Why I vote democrat

[Reidy]

Suppose he had said "premises" instead of "rules." Would you have a problem with that?

[Jonathan]

Will the farrago of condescension ever stop? I warn you now -- not out of politeless, but merely because these are the rules all of us must live by -- do not come within five meters of my person.

Or what? What's going to happen if he comes within five meters?

J

[jriggenbach]

]To Dan Ust:]

You show glimmers of intelligence and that makes me want to interact with you, but I have been incompetent at channeling those glimmers into any resemblance of a discussion of the ideas that I address. You are in your own little world and the communication-of-idea interlink with me is too sporadic, too often wrong in terms of representing what I said, with too many questions that have already been answered or are essentially rhetorical, and too presumptuous to be valuable to me.

So I give up.

I have only had this problem with Xray so far (but she is on an anti-Rand crusade, and with respect to misrepresenting what I write, barrages of useless questions, and misguided presumptions, she is in a class all by herself--to your credit, you do not even come close to her level).

Truly, this is hilarious.

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Suppose he had said "premises" instead of "rules." Would you have a problem with that?

Pete,

What premise would lead to someone to ordering another to not approach within five meters?

Property rights? Like the following as a premise?: Any individual person owns the five meters surrounding wherever he is and has ownership rights for determining who walks there or not.

Is that the kind of premise you mean?

Then, yes, I probably would have a problem with that. I don't agree with that standard for determining property.

Anyway, I guess I'm not too good at obeying weird-ass macho commands for obedience over the Internet or taking stuff like that seriously...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Truly, this is hilarious.

JR,

Glad to brighten your day...

Michael

[Jonathan]

Anyway, I guess I'm not too good at obeying weird-ass macho commands for obedience over the Internet or taking stuff like that seriously...

Judging by Dan's photos, he doesn't appear to be "macho" at all. So maybe he means that if you come within five meters of him he'll cry.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Will the farrago of condescension ever stop? I warn you now -- not out of politeless, but merely because these are the rules all of us must live by -- do not come within five meters of my person.

Or what? What's going to happen if he comes within five meters?

That's the strangest thing I've ever read by Dan. Does it have something to do with an anarchist"s ethos?

--Brant

I'd love to video the encounter--catch the tears or whatever: "Michael's now within eight meters, seven, six ...."

"Stop the insanity!"

"Can't we all just get along!"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ...."

[9thdoctor]

Will the farrago of condescension ever stop? I warn you now -- not out of politeless, but merely because these are the rules all of us must live by -- do not come within five meters of my person.

That's the strangest thing I've ever read by Dan.

I know he just bought the new Woody Allen audiobook collection, so maybe he’s under the influence of The Great Renaldo

Or maybe it’s that plant someone put by his bedside last night (ala Invasion of the Body Snatchers). Anyway, I don’t even remotely see what it was on this thread that pushed him over the edge. Dan doesn’t come across as a stubborn guy, nevertheless, I think we’re going to have to call in Otto:

[sbeaulieu]

That's the strangest thing I've ever read by Dan. Does it have something to do with an anarchist"s ethos?

If I recall correctly, this has got to be the first physical threat/stance I've ever seen anyone take on this forum. Kinda reminds me of all the bitching that goes on in online games, where someone says "I'm gonna kick your ass!" Okay, but from where? Wierd stuff.

~ Shane

[Ellen Stuttle]

Will the farrago of condescension ever stop? I warn you now -- not out of politeless, but merely because these are the rules all of us must live by -- do not come within five meters of my person.

Or what? What's going to happen if he comes within five meters?

J

Hypothesizing: The powers which protect Dan will go into action -- not because of anything Dan himself does, but "because these are the rules [...]."

Dan has made cryptic remarks of the same sort on other fora.

Ellen

[Alfonso Jones]

Will the farrago of condescension ever stop? I warn you now -- not out of politeless, but merely because these are the rules all of us must live by -- do not come within five meters of my person.

Or what? What's going to happen if he comes within five meters?

That's the strangest thing I've ever read by Dan. Does it have something to do with an anarchist"s ethos?

--Brant

I'd love to video the encounter--catch the tears or whatever: "Michael's now within eight meters, seven, six ...."

"Stop the insanity!"

