As yet another moralist poseur bites the dust it is perfectly reasonable to expect reasonable people not to discredit the message just because the messanger was found at fault. Still, equating Christian right activism as the only proper way to agressively act in defense of family values, cherish human life, instill the precepts of good responsible citizenship etc. is not only simplistic, it is just plain wrong. The right to hold such a belief may be guaranteed by our Constitution and that is why we consider ourselves free and living in a democracy, but it should never be allowed to become the main factor determining who we feel should be governing us.

When we hear certain personalities harp on the "secularization" of American society and blaming any number of undesirable ills or trends on it, some of us are only too willing to nod our heads in agreement merely because we agree with the undesirability of the ills or trends without bothering to think through the validity of the secularization issue. Without a doubt the most liberal, libertine, amoral, disruptive, divisive, and in the final analysis destructive voices in our society may be characterized as "secular" in nature, or being even more specific, atheist. Yet correlating the two factors as unavoidable cause and effect is the epitomy of unjustified profiling. There is a "tendency" for the two to be linked just as it is the case for professional athletes to be linked to steroid usage, but is being an athlete then undesirable? Of course not.

Whether I believe I or someone else may be going straight to hell should be strictly my own personal business and I should keep it as such. Whether I think the kindly, celibate priest in the diocese is molesting children or not should be everyone's business diregarding whether they are Catholic, non-Catholic, Jews, yes, even atheists. Desirable social conduct is an evolutionary cultural thing and goes far beyod whether it involves inscribing one's currency with a trust in (G)od. Funny thing is that with all of our claimed progress in correctness, in some respects we were further ahead fifty years ago. Let us use TV as an example.

Leave to Beaver was used as a vehicle for furthering strong family values and the elements of good citizenship without (to my recollection) ever bringing the issue of (G)od into it. And if it ever did, it did so in a most informal and casual way. Of course there were no minorities represented in those episodes. The mothers didn't work. There was therefore only a single family car. Children usually earned their allowance by doing chores and extra money by cutting other peoples' lawns or delivering newspaper. School officials actually expected a guardian to show up and own up to their potential responsibility when a student got into trouble. Suspension was not a one-day thing and expulsion might mean you had little choice other than signing in the Army (if old enough). So obviously, this program dealt with a mythical la-la land ruled by an intellectually bankrupt paternal President, and has no relevance today. Why?

Because our so much more sophisticated, divided, polarized social elements find the cohesion of the American dream offensive unless they are at the center of the action. How could Amos and Andy be more offensive and demeaning than a lot of the characters and situations depicted in today's black-oriented sit-coms?

Because the so-called Christian right won't come to its defense because they were not given "direct" credit for it. In Andy of Mayberry, Church is an issue usually when brought in in conjunction with baking pies for a fund-raiser or holding a singles dance. Family values and good social behaviour are emphasized on their own merit, but we again look for the fatal flaw. There are no minorities in Mayberry. The primary religion is probably Protestant Christian but it is not given specific credit. So we doom it all to irrelevance.

Sad truth is the values were there just the same. But as the Christian Right took turns alternately championing either the KKK or the Civil Rights movement, it was their momentous role in helping Ronald Regan break the Democratic stranglehold on the South to help them gain the political clout within the Republican party they insist on having constantly recognized. Pushing their litmus tests, alienating many of the "good" secularists into an "independent" camp, threathening, blackmailing, insisting to be pampared, they have become the non-fruit bearing limb of the Grand Old Party. They consume water and nutrients while producing nothing but moralist rethoric delivered by occasionally embarassing messengers.

Only too often the present Republican party has to wipe the egg off its face and start all over again trying to woo increasingly skeptical "secularists" such as myself. The fact that there may be just as many fallen moralist poseurs in the Democratic camp seems to have little bearing on allowing the Republicans to escape the stigma of captive association. The Democrats on the other hand are equal opportunity captives with its many constituencies conveniently ignoring each other as long as there is room left them at the feeding trough.

There will be one Republican highlight after Tuesday's election, possibly one of very few-and that is the re-election of Governor Schwartzenegger. A survivor, it should be noted who has done well without the help of the Christian Right. He, as well as ex-mayor Rudy Giuliani will be the main guns left to the GOP heading into the 2008 Presidentials. The Governor is prevented by birth to be its candidate and the moralists will try to deny Rudy the nomination. Whatever the Christian Right pushes forth will be destined to lose and handily so. The time for smart Republicans to start putting its spoiled brat in its place and to effectively rebuild is now.

The Christian right will go where it thinks is best, following its conscience. But the tail should not wag the dog.