Peikoff on the coming election

[Gilliatt 0]

The proper course of action one should take in the political affairs of one's country cannot be deduced from philosophy. Philosophy provides the methodology and the standard of judgement. But one's judgement also requires knowledge of the particulars of the current political culture, of recent history, of the American political system, of the history of man, etc.

Which particulars are you referring to

• the fact that Republicans are economically Democrat-lite? (i.e. holding the same principles)
  
• the fact that Republicans have been and are unwilling to wage a real war?
  
• the fact that Republicans are pushing a religious agenda - on top of agreeing with the Democratic ideas of government welfare?
  

As it stands now, Dr. Peikoff's wartime declaration of support for the Democratic Party--a party of national self-doubt led by the enemy's useful idiots--is an invalid deduction.

If you would, please validly deduce that the Republicans are not a party of self-doubt led by the enemy's useful idiots.

It was not as bad as present day Iran, where they throw women off of high rise buildings for adultry.

What is the ideological difference between throwing a woman off a building for adultery and throwing a woman in jail for abortion?

[Jack Wakeland 0]

Your comment was in a sentence in a paragraph all on its own. The idea you presented should be able to stand up on its own. If it is based on reality and facts.

I have a question about your use of the word 'dominant'. Are you saying John McCain's ideology has no influence within the U.S. Senate?

Keep the Republicans in power of the U.S. Senate? I don't think so.

It's good of you to remember my piece on John McCain's presidential bid. But, no, Senator McCain's dream of an altruist revival is not a widely followed vision. It is an idiosyncratic view shared by some of Senate’s ex-military men and, perhaps, also by that body’s one remaining credulous socialist, Senator Barak Obama. That vision has the power to move prehaps a fifth of the senate. A quorum is three fifths.

John McCain is a part of the phenomenon I was commenting on. His altruism does not have a dominant ideology to carry it forward.

The majority of America's elected officials are strongly altruist, but currently they're following multiple, narrowly held or idiosyncratic paths towards a more altruist America. This diffuses their destructive efforts. They’re less effective at creating an altruist society than they were when the majority of America's altruists collected themselves together and organized their actions, without explicitly acknowledging it, under socialism's ideological program.

During 60 years of 70-year life of the Soviet Union, a dominant majority of the American people vetoed any politician who explicitly stated that his goal was socialism. Their inability to openly follow the socialist ideology is the reason why American leftists could never collect their efforts into as strong an attack on capitalism and civilization as their more effective European counterparts. Now altruist politicians are hesitant to use socialism as their organizing ideology even within the privacy of their own minds.

[Jack Wakeland 0]

During 60 years of 70-year life of the Soviet Union, a dominant majority of the American people vetoed any politician who explicitly stated that his goal was socialism. Their inability to openly follow the socialist ideology is the reason why American leftists could never collect their efforts into as strong an attack on capitalism and civilization as their more effective European counterparts. Now altruist politicians are hesitant to use socialism as their organizing ideology even within the privacy of their own minds.

Today, the most altruist of politicians (both of the left and the right) explicitly use environmentalism as their organizing ideology. Nearly all of America's right-wing altruists explicitly use the semi-philosophical views Christianity as their organizing ideology. That is why both of these schools of altruism-collectivism are on the rise.

This does not mean, however, that the U.S. will soon descend into the technological Dark Ages of an environmentalist dystopia or the literal Dark Ages of unreformed Christianity. Americans are not about to give up their cars, their electricity, and sit down in the freezing darkness and calmly wait to starve to death. Likewise, the enlightenment has not been repealed, Christianity's reformation (and destruction) continues, and unmarried American women and men are not about to give up all of their sexual freedoms.

The two new schools of altruism-collectivism face two old, implaccable, and undefeated enemies:

1. reality, and

2. a small but sturdy minority who share the vision for an ideal society created by America's founders who are backed up (indirectly, incompletely, and incorrectly...and usually through third parties) by Ayn Rand's ideas (As Objectivists, this is a situation we can do something about)

[Joss Delage 0]

I'm just coming back from vacations. This is a very interesting, if long, thread.