"Can't we all just get along!"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ...."

Stranger and stranger . . .

Bill P

[Xray]

You show glimmers of intelligence and that makes me want to interact with you, but I have been incompetent at channeling those glimmers into any resemblance of a discussion of the ideas that I address. You are in your own little world and the communication-of-idea interlink with me is too sporadic, too often wrong in terms of representing what I said, with too many questions that have already been answered or are essentially rhetorical, and too presumptuous to be valuable to me.

So I give up.

I have only had this problem with Xray so far (but she is on an anti-Rand crusade, and with respect to misrepresenting what I write, barrages of useless questions, and misguided presumptions, she is in a class all by herself--to your credit, you do not even come close to her level).

Michael,

You are a class all by yourself as well. Everyone is. For we are all unique.

I'm not on an anti-Rand crusade. It is fervent believers in a faith or an ideology who are on crusades.

I'm merely doing what Rand urged everyone to do: Checking premises.

And asking questions is an essential part of checking premises. Inquiry is the mother of truth.

Specific questions directed at premises will take you in no time to the key issues. Always go for the premises.

If a discussion opponent evades answers to direct and specific questions, it indicates that he she/does not want to go there because his/her premise may not stand the litmus test of scrutiny.

A discussion opponent may well call those questios "useless" because he/she regards them as of "no use" to serve his/her purpose.

Another essential is asking the discussion opponent to flesh out his/her theories with concrete examples.

Asking for examples is asking for floating abtractions to be tied to reality.

Your debate here with Dan Ust is a classic example of a premise "lost in altercation". For the debate ran off on a tangent and then got personal.

And one word forms my political position: liberty. That implies no government, of course. Those who want government will get less liberty ultimately -- even if that's not what they intend.

That is Dan's premise: no government.

I would have confronted with him specific questions about this (and then asked him to provide examples for illustration), starting with:

Dan: in your "no government" concept, who makes the rules? Surely you are aware that we as group being need rules to get along?

And then have sat back and waited what Dan comes up with.

TIA Dan for your reply.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not on an anti-Rand crusade. It is fervent believers in a faith or an ideology who are on crusades.

I'm merely doing what Rand urged everyone to do: Checking premises.

And asking questions is an essential part of checking premises. Inquiry is the mother of truth.

Specific questions directed at premises will take you in no time to the key issues. Always go for the premises.

If a discussion opponent evades answers to direct and specific questions, it indicates that he she/does not want to go there because his/her premise may not stand the litmus test of scrutiny.

A discussion opponent may well call those questios "useless" because he/she regards them as of "no use" to serve his/her purpose.

Another essential is asking the discussion opponent to flesh out his/her theories with concrete examples.

Asking for examples is asking for floating abtractions to be tied to reality.

Your debate here with Dan Ust is a classic example of a premise "lost in altercation". For the debate ran off on a tangent and then got personal.

Xray,

This is not precise, except for the part about examples tying abstractions (not "abtractions") to reality, but I'll let it go.

Sometimes people call questions useless and don't want to answer them because of how the person who asks them treats the answers. This is pretty easy to predict after you have answered a few hundred like I have yours.

In fact, that constant going nowhere stuff was what was tiring me out with Dan.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

After reading Dan on the Internet for--I don't know--10 years, it's my opinion he'll never be back on OL.

--Brant

[Xray]

The kind of reasoning you just presented was precisely the kind Ayn Rand used (albeit with better style) to claim that there is no connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. That is until she got a big honking case of lung cancer herself, at which time she quit smoking and shut up about it.

What Rand argued was that correlation is not causation. It is not. Many people get lung cancer without ever having smoked anything. Many people smoke cigarettes their lives long and never get lung cancer. Under the circumstances, to say that "cigarette smoking causes lung cancer" is to commit an absurdity of the first water. The best we can say on the basis of the statistical information we've gathered is that cigarette smoking appears to be a causal factor in some cases of lung cancer. But that's not good enough for a religionist, is it?

JR,

Who is a "religionist"? One might as well call a "religionist" a passionate chain smoker who bases his/her reasoning on the fact that there exist heavy smokers who don't contract cancers correlated to smoking.

Rand wrongly argued that that pointing out correlations shown in statistics is irrational.

