Well said.

Re: “Is not atheism just as much an ideology as anything put forth by a religionist? Absolutely.” Absolutely not! Atheism (a-theism) is lack of belief in a supreme being, or god. How is that an ideology? It says nothing about what else a person believes or doesn’t believe. Just as a lack of belief in astrology or witchcraft says nothing about a person’s political ideology.

Re: “Under discussion was a public policy decision on what amounts to zoning.” Zoning is almost always a violation of the property rights of the zoned, and is frequently used to advance a statist ideological or religious agenda. (Example, no establishment selling liquor being allowed within 500 feet of a church.)

Re: “You are free to attempt to persuade others that your point of view has more merit than some others. And so are they. The First Amendment protects that right.” There’s a world of difference between having the right to persuade other people and having the “right” to vote for, say, Sharia law. Under Objectivist principles, there is no right to initiate force, and there is likewise no right to vote for laws that direct the government to initiate force on your behalf.

Re: “If communist atheism is any indicator of freedom, I'd much rather take my chances with the religionists. I don't see them murdering hundreds of millions of people.” Then take a good look at the Middle East. The only reason they are not murdering hundreds of millions of “infidels” is that they do not have the capability – yet. Or check out what Christians did to the native population when they conquered North and South America. Equating atheism with communism is no more valid than equating Christianity with virtue.

Re: “I see people who want to restrict that freedom and impose an atheistic worldview.” Please give a specific example.

"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."

No. They simply told you to do your business elsewhere than in their communities. As I pointed out before, there are a lot of completely Constitutional restrictions on where certain kinds of businesses may be located within a community. If the community votes to say we don't want a natural gas power plant in our county, they have the right to do that! (Happened recently here.) Your right to own a business doesn't give you a right to put it anywhere you want. Again, the most common example is there are a lot of restrictions about "adult" businesses being near schools or churches. And these are completely legal.

"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."

Yes. They are participating in the political process, and you are criticizing them for doing so! Your argument is that because their opinions differ from yours that they shouldn't be participating! Can you not see that? Attempting to tell someone they can not or should not participate in public policy or seek public office is flat out wrong. It is a violation of right to expression. I'm not telling you you have to vote for them, but you can't argue to restrict their participation. That is wrong.

"The separation between religion and government becomes blurred and very difficult to maintain."

That's because it's a fiction in the first place. Government is all about the institution of moral values and their enforcement within society. To say that one can divorce morality from government is to deny reality. The real question will and always comes back to whether or not government protects the individual rights to life, property, and expression.

If you are going to lump communist atheism into that overly-broad "religion" umbrella, I'll echo you. But generalities are incredibly dangerous. They get used to convict the innocent with the guilty in more cases than not. Generalities are the tools of progressives and those who speak in broad, nondescript statements so as to sway opinion without really saying anything. Stick to specifics. Atheism is a belief set. Christianity is a belief set. Progressivism is a belief set. But more important are the principles inherent to the belief set. That's where the rubber meets the road.

"But religionists engage in the political sphere to advocate and enact laws that give religion a privileged status, such as tax exemptions for churches"

Uh, don't businesses do exactly the same thing? Doesn't EVERYONE try to limit the control of government over them? Absolutely! Think about the argument you are making here. 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...)

"and that discourage or prohibit private conduct that is not approved by their religious tenets. This is wrong."

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. And of course there is going to be disagreement...

And we're right back to square one.

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. It's a contest of moral opinion - no one is arguing otherwise! But we have to be willing to have a discussion about it. Reality and the principles of reality aren't going to change - they don't care if someone is a Mormon or an Objectivist.

One last point I would make: If the object is to get people to buy in to any given ideology - whether Mormonism or Objectivism - they are going to have to proselyte: to make their case to individuals. From what I see from the Mormons, Objectivists have a long ways to go to catch up. I don't see any Objectivists riding bikes with those little black tags going door-to-door. And I'd much rather see that than a Muslim with a sword telling me to convert or die.

Is not atheism just as much an ideology as anything put forth by a religionist? Absolutely. If your positions were reversed, however, would not you be arguing your right to vote your opinion? I believe you would. Is not every issue ultimately a moral one? YES!

"Freedom of conscience does not mean controlling others with physical force."

There is a dangerous lie hidden in that statement: it assumes that freedom of conscience means a divestiture from moral law. That is simply not true. Every choice has a consequence. You - as an atheist - choose to believe that there are no consequences after this life for moral choices. Religionists disagree. Thus their perspective is that they are not only concerned with the here and now, but the hereafter. It is a fundamental difference of opinion that I'm not trying to change either way, but which must be recognized as a major part of this entire discussion. As to what force is involved, I see no evidence of such being initiated. Force would be attempting to coerce policy makers, rig elections, buy votes, etc. Participating in the political process? Hardly.

