Steven Riddle at Flos Carmeli (a wonderful blog, by the way) read the same Crisis piece I linked to earlier and responds: What is astounding in the excerpt above is its lack of recognition that refusal to vote is NOT inaction, it is action at its very highest. Refusal of moral compromise is the most…

As I quoted below Paul Griffiths says: [I]n the case of voting (which is also a deal: I vote, as I hope you do, in response to what a candidate advocates and has done), there are also deal breakers, which is to say actions done or positions advocated sufficient to make voting for someone improper,…

Wow – it’s like this was written just for me: This is not an article for those who are unabashedly in love with democracy, who look forward to election year with patriotic zeal directed first of all to the nation and second of all to one of the political parties. I write instead for the…

It’s not so clear says former congressman Bob Barr (R-GA).

I have to say, I get nervous at the idea of this guy whispering things in Karl Rove’s ear: “Any discussion of America and human rights must begin with the recognition that this country was created in a revolutionary period and that the democratic revolution — of which America is but one element — is,…

One persistent criticism of President Bush is that he has eroded the “wall of separation” between church and state by his attempts to legislate “private” religious views. The most common examples are his limitations on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), support for measures limiting abortion, and his so-called faith-based initiative offering federal money…

The Maverick Philosopher has an instructive post on evidentialism and the ethics of belief in light of an argument from Sam Harris that religion qua religion is evil and dangerous. I offered a rebuttal to Harris here. UPDATE: In my original post I mistakenly identified Sam Harris as “John Harris.” Thanks to Bill Vallicella for…

One of the reasons I am always reluctant to support a given decision to go to war is because I believe the burden of proof must always lie on the party advocating war. And since war involves the killing and maiming of hundreds or thousands of people, it only seems just that the bar of…

The Maverick Philosopher has responded to this post continuing our exchange on Iraq. His conclusion: So perhaps the upshot is this. Although the war in Iraq was not a diversion from the war on terror as Kerry and others claim, it is nonetheless arguable that given what we know (or at least justifiably believe) now,…

As anyone who’s studied philosophy (or a strong dose of common sense) can tell you, there’s a big difference between having knowledge and having a justified belief. I can be justified in believing X even if X turns out, in fact, to be false. Being justified requires, it is usually thought, having good reasons for…