Bret Stephens has some very good commentary on the subject of religious tolerance and free speech in the Wall Street Journal: “Muslims, Mormons and Liberals.” The solution to the West’s trouble with intolerant Muslims is to make it understood that we are completely intolerant of anyone who would intimidate us into relinquishing one of our basic values. That solution might start with diplomacy that makes this position clear to all Muslim governments and end with serious repercussions for attacks such as those we have seen last week.

It’s sometimes necessary to understand another’s values and act accordingly — such as in observing Muslim table manners and so forth when you are in their country. But it is not necessary or beneficial for the U.S. to conduct foreign policy based on Muslim values. Most of today’s college graduates have been taught that no values are better than others — that another culture’s values are just as valid as our own. Sounds fine in theory, but when free speech values bump up against religious intolerance we are forced to make a choice. Instead of seeing an ethical dilemma, the only issue should be summoning the courage to do the right thing.

Pedro Aja

Another point that is important to a democracy should be the willingness of the loser in an election to accept the agenda of the winner. Often, even when a clear majority has made it’s opinion known, the minority continue to try to cancel this decision with lawsuits and other tactics, such as when state legislators leave the state and prevent a quorum. The same goes for opponents of legal abortion. The law doesn’t require them to practice abortion, but a clear majority in the country has clearly spoken on the issue and that must be respected.

Another point is that it is very, very difficult to be an informed voter in local elections. The big ones, president of the U.S., governor, senator, are relatively easy — it’s the local judges and railroad commissioners that are tough to know enough about to vote intelligently. And these will make the most difference in our lives.

These and the points you raise are where the idea of universal voting rights breaks down. We will never be able to educate anything close to 100% of our citizens to the point of being informed voters. So perhaps we should have some sort of civics and current affairs test that potential voters must pass before they can become registered voters. Something that takes perhaps 40 hours of class, online or in a classroom, to reach the required level of knowledge. That would certainly limit the number of voters, but would surely lead to better decisions, and campaigning that would have to appeal to voter’s reason rather than their emotions. We’ll probably never see anything like this, so we’ll have to continue to allow voters to self-regulate by not showing up. For this reason, I don’t get too upset by poor turnouts — most potential voters don’t know enough to make an intelligent decision in any case.

If our vote is merely an opinion as to who we think would make the best decisions as president, who would we vote for? Would any of them be on the ballot? And thus, we would not vote! Our vote must count to have any significance – if we wish to express an opinion – we can use the media for that. When we vote, we must attempt to make a difference with it by voting for someone who has a good chance of making a difference and winning. If only one person CAN win, then no one should vote, it would be a waste of time – the same person will win regardless – good or bad as that one might be. If there are two that have a chance – vote for the lesser of two evils, or the better of two good choices, or the one more pro-USA (considering that USA = the people of the USA), not the one anti-USA.

Votes must get results or they might as well not exist – votes for leadership in a communist autocracy will just get you killed or confirm that you know how not to expose yourself as someone to eliminate. Opinion polls are for those who wish to agree with you, and will not discriminate against your opinion.

Elections are to get results – economically – who stands to gain most from a strong economy? A or B