I agree. A religious person who follows these rules, especially the one about critical thinking, will sooner or later see the contradictions inherent in faith. Thus the religious component is harmless (and in the meantime is useful as armor against the relativism of the Left).

I like the overall idea. I might add, as to no. 7, ask them to define and restate their views without the "talking points. Usually, they cannot restate anything, as they do not understand it, and they there fore can't question your objectivity.
All one had to do was listen to the idiotic responses from the protestors in DC, to know they could not define fascism, or explain at all why they were there. Protestors are paid $2,500 a month, plus heath insurance to act stupid, but I would like to know what government hand outs they get, and charge them with fraud.

I see that, now. This thread just showed up in my mailbox yesterday, otherwise, I might have spotted your earlier post from 6 days ago.

I need to pay more attention.

Yes. As I posted earlier, "Most Objectivists would likely agree with these rules if they just read the headers and ignore the content, which mixes sound recommendations with religious and social conservative talking points."

Okay, I took the bait and attempted to defend religion...my mistake.

The rules stated in the article do not mention religion, once. Yes, the author expands upon those rules, but one isn't required to consider God and Satan if one doesn't wish to. Had the author stated only the 10 rules, without his comments, would you have felt differently about them?

Except that the article's example of a "self-evident truth", isn't.

Their goals already conflict with yours in a major way, as demonstrated by the article's heavy-handed promotion of religious dogma and social conservative talking points within the "rules" it espouses. A group's overall values and goals matter greatly when deciding whether to team up with them to promote common areas of agreement. For example, I would not team up with a racist group that happened to agree with me on the gun control issue. Likewise, I'm not inclined to team up with hard-core religionists or social conservatives just because they share my disdain for liberals and progressives.

However...there are a great number of people who DO believe in religion and it would be a mistake to disregard them as our allies in this cause. For the most part, it appears that the concerns of the religious right mesh with mine, so I would join with them, rather than refuse their help.

If their goals begin to conflict with mine, I will reassess that position, at that time.

Re: “I don't question or judge someone's faith.” You don’t consider it important whether someone’s fundamental view of reality is the opposite of yours? I certainly would not make common cause with those who totally intertwine their “rules” with their religious beliefs. We can do much better by promoting our values on the basis of reason than by tagging along with those who base their values on the dictates of a supernatural being.

I guess if you're hypersensitive to religion, then those references are all you're going to take away from the "rules." I don't question or judge someone's faith. To the extent that their faith results in common values, I accept that different paths can lead to the same conclusions. Similarly, if someone's values contradict mine, I don't care about their origins. Just that to whatever extent possible I will dissociate myself from them.

Excellent! 6. Restore critical thinking. is my favorite and taking back our language and it's meaning is near and dear to me.
Note: The Delete's...opps, elites, are dumbed down too!, useless idiots...they've fallen into their own trap; not to mention, they would never be there if they were not stupid and were able to create or produce value in the first place.

I sometimes wonder whether there are many Objectivists on this site. There is very little about the rules presented that do not contradict Objectivism which is free of any supernaturalism and thus remains atheistic by not needing to posit a god or a bad guy angel like Lucifer to make one good or bad.

I had to laugh at number 7: "The elites always obscure the distinction between objective truth and subjective opinion, and between hard science (which is never contradictory to biblical truth, properly understood)" Sorry but hard science consistently contradicts biblical "truth". That's why science has given us the modern world and religion gave us the dark ages.

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

I think that's why they are called rules of the "right" rather than rules of Objectivists... ;)

Didn't someone post at one time a Rules for Objectivists? Might be an interesting topic for discussion...

I just printed that. Drew a Hitler mustache (printer prints from bottom up) on Obama's face while waiting.

This is beautiful:

"Remember that you can’t persuade a true-believer leftist with fact and logic. Intellectually, most of them embrace a closed-loop Cultural Marxist narrative similar to paranoid schizophrenia. If someone proves himself incapable of recognizing self-evident truths (such as denying the humanity of an unborn baby while looking at an advanced stage ultrasound image), disengage immediately. Conservative populists should largely ignore the left and their delusions and just focus on taking the seats of power away from them."

Most Objectivists would likely agree with these rules if they just read the headers and ignore the content, which mixes sound recommendations with religious and social conservative talking points.