Ben Carson is for a religious theocracy

Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 4 months ago to Politics
279 comments | Share | Flag

Ben Carson is not for freedom, he is for enslaving people and he is not intellectually honest since he thinks "our founders were Christians."
SOURCE URL: http://www1.cbn.com/biblestudy/dr.-ben-carson%3A-what-made-america-great%3F


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
    Do you have any kind of policy statement from him to support your stance? I seem to recall a similar accusation being baselessly leveled against Romney as well.

    Is faith an important driver in Dr. Carson's life? Absolutely. But there is a huge difference between that and forcing it on others.

    And by the way, Carson is dead on when he states that the Founders were overwhelmingly Christians. See: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding... for a list of every single founder and their declared affiliation.

    -1 for a baseless attack post. You don't have to like Dr. Carson or vote for him, but both of your accusations here are patently false.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Suzanne43 8 years, 4 months ago
      Right on! It's the Liberals and those against Christianity who want to force their beliefs on us.(Obama and his Marxism is a case in point.) We have a system of separation between church and state. Dr. Carson will follow it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
        Carson is already trying to subvert separation of church and state in his policies to ban the right of abortion and in his attacks on scientific research contrary to his religion. With his preoccupation with religion both personally and in politics there is ample reason to be concerned with what he would do. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... It's a shame he can't keep a religious zealotry out of his politics because in so many other ways he has been an exemplary man.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      Right and Obama does not want to create a Socialist paradise. He never said that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
        Actually, he did say his objective was to fundamentally transform America, and his past actions provided a fairly obvious roadmap.

        Carson's past seems to be one of intellect and individual achievement.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
          FoundingFathers: "Actually, he did say his objective was to fundamentally transform America, and his past actions provided a fairly obvious roadmap."

          He threw out the "fundamentally transform" line to his base at a political rally, but never 'elaborated' on what he meant by it. Progressives typically deny that he is a socialist with the sophistry of claiming he is not implementing government ownership of "all" means of production (and never mind the essence of what he is doing and would do if he had more power). They also do not recognize that his fascism is itself a form of socialism. There is more than enough in his past to figure out his ideological statism and collectivism, including his Marxist upbringing, Alinskyite "organizing", affinity to terrorist Ayers, specific actions with pen as president, "you didn't build that", past membership in an explicitly socialist party, etc., but most people don't take ideas seriously enough to integrate and assess what he is and the consequences.

          db is looking at Carson's fundamental premises to assess what he is even though Carson does not think of himself as a theocrat and would not be able to or want to implement a full across the board theocracy. It is the fundamental premises that are incrementally killing us, one step at a time. Carson is an impressive individual, but has alarming false premises and confusions. He has a lot of explaining to do about what he would do and why instead of the constant religious zealotry if he is to be taken seriously as a better candidate.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
            To be clear, I'm not for a President Carson... Cruz is the better choice.

            My challenge is to the assertion of theocracy. There doesn't seem to be anything in his history to call into question his devotion to The Constitution (far cry from O, Clintons, or any liberal for that matter).

            He also seems to be sincere in his Christian faith, which is another reason to challenge the theocracy assertion. Christianity is antithetical to tyranny. Christianity is about willingly coming to God, not being forced to convert or die.

            Again, this discussion isn't about tenants of any faith, it's about an assertion of Carson/theocracy that has not been supported by facts.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
              The danger of Christian faith and "coming to God" to a free society have been explained many times. Religion is most certainly not "antithetical to tyranny" as has been illustrated over and over throughout history, with the reasons why very well understood. The problem with Carson regarding his sincerity is that he is so sincere about a fanatical religious belief.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 4 months ago
                ... and that's one thing that really bothers me about Conservatives who identify themselves as Objectivists or Libertarians...

                If you think you have the right, power or wisdom to make decisions for Other People, you should not identify yourself with either of those labels.

                Supporting Capital Punishment and opposing Gay Rights or Abortion Choice are two prime examples, even if you say you like lower taxes and 'smaller government.'

                Those are NOT examples of 'lower government intrusion into individuals' lives.'
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
          Achievement in what area that is related to being president? Prayer meetings?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
            If being a world-renowned neuro-surgeon and the first to ever successfully separate conjoined twins doesn't get him invited to a place among the Producers, I don't know what would. To top that he was the youngest ever to achieve Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the prestigious Johns Hopkins medical center.

            Methinks you're so busy complaining about the man's faith that you are allowing it to completely override any logic or reason you claim to operate on. He didn't perform surgery based on faith, but by application of sound medical principles, some of which he pioneered!

            Have you read his story about growing up and how he went from having terrible grades to being tops in his class because his mother forced him to spend time reading instead of watching television? And how he bucked the overwhelming trend of black incarceration (Carson's father left at age 8) and instead became an enormously productive citizen?

            Good grief, man. Bury your hatchet! It's as if you simply refuse to acknowledge anything good about someone of faith out of nothing more than spite. That's pure bigotry and hatred - hardly the hallmarks of an Objectivist.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
              We know what Ben Carson's life accomplishments have been. The question was about the relation to what we need in politics in particular. It is not that db is "so busy complaining about the man's faith" but rather that Carson himself his too busy promoting faith in place of rationally defending our individual freedom and telling us how he would try to do it in practice.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
                You, too, need to bury your hatchet. You hate people who aren't atheists like yourself. You can't tolerate that anyone might think - let alone know - that there is more out there.

                You don't have to agree with Dr. Carson. You don't have to agree with me. But you could make an effort to disagree politely. Tolerance starts with tolerance.

                I'm also noticing that your posts mysteriously are all winding up with an extra thumbs up, even though no one has even responded to many of them. So tell me, who is upvoting your posts?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 8 years, 4 months ago
                  blarman- How would evw know who is giving points?
                  Anyway, one of the secret up-pointers of some of ewv's posts is me, as I have for some of yours.
                  Comment on 'there is more out there'. This argument for obscurantism has been demolished both by Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 4 months ago
                  And in the same vein, blarman, you keep leaving me with the impression that You Hate People Who ARE Atheists...

                  My browser won't let me vote for my own posts OR vote more than once for anyone else's...

                  Does your system work differently?

                  Maybe the Galt's Gulch site programmers should look into copying a technique from FaceBook... if you Like a page or a comment, names are displayed in alt-text if you hover the votes.

                  Would That be a solution for you?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 4 months ago
        db, if you mean to say he never used Exactly Those Words, I could easily grant you that, but from my years of observing Obama and hearing his speeches, much like Carson in an opposite way, "it walks, talks and smells like a duck," so I'm not having a lot of trouble identifying it as a Duck.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
        So...devout Christians have no business running for the office of the President of the United States? I am surprised at your stance on this db. What other limitations do you pose?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
          Devout religionists of any sect are threat to our rights as president of the country to the extent that they take faith and religion seriously, for the same reason that Ben Carson gave for why he (properly) could not support a Muslim.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
          He has not platform, no ideas, the only reason to vote for him is that you want a religious theocracy, instead of a socialist theocracy. The difference is less than zip shit over infinity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
            I disagree. I am not saying I support him, but I think he has more going on than just his religion. I actually am a Rand Paul fan, somewhat. They all disappoint in one way or another.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
          At times, this forum is beginning to remind me of dining with a vegan.

          The third rail is questioning questioning one syllable of Rand. Ironically, many in the gulch have replaced The Bible with Atlas Shrugged and then chastise Christians as being dogmatic.

          Rand was no doubt a great thinker, but her wisdom doesn't exceed the thousand years of human history.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 4 months ago
    All of Carson's comments, writing and expressions are populist, pandering, Rah-Rah, evangelical, conservative, I'm a better Black Man, with no meaningful content for liberty.

    He promotes adding a second health insurance program to citizens to cover costs up to a few thousand with Obamacare converted to a single payer for catastrophic care.

    He never talks about our losses of rights by Bush or Obama. He doesn't seem to care about our loss of privacy from government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 4 months ago
      The rights of the individual are far removed from his center of focus.

