The false dichotomy is specifically, various excuses to enslave people in the name of: the nation, motherland, fatherland, people, tribe, race, black power, white power, gender, etc, etc. ... vs ... A government conceived and dedicated to protecting individual rights.

"In a way, they are more dangerous, being that they really believe in socialism."
Yes. I suspect we haven't heard the last of them. I read that people running for Congress are running as moderates, but I wonder if for president people want a freak show, and that could easily be someone like Sanders. OTOH the pendulum could swing back to boring. My gut feeling is that socialism is a greater risk than people realize. I hope I'm wrong.

"Hillary people just wanted"
There are countless reasons various people had other than straw men reasons.

It's still an excellent outline of good behavior and it's just as important to strive for, weather one uses his bicameral brain or his unicameral brain. That's the point.
Objective context of self interest make me think of billy bobs self interest of claiming: He did not have sex with that women; using a narrow definition of sex.
We could both spout examples to an frow but I think you get it.

It's what I have observed, and it's very simple, and what's so wrong or mystical about behaving well or the best one can under a set of circumstances. AR never advocated behaving badly.
Of course these days, the tables have turned, behaving well, speaking objectively or just observing can land one in jail.

The only truth that I recognize are the fundamental and physical laws of nature and the universe that we have a fair degree of understanding. (North attracts to south, positive electricity flows to (-) ground...etc). If these things weren't true, we likely would not be here to argue the point.

That truth doesn't change, only our understanding of those truths...everything else is an opinion or a theory.

[and yes, The work of Julian Jaynes is still a theory, but like The Electric Universe Theory...it's some of the best theory's going right now...in a 100 years?...who knows, but basing some observations upon our best understandings is how we learn where it's spot on and where it falls short.]
Again, The only absolutes, the only truth to be reckoned with; are the physical and natural laws as best we understand them.

You are wrong. Religion is the basis for collectivism, and always was. Whatever virtues were practiced by some indiividuals wiithin an otherwise religious society were exceptions. They were not examples of actually living the moral code being preached. They certainly were not aligned with the metaphysics and epistemololgy of religion.

Nationalism versus communism is another false dichotomy.

Among the many erroneous aspects of your claim here and your assertions up top are that they are posited as absolutes. Absolutes exist. But not every claim - even if valid in context - is absolutely true. The Ten Commandments on getting well with your neighbors are a perfect example of the failure of moral absolutism. Ayn Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism not "Absolutism."

That is another example of an absolute claim that is not absolutely true. It is objectively false.

You do not have a right to believe whatever you want.

"You do have a political right to an opinion. However, that is not to be confused with the epistemic right to an opinion. The epistemic right to an opinion, says Whyte, is similar to the right to boast. Just as you first must achieve something worthy of boasting, so, too, is the “right” to an opinion earned by correctly identifying facts and then explaining them rationally. "
https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2...
And here:
" Beliefs are factive: to believe is to take to be true. It would be absurd, as the analytic philosopher G E Moore observed in the 1940s, to say: ‘It is raining, but I don’t believe that it is raining.’ Beliefs aspire to truth – but they do not entail it. Beliefs can be false, unwarranted by evidence or reasoned consideration. They can also be morally repugnant. Among likely candidates: beliefs that are sexist, racist or homophobic; the belief that proper upbringing of a child requires ‘breaking the will’ and severe corporal punishment; the belief that the elderly should routinely be euthanised; the belief that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a political solution, and so on. If we find these morally wrong, we condemn not only the potential acts that spring from such beliefs, but the content of the belief itself, the act of believing it, and thus the believer."
https://aeon.co/ideas/you-dont-have-a...

Atheism is nice, but it is not synonymous with Ayn Rand's capital-O Objectivism. It is easy to show atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Feynman, and Carl Sagan who endorsed collectivist agenda items and (for all of their lowercase-o objectivism) some falsehoods in epistemology.

Among the many problems with the Ten Commandments and other claims in the top response, is that they are absolutes. Objectivism is not absolutism. Certain metaphysical facts, including facts about human nature, are absolute. But lying under oath, coveting your neighbor's ass, and so one are not absolutely immoral. Much of the Ten Commandments is irrelevant. Even the parts that seem "useful" are dependent on the objective context of self-interest.

