I must say this...

Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 2 months ago to The Gulch: General
55 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I understand Ayn Rand's points about mystics, and I agree with a large part of it, but being a religious person does not by default mean that you are the problem. Not everyone who is religious subscribes to the philosophy of the mystic looter.

The simple truth is it has turned out to be the progressives that are killing our society with their self destructive philosophy of sacrifice of self to their idea of the public greater good.

One day the Moochers and Looters will fall. It is inevitable that their policies will result in their own destruction because they are not sustainable. They rely on having something to mooch and something to loot. Eventually they will run out of both.

Once the moochers and looters are removed from their high places of power and our nation has returned to the ideals of self reliance, production, and personal liberty that made it so great we will have all the time we want to debate each other on the existence and merits of god. Right now we have a lot better things to do than to climb all over each other about who does and does not believe in the divine.

We, the men and women of the mind, are at war right now with a very clear and present danger to our way of life. The penalty for losing this war is the subjugation of our lives and production to the federal government. I am not saying that there should not be any debate on the site, that's part of the fun. I am concerned that we are coming to a point where these debates are becoming a dividing force at a time we need to be strongest.

Look around yourself. The American people voted Barack Hussein Obama II president only a few years after 9/11. Our government and public have begun to embrace the very people and religion that perpetrated that attack. The federal government is spying on Americans, militarizing the police, making us a laughing stock of policy failure around the world, and threatening to take away our very right to self defense while the Supreme Court has ruled that police are not required to protect anyone. China is launching aircraft carriers and building stealth fighters.

Do we really need to be insulting and disrespecting each other about who is and is not religions? Do we not have bigger fish to fry? .


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Geez, of course not. I was rattling off a list and it was just sloppy punctuation on my part. There are enough conspiracy theories out there about 9/11 without me adding to it.

    Yes, I am pretty sure they are two different countries, but thanks for pointing that out.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Genesis 4.9 KJV Read the verse in the bible that asks am I my brother's keeper. It is a sarcastic question by a murderer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 2 months ago
    "The American people voted Barack Hussein Obama II president only a few years after 9/11. Our government and public have begun to embrace the very people and religion that perpetrated that attack."
    ---
    Wait, what? I thought Obama's ethnic heritage was in Kenya (at least on his father's side). The people who committed the 9/11 attacks were Arabs from Afghanistan.

    You realize that Kenya and Afghanistan are two totally different countries, right? Or are you trying to imply that Africa and the Middle East are essentially the same because they're both foreign territories on the other side of the Atlantic?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I want to hear this also. Yes, it might be best in another post - a reply here giving the name of the new post would be helpful to follow the thread.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jrberts5 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Could you please provide us with specific passages of Ayn Rand's where her facts are not straight along with a credible source proving that they aen't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It sure would be nice if Ayn Rand had all her facts straight when it comes to Christianity or Judaism. That might be good for another post.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Continued ...

