Avila

"I think part of the problem is that Rand didn't often explain what she meant by career. People often take that to mean some father staying at work late at night, willfully neglecting family at every turn." I certainly don't think that's what she meant, and I doubt many people do: that would be an extreme caricature. "Some people *really do* end up in a conflict between what's better for their family, and what's best for them, but never bother to figure out that family does not have to be a hindrance towards pursuing their own goals." I agree with you, though one can certainly think of situations where such a conflict is, in fact, real, and not imagined. "Plenty of artists and writers (Rand included) received tremendous value from spouses, children, or friendships because those relationships improve the quality of a career by leaps and bounds." Again, I agree -- certainly my creative work (I am an artist) benefits from the support I receive from my spouse. However, the benefit to my career is, as it were, a "side benefit", and not the primary. Receiving love from and giving love to my spouse and my children is the primary benefit, as it contributes to my happiness and joy. My creative work is NOTHING compared to that -- though only in comparison, I should immediately point out, as I do derive much satisfaction from my work. I don't like treating people as "things", and viewing one's spouse and children as important because they add to the quality of my career is getting rather close to that. "It seems to me that you're primarily wondering about the "family as a career". No, not really --- I understand that Rand said that a family could be one's career, and I'm fine with that. I'm still wondering why she said what she said in answering the Playboy interviewer: PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties? RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral." SHE is making the distinction between "productive work" and "family", despite many posters trying to soften this by saying that I am positing a false dichotomy; that it isn't an O'ist principle (in which case, why would it be immoral?); that I don't know what she meant by family; that I don't understand Objectivist terms (which terms, in her answer, am I not getting?). I understand that this is her opinion, but I don't see the evidence that it is anything but that. It might be true for her, but it certainly doesn't fit my experience, nor the experience of many people I know. It's not immoral to value human relationships above one's work. If one is pursuing happiness (and what person doesn't?), and finds that his spouse and children bring him more joy than does his job as an insurance claims adjuster, or accountant, or garbage truck driver, than that seems morally healthy. Part of the problem is that we aren't all going to be architects, or railroad owners, or innovators in metallurgy. Lots of folks have pretty dull jobs, but judge them worthwhile because it provides them with a paycheck that allows them to pursue happiness in other ways. "I think many people unfortunately choose to have a family because of some impulse that it's what you're "supposed" to do." Outside of arranged marriages (rare in this country), do you really think this is common? "Many"? Most people I know want to share their life with someone they love. Maybe it's just the circles I operate in, but I don't know of any of my married friends who chose that path because they thought it was what they were "supposed" to do. I do know one woman who has been divorced for decades who did say to me that that's why she married the loser she did. When she told me this, many years ago, I was surprised: I had NEVER heard anyone say that. She remains the only example I know of this, and I'm almost 50. "Even in that interview, Rand ultimately says "it depends" in regards to devoting yourself to a home and family." Yes, which suggests a contradiction, or perhaps she simply gave an answer (the one I quoted) without thinking it through very well. I can see how that could happen in an interview. The use of the word "immoral" is what gives her statement such force, though -- it suggests some universal that has been violated. That she later says "it depends" is more palatable, as it then suggests the importance of context.

"I'm afraid we disagree there. She did not create new definitions out of thin air. What she did was remove all contradictions and ambiguities taking things down to their essentials." Yes, we will have to disagree on that. But tell me, is she using her definitions or common definitions in the Playboy interview? Here it is again: PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties? RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral." So just what term am I misunderstanding?

"I think a large problem here is that you are using an understanding of some terms in a different manner than Objectivists would." This has been a consistent problem on this forum, both for me and for others whom I see struggling with some Objectivist concepts: Rand created her own definitions of terms. I wonder, sometimes when I'm feeling rather cynical, if this was meant as a kind of protection, to keep her philosophy from being easily questioned. It certainly creates a morass of side distractions. The question I would have for you, then, is what defintion of terms was Rand using when she gave the Playboy interview? Certainly it was going out to a largely non-Objectivist audience, so it would have been stupid of her to have used Objectivist meanings of common words. So I'm still left wondering why any sane person thinks it is immoral to put one's spouse and one's children ahead of one's work.