But I think the other issue - and the larger one IMO - is that you are taking the side of censorship. That has been and continues to be my point in this thread. You claim you want a "civilized" society, but the Constitution provides for that: it allows everyone to participate and vote their beliefs at the ballot box. It allows everyone freedom to express their beliefs and live by them as long as that doesn't infringe on others' rights. Under discussion was a public policy decision on what amounts to zoning. I don't see anyone attempting to force anyone into a theocracy. That's a red herring. And I would simply point out that they can make the reverse claim back at you: that you are attempting to force them into an atheistic worldview and abandoning their principles.

"In a civilized society based on the rights of the individual voting means voting for specific policies"

Yes: policies based on beliefs and principles which are going to differ from one person to another. You are free to disagree with those principles. You are free to attempt to persuade others that your point of view has more merit than some others. And so are they. The First Amendment protects that right. To attempt to deny that right simply because you disagree with their ideology violates any claim to "civilization" you might make! If their thoughts and opinions are not their own - if they are not permitted to own the products of their own minds because you disagree with them, you violate a cardinal rule of Objectivism and the very rights you claim to uphold condemn you!

"That is why a free society is not possible when faith dominates the culture."

If communist atheism is any indicator of freedom, I'd much rather take my chances with the religionists. I don't see them murdering hundreds of millions of people. This nation was founded by Christians - and I'm not just talking the Founding Fathers. Those fleeing to this world were fleeing to find a place where they could worship as they chose. What do I see here? I see people who want to restrict that freedom and impose an atheistic worldview. Maybe term2 had it right after all. Maybe the Mormons do see this as their last stand. There's no undiscovered country they can flee to at this point. If the very nation that was supposed to protect their right to conscience is now being used against them, maybe they have a point.

I co-habited with a young Mormon woman for a time. She and her family were quite cordial to me despite the fact that her father and I were the same age. It probably didn't hurt that her Dad and i were both beta testers for Microsoft ;-) He was a mechanical engineer and I taught software.

That said, I've known one other Mormon and he was "a piece of work" ... dishonest and manipulative and a thief.

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

I've read the Book of Mormon and the history of that organization and yes, I consider them a cult ... but they seem, in general, to be one of the nicer cults.

That said, and having been ordained in two very different religions, I consider every organized religion to be a cult. None of them stick to the Bible when it's inconvenient to do so.

I wonder how often it is just the act of communicating that slews everything. In the Navy we did the basic communications drill, where you start with one sentence "Bob gave Jill a peanut butter sandwich" and by the time it gets around "Bob raped Jill and ate her peanut butter sandwich". Now take something as complex as a religion, use word of mouth for a few years, then write it, then introduce power politics, then monks doodling away in the monkery..and until you get to the printing press, it is wide open to all kinds of variation. Yet some tribes have never used written words and their stories can be traced back to pictographs for hundreds or thousands of years.

Remember...it is the organization of the teaching that went arye with Christianity (and that was propagated by the bicameral brain). Many still believe the OT was something more than history...they are wrong...and of course...the word of their god...was actually a simple yet profound wave transfer of entanglements...we experienced them all the time...it's called, insight...only to those of a different voice, one not of their own, like we have today, it seemed to them, to be magic...the shame of it is, those that haven't yet awakened in that sense, even with the mind...still think it's magic.
This is my conclusion after 20 years of study.

Each has it's flaws. It is in the interpretation and implementation where we go down crap hill. Islam, in and of itself, is as peaceful a religion as Christianity, as they share a lot of common roots. The issue comes in when you get the self styled "experts" who proclaim they know god's will (which is really illogical, given that god, by definition knows everything and anything, even up to whether Trump groped 10 or 20 women, and apparently couldn't care less), and they usually use violence to impose that vision. Just like every religious craze, the violent ones get the news and the history, while the quiet, respectful people are shunted aside. One reason, of all the religions I have run into, the Native American beliefs seem the most cognizant of some connection to spirituality, for the most part (they had some doozies as well for violence). It always comes down to the human penchant for ramming their ideas down everyones throats.

That was my point, which you have eloquently detailed. Polticians are always deliberately vague, so that when they execute their real objectives, everyone is none the wiser. The Beast has also said she would shutdown coal, clearly, and it made news for a nano second, and was whisked away, why Trump hasn't used it in ads in PA, with the tag line like: "She will kill your job", is a mystery.

Obama didn't do something different than what he had said, he just didn't campaign on what "fundamental change" meant in practice because he knew that emphasizing it was controversial and would risk losing the election for them. The voters didn't ask and the intellectuals made sure it wasn't brought up. His supporters knew exactly what it meant.

