I suspect the fundamental problem is the miscegenation of radical right wing politics with radical Christian beliefs in the current incarnation of our government. Historically neither the conservative nor the liberal philosophies derive their positions from religion. One could argue that there is more theology in liberalism, in that it explicitly denies the concept of directed reincarnation (its fundamental concept is the creation of the society where an individual can be born into any situation and have an equal chance of success). Today's government (in the US, for any ex-US listmembers) talks conservatively but acts radically. It is an even more aggressive form of the Reaganesque Borrow-and-Spend economics of the 80s, and the objective seems to be the polarization of our society into haves and have-nots. So it appears to me that this argument is not about fundamentals, but rather current incarnations. As an aside, IMHO, an atheist must be as strong a believer as a religious person--both have determined positions on a fact that cannot be proven. The only non-belief driven position is that of the agnostic. Ken On Dec 4, 2003, at 6:56 PM, rone wrote: > Philip Hart writes: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Gomi no Sensei wrote: >> Politics ultimately derives as a system that attempts to solve >> large-scale >> problems of human society, > This seems insufficiently cynical or perhaps Darwinist to me. > > You're trying to taint the definition of politics with its current > state of affairs. I think pe is trying to speak of politics in an > ideal sense. > > I don't think this has anything to do with liberalism or > conservatism, > though in my view liberals are the less belief-driven lately. > > I do not agree with your view. > > rone > -- > "I don't even know you. What if you're a psycho?" > "Would a psycho waste the last of his triple-sec?" > -- RICHH >