Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

[WhoWee]

Is it possible Dawkins might feel threatened by Perry's apparent popularity - does it seem to fly in the face of his findings?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/578443-near-record-high-see-religion-losing-influence-in-america
"Seven in 10 Americans say religion is losing its influence on American life -- one of the highest such responses in Gallup's 53-year history of asking this question, and significantly higher than in the first half of the past decade."

 

[CAC1001]

And yet the declaration of independence hasn't been changed back to the original wording yet...

Even on your money you have religion.

The Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution though, so it's saying people are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights isn't a law; it was the document outlining why the thirteen colonies were their own nation and could break from Great Britain. Neither is having God on money a law. It's a gray area in law (and I am no expert), but I mean if say a town say decides to put a statue of the Ten Commandments in front of the town hall, that doesn't necessarilly violate separation of church and state, because it is not a law based off of a religion and it doesn't prohibit anyone from practising their own religion.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean God or Creator can't be mentioned anywhere, it just means no laws based off of religion can be pushed onto the American people nor can the government stop people from practicising whatever religion they want.

 

[mege]

Perry wrong about Texas schools teaching creationism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/rick-perry-says-texas-pub_n_930858.html

What was he wrong about? The state doesn't mandate the teaching of creationism by it self specifically (which as the article states is against the establishment clause), but it says that other theories, besides evolution, are evaluated. Creationism, intelligent design, etc could be taught side by side at the teacher's discression. One thing about Gov. Perry's answer to the slave-child's* question is that he allows his state to choose, and the students in his state to make up their mind. If evolution is truly the end all be all (I buy into it fully, to stave off any personal attacks), then what is wrong with using it as an example to children about critical thought? If the state truely, impartially, taught creationism and evolution side by side - wouldn't a rational student be inclined to trust in the theory evolution? I think that is a microcasm for the blight in schools - we're far too willing to just lecture about what is 'right and accepted' at all costs that we forget there are
alternate theories out there. Students being able to discover the faults/benefits of a particular line of thinking can only strengthen their resolve and ability to reason.
Perry wrong about use of executive orders

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ve-presidential-powers-to-wipe-out-obamacare/

From the article: Like it or not, there is virtually nothing a president can do by executive order to overturn this legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the current President.

What did President Obama do regarding DOMA? That was a congressional bill, signed by the President at the time - and President Obama ordered the DOJ to just 'stop enforcing' it, effectively overturning the legislation. Why couldn't Gov. Perry do the same thing to the ACA?

Big Money bought him his 1998 victory

This is a negative for Gov. Perry, but not President Obama or any number of other politicians?


*I think that the situation that Gov. Perry was put in was in very poor taste. I'm suprised there's not more backlash about the adult feeding the child questions to ask the Gov.

 

[ThomasT]

... I don't mind if a presidential candidate, due to their religious beliefs, flat-out doesn't believe in evolution.

Ok, but the theme of the thread, ie. Dawkins' statement, is that you (everybody) should mind lest we, collectively, regress toward pre-Enlightenment modes of thinking and behavior.

I don't want elected officials, or anybody for that matter - but especially people in powerful positions whose decisions will affect the lives of millions, making decisions based on their emotional attachment to some religion or other.

What I mind is if they want to push their religious views onto others, or if they want to infringe on science just because it goes against their religion.

We agree on this at least.

 

[ThomasT]

Is it possible Dawkins might feel threatened by Perry's apparent popularity - does it seem to fly in the face of his findings?

I don't think so. Dawkins is contemptuous of Perry's, anybody's, theistic religious beliefs -- as we all should be, because these sorts of beliefs are manifestly, willfully ignorant.

As for the 'findings'. Well, these are Gallup Polls asking people what they think, so take them with a grain of salt.

 

[NeoDevin]

The Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution though, so it's saying people are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights isn't a law; it was the document outlining why the thirteen colonies were their own nation and could break from Great Britain. Neither is having God on money a law. It's a gray area in law (and I am no expert), but I mean if say a town say decides to put a statue of the Ten Commandments in front of the town hall, that doesn't necessarilly violate separation of church and state, because it is not a law based off of a religion and it doesn't prohibit anyone from practising their own religion.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean God or Creator can't be mentioned anywhere, it just means no laws based off of religion can be pushed onto the American people nor can the government stop people from practicising whatever religion they want.

I meant to say pledge of allegiance. Sorry. I did mention I was half asleep.

