<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;">context:<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">near the end of vFRIAM, SteveG argued that Science's denigration and dismissal of God and religious sensibilities in general was both arrogant (on the part of Science) and divisive / counter-productive. In an attempt to steelman SteveG's position I generalized the argument and made the assertion that this element of the Liberal Democratic strategy to defeat Trump was not only counter-productive, but <b>extremely stupid</b>. I also expanded the scope of SteveG's argument away from simply religion but to all the views that might be held by those in Hillary's "basket of deplorables."<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">glen wishes to 'discuss' my assertion. <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">How to proceed? from the general to eventual specifics/particulars? who goes first?<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></body></html>