    "I could give many more examples of how Ayn Rand's particular view of "the reasonable" became intellectually restrictive. Instead, to those of you who are her admirers, I will simply say: Do not be in a hurry to dismiss observations or data as false, irrational, or "mystical," because they do not easily fit into your current model of reality. It may be the case that you need to expand your model. One of the functions of reason is to alert us to just such a possibility.
    It would have been wonderful, given how much many of us respected and admired Ayn Rand, if she had encouraged us to develop a more open-minded attitude and to be less attached to a model of reality that might be in need of revision. But that was not her way. Quite the contrary. Other people's model of reality might be in need of revision. Never hers. Not in any fundamental sense. Reason, she was convinced, had established that for all time. In encouraging among her followers the belief that she enjoyed a monopoly on reason and the rational, she created for herself a very special kind of power, the power to fling anyone who disagreed with her about anything into the abyss of "the irrational" -- and that was a place we were all naturally eager to avoid."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago
    Excellent post Will. I applaud you for taking a stand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello, and thank you for the compliment. I am not really concerned if it does get taken over. I needed to speak my peace and did. I don't get too bogged down by people who do that sort of thing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 2 months ago
    Hello WillH,
    Good post... I do however find it troubling that I am almost inclined to quote Rodney King... I fear this thread will also be hijacked and wander from the specific point...
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good points. Why don 't they play in practice? Peikoff supporting Kerry and for a time O. It 's like Objectivists can be politically illiterate. Don 't get me started on gun control. Sheesh.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is a collectivist statement. What rationality is there for making sure to list everyone? If Jewish people want to use the term Jewish let them. I am not going to get offended.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jrberts5 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    (1) When speaking of an individual, one can speak in specifics. When speaking of a group, it is generalizations that apply. That goes back to the Objectivist definition of concepts. (2)Ayn Rand's statement says the "attempt" to escape thinking rationally. It is only possible to succeed in such in measure. Doing so consistently would mean death. Reality is inescapable. (3)What exactly do they mean by being their brother's keeper? (4)Nowhere in my post does it state that "Progressives" (your term, not mine) never attack Christians. (5)Integrity--fidelity to ideas based on reality and rationality is a crucial virtue. Without it, all other virtues are lost. Standing up for reason in the face of irrationality, refusing to compromise on principle, these are the biggest fish to fry.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iroseland 11 years, 2 months ago
    Ok, I have a few thoughts on this subject. First, if people want to be religious they should feel free to do just that. When I meet a religious person I do not simply assume they are somehow broken or evil or out to get me. First, I simply assume that they are wrong about this one thing. After that I would hope that they are doing exactly the same thing I am doing. Since I am pretty sure that they also view my choice as wrong. I would hope then that they are doing like me and making the important judgments on the quality of my character. I have met plenty of perfectly decent folks over the years. Some of them have been Catholics, or Mormons, or Shinto Priests or Buddhists, or Hindusomethingorother or Eastern Orthodox or Various versions of Islamic.. Heck I even know some Temple of Set and Church of Satan folks who you would never guess they are by just meeting them. Also, since I grew up in the ELCA ( Norwegian Lutheran ) world I have known plenty of decent folks there. That said, I have also known total ass holes from all of the above. The thing is that so long as I am not expected to take part in ( financially or in Person ) or am expected to follow some religious laws ( most of those seem to govern Sex or Food ) then, I just plain old do not care if other people do. Now, they all need to understand that if they think they can expect me to take part, I wont. Even when I was a kid, I got dragged to church and simply could not care. This was probably made easier for me since pretty much everyone there was just going through the motions. I think that most people were there for the people more than the sermon. I was always pretty ok with that part since like I said there were plenty of decent folks there. So, we should be asking ourselves what the difference between Objectivists and Religious folks and the far left are. We already know that people on the far left by default actually view us as evil. So, by default we have no way to actually get along with them as our only common grounds are that we are humans. Its kind of different with the religious folks among us. While some might think that we are evil because we do not share their religious beliefs there are still plenty who are able to judge people on the content of their character and are interested in things like personal liberty. Now, we have common grounds and something we can have a constructive conversation around. With all that said, I have noticed some annoying patterns.. Between 08 and 12 the religious right talking heads were all trying really hard to make nice with Libertarians and the Objectivist crowed. Probably because they felt like their backs were against the wall and they needed friends. But, during the run up to the elections in 12 things changed. Suddenly the very same folks thought they were going to win and didn't need to be nice any more. So, suddenly they were less interested in making nice. No, now we were a bunch of horrible atheists and Rand was horrible because she had an affair. It got worse for a bit after the election because as we know. Romney didn't actually suck as a candidate it was all really Ron Paul's fault..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bryan_ogilvie 11 years, 2 months ago
    Damn skippy. The constitution itself talks about FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

    You never know what function religion serves in a person's life - it may be the last thing keeping them sane.

    So I don't even challenge people on religion (unless of course they ask for it - then I open up an intellectual can)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First of all I don't know if you don't watch current events or you choose to ignore them. Progressives have never done anything but attack Christianity.

    Just because someone is religious does not mean they are not capable of rational thought. It also not mean they subscribe to the brother's keeper thing the way you mean it. You are putting forth a generalization to cover a group of people.

    If you honestly believe that there are no bigger fish to fry than being concerned if someone is religious or not then you may have your priorities a bit misaligned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Excellent point. People who are religious need to leave the ones who are not alone. I have seen several times where it was a supposedly religious person attacking the views of others. Totally uncalled for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If I recall correctly, the story of Cain and Abel is from Genesis... the Old Testament.

    So quit calling it a "Christian ethic". You're excluding Jews and Moslems.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo