I will have to look for that!!

You mean you can't see it from the sanctimonious frothing in their mouths?

You don't have to be famous to have an impact on one person at a time.

We are under attack. Putting up with what is the lesser of two evils "today" -- when you can -- does not tell you to accept a false alternative and do nothing about it for "tomorrow". The course of a culture and a nation depends on the dominant ideas accepted, not on "today's vote". Even "today's vote" -- when a choice between evils makes a difference at all -- is to be decided on the basis of specifics of self defense, not endorsing a generality from a false alternatives in a false question of "religious, faith-based culture with its mystical standards of the good, or the collectivist, altruist ethical and political ideology". Posing the question that way and accepting it as the choice is suicidal.

I definitely do on a personal level and in all discussions with rational or even semi rational people. I dont argue anymore with totally emotional hillary-supporter types though. Its just useless, since their hidden agenda superseded any rational thought and its a waste of time to engage or even listen to them.

I wish hillary supporters wore special armbands so I could see the enemy more clearly and efficiently.

Religion is bad now, and has always been. Some religions are worse than others in terms of irrational dogmas that they try to impose on others. Currently, I am not really being impacted by any religions. If I were famous and was asked about my definitely agnostic positions, I suppose I would be attacked. I dont see any evidence of anything like one of their hundreds of "gods", but IF there was, I suppose I would accept it. I am not sure I can say with certainty there CANNOT be some being somewhere that made the universe we live in, but it really seems very farfetched to me, so I just live without paying homage to any of the postulated "gods".

BUT, I am NOT famous enough that the powers that be would care what I think.

If anyone asks, I would of course tell them what I think on the subject, probably labeling me as some sort of infidel.

Defend reason, individualism and freedom day to day. That is still a choice you have even while battling and putting up with the false alternative.

No, you don't abstain; fight both of them for what you know is right.

Social progress was the overthrow of religion by the Enlightenment, resulting in this country in spite of the remnants of religion. Collectivism was the result of the counter-Enlightenment based on religious ideas of unreason and duty to sacrifice.

This isn't about "economic or personal freedoms". Economic freedom is personal freedom. This country was founded on the principle of the rights of the individual.

I have to tell you I feel under attack in this country- by the forces of collectivism integrated into our government. The choices usually come down to take my money and freedom now, or take less money and less freedom. Seems to me its logical to take the lesser evil if I can choose it. When I vote today, if I vote at all,I am picking the least destructive option to my life. Its not an ideological thing given our present mob rule system.

"The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own particular order or society. He is at all times willing, too, that the interest of this order or society should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the state or sovereignty of which it is only a subordinate part: he should, therefore, be equally willing that all those inferior interests should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the universe, to the interest of that great society of all sensible and intelligent beings of which God himself is the immediate administrator and director." "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", in Adam Smith's Moral and Political Philosophy,

Religion is poison. Why choose either? Why allow yourself to be confined to a false alternative by someone posing a false question by dropping context?

This country was founded on the Enlightenment with its emphasis on reason and individualism, not Christian faith. The secular values of the right to life on earth, liberty, and the pursuit of your own chosen values are not Christian values. They grew out of the Enlightenment and in this country in spite of those who professed religious belief.

Religious demands for duty to sacrifice and irrational belief on faith were the cause of the statist collectivism. Religious bans on personal choices are very much alive today: Look at the controversy over forcing woman to have unwanted children, including today's anti-abortion mania which isn't long after the religious bans on contraception of 50 years ago. Which band of irrational thieves is more oppressing and taking from you today is not the question if you care about living in the future.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is fundamentally the opposite of religion. If you can't find the contradictions then you don't understand what one or both are.

The country was not based on religious standards. The otherworldly mysticism of religion was overthrown by the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and this-worldly individualism.

We do not have to choose between a false alternative of "sides". There are specific, immediate choices when you have to defend yourself the best you can, but the defense, protection and restoration of reason, individualism and freedom requires consistently and rationally defending them. don't temporize. Narrowing the choice to a false alternatives of destructive implementations of unreason and sacrifice is deadly.