""This particular Oist principle of work being primary over family" as you put it, is a fallacy,and strawman." PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties? RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral." If it isn't an Objectivist principle, then why does she call it "immoral", as opposed to "ill-advised", or "not my cup of tea"?

"In which case you have accepted that it would be immoral to make family primary. Discussion over." I said that I would "mostly" agree with your approach. It is one aspect, the putting of work over family, that I disagree with. And it would be nice if you could give me actual evidence that this works in the real world, as opposed to working in fiction. I have already given myself as an example of a happy, productive person who puts family first, and can give you many real-world examples from my own experience, and probably most adults here could think of happy marriages wherein the spouses put family first. History can give examples as well. It's hardly reasonable to contrast a stereotype of a traditional marriage gone bad with a theory of marriage, as you did. I'm not saying that there aren't any families based on Objectivist principles, but face it -- they're rare. So rare that it would be difficult to accurately assess its real-world success or failure. I have to wonder, too, if this particular O'ist principle (work being primary over family) might be one of the reasons Objectivism never seems to take hold. That is, it seems that many people (myself included) discover Rand when in high school or college. Her writings grip us; we learn about Objectivism; we read her other books; it changes how we look at the world. And then most people fade away....you could claim that this is because it's a demanding way of life (and it is), but so are Judaism and Christianity, and they've persisted and influenced culture for thousands of years. Perhaps most (no, not all) discover that they value their spouse and their children more than their work, and that they derive more happiness from human relationships than they do from their work. "And no, if you don't recognize that rational selfishness is a radical departure, then you haven't grasped it yet - nor the pervading altruist/collectivist morality." There is an annoying tendency here to attribute ignorance or the inability to grasp O'ist concepts if one disagrees with a concept. Yes, I have grasped the meaning of rational selfishness. But no, I don't see it so much as a radical departure as a redefining of certain terms. As I said before, I really don't think that there are that many people who truly devalue themselves for others. Even those who like to posture as "martyrs" (I'm sure we're all familiar with such annoying people!!), are getting something out of it, some emotional reward. Even cloistered nuns who reject the world, or monks who serve the poor, are doing so out of self-interest at some level, as they expect to be rewarded. I don't think true altruism is that common. I seem to recall another thread on this forum which explored that question a bit, and in the end it seemed as if the rational participants (those who weren't simply creating fictional caricatures of the world around them) agreed that it was rare. As for the evils of collectivism, oh, I think I grasp that too. It's all around us and easy to see. Rand was brilliantly spot-on in her criticisms of collectivism. But it doesn't take one being an Objectivist to observe and "grasp" those evils -- I think what sets Objectivism apart is not the ability to grasp the problems with collectivism, but how to deal with it. "Somebody else correct me if I'm wrong..., but I'm pretty sure somewhere in reliable sources on Oism there is something stated to the effect that yes, being a "full time parent" can be moral if one approaches it as their career.." Then there is at least a superficial conflict with Rand's earlier answer in the interview. I suppose what I am looking for is her further explanation: in her first answer, then, is she speaking of one's birth family, and the situation is something like the example given above of someone who wants to be an artist, but becomes an architect because his mom has always longed of that type of career for him? Perhaps that is the explanation, as apparently she then goes on to say that family can be a career. But it would be nice to know, and unfortunately there's no way of ascertaining that for sure.

"The Objectivist's approach is to get his or her "ducks in a row", so to speak: Self - as first and last value, and productive work that makes all other values possible (and utilizes all one's virtues); then romantic love which consciously recognizes those virtues in each other; and then the concrete affirmation of that love in a child. With its own value of love and nurture." That is NOT a "radical departure" from the norm -- I would mostly agree with the approach you outline, and I'm not an Objectivist.

"You never heard about people who create family because their religion, tradition, cultural pressure demand it? You never heard about arranged or even forced marriage? Then you are out touch with reality." In parts of the world, yes -- but I assume we're mostly discussing life here in the United States, where such marriages are few.

