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.
OK. We got conflictiong opinions on what the author would do after a successful overthow of a totalitarian regime, and extablisment of a more amenable form of government.
How about the first part of the qustion? Do you thing the author would forge an alliance with atheists and work with them to overthrow such a regime?
In "my words" it was "would she have any problem with that same atheist (who fought along side her against the tyrannical government) having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?"
If you think she'd have a problem with that, do you think she'd consider the US Constitution fundamentally flawed because it not only allows it, but protects that right?