About Evan McMullin
An interesting guy here, seems to have a lot of positions that resonate with people in the Gulch, especially around government and politics. Joined the party a little late, but may be worth looking at. Seems a mix of Libertarian and old Republicrat.
SOURCE URL: https://www.evanmcmullin.com/about_evan
I would never want a cult to run our government. Neither would most people. And I dont want some crooked woman running our government either.
That leaves Johnson (who cant possibly win), and Trump (who might if the trump haters get a life and realize the alternative is crooked hillary this time, period.)
They are not a "cult". They are the fastest-growing philosophical/religious movement in the world and they have congregations in nearly every nation. If you look up any worldwide catastrophe, you will see their people there on the ground helping out and distributing aid - under the radar. One of their "grand dragons" as you want to call him, Ezra Taft Benson, actually headed the Department of Agriculture under Dwight Eisenhower. Want to know what he was against? Farm subsidies. And he grew up a farmer! Want to know why he was against subsidies? Because he opposed the idea of government welfare and felt like everyone should work to support their own. What a novel concept, eh?
I know a few Mormons and they are some of the nicest people you will ever meet, and some of the best patriots as well. They certainly have their kooks like Harry Reid as well, so there is a grain of salt. You may not know this, but the Bundy family, Finicum families and Hammond families are all Mormons.
I dont like that part, which is why I am inclined to call it a cult. There are documentaries that show how it IS a cult, but I havent been close enough to personally see that.
This said, their fiscal ideas are quite good, as are the family values they espouse. I just wouldnt want one to be president and be in a position to push their religious beliefs off on me or use their power to enforce them.
Plus the fact that it is a "religion" based on fixed ideas sent down from some prophet and enforced by the grand dragon in salt lake city.
I am very tolerant of other religions like mormonism, and I wish THEY were as tolerant of my views on life. I can be friends with mormons, but I would have to realize that whatever their religion told them to do, thats what they would do regardless of rationality
"There are documentaries that show how it IS a cult, but I havent been close enough to personally see that."
You seem to have obtained all your ideas by listening to their critics. You're a staunch Donald Trump fan. Imagine I'm a Hillary supporter and my opinions of Trump are only what I hear from the Hillary campaign. For the same reasons, I can't really fault you for having a negative opinion. I'm just asking whether or not you are willing to entertain the thought that you are only getting one side of the story. For the same reason that I would never allow a Catholic to tell me what and Objectivist believes, I want to hear what Mormons believe from their own mouths.
"their fiscal ideas are quite good, as are the family values they espouse. I just wouldnt want one to be president and be in a position to push their religious beliefs off on me or use their power to enforce them."
So just a question, but is that paranoia talking or a real concern? Because we've had religious Presidents all throughout our history and none of them have pushed religion from the pulpit... until Obama - and he's been pushing Islam. This question was also brought up specifically when Mitt Romney was running for president and I thought his statements on the matter were pretty clear and well-spoken (assuming McMullin holds to those statements). And when I really think about it, I can't say I'd mind having an honest person with conservative economic views as President. That would be a refreshing and welcome change! And someone who isn't constantly being badgered about sexual improprieties or other such distractions? Who instead of wasting press time and considerable resources defending himself or herself from the scandal of the day could actually get to the issues? I'm really starting to like such an idea.
"Plus the fact that it is a "religion" based on fixed ideas sent down from some prophet and enforced by the grand dragon in salt lake city."
Did you know Harry Reid - a Nevadan - is a Mormon (or claims to be)? If he is any indication of Mormons' "taking orders", I'd say you're pretty safe.
"I am very tolerant of other religions like mormonism"
Really? You'll pardon my skepticism, but your repeated use of words to describe them like "cult" and "grand dragon" lead me to conclude very differently. If you want to show tolerance, the first thing would be to stop using terms like those which have a decidedly negative - and quite frankly offensive - connotation.
"I can be friends with mormons, but I would have to realize that whatever their religion told them to do, thats what they would do regardless of rationality"
They have closely-held beliefs just like you do. And they are entitled to them under the First Amendment just like you are entitled to yours. As to their rationality, again, it seems rather premature to judge their precepts when you don't really even know what they are. That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a reasoned objection. I think a more rational decision would be to look at the principles they espouse and go from there.
I say thats wrong, and its a specific example of what I am talking about with the mormon leadership. Just like with anything else, I have had mormons tell me that they are mormon, "but they do other things..."
For a long time they hated blacks and wouldnt allow them to even be in the church (they gave up on that however ). They do hate gays, and the families of people who come out are instructed to disown them and not have contact with them (I personally know several gay people who have had this experience).
Maybe you are mormon, which is why you defend mormonism so much. If so, I am sorry I offend your sensibilities, but these are my thoughts on the subject and I should be allowed to express them. Note that this does not infringe on any human rights of you or mormons in general. I would never chase them across the USA as happened years ago, and I could care less what their beliefs are, so long as they basically dont use government to enforce them on me.
