Open Reply To Prof John Lewis

[MisterSwig]

I noticed also how the attacks have worsened as the public criticism has increased here.

I notice how the attacks worsen as our self-sacrificing increases.

The public, in general, is critical of the war because the war is going horribly wrong. The war is going horribly wrong because of Bush's faith-based war policy.

[Colonel Rebel]

I'm sorry, but are the Russian, Polish, and British intelligence agency's collect faith-based intelligence, so they can supply it to a faith-based President? Is....that what you mean by a faith-based war policy? Please explain yourself...

[oldsalt]

Post deleted. Wrong tread.

My apologies.

Edited October 14, 2004 by oldsalt

[Kitty Hawk]

Congress is ruled by Republicans, Kitty Hawk. For the most part, they are already rolling over for Bush's faith-based agenda.

Are the Democrats rolling over? Are all Republicans religious nuts? Is the American populace going to let Bush get away with it? I'm not. I'll support him when he prosecutes the war, and oppose him when he does anything stupid--which is the best you can do, when there aren't any Objectivists in the Oval Office.

[Thoyd Loki]

What we need to do, as a nation, is get away from White House-level faith-based thinking and policy-making and move a little closer to acknowledging reality again before we act. And, unfortunately, our best hope of doing that is in John Kerry,

That means we have no hope at all then, unless you haven't heard a word Kerry has said. I understand your position on Bush and reality but, Kerry and reality? I'm sorry, but I need a little of Bush's faith to get me to believe that Kerry has ever been in contact with reality!

[Betsy]

Most Objectivists have read those essays and heard those speeches yet remain unconvinced.  On Harry Binswanger's List, it is running about 3-4 to 1 for Bush.

Talk about fallacious argumentation!

I guess I better get in line with "most Objectivists" if I don't want to be outnumbered 4 to 1.

And, to think, you have the nerve to accuse me elsewhere of appealing to authority.

My claim was that most Objectivists do not find the essays and lectures you cited convincing. As evidence for the truth of my claim, I cited the verifiable fact that most Objectivists on HBL are supporting Bush.

Since when is offering clear, verifiable evidence in support of a claim "fallacious argumentation?"

[MisterSwig]

My claim was that most Objectivists do not find the essays and lectures you cited convincing.  As evidence for the truth of my claim, I cited the verifiable fact that most Objectivists on HBL are supporting Bush.

I see. So in response to the essays and lectures, etc., you felt the need to prove that most Objectivists don't find them convincing? That was the conclusion you were trying to prove?

Betsy, you don't have to prove that to me. I will stipulate to the fact that I am in the minority on this issue. I'm not blind.

Now, if you would kindly address the arguments in those essays and lectures, that would be great. You could start with Noumenal Self's excellent pieces. Have you responded to these yet? If so, where?

[MisterSwig]

I'm sorry, but are the Russian, Polish, and British intelligence agency's collect faith-based intelligence, so they can supply it to a faith-based President? Is....that what you mean by a faith-based war policy? Please explain yourself...

I'll let Bush explain his own war policy:

I'm optimistic that we'll win the war on terror, but I understand it requires firm resolve and clear purpose. We must never waver in the face of this enemy that -- these ideologues of hate.

And as we pursue the enemy wherever it exists, we'll also spread freedom and liberty. We got great faith in the ability of liberty to transform societies, to convert a hostile world to a peaceful world.

"Liberty" doesn't transform societies. Philosophy does.

[Poelse]

As evidence for the truth of my claim, I cited the verifiable fact that most Objectivists on HBL are supporting Bush.

Or maybe the pro-Bush Objectivists are just more vocal, because they are completely on the defensive. Or maybe the pro-Bush Objectivists are just more voluminous in their posts, because all they do is stare at concretes.

But the point is moot.

[Betsy]

I see. So in response to the essays and lectures, etc., you felt the need to prove that most Objectivists don't find them convincing? That was the conclusion you were trying to prove?

Since the burden of proof is on those who are making the case that Bush is such a threat that we ought to vote for Kerry, I was saying that the Kerry advocates had not met that burden in my estimation and in the estimation of most other Objectivists.

