"The problem is one of equality. You cannot lump peaceful believers who find all physical violence repulsive by virtue of the tenets of our faith and those who believe that god demands they cut the heads off of the infidels"
The equality make justice blind. We treat all religions the same. That means we treat crimes the same way. Being in a violent religion is not an excuse for criminal behavior. Someone's criminal behavior is not an excuse for persecuting a religion. The religions are protected in that members won't loose any rights for joining a religion. They don't gain any right to commit crimes either.

The problem is one of equality. You cannot lump peaceful believers who find all physical violence repulsive by virtue of the tenets of our faith and those who believe that god demands they cut the heads off of the infidels. By the laws of our country murder in the name of anything is a crime and the last time I checked there are no tenets of my faith that will result in any jail term.

As for the "public forum" thing, my reference was to the public expression of religion that are common in America.

From the crèche in a public square to the crosses or other religious symbols in war memorials religious people are feeling our right to publicly express our faith are under assault. To the extent that all citizens have a right to express how they feel on any subject, we shall continue to express our religious stance.

No one here can say that I take every opportunity to make a religious statement of some kind. In fact, I often avoid conversations heading that way. But I do not believe there is any limitation placed on the expression of such, just as any other discussion can be followed here. And as you might note, I am a paying member, a "Producer" which also has certain other benefits - not as far as subjects go - that's not what I mean at all. Each member here agrees to abide by the "User Agreement" which makes clear what discussions are inappropriate and how such are ordered.

It has been a while since I read it but I'm pretty sure religion is not one of the targeted items how do I know that? Because I'm here - I would have never joined if speech on any subject was banned.

Perhaps you have read the FAQ for the forum, but if not, allow me to copy the description of the Gulch for you;

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
What is "Galt's Gulch?"
Galt's Gulch is the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie "Collective." Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for. This, is Galt's Gulch Online.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

You might see that there is no such reference to the "ideas of Ayn Rand", although they certainly are encompassed by the FAQ, the gulch is NOT limited to them. We are allowed, even encouraged to "come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more." Certainly religion can find a place among the worlds philosophies, even with those who see no value in it. Perhaps you might be challenged to study a bit about it and KNOW why you reject it.

"Freedom of religion and freedom from religion go hand in hand."

Only if you use "religion" in the most convoluted of definitions. We are constantly bombarded with a cacaphony of ideals, principles, and conclusions of varying merit and substance in a bewildering assortment of areas of life. ALL tell us to believe this, choose that, pick something based on some set of values or moral code. That moral code is religion. You can choose to align yourself with a formal moral code or religion if you choose and associate with those like-minded people. That is ensconced in the First Amendment as your right. But to pretend that you are not being propositioned by conflicting value proposals all the day long is more than a bit disingenuous to yourself.

Is there a God or isn't there? Two conflicting moral propositions. Individualism vs collectivism. Altruism vs Objectivism. Even SIMILAR moral codes differ, just ask the Protestants and Catholics!

There is no such thing as freedom from others' ideas except by virtue of your own choice whether or not to accept or reject such. But the only freedom from "religion" is total freedom from thought.

this is that natural dissonance thing I was talking about...taking it personally probably isn't the right way to look at it...but you certainly see atheism as contemptible, I've read your comments with great interest. I hope you are feeling better. You shouldn't have shared you're in the hospital if you didn't want us to worry...

The Constitution was actually very clear about protection for expression - specifically religious freedom - and this was only strengthened and enumerated in early court cases of the late 1700's and early 1800's. What the Constitution protects is the freedom of people to think for themselves, to believe what they will, and then to attach themselves to groups of like-minded people without fear of the heavy hand of the Federal Government mandating or prohibiting such. It applies to Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Satanists, Wiccans, PETA, The Masters, and every other organization in America. Or at least it used to. You can choose to align yourselves with whichever camp you choose. The Constitution only mandated that the Federal Government couldn't tell you which ones you got to pick from.

Religion is not a class that is being protected per se, but the freedom of choice itself. Compare the United States to China, where there is no Constitutional right to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, or of the press. The only acceptable religion is socialism and the only acceptable God is the Communist Party. The only acceptable information comes from the government-controlled media, and violators are punished with swift imprisonment, torture, and sometimes death.

You can not protect freedom of thought without being willing to protect thought that may disagree with yours - religious, areligious or otherwise. You either protect it as a whole and tolerate the stuff you don't like or you go down the slippery slope.

Have I EVER insulted you? Or is it something else?

You have the right to believe religious claims if you wish but they are not "just as valid" rationally. You have the right to believe any darn fool thing you wish and act upon it in any way that does not harm others. But not the right to have others treat those things with respect if in their judgment they are contemptible.

Both sides take heat. And it is not necessary either.

There is plenty of common ground for everyone here within Objectivism.

Unfortunately SOMEONE from one side of the Religous / Atheist divide or the other always starts beating the exclusion drum.

If the whole issue was ignored by both sides here, we could have much better discussions.

It is an issue that humanity has been unable to resolve throughout recorded history....we won't do any better at it.

Great points. The only thing I would say is pretty much anything considered political or philosophical might be discussed. Socialist and progressive opinions get down pointed immediately. I think LGBT issues have become highly political and so I can see many relevant discussions to have. I 'm not all that excited to be hit over the head with them. Mostly I avoid religious discussions unless I think Constitutional claims are incorrect or legal claims. But I also think there are plenty of forums out there to debate thise questions. Great points

By ptotected, I wasn 't really intending to discuss free speech or even pc stuff as much as get to the heart of what the 1 st Amendment is intended to enforce. As far as the Gulch goes, O 's take a fair amount of criticism on a site they should feel somewhat comfortable on. It 's the overall personality of a site filled with members who enjoyed the movies, want to promote them, get an introduction to AR and Objectivism. I do think Christians are taking alot of heat in the media. But I also think they have weilded great power and influence over decades past, even in our founding, certainly in the 1 st European settling of our shores. At times that influence has been quite repprssive. As Mimi pointed out in her comment. I had to testify in an age dumiscrimination case (another bogus protected group) shortly after the birth of my 1 st child. It was the first tine I left her and I was already upset about that, but nervously I was dreading the swearing in. I had dealt with the uncomfortable, accusing continence of the Judge who married us after crossing out religious references, how was it going to go when I refused to put my hand on the bible to swear to tell the truth? Would the jury believe my testimony?

khaling,great topic.
Take a look at the signatories on the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Weren’t they men sort of made up of one group? I think in some respects they considered their one group completely covered and protected without having to state it should be so.
If I open my front door, I can point to a neighbor’s home where someone lives who is originally from Peru. The neighbor across from his house is gay. The family to the right of him is african-american. The African-American family has a black family living next door to them, but they are from Ethiopia. I can find people who work or live in my community who can’t speak a lick of English.
It’s normal to seek out those who are similar to you. It’s a biological norm. It is in our DNA: groups stand a better change at surviving. In some ways in a country as diverse as ours we almost have to create laws to protect certain groups in order to better serve the individuals within those groups.
This site was create for Objectivists, fans of Ayn Rand and her writings, and the movie franchise.
I’ve watched interviews of Ayn Rand, interesting enough she never brought up religion,(not that I have ever seen), she just answer the questions that were ask of her concerning faith. In her day and age, saying you didn’t believe in God was considered career-killing. It was very brave of her. I didn’t tell people that I didn’t believe in God when I was a kid, or as a teenager, or in some situations--as a young adult for fear of rejection. People looked at you like there was something wrong with you. For too many decades, atheists and agnostics kept quiet because they feared they would be socially ostracized. I can understand where a christian today feels persecuted because there has been some ‘blow-back’ as individuals throw off the mantel of fear. Christians no longer can control the dialogue and are often shut-down or shut-out now. Individuals now feel free to express their doubts about an existence of a God. I don’t want to ever be preached to again.

HOWEVER-- I have never started a thread here discussing my lack of faith. I never started a thread in here discussing how my gay niece was born that way and I’m so happy she has the right to marry in her state now.

This website is really not the place.

I didn't interpret KH's remarks as personally negative toward you, stargeezer. I think she was just exploring the logical ends of your prior answer to me regarding your comparison of the _validity_ of religious belief.