Actually I can understand why mormons band together and try to get into government positions. Its a protective measure to keep from having what happened years ago repeated. I get it. But I didnt chase them from state to state to get rid of them in the past, and they have nothing to fear from me. I just dont feel comfortable with a card carrying mormon being in a position of power over me. Thats all..
So you and they have a policy disagreement about a societal issue. That's precisely the role of government. You can argue and say that your belief is in opposition to theirs and that's going to be true. But every single policy decision of government IS a moral decision. And if we truly say that our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" to try to restrict any given group from attempting to participate in the legislative process through legal means (assuming of course all the means were legal) is to violate our own First Amendment. They aren't doing anything any differently from the Sierra Club (minus the eco-terrorism thing), the NRA, or hundreds of others groups expressing their own self-interest. What you really have a disagreement with is their morality principles. I get that. I just want to make sure you understand where your own objections are coming from as well. But what everyone should recognize is that republican government is never going to be anything but a contest of ideals. It's never going to be 100% agreement. What is key is in how we deal with those differences of opinion.
"I say thats wrong"
Wrong because it differs from your values or wrong from a moral perspective? They are two completely different lines of reasoning.
"For a long time they hated blacks and wouldnt allow them to even be in the church"
If you'd like to know the whole story, I can give it to you, but since it's a little off-topic I'll suggest a private thread. Short version: it was never about hate and membership was never forbidden.
"I am sorry I offend your sensibilities, these are my thoughts on the subject and I should be allowed to express them."
There is a hilarious quote I like to rely on: "He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. And he who takes offense when it is intended an even greater fool." I don't take offense from someone honestly giving their opinion. In this case: you. And yes, you have every right to express your opinions. My larger concern was that you seemed very eager to want to restrict one group's First Amendment and fundamental right to expression simply because you disagreed with them, and moreover that you had never engaged a member of that group to understand their point of view. If you turn the entire situation around, the imposition into their communities (who started Las Vegas?) of these sex clubs is an affront to their beliefs. Someone has to give. So they can either ignore their teachings entirely or they can vote based on what they believe in. I have to admire them for their conviction - even if it isn't popular.
Ignorance breeds mistrust, but in many cases it also simply leads to erroneous conclusions. In your case: the irrational (and if that offends you I apologize) fear of a religionist like a Mormon attempting to "convert" through force some part of this nation. In my opinion, that would be an impeachable offense, and one I think both Democrats AND Republicans could agree on. I would hold the same opinion of a Sikh, Muslim, Jew, or Wiccan, but I'd really only be worried about the Muslim since their religion espouses coercive conversion as a legitimate policy position. If world history tells us anything, however, I'd be even more worried about a communist gaining the Presidency. Communists have killed more than 100 million of their own citizens in the past 100 years or so - and the first two things they did was to forbid religion and outlaw guns.
"Actually I can understand..."
The history is certainly there, but I think there is a simpler answer: that they are encouraged to be politically active. Not to take a particular side or party, but to vote their beliefs. I really think that is what is happening in Utah and why McMullin is playing well there. Mormons are big family people. They look at Donald Trump and they see another Bill Clinton. Then they look at Hillary Clinton and see something arguably worse. To them, nearly ANY third party is going to be attractive!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
We can certainly compare Harry Reid to Mike Lee and see both ends of the spectrum, I agree.
A welcome change for 4 years. We have tried the establishment and there is no reason to think that following its rules will suddenly produce better results than it has in the past.
Trump is not a libertarian by any stretch, but he can help remake the system so perhaps a libertarian has a chance in the future. Hillary will cement the control of the establishment with her cronyism, and it will be harder for third parties in the future. Look at what she did to Bernie Sanders this time (and the idiot is campaigning for her now !!! Did he get bought off too?)
Hillary will sell me out for the biggest donor, and I dont even know who they are or what it will cost me. Trump at least spent his own money and doesnt NEED to do this at all- he has a good family, a nice business, and he should enjoy life now. I do believe him that he would like to protect the USA and inspire us to be great again. Call me a dumbass for thinking this, but its what I think. I could care less if he mouthed off in some locker room talk. That stuff happens all the time, but is hidden. Bill Clinton did worse than that, as a lot of actual presidents have in the past, but he was enabled by Hillary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Mc...
McMullin is polling high in Utah, where he was born, and could carry the state. If he does, then since Utah has 6 electoral votes and New Mexico has only 5, Gary Johnson would have to carry more than his home state to place third in nationwide electoral votes and be considered for President by the House of Representatives.
I've never had an affair, groped women, run in corrupt political circles or abandoned dates to drown in my car. I, also, know virtually nothing about politics, but carry a copy of the Constitution with me, daily. These facts, alone, probably make me more qualified than either of the top two candidates for President.
Just looked around to say, "Oh, yeah, there you are" to the little brown U.S. Constitution paperback WITHIN REACH OF MY (politically incorrect) PC!
Never done those bad things and even my ex has a high opinion of me.
