To me, these choices are both primarily faith based religions with mystical standards for what is good.

OT: Speaking of self-sacrifice: According to ancient Hawaiian folk lore, the quickest way to appease the volcano goddess, Pele, and quell the eruptions, is to make a human sacrifice into her fires. Also, according to tradition, the sacrifice needs to be a celebrated leader who was born in Hawaii and has held a powerful position in the past.

(Hearing of this, Obama quickly announced he was actually born in Kenya and has a birth certificate to prove it.)

This reminds me of a psych question when I was in Naval Aviation Officer Candidate School: "Would you rather smash your thumb with a hammer or vomit on a crowded bus?"

I find no contradictions in my faith and Objectivism. I love them both equally. In the Bible all good works come from the individual. Supporting a church or denomination is a choice. This is completely different that a governing body. One of the most telling stories of Jesus is when he faced Satan in the desert before his ministry. Satan told Jesus to take over. Use your power to control and make the world a better place. Jesus knew this was wrong. Ironically the general public's biggest issue with God is that he has given us free choice. I always hear people say if there is a God then why are there wars, poverty, slavery and so on. God puts it on us. We have to make these choices. This is the complete opposite of giving away these choices and freedoms to government entity who will make these choices for everyone.

You've described the same evil 2 ways. I abstain.

I deal with both, religious nuts and globalists...read "The Creature from Jekyll Island"....the globalists will impose totalitrisnism on us all...and they are well on their way...

But the choice you have is more specific and day to day. Whether you approve of specific policies one side or the other wants is the real choice you have. As to choosing one or the other on philosophical grounds, I agree that they are essentially the same

I tend to look at it more pragmaticaly, given that the choices we are presented with are specific things- like more or less taxes. I say the "side" that takes the least from me, and allows me in practice to live life as I want is the preferable side. I think those choices are fluid, so preferring one side or the other changes with the specific actions they would take.
In principle, both are sh$$, and while the faith side doesnt burn me at the stake for being a witch anymore like earlier, it generally leaves me alone. On the other hand, the collectivist side takes money from me constantly, and passes altruistic laws which DO mess with my life.

Its a war out there, and we have to take sides, as Francisco said in AS.

Interesting. Neither of them are great, but I would take faith based culture over collectivist altruistic culture. The faith based culture seems to be more focused on leaving me alone financially (although they want certain behavioral modifications). Less money taken means less control as far as I can see.

I've always been a fan of Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." What's surprising about this book is that in spite of being the son of a prominent minister, Smith takes a philosophical path to illustrate that many of the moral arguments expressed by Judaism and Christianity have a logical, sensible foundation leading to a civil, healthy society. He does not rely on scripture, but on a logical analysis of behavior to arrive at a common sense basis for moral standards.

I also support the arguments of Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason," where he strips the religious trappings and some of the nonsense from a moral structure. Paine was very much a proponent of individual freedom and self interest being a healthy foundation for society. Ayn Rand would approve.

Collectivism is poison, so I'd have to vote for a religious-based culture, preferably a moderate religious sect.

I get it... but western understandings are valid, minus the bicameral mysticism, the conversation has never evolved. Whereas, collectivism is blatantly false and harmful for the "Human" condition.

Collectivism is not concerned if you have an abundance or not...they are gona take what ever you have or even don't have...like it or not; your forced to sacrifice for the greater good; which of course is the good of themselves.
Not to mention, there is always a "Privileged class.

The greatest risk to freedom comes simply from not understanding what that freedom is there for - or trying to abuse others' ignorance to seek power.

The wording of the question leaves much to be desired, BTW. There are way too many false premises embedded in it to address in a single post, aside from its construction resulting in a false conundrum.

Religious beliefs are basically a capitalist phenomenon. Be good get rewarded and Society has a base morality to fend off chaos. Other beliefs (socialism, statism, democracy, republicanism) don’t have much of a goal for individuals; more of a hive mentality with a few queen-like entities at the center.
Homo-sapien, as a herd animal, probably doesn’t chose either option, as much as they take the path of least resistance.

Plague on their both houses

I agree with the comments here on principal and @olduglycarl on the religionists too, their bad epistemology not withstanding.

However, consider the leftists' encouraging non-assimilated immigrants growing the voting roles to support their "progressive", collectivist, power agenda. This reduces the immigrants' opportunity to thrive and assimilate vs just survive in collectivist mediocrity. And this drive the country away from the freedom that make it the most moral country ever conceived.

That informs a lesser-of-evils voting decision. This is not pragmatism as it's not unprincipled. And it's definitely practical.

It is a false choice. Death by one or death by the other. I refuse to pretend.

I agree that it is a false choice. See my reply to Carl above.

Colledtivism is just secular religion. You could make all the same claims for collectivism being "common sense" and "good for you." It is good for you to be courteous to your neighbors, to forgive and forget mere trespasses, to share when you have an abundance you cannot use. Blah... blah... blah...

All of it fails, including your Ten Commandments, when analyzed by a standard of reality, reason, and self-interest.

False witness? When questioned by the police of a dictatorship about your politicial beliefs, you have every right to lie. Jehovah is a false idol, if you stop to think about it. Why honor your parents if they are not worthy of it?

That is why I refuse to make the false choice offered.

As for Western biblical based culture with it's standard of good and bad is less based on "Faith" than many think. It makes sense to not murder, with a proviso of protection against physical harm. Not worshiping false idols like obobo, bal, a planet moon or star...nor another human. Not baring false witness and treating your parents and neighbors in a respectfull manner is really not so onerous now is it.
Western culture's focus on the "Individual" and requiring self reliance and responsibility comes from the thousands of years it took our ancestors to figure out.
So you see, it's really not mystical. We can get into the weeds discussing the ritualistic bicameral practice and organizing of these understandings....I too, shy away from these indoctrinations.

In short, I'd take western values over bicameral collectivist perversions of humanity any day of the week and twice on sunday.
Self sacrifice Kills...just say NO!

I make a different choice or do not consent (choose to strike by not voting at all.) An arguable lesser evil is still evil. The GOP and Dems have made the irrational lesser evil argument for 50 years to keep Americans enslaved to an evil system.