Many wars and persecutions have been fought over religious and non-religious differences.
"Which group uses fear to crush their opponents, believers or atheists?" Both. As j_IR1776wg pointed out earlier in the thread, this is an example of bifurcation.
Objectivism's biggest flaw is the premise that non-Objectivists should not be allowed to use force to get their own way.

I did not say that I have concrete proof of a creator. What I did say, and still stand unsuccessfully refuted, is that without a Creator whom all acknowledge and respect, that rights are alienable. You are indeed correct about Adams quoting Locke. Adams recognized the potentially flawed premise in America's founding documents, and now that flaw has been both exposed and exploited.

Slavery is first mentioned in 1754 BC in Hammurabi's Code. https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/art...

America did not invent slavery. It did end it in America. Slavery continues worldwide.

You need to evaluate the founder's political philosophy on its own merits.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Currently the Israeli Government is the Government, of that area of the world, "From the river to the sea," and as long as those people consent to that institution existing, then it has a Right to exist. If the people decided to make a change, and in time this is inevitable for every government, then it will change.

With this said I do not believe that America should be involved in conflicts in other nations, unless said conflict has a likelihood of spreading to/ affecting America. (Yes, I realize that we could then justify being involved in literally every conflict ever) Additionally, do not I support Palestine. My reasoning for not supporting Palestine is that Hamas’s stated goal of waging Holy war against Israel would mean that no Jews would be left. One cannot negotiate with someone who denies your right to live; therefore, I support Israel (Jews) defending themselves with as much force as they deem necessary. The Muslims started it and I would not blink an eye if the Jews ended it.

"If what you mean by "emotions and faith" is religion, then yes. And I hate to break it to you but so did America when it was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

I disagree. See my reply to jbrenner above concerning a creator.

"If one does not acknowledge a creator,.."

Assuming the existence of a creator does not prove the existence of that creator. The Christian creator is based on Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" as expressed in his Physics and Metaphysics.

Ayn Rand wrote that "Existence exists". By that expression, she meant Nature as defined by our Reason, senses, and logic, that existence preceded consciousness.

Most of the founding fathers were Diests. They believed that the universe was created by an entity similar to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. That was the first and last act of the UM. Men were then left alone to be responsible for their own actions. Adam's reference to a "moral people" was drawn from Locke's works mentioned elsewhere in this post.

They were people with good points and bad points. What they did agree on was to STOP being ruled by England. The rest of the constitution and bill of rights was paperwork.

This is true. And I dont like the current decrepit government and its leader here, but look what happens in a supposedly free country to a former president for objecting to the current administration...

Exactly.

“The Founding Fathers based their creation (USA) on Reason and Logic and Principles (Life, Liberty, etc.) based on the thoughts of men from Aristotle to Locke and many more in between.”

I guess that’s why so many of them owned slaves.

"Without a Creator that all acknowledge and fear, there is not an adequate enforcement mechanism to prevent men from using force against other men."

Really? How many wars and persecutions have been fought over religious differences? Which group uses fear to crush their opponents, believers or atheists? Religion is an enforcement mechanism all right, one that is primarily used to control others by force.

"Neither has a written constitution."

No, neither Israel nor any Islamic nation is built upon a Constitution like that found in the United States. Israel has a parliamentary form of government similar to Britain while the Islamic nations are either military hegemonies (think Iraq under Saddam Hussein), religious caliphates (think Iran), or monarchies (Saudi Arabia).

"The main problem between Israel and the Islamists is that is that they base governance on Emotions and Faith."

If what you mean by "emotions and faith" is religion, then yes. And I hate to break it to you but so did America when it was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. We based many of our laws on the same principles and even have a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building. The only nations founded on "atheism" ended up slaughtering tens of millions of their own people to repress religion, so I'm not sure an argument against "religion" in general holds any water whatsoever.

"Disagreements between foes based on Religious Faith do not end well..."

Is there any other kind? Is not socialism a religion? Wokeism? Atheism is a religion - as acknowledged by the US Supreme Court. Conflict is very real and it ultimately comes down to a conflict of ideas. And until all of humanity agrees on a single set of ideas with which to run themselves, we're going to have conflict. The real question is simply which set of moral ideals is the best for humanity. That's been a debate since the dawn of time. But to think that logic and reason alone are going to mitigate this most fundamental of human decisions is a stretch to say the least.

When the Founders referred to "nature" - and Locke is no exception - this is shorthand for the broader phrase "Nature and Nature's God," i.e. the creation and the rules which govern it being driven by intelligence and will. With all due respect, there is no such entity as "nature" which can with 1) act of its own volition or 2) choose to enforce "laws" supposedly attributed to it. Indeed, if we are to refer only to "nature" as the slate of "natural" processes happening in the world around us, we see instead that "nature" is actually quite brutal and no respecter of anything but Might Makes Right. I believe I've brought this point up and still have yet to find someone who can derive equality among human beings without a Creator. How does one find justice without an active Judge?