Now, if you would kindly address the arguments in those essays and lectures, that would be great. You could start with Noumenal Self's excellent pieces. Have you responded to these yet?

Yes, I have.

If so, where?

On this forum (check all my posts referencing NoumenalSelf, Mr. Swig, and Bush), on Harry Binswanger's List (particularly my replies to NoumenalSelf and to Steven Rogers), and to a much lesser extent on the forum sponsored by TIADaily.com.

In addition, many others have disputed the "vote for Kerry" advocates on those three forums, giving their reasons, so I didn't think it necessary to repeat their citations and arguments. In particular, I think OldSalt and Jack Wakeland have presented solidly fact-based, well-reasoned arguments.

Edited October 15, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist

[Betsy]

Or maybe the pro-Bush Objectivists are just more vocal, because they are completely on the defensive.  Or maybe the pro-Bush Objectivists are just more voluminous in their posts, because all they do is stare at concretes.

Nice ad hominem. How about a reasoned argument if you disagree?

But the point is moot.

Don't care to argue? How come?

[Kitty Hawk]

I'll let Bush explain his own war policy:

"Liberty" doesn't transform societies. Philosophy does.

And what would Kerry say in his place? Something along these lines: "I have great confidence in the ability of craven appeasement and unilateral disarmament to transform societies, to convert a hostile world to a peaceful world."

[Betsy]

In addition, many others have disputed the "vote for Kerry" advocates on those three forums, giving their reasons, so I didn't think it necessary to repeat their citations and arguments.  In particular, I think OldSalt and Jack Wakeland have presented solidly fact-based, well-reasoned arguments.

Oops! I didn't mean to slight Robert Tracinski, Dr. Michael Hurd, Alexander Marriot (Montesquieu on this forum), those on HBL (Mark Kormes, Tom Minchin, Stuart Mark Feldman, Paul Saunders, Doug Messenger, etc.) and everyone else whose name I failed to mention.

I suggest anyone interested in the issues raised and argued so far examine the facts and the reasoning on BOTH sides. What matters isn't who said it but what they said and whether it is true or not. Reality is always the winning side.

[MisterSwig]

Since the burden of proof is on those who are making the case that Bush is such a threat that we ought to vote for Kerry, I was saying that the Kerry advocates had not met that burden in my estimation and in the estimation of most other Objectivists.

What argument of yours have Kerry supporters not countered already on the Peikoff for Kerry thread and elsewhere?

You are the one assuming that Bush's war policy is protecting us from militant Islam. That argument has been countered. It has been soundly argued that the "forward strategy of freedom" is immoral, impractical, and fatally damaging to our interests. Reality is bearing this out as we speak. Just today terrorists managed to infiltrate the Green Zone, which is our most heavily defended area of Iraq. They killed four of our people there. Our troops are dying more and more each month, while working toward no real military objective. They are ambushed policemen waiting for the magic of "liberty" to rescue them. Bush would have you believe that all we need to do is somehow create freedom in Iraq and that will solve our problems there. This view ignores two crucial points: 1. Freedom does not change societies, philosophy does. 2. And our problems in Iraq are primarily caused by the existence and influence of Iran, which Bush has left alone.

You have not met your burden of proving that we should vote for Bush on the war issue. So, at best, you have no reason to vote for anyone.

It was your own ally Mr. Wakeland who argued that we could probably win this war by doing nothing whatsoever. So, why not vote for Kerry, if he is better on the religious issue? What could Kerry do that would be so horrible for the war? He would receive enormous pressure from the hawks on the right to continue the war. This country won't let him do anything drastically stupid. He would have to focus on internal security and capture a few terrorists once in awhile to make everyone happy, which is basically what Bush is doing.

[A.West]

I noticed in the Bush/Kerry Debate #3 there was a question asked about religion.

Bush's responses on religion were generally defensive, knowing that people might worry about him tying religion with politics. So he emphasized the idea that his religious beliefs shaped his personal values, that his political decisions were guided by those values, but that he thought people should be free to practice or not practice religion.