I have to disagree with Dr. Peikoff's premices that Socialism is dead & burried. In my opinion, it's alive and well, and represents a more immediate threat to our Rights than a Chriustian Theocracy. The rethoric has changed, but the core principles of Socialism are still very active in modern US politics - Medicare is expanded, Social Security is left untouched, charity and self-sacrificed is celebrated.

[TomR61 0]

Observe that the Left is much more consistently "compassionate" -- i.e., altruistic -- than the tax-cutting, welfare-reforming politicians on the Right.

I am still weighing the arguments. In reading through the posts, this sentence stopped me.

My impression and a reading of Dr. Thompson's article have convinced me that the two are pretty much equal in the consistency with which they are compassionate (at least as a philosophical issue). So what politicians on the right do you have in mind that are cutting taxes and reforming welfare in any meaningful way? (By this I mean "not based on altruism but on individual rights")

I think this question gets at the heart of the difference between Dr. Peikoff, et al, and Dr. Binswanger, et al.

That difference amounts to the question: if altruism, how do we escape theocracy?

[TomR61 0]

I'm just coming back from vacations. This is a very interesting, if long, thread.

I have to disagree with Dr. Peikoff's premices that Socialism is dead & burried. In my opinion, it's alive and well, and represents a more immediate threat to our Rights than a Chriustian Theocracy. The rethoric has changed, but the core principles of Socialism are still very active in modern US politics - Medicare is expanded, Social Security is left untouched, charity and self-sacrificed is celebrated.

Two questions:

On what belief does the danger of Socialism rest in the US? I would argue religious belief.

On what belief does the danger of altruism rest in the US? I would argue religious belief.

Forget that there are athiestic Socialists, if socialism how do we escape religion? If altruism, how do we escape religion? And so on, around the circle of every issue that combines Attila and the Witch Doctor (and they all do -- see the DIM hypothesis where these two arhetypes are represented by 2 and 0 in metaphysics and I and S in epistemology.)

While this does not settle the issue of the elections, I believe that it goes a long way to avoiding false alternatives.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

That difference amounts to the question: if altruism, how do we escape theocracy?

1. By advocating and supporting Objectivism and those organizations advancing the philosophy.

2. By educating (including oneself) and informing as many people as possible about Objectivism and that there is a rational alternative to altruism.

3. By defeating, or voting against, any politician who bases his politics on his religious beliefs.

The first two are very long range, the last is very short range. In my judgment, there is little to no chance of a theocracy coming to this country short of a civil war.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I think this question gets at the heart of the difference between Dr. Peikoff, et al, and Dr. Binswanger, et al. That difference amounts to the question: if altruism, how do we escape theocracy?

That's a loaded question. Asking it assumes that theocracy in America is even possible.

Where is the evidence for THAT? What about all the "concrete-bound" evidence presented that indicates otherwise?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

That difference amounts to the question: if altruism, how do we escape theocracy?

Tom, have you read this transcription of Ayn Rand speaking on altruism, religion, and the totalitarian threat?

[TomR61 0]

The former because, for reason already stated elsewhere, the latter will not and cannot happen.

As I continue through this thread, I am becoming more convinced by Peikoff's argument as it is supported by DIM and Yaron Brook and Dr. Thompson. This statement is a good example of why.

I didn't get the quote within the quote so a little context:

The latter = a Christian Theocracy; the former = a few hits by Islamic Fundamentalists.

Here's why I disagree:

1. There is the very practical matter of what would happen if we were attacked again. This is similar to the argument on the other side with reference to what would happen if anyone would openly propose a Christian Theocracy. The problem with that argument is that a Christian Theocracy can be established by stealth, through education in the principles (as in the "scientific" ID debate) whereas an attack by Islamists cannot be hidden.

2. At the beginning of the 20th century, if not before, socialist ideas were gradually put into law, not by an open declaration by the socialist party, but by the acceptance of the fundamental ideas by the voters and politicians who held them. Every attack by an armed foe failed; every attack by ideas succeeded. Continued attacks would, most surely, fail especially over the long term (heavens this foe is not even as strong as the USSR was).

3. Hitler was voted into power. This vote gave him the power to attack France and Poland and to attract allies.

4. I see no plausable way to project either a full out armed attack on the US by Islamic Fundamentalists or its success if it were made. Even if the Democrats controled the war effort. The attack on our ideas has already been made and essentially won by the altruist axis. As I have asked above, if altruism wins, how do we escape a Christian Theocracy?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

On what belief does the danger of Socialism rest in the US? I would argue religious belief.

