth ("Our Hearts Were Young and Gay"). You disapoint us, Eric, that one as fair-minded as youself chose not to point out this example of how Left has committed the same sin as you accuse the Right.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm not falling into THAT trap again. 17 years ago I wrote a Newsweek column in a light vein complaining that homosexuals had stolen this wonderful word and the rest of us wante it back. Well, it was regrettably executed, at least -- and the truth is that "gay," while once a fine and versatile adjective, wasn't a particularly important concept or word in our culture. Unlike "morality" "values" and "family," which are..

Check out http://www.moralvaluesproject.org I completely agree with your assessment that we can and should make the case for LGBT equality in moral terms (based on the legal and political work I've been doing for about 20 years.)
Chai Feldblum

Everyone here forgets that God gave us morals through the ten commandments. #5 THOU SHALL NOT KILL.

Lost my message due to an error on my point, so I will repost because, quite frankly, I don't let go when engaged in an argument. Please delete the previous message or this part of the message if necessary.

I note that the posters in this blog tend to be secularist and often atheist. I say, great. Make the line clear. Vote left and voice your desire to live in a completely secular society. I like the folks who admit to being atheists, put walking fish on their cars, and call the faithful "fundies." They're honest.

What I don't like is the Trojan horse nature of the left. The outrage that Zorn has for me doubting the faith of Clinton and Edwards is overblown. It's like the sputtering of Alan Colmes when someone questions the patriotism of someone like Peter Stark. Yeah, we don't think he loves America, get over it.

But let me give a concrete example. Several posters noted the alleged "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment. It's not there folks. But let's assume that that is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause. Complete secularity in all matters involving government action. But what is more intrusive than forcing children to recite allegiance to the flag? What is more offensive, forcing children to say that this is a nation under God or a creche at Christmas?

But where was the left on this issue? When the Ninth Circuit ruled the pledge unconstitutional, Boxer, Feingold, Clinton, Durbin, Kerrey, and every single Senator (except one absentee, the vote was 99-0) condemned the court. This was the end line of their logic. It followed directly from the Separationists argument. But not a single secularist to be found for the simple reason that it is a political loser. So they pose as believers when necessary to maintain power, but they believe, as you do, that God has no place in the public square. They know that this country won't vote for an atheist. So they pose and they pose, and their perfiduity is a discredit to those who believe.

ZORN REPLY -- I said good day.

S. Sherman said: "The number one 'liberal value' is hypocrisy." That would be true if Liberals had standards. The whole point of being a Modern Liberal (I’ll explain below) is to do what you want for “today”. The true-believers don’t always have good morals and ethics to help them – and whatever morals and ethics they have are fluid. Conservatives look at them as if they came from another planet because we think they are such hypocrites, but in fact, they don’t care about standards or even what they just said five minutes ago. That’s why it’s hard to argue with a Modern Liberal – it’s because they don’t think they have to adhere to where the facts take them. On the conservative side, we know we aren’t perfect, but the goals involve trying to be better. There are plenty of bumps and falls along the way that set us back, but the idea is to try to plow ahead. To a Modern Liberal, when a conservative makes a mistake, it means the whole of conservatism is bad. To a conservative, when a conservative makes a mistake, it means we have to work harder.

Eric says “Then, from the pulpit of executive director, I’ll promote progressive values, liberal morality and a generously inclusive notion of family.” Basically, this means tearing down the definitions, values, moralities and ethics that have taken us thousands of years to build. For the “notion of family”, anything will be considered a family so the word will end up having no meaning.

Eric fits the pattern of what Evan Sayet calls a Modern Liberal. It’s “Modern Liberal” vs Liberal. Liberals had standards. Modern Liberal philosophy grew in the 60’s. They didn’t call it “counter culture” for nothing. It literally means we’re dealing with people who want to drive down the culture. Eric seems like a nice person and I don’t mean to offend anyone, but this dumbing down of standards that pervades society has its costs. Hiding them is wrong.
With the pre-counter-culture liberals, I think most people would say that we all had the same goals, just different ways to get there. On the other hand, these Modern Liberals seem to be opposed to everything that is good and seem to elevate what is bad. Watch Evan’s talk here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c to see where this came from.

(If the link doesn't work, just search for "Evan Sayet" in YouTube and pick the "How Modern Liberals Think" video.)

