Reply #28: Sorry!!! wrong answer.

[quaker bill]

Actually, liberalism at depth is not possible without religion. Sure, you can pass a couple of social programs, but why are they there?

Why does Darwinism only work for you "liberals" on the species level genetic front? Is it not more logical to allow the weak among us to fail? If you follow Nietchze; would it not then be a travesty to saddle the gifted or the strong among us with the burden caring for the less capable? Why shouldn't the economic Darwinism posited by Adam Smith and his "magic hand of the market" be allowed to express itself fully? Shouldn't weak businesses be destroyed by Wal-Mart? If not, then why not?

If you can answer the questions without getting into a discussion of justice or fairness as a basic and unquestionable moral value, I will be surprised. Do so, and you have engaged in religion.

While evolution has absolutely no intent, it is inherently unfair and quite personal. Some individuals live and others die without reproducing. It exists and works only in that the results are very different for each individual.

In opting for a policy that promotes justice or fairness, you are making a decision that is counter-intuitive. It is unscientific to care about your fellow man, that is unless you happen to share a great number of his genes. Check out the math behind Kin and Group selection in any advanced evolutionary biology text. It only works well with siblings and first cousins.

You cannot get to liberalism at depth, with anything so uncompelling as logic or math. Having done it both ways, I can assure you it simply takes more than this.