That comment was out-of-line. My apologies.

"Your impenetrable atheism dogma leaves you closed minded."

Careful Brett. Ad hominem. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...

I don't know that the intent is to oppose free speech as such, but there has been an obvious cowardly lashing out at anyone who rejects the militant religious conservative activism abusing an Ayn Rand forum -- promoting a stock religious 'narrative' with historical and philosophical ignorance contradicting the purpose of the forum for which they apparently have no interest.

That's a minor matter of taste compared with the depth of evil in the false alternative posed in this thread.

"Founders Bible" is a David Barton, not a credible source. Barton is a religious promoter of historical revisionism who 'finds' religion as 'explanation' wherever he wants to, specializing in the mythical narrative that this country was founded on the Bible. We have been through this nonsense with Baron before.

You can only succeed in trade if you satisfy both your own and someone else's needs that they are willing to pay for, in an exchange of value for value. That does not make "religious beliefs basically a capitalist phenomenon" or human beings a "herd animal". Both religious faith and 'following the herd', to the extent they are followed, precludes the rationality and independence required.

Your right. The best way to succeed in a capitalist free market society is to solve the needs of others...whether that be hunger or making life easier and enjoyable.
That act is not an altruistic one, instead, it's in one's own self interest.

Free speech should never be down voted.

Trolling militant religious apologists are once again 'downvoting' rejection of " faith-based culture with its mystical standards of the good" and the fallacious claims replacing the Enlightenment with the Bible as the intellectual foundation of this country.

Who is the clown 'downvoting' the obvious observation that Atlas Shrugged is the opposite of the Bible?

You said that "Christian values resulted in the freest, most prosperous regions in the world", "there are many references to God in founding US documents" in contrast to "reason and individualism", and "the most prominent tenet of Christianity is indeed 'the pursuit of your own chosen values'". That is promotion of your religion and is not true.

Rejecting mysticism and religious historical revisionism is not "closed minded impenetrable atheism dogma". Your personal attacks and your misrepresentation of reason and individualism in the founding of this country, while promoting your religious faith, do not belong here.

The Founders bible describes how the old testament, the torah and the new testament gave our founders a basis for inalienable rights, freedom with maximum responsibility and yes, it also includes free market capitalism.

Many think it was all about sacrifice but it's not unless of course, you desire to kill, rape, lie, being miserable to everyone, take from everyone never to create values or be what ever you will, no matter the consequences you might face, or any other temptations of one's bicameral brain.
Is that really a sacrifice?

I never promoted Christianity, only pointed out the differences in the two religions. Your impenetrable atheism dogma leaves you closed minded.

"Religious, faith-based culture with its mystical standards of the good", as posed in the original post, is not "useful and interesting". Nor is Olduglycarl's false assertion that Western culture is "biblically based".

If you are "uninterested" in arguing that this country is a "Christian nation" then stop promoting it. Everyone is "left to his own fate" in accordance with his own choices and actions, by his nature as a human being and without regard to Christian promises of salvation and threats of eternal torment for disobeying. Islam is an offshoot of Christianity. Islamic nations are worse today because they never had an Enlightenment. Western Europe and this country did, preventing religion from suppressing us. The comparison between Islam and more enlightened cultures that broke free of medieval religious dogmatism is not an argument for your religion, and an Ayn Rand forum is not the place for you to promote your religion.

I disagree on your assessment of the upvotes.

I've been a committed atheist since discovering Rand when I was 20, after 16 years of Catholic education. Actually, 12. 4 were in the future when I left the Uber-Left University of Michigan for a private, Jesuit university. Unlike many of Christian sects, we were taught the Old Testament along with the New.

IMO the former is the more "rational" in terms of it's "laws" and morality. Of course it is ultimately based on faith and contains numerous mystical concepts and contradiction, but I agree with OUC that it's incorrect to dismiss and entire religion or religions out of hand. As rational beings, we can sort out the useful and interesting from the rest.