I never said they founded this nation to be an exclusively Christian nation, let alone any denomination of Christian. That's why they prohibited using a religious test to hold office.

But that doesn't change what I already said: They used the foundation of Judeo-Christian principles in our founding.

The Declaration of Independence however, the document that is the reason the Constitution exists, explicitly mention the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God", "endowed by their Creator".

great points

Two points and then I think I'm done here. First, by the logical extension of your "walk the walk" standard nobody is a Christian unless they interpret the scriptures exactly as you do. You must know that millions of self-identified Christians, for instance, believe that taxation is moral and even supported by the Bible ("render unto Caesar"). On the other hand, I'd wager that some self-identified Christians on this site believe that taxation is theft. I honestly don't know which group you belong to, but your argument above leads to the conclusion that the other is not composed of "true Christians." I think you can probably see that proposition is fallacious and is of the "Scotsman" variety because it confuses a mere attributes with defining characteristics. Second, I don't know why you say it is "instructional to note" to whom Christ purportedly directed some harsh words. Are you trying to say that non-Christian Objectivists are to be despised by God as somehow "worse" than non-Objectivist Christians? Assuming the validity of Objectivism, what kind of God would assert this and why?

I think the difference is, an Objectivist does not vote to control another's actions through their life philosophy. Religious people can and do

great points

hmm, which ones in particular?

well said

Depends on the geography.

I am glad you linked to it. Thanks OA.

I think that it is a fact that those who are religious will be uncomfortable on this site when religion comes up. That is how it's going to go because they are on an Objectivist website, which rejects religion, because it rejects irrationality. John Aglialoro's step son wrote a book on Objectivism and Christianity. This site is an introduction to Rand and Objectivism and ultimately for fans of the movies. barwick, I assume, is a big fan. Not a troll. as I tell db ALL THE TIME, disagree on fundamentals, but don't call a friend a troll, while the progs are stealing you blind.

Is Islam a religion or a political state?

Hello khalling,
A very interesting article. I believe the link provided in the article to Rand's Theory of Rights ( https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/iss... ) may be of some help. It is a condensed version, yet of some considerable length. It hits the primary points and excerpts from her writings and explanations of the other various options along with their shortcomings according to Obectivist doctrine.
It is not a short article, but it sure is shorter than any of her books.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I think Will got it partly right and also largely wrong. The partly right is that America, uniquely, has to have it's civil institutions separate from government, though many of the religious and progressives will disagree. If government enters into the teaching and motivating realm of civil affairs of individuals, it will invariably attract those that seek to direct and engineer those civil affairs 'knowing' that their views of human nature are 'right' and any direction and adjustments required to obtain their viewpoints are justified for the betterment of civil interactions. That role, rightly or wrongly, as Hamilton and Jefferson recognized, had historically been filled by religions either through actual faith and belief, or through the desire to be socially acceptable and to fit in. At the turn of the 19th Century, there were no other significant civil institutions than religions to fill that role, and the failure of America could very well point to the lack of any other institutional development that could fill that role.

But I think he got it wrong in accepting religion, in a pragmatic manner, to serve in that role in the last two centuries of knowledge based realism. Religion, superstition, and the supernatural in a world of unknowables and limited imagination can provide for the masses, acceptable answers and motivations for civil interaction and even culture. But when actual knowledge and the pursuit of such can begin to answer the questions of why and how beyond the readily observable and can move forward to a world of readily available energy, transportation, communication, food, comfort, and ease of survival--even beyond the planet, the motivations and civil interaction moderators previously derived from the religions are seen for what they are, superstitions, magic, and supernatural.

Rand has provided answers in her philosophy, but can a philosophy fill the role previously held by religions for the masses, particularly a philosophy of the individual? Placing emphasis on the individual, the philosophy is of necessity disorganized and unwelcoming to those unwilling and unable to obtain the necessary education and insight to understand the philosophy, much less confidently apply it to their lives. But it remains that in order to keep government from intruding into that civil and individual space, something institutional in nature must arise and become as universally available and accepted as religion was in our past.

I won't attempt in this comment to address what that or those civil institutions could be, but I'll at least posit that Objective Philosophy must be at the foundation.

No but a paid membership to a site that celebrates the ideas of an enemy of the types of myths you choose to believe is less likely to be a troll than the one who is on this site freely espousing those myths. If we were on Christianity Today's website - I'd be a troll. On this site - look in the mirror.

I disagree with this. You are using quotes, however, not citing the source(s). God is not mentioned ONCE in the Constitution. It's not there

you too! you are both valued members of this site in my non humble opinion, and I enjoy and appreciate much of what you think and write in here. Barwick, for those of us who do not believe, what would you prefer we called it? are you ok with mysticism? I agree that fairy tale ratchets things up.

Roger that khaling, and to this day there are still many 3rd worlders and others that try to sell themselves to whoever is buying. They refuse to take any responsibility for their own sin (if you will) but they are always eager to blame the USA or any persons faith.

Money don't buy you truth brother.

Just saying, it was pretty troll-ish to come on and say "fairy tale".

Oh. And no hatred. I don't hate hansel and gretel though either.

Trolls? See the $ next to my name?

Hey now, don't go yelling at me for feeding the trolls, coming on here and calling the Truth of God a "fairy tale".

Agree or disagree, but, hey, "he started it" :)

"So keep religion OUT of politics, if you please."

Religion is your way of life: your code of conduct. It is WHY you do what you do and how you value things when weighing decisions. Religion is all about recognizing yourself and your goals - whether they be for power, lust, money, family, etc.

What course you choose to take for your life and what value set you choose to adopt are the very heart of "religion". You can choose to pursue (or worship) whatever or whomever you choose. It can have a formal name and affiliation or not. But to deny that this is anything but religion is self-deception.

Liberals worship liberalism (or the power derived thereby). Communists worship communism (or the power derived thereby). Christians worship Christ. Buddhists worship Buddha. Muslims worship Allah and Mohammed. PETA worships animals. I could go on and on. The choice to make is to identify WHICH set of values you want to live by and WHY.

Funny how that bridge repaired itself just as I got there.

Very, considering that despite xthinker's claims, it's a well documented fact that our founders (and their predecessors upon whom they based their ideas) used the foundation of Judeo-Christian principles in our founding.

For almost all of human history, the view was "God gives rights to government, which gives rights to man". Our founders (and again, their predecessors) said "no... that's not right. The truth is, God gives rights to man, who gives rights to government".

I know many, many christians who are definitely grown ups. They are not moochers and they are respectful of property rights and less government.