Yes, we disagree. But, it is not a mistake to isolate the fundamentals upon which any set of beliefs rest. The source of the beliefs is critical; the "values, doctrines, and merits" are window dressing after you've moved in.

In this case, you are mistaking logical analysis for conflation. Rand did not imply, "that intelligence and existence are primary." Quite differently, she wrote that "existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness". This is a "crucial distinction" between what goes on inside and outside your head.

Accepting beliefs attempts to shortcut our ability to identify things that exist by replacing knowledge with thoughts and notions not anchored in reality. Ideas, based on any variant of Existence being created by something outside of Existence, will undercut your ability to understand everything...and that would be hell.

Precisely.

Logically, I do not see how it is possible to say either that there is or is not a god, gods, or some other power not yet fully grasped by human intelligence--thus, my agnosticism rather than atheism.

Authority matters. Those who accept the Catholic Church accept the Pope as God's representative on earth. But if you are not a Catholic, you don't accept his authority - and that goes for every other Christian denomination, not just the non-Christian ones. So when the Pope speaks, his purported authority extends only so far as the Catholic Church and those who see the Vatican as a political power.

And now you make the same mistake. You simply can not conflate any belief set with any other: each must be examined individually as to its values, doctrines, and merits. That is the point I have been trying to make. One can just as easily conflate Objectivism with fascism by saying that they are both constructs of men. It is a fallacy of association.

I agree with Rand that intelligence and existence are primary. I just disagree that there is an end to that existence as atheism dictates. Rand, in conflating the Catholic Church with "religion" got caught in a fallacy of association that led her to believe that since she couldn't make sense of the Catholic belief system that necessarily all religions were nonsensical. This led her to atheism as the only recourse, but also led her to take positions as mandated by that atheism. I think it was a mistake. She would have been safer to have taken an agnostic view of the matter and simply said "I don't know". That would have allowed for inquiry into either side as long as the position could be explained logically. And no, it wouldn't have been fence-sitting, but rather the avoidance of being pigeon-holed in order to appear to remain consistent with that choice.

What percentage of illegals in the US are Catholic?

A genetic memory passed from generation to generation would be a real improvement.

It was no mistake on her part at all. Pick any 'belief system' or set of beliefs you want—they are all based on the idea of the primacy of consciousness; and they will always leave men floundering in a quicksand crowded with the next group climbing on heads to claim that theirs is the 'true' belief.

Rand explained how existence is primary and, additionally, the logical corollaries of that fact. It's not something you accept because she wrote it; they are concepts you have to understand.

Yeah! Feisty with a capital "F"!

Yes, and the quintessential mistake she makes and so many other Objectivists make is conflating the Catholic Church with Christianity or with "religion" in general. Catholicism is the reason for Ayn Rand's quite logical and completely founded cynicism of religion. The problem is that the Catholic Church - while yes the largest in adherents - is not representative of any "religion" or belief set but their own!

Who are you to call me evil?
You go be you and I'll go bhe me.
Have a nice day.

There are exceptions to his opposition to modern convenience. They consist primarily of himself, the church hierarchy, persons in power, and big donators. Priests, and laity, can pound sand. But, to be fair, most religions are in that position or want to be in that position. Look how many of the Poverty Pimps have the word "Reverend" in front of their names. The good deeds of religion(s) is offset by the evil they perpetrate and the evil is in the majority because it is integral to the religion. One should ask oneself, "Am I doing this because it betters my life or the lives of those around me, or am I doing it as a condition of being part of my religious beliefs?

He doesn't want to lift the poor. He wants to reduce us all to asceticism.

This is a site for admirers of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. Reason, not a different religious sect, is the alternative to faith. You have not broken from the evil of the church by rejecting Catholicism for another version.

Their Sins are useful to wallow in as they grovel to the supernatural for forgiveness. Ending it by hanging from a tree would spoil the game.

The evil of the Pope is much deeper than earthly power seeking for its own sake. The force follows faith. It's not that "the Pope ignores capitalism’s history of lifting masses of impoverished people from their poverty", as the article says, he despises human prosperity down to his bones. He doesn't want the masses lifted beyond a minimalist existence. The recent Common Home encyclical is another call for asceticism and groveling before "God's creation". He is "Pope Francis" because he picked the name from Saint Francis of Assisi. He explicitly denounces the economic success of the last 200 years for it's success, right down to an obsessive war against modern improvements like "air conditioning". http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/fran...

No it isn't. It was a "one man crusade" -- one of thousands of such mystery cults -- that emphasized other-worldliness and grovelling sacrifice to the supernatural, with service to others on earth a distant second. The only "individualism" was for "saving" one's own soul in another dimension.

From Ayn Rand's “Requiem for Man” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

"Is there any difference between the encyclical’s philosophy and communism? I am perfectly willing, on this matter, to take the word of an eminent Catholic authority. Under the headline: 'Encyclical Termed Rebuff to Marxism,' The New York Times of March 31, 1967, reports: 'The Rev. John Courtney Murray, the prominent Jesuit theologian, described Pope Paul’s newest encyclical yesterday as ‘the church’s definitive answer to Marxism.’ . . . ‘The Marxists have proposed one way, and in pursuing their program they rely on man alone,’ Father Murray said. `Now Pope Paul VI has issued a detailed plan to accomplish the same goal on the basis of true humanism—humanism that recognizes man’s religious nature.’'

"Amen.

"So much for those American 'conservatives' claim that religion is the base of capitalism—and who believe that they can have capitalism and eat it, too, as the moral cannibalism of the altruist ethics demands.

"And so much for those modern 'liberals' who pride themselves on being the champions of reason, science, and progress—and who smear the advocates of capitalism as superstitious, reactionary representatives of a dark past. Move over, comrades, and make room for your latest fellow-travelers, who had always belonged on your side—then take a look, if you dare, at the kind of past they represent."

I am in total agreement with this article. The church obliterated the teachings and guiding principals, the results of thousands of years of experience in favor of what was being taught against.
We could aptly call this Crony Christianity, just like the Crony Capitalism he is against but way too compartmentalized to understand that he, just like governments created this problem. Perhaps, he like the ilk that had proceeded him realized they'd be out of work and would have to create value instead of usurping value in order to survive. He, like those that govern are nothing but humanoids; the only true 'Other Race' on this planet.

OK?

Michelangelo is just the thinnest surface. The artwork of the Vatican could, if sold carefully would rake in many billions. Whether you are religious or not, the paintings and statuary can only be termed as glorious. If they ever did sell the art there should be a caveat that they could only be sold to museums or on loan to museums rather than squirreled away and never seen.

Your are not looking at it correctly...

They are saving YOU from the temptation of money. Saving you from eternal damnation, pure altruism on their part.

/sarcasm

Francis may condemn capitalism and its fruit, money, all he likes, however, as stated in the article money is power and we all know that Popes like power and preaching. What came to mind as I was reading, was St Peter's Basilica and the Vatican museum. Anyone who has been there has seen the incredible wealth that the Catholic church sits on. Francis and the Church could lift up the poor and downtrodden and feed the hungry in the world by selling one or two of those Michelangelo's. With all due respect, put your money where your mouth is, Sir.

If money is such a bad thing why the hell does the catholic church beg their followers to give them as much as possible? seems a contradiction to me.

Think about it: could this be an attempt to consolidate the power of the Catholic Church? Like the good old days of the Middle Ages?