Basically, Evan’s theory is Modern Liberals don’t like too much about our culture and civilization. They have never found a system that solves war, poverty, inequality, etc, so they think that any attempt to deal with issues s going to fail. They see us all arguing and they don’t like it. That’s where this “equality” concept comes in and why it pervades their thinking. In their mind, if everything was “equal”, we’d have nothing to fight over (or for). So without fighting, there would be no war, no poverty, etc. It’s a utopian vision. The problem is to get there we all have to ignore logic, reason and the things that happen around us. This is why, to the Modern Liberal, criminals are victims and CEO’s are all evil. The want to push profanity, single motherhood, etc. while laughing at the people who try to do right. They want to elevate what is bad, wrong and failed while tearing down what is good, right and successful. The idea is to meet in the middle so there isn’t anything to fight over.
It doesn’t matter to the Modern Liberal that their ideas or systems have never worked! It doesn’t even cross their mind as that would just get in the way of the philosophy for their utopia for all of us!

It’s why they like to nail Conservatives for being hypocrites and why they seem to immune from the effects of being call a hypocrite.

I could talk for awhile on this, but Evan Sayet’s talk is phenomenal. Find some quiet time, rewind it to catch missed details and watch the Q&A at the end. Evan has discovered the Unified Theory of Modern Liberals. Enjoy.

Your new Institute would encourage me to violate the tenet that "I would never join a group that would allow me as a member." In this case, if you'd have me, I'd gladly join.

I hope Eric Zorn and the above supporters of his values’ institute realize that our federal, state and local governments all accept donations. If you like or want to expand what your favorite government does, all you have to do is to pay more than the minimum already demanded of you! You are free to pay double, triple or even more if you so choose! Our governments will accept your contributions eagerly and I believe they might even agree to let you stipulate exactly how the additional taxes you pay should be used!

I, for one, don’t believe our governments spend tax dollars wisely or effectively and I don’t like paying taxes because frankly they are excessive given how screwed up most things run by government are – especially at the state and local level.

Sure, the sentiments expressed by Eric Zorn and others above are admirable. How could they not be? They are mostly motherhood and apple pie! Still, most of value sentiments expressed above strike me as unsolicited, self indulgent advice doled out by self appointed experts who always know what’s best for the rest of us. To them I say, until you start supporting your ideas with your wallets, talk is cheap and it is doubly cheap when you're using OPM – Other People’s Money.

The purpose of a columinist is to provoke peoplel into thinkiing. I never really thought about the subject of values and never realized that a conservative group had "staked a partisan claim on sufch precious words in order to use them as weapons" Thank you for your column.

I wanna join your institute.

It's about time someone pointed out that a lot of what the "Christian Right" advocates is the exact opposite of what Jesus would do. Now you can become the second member (I'm the first) of the "Not in the name of Jesus" society. And being an atheist shouldn't deter you since you obviously know more about Christ's teaching about morality than, say, Bush or the TV evangelists. Not to mention much of the rest of the religious establishment in the US, who have chosen to not publicly stand up for the moral life that Christ teaches. If they followed the Bible (1 Timothy 5:20) they would openly rebuke those who lead America's unChrist-like actions of making the rich richer, waging unprovoked war, refusing to provide life-saving medical services to sick children whose families cannot afford them, etc., etc.

Check out
God and Other Famous Liberals: Recapturing Bible, Flag, and Family From the Far Right
by F. Forrester Church


From the Midwest Book Review: "Midwest Book Review: "With history and the Holy Scriptures as his guide, the Reverend Forrest Church takes on the religious right and political conservatives on three fronts: religion, patriotism, and family values. Emphasizing the strong connection between liberalism and democracy, he debunks the myth of the moral superiority of the conservative viewpoint. With an excellent forward by Anne Eleanor Roosevelt, God And Other Famous Liberals is divided into three sections: Reclaiming the Bible (The Most Famous Liberal of All; God's Son Jesus; The Holy Spirit); Reclaiming the Flag (With Liberty for All; We Hold These Truths; One Nation Under God); and Reclaiming the Family (Your Mother is a Liberal; E Pluribus Unum). ...Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote: "This thoughtful and and spirited book reminds us all that the Bible and the flag are not the private property of the radical right. ""

Hmmmmmmm. Let's see now what you have done w/ your circular argument (which, by the way, cancels all credible meaning & speech). You have used epistemological realism (always linked
w/ Natural Moral Law), and turned it against itself through ethical relativism, the de riguer of consciences today who refuse to see substances before their very eyes (3 total. Can you guess?) And the consequences? Sex w/ anything & anyone, so long it doesn't CONTRAVENE the LAW of the Land, & more Jews & Gentiles (non-
Jews) slaughtered in Mommys' wombs so sexual fantasies can continue freely, un-encumbered through the new "privileges" parading as Laws, rights, etc. Now, if someone like me is labeled "right-wing" for saying this, what in blazes makes you "left-wingers" right? Your intolerant judgment? Since you have decided that we can't call a thing for what it is(person, place, etc.), then solipsism
rules. There are no "rights" or "morals", only what we desire w/ passion. So nobody should give anyone ANY advice, since your philosophy, if followed to its logical conclusion, teaches this. It's so enlightening to see civilization at work !
Don't you think ? Nahhh ! That's just it.
You don't !

