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.

Deism is not Christianity.

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.

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.

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

Accomplishments have been in spite of religion, not because of it. It is destructive by nature.

Neither the ideas of the progressives nor Christian mystics have anything to do with the founding ideals of this country

His and your lack of understanding of the fundamental clash between America and Christian faith and morality of altruism demonstrate that you cannot be trusted to follow the Constitution. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

OMG! He is entitled to his opinion. Don't take it so personal.

"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....

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.

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

The wording may be off slightly but the sentiment is the same.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me one iota what she did or didn't believe on her deathbed (or what anyone else believes of disbelieves on theirs) but I wouldn't doubt it that most hedge their bets when their life is on the line...why not? Worst case you blank out to nothing, best care you're forgiven, accepted,and squeak in under the wire.

"Should" and "would" unfortunately do not follow each other in politics today. Once elected it seems to be all bets off