BB, TPOAR, p. 380:

They sat in the office of Dr. Murray Dworetzky, he would later recall, discussing, as they had done so often in the years that he had been her internist, Ayn's heavy smoking. Since her late twenties, she had smoked two packages of cigarettes a day. "You've got to stop it", Dr. Dworetzky said. "Its terribly bad for you. It's dangerous."

With a gesture of defiance, Ayn took a long, deep puff from the slim cigarette in its gold and black holder. "But why?" she demanded. "And don't tell me about statistics. I've explained that stasitics aren't proof. You've got to give me a rational explanation. Why shoud I stop smoking?"

Confronting Rand with statistics showing a correlation betweeen heavy smoking and the frequency of certain cancers contracted by heavy smokers IS a rational explanation justifying the medical advice to stop smoking.

Imo in many respects, Rand was not a rational person.

Re Rand's beliefs about cancer: She thought that cancer was caused by bad premises, hence was mystified when she developed cancer, and wouldn't give Allan Blumenthal permission to state what her operation was for, and to warn people against smoking.

That's what I recall Allan telling me, and I think Barbara has said the same.

That is correct.

BB, TPOAR, p. 383:

From time to time in the next months, she would raise, disturbed, the question of how she could have conracted cancer; she tended to think that cancer, as well as other illnesses, was the result of what she termed "bad premises" - that is of philosophical-psychological errors and evasions carried to to their final dead end in the form of physical destruction. How could she have had a malignancy, when she had no bad premises? She demanded that the nature of her illness be kept secret, she wanted no one to know of it - as if it were shameful."

Joan and Allan asked her to make public her decision to stop smoking. For many years, questions about the dangers of smoking had been raised by NBI students and at Ayn's lecture apearances. Each time, she had lit a cigarette with a defiant flourish, then discussed the unscientific and irrational nature of statistical evidence.

Imo calling "unscientific" and "irrational" statistics showing clear correlations is an irrational attitude.

Those who insist that their premises are right and don't even consider that they might be wrong on an issue, actually put themselves in a corner for where they later can't escape. Since they themselves have closed the road to admitting error and correcting it (because admitting error would mean their premises were false), they find themselves in a situation they can't handle.

Can anyone imagine Rand declaring in private (or even in public) that any of her premises had turned out to be false?

Edited July 31, 2010 by Xray

[Ellen Stuttle]

Imo calling "unscientific" and "irrational" statistics showing clear correlations is an irrational attitude.

Be that as it may, there weren't any statistics showing any clear correlations between smoking and lung cancer until the mid-70s. I was working for the research department head at the American Cancer Society national office in NYC when the longitudinal study was in process of being done. It wasn't completed until a year or two later.

The study -- rather, "study" -- on the basis of which the Surgeon General, who was like an Old Testament prophet in his zeal, jumped the gun and issued the initial warning statement which was put on cigarette (and I suppose cigar) packs was a set-up wherein dogs were subjected to continual forced smoke inhalation. Also, they weren't properly fed and cared for. (The researcher who was in charge of the project would get incensed when he visited and found that care orders weren't being obeyed, but those orders continued to be followed only laxly.) Furthermore, it turned out later -- I don't know if this was ever made public or if it remained hushed up -- that there'd been a systematic misreading of the slides, such that bronchiectasis was mistaken for developing cancer. I.e., even with the horrible conditions in which those dogs were living, most of them *didn't* develop cancer, contrary to the claim which was made.

AR of course wasn't privy to any of the above background stuff about the dog study, but it was known that the warning label was based on a dog study.

I think that AR wouldn't have trusted the longitudinal study of humans either, since she had strong objections to drawing conclusions from statistics. I'm just correcting the prevalent mistaken belief that there already were such human-statistics results available prior to a couple years before AR developed lung cancer.

Can anyone imagine Rand declaring in private (or even in public) that any of her premises had turned out to be false?

I needn't imagine it. I heard her admit to a mistaken judgment more than once. By "bad premises" re cancer etiology, she wasn't meaning some kind of mistake but instead wrong-headed-about-life sorts of premises, "evil" premises, "anti-life" premises.