ZORN REPLY =="intolerant judgment" indeed.

The term "values" has been debased and minimized to cover only animal-sexual functions, since, apprently, human values and rights are more highly evolved and demanding of intellectual expansion and self sublimination.
In other words, thia brand of morality is appealing to so many on the far right, because it is cost-free.

Eric your column on values is right on. The arrogance of the right in believing they are the only ones with values is outragious. In their arrogance they would condemn those with opposite views straight to hell. Thank God we have freedom of speech (& viewponts) in this country, as long as the neocons aren't allowed to take away our rights. Thanks again an keep up the good work.

There are a number of comments about the difference between conservative and liberal values. Not surprisingly they tend to be of the form, my side is great the other side sucks eggs.

But there is a real divide on how the two sides approach most of these issues which hopefully can be expressed in a non-sucks eggs way.

The right tends to see virtue in following the right rules. This makes it sound like they have what philosophers call deontic ethics. But that isn't quite right. Because ultimately the grounding is in being the kind of person who follows right rules, which is properly makes them value theorists.

Liberals tend to be more consequentialist. That is to say they the ground their virtues in what happens if people follow those virtues. So, for example, on abortion liberals are likely to point to the fact that when liberals are making policy, abortion rates go down (because of more progressive tax policies, more honest sex education, etc.) while conservatives tend to focus on the fact that their policies do more to say that abortion is wrong. The fact that policies like cutting funding to clinics which provide both abortions and contraception tend to decrease abortions is beside the point. Such clinics send the message that abortion is acceptable when the message should be that it is not.

I don't know if I clearly captured the difference. But there is a clear difference here which if properly captured explains a lot of why the right and the left talk past each other on so many of these issues. After all if different things count as evidence, then the other sides arguments are going to seem mysterious since they point to the wrong things.

And the fact that the right are virtue theorists may explain why they get away with calling themselves value voters. Perhaps what Liberals should actual be are "improve the world voters". Or possibly the right is simply better at cowing the media.

Liberals have been using the excuse 'of being sensitive of children' the same as conservatives. To me that's claiming to be an expert on family.

I wouldn't trust my freedom (or family) with a liberal anymore than I would with a conservative. Both sides will try to impose their (family) values on every family. They just do it for different reasons.

If we can ever get back to debating if something is constitutional or not.......or, can you try to get government out of our families, our lives (and everything else).

Liberals have made claim to the family too. They get right into your home, right into your personal lives the same as conservatives.

The trend towards freedom and individualism is being done or carried out not by liberals, but by conservatives. It is not the Government's role to legalize or illegalize marriage, gay or regular. It can intervene (referee) to prevent birth defects (that's one reason why it issues marriage licenses). It is not the government's role to define family (in a constitutional sense) for social purposes to regulate it..

Both sides are destroying America by imposing their subjective values on Americans. Liberals are the worst.

may i please join?

what is the fee and where do i send it?

will i get a 'nifty' lapel pin?

when will the bumper stickers and tee-shirts with pithy slogans and eye catching symbols be ready for purchase?

might you really, under your employment contract with the tribune, be able to do this?
if not i offer myself, in an act of civic-mindedness, as your straw-man. please respond instanter as my schedule for the fall is quickly filling in.

Eric, Eric,
Like many others, you have accepted yesterday's immorality as today's morality. No one has a lock on moral values, but the degeneration of moral values in today's society is hardly somethiing to be condoned. The value of human life, of self responsibility, of marriage, of honesty, of a supreme being, have all been denigrated in recent decades. You can see all of the ten commandments broken in less than a half hour television show. Should we accept this or try to change it? Worst of all, what about the messages we send to our young people? Is it any wonder that so many go astray? As a popular journalist, you only make matters worse by trumpeting your own "flimsy ethical whims." Try going to church.
Tom Tock
Dwight, IL

ZORN REPLY -- Tom, Tom ... tell me, what is it with those of you who leave patronizing comments that you feel the urge to repeat my first name? Do you think that gives your preachy scolding a more persuasive tone, Tom, Tom?

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group