Beat me to it.

:)

I'm confused.

Are you saying that what the conservatives failed to adequately address actually NEEDED addressing?

Or are you practicing the height of hypocrisy by charging conservatives with not more actively campaigning against those things which would not otherwise NEED campaigning against if people like yourself had not actively supported them?

The question was, "what's moral?"; not "what's law?"

Lon actually addressing the content of an article! And, while avoiding the use of technicalities to express disagreement, actually adding something of substance to it!

Amazing.

You left out a significant one:

Prov 6:16-19
There are six things which the LORD hates,
seven which are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and a man who sows discord among brothers.
RSV

I think He must particularly dislike the New York Times.

I would love to hear your "objectively provable" standard of morality that does not encompass either the prescriptions of the Ten Commandments or their effects.

Go.

I realize this is way off topic but by what objective standard can we now measure the effects, whether for good or for ill, of women's suffrage?

intellectually and MORALLY dishonest persons...

on the New York Times building would do more to change things than a March on Washington.

is a manifestation of the more serious problem we are faced with: intellectually dishonest persons controlling the avenues of information dissemination.

Change this problem first and we wouldn't have to worry about a Marxist in the White House.