      +1
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
        and now he is moot on his earlier stance of gun control. He is all over the map.AS President, he would be a wild card. I do not trust that he would not raise taxes and take away more freedoms. Also he is green with no experience managing large groups of people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 4 months ago
          I figured he would be one of those but-heads. IE; "i'm pro gun, BUT...". As I said in another comment, "when you have faith, anything is possible." And now we know how his faith is going to work,
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
            I thought he was weak in yesterday's debate. He stumbled and mumbled. I am flummoxed why his numbers are so high.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 4 months ago
              You are right. Everybody else seems to be getting their shit together and Carson... Not so much. But I think he is stealing the "outsider" votes from Trump and the religious base is still huge. I'd like to say I'm disappointed in him but really, I knew it was coming.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 4 months ago
    If I kept getting down on my knees as often as Carson indicates, I'd need to hire someone with the job of just getting me back on my feet. Here's the caveat: Compared to all of the candidates, he is better than most. I think we know by now that there is not going to be a candidate who is 100% acceptable from an Objectivist point of view. The best we can do is to get someone as close to that 100% as possible. If you can't accept that, you are ready to drop out, sit in the corner, and eat worms.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 4 months ago
      I tend to agree with Herb. While I would prefer a candidate who had religion less central to their life (a declared a-religious person would have more problem being elected), I am willing to accept someone who both recognizes the problems that I consider important and has reasonable answers for them. I do not know that I will vote for Ben - that will depend on the final lineup - but I do not exclude him.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
        I suspect that today electability has to do more with money and contributions from supporters who expect benefits after their candidate is elected. Religious people will like Carson, thinking he will act in accordance with their version of "God". An avowed atheist would horrify these same people. I like trump because he Is a political outsider and knows how to pick employees to get the job done of managing the country. Obama is a Muslim- which guides his actions. Hillary is some sort of corporate socialist who has supporters to satisfy. This race is about personal packaging to show potential donors he/she could get 50+% of the electoral college votes if they donated money to his/her campaign- and then pushed their agendas
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
        I'm curious what the objection is to a person whose world view is guided by the moral compass of Judeo Christian values, as the Founding Fathers were (and on which The Constitution was based). I think it would be hard to dispute that America under Reagan's leadership wasn't too bad.

        I'm by NO means advocating to a theocracy. Like Carson, I believe The Constitution is the law of the land, That said, it's informed by the moral compass of the Judeo-Christian principles of Western Society.

        My question continues to be, on what did dbhaling base the assertion of Ben Carson wanting a theocracy (original post)?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
          The Constitution and the founding of this country were not based on Christianity. They were a result of the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and individualism overthrowing the grip of the Church in western civilization. See Bernard Bailyn's The Ideology of the American Revolution, and Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels on the parallels between America and rise of nazism in Germany (which was a heavily religious nation) in philosophy and political consequences.

          The founding ideas of America were the rights of the individual to his own life, liberty, property and pursuit of his own happiness here on earth in accordance with his own reason in choosing his own goals, free of authoritarian controls. Christianity demanded duty to serve a supernatural god; renunciation of reason, of happiness and of life on earth; sacrifice to others; and an ethics of duty and submission across the board in the form of dogmatic commandments. It was primarily other worldly and mystical, with duty to others on earth as a distant second. It was the philosophy of the entrenched ignorance and stagnation of the Dark and Middle Ages, not America. Christian mysticism, duty, sacrifice on earth as a way of life, and other worldliness did not and could not possibly intellectually lead to the American ideals of achieving happiness on earth under a system of capitalism and material values, which religionists have continued to denounce for centuries. It is also not what most Americans who consider themselves to be "Christian" take seriously in their own lives, even while they embrace the worst ethical premises of self-sacrifice, with deadly consequences.

          The Enlightenment did not completely eradicate religion or altruistic ethics, but to the extent that intellectuals paid lip service to its premises -- with no solution to it in philosophy, especially in ethics -- the accomplishment of the founding of America was in spite of, not because of, the remnants of the religious mentality. It was not accomplished by the remaining most fervent mystics, evangelists and Bible thumpers. The founders were generally ardent admirers of Newtonian science and reason. (See I. Bernard Cohen's Science and the Founding Fathers) Christianity played no role in the founding Enlightenment political philosophy and principles of government.

          The Bible is not the basis of the Constitution. The few references to religious notions related to founding documents were not specifically Christian, like the deistic notion a creator (in the Declaration), were deliberately vague, and played no actual role in the ideas, nor could they have in any logical way.

          Ben Carson and other religious conservatives who constantly push religion in their politics are not only intellectually ignorant of the historical and philosophical basis of a free society, they are a threat to it. See Ayn Rand's "Conservatism: An Obituary" in her Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. They continue to inject and dominate irrelevant religious dogma into political discussions that not only cannot support a free society but undermine it. Yet the ugly trend has been to progressively increase pushing this nonsense rather than leave their religious beliefs private.

          Ben Carson in particular appears to allowing his religious obsessions to take over everything he does, now in politics. He has said little about the policies he would pursue, in part because he pushes religion instead. He emphasizes his professed religious righteousness (mixed with some crackpot history and philosophy) at the expense of rational defense of individualism and freedom, and in place of discussing policy for serious national problems -- as if to say, 'I am religious so whatever I do will be good and never mind what that may be'. The exceptions have been his revealing his sweeping, dogmatic attacks on a woman's right of abortion and denunciations on religious grounds of certain kinds of scientific research. Whether or not he has good ideas that have yet to be expressed, this is not promising as he uses religion to rationalize interfering in highly personal choices not made in accordance with his religion.

          For all his success as a surgeon, and because that is where he dedicated his time, he does not appear to understand much at all of political philosophy and the kinds of problems we face. (Has he ever mentioned property rights?) Previous interviews with him -- a few years before he became famous for opposing Obamacare at an official presidential prayer meeting -- show him as rather conventional in altruistic-based establishment government. He now appears to be trying to catch up on his lack of certain kinds of important knowledge by listening to anti-intellectual stock conservatives who have his ear. Whether or not he thinks of himself as a theocrat (which he apparently does not), he badly mixes his espousal of the Constitution with incompatible religious dogma. If he were not doing that, he would not be promoting the religious restrictions he advocates. The problem is not that he is explicitly anti-Constitution on principle but rather that he doesn't know the difference.

          Neither Carson nor anyone else electable could turn this country into a full blown theocracy within a presidential term of office, and he is very mixed and would not want to. But everywhere he pursues religious restrictions while ignoring reform of already existing government abuse is another nail in the coffin of this country. He could be expected to worsen the entrenchment of altruistic-based welfare statism across the board, intellectually unable to challenge it, and he could be expected to promote specifically religious agendas such as suppressing abortion rights wherever he could get away with it and to follow Bush's ugly precedent in discriminating against stem cell research on religious grounds (while doing nothing to alleviate government funding controlling research). Whatever else he might try do on top of it as consequence of his fundamental religious premises and which he dares not announce in advance, that attack on science alone is a mind boggling theocratic precedent to build on. Any of this religious fanaticism pushed in politics is enough to frighten reasonable people into either not voting or running from him, pushing the country into the arms of a Hillary Clinton.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by Bethesda-gal 8 years, 4 months ago
            Well that's quite an anti-Carson screed. So it sounds like you believe there are no boundaries reasonable to establish regarding abortion procedures or funding ? You are a Dr Gosnell supporter ?
            I don't recall hearing Ben Carson mention his religious position even once in the debate last night.
            I'm still deciding on which candidate is my first choice, but Ben Carson and his religiously grounded morality certainly is not my last choice.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
              Caron has been promoting his religion in his campaign for many months. It makes no difference that you didn't hear it in the most recent debate. I did not write a "screed". Your post is nonresponsive.

              The "boundary" of abortion is pre-birth. Your false insinuation that I support murdering babies is an irrational personal smear and is morally despicable.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Bethesda-gal 8 years, 4 months ago
                This is a unique experience in my life - being in the position of supporting a non-pro choice argument! I'm making no personal smears as I'm not stating what your position is, you are. But if your boundary of abortion not being murder is simply "pre-birth" then yes I submit that that boundary does include murder, and is actually already illegal in most if not all states if performed up to “pre-birth". Drawing the line of what is or isn't murder geographically and not biologically is illogical. The issue of abortion I think can logically be distilled to life versus not life. Some believe life begins at birth I think because they honor the "illogical" religious spiritual component of the "miracle" of fertilization. I respect their right to have that belief even though I do not share it and would protest against that standard being imposed upon me because it is derived from a religious belief that I do not share, and not from any objective logical medical standard or criteria. But it cannot be disputed that viable is viable, irrespective of biological geography and in fact that is mostly what the current law follows, with some exceptions for the life of the mother, but not always then. The women who went to Gosnell and the procedures for which he was prosecuted were seeking what he called "abortions". His conviction was due to his killing the baby once it was outside the woman's body but was no different than the late term abortions in which the fully formed baby of greater than 24 weeks’ gestation is killed inside the woman's body - and then delivered either whole or in pieces. After 24 weeks this is illegal in most if not all states. It is illogical to say that conducing an abortion up until birth (which can occur far later than preemies are able to survive) just because it isn't outside the womb isn't murder. Again, religious beliefs, which seem to be offensive to some in this forum, are not the foundation of my position as I do not observe any religious practices or customs nor have I at any time in my life. My position is based on a basic sense of humanity which is independent of the "illogical" faith of any religion. To take this discussion back to area in which it began, a presidential candidate openly owning his or her basic sense of humanity is not offensive to me, even if it does happen to be based on religion, as in the case of Carson. As long as I'm not imposed upon by another's religious ( or social, economic, lifestyle or other) beliefs I do not feel threatened or object to them holding their beliefs. And I think Carson made clear that he put the Constitution and Bill of Rights (ie. rule of law) over religion when he said he would not support a Muslim as president unless that person made clear that they would honor and obey American rule of law over Muslim's sharia law. I'm generally a pro-choice, live and let live person with everything - that people should do what seems right for them as long as it doesn’t negatively impact me living my life as I choose to. But I also believe it is reasonable and just that society has to be willing to sometimes make some distinctions, such as those that already exist in abortion laws today, far before the line of "pre-birth".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -2
            Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
            To paraphrase Reagan, it's not that you're wrong, it's that you know so much that just isn't so.