Kerry's response reminded me of the "liberation theology" speeches I saw in the late 80s on college campuses. Liberation theology was (is?) popular amongst Latin American Catholic communists (and recall that Kerry was friendly to the Nicaraguan Marxist Daniel Ortega, and fought the rebel Contras). Kerry's message: Christ demands self-sacrifice to the poor, to the trees, and the sacrifice of the strong to the weak. Kerry was actually more agressive in connecting his religion to specific left-wing political policies.

Bush fantasized about God wanting people to have "freedom" and valuing "life" but indicated he wasn't going to be very agressively anti-abortion rights.

Kerry fantasized the God wanted altruistic actions implemented politically. That God would say America was way behind in loving their neighbors, domestically and internationally.

This is a case in which I want the Christian whose religion is more disconnected from reality. I see Kerry's religious plan as more dangerously action-oriented.

Here is what I pulled from the transcripts:

Kerry stated:

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.

And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

--------------

Bush was asked:

I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions?

First, my faith plays a lot -- a big part in my life. And that's, when I answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do.

And my faith is a very -- it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls.

But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.

If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America, is the right to worship the way you see fit.

Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency.

I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, Well, how do you know? I said, I just feel it.

Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else.

But when I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the principles are derived from who I am.

I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself, as manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we've unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt.

I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe.

And that's been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march.

And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me, and religion is a part of me.

KERRY: Well, I respect everything that the president has said and certainly respect his faith. I think it's important and I share it. I think that he just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty.

Everything is a gift from the Almighty. And as I measure the words of the Bible -- and we all do; different people measure different things -- the Koran, the Torah, or, you know, Native Americans who gave me a blessing the other day had their own special sense of connectedness to a higher being. And people all find their ways to express it.

I was taught -- I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet.

We have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America. There's one for the people who have, and there's one for the people who don't have. And we're struggling with that today.

And the president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith. KERRY: I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead.

I think we've got a lot more work to do.

[edward j williamson]

A. West,

I pretty much read it the same way. Both men tried to cloud the issue, and certainly they couched their responses. However, much can be gleaned from what they said as well.

The fusion of religious beliefs and politics is already being manifested through the President's so-called "Faith-based Initiative". Now if that isn't an example of the government becoming involved in the realm and scope of religion nothing else is. Talk about opening Pandora's Box. Wow!

I wrote, and had published, an article on this very topic. In this article, I articulated very clearly the dangers inherent within this scheme, and how it is yet another example of government interference in the free market. I just might post it down in the "Essay Forum".

[MisterSwig]

This is a case in which I want the Christian whose religion is more disconnected from reality. I see Kerry's religious plan as more dangerously action-oriented.

Bush is actively funding churches and faith-based organizations using your tax money. It used to be the case that to get government grant money churches had to start up a secular branch of their organization and keep the religious and secular elements separate. Any money they got could not go to explicitly religious activities. That is no longer the case with Bush.

Bush has already made religion a part of his administration and our government. His policies reek of religion and faith. He and his Cabinet members even begin each Cabinet meeting with a prayer to God.

Kerry has no plan for spreading religion or uniting church and state. He would take your money and give it to the poor and the trees.

Bush, on the other hand, is giving and will continue giving your money directly to religion.

[MisterSwig]

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.

And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

Notice how Kerry initially can't wait to get back to this world and talk about "works" in his answer. He does not detail his faith in God. His mental flow is out toward this world. Compare that to Bush:

First, my faith plays a lot -- a big part in my life. And that's, when I answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do.

And my faith is a very -- it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls.

But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.

If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America, is the right to worship the way you see fit.

Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency.

I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, Well, how do you know? I said, I just feel it.

Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else.

But when I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the principles are derived from who I am.

I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself, as manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we've unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt.

I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe.

And that's been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march.

And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me, and religion is a part of me.

Bush has completely internalized religion and faith. His mental flow is inward, away from this world, and up to God. He constantly returns to how personal his faith is and what he thinks of the Almighty. Freedom in Afghanistan, he says, is a gift from God.

And when he says that he doesn't "want" to impose his religion on anybody, his dishonesty is revealed in the very next sentence: "But when I make decisions, I stand on principle ..." The idea is that he doesn't want to impose religion on you, but he must because all of his decisions are based on religious principles. Then in the very next sentence he mentions how he is imposing religion on us through the faith-based initiatives.

I wonder what Bush sees in his mind when he envisions the "armies of compassion" who "heal people who hurt." I see an army of government-funded evangelicals telling us how to live our lives.

Once Bush is done, Kerry then has to respond to Bush's love poem to God. So Kerry tries to one-up Bush on the God issue, but it is a pretty pathetic attempt and he ends up returning to this world and discussing secular issues and the importance of "works."

Well, I respect everything that the president has said and certainly respect his faith. I think it's important and I share it. I think that he just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty.

Everything is a gift from the Almighty. And as I measure the words of the Bible -- and we all do; different people measure different things -- the Koran, the Torah, or, you know, Native Americans who gave me a blessing the other day had their own special sense of connectedness to a higher being. And people all find their ways to express it.

I was taught -- I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet.

We have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America. There's one for the people who have, and there's one for the people who don't have. And we're struggling with that today.

And the president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith. I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead.

I think we've got a lot more work to do.

While neither candidate is good on the religion issue, there is a clear distinction between the two. Kerry mentally shys away from religion, while Bush wraps his arms around it tightly.

[Montesquieu]

"Works" is not a secular reference, it's a quote from scripture. SO, how is Kerry returning to this world when he is quoting the revealed invalid "knowledge" of the Bible as his starting point for governmental policy?

Kerry then made this incredibly stupid comment,

"But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth." emphasis added

First of all, how devoid of knowledge of this world is Kerry when he doesn't even understand the constitution, which doesn't "afford" us rights or "allow" us to do anything? The constitution limits what the government can do and it prevents the government from violating certain inalienable rights which men have as men and which the government can neither give or take away.

[MisterSwig]

"Works" is not a secular reference, it's a quote from scripture. SO, how is Kerry returning to this world when he is quoting the revealed invalid "knowledge" of the Bible as his starting point for governmental policy?

"Works" refers to deeds that you do while on Earth. That is how Kerry was returning to this world. Also, notice that he is fundamentally concerned about not "transferring [his faith] in any official way to other people."

On the other hand, Bush solidly linked his policy to his faith. On the domestic front, he has the "faith-based initiatives," and he believes his foreign policy is the handiwork of the Almighty.

I mean, I couldn't make a better argument for Bush uniting religion and state than the argument Bush himself made.

[Betsy]

What argument of yours have Kerry supporters not countered already on the Peikoff for Kerry thread and elsewhere?

I am still waiting for a good reasons why

1) someone who opposes Bush's worst policies, as I do, should vote for Kerry who has all of Bush's flaws and serious and fundamental evils all his own.

2) when we are at war with a real enemy dedicated to the destruction of Western Civilization, I should vote for a life-long pacifist and appeaser who opposes American values and sympathizes with the enemy

You are the one assuming that Bush's war policy is protecting us from militant Islam.

Put away the straw man. I never assumed and never said any such thing.

That argument has been countered. It has been soundly argued that the "forward strategy of freedom" is immoral, impractical, and fatally damaging to our interests.

Total appeasement and a backward retreat in the face of Islamic terrorists is better?

Reality is bearing this out as we speak. Just today terrorists managed to infiltrate the Green Zone, which is our most heavily defended area of Iraq. They killed four of our people there.

News flash! A few years back terrorists infiltrated the US and killed over 3000 Americans in a single day!

Bush would have you believe that all we need to do is somehow create freedom in Iraq and that will solve our problems there. This view ignores two crucial points: 1. Freedom does not change societies, philosophy does. 2. And our problems in Iraq are primarily caused by the existence and influence of Iran, which Bush has left alone.

Bush is wrong in not fighting Iran. Does that mean we should vote for Kerry who promises to send Iran nuclear technology in exchange for their promise to allow inspections?

You have not met your burden of proving that we should vote for Bush on the war issue.

Defeating Kerry -- on the war issue -- is as good as it is going to get this year, and that requires a vote for Bush.

So, why not vote for Kerry, if he is better on the religious issue? What could Kerry do that would be so horrible for the war?

Give up and let the terrorists win it without a fight.

He would receive enormous pressure from the hawks on the right to continue the war.

That never stopped him from supporting the communists and other enemies if the US before. Just about everybody is to the right of John Kerry.

This country won't let him do anything drastically stupid. He would have to focus on internal security and capture a few terrorists once in awhile to make everyone happy, which is basically what Bush is doing.

No he doesn't. Carter was a total appeaser, sold us out to Iran, caved in to communists all over the world, and wrecked the economy, and we couldn't do a damn thing about it for four years.

In a post 9/11 world do you want to make THAT mistake again?

[Montesquieu]

"Works" refers to deeds that you do while on Earth. That is how Kerry was returning to this world. Also, notice that he is fundamentally concerned about not "transferring [his faith] in any official way to other people."

On the other hand, Bush solidly linked his policy to his faith. On the domestic front, he has the "faith-based initiatives," and he believes his foreign policy is the handiwork of the Almighty.

I mean, I couldn't make a better argument for Bush uniting religion and state than the argument Bush himself made.

You are missing the point. In the context of what Kerry said, he was quoting scripture when the idea of "works" came up, which means he's talking religion inspired goverment programs. How is this different from or better than what Bush was talking about? It seems to me Kerry is more consistently tieing his Catholic faith in altrusim, going so far as to quote scripture to back him up, to his follow on belief in forced income redistribution and the government programs that go along with that. Kerry's word isn't worth anything as far as his pledge, untenable given his other statements, that he won't transfer his faith to people in any official way. This is so because he tied the ethics of Catholicism into his belief on the role of government quite explicitly.

[Ed from OC]

What could Kerry do that would be so horrible for the war?

A few real possibilities:

1. Require international support before taking military action (far more so than Bush)

2. Restrain intelligence gathering (cut budgets, curtail activities, etc.)

3. Treat the war as a criminal matter

4. Back off behind-the-scenes political pressure on foreign governments

He would receive enormous pressure from the hawks on the right to continue the war. This country won't let him do anything drastically stupid.

You mean like Clinton and Carter? Yeah, they sure showed us how to deal with terrorists!

He would have to focus on internal security and capture a few terrorists once in awhile to make everyone happy, which is basically what Bush is doing.

Bush is doing and has done more than this.

FACT: Bush has done far more to curtail terrorism than any recent President -- Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter either ran from terrorists, launched one-time attacks, or mismanaged efforts so badly that they failed miserably. Bush has launched two major wars and conquered two countries, while runnning against "expert opinion" that said we would lose. We won both quickly and easily, but have hit trouble "winning the peace."

Despite many stupid decisions, delays, and acts, we have made big progress in the war. Kerry, as a Senator, fought the DoD and intel agencies, opposed invading Iraq (both times), and has been an outspoken anti-war activist. Remember when he and Tom Harkin went to Nicaragua to oppose the anti-communist support from Reagan?

This guy is slime. He has spent his political career on the far, far left, especially on military issues. And now, with a few words in his camapaign, we're supposed to believe he'll do a better job than Bush?

Don't make me laugh.

[MisterSwig]

I am still waiting for a good reasons why

1) someone who opposes Bush's worst policies, as I do, should vote for Kerry who has all of Bush's flaws and serious and fundamental evils all his own.

Kerry does not have all of Bush's flaws. Kerry is not interested in linking church and state. He is not interested in "faith-based initiatives." He does not have great "faith" in the forward strategy of freedom.

Also, Kerry's fundamental evils, even if they did take root, are not a long-term threat to society. How bad could Kerry's socialism be for America? Is it going to get Europe-bad? Canada-bad? Is that really unbearable?

Religion is the long-term threat. Religion causes Dark Ages. It wipes out science and medicine. It wipes out all sorts of things that secularists love. Religion wipes out secularists.

If you agree that Bush is no better on the war issue than Kerry, then, the way I see it, the focus must be on what is the long-term threat to America. If you believe that Bush is substantially better than Kerry on the war issue, then I fail to see it. All I see is Bush making it harder and harder for us to focus on the true enemy and maintain a willingness to be victorious.

The question you pose is basically the first question an Objectivist would think of in the Kerry vs. Bush debate. It has been answered by Leonard Peikoff and many others after him. I'm not going to repeat all their answers here, nor the many other answers that I have given all over this forum. I'm not going to start this debate over again. I'm not going to answer this question anymore. This is it. Sorry. I'm moving on to trying to prove the existence of a threat of religious dictatorship in America, which I think is a much more important thing to prove.

2) when we are at war with a real enemy dedicated to the destruction of Western Civilization, I should vote for a life-long pacifist and appeaser who opposes American values and sympathizes with the enemy

I don't think that accurately describes Kerry. Such a person would be a monster for whom no American could possibly vote. For example, I don't think Kerry's anti-Viet Nam stance makes him a "life-long pacifist." If you know something I don't, I'm all ears. I have other problems with your characterization of Kerry. But I want to lay emphasis on his alleged pacifism right now. If you prove that he is a pacifist, then I might re-engage in the debate.

Put away the straw man. I never assumed and never said any such thing.

I was under the impression that "Anti-Bushites for Bush" believe that Bush's "forward strategy of freedom" is working. If, in fact, you don't believe that, I apologize for assuming you did.

[Montesquieu]

Kerry does not have all of Bush's flaws. Kerry is not interested in linking church and state. He is not interested in "faith-based initiatives." He does not have great "faith" in the forward strategy of freedom.

He isn't interested in linking church and state, he's just interested in linking every important moral premise underlying Catholicism to his idea of the proper role of government.

Also, Kerry's fundamental evils, even if they did take root, are not a long-term threat to society. How bad could Kerry's socialism be for America? Is it going to get Europe-bad? Canada-bad? Is that really unbearable?

Are you kidding? You don't realize that the only reason England and Canada haven't entirely fallen apart is because of certain things in America which still make it profitable to engage in production, innovation, and invention. Were America to adopt all of Canada's or France's laws overnight the world would collapse within fifty years unless something changed somewhere in the direction of capitalism. America is all that keeps the world going, it was all that kept the Soviet Union going, without our intentional and unintentional help that state would have been destroyed in the 1940s, instead it existed until the early nineties.

Religion is the long-term threat. Religion causes Dark Ages. It wipes out science and medicine. It wipes out all sorts of things that secularists love. Religion wipes out secularists.

Religions, which are philosophical systems, can cause Dark Ages assuming a majority of people accept them and their political corrolaries. But Communism or "Democratic Socialism" could cause a Dark Age as well assuming a majority of people come to accept them as morally legitimate and good.

Also, not all secularists are the same or have the same goals. One could call both Ayn Rand and Stalin secularists, yet would they unite around anything? Not even their common antagonism towards religion could have brought them together because while Ayn Rand saw religion for what is was, and invalid and irrational philosophical system, Stalin merely saw it as a competitor for power. Science and medicine are just as wiped out under secular communists as under religious fanatics, the means are different, not the ends.

I don't think that accurately describes Kerry. Such a person would be a monster for whom no American could possibly vote. For example, I don't think Kerry's anti-Viet Nam stance makes him a "life-long pacifist." If you know something I don't, I'm all ears. I have other problems with your characterization of Kerry. But I want to lay emphasis on his alleged pacifism right now. If you prove that he is a pacifist, then I might re-engage in the debate.

Kerry told a newspaper after he returned from Nam that American troops should never be committed to combat without the approval of the United Nations. This fact was brought up recently (though it's been out there for a while) by Dick Cheney in the VP debate. Kerry opposed the measures of Ronald Reagan in the 1980's against the Soviet Union (which were flawed and in some cases too timid), even going so far as to advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States. His comments about the current war, characterizing it as primarily a legal action, criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the U.N. and our allies enough, invoking the past as the ideal as regards terrorism, etc., all point to either an intelligence deficiency or a genuine hatred of using American military power under any circumstance. Under any circumstance because even when all of his dopey requirements were met, allies consenting, explicit U.N. sanction, even Arab participation in the 1991 Gulf War, and he still opposed using the military.