 

[mege]

I don't think so. Dawkins is contemptuous of Perry's, anybody's, theistic religious beliefs -- as we all should be, because these sorts of beliefs are manifestly, willfully ignorant.As for the 'findings'. Well, these are Gallup Polls asking people what they think, so take them with a grain of salt.

That line of thinking could be seen just as willfully ignorant, as you're willing to throw away thousands of years of human thought just because 'science told you so' in the span of 200 years. Imposing rationalistic beliefs is pretty self-centered, just in the same way that you're indicting faith beliefs.

For the record - I'm far from being a religious person, but imposing rationalistic principles on others is no better than a person of faith imposing their principles on someone. The failure to see that, IMO, is where the anti-religious, 'rational-based' sentiment fails to be truly rational as there's a double standard being applied. That's also where the sophistic disconnect is between pure rationalism and science - science can only prove repeatable observations, not absolutions like rationalism would like it to.

Pure rationalism is its own trouble (ever see the movie Equilibrium w/Christian Bale?), a proper balance is what is needed - rejecting religious beliefs at face value limits the draw from human experience and is just as dark of a path as being 100% theist IMO.

 

[Evo]

Is it possible Dawkins might feel threatened by Perry's apparent popularity - does it seem to fly in the face of his findings?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/578443-near-record-high-see-religion-losing-influence-in-america
"Seven in 10 Americans say religion is losing its influence on American life -- one of the highest such responses in Gallup's 53-year history of asking this question, and significantly higher than in the first half of the past decade."

Nah, Dawkins is internationally famous, Perry is relatively unknown.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think so. Dawkins is contemptuous of Perry's, anybody's, theistic religious beliefs -- as we all should be, because these sorts of beliefs are manifestly, willfully ignorant.

As for the 'findings'. Well, these are Gallup Polls asking people what they think, so take them with a grain of salt.

Personally, I think adults should be able to separate beliefs that are largely emotional from logic and science. Who hasn't rooted for a local or regional sports team that rarely wins - and even when there is absolutely zero evidence they might win? We root for them because of some other social element - don't we?

As for the poll results - isn't he hanging his hat on them - seems important to him?

 

[Evo]

Pure rationalism is its own trouble (ever see the movie Equilibrium w/Christian Bale?), a proper balance is what is needed - rejecting religious beliefs at face value limits the draw from human experience and is just as dark of a path as being 100% theist IMO.

So, do you think that christian fundamentalist, evangelical, Intelligent Design and creationism should be a part of government decision at the Presidential, or any level of government? If yes, please explain why, and why you believe there is a benefit over rational, logical, realistic information.

 

[Evo]

Personally, I think adults should be able to separate beliefs that are largely emotional from logic and science. Who hasn't rooted for a local or regional sports team that rarely wins - and even when there is absolutely zero evidence they might win? We root for them because of some other social element - don't we?

As for the poll results - isn't he hanging his hat on them - seems important to him?

I would never equate the importance of being able to run this country to some local sports team.

 

[NeoDevin]

That line of thinking could be seen just as willfully ignorant, as you're willing to throw away thousands of years of human thought just because 'science told you so' in the span of 200 years.

'Old and persistent' does not equal 'useful'. It certainly doesn't equal 'correct'.

Imposing rationalistic beliefs is pretty self-centered, just in the same way that you're indicting faith beliefs.

Asking people to have evidence supporting their beliefs is self-centered now? I could almost believe you're deliberately trying to parody the anti-reality position of many on the Christian right, if I hadn't met so many of them in person.

For the record - I'm far from being a religious person, but imposing rationalistic principles on others is no better than a person of faith imposing their principles on someone.

How precisely are you defining "rationalistic principles" and how are they being forced on anyone? Does "rationalistic principles" mean requiring evidence before you waste time on far fetched claims? In that case, count me in!

The failure to see that, IMO, is where the anti-religious, 'rational-based' sentiment fails to be truly rational as there's a double standard being applied. That's also where the sophistic disconnect is between pure rationalism and science - science can only prove repeatable observations, not absolutions like rationalism would like it to.

You seem to have thrown a bunch of words together, but failed to organize them in any meaningful manner. Please consider rephrasing.

Pure rationalism is its own trouble (ever see the movie Equilibrium w/Christian Bale?),

Haven't seen the movie. But from the wiki synopsis, it doesn't sound terribly relevant.

a proper balance is what is needed - rejecting religious beliefs at face value limits the draw from human experience and is just as dark of a path as being 100% theist IMO.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? (There I go again, being a 'rationalist'.)

