[Ending Islamic Immigration]

nobody has the right to enter our country.

While I'm not pro-Islamist myself, could you kindly validate this position?

Just curious, thanks.

[After Kerry Wins . . .]

Funny, but I didn't notice any.  Perhaps I was too over-awed by your solid grounding in facts and your clear, logical reasoning. 

Also, as I read it, I saw that your words were worthy of a much larger audience than you are likely to find on OO.net, so my mind was racing ahead and formulating schemes for directing Objectivists and other clear-thinking people to your postings.

So stop being so damn apologetic!  It's bad enough when other people criticize you unjustly, but it is absolutely obscene for you to criticize yourself.  CUT IT OUT!   This is my last warning before I really get nasty.

This was my thought and feeling also about oldsalt's post. I don't like feeling pity for heroes: they don't deserve it.

[What To Do About Libertarians?]

I know no-one else wants to say it, but it's time that the characteristically-evasive Charlotte Corday be removed from this forum. Her posts/threads are an irritation.

This "Melissa" character is new, so we can give her, for a while, the benefit of the doubt.

[Open Reply To Prof John Lewis]

Here is one puzzle I have been wrestling with.

1. Premise: I want the total destruction of anti-Western terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

2. Premise:__________________________________

3. Conclusion: Therefore I will vote for John Kerry.

How do the supporters of John Kerry get from 1 to 3?

What is the unstated thought in step 2?

What Drs. Peikoff and Lewis, and their supporters, are saying is:

1. Premise: Religious fundamentalists are a threat to America.

2. Premise: George W. Bush is a religious fundamentalist.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, I will vote against George W. Bush.

The main argument against this reasoning is: Is Bush really that dangerously religious? And even if Bush the man were, is his party? The GOP's leading lights - Gulliani, Ridge, and Schwarzenegger - are pro-abortion.

In other words, someone would have to show that the Religious Right had truly seized the Republican party.

The other argument is: Voting against Bush means voting for Kerry, an anti-American candidate running for America's presidency. Can the nation risk a do-nothing candidate, as opposed to a flawed, do-something candidate, in a time of possibly-nuclear war?

Here too, someone would have to show that Kerry would do something, anything, to protect America.

Owing to a lack of detailed scenarios which would illustrate how a Bush presidency would evolve into a theocracy or a Kerry presidency would become pro-American self-defense, the jury is still out.

[After Kerry Wins . . .]

I hope they do reply Janet.  You have some good points, again.

I have to admit I was thinking of doing a thread just such as this.  Actually I was planning a reply to John Lewis who has the opening article on Capitalism Magazine.

I won't hijack this thread but will put my arguments on a new thread.

You could very well use the "Here Come The Christians" thread. John Lewis's article is referred to there.

[Here Come The Christians!]

Profesor Lewis has posted in the "Dollars & Crosses" section of Capitalism Magazine:

http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1210

Most interestingly, he provides a link to a Straussian's analysis of neo-conservatism. It is a fascinating article which, in my initial opinion, should remind us quickly of the rise of Stoicism ("Duty", Marcus Aurelius, etc.) in the Roman Empire just before Rome's collapse.

An excerpt from the Straussian's article:

The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men’s attachment to their societies. Ideally, it then offers an alternative based on reason, but understanding the reasoning is difficult and many people who read it will only understand the "calling into question" part and not the latter part that reconstructs ethics. Worse, it is unclear whether philosophy really can construct a rational basis for ethics. Therefore philosophy has a tendency to promote nihilism in mediocre minds, and they must be prevented from being exposed to it. The civil authorities are frequently aware of this, and therefore they persecute and seek to silence philosophers. Strauss shockingly admits, contrary to generations of liberal professors who have taught him as a martyr to the First Amendment, that the prosecution of Socrates was not entirely without point. This honesty about the dangers of philosophy gives Straussian thought a seriousness lacking in much contemporary philosophy; it is also a sign of the conviction that philosophy, contrary to the mythology of our "practical" (though sodden with ideology and quick to take offense at ideas) age, matters.