This is the wrong question. The real question is how governmental change should be initiated and whether or not it is moral for a separate entity to force their morality and government upon another. We've seen the United States try it multiple times since WW II and almost every one failed - not because the model wasn't sound but because the people themselves didn't want it. Most recently we saw this in Iraq and Afghanistan and it led to bloody revolts and those "free" governments being overthrown from within by statists because that is what the people wanted.

Ayn Rand realized that Objectivism was not suitable for a general population and that men would use force against each other if not adequately prevented from doing so. Galt's oath is that enforcement mechanism. Those who reject Galt's oath are incompatible with a sustainable Objectivist society. Just as admission of millions of immigrants without ensuring their compatibility with the society of the United States as ensured the demise of the United States, the same would occur in an Objectivist society without strict enforcement of Galt's oath.

but those ideals still need to be backed up with force of arms or they mean nothing

Ayn Rand asks us to check our premises. The foundational premises for the Declaration of Independence are that there are self-evident truths that are endowed by a Creator. A Creator, if one exists, was the basis for not only endowing rights but guaranteeing that they could not be taken away. Nature cannot guarantee anything, nor can man.

Objectivism's main premises are that a) there is no Creator, and that b) men should not be allowed to use force against other men. Without a Creator that all acknowledge and fear, there is not an adequate enforcement mechanism to prevent men from using force against other men.

Earlier you quoted John Adams. Adams says all of the following:
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” “But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears, to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly believe.”
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Adams realized that the Declaration and the Constitution were based on the premise of a religious people, and the potential weakness that presented.

Ain’t statism great?
I refuse to be treated as a “raw material” for some government agenda.

I can only suggest you read John Locke's Two Treatises on Government.

There are more than two possible positions on any given matter. That being said, nature (note the lack of capitalization) has no mind and is not a single entity. Therefore, it is incapable of reason or of endowing anything. Consequently, people whose governments are built on “the simple principles of nature” as determined “by the use of reason and the senses" do not and cannot have inalienable rights. Those "rights" are alienable, as history has recently shown. Sorry, but your appeal to Bradley Thompson, to Jefferson, and to Adams, do not prove your point. Benjamin Franklin told us that we were being given a republic, if we could keep it. As he quite reasonably feared, eventually we have not kept it.

A most common logical error is to assume that there exists two, and only two, positions on a given matter. It’s called bifurcation. To assume that “rights” can only be given by God or by Man omits the possibility of a third way viz. Nature.

To quote C. Bradley Thompson in his book America’s Revolutionary Mind, Chapter 3 “…The fundamental laws to which the Americans appealed were not local laws derived from custom or history, now were they derived from holy scripture or declared by saintly prophets. “Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground, “Thomas Jefferson told the English radical Whig John Cartwright in 1824. Rather than searching into “musty records,” hunting up “royal parchments”, or investigating “the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry,” the Americans appealed to the great principles “of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts.” The Revolution, according to Jefferson, presented the Americans with “an album on which we were free to write what we pleased.”1 Unlike the lawgivers of classical antiquity, American constitution makers did not claim, as John Adams noted, to have interviewed “with the gods,” nor were they “in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven.” Instead, these New World Solons and Lycurguses built their new governments on “the simple principles of nature” as determined “by the use of reason and the senses”2"

The word "self-evident" is an extremely important point. If one does not acknowledge a creator, then those "rights" are actually human rights and can easily be reduced to privileges, ... as they now have been.

This is one of the few major weaknesses of Objectivism. I know that this is an Ayn Rand site, so I expect to be downvoted and criticized. Our "rights" are not really rights at all in an Objectivist universe. They can be acknowledged or not acknowledged by the Floyd Ferrises of the world. Usually such Floyd Ferrises, partly because their gods are themselves, do not acknowledge such rights. Consequently, a society of any meaningful size (i.e. larger than Galt's Gulch) is inherently unstable.

True enough. The Founding Fathers based their creation (USA) on Reason and Logic and Principles (Life, Liberty, etc.) based on the thoughts of men from Aristotle to Locke and many more in between.

The main problem between Israel and the Islamists is that is that they base governance on Emotions and Faith. Neither has a written constitution. Many Israelis consider the Torah as being a Constitution and all Islamists consider their holy books as rules for governance. "There are a number of holy and important religious books in Islam. In addition to the Qur'an, Muslims are also taught to believe and have faith in three other great books sent by Allah to His Prophets Musa (Moses - the Torah or Old Testament), Daud(David - the Zaboor or the Books of Psalms), and Isa (Jesus - The Injil or The New Testament) before the coming of Muhammad as His last prophet."
https://www.answers.com/Q/Why_are_the...

Disagreements between foes based on Religious Faith do not end well unless huge changes take place. In the case of Israel and Humas, these changes do not seem to be forthcoming.

Although "Peaceful co-existence" would be rightfully be a requisite but would ultimately come down to opinion (truth versus lies).
But in reality, it's up to the majority of people in said country, nation, state or empire.

That's my take and I'm stickin to it!