MisterSwig

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.

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.

I'll let Bush explain his own war policy: "Liberty" doesn't transform societies. Philosophy does.

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?

You were comparing "Democrats and their supporters" to "religious conservatives." You make no mention of "the Democratic presidential ticket" nor "its most vocal" supporters in this particular post: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=50565 But if that is what you meant to convey, then I will note the correction.

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.

No. But if you disagree with him twice, it makes you a Liberal. Then the third time, it makes you a Conservative. And the fourth, a Nazi.

Is that a one-to-one ratio? Or do multiple soldiers die each time Kerry criticizes the war? At least let Kerry get into the oval office before you blame him for our self-sacrificial war policy.

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.

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

True. Christians are influencial to both parties. But the conservative movement has been taken over by a bunch of radicals who want to religionize government, uniting church and state. Look at Bush's faith-based initiatives. That is the main problem with the conservatives.

Help me out. I can't decide whether the following quotes by you are consistent: How do you really feel about Democrats, Betsy? Are they your "friends?" Or are they "and their supporters" the devil incarnate?

Forty-four years ago, Ayn Rand wrote about the threat of religious conservatism. Now that it is a reality, can we determine whether Ayn Rand was correct? Is religion now "an integral part of our political system?"

Yes. Marines are fighting and dying as well. We have lost some people from the navy and air force, too.

Because they can be violated.

Oh, I don't know. I kind of like this one: Or this one: Or this one: Or this one: Or this one: And this one: I got tons of these precious quotes. I stick them in my folder with all the meaningless anti-liberal Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity quotes. Now, if you really still don't have an answer to the original question, I suggest re-reading the Peikoff for Kerry thread--rather than repeating the same question (with slightly different wording) over and over so loudly that you cannot hear anyone's answer to it.

1. I want to win the war. 2. I think the Bush policy results in losing the war. 3. I will give Kerry a chance to change direction. Don't ask me to explain (again) why the Bush policy results in losing the war, because I already did that on other threads, and other Objectivists have written whole essays and given whole speeches on the subject. But, let me remind you, the war is not the fundamental philosophical issue in this election. It goes deeper than who is going to screw up the war less. Most Objectivist Kerry supporters have basically conceded that neither Bush nor Kerry can win this war for us--let alone identify the real enemy. Bush will continue defending the blood sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan until he gets blue in the face. Maybe he'll start another half-ass war in Sudan or something. And who really knows what Kerry would do? Probably much of the same. After all, who really believes the Republican Congress and Religious Right will allow him to do nothing? 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, who actually realizes that there is something seriously wrong with our war policy. Obviously he doesn't have a grasp on the problem; he is a pragmatist. But at least he will help this country publicly address the problem--rather than blindly continue on this crusade to bring "democracy" to the Middle East. I think it is the height of fantasy to believe in the magical healing powers of "democracy," when we have failed to do anything crucial to winning a war. We have lost all interest in formally declaring war. We have lost interest in demanding unconditional surrenders from our enemies. We have lost interest in doing what is necessary to end all resistance to occupation. Basically, we have lost interest in fighting real wars. And because of our disinterest in war, our war-making enemies are walking all over us. War is ugly. If we aren't prepared to get ugly, then we are going to get killed.

Below is one example. If you want others, I suggest you read the news. Living in San Diego, I suspect that you are mostly talking to navy families. But it's the army that is dying. The army reserve is starting to really worry about retention issues, and they are having to send career counselors to the battlefield for the first time in its history, in order to convince soldiers to re-enlist by offering cash bonuses. http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331..._092704.00.html I believe we are having retention problems because of the plain fact that our soldiers are being ordered to act as policemen--not warriors--in a foreign nation. They are dying for foreigners. They are dying because we are too chicken to take out countries like Iran. I don't see how that can be very inspiring to the best and brightest. I have nothing but respect for the brave soldiers who fight and obey commands. However, I have a big problem with the commanders giving them orders to risk their lives patrolling the Arab streets. We have never won a war by patrolling the enemy's streets. I take no comfort in knowing that men and women are sacrificing themselves in Iraq so that I don't have to die in Los Angeles. That is not what the military is for. And that is not the way to prevent Iran-inspired militant Islamists from killing me in the United States.

The brain drain is already occuring under Bush. The idea of sacrificing your life for the sake of the enemy is not very inspiring.

It's because of patently false statements like this that you get little or no reply from Kerry supporters. We have already responded to you numerous times. It's almost as if you haven't been reading the threads here. Give me a break! Try doing a search or something. "Scant mention of the war?"

Do you expect our volunteers to continue to volunteer to work for a man who makes them sacrifice their lives to the enemy?

That's a laugh. After four years of Bush we don't even have enough soldiers left to control Iraq. I think it is much more likely that Bush's deep "faith in liberty and sacrifice" will steadily move this nation toward another draft. Yes, they must have faith in dying for Iraqi freedom.

The fundamental question for a serious theist, as I see it, is: Does God exist? And to properly answer this question, you need to reject the arbitrary and focus on whatever objective evidence you have for either a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Relying on your faith is an evasion of reality, a psychological habit which you have probably been trained to perform automatically your entire life, through prayer and the fear of Hell, among other things. Questioning Creation is not a bad start, but it ultimately leads you back to the question: Does God exist? Consider the idea that it is impossible to create something out of nothing. There must first be something, anything. Then that something can change into other things. I would argue that in the universal scheme of things, there has never been nothing. There has always been something. There is just no getting around that fact. If you start with God, then where is he? What happened to him? What is your proof for your assertions? What created God? And if God has always been here, then where is he now? It is simply a fact that you have no facts and no objective reason for believing in God. But if you start with the universe, then you can point and say, 'there is the universe all around me.' I don't understand everything about it, but at least I can see it and study it. And since it's impossible to create something out of nothing, I can only conclude that the universe has always existed, in one form or another.

Why don't you ask God to help you understand? Did he stop talking to you or something?

Everybody knows that I was the first life form. One day I woke up and there I was in the great Void. After floating around aimlessly for what seemed like an eternity, I got the bright idea of creating the Universe. Then I created Earth and Mankind. It was great. I could do anything. I just thought about what I wanted to do, and BAM! it happened.