On the eve of the election the video surfaced of Obama announcing earlier to a radical reporter that he was going to shut down the coal industry. Almost no one cared. It had no reality to them.

By the second term everything he was doing was obvious to anyone who looked -- including the controversial and popularly rejected Obamacare. They voted for him anyway.

Anyone who looked at who and what Obama was in principle could easily see it from the beginning, and the same is true of Hillary. Most voters don't care because they are Pragmatists with implicit collectivist premises. They accept his general philosophy but still don't like the consequences for their own lives when it comes down on them. But they don't know the connection, don't know the alternative, and no one was articulating and explaining a rational alternative on principle. The intellectuals made sure of that.

They voted for him because they accept his collectivist-statist premises in the form of Pragmatic progressivism. They weren't voting for just a person, but they weren't voting for the explicit policies either. They voted for the person enunciating destructive ethical and political philosophy which they feel comfortable with and accept, and are helpless to challenge. The intellectuals keep it that way.

So it isn't a matter of politicians saying one thing and doing the opposite. They feed the collectivist pablum in terms the voters want to hear, but don't dare discuss the details because the country isn't ready, yet, to fully endorse it. That is changing rapidly as America loses its sense of life and there is no explicit philosophy articulated to defend it. The intellectuals make sure of it.

Hmmm...didn't see that...
I don't fear the christian religious thing...I understand the bicameral end of it and if you're awake, one can still use his mind... what does bother me is the islamic thing...that too is a teaching but one that actually does physical harm and is of only the brain...a very very sick brain at that.

That also applies to political parties, which stand in for religion, I would point to the Nazis , Communists and Fascists of Italy as prime examples of that effect. One of the weaknesses is you are not voting for a policy per se, but a person who says they will do this or that, and then proceed to do something different. The Obamanation and his nightmare health plan is a prime example of that. "Change" indeed....

That is a point.

My issue with him is he whips up a rant, gets people all charged up, and then seemingly deflates. He was a prime mover behind the Tea Party, and then when they did not embrace all his religious requirements, seemingly tossed them aside. He mixes religious requirements into social structure, and that is never a good, or workable mix.

I have found that Beck, like we all should be, good and honest at adapting to a constant flow of new integrated information...I too had different thoughts about things in the past...I too have grown by finding the truth of things and I am sure at some point, I'll come full circle with a whole new perspective...shaking my head at what I used to think.

Yep...been lied to the past 64!...Each person is to measured by his own deeds...I listened to the reasons and experiences he had with the companies and jobs he's had and he learned and moved on...assuming all is on the up and up who best to tell you about hell but one that worked there.

Absolutely right.

Freedom of speech does not mean voting and otherwise imposing religious beliefs through government. Freedom of conscience does not mean controlling others with physical force. Government controls claimed to be sanctioned by religious faith is theocracy. It has no place in a civilized society. In a civilized society based on the rights of the individual voting means voting for specific policies implementing and protecting those principles, not overthrowing government for theocracy through competing faiths in the name of conscience. That is why a free society is not possible when faith dominates the culture.

Just not trusting in "kind thoughts", been lied to too much in the last 40 years.

Indded, an excellent point. I find that the religionists tend to forget it more often than the non-religionists. Just because you do not belong to the religionist group, does not always mean you are an atheist. I know some Christians who believe that a woman has the right to decide her own body destiny, and that God will sort it all out. I can live with that idea, as it removes the forceful oppression of one group on another, yet still respects their beliefs.

term, the issue isn't isolated to just this topic, look at how the huge block of anti abortionists try to rule the Republicrats and the opposite side in the Dumbocraps. Religion has a nasty way of sneaking into issues where it overrides the individual freedom. I agree with your point regarding doing whatever you want in the privacy of your own room or building, as long as it is all consensual and not forced. It then starts to drift over to the "right thinking, and the wrong thinking" ideas. Religion is probably the biggest cause of death in world history, especially when you substitute a political system in it's place and give it the same attribute.

Re: "To denounce someone for voting their beliefs is an attempt to infringe on their First Amendment right of expression and association." No it isn't. Denouncing is not an initiation of force and therefore is not an infringement. And my freedom of speech entitles me to denounce someone for "voting their beliefs" if they believe in government repression, such as Nazism or Sharia Law.

Re: “But the notion that a religionist is prohibited from engaging in the political sphere is and should be repugnant to anyone on this forum.” Nowhere did I say that. But religionists engage in the political sphere to advocate and enact laws that give religion a privileged status, such as tax exemptions for churches, and that discourage or prohibit private conduct that is not approved by their religious tenets. This is wrong. And in regard to toleration of other viewpoints, atheists vote for religionists a lot more than religionists vote for atheists. How many declared atheists are governors, congressmen or presidents? At a guess, zero. Toleration should go both ways.