You can't beat that with a stick and I've only used one to whack a couple of convicted felon inmates within a 21-year career.
Dino For Defense (with reasonable restraint).
To paraphrase what a woman says in the samurai classic Sanjuro, "A good stick stays in its baton ring."
I couldn't find a clip of "A good sword stays in its scabbard" but I did find this (just wait for the sound) for you to enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NNaj...
Wasn't that just peachy keen?
Furthermore, me dino done fired two rounds (one bullet for each escape attempt) to keep a total of three inmates from escaping over the years.
Dino For Border Control!
I am old dino and I approve of this message.
Has a nice ring to it. Khalling as VP. Get Herb7734 as Advisor to the pres. OUC as Secretary of State , Nickursis as secretary of the Navy, Mr.Robert Gore as SCOTUS, Blarman press secretary. Put MichaelArrethum on border and vetting of immigrants. Sounds like a pretty nice gulch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLriU...
No, I did not fight stegosauri every day like those idiots told you twice. There were plenty of other critters, and you feel like sleeping all day and ten some after eating just about any of them.
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.
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.
"Best indicator of future behavior is past behavior," Henry Bowman
I will be more than happy to denounce McMullin for a policy stand I don't care for or to criticize his background for acts he personally was involved in which were immoral but I refuse to participate in or do anything but denounce the use of character assassination and guilt by association such as in the claims made by ffa without justification. ffa has declared himself prosecution, judge, and jury and with only his own bias and opinion upon which to act. That directly flies in face of anything an Objectivist would do and I'm going to call him on it. I would expect nothing less if I - or anyone else in this forum - were to engage in the same.
Regarding the size of the military, I can cite several rational reasons to argue for such a position such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc., so that one is a matter of debate, especially given the age of our military and the sheer size of territory we have to defend. I think there are arguments to be made there on both sides and both deserve our consideration.
Regarding meddling in the affairs of other nations, I will probably agree with you. There are various forms of "meddling" - everything from espionage to economic, however, so any real debate would have to be very specific. I'm not generally inclined to political or military meddling in other nations, but I'm all about sanctions and economic policy as a tool for foreign diplomacy.
Regarding empire building, that too is a mixed bag. I think it's okay to help build up a potential ally, but the biggest problem is that you have to start with a culture espousing similar values. In my opinion, the Middle Eastern nations simply don't qualify there, which is why our efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. have been such miserable failures. But at the same time, I don't believe the "chickens coming home to roost" nonsense. I have a friend who was a Colonel who served in Afghanistan who did a special informative session with pictures to explain the situation over there - why it was a mixed bag. But I don't blame the US. I believe that every individual makes their own choices in life: choices that include who to make their enemies. Those who want to attack us have been doing so since the inception of the US. To try to blame that on political decisions made in the past twenty years is just looking for a scapegoat and misplacing blame the same way Obama tries to blame Bush for all his problems. The issues with those people run much deeper into ideology than simply response to certain actions. Those are excuses to hide the real intent and emotion.
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.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gary-johns...
Johnson's actions as governor and even his resposes after stumbling on air in his campaign indicate an ethical person. I don't agree with some of his propsals, but I do agree with the most important ones and I think those could make the others a non issue in reality. I think it is much more likely that Johnson can learn presentation skills than for Trump (or Hitlery) to suddenly become ethical, or for McMullin to suddenly want to restrict government power when his entire adult life experience is working to expand government.
Based on McMullin's actions and experience:
(1) CIA operative -BIG NEGATIVE
(2) Goldman Sachs operative - BIG NEGATIVE
(3) GOP Committee on Foreign Relations operative - BIG NEGATIVE
McMullin has been working for the enemy his entire life. No chance I trust that he is telling the truth as a candidate.
Guess he could get the NSA employee vote.
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.
This is my conclusion after 20 years of study.
Now the rulers? the Priest?...they were no smarter and bicameral also, only with more information with no (mental) right to have that information.
As for Beck, I enjoy the storytelling. I really appreciate how he draws in the context and history of any particular issue. His grasp of history is incredible, but I don't always see eye-to-eye on the politics. And he called Benghazi for what it was on the third day - a collusion by Hillary to cover up arms sales to militant groups.
I can't stand listening to Hannity anymore. He's let his cheerleading for Trump outweigh all other considerations. I used to listen to Rush as well, but he doesn't seem to be as relevant any more. Savage was always interesting, but his extreme-of-extreme views and rhetoric turned me off - as did our local station's decisions to stop carrying him. Alex Jones has the occasional gem, but you really have to search through the conspiracy theory stuff and it's generally not worth my time.
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.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/...
Hey...are you getting the daily gulch email with all the chosen post for the day...I haven't got on since saturday.
Don't know what's goin on...somethin's a foot.
I don't agree with McMullin on all his policies, but I would take a Mormon at their word over many others - and most especially the two major candidates. I don't think he has a realistic prayer of winning - even in Utah - but I'd vote for him before I'd vote for either Trump or Hillary.
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).