"At some point I have to ask you Avila, how much of Rand you have actually read in full and how much you are taking from second hand and third hand sources. because you don't seem to have a grasp on any of the contexts in which Rand said things and keep clinging to soundbites that aren't even direct quotes." I've read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemolgy, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, the Romantic manifesto. If you look at the earlier posts on this thread, you will see that I am NOT relying on second or third-hand sources, as I gave both the Playboy interview question in its entirety, and Rand's answer in its entirety. I'm not "clinging to soundbites". "For example, have you read Atlas Shrugged. In whole? Because in Atlas Shrugged there was a woman who had been a successful movie star. When Dagny questioned her about what she was doing in Gult's Gulch the woman replied that she was taking on her most important role ever- the proper raising of her children." Yes, I have read it in full -- a number of times, actually, though it's been quite a few years. How do you account for the Playboy interview answer, then? I really doubt that Rand thought that a woman's place was in the home, so I don't think her answer about it being immoral to put one's career over family was only directed to men.

"That is- you must possess and maintain a distinct intact personhood of your own before being able to have healthy relationships with other people. Anything else turns co-dependant and parasitic." I agree, as it is impossible to love others if one despises oneself. "Since I believe I recall your mentioning of being Catholic somewhere down the line I will remind you that many highly respected theologians and religious scholars actually agreed with Rand on this point." And again -- I agree. After all, the call to "love one another as you love yourself" presumes a healthy self-love. "It is important that others- be they spouse, child, siblings, friends not be the primary in one's life. That is- you must possess and maintain a distinct intact personhood of your own before being able to have healthy relationships with other people. Anything else turns co-dependant and parasitic". But if it contributes to an individual's happiness and self-esteem, why would it necessarily be co-dependent and parasitic? Here, perhaps, is where we disagree. Let me give you a real-life example: I know a fellow here in town who is about 40. A cheerful, hobbity kind of guy. He's not some great intellectual, and though I haven't asked him what his college experience actually is, I know he's not currently using a degree if, in fact, he even has one. He married the girl of his dreams a few years ago. Because they are both older, they were very happy to be able to conceive and have a child. He works here in our small town at a factory that makes gas fireplace inserts. I don't know exactly what he does, but I'm guessing it's simple assembly line work or machine tool work. Does he care? NO. He is clearly happy because he is providing for his wife and son. Those are the things he values, and what bring him happiness. His job is merely the means by which he can provide for his family. Now, I happen to think the choices he has made -- putting his wife and child ahead of any career -- have been perfectly moral. Whynot points out that Objectivist cardinal values are rationality, productiveness, and pride -- hasn't he, in fact, applied those in his own way, even while putting himself third on the list before his spouse and child? I know I do the same -- I put my spouse first, my kids second, my career as an artist third -- and I am quite happy (married 26 years), very productive, and very creative. Given Rand's quote in the Playboy interview, it would appear that my friend, and myself, are immoral. I just don't think there really are that many people who actually devalue themselves or harm their self-esteem by putting others ahead of themselves. Sure, there are some drama queens -- perpetual martyrs -- but even they are, ironically enough, "getting" something they desire from posturing as a martyr. Now, I'm sure there are a few sickos out there who desire misery, but no mentally healthy person does -- we seek happiness (and, if we seek it irrationally, we won't find it).

"The value of a family is precisely the value it provides you as an individual." I agree with that. I simply do not agree, though, that it is necessarily immoral to value it above a career, which Rand appears to do. "In that sense, career can only properly be "above" family. Another way to phrase that might be that career is a root value, which is what is meant by primary. Your own self-esteem makes it possible to having healthy relationships." We're probably just arguing over small points, while agreeing, more or less, on the larger points. I think that self-esteem comes primarily from loving and being loved -- this is why, for example, the original poster is having such difficulties, despite his abilities in his field. These are aspects of one's background that predate one's career, as they go to one's childhood experiences and affect one's self-esteem well before one is out in the world achieving anything. Great creative minds can and do surmount a lack of a loving birth family, but most people struggle tremendously and don't overcome those dysfunctions. Once one is out of the nest, so to speak, then a sense of purpose is going to be increasingly important, and it adds to one's self-esteem. That might involve a career, but it might be that a career is important only in that it provides for one's own spouse and children.

"Surely the Jesuits taught you better." I think this might be the second time you have referenced my "Jesuit" connections. I don't know why you're doing this, as I have never been taught by Jesuits, if that's what you're thinking. Or are you some conspiracy believer? Do you believe that Jesuits are behind all evil, and that people who disagree with you are obviously under their mind control? At any rate, you can't seem to keep from being snide, so I'm not going to take you seriously.

"From your remarks, I take it you don't approve of rational selfishness, right?" Wrong. "Rand's statement is clear; although I don't think anyone here has ascertained whether she meant one's birth family - or one's chosen/created one. Important distinction." I agree -- it is a very important distinction. "Having read an off-the-cuff remark she made about the serious responsibilties of having children, I'd say 10 to one she meant the former." I would hope so. "But I'd still like to hear why family should take priority." As I mentioned before, love, which is essential for emotional and mental health, comes from family and friends. Without that, humans are usually crippled. All healthy, functioning individuals seek happiness -- no one in their right mind deliberately chooses misery. Being loved and loving is usually essential to that happiness, and love comes from family and friends. I say "usually", because there are a few individuals for whom their creative work is so consuming that they derive all of their happiness from it. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. For the most part, individuals coming from unloving, dysfunctional families (like the OP here) have significant emotional hurdles to overcome in the areas of personal happiness, ability to relate with others, and their own creative work. And certainly there are many examples of individuals coming from these kinds of backgrounds who are "healed" by the love of their own spouse and children (the painter Carl Larsson comes to mind). Where else is the individual going to receive and give love, if not with family and friends?

"A man and woman create a family and rise children not because they want to do that or enjoy the happiness which family life and children could give them, but simply because their tradition demands it." Wow.....do you actually believe this? This is an amzing statement. You are out of touch with reality.

Sorry, I had problems with the response (the text field was not cooperative!) so I'm sorry if my reply to you was hard to read. I simply wasn't able to edit properly, and at some point it wouldn't allow me to type anything at all. But it seems to have been straightened out... "You argued family can be good because it can be a creative pursuit. You also argued that family was good because it helped one to be productive. By doing so, you are conceding that creative work is primary." Not at all. I simply gave those arguments for those who would argue that creative work is primary. Personally, as a human being, I think that the family gives all kinds of benefits, but the emotional and mental health that comes from healthy familial love is certainly one of its primary benefits. Its benefit to the creative process is also important, but not as primary as that. Love, which is essential for emotional and mental health, comes from family and friends. Without that, humans are crippled. "You claim to have other arguments somewhere in your back-pocket. Well, you cannot expect people to respond to ghost arguments, surely. I have some good arguments about why you can't, but I'm keeping them secret too" You're simply engaged in sophistry now: I gave you a simple argument for the good of the family (its effect on crime) in response to your challenge above, and now you want to dismiss that because you claim it is merely a "means to an end". At some point, you just lose on the common sense front. There are benefits to the intact family: I gave you a few examples. But you are skating away from Rand's claim that those who put family ahead of their work were immoral. I am looking for reasons to think why she would say such a nutty thing, and have come up with the partial excuse that, not having children, she didn't know any better. So, since you are presumably going to agree with this statement of Rand's, what do you think she meant? Should her comment be taken literally (in which case, I think she;s simply out of touch with the reality of family life), or do you have some spin you can put on it?