Ellen

Edited July 31, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Most of Rand's life was lived in a smoking culture. Statistically if she had stopped smoking ten years before her cancer diagnosis she would have gotten cancer anyway, though there is no way to tell in an individual case. Soon we'll have statistics for prior-smokers who haven't smoked for 20 years. Smoking causes other health problems too, of course. I haven't smoked in over 41 years. I stopped for several reasons and I never forgot the teacher in the 7th or 8th grade who lit up a cigarette and blew its smoke through a facial tissue leaving a tar residue telling us kids our lungs were much more efficient filters than a tissue. (Today he'd be fired for doing that.)

If I were still a smoker I'd drink lots and lots of green tea. I do drink some. I keep a container in the icebox. I avoid beta carotene like the plague as it's likely a catalyst for lung cancer.

I strongly suspect Rand died of congestive heart failure. That seems to be common for many smokers. I'd guess if not for the smoking she'd have lived well into her eighties in much better overall health--and never have written her novels. You see, smoking (nicotine) enables concentration by blocking out outside distractions. An old-time newsroom was full of noise and smoke. Writers love to smoke.

--Brant

Rand smoked so we could read her (not!)

Edited July 31, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Frediano]

I have been voting consistently Democrat for many years now. It is not so much that I admire the democrat part as I despise the republican party. If the republicans had their way we would be reduced to a pathetic theocracy. They stand for politicizing religion(particularly evangelicalism) which will ultimately destroy our country. As much as I despise the Democrat's fiscal policies I despise the Republican's social ones even more. It would be immoral to allow an even bigger threat like the republican party to come to power, this is why I don't abstain from voting. In a choice between one evil and another,even greater evil, it is always better to go with the lesser.

A theocracy based on '"S"ociety is God, and the state is its proper church' is no less a theocracy than one based on an alternative Magic Spirit in the Sky. In centuries, even though Christianity was always a majority religion, no serious threat of establishing an actual theocracy in AMerica. In far less than a century, the social scientologists blew past our 1st amendment and are clinging to the machinery of state until their fingers bleed.

The GOP is bereft of ideas, the Dems are filled with really bad ideas. That is no choice. The GOP's pandering to the Christian Right was pure politics.

A sliver of difference exists between them, only Rand Paul clearly states those differences, and he, like Clark in '80, might pull 1% of the vote.

The majority is intent on electing Emperors of the Economies, and insists on referring to them as an it. Little hope until and if the nation starts electing honorable state plumbers, not emperors.

We could pull state plumbers from any page of any phone book == just like we do life and death jurors. We could still vette that pool of candidates, and elect a slate of state plumbers. Our current scheme has a bias to select power grubbers from the populace, GOP or Dem.

But the horserace is more exciting this way and the current jockeys will never give up the tribal gig.

regards,

Fred

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Frediano,

What on earth are you doing here?!!!

(just joking...)

Welcome to OL.

Everyone here speaks for himself, so I trust no one will interpret you being here as you agreeing with everything--or even anything--here.

Still, please take a look at the posting guidelines. There is method to this madness.

Enjoy yourself and make yourself at home.

Michael

[Frediano]

Frediano,

What on earth are you doing here?!!!

(just joking...)

Welcome to OL.

Everyone here speaks for himself, so I trust no one will interpret you being here as you agreeing with everything--or even anything--here.

Still, please take a look at the posting guidelines. There is method to this madness.

Enjoy yourself and make yourself at home.

Michael

Thank you. I've read the posting guidelines, please do not hesitate to let me know if you think I've overstepped them. I am not thin skinned, and neither do I want to be an ingrate or overstay my welcome. The most potent miss-step in this medium is the ease with which it is possible to miss-read tone. People take offense too easily, I think, at what they think they read into other's words, expressions of thought. As a species, we all seem to have the gain turned up to max on our defensive radars in this medium, looking for the lions in the grass. I don't know why, but it seems like many do.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

Most of Rand's life was lived in a smoking culture. Statistically if she had stopped smoking ten years before her cancer diagnosis she would have gotten cancer anyway, though there is no way to tell in an individual case. Soon we'll have statistics for prior-smokers who haven't smoked for 20 years. Smoking causes other health problems too, of course. I haven't smoked in over 41 years. I stopped for several reasons and I never forgot the teacher in the 7th or 8th grade who lit up a cigarette and blew its smoke through a facial tissue leaving a tar residue telling us kids our lungs were much more efficient filters than a tissue. (Today he'd be fired for doing that.)

If I were still a smoker I'd drink lots and lots of green tea. I do drink some. I keep a container in the icebox. I avoid beta carotene like the plague as it's likely a catalyst for lung cancer.

I strongly suspect Rand died of congestive heart failure. That seems to be common for many smokers. I'd guess if not for the smoking she'd have lived well into her eighties in much better overall health--and never have written her novels. You see, smoking (nicotine) enables concentration by blocking out outside distractions. An old-time newsroom was full of noise and smoke. Writers love to smoke.

--Brant

Rand smoked so we could read her (not!)

I don't smoke because it doesn't give me pleasure. I can only assume Rand did because it gave her pleasure.

In the hypothetical of not smoking adding to her life, it is a fact that denying herself that pleasure might have only have extended the end of her life, not her youth or middle.

Perhaps she valued the pleasure of all those years of smoking more than she valued 5 more years wearing depends in a home, or being decompacted every 2 weeks. Not for me to choose for her, that's for sure.

And when I put it that way, it almost makes me want to smoke.

regards,

Fred

[Brant Gaede]

I don't smoke because it doesn't give me pleasure. I can only assume Rand did because it gave her pleasure.

Would you have unprotected sex with a woman who probably has several STDs if it gives you pleasure?

--Brant

[Frediano]

I don't smoke because it doesn't give me pleasure. I can only assume Rand did because it gave her pleasure.

Would you have unprotected sex with a woman who probably has several STDs if it gives you pleasure?

--Brant

When I was 20? I did not.

When I am 70? I can only hope so.

[Selene]

I don't smoke because it doesn't give me pleasure. I can only assume Rand did because it gave her pleasure.

Would you have unprotected sex with a woman who probably has several STDs if it gives you pleasure?

--Brant

When I was 20? I did not.

When I am 70? I can only hope so.

I assume that you are being flippant and joking...

If not, that could be one of the most irresponsible statements I have read recently...

STDs & the Elderly

Age is Not a Condom: Old Sex Does Not Mean Safe Sex

By Elizabeth Boskey, Ph.D., About.com Guide

Updated February 08, 2012

About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by our Medical Review Board

Sexually transmitted diseases aren't just a problem of the young. Older people can suffer from them, too. In fact, there are several reasons why older adults may actually be in more danger from STDs than their younger companions, including:

1. Lack of screening for sexual problems can increase the risk of a disease going unnoticed for years, leading to serious complications.
   
2. After menopause, women's vaginal tissues thin and natural lubrication decreases. This can increase the risk of micro-tears and of sexual transmission of certain diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
   
3. Older people are less likely to use condoms, both because they don't consider themselves to be at risk of STDs and because they were never educated that condoms should be part of their sex lives.
   
4. The immune system naturally becomes less effective as people age, which can also increase the risk of sexually transmitted infections.
   

The Size of the ProblemMore than 60% of individuals over 60 have sex at least once a month, and yet they are rarely considered to be "at risk" of an STD. Even those who are no longer sexually active may still have a sexually transmitted infection for which they were never treated or screened, and the long term neurological side effects of diseases such as HIV and syphilis may be easily mistaken for other diseases of aging.

It is therefore essential that not only older adults, but the individuals who care for them, be educated about STD risk in the elderly. Older individuals, and their caregivers, need to be taught about safer sex, so that they know how to reduce their risk if, and when, they choose to engage in sexual activity. Sex can be an important part of a person's life, no matter what their age. It's important that everyone learn how to engage in it safely so that it enhances their health rather than damaging it.

HIV: A New Old ProblemRecent statistics from the CDC have shown that the number of new HIV infections is actually growing faster in individuals over 50 than in people 40 years and under, and HIV may just be the tip of the iceberg. Numerous factors have contributed to the increase in sexually transmitted diseases in the elderly, and many of them stem from a single problem. Namely, clinicians and scientists don't spend enough time thinking, or talking, about older individuals having sex. Not only are the elderly usually overlooked in many STD studies, but they are frequently less likely to get screened for STDs than their younger counterparts.

Part of the problem, at least, is addressed by the new CDC screening guidelines which, among other things, recommend that health care providers screen all patients between the ages of 13 and 64 for HIV as part of their regular visits. In this age, when divorce rates are up and Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications are available online, sex among the elderly may be at an all-time high.

Cervical CancerEvery year, thousands of women in the United States die from cervical cancer. Most of these deaths should never occur. Cervical cancer is largely a preventable disease. Caused by the sexually transmitted virus HPV, regular cervical screening via Pap smear is an effective way to catch early cancerous changes before they can start to cause problems.

One of the many reasons why the incidence of cervical cancer rises so quickly in older women is that many women, once they stop needing birth control pills, stop going to their gynecologist. Although Pap smears can be done by any clinician, many older women are reluctant to seek out the discomfort of a sexual health exam, particularly if they are unmarried, not sexually active, post-menopausal, under-insured, or have a limited income. Older women may also be reluctant to be screened for something that, in its early stages, has no symptoms and for which they perceive themselves to be at little risk.

Screening, however, is essential. It can take a decade or more for an HPV infection to develop into the early stages of cervical cancer. Although screening guidelines vary by organization, in general even older women who are not sexually active should still be considered to be at risk.

If you are a woman, aged 55 or older, it is important to talk to your doctor about how often you need to be screened for cervical cancer. Most women will need to be tested once a year, but certain women who are considered to be at very low risk may be able to reduce their screening requirements to once every two or three years. If you have a woman in your family, a mother or a grandmother, of that age, make certain she knows she needs to be regularly tested. It could save her life.

Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines

Sources:

Levy, B. et al. (2007) " Older Persons' Exclusion From Sexually Transmitted Disease Risk-Reduction Clinical Trials." Sex Trans Dis 34(8): 541-4.

Leach, CR et al (2007) "The Vicious Cycle of Inadequate Early Detection: A Complementary Study on Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening Among Middle-Aged and Older Women" Prev Chron Dis 4(4): http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/oct/06_0189.htm. Accessed 10-1-07.

Lindau ST et al (2007) "A study of sexuality and health among older adults in the United States." N Engl J Med 357(8):762-74.

M-M.G. Wilson (2003) "Sexually transmitted diseases" Clin Geriatr Med 19: 637–655

Suggested Reading

• HIV/AIDS Overview
  
• Syphilis Overview
  
• Herpes Overview
  

Suggested Reading

• HPV Overview
  
• STD Prevention Essentials
  
• Screening for STDs
  

Suggested Reading

• Everything You Need to Know About HIV Testing
  
• The Long Term Side Effects of Untreated Chlamydia
  
• Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
  

Related Articles

• Screening for Ovarian Cancer
  
• Do condoms decrease the risk of sexually transmitted diseases?
  
• What Do I Need to Know About STDs? - The Facts About Sexually Transmitted D...
  
• STDs- What could happen if I don't get tested for STDs?
  
• Pap Smear - Oral Contraceptives - Coercion
  

[Theodore]

I have been voting consistently Democrat for many years now. It is not so much that I admire the democrat part as I despise the republican party. If the republicans had their way we would be reduced to a pathetic theocracy. They stand for politicizing religion(particularly evangelicalism) which will ultimately destroy our country. As much as I despise the Democrat's fiscal policies I despise the Republican's social ones even more. It would be immoral to allow an even bigger threat like the republican party to come to power, this is why I don't abstain from voting. In a choice between one evil and another,even greater evil, it is always better to go with the lesser.

In an attempt to return to the point of this thread. Herb lets examine your logic for just a minute.

The republicans want to turn this country into a theocracy, therefore I am going to vote for those who want to turn this country into a socialist dictatorship............... ummmmmmmm...................... Ya...........

I am personally a bourbon democrat, which is exactly why I vote republican. Do I have problems with republicans, yes. and if the democrat is a better choice I vote for them, however the majority of the time I agree with the Republican more than the Democrat. Notice I said more than. The one thing that has prevented this country from ever becoming a theocracy is not freedom of religion but the fact that all the Christians dont trust each other. If anything that makes them safer. The Socialists/Communists fight with each other as well, the only difference is that they communists need the socialists so they present a united front. Could Revolt 2100 ever happen? Sure but It Cant Happen Here is more likely.