            There's a profound difference between "the church" with the pilgrims/colonists were renouncing and Judeo-Christian morality. You seem to be throwing everything you can think of against the wall and hoping something will stick.

            There's simply no getting around the fact that the Founding Father were deeply religious men, and it was their belief that our natural rights come from our Creator that guided in the founding principles. Belief in our Creator and reason are not mutually exclusive. Again, one need look no further than their assertion of where our natural rights derive.

            This may differ from your philosophy, but simply wanting an apple to be an orange doesn't make it so... A is A.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
              Faith in the supernatural and reason are opposites. Yes they are mutually exclusive. Reason versus faith are opposing concepts.

              When we look at what the founders of this country thought about the nature of our rights we find that it was John Locke, not Christianity. They did not make mystical assertions pronouncing rights with no understanding, and no appeals to Christian dogma are or could ever be a defense of the rights of the individual.

              Your personal attacks and misrepresentations reveal that at best you have no understanding of what I wrote. Your post is non-responsive. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's ideas, not militant religionists attacking them with religious conservative dogma. If you can't retrain yourself then you do not belong here. Your repeated appeals to Christian moral duty and faith do not add to the discussion and are contrary to the goals and guidelines for this forum.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
                This is a forum for civilized debate, and I've made no "attacks". What I have done is point out that the Founding Fathers were guided by their faith and their reason. The historical record on this is abundantly clear. If anyone doubts this, I can only suggest said individuals read the writings of the Founders themselves.

                One might also take note of Washington's first Thanksgiving proclamation and the chruch services conducted in the Capitol building during Jefferson's tenure as President.

                America was not founded as a theocracy (quite the contrary), but to say its Founding Fathers were not guided by their faith and the fact that our natural rights come from our Creator is to ignore documented history.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 4 months ago
              Well, FF, I think one might be able to have the belief that there Was A Creator and maybe that there Is A God, but when the chips are down nowadays, people who claim we're based on "Judeo-Christian morality" somehow seem to always gravitate back to Jesus Is My Saviour, Belief In Christ is The Only True Way, and so on.

              That's one reason I can't see the 'logic' in your 'arguments.' It still keeps walking and quacking like a duck! A Christian Fundamentalist Evangelical Duck.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
                On what moral foundation is Western Civilization based? On what moral foundation was the Declaration of Independence based?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 4 months ago
                  FF, if that kind of question had an answer that was clear, universal and unambiguous, 'discussions' like this one would have been over about 200+ years ago.

                  Please don't assume we're all evil because we don't agree with you. Rand had very little use for or support of Religion, and while there are many 'believers' in this group, many Objectivists (let alone atheists) have some pretty 'strongly held opinions' on the subject and many will appear to be strongly In Disagreement with some of the positions you've taken.

                  How many books have been written in the past century or two to try to answer the kind of question you're posing?

                  If the answer is obvious, where's the consensus? There isn't any because 'consensus' of 'agreement' is NOT "proof." It's just a group of folks who agree with each other on some topic.

                  And in many similar situations, one person's interpretation of What The Founding Fathers Really Meant may not hold any water for the next person in line.

                  Personally, I espouse the Socratic Method of asking questions in the search for Root Cause of an issue or problem. Believers don't tend to stick around for discussions like that, in my many years of experience.

                  I would venture that there Just Might be something they're Afraid Of. I wish they'd stick around long enough to keep peeling the layers off that onion.

                  Cheers!
                  https://www.plusaf.com/
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 4 months ago
          db also rejects the Scottish Enlightenment and its philosophers (Locke, Hume, Mill, Adam Smith). Most of the Founders, particularly Jefferson and Paine, believed in their ideas, too. As do I (minus the religion). (Indeed, all the grievances in the Declaration of Independence were an attempt to prove that the conditions of the "right of revolution" spelt out in Locke's Two Treatises of Government had been satisfied.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmiranda 8 years, 4 months ago
    Our founders were people of faith. How you come up with a theocracy and enslaving people by Ben Carson or any of the candidates is a real stretch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      No the historical record is very clear that the US was founded on reason and natural rights. The revisionist history by christians is intellectually dishonest and not at all surprising given that they are not interested in facts only faith.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by kddr22 8 years, 4 months ago
        "fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God:because , if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bsmith51 8 years, 4 months ago
        From what/where did the founders say those "natural [inalienable] rights" came? The answer, found in the Declaration of Independence, negates your argument. So who is being "intellectually dishonest" here?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
          "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" refers to natural rights of everyone in accordance with our nature of human beings as such, regardless of the ultimate source of our creation. It is typical Enlightenment phrasing emphasizing natural rights understandable through reason and as a moral standard by which to evaluate any government action. It is not a statement of Christian dogma. The particular means by which we got here is to be determined by science, not dogmatic decree and mysticism. However we got here, we are here and have a specific nature as human beings with specific requirements to live. The statement in the Declaration had to be left general in that respect. The science of evolution had not yet been developed, nor is it required for a philosophical formulation of ethics and rights. The founders thinking in political philosophy and the nature of government were strongly influenced by the Enlightenment, in particular Locke, not Christian dogma. See Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and this comment on this page: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Bethesda-gal 8 years, 4 months ago
        I could find nothing in the link you provided to support your accusation that Carson seeks to establish a religious theocracy. Can you point to the basis of your claim ?
        For the record, I am not Christian, nor am I observant of any faith, but I ardently defend the religious liberty of others to practice their religion without government interference. Or to be free to not practice any religion. I find the PC opposition to anyone expressing or even admitting to any religious connection much more troubling than any presidential candidates profession of personal faith.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
          Carson is not just "admitting" to holding a religion, he is promoting it in politics. See this comment on this same page https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post.... He is of course free to practice whatever personal beliefs he has in his own life, but not to use them to impose religious based restrictions on the rest of us with the force of government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by wmiranda 8 years, 4 months ago
        Some people don't believe in anything and can't stand anyone that does. That's intellectually honest? If a person doesn't believe, don't worry about it... they will. I reason, therefore, I have faith. Can you wrap your mind around that fact? The biggest revisionist of history have become prominent in the last 10-15 years. Can you reason why? Hint: It has nothing to do with Christianity.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 4 months ago
          I have no belief in the existence of a god, i.e., I am an atheist. I have met with that "... people who don't believe in anything... " type of statement many times. That statement by a believer in god seems to imply that "belief" is just something that a theist does. People have all kinds of beliefs about reality. Some are rational with facts to back them up and some have nothing but faith based on nothing but "I have faith, to hell with facts of reality."
          Reasoning with false propositions and then believing the results of such reason is faith. It is easy for a person to get into such a trance state by suspending one's critical faculty and thinking selectively. Your " Can you wrap your mind around that fact?" is an example of such a mental state.
          What I do not get is why so many conservatives and other theists are hanging out at a site dealing with Ayn Rand and Objectivism which by its nature has no supernatural aspects to it and thus nowhere to place a god which would create existence, i.e., the natural world.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
            lrshultis: "What I do not get is why so many conservatives and other theists are hanging out at a site dealing with Ayn Rand and Objectivism which by its nature has no supernatural aspects to it and thus nowhere to place a god which would create existence, i.e., the natural world."

            This goes beyond the metaphysical aspects of creationism as a substitute for science and rational understanding. It also includes the embracing of faith as a means of knowledge in rejection of reason (including false and contradictory claims of rationalizing faith in the name of reason), duty and sacrifice as ethical premises, and in politics the promotion of government to interfere with people's personal lives and work conflicting with religion dogma.

            There are two aspects to this. One is that a number of people have enough good in them that they are attracted to the sense of life and at least some of the principles of Atlas Shrugged despite the influence of religion. Almost everyone is subjected to that to some extent from a very early age, and remnants or worse are often retained later in life, making it difficult to sort out without a proper education. This results in genuine confusion even by some who like Ayn Rand and would like to understand. That can only become straightened out through rational discussion for those open to it and not so emotionally programmed that they refuse to question fundamental concepts and methods of thinking.

            The other aspect is the handful of militant religious conservatives hostile to Ayn Rand's ideas who think they are supposed to push their nonsense here in some kind of battle despite the fact that it is contrary to the purpose and guidelines of the forum. They are destructive and don't belong here at all.

            Taken together, it is true that this forum intended for Ayn Rand's ideas is too often dominated by stock conservative dogma or the current fad in slogans. It has kept a number of more serious people interested in Ayn Rand from participating because the boring nonsense makes it not worth it. That of course is what the militants want.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
              What I do not get is why some on this forum think pragmatism is objectivism. Just because some "truths" and/or "facts" are not known to you does not mean they do not exist. Some of us on this forum have had physical, real, factual events occur in their life that proves the existence of God that goes beyond faith. There are natural and physical laws at work on this planet and in the universe that you actually do not understand. There are parts of our brain and abilities of our brain that are not understood and that we do not fully use. So please, stop with the elitist mentality.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
                Objectivism is fundamentally opposed to Pragmatism. Who do you think is equating them?

