Here Come The Christians!

[Betsy]

Welcome to the forum, obsequiosity76. I welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate with another member of "religion is the greatest threat we face today" contingent. Although at least one well-known Objectivist espouses that view, articles in TIA Daily and postings to Harry Binswanger's List indicate that most Objectivists don't buy into your position.

Perhaps you could convince them where others who agree with you have failed so far.

First, it would help if you address your opponents' ACTUAL position, instead of straw man arguments.

Nobody's saying we should just attack religion and provide no positive alternative! Why does Betsy  keep pretending otherwise?

I never said any such thing, and that is not my view. Also labeling my alleged view "pretending" isn't going to win people over to your side -- at least not on THIS forum. Objectivists know an "argument from intimidation" when they see one.

But how did we get to evaluating Limbaugh? Because someone challenged Betsy's idea that there was some vast new movement of non-religious conservatives.

Straw man argument again. My actual position is that the New Right is usually rational (about most things) AND religious (about a few things), and therefore open to being influenced by, sympathetic to, and often promoting Objectivism and other true and valuable ideas. Thus, some are actual allies and others are potential allies and converts -- NOT our worst enemies.

And no amount of Betsy's ARBITRARY speculation about what she thinks *really* drives Mr. Limbaugh can uncover the EVIDENCE that Mr. Swig has provided. No amount of speculation, no matter how much CAPITALIZATION she uses.

Another argument from intimidation.

If you really want to convince people that you are right, try answering the following questions:

1. How is religion a threat to Objectivists who don't accept it? If someone else has nutty ideas, what's it to you?

2. Do you see theocracy as a REAL threat? In the U.S.? Now? If so, why? HOW would that come about?

3. Do you see the average American Christian -- or millions of them -- as worse than Islamic terrorists, leftists like Kerry, nihilist professors, environmentalists, etc.? If so, why?

4. Do you agree with those Objectivists who believe that, because Bush is openly religious, we ought to vote for Kerry? If so, what do you expect this will accomplish and how?

5. If religion is a major threat, what would you suggest Objectivists do about it?

If you can come up with good answers to those questions, you might have a chance of persuading Objectivists like me.

[tommyedison]

My actual position is that the New Right is usually rational (about most things) AND religious (about a few things), and therefore open to being influenced by, sympathetic to, and often promoting Objectivism and other true and valuable ideas.  Thus, some are actual allies and others are potential allies and converts -- NOT our worst enemies.

They may sympathize, they may even say that Objectivism is right because they can't refute it. But does anything happen? Thomas Edison said that nature was merciless and indifferent, he was condemned for it and called abnormal by a prominent psycologist. The Ancient Romans were offered with eloquent reasons not to give upto Caesar and mantain Republic, still they did. Even when Ayn Rand was there, she couldn't change the course of depravity the world was falling into because people didn't want to and don't want to think. The Hippie relativists made her their hero but did they actually implement reason in their own lifes? As for the New Right being rational, George W. Bush includes religion in most things no matter whether the decisions he takes are right or wrong but they are not primarly based on reason. And they certainly don't promote capitalism as being anti-governmental welfare and anti-unproductive which capitalism certainly is as it is a system of justice.

[tommyedison]

1. How is religion a threat to Objectivists who don't accept it? If someone else has nutty ideas, what's it to you?

Religion sanctions the use of force. If the Constitution is ever amended with Christian principles, it is going to be a threat to every rational mind on the planet. Right now, of course it is not a threat.

2. Do you see theocracy as a REAL threat? In the U.S.? Now? If so, why? HOW would that come about?

Given the fact that people still consider it acceptable to seriously discuss ideas which theocracy and socialism espouse, I would consider it a real threat only disguised under another name.

5. If religion is a major threat, what would you suggest Objectivists do about it?

Objectivists can only try and convince people. The ones who are rational and are merely suffering from an error of knowledge will understand. But that is not a huge majority. As Ayn Rand herself points out in "Requiem for Man" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Catholicism's history was lighted up by a giant Thomas Aquinas who brought Aristotelian logic back into the world. But he was superseded by the mystic St. Augustine. If people were willing to abandon Aquinas for Augustine then, why can't a similar thing happen now?

[Zeus]

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

[tommyedison]

And the fact that the majority of Americans are creationists also lends weight to the fact that the danger of theocracy is far from over.

http://www.trueorigin.org/edupolls.asp

Americans are quite religious too these days

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_503.html

Abortion-approval ratings are falling day by day.

Atleast in the 70s there was not much danger of state enacting anti-abortionist or pro-religion laws even though the people lacked values.

I am sure the founding fathers would have cried to see the orgy of religion, relativism, statism and fascism America is dissolving into. Relativism is particularly strong among the atheists.

[BurgessLau]

...

As Ayn Rand herself points out in "Requiem for Man" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Catholicism's history was lighted up by a giant Thomas Aquinas who brought Aristotelian logic back into the world. But he was superseded by the mystic St. Augustine. If people were willing to abandon Aquinas for Augustine then, why can't a similar thing happen now?

Let's keep the historical record straight. First, Augustine died in 430 CE and Aquinas died more than 800 years later in 1274 CE. So, Augustine did not supersede Aquinas. To the contrary, Aquinas helped roll back -- not end -- the influence of Augustine. (There was, though, a neo-Augustinian reaction that did seem to succeed for awhile, but gradually lost ground to the supporters of Thomas and Aristotle.)

Aquinas debated on two fronts in his time: against the Augustinians, who were more mystical, and against the radical Aristotelians, such as Siger of Brabant, who were university of Paris philosophers who wanted to rely solely on reason to resolve issues about life in this world. (They did not deny -- and could not deny, at risk of their lives -- the "validity" of faith in its domain.)

Second, 100 years before Aquinas, Latin-Christian scholars had already re-introduced Aristotle's works on logic into West European culture, from Greek Orthodox Christian and Arabic-Islamic sources. Aquinas -- whose central purpose in life was to defend Christianity intellectually -- learned logic from Catholic teachers. He applied it more ruthlessly and more widely than others, but he was not an innovator in this field.

For an overview and background, see Ch. 26, "Logical Consequences (1200-1265)," The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, and Latin Scholars Who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance, for Thomas and others.

Third, keep in mind that Thomas was an advocate of faith as one of the highest virtues. He was, as were many of his contemporaries, also an advocate of reason -- within limits. His distinction, throughout most of his life, was that he expanded the boundaries of reason's domain and gave reason an explicit and systematic defense. However, he had mystical elements in his work, especially, of course, in his theology ("science" of God) -- which for Christians is what Objectivists call metaphysics (ontology).

One biography of Thomas worth reading is Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Vol. I: The Person and His Work.

One reason I bring all this up is that Aquinas's time offers some parallels to our own. For example, some religious people are much more dangerous than others.

[tommyedison]

Let's keep the historical record straight. First, Augustine died in 430 CE and Aquinas died more than 800 years later in 1274 CE. So, Augustine did not supersede Aquinas. To the contrary, Aquinas helped roll back -- not end -- the influence of Augustine....

Thanks for correcting me.

Edited September 25, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist

[Zeus]

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...

[PossiblyParanoid]

I have found that the most interesting aspects of media presentations is what relevent material is completely omitted.

The next most interesting are the ideas and stories that are smeared and marginalized.

Rand and Objectivism are frequently in one of these two catagories.

[Betsy]

They may sympathize, they may even say that Objectivism is right because they can't refute it. But does anything happen?

Sometimes.

The first Objectivists I ever met were introduced to Ayn Rand by their PRIEST.

Every time Rush Limbaugh mentions Ayn Rand favorably, sales of Atlas Shrugged go way up on Amazon.com. (I know, because I track sales of Objectivist books using special software and report it monthly in my CyberNet.)

A person doesn't have to be an atheist to help spread Objectivism.

[Betsy]

Religion sanctions the use of force.

SOME religions do. Some non-religious ideologies do even moreso. Most religious Americans sanction the use of force LESS than secular Leftists.

[obsequiosity76]

SOME religions do.  Some non-religious ideologies do even moreso.   Most religious Americans sanction the use of force LESS than secular Leftists.

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!

[Zeus]

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 ?

[Betsy]

Religion sanctions the use of force.

SOME religions do.  Some non-religious ideologies do even moreso. Most religious Americans sanction the use of force LESS than secular Leftists.

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!

Pardon me, but what does your snide allusion to my decades of experience as an Objectivist -- as if that were some kind of vice -- have to do with the truth of my statements that not all religions sanction the use of force and that most religious Americans sanction the use of force less than secular Leftists?

If you disagree, how about some facts and arguments?

[Pericles(MBA)]

I disagree with your assessment of the election.

I disagree with your assessment of Bush.

Apparently you have not been reading this thread or others.

Your arguments have already been refuted here.

The Threat of Bush’s Faith-based America

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

[BurgessLau]

I disagree with your assessment of the election.

I disagree with your assessment of Bush.

Apparently you have not been reading this thread or others.

Your arguments have already been refuted here.

What are your reasons -- even if only in summary form -- for your disagreements with Professor Lewis's positions? For example, he holds that President Bush is guided by altruism. Do you disagree with that?

[Pericles(MBA)]

I don't think the President is guided primarily by altruism so much as pragmatism. He reacts to whomever screams the loudest. The liberals have traditionally had a much more altruistic foreign policy: Vietnam, Haiti, Somalia. When Pres Bush talks about rebuilding Iraq and foreign aid, it is a holdover from the Wilsonian foregn policy ideas that neither political party has ever questioned.

Bush has been much less altruistic than a liberal president would be. A liberal would never have invaded Iraq or questioned Iran and its nukes. I don't think that someone who listens to Colin Powell with one ear, and Donald Rumsfeld with the other is an altruist. The correct definition for that person is a pragmatist.

I especially objected to Prof Lewis' comments that Kerry would be unfettered by religion/altruism. Kerry would have his environmental and anti-American groups that he would be beholden to. Kerry would also be open to influence from Muslim groups and foreign governments in a way that Bush is not. We have already seen some of this in his election supporters.

What are your reasons -- even if only in summary form -- for your disagreements with Professor Lewis's positions? For example, he holds that President Bush is guided by altruism. Do you disagree with that?

[Zeus]

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.

[Zeus]

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.

[MisterSwig]

Dr. Jerry Falwell is often credited with helping to create the American evangelical movement when he founded the Moral Majority in 1979 and worked to get Ronald Reagan elected in 1980.

Now he is back, having created a new group: The Faith and Values Coalition (TFVC).

From an article on Falwell's Web site:

Falwell said the three-fold platform of the new organization is: (1) the confirmation of pro-life, strict constructionist U.S. Supreme Court justices and other federal judges; (2) the passage of a constitutional Federal Marriage Amendment; and (3) the election of another socially- fiscally- and politically-conservative president in 2008, along with other state and national candidates ...

Falwell outlined his vision for the future: "We must now diligently work to multiply our turnout for the 2006 and 2008 elections. As national chairman of TFVC, I am committed to lending my influence to help send out at least 40 million evangelical voters in 2008. The thought of a Hillary Clinton or John Edwards presidency is simply unacceptable (and quite frightening)."

... He said the TFVC will be organizing in all 50 states and "enlisting and training millions of Americans to become partners in this exciting task of bringing this nation back to the moral values of faith and family on which it was founded."

Well, they certainly have a head start on the liberals. While the Left wonders why they lost, the Right is pushing forward with its religious agenda.

[ramKatori]

The contrarian in me says that this election might mark the highest point for the Christian right. That means, it is all downhill from here (for them).

Here is how this might enfold:

Many among the Christian right think that they made the (marginally-critical) difference in this election. When they realize that Bush has been throwing them little scraps of food to ensure he has to do no more, many of them will be disillusioned. If this is all they could get from their 2004 turnout, then why bother.

Meanwhile, many democrats also think that they lost the "moral vote". Some democrats will attempt to tackle this at various levels of politics: local, state and federal. At the margin, this will "peel" some "Christian voters" away from the Republicans.

P.S. My guess would be that a very center of left Hillary Clinton wins in 2008.

PPS. If the Republicans put Rudy Guliani on their ticket, Hillary even gets my vote.

[Zeus]

The contrarian in me says that this election might mark the highest point for the Christian right. That means, it is all downhill from here (for them).

Here is how this might enfold:

Many among the Christian right think that they made the (marginally-critical) difference in this election. When they realize that Bush has been throwing them little scraps of food to ensure he has to do no more, many of them will be disillusioned. If this is all they could get from their 2004 turnout, then why bother.

Meanwhile, many democrats also think that they lost the "moral vote". Some democrats will attempt to tackle this at various levels of politics: local, state and federal. At the margin, this will "peel" some "Christian voters" away from the Republicans.

P.S. My guess would be that a very center of left Hillary Clinton wins in 2008.

PPS. If the Republicans put Rudy Guliani on their ticket, Hillary even gets my vote.

ramKatori,

Why Hilary over Guliani? I know he has a history of anti-business action but Hilary's history is worse.

In any case, I'd like to know why you hold this view.

Thanks.

[ramKatori]

Why Hilary over Guliani?  I know he has a history of anti-business action but Hilary's history is worse.

It makes my blood boil to see Mr. Spitzer put Martha Stewart in jail. An evil man, who has learnt a political lesson from Guliani (who did the same things in his time). Almost every day I see the power of these creeps. It is a largely unreported story. Highly moral men -- way more moral than the average -- being destroyed because of weasels in the Guliani / Spitzer tradition.

What scares me about people like this is that they do not represent the "left wing" intellectuals. They represent the worst compartment in the compartmentalized minds of "the common man on the street". These are "men of action" (like Ross Perot) who would use a "common man" approach to destroy lives for the "common good".

No, give me the transparent and abstract evil of Hillary Clinton any day.

Incidentally, it would be a tough fight if Hillary ran against Guliani. The latter is obviously popular. Perhaps he could he swing one of the "blue" states? Hillary might motivate the Christian right to come vote against her, but I doubt she could turn out more of them than turned out this year. On the other hand, she could make some inroads in marginal "red" states. Definitely another close election.

[Charles T.]

I just received this from a religious acquaintance of mine who, I'm almost certain, is aware that I'm an atheist:

______________________________

"Atheist Professor

"A college professor, an avowed Atheist, was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when he flatly stated that there is no God, the expression, "One Nation Under God", was unconstitutional and further he was going to prove there is no God.

"Addressing the ceiling he shouted: "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!" The lecture room fell silent. You could have heard a pin fall. Ten minutes went by.

"Again he taunted God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."

"His countdown got down to the last couple of minutes when a Marine just released from active duty and newly registered in the class walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and knocked him flat from his lofty platform. The professor was out cold!

"At first the students were shocked and babbled in confusion. The young Marine took a seat in the front row and sat silent. The class fell silent...waiting. Eventually, the professor came to. Shaken, he looked at the young Marine in the front row. When he regained his senses and could speak he yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

"God was busy. He sent me."

"God Bless America!"

_______________________________

This is essentially the kind of religious fanaticism with which our nation is at war, and this comes from a dainty little American Christian woman! The person who sent me this apparently condones the idea of punching out atheists who have the courage to voice their disagreement with religious dogma. Perhaps it's not to the point where she would *openly* advocate it, but it's to the point where a little story like this gets forwarded around on the internet among presumed "friends".

This is a perfect example of the "religious right" that some people fear is growing in popularity in our country. I shudder at the thought. Could there come a day when I am threatened with or harmed by physical violence because I admit to being an atheist? What a disgusting thought. At this point in time, I am not especially worried about this "mind-set" pervading our society, but this IS, potentially, the "front edge" of such a trend. Time will tell.

I sent an e-mail back to this person asking if she really approves of what that story portrays. If she were to tell me she does, and I could not persuade her otherwise, I would never speak to her again (until and unless I was convinced she had changed her mind), because that would mean she is *evil*. It would mean she condones the use of violence against someone who merely disagrees with her and who has not first threatened her with the use of force. It would mean she is no different, essentially, from the sub-humans who flew those planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11/01, even if she is not someone who would personally initiate the violence.

CT

[Patrick N.]

I just received this from a religious acquaintance of mine who, I'm almost certain, is aware that I'm an atheist:

______________________________

"Atheist Professor

"A college professor, an avowed Atheist, was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when he flatly stated that there is no God, the expression, "One Nation Under God", was unconstitutional and further he was going to prove there is no God.

"Addressing the ceiling he shouted: "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!" The lecture room fell silent. You could have heard a pin fall. Ten minutes went by.

"Again he taunted God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."

"His countdown got down to the last couple of minutes when a Marine just released from active duty and newly registered in the class walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and knocked him flat from his lofty platform. The professor was out cold!

"At first the students were shocked and babbled in confusion. The young Marine took a seat in the front row and sat silent. The class fell silent...waiting. Eventually, the professor came to. Shaken, he looked at the young Marine in the front row. When he regained his senses and could speak he yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?" 

"God was busy. He sent me."

"God Bless America!"

_______________________________

This is essentially the kind of religious fanaticism with which our nation is at war, and this comes from a dainty little American Christian woman!  The person who sent me this apparently condones the idea of punching out atheists who have the courage to voice their disagreement with religious dogma.  Perhaps it's not to the point where she would *openly* advocate it, but it's to the point where a little story like this gets forwarded around on the internet among presumed "friends".

This is a perfect example of the "religious right" that some people fear is growing in popularity in our country.  I shudder at the thought.  Could there come a day when I am threatened with or harmed by physical violence because I admit to being an atheist?  What a disgusting thought.  At this point in time, I am not especially worried about this "mind-set" pervading our society, but this IS, potentially, the "front edge" of such a trend.  Time will tell.

I sent an e-mail back to this person asking if she really approves of what that story portrays.  If she were to tell me she does, and I could not persuade her otherwise, I would never speak to her again (until and unless I was convinced she had changed her mind), because that would mean she is *evil*.  It would mean she condones the use of violence against someone who merely disagrees with her and who has not first threatened her with the use of force.  It would mean she is no different, essentially, from the sub-humans who flew those planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11/01, even if she is not someone who would personally initiate the violence.

CT

One more example of the fact that faith and force go hand in hand.

If I were the professor I would have hit back.