A question posed as a false alternative does not mean that you don't have another choice: reject both because you know they are both wrong. Don't let someone else confine your thinking to what you know is wrong. Italy fell for fascism, today is not economically healthy, and does not respect the rights of the individual. A "religious, faith-based culture with its mystical standards of the good" is evil and leads in politics to a "collectivist, altruist ethical and political ideology" when followed consistently.

I'm uninterested in the "Is the U.S. a Christian nation?" discussion. It occurred a million times before and is unrelated to the OP and my reply. Frankly, neither of us has anything new to add to that discussion.
My point is: If one denies the Christian God, they are left to their own fate. Individuals are free to act in their own interest.
If one denies Allah, doctrine prescribes death. Surely, you see how this impacts individuals and societies.

The question was that if we had to choose, which would we select. There was no third choice, and I reflect on the fact that countries like Italy, which has been historically Catholic, seem to be economically healthy and respective of individual freedom, while the collectivist societies are universally basket cases.

There is no such thing as the "original Christian message minus the mysticism". Without the mysticism nothing is left. The "moral way" was Christian duty to god and the supernatural. Demanding faith and duty is how not "to use one's mind". "Assemble the self evident truths from the pagan bicameral mysticism's it was all wrapped in" makes no sense. "Western values" are from the Enlightenment, not Christianity.

He isnt intellectually consistent on pro-freedom by any stretch. BUT, he is taking actions that are pro freedom, and he is blocking actions that are anti-freedom. Not consistently, but its better than nothing.

Your alternative this past election was a real crook who was selling access to a crooked government for her and her 'stronger together" followers.

Enjoy Trump while it lasts. Next year his ability to do anything substantive might be eliminated if he loses one or both houses of congress. In 2020, we could get a real socialist this time agound, given the massive support of a bernie sanders type

At least we got a few years slowdown in the march to socialism, which you should be applauding.

The German people of the Weimar Republic accepted the statist, collectivist, nationalist principles of their politics, which is why they got them in practice. The National Socialists were a political compromise between nationalism and communism.

Political freedom not only does not come from religion, it requires a philosophy of reason and individualism.

The Enlightenment was characterized by its emphasis on reason and individualism, overthrowing centuries of dogmatic religion. Christianity was based on faith, belief in otherwordliness and duty to God, with 'salvation' in another world the overriding goal and service to others on earth a distant second as a means to attain it. That was not 'the pursuit of your own chosen values': Do that instead of your duty to God and you go to hell. It excluded "other philosophies" as blasphemous and sinful; it did not encourage or permit other ideas to prosper. It was the opposite of the Enlightenment.

The founding documents of this country were political, not philosophical. They did not reference Christianity. The few mentions of 'God' were deistic and equivalent to Nature, not Christianity. The country was founded on Enlightenment values, not Christianity. The this worldly and egoist life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness for your chosen values on earth was the opposite of Christianity. Founding this country would have been impossible based on medieval mysticism and dogma.

There is a big difference between the organization of mankind's bicameral misrepresentations, (religion) versus mankind's integration's that brought about western societies objective reasoning.

We have to realize that the same bicameral perversions affected church leaders and organizers as did the rulers through the history of civilization. They too were engaged in power struggles. The forefathers of western civilization could see through all that and assemble the self evident truths from the pagan bicameral mysticism's it was all wrapped in. The organizers tainted the learning's, the teachings, the history to keep the wealth in their control...no different than the global delete ruleless class still does today.
The overall influence of the original Christian and Hebrew message, minus the mysticism, was how to behave yourself and prosper in an ethical, moral way; not to mention, how to use one's new found mind instead of one's temptation ridden compartmentalized head.

It's like I state in my book: "In all things, good, bad and ugly, there is a bit of truth, if only to realize that which is not."

That's the best description of how I see it.

As far as I know, there are no references to 'reason and individualism' in founding US documents. There are many references to God, however. The most prominent tenet of Christianity is indeed 'the pursuit of your own chosen values', albeit with supernatural consequences. This allowed other philosophies to prosper, in contrast to Islam. That was my point.

I said: "Francisco chose to strike and to reject the unprincipled evil side, instead choosing the side of good"
You said:"Francisco d'Anconia did not reject the good. He did reject evil."
I'm glad we agree on this, Mike. If you don't think so, then you have a long discussion with yourself.