Have you read the 2004 Democratic Party Platform?

On what belief does the danger of altruism rest in the US? I would argue religious belief.

Have you read Ayn Rand on altruism and religion?

[TomR61 0]

Tom, have you read this transcription of Ayn Rand speaking on altruism, religion, and the totalitarian threat?

Thanks for the link. I just read it. Here's my thought (off the top).

First I think the situation in 1961 in the US was considerably better "sense of life" wise than it is today. I think there were much more grounds for optimism with respect to "every religious person" and his ability to influence government action. That "little person" is now in the white house and openly and successfully religious. When "Under God" is used by George W. Bush, he means it, in a much more serious way than Eisenhower or Kennedy did. And the country is loving it from where I sit.

Second, I think that whatever truth there is in the admonition against hysteria in that regard, there are equal grounds for warning against hysteria with regard to Islamic terrorists.

If the US sense of life is proof against Christian Theocracy, it is equally proof against Islamic attack.

In fact I am inclined to argue that an IF attack, being open, would be much more likely to be repelled than the ongoing subtle stealth attack by religion.

[Jack Wakeland 0]

Two questions:

On what belief does the danger of Socialism rest in the US? I would argue religious belief.

Forget that there are athiestic Socialists, if socialism how do we escape religion? If altruism, how do we escape religion? And so on, around the circle of every issue that combines Attila and the Witch Doctor (and they all do -- see the DIM hypothesis where these two arhetypes are represented by 2 and 0 in metaphysics and I and S in epistemology.)

While this does not settle the issue of the elections, I believe that it goes a long way to avoiding false alternatives.

This whole approach assumes religion is at the center of all cultural change and then searches out the arguments that prove the apriori conclusion. (I belive this is the logical falacy of begging the question.)

If you're going to beg the question in favor of religion, why not do it in favor of socialism. If you don't "forget that there are athiestic Socialists" (and I certainly don't), you could assume that socialism is the center of all cultural change and ask:

On what belief does the danger of religion rest in the US? I would argue socialism.

Forget that there are religious free-market advocates, if religion how do we escape socialism? If altruism, how do we escape socialism? And so on, around the circle of every issue that combines Attila and the Witch Doctor...

...Or maybe you might start with the evidence--the facts of reality--and then search out different conceptual conclusions that would fit it. Eventually you'll find a conclusion that fits all of the evidence while still remaining specific enough to answer your electoral questions.

You'll get a whole lot further if you start with the facts of the culture. The fact is that regardless of whether or not religion is on the rise in American politics (it is on the rise), there are powerful counter-religious forces rooted deeply in hundreds of years of enlightenment thinking that are still operative. These forces will limit religion's scope. What is the strength of these forces relative to that of religion? How much might the existing degree of enlightenment thinking limit religion? What would it take for enlightenment thinking in its current weakened state to totally fail...and failing, for the U.S. to become a theocracy? A look at the full range of secular and religious thought out there will give you the answer as to how important and how potentially dangerous religious belief is in America today.

That will help you avoid false alternatives.

...like voting for the takeover of Congress by defeatist Democratic Party leaders in order to avoid a potential Christian theocracy--only to find you live in a country that has lowered its defenses to actual Muslim theocracracies that are trying to murder you and your countrymen.

[AisA 0]

As I have asked above, if altruism wins, how do we escape a Christian Theocracy?

Altruism has already won in the sense that it is accepted, to at least some degree, by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Most don't wish to practice it, but few dare to challenge it. Yet, we do not have a theocracy.

What we have, instead, is a welfare state, which I define to be a mixed economy with government controls and large numbers of pressure groups competing for economic favors from government. This is the more logical political outcome of a wide-spread acceptance of altruism in a population with an equally wide-spread love of freedom. I say it is more logical because the welfare state infringes freedom primarily through economic means (taxes and economic controls); it causes little overt loss of personal freedom.

A theocracy, on the other hand, would presumably demand the surrender of a great deal of freedom -- and Americans are still willing to fight that.

[Paul's Here 0]

--------

As I have asked above, if altruism wins, how do we escape a Christian Theocracy?

This is the error you are making: You are deducing a Christian Theocracy from altruism. You do not reference any other facts/events/societal conditions that would prevent a theocracy from occurring. You do not reference any other facts/events/societal conditions that would be required for a theocracy to be established. You do not show how a theocracy would come into being. A theocracy is not the only thing that may happen from the acceptance of altruism. The current welfare state - mixed economy is explicitly founded on altruism. If cultrual events don't change, then we will stay exactly where we are today, as our culture has pretty much stagnated for the last 40 years.

And what do you mean by "altruism wins"? Has it not already won, culturally? This is the final stages before it collapses once Objectivism begins to spread through the culture, which I fully expect to happen within 50 years or less.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The problem with that argument is that a Christian Theocracy can be established by stealth, through education in the principles (as in the "scientific" ID debate) ...

Have you read the posts in which I outlined just how bad things were in regard to the teaching of evolution just a few generations ago? If you are concerned that the teaching of intelligent design alongside of evolution will lead to theocracy, then why didn't a theocracy occur when things were even worse, when the religionists restricted the teaching of evolution? No one is arguing that there are not relgious threats to our freedom, but the question remains: beyond deducing from some unproven theory that theocracy is imminent, what facts, historical and otherwise, support such a conclusion, and how do you integrate the conclusion of imminent theocracy will all of the facts that contradict it? It is not logical to go, in effect, from 'religion is bad and does all this stuff,' to 'a theocracy is imminent.'

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Tom, have you read this transcription of Ayn Rand speaking on altruism, religion, and the totalitarian threat?

Thanks for the link. I just read it. Here's my thought (off the top).

First I think the situation in 1961 in the US was considerably better "sense of life" wise than it is today.

I realize that notion is bandied about by some, but based upon what facts do you accept it? Do you think that Americans today are more willing than those in 1961 to be led to the altruistic slaughterhouse and lose their freedoms? Why? What facts lead to such a conclusion? And, keep in mind when you hunt for those facts for comparison that we now have the internet which did not exist in 1961. If today you want to know about the sense of life of the people in America in regard to their freedoms, don't read the elite columns in the newspapers but instead look at the millions of voices that are raised daily to fend off every imaginable encroachment by government, whether that encroachment is religiously motivated or otherwise. Encroachments which were accepted as the given in 1961. Read about the history of abortion, of censorship, of anti-trust, and tell me if you do not honestly see Americans throwing off the yokes more strongly than they did in 1961. If you actually study the facts and honestly conclude that Americans are more willing to be pushed around today than when Miss Rand wrote that in 1961, then I'll drop this portion of the discussion and accept that as your view, something for which I can do nothing about.

But, let's say, for argument's sake, that rather than relying on deductions from some theory, that you do study the facts, and you still think that the American sense of life is worse today than in 1961. The question then is, so what? How much of a change has occurred and in exactly what way would such a change permit the development of a theocracy in America in a "frighteningly" less amount of time than 50 years? Show, by reference to historical facts how this has happened in the past and demonstrate how the conditions today are similar enough to past history as to make theocracy such an imminent possibility today. And, when doing so, keep in mind the enormous achievements that have occurred in the world of Objectivism since 1961, the influence of Objectivism in academia and the daily references to Ayn Rand in the cultural milieu.

And, Tom, this is not directed towards you personally, but it is really fascinating that when facts have been presented, some respond with just labelling those facts as "concrete-bound objections," and when proof and causal connections are requested, retreat is made instead into the world of abstractions without reducing those abstractions to the sense-perceptions of reality. Rationalistic system, indeed.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I didn't get the quote within the quote so a little context:

The latter = a Christian Theocracy; the former = a few hits by Islamic Fundamentalists.

You may have misunderstood.

I was given the choice of voting for the Democrats with the understanding it would lead to "a few hits" like 9/11 and voting Republican in order to prevent a theocracy. I said voting Democrat and getting attacked was worse because an imminent Christian theocracy is impossible.

If you voted Democrat you would have death and destruction and no theocracy. If you voted Republican you would NOT have that death and destruction and you would also not have a theocracy. That's why the former is worse.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

When "Under God" is used by George W. Bush, he means it, in a much more serious way than Eisenhower or Kennedy did.