                The fact that we are not omniscient and so do not know everything about the universe is not a justification for faith in the supernatural. There are no facts that justify leaping to supernatural beliefs. That you do not understand everything means that you don't understand it, not that making up religious dogma explains the rest. "God did it" is not explanation. When you don't understand something it's time to top talking about it as if you do.

                Insisting on reason is not an "elitist mentality". Your personal hostility does not belong here. If you can't accept that Ayn Rand rejected all forms of the supernatural and the accompanying religion then there are many other places you can go to promote your religion.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 4 months ago
                ... "Some of us on this forum have had physical, real, factual events occur in their life that proves the existence of God that goes beyond faith"...

                and what some of us have trouble 'wrapping our minds around' is that Those Events and Experiences just never seem to be documented, accurately reported, proven Or Replicable in Any Way, Shape Or Form!

                Sorry, it's the 'scientist in me' that really likes to see reproducability, evidentiary documentation and proof and 'shit like that' Before I can agree with what People Believe.

                There are tons of things "we can't prove or understand" but unless that phrase is followed immediately by the word "YET", someone is heading in the direction of Faith and Belief on you and suddenly Proof will be irrelevant to the alleged 'discussion.'
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
                  I appreciate your Objectivist response instead of the emotional tirades like some others' responses. Thank you and +1. Documenting or making facts reproducible to prove the existence of God is a tough one, but it is done daily by many. It is possible to talk to God and it does, in fact, happen. God is not some unknowable phantom. You will call me crazy, I know, but I have heard his voice in that part of my brain that is rarely used. It was very clear what he said to me and it is now an experience that is part of me and has taken me beyond just faith. I am not schizophrenic. I am an Objectivist and the belief in God is not emotional or mystical. I am an individual, with my own mind, my own research, and I am on my own journey and search for truth.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 4 months ago
                    thanks for your comments and description of your experience.

                    I'm not schizophrenic either, and I've never had any such similar experience. I like proofs and replication of experiments, but have never seen any reasonable data to show me a reason to not be an atheist.

                    And, unlike many Theists of all flavors, I can be a kind, ethical, generous, loving person AND be an atheist at the same time. And I don't believe that I'm all that unusual... :)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by wmiranda 8 years, 4 months ago
            I like Ayn Rand. I know she was an atheist, at least until she died. I have all three movies of Atlas Shrugged, I've read the book, I've heard the audiobook several times, and my youngest son and I have had long discussions over it. He named his dog, a female German Shepherd, Dagne to honor the character. I also have the Fountainhead and Anthem. I enjoy the forum and most topics discussed. Some, I can take them or leave them. That's why I hang around this forum. But I still believe in and am grateful every day to God. I consider myself a man of faith. If someone can't "wrap your mind around that", it's okay with me. I can and I became a better person when I did. The funny thing is that many atheist are too preoccupied with NOT believing in God. That is a "mental state", as you said, that has me baffled. I'm a carnivore. It doesn't mean I don't eat vegetables. Or that I don't sit at the table to eat with my vegan friends.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
              You should read the non-fiction books to understand Ayn Rand's philosophy that made Atlas Shrugged possible and which it represents.

              Faith is the opposite of reason, not something that results from it. Atheism is a-theism, a rejection of belief in the supernatural, not a preoccupation. It is understood through reason, not "wrapping" one's mind around contradictions to embrace them. It becomes politically relevant to emphasize in defending against theocratic attempts to impose faith based government restrictions. It becomes philosophically important to discuss when it is misrepresented by religionists or when someone is genuinely confused and needs to rationally discuss it. None of this is "preoccupation".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -2
              Posted by Lucky 8 years, 4 months ago
              "I like Ayn Rand. I know she was an atheist, at least until she died."
              What arrogance.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by wmiranda 8 years, 4 months ago
                What arrogance? First time I've ever been accused of arrogance. Sorry you read offense into a statement that meant nothing more than the content of the words in the sentence. I believe when you and I die, we go meet our maker. If that is my belief, even if not yours and you can't accept it, who is arrogant then?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
                  This is a forum for Ayn Rand's ideas, not promoting religion. Your statement is arrogant and inappropriate because it insinuates that Ayn Rand's ideas became something else after she died, somehow within herself, which is nonsensical. It is not "arrogance" to reject mysticism and anti Ayn Rand ideology as a supposed basis for You can believe whatever you want to but religious promotion does not belong here.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by wmiranda 8 years, 4 months ago
                    Are you still on that? I've shaken the dust of my feet on that subject. No one is promoting religion. You've interpreted it as a promotion of religion. Nevertheless, you win, I'm out on this subject. I'll believe I'll meet my maker when I die, if you don't mind, and accept your belief that you your consciousness will blink out like a light bulb instead, which I don't mind. Ayn Rand was an atheist, I believe she would loved to have had this discussion presenting her point of view as only she could. However, you call people arrogant because you disagree, reject any discussion and would like to shut down the discussion you disagree with. Today the news is replete with anti-first amendment right in the institutions of higher learning. What a twist. I am certain Ms. Rand would have joined the discussion in favor of the first amendment. Well you have good luck with that too.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 4 months ago
                  W, implying that Rand might have 'changed her mind After She Died" is about as NOT A=A as one can be.
                  It's a belief, unprovable at all, and about as weak a proof or justification for your continuing 'belief' as pretty much anything you could say!

                  Until She Died has all the implications in it of a "I'm right, but we all have to die in order to see that I am/was Right." Poppycock!

                  That's the core of Belief... A strongly-held opinion in the absence of any tangible proof.

                  As long as A=A, anything resembling 'after-death experiences, revelations or 'truths' ' absolutely should have no traction here!

                  After All (so to speak), if there IS a 'heaven', why doesn't everyone's 'near-death experiences' tend to have anything in common???.... sure, they see their dear, departed relatives and all that, but shouldn't they all see the same surrounding environments? Same trees, lakes, clouds? Or are there lots of different 'heavens' where you will go, depending on ... what?!

                  Trying to answers to questions like those suck one down a rabbit-hole of fantasy in which only "Believers" can Find Common Truth. And even That is 'uncommon.'

                  Yep, and I CAN wrap MY mind around That! :)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by Lucky 8 years, 4 months ago
                  Only an arrogant prig would make a statement on what Rand's religion was after her death.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by wmiranda 8 years, 4 months ago
                    You have to read your own posts before you start calling people "arrogant prig". And you just made my point. I really don't care what you do or do not believe. Rand was an atheist. She died. To you that should be the end of discussion. But you continue as if you have your own doubts and can't stand the possibility of being wrong. What arrogance.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
            As one of those conservative theists, I will tell you why I not only "hang out" here, but have been a paid member for more than two years. Because with the exception of posts like this one of db's and a few others, the vast majority of people here actually use the gray matter between their ears. I don't expect to agree 100% with anyone I meet. But for the most part, the people here are intellectually advanced enough to reasonably contemplate both sides of any particular issue and come to a reasonable conclusion while avoiding the trite ad hominem attacks (name-calling) and other logical fallacies. Most people on this site are more concerned with what is right than they are who is right. I find that not only refreshing, but well worth my patronage.

            The other thing I would add is that if you are only looking for people who agree with you 100%, you're looking for an incredibly boring and non-existent world. One of the great things about life is the vast variety of people! We couldn't laugh at the idiots if there weren't any. We couldn't pan the stupid political decisions if there were no progressives, communists, fascists, etc.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
              Most people are, or should be, concerned with why something is right. Personal attacks like blarman's false claim that db does not use his brain are irrelevant smears and do not belong here.

              Religion is fundamentally antithetical to Ayn Rand's ideas. It is not "refreshing difference". Nor are statists destroying people's lives a "great thing about life" to give blarman something to laugh at.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
                Speaking of personal attacks, I knew you'd show up ewv. And I never said db didn't use his brain, I said that this post was an example of not using one's brain because as I pointed out, db makes two outrageous statements in defaming Dr. Carson that he can not defend.

                Yes, you like to think of yourself as a "pure" Objectivist and that you openly condemn anything and everything else without toleration. That's your decision. My comment was a response specifically to lrshultis. You aren't invited to comment on why I choose to do things. You claim to own your life, so do I. If you want me to have any respect for you owning your opinions, you'd better demonstrate that that goes both ways.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
                  This is a forum for Ayn Rand's ideas, not your religion, your snide personal hostility and feuding, and your subjective misrepresentations. Take it somewhere else.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
    I, too, have heard him say Constitution trumps religion. However, I must ask. Why did Carson sky-rocket to a Presidential platform based on one damned prayer breakfast? Is that not odd to you all? Cruz is also religious. He has a detailed platform, articulated and verified. Casrosn is running on his breif fame and that he appears to be a solid gent. NOT ENOUGH FOR PRESIDENT
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
      Cruz has an untrammeled record of conservatism and adherence to The Constitution. Reagan was a man of unwavering faith as well, me thinks he was a pretty good President.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph-C-Moore 8 years, 4 months ago
    I have been a Libertarian for many years (but not enough). The The democrats are now socialist/Marxists, the right are now big government elitists collaborating with the left to dismantle the Constitution of our Republic so that the World Government "elites" will rule. Look what the Neo-con party did to Dr. Ron Paul. Both parties, not withstanding their disingenuous rhetoric are destroying the country. The one truly patriotic (appearing) candidate is the constitutionally ineligible Ted Cruz, but the elections no longer are representative of the electorate as evidenced by the MASSIVE fraud perpetrated on the public of the puppet Obama (of the aformentioned "elites") World Government to come. Our founding fathers have given their all to generations of imbeciles who disregard history. We are now run by blithering numbskulls who would throw away liberty and autonomy for the the security blanket of the self proclaimed wise men of the New World Order.I am thoroughly disgusted with what political, power mad greed has wrought.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
    To be clear, the founders were Christians. The historical record of the colonies/settlers, as well as the writings of the Founding Fathers, is resoundingly clear on this.

    To address your point, though, what has Ben Carson said that makes you think he's for a religious theocracy?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 4 months ago
      The record is abundantly clear the founding fathers, as distinct from those who came to Plymouth Rock, were NOT Christians. I am surprised to see a person at the Gulch make this commonly Christian misstatement of facts, but I suggest a better review of history. The most famous of the "fathers" were Deist, agnostic, or atheist --- something quite modern for so long a time ago when even bacteria were unknown.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
        Also, to be clear is getting a little afield from the assertion of the post, which was accusing Dr. Carson of wanting a theocracy, which is 180 degrees from his statements.

        He has stated emphatically, and on multiple occasions, that The Constitution is America's governing document. The basis for the Constitution, and the natural rights if affords, was the Founding Fathers belief in Judeo-Christian faith and morality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
        I'm afraid you're falling prey to revisionist history. I refer you to the above John Adams quote, the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and virtually all of the signers of the DOC.

        The whole notion of natural rights (the fundamental pillar of the DOC and The Constitution) comes from the belief that we're endowed with them by our Creator. To reject the notion that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values is to fundamentally misunderstand the founders.

        And to be clear, a deist is one who believes in creation but does not believe that God interferes with our day to day lives.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 4 months ago
          I disagree with what you say, except you did get the idea generally about a deist. Other than that, you sound like a Bible thumper to me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
            It's my understanding that the Gulch has rules against ad hominem attacks. Instead of attempting personally insult, perhaps you could debate using actual facts.

            What part of "endowed by their Creator" is problematic? The Founding Fathers seemed to think it quite important.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 4 months ago
              I should have said "Christian Apologist" instead of "Bible Thumper." Sorry, The history of Endowed by their Creator was a compromise wording. Note in the Constitution the only oath set forth is that of president and any reference to a god is not there. And, only a few years after the Constitution was ratified, the Treaty of Tripoli specifically gets rid of the notion of Christianity. And, even if the creator reference did refer to some sort of god, it is not relevant to the Constitution.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
                The treaty of tripoli was actually superseded by the treaty of peace and amity, which did not include the language you reference. The language in TOT was actually quite hotly contested at the time.

                That however is a fishing expedition. Of course America is not, and has never been a theocracy. That said, the volume of evidence demonstrating that the Founding Father were devout men of faith and God. Furthermore, the evidence is overwhelming that America (and western civilization) is based on Judeo-Christian principles.

                I'm unclear as to why this is viewed a bad thing. Judeo-Christian beliefs and enlightened thinking are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the greatest scientific minds in history were also men of great faith in God.

                As John Adams stated, our system of government will only work for a religious, moral people. A moral compass is essential to freedom and liberty. Without it, anarchy will rise, followed abruptly by tyranny.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
                  America was not founded on "Judeo-Christian principles". It is historically inaccurate and philosophically impossible because of the clash between what that dogma is and the nature of this country https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

                  The Declaration of Independence did not endorse Christianity https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

                  Christianity with its mysticism and altruism is not the basis of the "moral compass" required for a capitalist society and is antithetical to freedom, not a requirement for it. See Ayn Rand's works.

                  Most great scientists have not been "men of God". To the extent they were religious personally they were able to keep it out of their work. They succeeded in science in spite of religion, not because of it. Those who are truly "men of God" wind up wallowing in asceticism like an Augustine or a Francis of Assisi.

                  This is an Ayn Rand forum, not a place to militantly and repeatedly promote religion and its revisionist history.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
                    So you're relegating Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein,.. to the JV science squad???

                    Ayn Rand was a brilliant philosopher, but she didn't walk on water. Her writings do not trump those of Locke, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Einstein, and countless others.

                    You can be a devotee of Rand and still be able to recognize that the Founding Fathers believed our natural rights came from our Creator... that what they themselves wrote. I'm not sure how quoting Rand refutes "endowed by their Creator" inclusion in the seminal founding document.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
                      Your hostility and attacks on Ayn Rand's ideas do not belong on this forum. You are not discussing or trying to understand them. You are misrepresenting and attacking in your hostility and ignorance of Ayn Rand, philosophy and history.

                      The meaning of the phrasing in the Declaration of Independence has already been discussed here and elsewhere on this forum several times and you ignore it. Instead of discussing what is written you make repetitive dogmatic pronouncements and derisive dismissals as you you promote your religious dogma.

                      No one has relegated "Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein to the JV science squad". That is your own snide invention. Take your abusive posts somewhere else.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -2
                        Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
                        The reference to the scientist above was in response to a statement leveled at me about belief in God being antithetical to science.

                        The hostility is entirely incoming, as I've not personally attacked anyone.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 4 months ago
                  There are some people I have found are more interested in spouting off (slang for pontificating) than in an actual discussion. This, in my view is due to the "compartmentalization" described by Shermer or the cognitive dissonance reactions discovered by Festinger. Either way, such people waste the one truly irreplaceable resource: time. My time. The subject here has been rehashed so many times and the evidence is so clear, the most polite I can be is to say good night. It is 9:00 pm here in Chile and time to end this.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
              He made an observation based on your inaccurate promotion of religion as the foundation of this country. He gave reasons for his position. That is not an ad hominem argument. This is an Ayn Rand forum, not a place to promote religion.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
                I'm not promoting religion. The history of our founding is what it is. It may be an inconvenient when it collides with your philosophy, but I didn't invent "Endowed by their Creator"...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
                  You are constantly promoting religion and religious conservative dogma. The meaning of "endowed by their creator" in the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with Christianity and the Christian altruist duty ethics you dogmatically promote, as has been explained many times and which you continue to ignore. Ayn Rand explained in detail why she rejected both religion and conservatism. If you are not interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, and history and philosophy beyond Christian dogma and religious conservativism, then please take it somewhere else. Your religious premise are not the basis of discussion and standard of evaluation. You can believe whatever you want to for any reason or non-reason you wish, but it does not belong on this forum.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      No the historical record is very clear that the US was founded on reason and natural rights. The revisionist history by christians is intellectually dishonest and not at all surprising given that they are not interested in facts only faith.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
        You reference "natural rights" as if the notion occurred in a vacuum. The Founding Fathers were committed to natural rights, and recognized that they were the result of a creator, hence the very intentional language: "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights".

        That circle is impossible to square with those who want to jettison Judeo-Christian principles from the founding of this country.

        Again, this is getting away from your original assertion that Dr. Carson wants a theocracy. Can you provide a single example of him advocating for this?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
          Your distortion of history is typical christian
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
            It' not just distortion. It's evasive and dogmatic, with no grasp of causality and explanation in the flow of ideas and historical reasoning.

            It's not typical Christian so much as it's typical of a certain kind of dogmatic pseudo intellectual religious conservative.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
            Again, you make an assertion without facts to support it. I'm not sure how you square the language the Founding Fathers themselves included in the DOI: "endowed by their Creator". Their writings on this matter are voluminous.

            I'm somewhat baffled by the denial of the undeniable. The founders has NO intention of the church driving America, but they assert that they were not guided by their faith is contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No serious scholar can deny it.

            But again, we've gone beyond the scope of your initial assertion about Carson. But there, too, he (Carson) has stated emphatically that The Constitution should be the law of the land.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 4 months ago
              You are "baffled" by the fact that people stand up to your dogmatic religious conservatism and reject your pronouncements. All of what you claim is assertion without facts has been discussed previously and you continue to ignore it. You are evasive and dogmatic. If you can't discuss these ideas here then take your pronouncements somewhere else. There are many places you can go.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
                I've provided multiple historical references to the Founding Fathers resounding faith and how it guided them in developing the framework our country's founding. Their writings are voluminous if you would like to do some additional home study.

                What baffles me is the insistence of some in denying historical fact to make America comport with Rand's philosophy. Rand was not a Founding Father. Had she been around at the time, she may have had profound arguments with the likes of Adams, Washington, and Jefferson.

                You may not like the fact that faith and belief in natural rights coming from our Creator was part of the Founders guiding beliefs, but your dislike does not change the facts.

