[tacticalogic]

And then the political realisms were brought up in the thread. Don't know the author, but I suspect that even she likely doesn't have a problem with cobbling together a political alliance with an atheist who's working against a totalitarian regime.

Once that regime is overthrown, and a governmet that operates by "consent of the governed" established, do you think this person would have any problem with that same atheist having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?

[what's up]

do you think this person would have any problem with that same atheist having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?

Again, don't know the person. But if she's an advocate of good gov't she, of course, won't have a problem as long as the person continues to be an ally of the promotion of freedom.

Paine's support of the French Revolution and his aid to Napoleon in planning an attack on Britain showed that this wasn't the way he went.

[spirited irish]

snip: Once that regime is overthrown, and a governmet that operates by “consent of the governed” established, do you think this person would have any problem with that same atheist having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?

Spirited: Given that one of the profoundly important issues raised by the author is that of ‘moral imbecility and diabolical imbecility,’ I think it’s entirely safe to say that she would, in your words, ‘have problems’ with atheists-—and anyone else, for that matter-—who lies as easily as he breathes. Liars are treacherous; they cheat, steal, betray, and destroy. They do these things because they lack impulse-control, which takes us back to the true meaning of liberty, as defined by Augustine.