It was EISENHOWER who put "under God" in the Pledge.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

I was ten years old in 1953, and people were much more religious than they are now. See my posting about it here.

[Paul's Here 0]

--------

See my posting about it here.

Please check the link. It doesn't go to your post.

[Jack Wakeland 0]

Altruism has already won in the sense that it is accepted, to at least some degree, by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Most don't wish to practice it, but few dare to challenge it.

When I commented that altruism is the dominant morality, but there is no dominant ideology to implement it, I did not address the fact that altruism, itself, is weaker in America's culture today than it was 50 years ago or 30 years ago. (We're also a less religious country than we were 50 years ago.) Over the past 10 years, things have gotten worse.

Altruism is weaker, you say? How could anyone think that?

Dominant morality or not, there is a great deal of evidence that--over the past half century--altruism has grown weaker in the number of its adherents, the certainty of their belief, and the intensity of their influence over the culture:

1. The top federal income tax rate for individuals was cut from 94%, to 70%, to 50%, to 33%...and now it is back up to 39.6%.

2. The "sexual revolution" ended the illicit nature of sex outside of wedlock and the publicly presumption of shame, deception and immorality that used to be attached to that (Yes, I know, this revolution hasn't been all good. It was often based on mystic of muscle premise, but in practice, the majority of Americans have taken it as a moral license to enjoy romantic love outside of marriage.)

3. The stockholders rebellion of the '80s--which explicitly referenced greed as evidence of a properly functioning, living, breathing, rational corporation (immortalized by Ivan Boesky's "Greed is Good" speech...he actually said ""I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself.") This revolution cut the benefits paid to corporate hangers-on (employees, customers, contractors, local government, etc.)--benefits paid to corporate stake holders--from measures of corporate productivity. Profits were to be the only guide. And profits were to be obtained by de-conglomorizing giant corporations who's operations were as impenetrable to company leaders as the workings of an entire economy is to an economic commissar. Instead, giant companies were re-organized to conform to the needs of conception consciousness--organized in such a way that one mind, the CEO's, could comprehend their integrated productive purposes and steer them effectively.

4. The fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of socialist ideology liberated a giant slice of Europe and the mind of Western man. The connection between altruism and socialism is a two-way street. Altruism is socialism in theory and socialism is altruism in action.

5. The global adoption of the individual's pursuit of happiness as the proper goal of life has become a revolutionary issue. This is the spiritual dimension of the very materialist goals of globalization: the opening of traditional societies throughout the world to the trade, technology, and prosperity of Western Civilization...and to the adoption of its individualist life-style. The vicious resistance to globalization by the Islamists--as well as the ugly protests and complaints of international leftists and Rousseauian nativists--is a reflection of the enormous value that is being achieved.

Recent smaller bits of good news over the past five years prove that while the influence of altruism grew over the past ten years, there are practical manifestations of the continuation of its relatively weakened state:

1. The 10 - 17% per year increase in corporate profits every quarter for the past 18 quarters...while the economy as a whole grew only at a 2 - 4% annual rate.

2. The fact that there are 400 billionaires and 8 million millionaires in America.

3. The fact that thousands of people buy houses and tear them down in order to build bigger ones in their place.

4. The fact that corporate CEO make an average of 430 times as much money each year as America's front-line workers.

Are there contra-indicators? Yes. There are many, many big contra-indicators. The continued rapid growth of government spending and the continued rapid expansion of regulation are merely the biggest of what are a long list of indicators that altruism is still quite strong. The continued decline of rational standards in many public spheres--from the environmentalist indoctrination of grade schoolers, to the perverted abstenance movement, to the general expansion of hard-core hedonism into the lifestyle of middle America. There has been a modest but nation-wide shift away from the right in American politics since 1995--a trend that only a few commentators (e.g., Dick Morris) seem to have noticed (probably because he quit the left on principle, but found that he'd jumped onto a shrinking ship). In 1994, the America people swept a radical reformist Congress into office and a Democratic president coopted their anti-atruist furvor by instituting "Welfare Reform"--which cut millions of indigent people off the federal dole. From 1980 to 1996, we weren't living in a 50/50 nation.