"I assume you are conceding that the particular arguments you made -- both of them -- were clearly assuming that family was good because it was serving the primary value (i.e. primary as assumed by your argument) of creative/productive work. If so, that's all I was pointing out (i.e. that -- in those two arguments -- you were hoisting yourself by your own petard.)" No, I'm not conceding that at all. Though others here have been quick to point out that equality in values is possible; that no dichotomy is necessary, (and I agree entirely with that) I am going by Rand's own words, in which she does not allow for this "equality" in values: Rand -- "If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral." That doesn't allow for an "equality" in values, does it? , as plain as can be, that people who put friendship and family ties above their productive work are immoral. That does suggest a dichotomy, does it not? I have tried to be fair as possible with Rand in saying that I believe because she did not have children, she was simply ignorant, and so perhaps may have simply had in mind the example that I gave -- that is, a grown child who follows his own wishes for a career in contradiction to his parents. But without that hypothetical distinction, I am left with her own words..... Rand: "If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral." "Immoral"?!!! I think her stated position, absent my hypotheticals, is immoral. "You claim to have other arguments somewhere in your back-pocket. Well, you cannot expect people to respond to ghost arguments, surely. I have some good arguments about why you can't, but I'm keeping them secret too" Hah hah. I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion at hand, but yes, there are common sense arguments for the importance of the family. Let me mention just one: criminals, by a vast majority, come from broken, fatherless homes. If you don't think that has an impact on society, you're deluding yourself. And where the father is absent, the state steps in (with usually disastrous results). And again, look at the OP here: he is crippled by his father's neglecting of his family.

"I wonder if you recognize the irony here. In both the examples you are making an argument for family by using the premise that they could be a form of creative work, or that they can help in performing such creative work. In other words, you are justifying family by an appeal to creative-work and productivity. In other words, this particular argument implies that family is secondary and only a mean to an end, or a concrete form of a particular end." No, that's not what I am doing. I can make other arguments for family being a primary value, but in this case I was pointing out that dysfunction in that area can become a serious hurdle to any kind of creative work. I say this for those who would insist, as Rand does, that creative work takes precedence. I am thinking, too, of the original poster, who wishes to do creative work but can't see to get past his flawed childhood (he says of his father, "Family wasn't important to him."). "To say something is primary to another is not to posit a dichotomy." I agree, but my point was that Rand did not seem capable of seeing the raising of a family as one's creative work. She did not apparently recognize that the two -- creative work and family -- could be one and the same. Otherwise, why state that one needed to be higher than the other in one's hierarchy of values?

"The sad reality is that I fully expect Obama to become like Jimmy Carter once he is out of office. Even then we will not be rid of him. He will still be meddling and telling the world what it should do for years to come unfortunately." Oh man oh man, I'm afraid you are right. I hadn't thought about it until you pointed it out -- dammit, you've just ruined my next few decades!!

"as Rand conceives it, one has to have some sort of purpose or career or consciously chosen pursuit for oneself as the main activity that you spend most of your time doing, a certain goal integrating your course or progress through life, as opposed to just sort of taking life moment to moment." And I agree entirely with that. To not have any purpose is to drift aimlessly, and since I think it is man's nature to have purpose, I don't think happiness can be achieved without it. I think my problem here is that she posits a dichotomy where I don't think one need be. When she says that "friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life", she doesn't seem to allow for the fact that for many people, they are in fact primary -- and may even be one's "creative work" (as anyone who has kids can attest to). Man is not an island -- he generally isn't able to be productive if the elements of family and friends are missing or are dysfunctional. If he has healthy family and friend ties, then he is able to rise above difficulties more easily and concentrate on his productive work. I think Rand put the cart before the horse...

"Note that the quote never mentioned anything about the reverse - creative work ahead of family. I can't ask Rand to clarify and neither can you, so it would be wrong to project on what I think she meant. I can only talk about what she did say, which is that putting other people above oneself is immoral." Here's the exact question and answer from the Playboy interview: PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties? RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships. So Rand is saying a person should put his work, and not just himself, above family and friends, and it is immoral for him to do otherwise. This is, I think, a result of her never having children, as is her statement that "Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life". Or, she may not have witnessed (as I certainly have) the damage inflicted on children who are put behind a father or mother's work. It screws them up, as they are constantly trying to win the approval of their distrected parents, and who go on to seek love from anywhere else they can, usually being so insecure that they choose badly.

