We need only look in the Middle East at our enemies (and some of our “allies”) to see where even now it is considered immoral for a woman to show anything but her eyes in public, much less to have a say in her own life.

Murdering another person is pretty cut and dried when it comes to an immoral crime, or is it?. Why is it illegal for me to kill my neighbor but it is completely legal for me to shoot an enemy in a war or completely legal for the prison system to execute someone? Murder is murder, and if one murder is immoral then why isn’t another, so why are any murders sanctioned? It is because laws are not written to stop immoral acts. Laws are on the books to keep society civil and peaceful. And that’s the way government should work. What you call immoral and what I call immoral may not be the same thing, but we can both agree that robbing and killing your neighbor is not a good idea if we want a peaceful and organized society. Therefore we create a law against such acts.

Again, nothing is cut and dried, black and white. The same “immoralities” I mentioned in the first 2 paragraphs are not considered immoralities in the US today. Things we see as immoral now will most likely be part of the fabric of our society 100 years from now. And I for one think that is a good thing. The human race has grown and evolved over thousands of years, and free people think differently now than they did in the past, and will think differently in the future. Change is inevitable and is, on the whole, a good thing. Our society has grown and evolved over the past 200+ years, and as a society and as a people if we do not grow and evolve then we are doomed to fail.

Now, that all being said, I will definitely agree that the politicians in power are clueless. They have forgotten that they have a job to do, and it has nothing to do with getting elected. Somewhere along the lines our government has become detached from society and lost their way, and hopefully we can crack some heads in Washington to wake them up. As your colleague and friend, I would gladly invite you to join me in some politician head cracking

These types of discussions are what makes this country so special and great. We can agree to disagree, but at the end of the day shake hands and get a beer (which is thankfully not considered immoral anymore)!

Lately – and by lately, I mean for the last six or seven years – I have put forth the notion that there is little difference in Washington D.C. between a liberal and a conservative, a republican and a democrat. Each may profess different ideals, but in honesty and behind the dirty curtain that separates us from our leaders, they all will admit that they want only one thing – to live to “serve” another term. By the way, I’ve also predicted that in the 2012 election, much of this dirty curtain will be burnt to ash, revealing the ugly truth.

I’ve delineated our political leaders using a different type of screen. I’ve divided them into two camps: Americans and Politicians. Americans are folks who, like you and me, are living their lives in the best way they know how and trying to do what they believe is right. That’s really what you find all over America, in small towns and in major metropolitan areas. Driving the bus, pouring concrete, practicing law, and selling laboratory instrumentation.

Politicians, however, are living in a world apart from the rest of us, their only real aspiration being a Federal Pension, and knowing that as they increase their credibility in the political world, they will have to live by fewer and fewer of the rules that govern the actions of folks like you and me – rules that THEY are writing.

The faster we can get career politicians, regardless of party or so-called beliefs, out of Washington and the quicker we can get “rookies” and “Idealists” into office, the better. At least for people like you and me. Because by the time the Politicians get around to caring about the issues that really matter to this country and the people making it all work, the Americans would have already fixed the issue, and with any luck they would have left Washington and returned to being a productive citizen.

You already know that I have the utmost respect for you (and near complete trust in you). Being first a trusted business contact, then a friend, I gladly give you my respect. But you have also EARNED my respect and my trust, both thru your reciprocity and thru your kindness. Yet despite this rapport, this feeling of “simpatico”, I hesitate to respectfully disagree with your final sentence and the general sentiment of your final paragraph. Never wanting to disappoint my friends, it is always most difficult to express opposing views to them, especially as compared with mere acquaintances or business associates.

However, here goes. From my own perspective, the best thing to spend time and money on is morality, both in government and in the private sphere. As a free people, morality is precisely why we allow government in the first place. And morality most certainly affects the stability, both economic and otherwise, of our beautiful, exceptional country. It is only thru the dual forces of individual freedom and the rule of law that we in America have been able to achieve such exceptional success in such a short time period. And the root of that law, regardless of who acknowledges it, is morality. This is not lost on our detractors, some who covet our success and wish to emulate it, and others who hate us for it.

Murder is a moral issue. Theft is a moral issue. Arson is a moral issue. Allowed to exist without punishment, these three wrongful acts can greatly affect the economics of individuals, families, cities, and states. And yes, carried out to the natural conclusion, they would definitely affect the stability of this country and its future. Significantly, all three are illegal. These things are not illegal because a bunch of people voted to make them illegal – they are illegal because they are wrong. If someone steals your car, kills your wife and burns down your house, you will want some response from the appropriate authorities. You certainly won’t tell them not to meddle in moral issues and then try to have the law changed. Unless perhaps you were the perpetrator or an organization sponsoring this type of activity.

Not so long ago, adultery was also on that list of moral issues. Although people seek – and very frequently obtain – divorce for the reason of adultery, it somehow is not seen as a serious crime any more. You made reference to a slippery slope – if people don’t understand that we are indeed already on a slippery slope, then I guess it is understandable that they may also not realize that women having abortions and men marrying men flies in the face of what it means to be responsible as a person and as a society. It is not out of malice, but rather because they have been led by mass popular culture to such conclusions.

That being the case, we soon won’t have a representative democracy, we will instead have a mob, controlled at times by the most powerful cultural messages. Without control at other times, casting our lives into pure chaos. Willingness to make compromises on key points like the sanctity of an individual human life, and willingness to redefine the definition of what a marriage actually is, will certainly help to grease the skids.

Will such a life for us really come to pass? Again, I say, I think it will get worse before it gets better.

I think there is a place for both morality and technology on the political landscape. The problem I have is how it is often an “either/or” approach. That is part of the reason for the divisiveness in politics today. Everything is black and white, when in reality most things are grey.

My rant about guys like Buchanan is that they spend so much time looking at the past with such nostalgia that they miss the present and the future. There will always be things we look back on with fondness, but I would argue that overall things today are better than they were 50 years ago. Sure, we’ve hit a rough patch economically, but if the economy were strong right now then Congress and the President’s approval rating would be much higher (and would have little to do with their views on moral issues). Folks of Buchanan’s ilk certainly long for the “good old days”, because those were the days when a guy like him had power, whereas today he is somewhat marginalized because of his views.

Regarding where morality meets politics, I think that politicians should discuss moral issues, but it should not dominate them. The job of our government is not to legislate morality, and the founding fathers knew that well. It is not a coincidence that the Constitution contains no references to God, yet the writers were all devout Christians. God played a part in everything they did, yet they chose to leave him out of the governing document of this country. I believe they did that because they knew that if government started legislating morality it would be a slippery slope. I find it interesting that some folks complain about “big government” interfering in their lives, but then vote in a politician because they want him to legislate a moral issue that might directly interfere with countless other Americans.

This country’s finances are in a mess. Our government is somewhat dysfunctional in its current form, and Americans are rightly fed up. We need to invest in our future so that the American “can do” attitude will continue. Cutting funding for education does not aid in that effort, and neither does wasting time and money on moral issues. Whether or not a woman has an abortion, a man marries another man, or everyone goes to church on Sunday plays no role in the economic and intellectual stability of this country and its future.

Please do follow the Startupcity Des Moines site and info and we look forward to possibly seeing you at ThincIowa.