There is much more to this than "Galt's oath" as a single principle. The whole metaphysics of supernaturalism, faith and authoritarian "sacred text" as a means to knowledge, the purpose of ethics as pursuing another world, and the subservient duty mentality are all fundamentally contrary to Ayn Rand's philosophy (and living on earth).

The founding of America had nothing to do with "salvation" and "revelation" and your theology is not "deep". A vague deist belief in some being that started the world off and then leaves us alone has nothing to do with mystical, Christian other-worldliness and demands for human sacrifice, all as a way of life and a theology replacing philosophy. And no, archeology is not confirming that primitive mindset.

This is a site for those who admire Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and her novel Atlas Shrugged that it made possible, not for proselytizing religious mysticism. You have gone far beyond discussion of the history of the formulation of the constitution and the lack of religious mysticism in the founding of this country. You are promoting religion as such with your mystical mindset with appeals to "revelation" and "sacred text" on behalf of belief in the supernatural. You can believe whatever you want but that doesn't belong here.

I think we need a new feature... we should be able to hover over the thumbs up/down thingys and get a drop down list of who voted how. good grief... I'm voting you back up.

IndianaGary, we should have talked more in Vegas!!! :(

This isn't about a battle between religious sects, with claims of different kinds of "inerrant revelation" and "sacred text". The variations are irrelevant. Catholic encyclicals are a consequence of its fundamentals. The Church was worse than "misguided" long before the last millenia.

The article is, but he opened it up to a package deal claiming that any philosophy of life is religion. In such a context the essential difference between his religion and Ayn Rand's philosophy is much more than the politics. When you've been accused of being only another variety of religion, as an excuse to include religion in politics by claiming everything must be religion, then it's gone far beyond the history of the constitution and there is more at stake.

He didn't restrict religion to an "organization". He rejected the premise that religion includes any way of life or code of conduct. That is not what religion is. It specifically embraces belief by faith in the supernatural. Objectivism does not mean religious worshiping of either Ayn Rand or her ideas.

Is your life still yours once you agree to live your life for another man (or God)?

Fair enough, ja.

Please elaborate.

I would strongly disagree. Owning one's self implies owning one's choices, actions, and consequences. What makes you believe that Christians do not "own themselves"? I must be missing something.

Then it's John Galt vs Jesus. One of them therefore must not be perfect. Or both if you choose that route, but you get the point.

And you're absolutely right. Christianity is living your life for another being, in this case, the God of the universe. Christians see themselves as wholly subservient to God because, well, he's God. People turned off by being subservient to the creator of the universe, well... they want to invent who they *think* God should be, rather than find out who God is for real. And based on who they think he should be, they say "well, God can't be real, he's not like I think he should be".

There's a lot of Christians that reject my view and yet are still born again. Billy Graham is one of them. John Wesley was one of them. I didn't understand it, and rejected it for a long time, even though I didn't even know the position existed. But once I understood it, literally everything in all of scripture fell into place. Pieces I couldn't reconcile if my life depended on it (because everything centered upon ME, my "free will" to choose or reject Christ, also making my "choice" an act of works towards salvation, however small it may be, that I then took pride in).

I am sure that Ellsworth Toohey would agree.

Well said, blarman. To address khalling's point about owning oneself, another aspect that makes Christianity and Objectivism mutually exclusive is that Christians would generally not agree that they own themselves.

The Enlightenment is born out the ideas of Locke, Voltaire, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Smith...all of these are from exactly the time period you are saying did not influence the founding.

you are ignoring the part about not owning yourself.

Such answers are better for a private thread.

I think much of this hinges on what one considers a "victim". Are we "victims" of our own choices, or just those of others? If we ourselves have the power to choose our own destiny, isn't claiming victimhood just another way of denying one's own responsibility to choose destiny? Does not then "victimhood" merely consist of those who do not have the will to choose for themselves (and take responsibility for such) and would prefer to allow others to choose for them so they can have someone to blame?

If we "sanction" something, doesn't it mean to actively agree with? I don't read that in any part of Christian theology, which instead seeks positive action to take control of one's own future - to own one's self and one's future and all the possibilities that may arise. It gives methods for dealing with frustration and others' choices so as to allow one to focus on the bigger goal. It gives ideas about the bigger goal in the first place, and it provides a support structure to reach said goal. But in all this, primary responsibility still lies with the individual to _attain_ the goal: there is no sliding through the proverbial Pearly Gates on the coattails of others.

Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. and for me, personally, "open" Objectivism, although I don't like that term. The metaphysics, epistemology, the Ethics and Capitalism as the only moral system of economics

I meant that to be included in subsection (iii).

I've forgotten, which religions were "true" and which ones weren't?

So which are the "true Christians," the pro-tax group or the taxation is theft group? And, by the way, what "prophet" is going to answer that question for us? Mohammed? Joseph Smith? Somebody else? What if they are wrong? Will God give us a sign or stay in His usual tight lipped mode?

Your definition of "Christian" is so narrow and idiosyncratic that I find it difficult to exchange views with you using the term. I guess it doesn't matter since, according to you, I'm "dead" and can't "do things." Just let it be noted that hundreds of millions of self-identified Christians reject your definition and accept mine. To you they are dead, to me they are Christians. Of course, probably some of them think you are dead. For what it's worth, I think you are alive but mistaken.

If you want to restrict "religion" to mean a specific set of values or creed - ie an organization - that is your decision, of course, but I would simply ask this: do you follow an administration - or the ideals which founded it? If one claims to be an Objectivist, does one worship Rand - or the ideals she helped to codify?

Food for thought.