Finally, something for Christians to consider, as well as those of other faiths. The word "values" implies assigning a number, a priority, to a particular act or issue. What do you value? means What do you value more than other things? If you value X, do you value it over Y, or are they equally important?

So while one thing may not be "more moral" than another, we do set priorities. Those priorities are often the first thing we forget in the emotional firestorm of controversies. Suddenly the issue of the day seems the most important. Other priorities, even higher ones, are forgotten, much to the joy of those exploiting these controversies for their personal gain or political agenda, or both.

So the move currently underway among some progressives to redefine their issues in terms of values and morality is not some radical idea, or even some cynical re-branding technique. It is an attempt to remind us of the moral dimensions of issues, so we can decide which we value, and in something like what order.

For example, this story on the morality of poverty. There are political questions involved---unregulated capitalism vs. government support---which may be pertinent, but may be smokescreens, or simply not as relevant as they appear. Because the question might well be, what is more important as a moral issue? Somebody's sexual behavior? Or poverty that could be allievated fairly easily, with a little attention and commitment? How often, for example, did Christ talk about helping the poor, versus condemning any sexual practices? In fact, the term "bleeding heart liberal" comes from the bleeding heart of Christ, bleeding for the poor and the sick and the suffering. What kind of a morality ignores that, and in fact makes fun of it, makes it into a curse? Some of us who voted Blue would like to know.

Pushing poverty into 'moral-values' debate / Some religious leaders trying to broaden discussion beyond abortion and marriage