Strauss not only believed that the great thinkers of the past wrote Straussian texts, he approved of this. It is a kind of class system of the intellect, which mirrors the class systems of rulers and ruled, owners and workers, creators and audiences, which exist in politics, economics, and culture. He views the founding corruption of modern political philosophy, which hundreds of years later bears poisonous fruit in the form of liberal nihilism, to be the attempt to abolish this distinction. It is a kind of Bolshevism of the mind.

Some dispute whether Straussian texts exist. The great medieval Jewish Aristotelian Moses Maimonides admitted writing this way. I can only say that I have found the concept fruitful in my own readings in philosophy. On a more prosaic level, even a courageous editor like my own can’t print certain things, so I certainly write my column in code from time to time, and other writers have told me the same thing.

According to Strauss, Machiavelli is the key turning point that leads to modern political philosophy, and Machiavelli’s sin was to speak esoteric truths openly. He told all within hearing that there is no certain God who punishes wrongdoing; the essence of Machiavellianism is that one can get away with things. Because of this, he turned his back on the Christian virtue that the belief in a retributive God had upheld. Pre-Machiavellian philosophy, be in Greco-Roman or Christian, had taught that the good political order must be based upon human virtues. Machiavelli believed that sufficient virtue was not attainable and therefore taught that the good political order must be based on men as they are, i.e. upon their mediocrity and vices. This is not just realism, or mere cynicism. It amounts to a deliberate choice as to how society should be organized and a decided de-emphasis on personal virtue. It leads to the new discipline of political science, which is concerned with coldly describing men as they actually are, warts and all. It leads ultimately to Immanuel Kant’s statement that,

"We could devise a constitution for a race of devils, if only they were intelligent."

The ancient view is that this will get you nowhere, because only men with civic virtue will obey a constitution. The modern view leads naturally to value-free social science and social policies that seek to solve social problems through technocratic manipulation that refrains from "imposing value judgments" on the objects of its concern.

The key hidden step in the Machiavellian view, a bold intellectual move that is made logically rigorous and then politically palatable by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, is to define man as outside nature. Strauss sees this as the key to modernity. Man exists in opposition to nature, conquering it to serve his comfort. Nature does not define what is good for man; man does. This view is the basis for the modern penchant to make freedom and comfort (read "prosperity") the central concerns of political philosophy, whereas the ancients made virtue the center. Once man is outside nature, he has no natural teleology or purpose, and therefore no natural virtues. Since he has no natural purpose, anything that might give him one, like God, is suspect, and thus modernity tends towards atheism. Similarly, man’s duties, as opposed to his rights, drop away, as does his natural sociability. The philosophical price of freedom is purposelessness, which ultimately gives rise to the alienation, anomie, and nihilism of modern life.

[Gene Roddenberry's "Andromeda"]

Look closely and you'll also find a subtext of "class struggle" in that movie.

You're right - the vacationers are portrayed as being snobbish towards the help, who dance to lustful music in their free time. But I don't find that aspect too troubling, since the music being danced to isn't valueless and Swayze's character, one of the help, falls in love with Baby, a wealthy doctor's daughter. Plus, the film, if I recall correctly, ends in a "reconciliation" which doesn't compromise the integrity of the wealthier people at the resort.

[Gene Roddenberry's "Andromeda"]

Near the beginning of the Patrick Swayze movie, Dirty Dancing, there's a scene in which a despicable character, in "explaining" the reason for his behavior extends a copy of The Fountainhead to his interlocutor.

I liked the movie when I first watched it long, long ago. But, watching that scene now, knowing what I do, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Disgusting]

I think it's noteworthy that there are no (none that I know of) Hollywood movies being churned out with Islamic terrorists as the bad guys, and Americans as the good guys, ala WWII flicks depicting Nazis as evil.

