Sir, - Vincent Browne (August 20th) makes a convincing case for broadening the process of presidential nominations on the basis that it would be a proof of authentic democracy. Unfortunately his article is marred by contradictory statements and flawed philosophy a combination which does much to undermine the credibility of its author and of The Irish Times.The term "fundamentalism" is used without definition, although it would appear, by inference, to have something to do with being opposed to abortion. However, the state which penalises murder is not so described, even though in so doing it actually "imposes" values on its citizens. What is the difference?Accepting abortion while simultaneously condemning murder surely undermines the "equal value of human life" theory. The author's logic is obscure and becomes embarrassingly so when he states that murder is a criminal act because values such as the equal value of life "are ones we all share". What is "fundamentalism" then, and why is it only applied to those who disagree with the State? Mr Browne saws the branch on which he is most precariously perched.This is surely the weakness of the "liberal agenda". In its anxiety to impose no "values", the State has no other option but to appeal to consensus, the common denominator on which we can all agree, so that there is no "imposition of liberal values on others". Rights are equal and there for all who wish to claim them. Except, of course, for those who cannot claim them, as in the case of the unborn human being and, by logical extension, the many others in our society who have no voice.Mr Browne's assertion that liberalism is "political" and "not metaphysical" is philosophically debilitated. Liberalism owes its existence to the relativisation of truth, the methaphysical reality which is the blueprint for all political ethics. The rejection of objective truth lies at the heart of the "liberal" mind and explains why the so-called "liberal" states are doomed to be the most repressive.The values of human life, and of the human rights to which that life is entitled, are upheld for as long as the majority agrees. If my rights happen to clash with yours, and if I can get more votes than you can, then you lose your rights. The State will not defend you, because your values are not "ones we all share".Mr Browne is to be commended for his valour, but his case rests on shallow foundations and undermines the very democratic process he seeks to defend. - Yours, etc.,From ORLA HALPENNYMonkstown, Co Dublin.