Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wuphys!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Politics, morals and nukes
Message-ID: <394@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Oct-84 14:52:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: wucs.394
Posted: Wed Oct  3 14:52:24 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 04:38:17 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 32

[]

About 10 days ago, columnist Marianne Means attacked Reagan for statements 
such as that "politics and morality are inseparable".  She goes on:

>> The other day he [Reagan] claimed a "moral purpose" for his foreign
>> policy and defended his plan to extend military defense into space by
>> saying he had a "moral obligation" to do it.
>>     There it was again, the clear implication that those who oppose his
>> policies are immoral or at least amoral.

This implication exists only in Means's oversensitive mind.

>> But national policies are legitimately the subject of debate and
>> dissent ...

And morals aren't??

>> The argument over Star Wars has nothing to do with morality.  

GAK!!  I don't believe I'm actually reading this in a major newspaper!  If
the potential destruction of civilization is not a moral issue, what on earth
is??!!  If (contrary to fact) a Star Wars defense could guarantee that no
cities or civilizations would die in nuclear war, we MOST CERTAINLY *WOULD*
have an obligation to pursue it!  

"Politics and morality are inseparable."  For once, Reagan was dead right.

				--The aspiring iconoclast,
				Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.  Thanks.