 

[mege]

So, do you think that christian fundamentalist, evangelical, Intelligent Design and creationism should be a part of government decision at the Presidential, or any level of government? If yes, please explain why, and why you beloieve there is a benefit over rational, logical, realistic information.

A purely rational individual would not value human life as highly as we do now. I believe that's a significant religious involvement in our society (specifically a Christian belief). We'd put far more people to death for relatively insignificant crimes if the regard for human life wasn't there. As it stands, there is no monetary reason to put a murderer in jail for life - it's generally cheaper to euthanize them. However, we as a society, have put an intrinsic value on that life and believe that many criminals can be rehabilitated - and believe that the benefits of the ones we do 'save' outweigh any potential other costs of the ones that fail.

Personally, I feel we're too soft on criminals - but the absolute iron fist is mitigated by the extra, non-rational, value we put on life.

Overall, I don't think there is much policy impact to having a president 'believe in creationism' - does it need to be part of a policy discussion? Probably not, except in the contexts that I've already explained. In that same note, what type of policy discussion would be involving evolution (not intrinsically about teaching/researching evolution, of course)? and ultimately - if we are talking about 'what to teach in schools' isn't the rationalistic train of thought to have a skeptical comparison to the accepted belief to reinforce that trust/belief?

I just don't see the doom/gloom that many in this thread see with respect to having a fundamentalist Christian president. We have plenty of checks, balances, and failsafes in place to prevent the take over of government in the manner predicted here (like they'd even try anyhow). I'd wager that even some of the 'extreme!' fundamentalist Christians that may be on the ticket in 2012 don't hold a candle in their beliefs to some past presidents. Electing them President doesn't instantly (or even in time) make this country a 'christian-law country' with crosses in every school and a mandatory prayer every morning like some are trying to make it seem.

 

[NeoDevin]

A purely rational individual would not value human life as highly as we do now. I believe that's a significant religious involvement in our society (specifically a Christian belief). We'd put far more people to death for relatively insignificant crimes if the regard for human life wasn't there. As it stands, there is no monetary reason to put a murderer in jail for life - it's generally cheaper to euthanize them. However, we as a society, have put an intrinsic value on that life and believe that many criminals can be rehabilitated - and believe that the benefits of the ones we do 'save' outweigh any potential other costs of the ones that fail.

It has been my observation that the Christian right is generally more in favor of the death penalty than either atheists or Democrats.

 

[NeoDevin]

Overall, I don't think there is much policy impact to having a president 'believe in creationism' - does it need to be part of a policy discussion? Probably not, except in the contexts that I've already explained. In that same note, what type of policy discussion would be involving evolution (not intrinsically about teaching/researching evolution, of course)? and ultimately - if we are talking about 'what to teach in schools' isn't the rationalistic train of thought to have a skeptical comparison to the accepted belief to reinforce that trust/belief?

There is a significant policy impact of having a president unable to rationally assess evidence.

 

[ThomasT]

That line of thinking could be seen just as willfully ignorant, as you're willing to throw away thousands of years of human thought just because 'science told you so' in the span of 200 years. Imposing rationalistic beliefs is pretty self-centered, just in the same way that you're indicting faith beliefs.

On the contrary, we've developed methods of inquiry and methods of processing the data acquired via those methods of inquiry which have been definitively demonstrated to get us closer to the truth than simply adhering to ancient religious doctrines. Today there are lots of 'moderate' Christians, Muslims,and Jews who hold beliefs based on the methods of inquiry and logic that took centuries to develop and which are often in conflict with a literal interpretation of the doctrines of their respective religions. Unfortunately, these 'moderates' might be even more dangerous than the fundamentalists, because the apparent 'rationality' of their positions tends to stifle discussion about whether it makes any sense to adhere to and advocate anything based on theistic doctrines rather than on rational inquiry and logic.

For the record - I'm far from being a religious person, but imposing rationalistic principles on others is no better than a person of faith imposing their principles on someone.

Unfortunately, nobody can be forced to think and behave rationally. But we can hope. Surely, as a physics undergrad, you can see why evaluating things wrt logical rather than theistic religious principles is to be preferred.

The failure to see that, IMO, is where the anti-religious, 'rational-based' sentiment fails to be truly rational as there's a double standard being applied.

