Oh, I’m whereof I speak. And yeah, I know …precisely …of what I speak.

…but in your defence, I haven’t met any [fundamentalists] quite like me either LOL.

…and I’ve looked for decades.

And no, we’re not that far apart at all….

Interesting response and I must confess, not quite what I expected.

Not sure how compartmentalization applies, (which I am familiar with) at least as rebuttal, to my pointing out that dogmatism is inherent to fundamentalism/literalism…

In fact, your comment, “I’m not dogmatic, because I merely await — and am open to — the better argument to change my views …of the universe. Whatever…it does have to be better though.” leads me to conclude that you’re not as much of a fundamentalist as perhaps you believe. No fundamentalist I have known (and I’ve known more than a few) is open to even the possibility of a “better argument”.

I too am appreciative of C.S. Lewis and will one day read Miracles, though I already accept the fact of, rather than just the possibility of miracles but also divine intervention as well…

Nor do I believe that science and spiritual truth are antithetical. God being the supreme ‘scientist’. It is our understanding that is lacking.

After further thought let me revisit my prior statement. Not by disavowing it but by amending it.

I’m not missing or ignoring the treatment of Sarah Palin, of whom I am still a big fan. When I was first responding to your comment, I was thinking of liberals close to me who have proven so far to be immune to persuasion. I believe that liberals, as opposed to hard-core leftists, make exceptions for the conservatives and/or republicans that they personally know to be good people. And I know them to be basically decent, good people…who is it clear have been completely hoodwinked by the left’s narrative and the last 50 years of MSM reportage.

Whereas those same liberals quite probably do think that in general, republicans are evil. In other words both are true. There is cognitive dissonance involved, just as most people believe Congress to be corrupt but trust their own Congressman.

As you perhaps will now agree, we’re not so far apart in perception as may have first appeared to be the case.

For a better understanding of what I mean than is possible in a comments section, I refer you to Miracles by CS Lewis.

…a short but enlightening paper can be read here dealing with the complexities I find myself immersed within …which you – mistakenly, as it were – suspect are contradictions.

…and “it” isn’t about religion, btw. It’s about science, and cosmology actually.

…and logic, and rationality, and faith: these three. Through a glass. Darkly. (Simply couldn’t resist.)

I’m seriously fundamentalist …because, why not? If you accept the dish, you accept the sauce.

I’m not dogmatic, because I merely await – and am open to – the better argument to change my views …of the universe. Whatever.

…it does have to be better though.

And I’ve read, and pondered upon, a LOT of “arguments” lol.

Conundrum, much?

So perhaps you’ll just have to trust me on the point.

Now. As for your utterly quaint belief that liberals merely disagree on policy points, and deny that this is not about the classical concept of The Other, I respectfully …though adamantly …demur.

I fear you’re missing …or ignoring …the obvious – about what was done, the way it was done, and how it continues to be done …to Sarah Palin, for example – and what “they” think of “us” as polity vs. people, and which is not ever mitigated – in their minds – by considerations of mere policy.

I would to G-d you were right. I used to hold your position.

I no longer do.

Nor do I take umbrage nor wish to offend.

When you state that, “I’m profoundly Christian AND fundamentalist in belief…but I’m perhaps the least religiously dogmatic person you’ve ever met lol.”

I confess to a bit of puzzlement. You state that you are a “fundamentalist in belief” and, you do so categorically. My understanding and correct me if you disagree, is that a fundamentalist is a literalist. You therefore believe in a literal reading of the Bible and believe it to be literally true, not at least partially, a metaphor or allegory.

Such a position is dogmatic in the extreme; as in “God said it, I believe it and that settles it!”.

Please explain how a religious fundamentalist but non-dogmatic person is not a contradiction in terms. As the non-dogmatic by definition, allow for other interpretations, which precludes insistence upon a literal interpretation.

My own view of human nature is that it contains a majority of good with a healthy dose of evil. I have faith that both will manifest and regularly.

