It seems to be the anger response of today. Lots of it everywhere and people use it when they want to make an impact. What created "Hot button issues". Like insulting a doctor by labeling them "abortionist".

Why is religion an issue such that you feel the need to mention it in a derogatory manner?

Have no time for the Moron religion. But this McMullin sounds an improvement on the alternatives available.

And there in is the problem. We cannot get a revolt at the ballot box. I do believe Trump is a bit of a whack job (so are all the rest of them), but it is so clear the media got a hold of the dirt a long time ago, held it till the right moment, and the accusers/video mix was set just right to generate an emotional meltdown when he was put to the roaster. That does add up to voter fraud, in addition to the know claims every election, that never get investigated, but become a joke that gets repeated often "How many times can you vote in Chicago?" "As many as you want". Ha Ha.

I also heard his interview on Fox last week, and he claimed he was for "smaller government". I am really tired of these buffoons thinking all they have to do is babble the right phrases and people will fawn on them. He appears to be a Dud.

I know that many LDS people are going to vote for Evan McMullin for President, especially in Utah. I see the reasoning. He's a Mormon, and he claims to be a Constitutional conservative. I have just now read McMullin's whole website. He said that Gary Johnson is "not Libertarian enough", but in McMullin's website, I don't see that he will reduce even one dollar of the total federal budget. Now, if one does not think government is too big, how can he claim to be a conservative? Well, there is a term for it, it is called NEOCON. That is someone who doesn't really think govt is too big as such, just that it doesn't spend money the right way or enough on the right things. McMullin in his website calls for greatly increased military spending, as if America should be the world's policeman. Thomas Jefferson certainly had a different view, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”. And none of his planks point out that things like federal involvement in education, energy, medical care or retirement are unconstitutional. He does not even say he would abolish the Dept of Energy, and the Dept of Education, which Reagan promised but didn't deliver. If I had the opportunity to meet McMullin I'd love to know about his work for Goldman Sachs (perhaps the most corrupt financial institution in the world) and how that relates to his support for the globalist sovereignty-destroying Trans Pacific Partnership. And as a former spook, does he not find it unconstitutional for the NSA to record all our emails and phone calls, or does he think it is just useful tools of the trade? How about the naked body scanners at the airport? Wouldn't the Founding Fathers think that an unreasonable search?
If you are considering voting for McMullin I hope you will look at the 15 reasons why you should vote for Gary Johnson and read his issues pages at http://www.johnsonweld.com/issues . If you think govt is too big, if you really want to cast a vote for liberty, Gary Johnson and all Libertarian candidates down the ticket should get your consideration.
All that said, however, I will be tickled to see Utah be won by McMullin. I just wish it was because he is a big defender of the Constitution, which he is not. I'm voting for Johnson. And by the way, I am a LDS (non-practicing), a Libertarian since 1981, a registered Republican, and I live in Utah.

You're right about that, nick. As long as they have the resources provided by income taxation and the deferal reserve they will never allow peaceful reduction of their power. WIdespread disobedience by the serfs is required to interrupt the taxation IV that feeds the vampires in DC and Wall Street.

Just found another article tht gives a little more into the story:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/...

No argument there. My favorite is the fish thing, the Church ruled fish on Friday to support the Italian fishing fleet in a depression. One of the classic manipulations in history.

You do have a point. However, it is just a part of the whole abuse going on.

Now that is a pretty good summation of things. I do agree with the cult statement, even though some are "good" and some are "bad", each seeks to impose a specific set of rules and behaviors on it's members, and a lot of the time, there is little compliance. I would cite the Catholic church as a prime example, many Popes were fathers, yet they could still go into Mass with a straight face, as well a work political deals. The Inquisition is another example. I would rather have a Greek model of morals and ethics (although they also couched a lot in the "gods") but at least they valued the individual, if the individual could prove themselves.

The independent "individualist" is indeed an endangered creature, and look at why: The education system has been corrupted to require you "fit in" and "must be nice", along with the social stigmatisim of "not being in the group". Social media and interaction is based on the number of likes, or friends. People grow up worried about what others think of them, as a primary indicator of self image and worth. My kids grew up needing tohave 3 sizes too big pants hanging on their asses, to "fit in", and couldn't make a decision based on their own feelings, but on what everyone else thought. Yet they did all three grow up to be responsible individuals (although the oldest one is still enamored with the Dumbocrap agenda, as he is in the military still and has not felt the pain of losing 45% of his paycheck to the looters). Without a serious change in our social structure, we will continue down this road, I fear.

Politicians are deliberately vague when they are appealing for votes by being all things to all people and getting people to hear what they want to hear. The classic example is the non-committal letters pretending to be supportive in pretended responses to constituents.

They are not vague when they are assuming fundamental premises they know they can take for granted. Today, the Progressive-Pragmatist assumption that government power, in increasing scope and intensity, is always to be assumed as a 'tool' to do 'what works' in accordance with collectivist goals is increasingly common and taken for granted.

But Pragmatism, with its opposition to principle on principle, is a parasitic philosophy that relies implicitly on philosophical premises for what is regarded as a proper goal and for what counts as "works"; the Progressive version is collectivist and altruist. The politicians invoke that to the hilt, keeping the full meaning of the premise implicit to not frighten people who might see the implications for their own lives. Those premises are always there, but not invoked openly the way they are under outright communism and socialism -- which is why the socialists Democrats are still only gradually re-introducing the term 'socialist'.

This dependence of politics on prevailing philosophical views and sense of life is critical to understand. Politics is the consequence of philosophy. Changing the prevailing politics requires changing the prevailing accepted philosophy. There are no shortcuts.

The Progressive-Pragmatism, with its inherent collectivism, altruism and statism, is the current form of it that must by openly identified, fought, and rejected. America used to have a characteristic individualist, reality-oriented sense of life in contradiction to the prevailing explicit philosophies promoted by intellectuals and which could be relied on to defeat their politics. That is rapidly being lost. It is why 'common sense' appeals and vague pro-Americanism is not enough to stop the statists.

Atheism is not an ideology and the not basis of anything. It is simply disbelief in a supernatural being. It is not possible to "base" a government on not believing in the supernatural. Communism in Russia was based on Marxist Leninism in a mystical culture of religion with its altruism and irrationalism that made collectivism acceptable. This country was based on the Enlightenment, not Christianity. The Dark and Middle Ages were based on Christianity.

A form of government does not come out of a vacuum. It depends on the dominant philosophy and sense of life of a culture. A rational government protecting the rights of the individual depends on a philosophy of reason. The fact that religionists insist on 'voting' to impose their statism in the name of their conscience does not make it an equal alternative. We reject both faith and multiculturalist relativism. Both are antagonistic to civilization. Competing faiths fighting it out, excluding rationality to evaluate choices and the rights of the individual, make civilization impossible. That is why our system of government excludes religion from government and was not supposed to put our rights and system of government up for grabs at every election, whether from religious cults or viros or any other statists. You have gone from a discussion of states battling Federal controls over land to the dead end and off-topic religious proseltyzing.

Atheism is not a belief set, it is a lack of belief in a god. A proper morality is derived from the nature of man and the requirements for his proper functioning as a rational being, not from the alleged commandments of a supreme being that demands obedience. You can’t prove a negative – the burden of proof rests on those making an assertion, such as that there is a god that created the universe and keeps it in existence. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Contracts are not rights, but there is a right to enter into a contract. Recognition of a contract by others is not required in an Objectivist legal system, only that the contract not violate the rights of non-contracting parties. The “brothel across the street” can be avoided by contracts among neighbors voluntarily limiting the uses of their properties.

Voting for Sharia Law is an attempt to initiate force, and is therefore not anyone’s right. The fact that the voter is attempting to use the government to implement this force does not change the nature of the voter’s act.

Communism does not stem from atheism, and in fact there are Christians who advocate communist economic systems. If communism was a necessary consequence of atheism, then Objectivist atheism would not be possible. And these are not the only two varients – atheists can be found across the entire political spectrum. This means that there is no way that atheism can be an ideology – atheists are too diverse in their other beliefs.

Most Western religions are happy to live and let live, but this is a relatively recent development. Most European wars from the Middle Ages through the 17th century had strong religious components. We happened to be born in the right place at the right time.

Re: “What do I see here? I see people who want to restrict that freedom and impose an atheistic worldview.” By “here” I thought you meant the Gulch. Hardly anyone here in the Gulch wishes to restrict religious freedom and impose an atheistic worldview, but neither do we sanction religionists restricting our freedom and telling us how to live our lives.

Re: “I would also point out that communities give tax breaks to large businesses all the time as an incentive to be in their communities. I'm not going to criticize any organization for trying to get a tax exclusion for themselves.”

You are conflating two issues here. When religious (or business) organizations engage in the political sphere to advocate and enact laws that give them a privileged status, that is immoral from an Objectivist point of view. When they claim such privileges under existing law, the morality of such action depends upon the circumstances of each individual case, including whether the claimant supports or opposes the laws that give rise to these special privileges. (I agree that there should be no individual or corporate taxes at all. My observations above are more general and apply to any special privileges bestowed by a government.)

Re: “So now you're getting into specific policy measures that each deserve their own threads.”

In your previous post, you said “you're going to have to cite the specific policy under discussion and then declare what you believe the ‘correct’ morality is.” I complied. What’s the problem?

Re: “Much of a contract is whether or not that contract is recognized by others and who is going to be charged with enforcing that recognition. To assert that I can marry whomever or whatever I choose and force others to acknowledge that contract...?”

Wrong on all counts. A contract does not require recognition by others as long as it does not violate individual rights of others. A contract does not force others to acknowledge it, a contract simply upholds the rights of the contracting parties to abide by its terms as long as such terms do not involve initiating force against others. What others think or acknowledge is of no consequence, as long as these “others” do not seek to violate the individual rights of the contracting parties.

Re: “If a community voluntarily votes to hold a group of standards, that's how laws get written.”

We’re talking about the principles of a proper government, not the practices of existing ones. Morality is not determined by voluntary votes. Objectivism views laws that violate individual rights to be immoral, regardless of whether or not such laws are sanctioned by a majority of voters.

One more thought. By your conceptual reasoning, what if me and my non believers passed a law that said mormons could not build a mormon temple in my town, and actually were forbidden from believing in mormon tenets, and were not allowed to have more than one wife (this last thing actually happened in the USA). I would be totally NOT in favor of those restrictions as a violation of the rights of mormons. So if they can have a temple, I should be able to have a sex club (by the way, this example isnt really what I would like to do, but it actually happened here in Vegas, so I know something about it)

I have to say that you have drifted into being a statist who thinks that all bets are off if the majority want something. By your reasoning, the local government could forbid all green houses or houses with plastic pipes or romex wiring inside- all bets are off. I say that going down that road is a slippery slope to having the mob (majority) dictate my entire life. I say that is just plain wrong. By that reasoning, not believing in mormon tenets could be made a capital offense if they wanted it.

"There’s a big difference between opposing compulsory taxation for everyone and lobbying for a privileged tax status that you are not willing to grant to others."

I agree. But I would also point out that communities give tax breaks to large businesses all the time as an incentive to be in their communities. I'm not going to criticize any organization for trying to get a tax exclusion for themselves. I don't try to justify one behavior when I believe the underlying behavior to be the bigger issue. I don't think there should be individual or corporate taxes at all - which would eliminate the issue entirely. There was a reason that the Founding Fathers wanted the Federal government to be funded by tariffs.

"Wrong is initiation of force. Examples include Sunday closing laws, zoning regulations on businesses in the proximity of churches, laws regulating sexual conduct and prohibiting interracial and same-sex marriages."

So now you're getting into specific policy measures that each deserve their own threads. I've already covered zoning and the courts have upheld those restrictions - like them or not. Laws about sex are moral laws, however. What I would point out is that each deals with contract interactions - not rights. Government absolutely has the ability to set community standards for interpersonal relationships, i.e. contracts, because they are the realm of concern for everyone not just the individuals taking part. Much of a contract is whether or not that contract is recognized by others and who is going to be charged with enforcing that recognition. To assert that I can marry whomever or whatever I choose and force others to acknowledge that contract...? I strongly recommend that you re-examine your premises on the initiation of force.

"Forcing one person to conform to another’s behavior on religious grounds is much more than disagreement."

The use of government and its force to compel action is of grave concern, I agree. But at the end of the day, what you are really griping about are the standards that any organization wants to set up. That is a matter of policy debate. If a community voluntarily votes to hold a group of standards, that's how laws get written. I would tread very carefully here in outright declaring any use of government and its associated enforcement authority to be out of bounds. Better to discuss the principle or standard first - then decide if government action is warranted.

"Show me one instance where I say or imply that others do not have the right to express their views."

If I improperly associated you with those who wish to prevent groups with opposing viewpoints from holding office or participating in the electoral process or voicing their opinions, I apologize.

" An ideology is a belief set."
Strong atheism asserts there are no gods. I can see how you'd call this a belief set. Weak atheism just rejects any claims or evidence for gods, just as they would reject the FSM.

My rejecting the FSM is not the same as calling myself "the ultimate authority on moral matters".

Well...bicameral man had a better memory than we do today...that's all they had and except for a few, (and that was because of an unknown voice-rulers, mom, dad, brother or great ancestors) they could not make up stuff...but everything was mystical magic.
Now the rulers? the Priest?...they were no smarter and bicameral also, only with more information with no (mental) right to have that information.

Atheism absolutely is an ideology. An ideology is a belief set. Atheists argue that they themselves are the ultimate authority on moral matters, rather than some external being. But until they can prove that no such external authority in fact exists, it is a belief subject to all the very same criticisms that atheists level at religionists. It is a competing world view. It has no sole claim to moral authority.

"Zoning is almost always a violation of the property rights of the zoned"

I disagree and so do the courts - not because it is a matter of property, but because it is a matter of contract, like all business. And contracts are not rights. Other people get a say in whether or not they are going to recognize your business contract. And when it comes to sexual matters and children, parents absolutely get a say in how and when those topics come up with their children. And that includes having a brothel across the street. You may disagree, but legally you've got a tough argument to make - one that has been shot down time and time again.

"There’s a world of difference between having the right to persuade other people and having the “right” to vote for, say, Sharia law."

Implementation of Sharia law would necessarily mean an abrogation of the right of expression and association. Voting for such, however, does not. I would absolutely agree with you that voting to alter the basic government of the United States would necessarily mean voting to give up the rights recognized therein. It would be voluntarily voting for enslavement. It would not be something I would do or condone, but millions vote for economic slavery every election cycle when they vote for Progressive policies. It is stupid, but it is their right.

"Equating atheism with communism is no more valid than equating Christianity with virtue."

Atheism is a belief set. Christianity is a belief set. Virtue is a principle. Equating a belief set with a principle is logically absurd. But communism stems from atheism, so there is a direct correlation there. The first two acts of every communistic government have been to outlaw religion and to outlaw private ownership of firearms. Do I equate Objectivist atheism with communist atheism? No, which is why I specified. What I was pointing out was that communism is an atheistic philosophy and it has been the direct instigator in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people just in the past 100 years or so. And that wasn't due to wars (differences of opinion) with other nations, but simply purges of dissenters within their own ranks.

And just so you know, but I lived in Greece for two years. There were a lot of refugees there even 20 years ago from all over the Middle East trying to escape the repressive regimes of Islam. I should have been more specific when I said "religionists" to specifically exclude Islam. I agree with you that their 1200+ years of violent history disqualify them from any kind of consideration for a rational government of rights. Most other religionists, however, are more than happy to live and let live, which is what I was getting at, even if I didn't express it as cogently as I could have.

"Please give a specific example."

Obamacare: Little Sisters of the Poor v Sibelius or Hobby Lobby v Sibelius. Roe v Wade. Dale v Boy Scouts of America. Those are some pretty big ones. I can name a few others as well if you would like.

Re: “You are criticizing one group of people for trying to do exactly the same thing everyone else does! (And you are justifying taxes on businesses and individuals in the first place...)”

There’s a big difference between opposing compulsory taxation for everyone and lobbying for a privileged tax status that you are not willing to grant to others.

Re: “Wrong is used to declare an argument a violation of morality. So first, you're going to have to cite the specific policy under discussion and then declare what you believe the ‘correct’ morality is.” That should be obvious considering which forum we’re on. Wrong is initiation of force. Examples include Sunday closing laws, zoning regulations on businesses in the proximity of churches, laws regulating sexual conduct and prohibiting interracial and same-sex marriages.

Re: “. . . And of course there is going to be disagreement...” Forcing one person to conform to another’s behavior on religious grounds is much more than disagreement.

Re: “The problem is not that you view their morality as incorrect, it is that you discount their ability to express their version of morality simply because it doesn't match up to yours.” Show me one instance where I say or imply that others do not have the right to express their views.

Add to that the enterprising soul who sees merely the opportunity to use an organization - especially of trusting souls like Christians - for personal gain and power... Why do you think all those Reformists left the Catholic Church? They saw the blatant hypocrisy and how the Church has changed basic doctrine to enrich themselves (a thing called indulgences. Basically it was money one would pay to the priest to have their sins commuted.).

"I don't think you can make any generalizations about Mormons beyond the assertion that most of them are financially conservative and family oriented. "

We can certainly compare Harry Reid to Mike Lee and see both ends of the spectrum, I agree.