Overall, we live in an era of philosophical disillusionment. American's don't believe in altruism and self-sacrifice the way they used to. The "Greatest Generation" did. Americans wouldn't put up with a catstrophic double bottomed depression so stoically today. We'd fix the blame squarely on statism, "demand-side" economics, and socialist politica thinking and vote the scoundrals out. The Baby Boom Generation and the Gen Xers and Yers continue to pay lip service and go through the motions in the name of the idea that there has to be some kind of moral standards, even if the standards of altruism don't make much sense. (This has done the American sense of life no good.)

The fastest growing problem our nation and our world face is not the morality of altruism or its ideal social system, socialism. The fastest growing problem we face is disillusionment. Does this portend a revival of religion? In some measure, yes. But clinging to religion as a last resort is not a sign of a great new enthusiasm for it--an enthusiasm that could give birth to radical religion. Holding onto religion as the last final protection against total philosophical disillusionment indicates that religion has almost, but not yet entirely worn out its welcome in modern Western Civilization.

It is important to note that philosophical disillusionment goes only so deep, given all the tremendous material achievements we drive for and get so much satisfaction from chasing.

In the past 30 years there has been a major upswing in people finding ways to acknowledge and celebrate the spiritual achievements that are at the root of material success--and of pursuing material success as a means to that end; as a means to the end of fulfillment and creativity and happiness, rather than riches. Throughout all the ages religious men have claimed that material success is spiritually empty and that feeling of emptiness will drive society back to religion. But again and again, it has failed to happen. Men who's days are full of the actions of a healthy conceptual being re-making the world for themselves--who's hearts are full of pride over their accomplishments--don't feel an empty shallowness about their secular lifestyle.

Are America and the world headed towards a religous revival, a general nihilistic disillusionment, or a second rennaissance?

America and the world are pulling all three of these directions at once, but the weight of the evidence globally is that the world is headed for a rennaissance...so long as we, here in the United States, don't give up on the dream that is liberty.

For the next couple of decades, we're likely to continue to participate in the fruits of dramatic increases in liberty around the world in more prosperous and interesting lives for ourselves here in America...while we see no increases in liberty here in our own country.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Please check the link. It doesn't go to your post.

It goes to my post, in this thread, of Oct 27 2006, 05:45 PM which is exactly where I wanted it to go. I verified the link in my original post and in your quote of it.

Did you end up someplace else?

[Paul's Here 0]

It goes to my post, in this thread, of Oct 27 2006, 05:45 PM which is exactly where I wanted it to go. I verified the link in my original post and in your quote of it.

Did you end up someplace else?

It goes to Post 91, in this thread, on the top of the page.

[TomR61 0]

And you know this how? What measure did you use to to determine that Americans now are generally irrational as compared to the periods in the past when the "religion-inspired laws" that you now fear were actually enacted? In this post Just what percentage of religious epople, the actual voters, does this "becoming increasingly popular" actually represent? Considering that since 1965 there has been a drop from 70% to 55% of people who say that religion is a very important part of their lives, I truly wonder what facts you base your concern on?

This is a good point. It doesn't entirely convince, however. Primarely, at fiirst blush, because I'm not sure whether "religion is a very important part of their lives" is what we're talking about. I wonder what the percantage would have been, had they been asked, who would have said that "the enlightenment thinkers are a very important part of my life." "Religion" means a great many different things to a great many people, as does "important part of my life." So, if we're talking about the possibility of a State whose laws reflect explicitely religious doctrine I'm not sure that a 55% majority in favor of electing lawmakers who agree with them cuts much mustard against such a prospect.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

It goes to my post, in this thread, of Oct 27 2006, 05:45 PM which is exactly where I wanted it to go. I verified the link in my original post and in your quote of it.

Did you end up someplace else?

It goes to Post 91, in this thread, on the top of the page.

I am using Firefox and the link takes me to the same post as you. However, Betsy is using IE and the link takes her to another post, the one she intended. There is something about that link, perhaps a character we cannot see, that causes Firefox to process it differently than IE.

Thanks for pointing out the problem, Paul, but let's not clutter up the thread with further discussion about it here. If we have time we can try to debug it elsewhere.