                Again, this is far afield of the initial assertion of the discussion about Carson and theocracy.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
        That is such a prejudicial statement! And you say the illegal immigrants have a problem?? Please do not describe millions of people as not being interested in facts. That is just not true.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
        It was founded by Christians but with an emphasis on natural rights - the rights they believed emanated from the Creator as per the Declaration of Independence. But the emphasis was on creating a secular government that respected the rights of everyone to select their own philosophy or religion without facing persecution from the Federal government. They didn't want another situation like they saw in England with the Church of England or any of the other nations of Europe who supported government-sponsored religion.

        Those are the facts. Read the Federalist Papers or the Antifederalist Papers. Read the journals of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or any of the others. They were spiritual men, but they staunchly held to the belief that belief could not and should not be enforced by government fiat. That belief was ensconced as the First Amendment and the explicit prohibition on a religious test for government service.

        You seem to have the opinion that nothing good ever came of those who professed faith. If that's how you want to view 99.99% of this world's occupants, that's up to you. But even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 8 years, 4 months ago
    That's a true statement. Very few of them were Christians. Most were masons. Masonary ISN'T Christianity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
      yea, also mystic :)
      a little satanic if you ask me
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
        There is a town in England NW of London a bit where the church has a large gold ball on top of he spire. That's where the local Hellfire Club met. High Wycombe. Had to think a moment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by UncommonSense 8 years, 4 months ago
        Totally satanic: Masons cannot serve two masters. Masons worship "The Great Architect Of The Universe". What do architects do? Build crap from existing things/material.

        Notice they WON'T worship the CREATOR of all things & material. That's the difference.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 8 years, 4 months ago
          Masonry is a fraternity, not a religion, nor is it a master to be served. That is why men of differing religions or religious sects can all be members. The phrase "The Great Architect Of The Universe" is a respectful acknowledgement of God's power to plan and "build" even if it requires creating the whole thing to begin with. Are you playing some semantic game here to demean Masons?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Suzanne43 8 years, 4 months ago
            My husband, a mason, likes your answer.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mccannon01 8 years, 4 months ago
              I, too, am a Mason. Although I know the fraternity's official stance is to not get embroiled in petty discussions concerning what I just responded to, as an individual I'll occasionally step up and try to set the record straight if the context is in an intelligent venue, such as the Gulch. UncommonSense has made some good contributions to the discussions on this board, but on this subject he missed the mark. It's very easy to assume truthfulness in the Hollywood, some fiction writer's, or a religious cult's tract on what Freemasonry is all about, but those are mainly a bunch of hooey. Sometimes it's fun hooey, like the "National Treasure" movies, but hooey nevertheless.

              Edited a bit of spelling.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Suzanne43 8 years, 4 months ago
      Not all Masons are Christians... Jews and Muslims can be members. However, the York Rite does require its members to be Christians. The Scottish Rite just requires a belief in God.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by FoundingFathers 8 years, 4 months ago
      If that were true, why did the majority of colonies have state-sponsored Christian churches?

      You may want to check writings of Founding Fathers and reassess your position. Case in point: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

      Our Founding Fathers were most assuredly Christians. They did not, however, want an established federal religion/church (at state level was perfectly fine, though).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by UncommonSense 8 years, 4 months ago
        Your middle quote is spot on by JA and I couldn't agree more. However, Ben Franklin was a member of the Hellfire club of London. Don't tell me this guy was a Christian. Hellfire club? Really? https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/f...

        Read it for yourself & decide if he's really a true Christian. It is a deep and interesting read.

        And now for the founding father: http://washingtonsheadquarters.org/wp... and http://transplantedtatar.com/2013/01/...

        Because this awesome site is primarily dedicated to Objectivism, I will not fully engage in any debate that centers in on religion. I stand by my original charge: masonry isn't Christianity because if you're going to worship GOD, you're NOT going to refer to Him as (so stupid) as "The Great Architect Of The Universe". Give me a break. Anyone who's a Christian knows that God created everything: including the very things that 'architects' use to build their stuff. Worshipping the "architect" versus the Creator means they choose to worship 2nd place. 2nd place is: First loser. (I borrowed phrase that from the awesome U.S. Navy Seals)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
        I agree that the founding fathers were christians, and really just settled on the consitition to get rid of the tyranny of England and the relgion of England. BUT, religious freedom really meant the ability of the colonists to practice THEIR religion. But, what about other religions? The Mormons werent allowed to practice theirs. The Indians werent allowed to be "free". Cronyism was rampant and has lately gotten overwhelming in this country
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -2
      Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
      You might be interested in a breakdown by individual here: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 4 months ago
        This is a very interesting site, but there are some intrinsic inaccuracies in their reported statistics: For instance, Benjamin Franklin is listed as being "(Deist)" but there is no Deist category in the lists; Alexander Hamilton is listed as originally being "Huguenot" but there is likewise no listing for this in the stats.

        The other thing that I did not find (may have missed it) is 'how' they determined the religion of an individual. The only way I would consider legit is by self-declaration - you can attend a service for social or reasons (such as keeping your SO happy).

        Good info. Thank you.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
          All valid observations. Nevertheless, what stands out to me is that the overwhelming majority are from decidedly Christian denominations. Yes, there were several such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington who (unlike others such as John Adams) were what some might call "non-denominational" in current lingo.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 4 months ago
            Someone put a lot of good work into this project, but I had the feeling there was a bit of a spin on the results. Nonetheless, a good resource.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 4 months ago
    I knew he was religious but early on he seemed content to leave his religion out of it. Then he was back and forth on the Kim Davis thing and now he is pandering to the "religious right" and it is working for him. I had hoped that his relative silence on his religious views meant he knew how to keep it out of his politics. I guess now he is learning how politics works and that the religious so called right wants his religion in his politics.

    Adding to his intellectual dishonesty; what he has done his whole adult life has required a scientific mind and confidence in his own abilities. Now he is willing to give credit for all of that to a god, even though in the debates he is willing to say "I did that". Imagine the contradictions in his head.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 4 months ago
    Please..a misleading title which, I'm sad to say, was anticipated before I read the article.

    Carson has never stated anything other that he is an accomplished man of faith. He has stated that he will not support a theocracy, Christian or otherwise. He's also stated that the Constitution trumps religion. But lets sensationalize fears and go against his words, without cause. Thus far Carson is an intelligent man of honor and integrity..thats seems not enough for some rational thinkers. Our Founders were essentially Christian, Deism is still a belief in a God.
    http://www.deism.com

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/ben...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      Really would it be a misleading title if it had said Obama wants to create a Socialist paradise? Of course not and the same applies to Carson.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 4 months ago
        You take your unsubstantiated speculation about a candidate and seek to set it against the actual actions of this president? How is this rational thought or reason?

        Man, if Carson was an athiest or pretended to be one, or was dishonest enough to sidestep questions about his beliefs, the folks here would be deliriously happy and lauding his accomplishments
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
      I had about enough of beliefs in GODS. There are so many GODS and they espouse different beliefs. They all cant be the "true god". Bush said when he went into IRAQ- "god is on our side". But so did Saddam Hussein- "god is on OUR side". I would rather have Sanders than Carson. Lets get this socialism nonsense over with once and for all. We dont need some bible thumping christian out there trying to make this country into some sort of "god fearing" place.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 4 months ago
        "I had about enough of beliefs in GODS", respectfully term2, good for you. Still, others aren't through with their beliefs and, for now anyway, there are more who believe in "more" than those who do not. In this country, be respectful as you expect others to be respectful of your right to believe in "self" or nothing at all.

        We, western civilization, owes much, its very existence, to Christianity. That is fact.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
          I expected that you would stick up for a belief in one god or another. And that is fine with me. The problem is that separating religious beliefs from government is extremely hard to do, and has failed miserably up to this point. I just find it hard to trust someone so immersed in his religion to separate his beliefs from his governmental actions. How could he actually do that in practice when it came down to things like same sex marriage and homosexuality, - all things that seem to be forbidden in christianity but are really victimless crimes.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 4 months ago
            You expected correctly, I'm all for that Constitution thingy.

            So no one who ever had a belief did anything not completely aligned with those beliefs. Odd, this country was founded by folks with beliefs and yet its open to all manner of beliefs, including not to believe in anything.

            I appreciate the point taken for having a differing opinion. If it was related to the final statement I made I suggest you read on the Dark Ages and the unifying role of the catholic church in rescuing Europe from anarchy AND the muslims. I'm not remotely catholic nor do I condone what they have done in the past but they do get credit for saving western civilization, starting with Constantine.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
              its very important to learn from history. I havent really investigated the role of god fearing people in civilizing people in the past. Human nature unfettered by thinking in general has really done a terrible job in the past I have to say, and isnt doing so great today with this socialism stuff.

