Saturday, November 06, 2010

America's Moral Compass

Carl Anderson: America's Moral Compass Is Intact

Book Says Americans Desire Traditional Values

NEW HAVEN, Connecticut, NOV. 5, 2010 ( Carl Anderson, supreme knight of the Knights of Columbus and New York Times bestselling author, has just released his latest book, "Beyond A House Divided: The Moral Consensus Ignored by Washington, Wall Street and the Media," the Knights of Columbus announced in a recent press release.

In the book, which was released on Election Day, Nov. 2, Anderson examines recent polling data, which he says exposes the fact that America is not as politically polarized as the public is led to believe, and that the country's collective "moral compass" is still pointing us in, basically, the right direction.

Anderson shows how the nation's political and business leaders, as well as other in the public eye, influence the public's perception of how our society views certain key issues, such as "the separation of church and state, ethical business practices and abortion restriction." The book also shows that, for the most part, American's share basic moral values.

"Time and again," says Anderson, "polling has revealed that the moral compass of the American people is sound and continues to point an ethical way forward for our country."

In the statement, Anderson shares that the consensus among Americans is the desire to move past "institutionalized partisanship and division." He says that even on issues that are especially controversial, such as abortion, "eight in 10 Americans can agree on certain restrictions." These common values and views on morality are often ignored by the media and those in positions of power.

According the press release, nearly five times as many Americans want a "return to traditional values" than feel that America is currently headed in the right direction.

"What we need now," says Anderson "is for people in key institutions to act with courage on these transcendent values."


Anonymous said...

If 8 in 10 Americans agree that abortion "rights" should be restricted, then why the heck do they keep voting for politicians who throw their bodies in front of ANY attempt at setting limits?

Particularly for those who describe themselves as Catholic when they clearly are NOT if they don't support the sanctity of life?

In the 2008 election I sent a query to a Republican candidate for a state office (whom I know to be Catholic) about his stance on abortion, because the issue wasn't referenced on his web site. The response was along the lines of: he's pro-life but shhh don't mention it because he then wouldn't have a chance in his liberal district.
WTH kind of world do we live in if pro-life = unelectable?

Anonymous said...

I had the priviledge of testifying before the Montgomery County Council, last year, when then councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg proposed that crisis pregnancy centers in MoCo, post signs disclosing which services we so NOT provide, or be slapped with a fine.

Prior to the passage of the proposal, several volunteers at a local crisis pregnancy center (including myself,) met with another councilmember. He told us that while he did not agree with the proposal, the "ball was too far down the road," and he had to support it. Really?? I was stunned, but shouldn't have been. We are in Montgomery County afterall.

Anonymous said...

Hmph. I'm not sure I'm buying the book's premise if there's such a disconnect between elected officials and the people they supposedly represent.

Anonymous said...

I saw on this morning's news that an abortionist is looking to set up a clinic that does late-term abortions here in the DC area.