I would say that the mormons who are in power here in Las Vegas use their position to prevent me, for example, from inviting people to my house or my business location that I might rent, and exploring their own sexuality after paying me money for setting up the comfortable meeting place. I say I have a right to set up and operate any business paid for by paying customers and offering a service to them, and I shouldnt be prevented from doing so. In Las Vegas it was a definite mormon thing to prevent this, and its wrong. Its not a matter of petitioning the government to pass these laws- the mormons have made their way INTO the government so that THEY can pass them.

This is why I am reluctant to let card carrying religious people (mormons are just one example by the way) into positions of governmental power. The separation between religion and government becomes blurred and very difficult to maintain.

I have no issue with people who believe in the mormon religion or any other, with the possible exception of islam (where its written into their beliefs to kill infidels like me). I offer to them the same acceptance of their views as they offer to me. Neither myself OR the believers in mormonism should use governmental powers or physical force to enforce their beliefs on others.

"Trojan horse"... thanks for that. I've been looking for the best term to describe him for the past few days. "Plant", "Interloper", "Quisling" -- none of those seemed quite right. But "trojan horse" fits him to a T.

I suspect he's polling as high as he is in Utah because he's a Mormon.

There's no way I'll ever vote for him. He is a CIA agent (one never really retires from the CIA) and and employee of Goldman Sucks.

Do not all of us attempt to influence those around us to think more like ourselves? What else is a forum for? ;)

Seriously, though, I would question any group who wasn't actively attempting to promote themselves and gain converts as lacking a conviction of their own principles. Is not the act of the Objectivist to post "Who is John Gault?" signs an act of proselyting? Of course it is! The bigger question is whether or not the principles are sound. And I guess whether or not they are forcibly "converting" people (i.e. Islam).

Actually, I'm going to disagree with you here on all counts. Freedom of speech is a two-way street: I have to respect your ability to vote your views just as you have to respect my ability to vote mine. It isn't freedom if one side's privilege is infringed. You would be just as wrong to attempt to tell them they can't vote as they would be to try to tell you you can't.

Theocracy? Who is advocating that? What term2 cited was a public policy decision but hardly an attempt to impose a change in governmental structure. I would also point out that tolerance is different than agreement. Tolerance is all about allowing others to choose their own path in life, but it doesn't mean you have to agree with it or sanction it.

"That they try to use their influence to affect public policy for their religion is why term2 denounced it."

And that is precisely why I must strenuously object. You can have a disagreement and debate the morality of the principles in question - absolutely. That is what the debate should focus on. But the conversation has revolved around someone else's right to think what they want - to own themselves and their own consciences. That realization should be enough to direct the conversation back to a discussion of principles. To denounce someone for voting their beliefs is an attempt to infringe on their First Amendment right of expression and association. It is to attempt to say that because they disagree with you that they should have no say in the matter. That is wrong.

"If someone is using their influence to gain subsidies or other special privileges from the government..."

They are engaging in coercion or unequal treatment and should not be tolerated, I agree. However, the argument presented did not fall under either of these categories insofar as I understood it. Clarification may show otherwise.

"or to prohibit others from engaging in activities that offend their religious beliefs"

Uh, EVERYTHING offends someone else in some way. The reason we have a republican government is so that we can attempt to protect basic rights and then offend the fewest people possible. ;) As I pointed out, you are never going to get 100% agreement from all parties while still protecting the right to expression and self-determination. There are going to be conflicts of opinion. The Constitution provides for a reasonable and lawful approach to dealing with societal conflicts. As long as both parties stay within Constitutional provisions, that is the best we can do. But the notion that a religionist is prohibited from engaging in the political sphere is and should be repugnant to anyone on this forum. You don't have to disagree with them: their life views and goals are different. But any time someone starts talking about limiting someone else's participation in the political sphere, my spidey-senses start tingling. That is the road to communism and it is anything but tolerance. Freedom dictates that we respect everyone else's right to their own opinions - even those we disagree with - and most importantly their right to participate in a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

And just exactly which right are you referring to? Property? No one else is your property. Life? There is no infringement or threat to life involved. Expression? Still not affected. Rights are individual - not group. As soon as you involve the actions of a second party, you have moved away from rights to contracts. And one of the primary functions of government is contract arbitration and enforcement.

"If I was, I would still feel that using the government to prevent others from doing what my religion thought was wrong- was indeed wrong."

You have voiced a common misconception: that government can "prevent" anything. That's simply not true. Law enforcement is purely a reactive measure - not a proactive one. The very same arguments are used to support gun control laws. What laws do is affix a penalty for engaging in a certain type of behavior. "Minority Report" is and will remain fiction. If I understand you correctly, the laws Mormons were in favor of was the prohibition of certain types of establishments within their communities. They didn't say you can't do it elsewhere - just not around them. I can think of a lot more examples of this exact kind of legislation that are entirely legal and have never been overturned as violating a basic right: sex offenders near schools, adult bookstores near schools, etc.

Again, I understand that you have a philosophical disagreement with them regarding sexual attitudes. But as I stated before, republican society is all about giving everyone the say in how and what laws are created. There are going to be disagreements - like the present one. But there are two primary fallacies in your argument. First and foremost is the assumption that they would attempt to force through executive fiat these types of laws on the populace. I would say that you might have a justification to your concern if such had ever happened before. Barring some evidence of this, however, in the 200+ years this nation has existed, I simply see no evidence or justification for your concern. The second is that being a religionist somehow disqualifies one for office. That one is very specifically addressed in the Presidential qualifications and specifically rejects any kind of religious test for holding office.

Again, I'm not trying to get you to vote for McMullin. I'm not going to. But your fear and paranoia of religionists is dramatically biasing your views towards them. I'm not saying you have to join them either. But we have enough division in this nation. You've already pointed out several of their positive views. I'd say that there are plenty of groups out there we would do worse to collaborate with.

Re: “Of course they use their influence to affect public policy! Everyone does and to infer that someone shouldn't should shock anyone on this forum!” Consider me non-shocked. If someone is using their influence to gain subsidies or other special privileges from the government, or to prohibit others from engaging in activities that offend their religious beliefs, then of course they shouldn’t.

All mystics try to convert

It would seem so...along with us at the gulch.

I wouldn't be so suspect about Mormons...they are taught from little tikes to revere our Constitution...so what if they wear scratchy underwear...could care less, myself.

Did that...in spite of the fact I keep getting anything I ever put in there anyway...so I rarely use it.

Don't know what's goin on...somethin's a foot.

Not going there. Not worth the effort. We disagree.

Very sensible, blarman. I hadn't even considered the religious angle in this case.

Freedom of speech does not mean respecting what anyone says regardless of what it is and does not mean tolerating theocracy. That they try to use their influence to affect public policy for their religion is why term2 denounced it.

I wonder if they are on the Endangered list yet?

Oh, I do believe the Mormon Church has a very long reach. I was filled in on some of the background by a guy I worked with who was very devout. Go look at their fundamental beliefs and you will shake your head. They seem to try to do good things, but almost always in the guise of conversion.

That was my take too, it was almost as if he was told to be easy on him or something, this goes back to my "government in background" theory. Too damn much happens in plain sight now, as if someone wants us to know we have no control, no legal system but theirs, and no country.

If so, and uncovered, would be a real issue as it is a political donation by a non profit. It would also end his political career.

Yep, every day. Better than mainstream media....check the spam folder first.

Wrong because they are using government to take away my rights. Government is supposed to protect my rights according to the constitution. I consider that an immoral act on their part. My ability to petition the government on an equal basis to the mormons is not the issue. I am not disputing that. I could go to the city council meetings. But it is not right for the mormon contingent to try and convince the government to give them what their religion wants by taking away my right to start a business that does not infringe on the rights of other people (lets assume that the people who attend a sex club are doing so with full knowledge of what goes on and approval of it.)

Its the using of government to secure religious goals that THEY hold, at the expense of my right to conduct business between other people who do not hold to the mormon beliefs.

I would think that you would have no issue with this. It just so happens that I am NOT a mormon. If I was, I would still feel that using the government to prevent others from doing what my religion thought was wrong- was indeed wrong.

But you do choose to argue about it. I would point out, however, that your choice of argument is not on the size, but the policy of use. I agree that the military has been used poorly for the last 25 years. From Bill Clinton using it in Serbia and Africa to distract from his scandals to Bush attempting to use it for nation-building to Obama as a cover-up to overthrow governments, I agree that all of these are not the proper role of the military.

I also agree that there is a ton of wasteful spending in the military. I used to live in a military community and had friends who were pretty well connected and they griped about the waste and conflict of resource allocation that was largely a result of the Pentagon. I watched a great movie about the building of the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and how it was a typical case of shifting priorities and trying to do too much with a single platform - of Pentagon morons who were trying to invent a multi-purpose silver bullet instead of specializing.

"The USA has attacked and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

That's a pretty tall claim. Care to back it up with facts? Thousands? Maybe. Innocents? Doubtful. But 100x that? That's excessive even for hyperbole, and it's nonsense.

"Hate us for our Freedom? What a Sick Joke!"

Have you ever met and talked to a real Muslim? A fundamentalist? I have. He was an ex-PLO propagandist who had worked for Arafat's group and the insights he shared about the PLO's purposes were shocking. I will tell you this much: Islam HATES the freedoms the US represents. They always have and always will. It is part of their ideology. Why? Because their ideology has always been about conquest and subjugation - about forcing a single way of thinking on everyone else. There is a reason they call us the Great Satan and it is because we encourage freedom of thought. And they hate that. They hate people whose opinions differ from their grand caliphate. And they hate them enough to wage war on them and kill them. They've been doing it for at least 1200 years - to argue that the US made a dent in that at all is beyond farcical.

Have the leaders of the United States made grievous errors in the use of our military? Absolutely. But I don't pretend for one minute it is the one-way street you claim.

I think you misjudge just how much the Mormon population despises adulterers. They are not forgiving on that topic, which is why neither Hillary nor Trump are polling well in the LDS-dominated Utah. Is McMullin a last-minute candidate with a lot of red flags? Yup. But when a lot of Republican donors openly refuse to donate to or support Trump, you can bet they aren't going to stand idle. They went looking for someone and McMullin's name popped up. The Koch brothers decided instead to sit this one out. Different strokes for different folks.

Your inference that they don't support Trump to put Hillary in office is ridiculous. They are facing the same quandary you have voiced time and time again: the problem of the lesser of two evils. You support Johnson because you don't like either Trump or Hillary. They don't like Trump or Hillary either, they just don't like Johnson as an alternative - whether that is because of a sentimental connection (McMullin is a Utah boy) or a religious one. They aren't trying to throw the election any more than you are by voting for Johnson. They are voting their conscience - come what may.

Who believes Evan received money from Clinton's Foundation to help HRC to divide and conquer?

Studying the man a little deeper reveals he has many of the same plans as Hillary Dillary Dock and is very socialistic although he does know how to sound libertarian to draw off some the crowd that wants to vote for Trump. Our current system is not a free republic but a popular vote communist system that will rarely attract any who are not corrupt. Those who are not corrupt are ineffectual in this corrupt system. Galt's Gulch should be looking for a place to live unobserved.