              I am not mormon, but live in las vegas, founded by mormons. They are still persecuted for their polygamist beliefs ( I say a man who takes on multiple wives shouldnt be jailed , but perhaps given a stint in a nut house (kidding)). Warren Jeffs was on the FBI "most wanted" list, primarily for his polygamist beliefs (although they did dig up a lot of other dirt to convict him on).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 4 months ago
                I think any man who takes on more than one wife should be made a saint, given a medal, or committed to an asylum. Frankly, being married to one woman, and I'm sure women feel the same about men, is more than enough to test my tolerances and, at times, question my sanity. :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kcrdesign 8 years, 4 months ago
      Why are some on here so afraid of religion? And what he is going to force religion on you? This is nonsensical. It's also absurd to say the founders weren't religious. Right there lost credibility. I'm not a practicing religious person but respect religion even in a presidential candidate. He really isn't making region the focal point in his campaign- What? The media asked him about his religion and he responded? It's still a free country I thought...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
        Take your choice. The alternative is a secular theocracy. It will be your last choice.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
          I guess socialism, fascism, communism, etc. are also really "religions" too. So we have Hillary as religious as Carson really- just in a different way. None of them are based on anything rational. Carson would have no abortions at all, and homosexuality would be relegated to a crime, and there would be no same sex or plural marriages either. They are all against "scripture". Imagine if the president were a Mormon. They have some interesting beliefs that would impact us all negatively. With Hillary and Sanders the government is entitled to take everything you have and give back only what it wants- just enough for you to live and keep producing. Our constitution needs to be changed and limited again to prevent the government from taking from A and giving to B, as it does now.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kcrdesign 8 years, 4 months ago
      Why are some on here so afraid of religion? And what he is going to force religion on you? This is nonsensical. It's also absurd to say the founders weren't religious. Right there lost credibility. I'm not a practicing religious person but respect religion even in a presidential candidate. He really isn't making region the focal point in his campaign- What? The media asked him about his religion and he responded? It's still a free country I thought...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 4 months ago
    He says some things I agree with but I think you are right Db. If elected he would take it to mean, as many Republicans do, that America has embraced Social Conservatism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
      I've got zero problem with him he's this seasons Herman Cain and will last only until Carville and Wasserman pull the plug. Whose going to be left standing? Left wing socialist fascist statist secular progressive Hillary and left wing socialist fascist corporatist Carly.

      The third tier is gone, the second is being set up and that leaves Dump Trump and Party With Carly. It's a three way menage a trois of wrong, wrong, wrong and no right choices.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
      the Republicans have been moving steadily to the left without let or hindrance. With the assistance of the RINOs and their New Conservative philosophy. The Democrats for the most part are now self confessed Socialists. We'll call them Dino's since most believe in neither individual freedom nor the principles of a Democracy as a form of government. Just as the Republicans are not much in the way of a Republic as a form of government. That's your controlling majority minus them gaming us.

      As for conservative? Together they are the controlling majority. When a group such as the Government Party Coalition takes power they take steps to keep power. Completely controlling the elections, fortifying the whole voting system and looting the votes with winner take all. There are a number of wikpedia and other articles that state the progression to a totalitarian government from a two party system of government from a multi party system. An accurate road map.

      Conservative in their new found power in that they make change slowly if at all, and only when it suits them. Especially the left of the left who find comfort in being very very ultra conservative now that they are the inside of the in crowd. Their penchant for disobeying the Constitution is in seeing how long they can hoodwink the public into thinking there is still such a document.

      The new attack is over 'a period.' that's coming up in Reframing 201 Addressing Key Issues and was touched on in 102. Liberal? Yes in the sense they are still moving left into a totalitarian Dear Leader Daddy State after destroying the nuclear traditional family. In short...you hit the nail on the head with a 10 pound sledge. For me it's a race to the finish with time left. For the country as a whole it's time to learn stiff arm salutes and how to say. "We Serve The Party." Why change a tried and true method.

      Especially since totalitarianism is being voted in with the last gasp approval of the .....'electorate?'

      Then it's your problem.. Starting with the bill for burying the remains....I haven't bothered. What for?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
    Carson also states "There is no question about who we are. All you have to do is look at our money. Every coin, every bill says, “In God We Trust.” Our Pledge of Allegiance says, “We are one nation under God.”

    Doesn't he understand that all these changes happened in the 1950s. What an ignoramus..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 4 months ago
      He appears to be some sort of media favorite and I only have one thought as to why. Remember there's no such thing as bad press. What little time I pay attention to the mainstream news media I almost never hear Trump mentioned anymore. Carson is a Big Pharma stooge. Most don't know that. He's backed by probably the most influential lobby in DC these days. To me, he sounds like a liar. But, I really don't give a sh$% anymore...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
        The media is just out to sell ads. They need controversy. They go after the most popular candidate cause there are more people that are involved. Now they act like Hillary is already the next president, and she has the $$ to buy media time.

        They went after Trump when he was #1. Now its Carson's turn. The other Repubs are non events. The media loves liberals probably because they spend lots of money and the media will benefit from that. who knows..... I am voting for Trump if he makes it to the election- at least he isnt backed by anyone that I can see.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 8 years, 4 months ago
      "Well, I think one of the things is that people must re-engage, and that means picking up a book, reading history, learning about the fundamental principles that were involved in the establishment of this nation, and what are the things that we truly value. That’s the first thing you have to do."

      Maybe he should take that advice.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
        I did something interesting last year, and thats visit Jefferson's house and surroundings. Very interesting to get immersed in what was going on at the time of the American Revolution. There was a lot of talk about freedom, but that seems to me more like freedom from England and the religion that gripped England. The consititution itself was a series of compromises, and after it was signed the countrty embarked on major deviations from it in a desire to just take whatever it could. To hell with the Indians cause we needed their land. To hell with the mormons, cause their religion was not what the colonists wanted. When the south just wanted OUT of the union, the north put them down. In recent times there was Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and now Syria and ISIS. None of them were our business really. All of this in the name of freedom? I think not.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
    So I take it that anyone who believes there is an intelligent design of our planet, life on earth and our universe is not welcome on the site? We are considered as believing in "mysticism" and are incapable of thinking as an Objectivist? I have heard this suggested many times in this post and a few other. I do not know who the founder of Galtsgulchonline.com is, but if you prefer that those of us who believe in God go somewhere else that is fine.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 4 months ago
      Its not that we're not welcome, its just not something this site seeks to promote. I've been down this very road more times than I can remember. Mentioning anything beyond human consciousness is torn down and ridiculed by some (I write sci-fi LOL). Whatever you do, refrain from comparing members ability to quote the book, chapter, paragraph and verse of Rand with a Bible thumper's ability to quote scripture - its not at all the same (and neither is the reverence). The folks here, for the most part, are good folks, they just have their hot buttons and their mental roadblocks like everyone else.

      (I willingly post this knowing that I will probably achieve a new record of negative votes - C'est la vie)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 8 years, 4 months ago
        I will disappoint AJA by not voting the above down.
        In fact the ideas are not bad, tho' 'anything beyond human consciousness' is a good candidate for ridicule, compare talking about the thoughts of a dead body, whether eminent or not during life.

        I agree about being cautious about the worth of simply quoting. Without a comment on relevance to some issue it is often just adulation or worship. Since I am again going against AJA in 'refrain from comparing' I give an up point - for the pleasure, for the inspiration to comment as well as for the good parts of the post.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
    Personal opinion. I think all the my way or the highway bigotry is going to put the secular progressive theocracy in the white house and more and then I'll sit back and say you got what you asked for and deserve. You are so busy defending your own turf you forgot you don't have any to defend anymore. Thanks for nothing we could have used some help not more stupid road blocks. I'll be here hopefully to hear the whining and I will have zero problem smacking it back in your faces. No Control means no change. Gaining control comes first the rest sucks hind tit. Suck it up and get with the program or just suck it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 4 months ago
    More Atheist paranoia. Just because Carson supports his attitudes and personal practice on his faith, some with psychohysteric tendencies read "theocratic dictatorship." Secular society has failed in establishing a sound moral foundation, because it has allowed the laws which are supposed to govern our actions become so malleable and relative in application and enforcement that they've become meaningless.

    The Founders saw nothing wrong with established secular law backed by religious morality. I would call them "enlightened Christians," rather than Deists, as they still believed in the power of prayer, but resisted mixing governance with faith. They expected people to support the law and each other to honor their god, in whatever way they believed.

    A Deist (I am one - full disclosure) finds evidence of a higher spiritual force in reason and nature, believing each individual is an agent of the higher power. If you want miracles, make them happen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gaiagal 8 years, 4 months ago
    ...Whoa!

    You mean he might do things like try to change our present day moral atmosphere?

    Do you think this might mean the end of Miley Cyrus sightings, Kardashian shows and stories? OMG, what about the Housewives franchises?

    Who could possibly live without Celebrity Big Brother or I Am Cait?

    Who could live without abortion? Imagine having to deny oneself a pleasure that is one's right? Imagine having to think of consequences before acting? Imagine, if you don't abort, having to pay to bear and raise the child...yourself? None of which is fair, or kind, to the woman who shouldn't have to say no. Nor is it right to expect a woman to use birth control (which, if it is being used, seems to fail constantly these days.)

    Actually, I get the impression that Dr Carson is a religious man. I don't have the impression that he wants to force religion down the throats of citizens. He appears to embrace the morals and ethics of religion with the understanding that the individual is free to make errors. If you enjoy the increasingly paternalistic governments we have had for several decades, you may think of it as Dr. Carson appears to believe the "parent" must allow the "child" to learn from making errors.

    I believe God was mentioned once or twice by our founders. They seem to have come up with a fairly decent road map that has led to the past success of the United States.

    It appears to me that, for a number of years, enlightened humanists (including those whose words state a belief in God...but whose actions don't quite jive with the words) have chosen to use gradualism to veer off that map in order to progress toward an enlightened world.

    Frankly, I liked the freedom of the dark religious ages (50s and 60s) a bit better than the feeling that I have to watch everything I say or do,,,even in my own house (cameras, microphones, TVs are two way streets.) You have to think twice before adjusting a bra strap at a stop light!

    Isn't it odd that at the time we had prayer in school, we had far more freedom?

    It appears to me that freedom is now somehow being confused with hedonism. Don't infringe on anyone's right to indulge in a moment of passion. Don't infringe on a persons right to make mistakes over and over again...while someone else pays for them (because it is only fair.) At the same time one must understand that individual rights, from privacy to obtaining individualized health care, must be sacrificed for the greater good.

    I find it curious that you would think a religious man, who has stated that the constitution overrides religion, would create an enslaving religious theocracy.

    Also, if what you say occurs...we become enslaved by Dr. Carson's government (should he win)...at least we will get to keep our heads should we disagree with his religious beliefs. I prefer that to the direction we are heading (excuse the pun) now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 4 months ago
      Isn't it odd that at a time when people legally owned slaves in this country, we had far more freedom?

      Dr. Carson may "appear" to believe that the parent must allow the child to learn from his errors but when those "errors" are associated with a "cost" to society, will he be able to sit idly by and and do nothing?

      Religious people do not believe there is any conflict between the Constitution and their religious beliefs so whatever he might do as president would, in his mind, be in accordance with the constitution. His statement means nothing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gaiagal 8 years, 4 months ago
        How could we have had far more freedom when some people were slaves? Unless, of course, the slaves are not being counted as people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
          third try. I am not responsible for that which happened prior to my birth, age for being in the military 18 or age of voting 21.

          I am responsible for that which occurs after those dates.

          to the best of my knowledge we had no slavery.

          we had apartheid and still do.

          we had racism, sexism, and bigotry and still do.

          we had and have government sponsored racism, sexism and still do

          I just don't vote for the racist, sexist, bigoted government and I don't fill out their forms. Insead I write on it using one example This is a racist question. You should be ashamed for asking.


          As for the 3/5's rule it was a northern invention to keep the amount of Representatives down. The south wanted full count for the opposite reason.

          US Civics and history 101 high school level. at least back in 1960.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by gaiagal 8 years, 4 months ago
            Really? Why would I be ashamed of my question? The question was prompted by the statement.There was nothing racist about it. How could we be freer at a time when some people were kept as slaves. The only people who were free were not slaves so the only way that statement could be true is if people who were slaves were not counted, by the person making the statement, as free. I was not referring to the 3/5 rule.

            Where is the inference that anyone, here and now, should be responsible for what happened in the past?

            As long as people of different races exist, there will be racism. As long as there are two genders, there will be sexism (and it appears there will be more ways in which to be sexist if gender as a social concept becomes generally accepted.)

            Government will sponsor what it needs to in order to continue to exist and thrive.

            Life 101
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
              I reckon we're all too thick to understand your question how could you be freer then than now. SWAG that. Don't be a slave. It's irrelevant though. You couldn't be any less nor any more free back then because you weren't If the question has to do with someone who lived back then different story.

              Either way you judge or examine or research in the context of the time for them and our times for us. One doesn't translate out of that hard and fast condition.

              As far as your last is concerned poppycock. It will exist until people, humans, terrans refuse to participate in any way shape or form spoken or written.If you stand by your As long as declaration you are the problem. so I refuse to participate much less accept your racist, sexist outlook. Simple as that. It's a secular 'get behind me.'
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 4 months ago
          It is just as rational an argument as your reference to a time when we had prayer in school. Hint: It is not a rational argument.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by gaiagal 8 years, 4 months ago
            No, mine was an observation not historical fact of which I was not a witness.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 4 months ago
              During the time frame you referred to there were fewer laws restricting freedom.
              During the time frame I referred to there were even fewer laws than that.
              Since I was not there for either, this is all the facts I have to go by.
              Your statement implied that prayer in school may have had something to do with having more freedom.
              My statement implied that legalized slavery may have had something to do with having more freedom.
              Neither statement is true but one is just as likely as the other.

              I believe Rush calls that "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by gaiagal 8 years, 4 months ago
                I was not implying that prayer had something to do with having more freedom. I was stating that there existed more freedom at a time when there was prayer in school. It was an observation of co-existence, not causality. Freedom was able to exist at a time when the entire country seemed to either go to church or temple.

                I'm not saying Dr. Carson can't "enslave" us. Who knows what will really happen when someone takes office? What I am saying is it isn't the religion that will do it. Religion used in that manner is a tool.

                Also, I'll say it again: there could not have been more freedom when there was slavery simply because the slaves were not free. The only way there could have been more freedom for the entire population, at that time, would be if the slaves were not counted as people and, therefore, not part of the population.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 4 months ago
                  Oh, well... If we're just observing co-existence then how about there was prayer in school at a time when slavery was legal? Or how about even slaves went to church? Although I'm not sure they were allowed to go to school, even though schools and churches were often the same place. And if it is just a matter of co-existence, why even bring it up if it is not relevant?

                  Of course religion will not enslave us. That would be like saying guns kill people. It is religious people who would enslave us.

                  Slaves weren't counted as people. Not really. Three fifths and all that. Still, just demonstrating absurdity.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 8 years, 4 months ago
    I have a soft spot for Ben Carson. While this is not the same as support, I was cheered by this put-down of a critic:

    Question: How did Ben Carson ever get to be a brain surgeon?
    ..Piers Morgan, British progressivista.
    Answer: By graduating Yale, U Michigan Medical School, and a residency in neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins.
    Hope that helps, unemployed TV guy.
    ..David Burge

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegra...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
    What I do not get is why some on this forum think pragmatism is objectivism. Just because some "truths" and/or "facts" are not known to you does not mean they do not exist. Some of us on this forum have had physical, real, factual events occur in their life that proves the existence of God that goes beyond faith. There are natural and physical laws at work on this planet and in the universe that you actually do not understand. There are parts of our brain and abilities of our brain that are not understood and that we do not fully use. So please, stop with the elitist mentality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
    reference that comment on Ayn Rand's entry to the US something about the source being a magazine "Reason." Anybody see that. This not getting posted comments except by side bar or in one of the categories leaves much to be desired but I can't find anything in my machie here that's blocking. Thanks
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 4 months ago
    I have studied this and the majority of our forefathers were Christians...and were fans of the 10 commandments as a guideline for 'Self' controlled behavior; the ideas learned in the Torah. (civilization for dummies) and the ancient blog that discussed the values of those things...all of those things contributed to how our country was designed. For one to have liberty and true freedom, one Must have control of self, control over the forces of nature with in one self; otherwise you have a government to control YOU instead of You controlling yourself.
    10 common sense rules help us do that. It took millennia for mankind to come up with that realization. This is what our forefathers meant by being a 'Virtuous' people. Do not confuse, which an easy thing to do, The common sense realizations of our biblical ancestors and the destructive organizing of those life lived lessons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ puzzlelady 8 years, 4 months ago
      The 10 Commandments are not all "common sense" rules. See George Carlin's classic routine reducing them to two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8oo...

      If you want common-sense guidance to ethical values, check out Rand's list of 7 virtues, http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Vir.... Compare these to the traditional seven deadly sins. Significantly, pride occurs on both lists, though differently defined.

      Ultimately there is the one golden rule variously stated: Treat others as you want to be treated; do unto others as you want done unto you; don't do to others what you don't want done to you; and the clearest formulation, Galt's Oath -- "I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for the sake of another [man] nor ask another to live for mine."

      Interactions among individuals are thus by mutual consent for mutual benefit. No one may initiate force or fraud against another. Religion is fraud. Political power is force. Measure your candidates accordingly.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 4 months ago
        Wish I had the link for the one Prager Un did on the 10 commandments, pretty close to a 'Conscious' view point.
        The Golden rule however, in today's perverted society is questionable cause what one might deem acceptable done to others may not be acceptable done on to me.
        Galt's oath is one of my favorite's and of course: No one may initiate force, fraud or coercion upon any individual nor any individual's property or contracts, is my number one choice. It actually underlies our constitution. Shame it wasn't stated out right then liberals couldn't change the intent to suit themselves.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ TexOwl 8 years, 4 months ago
    I decided to read this posting thinking it might reveal some interesting concepts - Instead I found a disgusting dogfight between small over heated minds in banal quarrel - Not something worthy of an organization representing Ayn Rand - more like a common street brawl- I am disappointed and depressed that the Gulch has degenerated to this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo