An anatomy of the failure of faith-based policy-making

[BurtWorm]

This was sent to me by brother in an e-mail. He wrote it, and I think it's an analysis:


The problem historically with faith-based policies is how do you persuade those who don't share them? You can start with a reality based approach of presenting facts that support your faith (Saddam has WMD and is planning to use them; Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Nigeria; Iraq and Al-Qaeda are cooperating in the global terror network that was behind 9/11).

But the problem with facts is that they are more or less true or false. When the facts fail to be true and therefore fail to support the policy, you can use emotional appeals (We will be welcomed as liberators! Freedom is on the March!; We are going to bring democracy to Iraq and transform the political landscape of the Middle East!). But of course, those assertions when contradicted by the facts become mere opinions you can agree or disagree with; you can support or hope for or find ridiculous or horrifying on the face of them.

There are other historical methods of persuasion. Confusion (Invading Iraq is our response to 9/11), information suppression (the postponing of the latest 9/11 report til after the election), attention diversion (Pass the Freedom Fries. You're either with us or against us!) (And sooner rather than later it might pay to implicate God in your policy.) have their place. There is also coercion.

And what happens when every means available fails to persuade?