At this point in time there should be  tons of action movies, ala Schwarzenegger and Stallone, (not to mention some more high browed thrillers) all aimed at dealing with the threat. There would definitely be money in it.

You're right, and I agree.

However, there is Schwarzenegger's "True Lies," which is a rather good (but perhaps too humorous) Hollywood movie depicting Islamic fundamentalism versus America.

[Here Come The Christians!]

Professor Lewis weighs in once more on the election. Dust your textbooks, people!

Some admirer's of Ayn Rand have concluded that the political values of her philosophy, Objectivism, and the values of Bush conservatives are fundamentally the same. They claim, for instance, that Objectivists and conservatives both value freedom, even though the conservatives are inconsistent in the actions they take to preserve it. In this view, Objectivists should actively support President Bush, while urging him to act more robustly to defend America.

They claim that Mr. Bush’s military aims are good; we simply need to expose the practice of sending Americans overseas to die for others. His espousal of the free market is good; we only need clarify that a half-trillion dollar deficit and an exploding budget are contradictions. Respect for American founding values is good; we simply need to oppose the religious foundations of their reverence and promote a secular agenda.

Craig Biddle, too, says he's voting for Kerry.

John Kerry is despicable, and I will vote for him.

Contrary to the position of some Objectivists that President Bush is doing a defensible job fighting our enemies (let alone that he “is one of the best presidents we’ve had in 100 years”), he is in fact doing worse than nothing. No other president in history was provided with the kind of perceptual evidence offered to Bush on 9/11 of the consequences of a selfless foreign policy. What has he done in response? Has he destroyed, from high altitude, the regimes that every thinking adult knows are the main sources of Islamic terrorism, as he easily could have and morally should have? He has not. He hasn’t even named them in connection with the attack.

[Lectures For Sale!]

I have the following lectures for sale. I am not interested in anything but cash, so don't bother asking about trades. Sorry.

All of these are audio cassette and in very good condition.

The Art of Thinking - (ARB Price: $230) My Price: $190

Advanced Seminars on OPAR I- (ARB: $145) My Price: $100

ASOPAR II - (ARB: $175) My Price: $135

Unity in Epistemology and Ethics - (ARB: $119) My Price: $85

If someone wants to buy them all I'll give you priority. If you are interested or have questions, email me. If you are interested in buying, but don't like my prices, then email me and I'll get back to you if I have no customers. My email address is [email protected]

All of these are VERY good lectures and helped me immensely. I am only parting with them because I am a poor college student who needs money but can't get a job. Don't take my wanting to sell these as an indication that I don't think they are valuable!

Could you kindly summarize the content of the "Art of Thinking" and "Unity in Epistemology and Ethics" tapes?

Thanks.

[Allan Greenspan]

The article attributes unreferenced quotes to Ayn Rand. As such, the entire piece is suspect.

[Hero W/ Jet Li]

Yes, Kant was knowingly diabolical, while Confucius was earnest in his teachings. However, Confucius was also a much smaller mind than a Plato. I honestly find Confucius intolerably boring. In his analects he's constantly lecturing this person or that how to behave in relation to this or that situation and person. He tells you to eat ginger with meals to improve digestion. He tells a farmer to be humble. He tells a son to lie on behalf of a thieving father. It's like listening to a busybody trying to tell everyone to behave according to plan. His focus is mostly on interpersonal relationships, I can't recall any serious metaphysical systematizing or real epistemology. I wouldn't call Confucious' Analects religious tracts at all, more like a whole bunch of Dear Abby columns.

Don't get me wrong, I have no quarrel with your assessment of Confucius' approach to epistemology and ethics, especially as I haven't read him. I was just wary of comparisons to Kant.

Plato was a really serious philosopher, no matter his flaws.

Still, I'm curious: Which thinker(s) in Eastern history made the eventual development of paper and gunpowder possible? Or did it owe to Western contact and influence?

Now, I'm certain that the answer to the above is NOT "it happend over time, bit by bit." So, how did it happen?

[Hero W/ Jet Li]

I would not at all classify Confucious as Aristotle of the East. More like Kant of the East, though with much less explicit philosophy. Confucious is Asia's number one Duty promoter. I'd say the biggest effect he had was to focus men's thinking not on the world, but on other people. Confucious seemed relatively uninterested in the material world, but thought primarily in terms of how one person ranked in relation to another, how one person was supposed to behave to another.  My wife, who grew up in China, after reading Atlas Shrugged decided that it was Confucious (Koontze) who most paved the way for Communism, though all elements of Chinese culture played a role, including Taoism and Legalism.

Considering that Confucius lived c. 500BC (when men everywhere were primitive), I don't think it's fair to compare him to Kant, who lived in the Enlightenment.

Even if he's not the Aristotle of the East, the farthest I would go in labelling his philosophy's concern with others is Plato.

[Love For One's Work]

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone.

Zeus: I will look into Peikoff's course sometime, budget permitting.

No problem, Randrew.

I understand your financial plight - being a student most always carries that limitation. Best of luck in this regard.

Also, when you say "rationalism," I think of the modern-philosophy "Rationalists vs. Empiricists" battle.  Do you mean "rationalizing?"  I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

You are on the right track here. Empricism before modern philosophy referred to the formation of concepts from sense-perception, e.g., Aristotle. But with the advent of modern philosophy, empiricism now refers to the overwhelming regard for sense-perception with a tendency to deny that concepts may be formed from percepts, e.g. Hume.

Empiricists tend not to climb the conceptual hierarchy. They are content in the land of concretes. For example, a person who sees a tree, a flower, a shrub, but refuses to give them the general name, "plant."

The meaning of rationalism, however, hasn't changed since Plato: the disregard for the data of sense-perception in the formation of concepts. The result: ideas severed from reality. Rationalists may not deny a hierarchy in all cases but philosophically deny that whatever hierarchy there is has a foundation; this person believes in a two- or more storey building without the first floor. He's in a sort of Daredevil or SpiderMan world where he leaps from rooftop to rooftop but forgets that all these roofs presuppose concrete brick-and-mortar.

Rationalizing, however, is not a philosophical view but rather the attempt to explain away evasions in one's thinking.

[Fahrenhype 9/11]

There's a movie coming out on the 5th of October rebutting Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Check out the trailer by following the link from the Cox & Forkum website.

[Love For One's Work]

I'm interested, although $265 is a pretty hefty price for a student.  Tell me, though: what kinds of things would I learn in this course that I couldn't get from OPAR or Rand's writings?  (That is, things that would make it worth the price.)

The last work I purchased from aynrandbookstore.com was Bernstein's "Primacy of Conciousness vs. Objectivist Ethics."  It was interesting enough, but it contained little that I couldn't have figured out on my own with a little research.  And it cost $55.

With no disrespect intended towards Dr. Bernstein, I think it is wiser for you - or anyone for that matter - to first concentrate on the work of the leading Objectivist philosophers, i.e., Drs. Peikoff and Binswanger -- and then try to cross-check your own understanding of Objectivism against theirs. If one is essentializing properly, as Objectivism teaches, this would be the obvious course of action. If a person seeks to understand a philosophy at root, he should focus on epistemology, which is the essential branch of philosophy. And the leading epistemologists are Drs. Peikoff and Binswanger.

Although Miss Rand's work and Dr. Peikoff's systematization of it in OPAR are written in plain English, the truths contained therein are not at all self-evident but took many, many years of thought by perhaps the world's greatest ever genius to discover. If you don't hold the view that the work of the greatest mathematicians can be "figured out" by yourself (after all, you're in a graduate program in math, aren't you?), why would you think so about the work of the greatest philosopher?

Many students of Objectivism, being usually very bright and possessing intellectual self-confidence, tend to think they can "go it alone" in the study of philosophy. Objectivism contributes to this confidence: most of us feel ready to take on any non-Objectivist in almost any field given a basic grasp of Objectivist epistemology and a basic knowledge of whatever specialized topic is being discussed.

But, this self-confidence can be dangerously misleading.

Just as you might study leading experts in mathematics, you should also seek to study the leading experts on Miss Rand's work.

Before I bought the "Understanding Objectivism" course, I had already read virtually everything in the Objectivist corpus (some books many times over). I had discussed epistemology at length with my very brilliant brother (also a student of Objectivism) and some other students of Objectivism. I had read several supporting histories of Western civilization in different contexts, to ensure that Miss Rand's assertions in her various essays were not floating abstractions, and had just about immersed myself in every area of life, excepting marriage and children, referred to in her work. Friends, sex, love, work - in a dictatorship, in freedom - you name it. Yet, each course I bought from the Ayn Rand bookstore taught me something new (aside of the professors named above, I've also bought work by David Harriman and Edwin Locke).

But, before I bought any courses, just from reading Ayn Rand's work, I already knew what rationalism was; but you didn't, according to one of your earlier posts. So, obviously, you have quite a lot of "figuring out" to do.

I say all this not to intimidate you, but to underscore the fact that the full scope of Ayn Rand's achievement is not easily graspable. And perhaps only a study of history can impress this upon you in good measure.

The "Understanding Objectivism" course, graciously recommended to me by Mrs. Speicher, deals with a phenomenon common amongst Objectivists: a tendency to hold some or many of the truths of the philosophy as a system of floating abstractions which they can deduce principle-to-principle, e.g.,

Existence exists;

Every existent exists possessing identity;

Some existents possess consciousness; some don't;

Living things exist possessing consciousness;

Life is self-generated, goal-directed action;

Life requires a specific course of action;

Life is an end in itself;

Man is a living thing;

Man possesses a volitional consciousness;

Since man must make choices in value pursuit, he requires a code of values;

A code of values requires a standard;

Only a thing which is an end in itself can be a standard of value.

Since man is a living thing, and life is an end in itself,

Man's life is the standard of value.

and there's a lot more where that came from.

What Dr. Peikoff does in this course is address the case of a student of Objectivism who employs this method - in some area of his life - and then, after some time, finds that he can't live as an Objectivist (something which you mentioned in an earlier post). Many of the best young Objectivists have experienced this problem in some form, he says. He then describes, at length, the methodology he used, over a period of 12 years, to overcome this problem in his own life. In doing so, he clarifies several key points of Objectivism.

Now, his ordering of the Objectivism hierarchy is pre-OPAR and you will have to do some reviewing on your own. But the most value, by far, is in the method he used.

There's more in the course, but in the spirit of the fight against rationalism, I enjoin you to look at reality and find out for yourself by buying the tapes.

[Here Come The Christians!]

Quick! Who can name at least one article by Ayn Rand--or let's say a speech she once gave at, um, Yale?--the very title of which should call into question Betsy's parsing of "some religions" from others? You know, the kind of thing that should be on the tip of the tongues of Objectivists with decades of experience!

Do you mean Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World ?

[Measurement And Perceptual Units]

Well, the word "lightyear" is certainly with man's perceptual range but that's not the answer that I was seeking. A unit is itself an instance of the attribute being measured, in this case length. A word is not a unit in this sense. Dr. Peikoff writes in OPAR:

What is the primary unit of length used by scientists to grasp the distance of a lightyear? If astronomists ultimately reduce lightyears to feet, I can live with that. I was just wondering if there was a readout on some instrument or some other observable phenomenon that gave us an easily perceivable unit of measurement in this case.

Oh, I see. I should have paid more attention to your use of the word "reduced" in your original post.

[Love For One's Work]

2) In college I explored my love for Mathematics, and I also discovered Philosophy.  In the early stages, I was very idealistic about becoming an inspirational Philosophy professor.  I gradually became disenchanted with modern philosophy (this is all prior to my discovery of Objectivism) and started to feel a drive to do something with more tangible results.

3) So I focused on pure (abstract) mathematics.  This subject is a lot of fun for me, but it is very easy to get overwhelmed and, eventually, stop caring about the achievements I can make with it, since they are in the form of abstract theorems.  (I think it no coincidence that the professor in Atlas Shrugged who looked sadly at Francisco and said "He has so much capacity for joy, while there is so little opportunity for it in the world" was a professor of mathematics.)

I'm now in a graduate program of Applied Mathematics.  There is plenty of opportunity for achievement and personal triumph in this field, but it is also possible to just focus on the job skills I need and not worry too much about taking on monumental problems.  Ergo, I am at something of a cusp in my life.

No.  Please elaborate, for it sounds interesting.

By the reasoning I used earlier, it seems that they would have to be one and the same.  Achievement, creation, a job well done.  But when, even after these, something is still missing from my life and I begin to seek fantasy worlds more and more, it becomes harder and harder to be an Objectivist.

Coming from a mathematics background myself, I have a first-hand understanding of how rationalism operates in certain personal contexts.

While still sorting out my own issues, I would advise that you, whenever possible, get a copy of Dr. Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course where he addresses in detail this problem, the symptoms of which you seem to be showing.

I thought I knew Objectivism really well until I bought this course. Now I'm sure I only know it quite well. There's still a lot of work to be done.

[Measurement And Perceptual Units]

In the section, "Concept-Formation as a Mathematical Process," (found in Chapter 3 of OPAR) Dr. Peikoff discusses the purpose of measurement, what Miss Rand identified as "a process of integrating an unlimited scale of knowledge to man's limited perceptual experience—a process of making the universe knowable by bringing it within the range of man's consciousness, by establishing its relationship to man." (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 8) This means that every unit of measurement must, ultimately, be brought down to the level of man's perception.

Would someone illustrate this principle with an example or two of scientific units of measurement? How does a "light-year" get reduced to something easily perceivable?

The perceivable concrete is the letters you use in writing "l-i-g-h-t-y-e-a-r." You don't have to project a distance of 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters. Just look at the visual-auditory symbols light-year.

I had begun to project how physicists would have done this over time when I found this.

I hope I answered your question.

[Here Come The Christians!]

It'll be interesting to see how PBS covers the topic Wednesday on their Special: The Question of God

I watched some of this yesterday. There was a serialized roundtable discussion with several participants of various philosophical leanings. During the back-and-forth, I couldn't help thinking: why are all these false alternatives being bandied about so recklessly? could it be that this Armand Nicholi guy hasn't heard of Ayn Rand?

Oh well...

[Here Come The Christians!]

The Threat of Bush’s Faith-based America

In the war between reason and religion, declared by Islamic fundamentalists, President Bush is firmly on the side of religion. The positions he supports most passionately are those of theocracies: prayer in schools, a national pledge “under God” recited by children, judges who uphold religion in government, laws against abortion, publicly-funded faith-based initiatives, bans on cloning and genetic research, censorship of pornography, and a marriage amendment to the Constitution. If he has not imposed religious censorship, it is not because it is antithetical to his core values. Mr. Bush is energizing the political foundations of an American theocracy.

Nevertheless, there is only one issue in the 2004 election: the war with militant Islam. Here Mr. Bush has also remained true to his principles. He has not acted against a single religious government.

He took down the Taliban because they had aided those who “hijacked a great religion.” He threw down a secular dictator in Iraq and established the terms by which the country can become fundamentalist. Iranian mullahs have been assured that their overthrow is not on our agenda. We have bombed their opponents in Iraq, and negotiated with their Shi’ite stooges who plan to take over Iraq. If they succeed, they will control a second country— bordering on their first, Iran. A greater Islamic state, armed with nuclear bombs, would be a gift from George Bush.