The votes you are getting on this indicate that many people here approve of and probably practice religion. They agree with certain political concretes that they found in the Atlas movies, but they do not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

Western culture is not biblically based. Western culture has a broad root base, but Christianity is something nailed on above the ground.

From the very first, Christians attacked each other over questions of theology. That was why the Emperor Julian re-instituted pagan worship: he wanted to end the street brawls between Christians.

On the other hand, as many schools of philosophy as were around, Epicureans, Stoics, Peripetetics, and Platonists did not run around in gangs stabbing each other.

We see the same thing going on in our time: Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland (with Catholic churches in America raising money to support terrorism), the Jews and Muslims (of course), but Shia versus Sunni and ISIS killing Sufis, and centuries of Hindus versus Muslims and both versus Sikhs versus them back... on and on... Meanwhile do the physcis graduate students studying string theory bomb the beer gardens of those who refuse to accept it? No!. Reality and reason bring peace and prospertiy. That is the basis of Western civilization.

Western Civilization was a long time coming to capitalism, and merchants were not held in high esteem, but a slave could become a millionaire, buy his freedom and gain Athenian citizenship. On the other hand, Christianity hold that "PHILARGYRION" (philos=love + argentos=silver) the love of money is the root of all evil.

Francisco d'Anconia did not reject the good. He did reject evil. All of the strikers did. But they were practicing the best rational self-interest. If you cannot understand that, then we have a long discussion ahead of us.

The German people chose evil. You need to understand that. I can give you many, many examples. But if you do not accept the explanation that Hegel was the intellectual founder of all modern socialisms, then we have a lot of discussion ahead of us. Very few Germans were "liberals" in the sense of the Enlightenment. That was why the election came down to the Nazis versus the Communists.

The vast majority oif Germans were not at all rational-empiricists and individualists. Whether it was family-church-and-state or whatever else, they abandoned reality and got what they wanted: to be bombed out of existence.

Trump is a populist, a fascist, a nationalist socialist, a crony capitalist. If you think that he is prof-freedom, then you are falling for the false dichotomy.

It was an important narrative in Ayn Rand's works that all forms of collectivism are based on altruism whiich is founded on mysticism. You can find it in Toohey's exquisition to Peter Keating, and, of course, it is in Galt's Speech.

That is why the choice offered here is a false dichotomy. The objectivists identified it. The conservatives fell for it and chose religiion as their preferred practice of anti-man and anti-life.

Eventually they do shove it in your face. But a lot walk the streets hiding it until you engage them. The armband would save time and effort. But I had forgotten about the sanders supporters, who are quieter but just as evil

I forgot about sanders supporters! In a way, they are more dangerous, being that they really believe in socialism. Hillary people just wanted to join up with the untouchable and powerful woman thinking they would share in the spoils.

The plot-theme of Atlas Shrugged is the opposite of the Bible. Any similarities are coincidental, such as the placement of people living, eating, talking, wearing clothes, etc. somewhere on earth.

No, you don't have to look for it -- they shove it in your face. Who needs an armband?

" Satan told Jesus to take over. Use your power to control and make the world a better place. Jesus knew this was wrong. "
Is this story in the Bible somewhere? If so, this Bible story shares a plot element with AS.

I don't think religion is associated with freedom. When you put religion in charge, the result is not freedom. When you have a secular free gov't that does not interfere with people's religious practices, the result is prosperity. The key is liberty, not some people imaginary friend being friendlier than another.

"I wish Hillary supporters wore special armbands"
I don't see a lot of pins or bumper stickers, but I know 90% of my city at least voted for her. I know for a fact not all of them are supporters because many of them openly said they felt like Sanders should have had the nomination. So you if you see a random stranger, you can guess with some degree of accuracy.

"Collectivism is just secular religion."
A religions historically teach collectivism. i don't know of Rand wrote about this, but Greenspan wrote about talking to Rand about it, about how going up against collectivism often means going up against people ancient religious beliefs.

I agree. It’s almost like a person becomes rationally based or emotionally based at an early age. I can have an effect if the person thinks rationally but just doesn’t understand the world. But I can’t reach an emotionally based person with reason