No. There's a common standard -- empirical observation. And it's been shown that scientific and logical (ie., rational) methods more closely approximate ... reality, and statements in that language are less ambiguously communicated than statements in the language of theistic religions. Eg., I still have no idea what the word, "god", is supposed to refer to ... other than our ignorance.

That's also where the sophistic disconnect is between pure rationalism and science - science can only prove repeatable observations, not absolutions like rationalism would like it to.

'Pure rationalism', 'absolutism', isn't the sort of rationalism we're talking about.

It's theistic religions, rather than science and rationality. that are peddling absolutes.

... rejecting religious beliefs at face value limits the draw from human experience ...

No it doesn't. It simply entails evaluating religious beliefs wrt the same scientific and rational methods that you'd evaluate any beliefs. We don't want, say, bridges or skyscrapers to be designed based on some interpretation of a theistic religious text. Do we? If not, then why would we base any action or any statement about the world on some interpretation of a book written by who know's who, who knows when, about who know's what?

... and is just as dark of a path as being 100% theist IMO.

I think that the scientific community might disagree with you.

 

[mege]

'Old and persistent' does not equal 'useful'. It certainly doesn't equal 'correct'.

It doesn't automatically mean incorrect either. Can rationalism explain why stealing and murder is wrong? or should we be using historical examples to make both illegal?

Asking people to have evidence supporting their beliefs is self-centered now? I could almost believe you're deliberately trying to parody the anti-reality position of many on the Christian right, if I hadn't met so many of them in person.

You're applying a significantly increased value to your own observations, when compared to that of another - I'd call that self-centered. My point is: a rational individual should be thriving on the constant skepticism, not trying to play metaphysical games and denounce the individual as a whole.

Imposing a rationalistic paradigm on the single belief of an individual, then presuming that everything else they say/do is irrational is a pretty broad statement (And unprovable). There are plenty of irrational things that (even predominately 'rational') people do and believe.

How precisely are you defining "rationalistic principles" and how are they being forced on anyone? Does "rationalistic principles" mean requiring evidence before you waste time on far fetched claims? In that case, count me in!

You seem to have thrown a bunch of words together, but failed to organize them in any meaningful manner. Please consider rephrasing.

That's because you took my statements out of context.

For the record - I'm far from being a religious person, but imposing rationalistic principles on others is no better than a person of faith imposing their principles on someone. The failure to see that, IMO, is where the anti-religious, 'rational-based' sentiment fails to be truly rational as there's a double standard being applied. That's also where the sophistic disconnect is between pure rationalism and science - science can only prove repeatable observations, not absolutions like rationalism would like it to.

Simply: imposing a paradigm on another, in which you're indicting them for having an irrational paradigm (which includes imposing their own beliefs), is a double standard.

IMO, this is the line between rationalism being an appropriate, reliable scientific thought process and an evangelical belief system bent on shaping other's beliefs.

edit: I found this comic which illustrates my point a bit.

Haven't seen the movie. But from the wiki synopsis, it doesn't sound terribly relevant.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? (There I go again, being a 'rationalist'.)

In the movie, people medicate themselves to remove emotion so they can act in a purely rational way. It's a distopian fiction, and is quite relevent. It's rationalism to the extreme (even cutting out the Orwellian 'state = god' theme).

Just look at when most societies had their golden ages: it was when secular rationalism and religious humanism met in a reasonable middle ground. Pax Romana, the Islamic Golden Age, and the European Rennassance for the most part are marked by the coming to a reactionary 'middle ground' and ended by one mindset mostly overcoming the other. I would wager that in most folk's mind, 'the good old days' image is innovative freedom coupled with personal morality.

 

[mege]

It has been my observation that the Christian right is generally more in favor of the death penalty than either atheists or Democrats.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm

Nearly all religious groups are officially abolitionist with respect to the death penalty.

Also, I'd think that most leftists see the death penalty as being racist or some such - that's more their opposition to it than any rational line of thinking.

There is a significant policy impact of having a president unable to rationally assess evidence.

Again, one belief makes up an individual's entire paradigm? What about, in this case, Gov. Perry's record as governor? Where has he acted improperly because of his religious beliefs?

To take a page from Evo's argument in the 'NH Libertarian State' thread where her claim was that NH does so well statistically because it lacks the immigrant, urban, and poor problem - Texas has arguebly some of the worst conditions to do well in using that line of thinking, but yet has done well economically.

 

[ThomasT]

Personally, I think adults should be able to separate beliefs that are largely emotional from logic and science.