Religion is mysticism. That western civilization gradually learned better values for living on earth in spite of it does not make those values religious. There is nothing about condemning murder that is particularly religious. It has nothing to do with faith in a supernatural world and religion has repeatedly demonstrated how easy they find to endorse it.

The entire tradition of ethics as duty, self sacrifice as moral, and unreason in thinking, all of which still plague humanity in the 21st century, is the result of millennia of religious influence. The question of religion versus collectivism and altruism is a false alternative based on a false dichotomy.

I am not so sure that the German people werent secretly OK with the ideology of Hitler (at least the non jewish people). Hitler was VERY popular, as the newsreels show.

I agree with you about the GOP vs Dems. They are cut from the same cloth really, only differing in degrees.

I did get what I voted for with Trump, I think. I wanted a slowing down in the march to straight socialism, and I think I am getting that. I had better enjoy it, as I think the ride will be over in 2020. As to 2018, I suspect Trump might lose one or more of the houses in congress, but his VETO will still be in play to be an obstruction to radical socialism.

The collectivist/altruistic ethical and political system definitely and consistently poses the greater threat. Observe if you will the ultimate controlled experiment. Consider two Presidents:

1. Ronald W. Reagan, strong in his faith, wore it on his sleeve, promulgated rules against abortion, etc.--and consistently defended the rights of the individual against collectives of any kind, lowered taxes, etc.

2. Barack H. Obama II. If he was strong in any faith except a personality cult based on himself, then it would be the Muslim faith. And even then, his acts were more along the line of granting them special favors than actually joining in their worship or trying to persuade them to accept him as a religious leader. At the same time he was a total collectivist. "You didn't build that!" etc. With him began the deliberate conflation of police/military/judiciary with nationalization of the rest of the economy, beginning with health care.

Now compare the United States economy under these two Presidents.

Were you better off after eight years of Reagan than you were after eight years of Obama? I certainly was. (And I'm better off now after two and a half years of Trump.)

We did just fine for a couple of centuries on religious standards. We have gone down hill ever since we turned to collectivism.

Which is worse? Germany gobbling up Europe, or Japan taking over the Pacific Rim?That is the same -- a question without an answer. In WW2 that was the situation facing the USA in 1942. They realized that no matter which theater of the war they concentrated on, eventually the end would be the same. Roosevelt knew that in the long run (which turned out to be shorter than he thought).America would prevail. So, in order to appease his friend Churchill he concentrated on Europe and after VE Day he concentrated the American might on the Pacific theater. But the big surprise was that those little yellow buggers were tougher than expected and death to them was honorable. Luckily, he had plan B which he died before putting into effect leaving it to Old Harry Truman to push the red button.

Laughing...I have a copy!

We already have mature examples of both. Collectivism ultimately fails. With religion, it depends. Christian values resulted in the freest, most prosperous regions in the world. Islam keeps people rooted in the 7th century.

Economic or personal freedoms?

Religion coexisted with the American Economic Expansion of the 19th century just fine. Collectivism brought it to its knees.

But the world is a complicated place.
Religion turns a blind eye (or worse) to all sorts of prejudices - slavery, women's suffrage, gay marraige, etc., whereas socialism embraces all those people. Karl enslaves all equally.

For my vote, I'd abstain.
But if I had to choose I'd pick religion. I'm not worried about our social progress.

Francisco chose to strike and to reject the unprincipled evil side, instead choosing the side of good. He would certainly have rejected both the Dems and the GOP as unprincipled looters.
The German people chose to back Hitler as a practical matter in spite of his obvious evil principles. Many Americans have chosen the GOP for similar reasons. Both of the US parties are careful to keep their evil camouflaged, having learned from Hitler and other evil statist murderers. (I do not equate the GOP to the Nazi Party and the Dems may be a closer fit, but both parties are evil statist murderers differing in degree.)