In response to:

We Already Have a Viable Third Party

Zev7 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 2:30 PM
Science and religion address different questions. Science seeks to find out how the world works; it is becoming more successful every day and we no longer need religion to explain the physical workings of the material world. Religion addresses the nature of truth, the meaning and purpose of our lives. Scientists' methods are unsuited to explore such matters. As long as each sticks to its own sphere, they ought to get along fine. As Stephen J. Gould said, science and religion are "nonoverlapping magisteria."
Tacitus X Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:44 PM
Well-intended but not quite correct. Truth is the recognition of reality - religion deals not with empirical evidence but with the supposed next world. The nature of truth is the province of epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. Religion is essentially a primitive form of philosophy but is at a serious disadvantage because its metaphysical base is faith (belief in the absence of evidence or contrary to evidence) rather than reason.
According to the latest polls, only one percent of voters will cast their ballot for a third party candidate, which means that all the talk of a protest vote against the two main parties will amount to little or nothing. Yet there is already a viable third party in America. It simply needs to awaken to its calling.

Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of this “third party” as well – although not in those terms – saying that it “must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of...