Also, keep in mind that this is Not a "public forum"; it is a privately owned website about the ideas of Ayn Rand. If someone challenges the rationality of my thoughts on this site, it is not pulling the 'discrimination' card.

you are not persecuted here.

you are making an emotional argument-who is depriving you of your thoughts? what nonsense

these are false arguments. I do not make a joke about this and I agree that religion is personal. You are the one who made it about the collective. Twice you made statements about that before I posted this.
"I can assure you that it's very important and it involves a algebra you won't understand."
I understand, I disagree. Algebra is logical and based on reason. In no way am I making fun. You may continue to attack me as if I am, however it would not be the case

The need to a protected class is quite in evidence here. Asked in one sentence about my christian faith and shria law?? There is no balance there. And there IS discrimination. There may be no specific mention of any protected class, but due to their experiences as British subjects there were things the founding fathers knew needed protection if the nation were to survive. That's why they listed certain groups in the bill of rights. Religious people was one group specificly listed. You can accept or reject that the first amendment set them apart, but not many others were listed like this. We Americans are unique in the world with no state religion and personal freedom of speech. That free speech can be about anything in the world, but the one thing the founders were most serious to protect was the freedom to engage in religion if a person wanted, or to go to the local tap. A choice about a subject that's as personal and individual as anything in life. it's not a light matter to be joked about or to use as leverage.

As I said before, I don't care what you believe, but using a person's faith to belittle them is not using 'reason', it's being a bully and it is the reason that there are protected classes. Because some confuse a feeling of superiority for 'reason'.

I'm out. A long day coming in my real life.

You seriously think that lumping my christian ideals and me with those hate filled shria law maggots is A=A? There is no discussion with that, YOU have made a conviction. That's like asking me how long ago I quit beating my wife. There is no debate.

To the extent such thing as a "protected class" can exist under the bill of rights, Christians and all religions are protected b/c the BoR starts out saying Congress cannot establish a religion.

Thanks, khalling. I am welcome here.

I spent a day at Jekyll Island learning about how the Federal Reserve was hatched. I knew that JP Morgan, John Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie were great heroes of banking and industry in the 1800's, but then formed a cartel to get President McKinley elected, before that backfired with McKinley's assassination and the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. What I didn't know was the tangled web between them, their relatives, and proteges to perpetually put the US and the rest of the world into permanent debt, and how much they used political cronyism to accomplish it. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a worthwhile read.

In Charleston, SC, we visited Fort Sumter. I knew that the South contended that Lincoln started the War Between the States, but I didn't know as many details as I do now. After South Carolina had seceded, most people know that the Union blockaded Charleston. What most people don't know was that the primary reason for this blockade was the collection of taxes, particularly on cotton. Lincoln refused to acknowledge SC's secession and still expected taxes to be collected. This is a lesson any of us wanting to go Gulch need to remember.

The next day we visited the Yorktown that replaced the Yorktown at The Battle of Midway. The second Yorktown was also important in the victory over Japan, but the Battle of Midway is my favorite battle. By breaking the Japanese code (use of intelligence) and calculated risk, we won the battle that turned the battle in the Pacific. Later in Charleston, we went to the Confederate Museum. I knew that I had a lower view of Lincoln than many Americans, but several historians at that museum taught me several things that made my opinion of Lincoln considerably lower.

Then we spent a couple of days in Yorktown, Jamestown, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The pinning of General Cornwallis in Yorktown on a natural peninsula, combined with the French navy's repulsion of the attempted English naval support into Chesapeake Bay was tactically brilliant. In one day, Williamsburg's actors portray events from 1775-1777. Williamsburg is well worth the trip, even if you don't go to Busch Gardens (which I did as a kid), and is remarkably inexpensive compared to most possible vacations. I especially liked the actor portraying Patrick Henry. Perhaps I was born in the wrong era.

I have the individual right to seek, exercise, and even debate religion. I know you don't understand this but religion IS a personal thing. It only involves my god and me. If you ask me about it, I will tell you, belittle me about it and I will defend my belief. You seem to think all that is a joke or something, but it's not to me. I can assure you that it's very important and it involves a algebra you won't understand.

I have no idea why my phone spelled it that way - but I meant horse. I know you can figure that out. It's all about discrimination which starts when one person thinks they can belittle another because of what they believe - orbecause they look different like when they are using a wheelchair - is that a subject we should broach? Yet another person has already mentioned that he felt the ADA was un-nessecary, but THAT was REQUIRED before some people would put a ramp on their store or even on city hall. As late as 1987 I was blocked from voting because the polling place was not wheelchair accessable.

Yes there are people who would not hire a worker who was a Christian, but these same people would also deny us access to many other things. Like free speech.

"...you have no right to deprive me of my thoughts."

How am I depriving you of your thoughts? Don't all individuals have the individual right to think and believe what they want?