But often they don't/can't, which is the problem with religious zealots like Bush, Perry, etc. (assuming they're on the level about their religious zealotry). These sorts are apparently taking theistic religious doctrine as truth, and this is based on accidents of birth and socialization.

Who hasn't rooted for a local or regional sports team that rarely wins - and even when there is absolutely zero evidence they might win? We root for them because of some other social element - don't we?

You would seem to be agreeing that adherence to some sports team or some religion is largely a matter of socialization.

But logic and science transcend socialization. That is, these methods are common to all rational inquirers. So we should, I think, want elected officials, indeed all people, to be basing their policies and actions on logic and science rather than on theistic religious beliefs.

As for the poll results - isn't he hanging his hat on them - seems important to him?

I don't think that the poll results will have any affect on Dawkins' assessment of theistic religions or people who advocate them. They're ignorant and they hinder the advancement of humankind.

There might always be a significant portion of the human race that finds comfort in such things as theistic religion, but I don't want people entrusted with making decisions that will affect the lives of millions to be basing those decisions on beliefs in ancient (or even more modern offshoots of) theistic religious doctrines.

 

[DoggerDan]

What do you guys think?

I think you're more concerned about evolution, which has little to do with politics, than you are with respect to who is the best candidate for the position.

 

[ThomasT]

I think you're more concerned about evolution, which has little to do with politics, than you are with respect to who is the best candidate for the position.

Do you think that a basic science literacy and critical thinking are important skills for holders of public office to have? Is it ok that, say, the US president believes in an invisible Big Brother spirit in the sky with infinitely extendable human-like behavioral characteristics, and that creationism and intelligent design are scientific theories on a par and competing with the theory of evolution? Are these beliefs, and religious fundamentalism in general, and the apparent associated lack of science literacy and the inability or unwillingness to think critically, specific to Republican candidates or more prevalent wrt Republican candidates -- and if so might that be any sort of problem for the Republican party?

Imo, it does seem that the incidence of science illiteracy and the inability or unwillingness to think critically is higher wrt republican party candidates than others. But I don't think that this presents any problem for them. It's been demonstrated that there are enough voters in the US who lack basic science literacy and who are unable or unwilling to think critically that a candidate of that ilk, and who also might just happen to be a religious fundamentalist, can, using them as a base electorate, get elected to the presidency.

 

[ThomasT]

Can rationalism explain why stealing and murder is wrong?

Not by itself. But in conjunction with observation that's how we explain anything that we can explain. The theistic religious appeal to 'God's will' as an explanation isn't an explanation of anything. It's just some words that mean "we don't know".

So, yes, using observation and rational analysis we can explain why stealing and murder are considered wrong, why they're considered right in certain contexts, why there are theistic religions, why some people adhere to them and some people don't, and also why they're considered a bad thing by those who have no desire to revel in, or perpetuate, their ignorance.

When we evaluate any moral or esthetic consideration we're engaging in rational analysis.

Or, we can just do what God or Allah (or whatever) tells us to do via some book that we don't know who wrote, or when it was written, or why it was written. But we'll just take it at face value, because we're told that it was divinely inspired, that it's the word of God -- whatever that might mean. Is this the sort of behavior that you want to advocate? Are those who exhibit this sort of behavior, such as Perry, the sort of people that you want making decisions that will affect millions?

Maybe in general Perry will make more or less rational decisions about stuff. But (assuming he's a true believer) how do we know (if he were elected to the presidency) that he won't one day go off the deep end and push for something really seriously damaging and idiotic wrt any criterion other than that 'God told him to do it'?

<Disparaging remark deleted>

Wouldn't you rather have a society of people who understand the rationale underlying punitive laws against stealing and murder in terms of societal control and order rather than who simply accept it as a commandment of God or because of historical precedent?

There are plenty of irrational things that (even predominately 'rational') people do and believe.

True, but we want to minimize that sort of behavior, not glorify it. Don't we? And wrt that I think it's important to speak out against the predominant monotheistic organized religions and people like Perry.

 

[WhoWee]

I would never equate the importance of being able to run this country to some local sports team.

I meant that people with common interests, backgrounds, or geographic location often tend to support a team or a cause with no real expectation of a positive result. They do it because of a sense of loyalty or belonging or some other group dynamic. They don't need proof that the team is the best, good or even able to win - it makes them feel good and gives them a sense of belonging.