As for liberals belief that Republicans are evil, I would amend that to state that most liberals view the policies Republicans support to be evil and that the moneyed contributors to the Republican party are evil, with ordinary Republicans being the “useful idiots” of the right.

Among the many things we must do, which includes the tactics you listed, are two practical and pragmatic tactics that would, if accomplished, yield huge dividends.

First, a really tough balanced budget amendment. As we all know, entitlements and directing money to their supporters is a major tool for the left. A sufficiently strict, loophole free balanced budget amendment would put great constraints upon the democrats and over time, end the exorbitant spending and deficits, that are to the left, its life blood. It would end the growth and reduce the size of the entitlements that have created America’s dependency class.

Second, massive investment by wealthy conservatives and foundations in the publicly held, parent corporations of the major media outlet companies. Over time, that would allow the ending of the MSM’s distorted reportage.

Both of these are long term projects and both of them are imperative to righting our ship of state.

I’m profoundly Christian AND fundamentalist in belief.

…but I’m perhaps the least religiously dogmatic person you’ve ever met lol.

I’m Christian for rational reasons …a CS Lewis type, if you will. My faith is …sadly …rather on the weak side.

But my faith in human nature is even weaker.

I live within that conundrum. And thank G-d for compartmentalization lol.

True, that. The problem is how do we stop them and their evil overlords , the communists, from getting more control?

No easy solutions, but, IMO, the first step is to acknowledge their existence and recognize what it is that they do. We need to have the energy and fortitude to oppose their absurd demands for control. We have to use their techniques of mocking and ridicule to highlight the foolishness of so many of their positions. We have to devise a way to frame the message of conservatism in such a way that the average Joe Sixpak/Sally Single understands why less government and more economic freedom is good for them. Most of all, we need specific numbers to illustrate why Obamacare, higher taxes, and more government spending are bad for even the poor.

Yes, we’re working on it, but we can’t quit.

The problem I was addressing though, Geoff, isn’t so much the 60M voters (and hence, that 60M still retain some mitigating virtue viz. my And the Lord said, “I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.“ reference), it’s my understanding of the reason for the way the 65M voted.

It’s become obvious that they didn’t vote that way for legitimate political differences. Nor moral ones. Nor rational ones.

Hell, I’d be willing to argue that those Democrat constituencies are by-and-large apolitical by nature and inclination.

So …why’d they vote that way? Why am I so concerned? (And indeed, apprehensive?)

Their vote was cultural: they vote for essentially religious reasons …for their self-perceived righteousness.

The biggie? – They think they were voting against evil.

Somehow, 65M Americans have come to believe that America is evil. And they voted against evil.

They believe that Republicans – that you – aren’t just wrong …but that they are evil.

Ironic, isn’t it? Social conservatives are usually the ones decried as being parochial in their political concerns.

But in a very real sense, the Democrats have devolved into a party of …well – and using their slant on the term – cultural hillbillies (with apologies to the honored heritage of my ancestors, who probably more resembled the Louis L’Amour rendered virtues of the peoples who were caricatured as “hillbilly” in the first place).

These are the same citizenry who burned the witches in Salem three centuries ago. They’re back.

…so I maintain …we’ve been seeing a fundamental sea-change in the American polity. And not one to the good.

I don’t recognize these people.

They are profoundly dangerous to the American Experiment.

…and so I quite agree with your “…Virtue arises from the moral, which most often has its roots in religious dogma. Virtue can also arise from the moral principles that reason and logic support.

I just derive cold comfort in it, because the antithesis is even more compelling.

Hence …

Count-down.

—Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings

Federalist No. 55 is a response of sorts (dismissive and contemptuous are adjectives that would come to mind if the author weren’t Madison) to some of those predictions so fantastic.

Yes, there’s quite a bit of doubt engendered by Romney 60,754,308 votes, most of whom voted on principle. Those 60,754,308 ‘facts’ cannot be dismissed by the intellectually honest.

Virtue arises from the moral, which most often has its roots in religious dogma. Virtue can also arise from the moral principles that reason and logic support.