Mr. Bush accepts that people may establish a government based on religious principles; after all, he thinks, that is what we did in America. He uses US troops to preserve the “rights” of foreigners to establish the same religiously-inspired governments that attacked us to begin with.

From the start, Mr. Bush exercised his leadership by declaring the war not against militant Islam, but against “terrorism.” This has obfuscated the nature of our enemies and led us to squander our resources in ways not central to our interests. Had our president named the enemy properly, but then taken no action at all, we would be able to repudiate that inaction and fight the war properly. Now we must repudiate the very aims of the war. It will take extraordinary leadership to reverse this error.

The result is that the source of America’s enemies remains untouched. Iran is building nuclear bombs. Pakistan (a thug who seized power) and Russia (an ex-KGB officer) are called allies. Syria and the Saudis have not been confronted. Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan remain hideouts for Al Qaeda. We arm Islamic soldiers while our money builds schools in Baghdad. When we leave, those schools will teach radical Islam, and those soldiers will shoot at us.

Further, Mr. Bush is undercutting the very idea of self-defense. He spent over a year asking the UN for permission to invade Iraq, while claiming that no permissions will be sought. He is re-defining “overwhelming force” into a consensual war fought with compassionate regard for “innocents.” Such a conceptual stew leaves people with little guidance as to what offensive retaliation against foreign enemies is.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has established a permanent, institutionalized state of siege at home. The war can now be fought against Unabomber-types, without ethnic “profiling.” And, don’t forget: you are permanently at risk; the war will be long; better buy some duct-tape.

This is all a consequence of Mr. Bush’s “faith-based” thinking. He has “faith in markets,” “faith in the American people,” “faith that people want freedom.” He holds such ideas as religious absolutes. He shoots out a strong statement from his subconscious (“we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them”), and then watches it dissolve in the face of arguments he cannot answer. The statement becomes an empty utterance, compromised in words and actions, precisely because it was held on faith rather than as a rational, defensible conviction.

More specifically, Mr. Bush’s policies are defined by two elements: religious patriotism, and religious altruism. The first demands that he stand tall against America’s ungodly enemies. The second demands that he spend billions to help the unfortunate. Picture two bombers over Afghanistan: one drops a bomb (precision-guided, to avoid hitting a Mosque), and the next drops peanut butter. The first satisfies the patriot, the second redeems the altruist. This, he thinks, is how God wants him to fight the war.

It is a positive sign that many Americans want a forthright offense against our enemies. But they are confused if they think that Mr. Bush advocates this in fact. I do not wish to abet that confusion.

What about John Kerry, an obnoxious Carter / Kennedy / Clinton wannabe who sees Americans as war criminals? He does not hide his desire to subordinate American defense to a foreign consensus. This leaves less confusion in its wake; no one will mistake him for George C. Patton. Besides, Mr. Kerry will be desperate to be seen as tough on terrorism; he might actually do a better job against America’s real enemies.

Most of all, in the war with fundamentalist militant Islam, Bush is pro-religion, all the way to the core of his soul. Kerry does not share this premise.

If you think that a turn towards a theocracy in America is far-fetched, remember that “The Passion of the Christ” is approaching a half a billion dollars in box-office take, and conservatives have lined up to extol its blood-soaked message.

—John Lewis

[Global Warming]

I would even go further to say: Even if these environmentalist claims were true, does man have a choice but to act according to his nature, i.e., to use his mind to conquer nature?

[Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality]

Well, it started out as a discussion of homosexuality (and long before I was even a member of this board), so I kept it as the first word of the title, but added a reference to heterosexuality and a description line to make it more reflective of the thread's actual content.

Thanks for the suggestion, though!

Not a problem, CF...anytime.