The article asserts many things about Governor Palin's beliefs. Although the evidence often turns out to be thin, let’s say she does hold some of them.

These criticisms all miss the main point, a point which shows how ill-founded is the comparison above (between Muslim fundamentalists and Palin). A bit over 200 years ago, many delegates came together at a convention, some with "extreme" religious beliefs, and adopted the U.S. Constitution. This document that forms the basis of our federal government has since been rid of its initial defects (e.g. it did not prohibit slavery), and its better principles have endured. Among those underlying ideas: individuals can have personal beliefs others disagree with -- even consider extreme -- and yet we can live together as a well functioning society. One can elect from among those people individuals who govern in the interest of the public. That is part of the genius of the American system, despite its defects.

Do you who have made such attacks against Palin have any evidence she has governed otherwise than for the public good in Alaska? Where are the laws she promoted and signed that are anti-gay rights, pro creationist etc? There aren't any. Some apparently assume because she has certain beliefs, she has conducted (and will conduct) her office to promote them above the will of the people and against their civil rights. She has not.

Her record shows that the main gist of her governorship was to promote ethics reform and challenge special interests, something her opponent, er, John McCain's opponent, has not done.

Admittedly certain insights can be gained into those running for political office by examining their personal and religious beliefs. Those are only useful, however, if viewed in the context of the actions of those candidates in public office.

Someone’s personal beliefs, unless they are used to contravene the civil rights of others, are not a basis upon which to condemn a candidate. There remains an immense gulf between the goals and actions of Muslim fundamentalists, and anything Governor Palin will ever conceive of, or do. That provides not only a good lesson about Sarah Palin, but about the Constitution and the role of elected office in America.

Dear Author,

All you've told us (with admittedly more than one clever quip) is that you have no conception of how someone can have different views than your own. And of course the old mantle that anyone who votes differently from the truly enlightened (read democrat) must be stupid. Keep going, it's an election loser and we're ready!

This is a good article and poses the practical differences between Utilitarian and deontological positions. I do have one major qualm. Waterboarding is not agreed among all to be torture. Some members of the american armed forces say it has been done to them in training, and has no lasting effects. My sense of reading accounts is that there are variations in its application. So I agree we should not torture, but we have not really established that the techniques used (including wall slamming, which apparently is against a flexible wall, with a collar on to protect against neck injury) are torture. We should concentrate efforts in determining this.