There are things on which people of good will can disagree while continuing to respect each other. Here are some:
1. Whether, in the wake of the recent disasters in Japan, we should continue to pursue nuclear power as an alternative to burning oil and coal.
2. Whether our recent actions in Libya were necessary to prevent a massacre, and whether they actually worked.
3. Whether the extremely rich should be taxed at a higher rate than they are now, or whether they deserve to keep nearly all of what they make.
4. Whether health care is a right and should be regarded as such.
5. Whether rights like those granted by the Second Amendment should be construed broadly or narrowly.
I could go on, but you get the idea. If you've been reading this blog, you probably know how I would argue most of these questions. Or maybe you don't. If you disagree with me, though, that doesn't mean I'll lose my respect for you. I hope you won't lose your respect for me either.
There are things, however, about which there is no room for disagreement. While no issue is ever completely black and white, the line between good and evil may be so clear that no-one with an ounce of moral sensitivity should be able to mistake it. Here is one such issue.
• Whether a budget that cuts services that are literally vital to the poorest, most vulnerable members of a society while allowing its very, very, very wealthiest citizens to become even wealthier is immoral.
There are no two positions on this question. The budget that the Congressional majority is proposing is a violation of human decency. It is wrong. No country with its morals intact could pass such a budget.
That's it. You can fill in the rest.