 

[WhoWee]

From a political perspective - Perry clearly wants the Southern vote. I think he wants to equate Romney with Obama with Bush (comments about their respective education) as being cut from the same elitist cloth - and show himself to be the alternative.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm

Nearly all religious groups are officially abolitionist with respect to the death penalty.

From your link

Generally speaking, liberal religious groups are abolitionist, while conservative faith groups are retentionist

So as always, the fundamentalists are the standouts.

Also, I'd think that most leftists see the death penalty as being racist or some such - that's more their opposition to it than any rational line of thinking.

What is irrational about it?

Again, one belief makes up an individual's entire paradigm? What about, in this case, Gov. Perry's record as governor? Where has he acted improperly because of his religious beliefs?

To take a page from Evo's argument in the 'NH Libertarian State' thread where her claim was that NH does so well statistically because it lacks the immigrant, urban, and poor problem - Texas has arguebly some of the worst conditions to do well in using that line of thinking, but yet has done well economically.

The point made was in regards to his ability to interpret information rationally. Saying Bernanke is guilty of treason would be a good example of irrational thinking.

 

[Evo]

Perry just made another dangerous (IMO) flip flop.

Rick Perry has signed a pledge to back a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage — a reversal from a month ago when the Texas governor said he so supported individual states' rights that he was fine with New York's approval of same-sex marriage.

The pledge by the National Organization for Marriage states that, if elected, Perry will send a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification, and appoint U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges who will "reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution."

continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-signs-pledge-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-161046437.html

People that would try to make laws based on their religious beliefs is scary.

 

[Astronuc]

Perry just made another dangerous (IMO) flip flop.

continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-signs-pledge-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-161046437.html

People that would try to make laws based on their religious beliefs is scary.

That some folks would seek to use the law against (i.e., to harm) other members of society is more worrisome.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That some folks would seek to use the law against (i.e., to harm) other members of society is more worrisome.

It's a control issue. And they believe their children are being harmed.

 

[skippy1729]

People that would try to make laws based on their religious beliefs is scary.

I agree. Thankfully the President has NO role in the amendment process. He cannot formally propose it to the congress, he need not sign it and may not veto it. 2/3 of both chambers and 2/3 of the states are required.

I am a libertarian who frequently votes republican. It is always on the basis of "lesser of two evils". As much as this rhetoric disturbs me, I don't think that the republic is in any danger of an Evangelical Takeover. It is primary season and they are competing for the base. The democrats did the same thing in 2008. It is in the nature of our system.

PS The body of our laws has its roots in religious beliefs. We may have freedom of religion but in a sense we have a state deity mentioned in the founding documents and pictured on our coins (for the first 150 years). The alternative is the existence of an objective moral order. But to be objective it must be agreed upon. Ayn Rand? Karl Marx? No agreement in sight.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As much as this rhetoric disturbs me, I don't think that the republic is in any danger of an Evangelical Takeover. It is primary season and they are competing for the base.

As a Libertarian, aren't you bothered fundamentally by the fact that his base would rather deny liberty than recognize State's rights? Aren't you sleeping with the enemy in the most profound sense?

 

[skippy1729]

As a Libertarian, aren't you bothered fundamentally by the fact that his base would rather deny liberty than recognize State's rights? Aren't you sleeping with the enemy in the most profound sense?

Are Democrats bothered that their hard left base wants a state run green economy through draconian regulation, confiscatory taxation, open borders and the destruction of Israel? No, because it's campaign rhetoric and it's not going to happen.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are Democrats bothered that their hard left base wants a state run green economy through draconian regulation, confiscatory taxation, open borders and the destruction of Israel?

Yes, and that's why the extremists aren't running the party. And that's the difference between the Dems and the Reps.

 

[skippy1729]

Yes, and that's why the extremists aren't running the party. And that's the difference between the Dems and the Reps.

But Democratic candidates will court the votes of their extremists just like the Republicans.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But Democratic candidates will court the votes of their extremists just like the Republicans.

If I saw a Democratic candidate pandering the far left like these guys do the far right, I would never support them. No, a politician cannot talk nonsense for a year and then pretend it didn't happen. Pandering to the base is no excuse for wild flip flops or absurd points of view on highly substantive issues.

If Al Sharton or Louis Farrakhan were leading candidates for the left, I could agree. From my point of view, less Romney and Huntsman, that is a fair comparison to most of the Republican field.

 

[Proton Soup]

Al Sharpton now has his own show on MSNBC. Sharpton is not a candidate, but he is the voice of the establishment.