"You know, it's possible to have values that are equal. I'm perplexed at how people consistently interpret "ahead" in that quote to mean that family (the chosen kind) cannot be just as important as a career. Putting others *above* oneself is different than putting other people who provide value as essential to one's life as about equal. Sort of like that line where you can't say "I love you" without "I"." That's about as favorable an interpretation one can put on what Rand said, and it's reasonable, though it is just as reasonable to take Rand at her word -- and "immoral" is pretty strong language to be used. It would be helpful, too, for Rand to have clarified just which family and career ties she had in mind: they are not all equal. A grown child who puts his own creative work ahead of what his parents may have expected from him is simply being true to himself, and his parents' expectations are merely a projection of their desires, not his. It would be foolish to put family -- in this case, his parents' wishes -- ahead of his work. (I still wouldn't call it immoral, but that's beside the point...) If, however, a man puts his creative work above his wife and children, he is being foolish. Alienated kids and possibly divorce are the likely result. Rand never had kids. I find that very significant -- most people, especially those who marry, do have families. It's a huge life experience that most humans embark upon, one with consequences for the surrounding society -- and one that Rand was completely ignorant of. I think her theories about the relative morality of work vs. family are just that -- theories.

"There may or may not be more or less consistent than the other groups on specific niggling points of doctrine" I think you're losing the point here. You stated that Christian Dominionists were the most "consistent" -- and hence the most to be feared. In your own words: "we all know who will win in a battle between the inconsistent and the consistent. The Christian dominionist is a huge potential danger..." I was merely pointing out that Catholics and the Orthodox are certainly more consistent in their doctrines than any fringe group of Protestants (which is what Christian Domionists are), given the great subjectivity inherent in Protestantism. If I were you, I'd relax: having manger scenes on government property is not a sign of the impending takeover by Christian Dominionists.

"Rand did value her family, which is apparent in most biographies about her that I've heard of. All she ever really said is that family is not intrinsically a value, probably taking the approach that family consists of people you choose and cultivating values." Her expression of family that I have in mind is from an interview wherein she stated that those who put family ahead of creative work were immoral. Personally, I think THAT idea is immoral!

"No pretense needed, I've had it said to my face. I've even had well-meaning more tolerant Xians send me such stuff wanting to know what I thought of it. If I had to guess I'd say it's somewhere between 10-20 percent of the population." This is merely anecdotal, as it is for me to say I have never heard it said. I don't doubt you, but it simply doesn't prove anything, nor can it serve as the basis of estimating how much of the population has that attitude. "I do know that atheists are the one group of people that most people would refuse to vote for. Gays and even Muslims (yes, even post 9/11) score much higher on the list of characteristics people would be willing to vote for. Multiple polls. Want to sink someone's campaign? Prove--or make a credible accusation--that he or she is an atheist, if you happen to know they are." Given the murderous inclinations of the atheist regimes in the past, that's not at all surprising. However, we weren't talking about voting for an atheist, but rather the attitude that they can't be "real Americans". "They don't have him on tape or anything, but he's been quoted by an accredited journalist and he or his staff has refused to deny saying it." Ahh! An accredited member of the media has said so......I guess that clinches it! "I would wonder why retaining such symbols on public land is so important to you even though you recognize the principle that you are willing to tell those who point out the principle, to leave the country." Because I like the life and color of festivals and holidays. Because it's the country I grew up in. Because the majority of the populace enjoy them. Because it's part of our cultural heritage.

"I would imagine there are more Christian dominionists than there are Objectivsts." No doubt, though that's not saying very much. And, frankly, neither are ever going to be any kind of significant influence on our culture. "Furthermore, the Christian dominionist is the most consistent sort of Christian--at least amongst those Christians who accept the bible as an unquestionable authority." This would be news to Catholics and Orthodox all over the world, who together make up the majority of Christianity. "Christian Dominionists" are simply a fringe Protestant group, one among many Protestant groups. Since Protestantism is inherently inconsistent, no one facet of it is logically able to be very consistent. Therefore, your fears that Chrisian Dominionists are to be feared because they are more consistent, and would thus win in a battle between the inconsistent and the consistent, really would only apply within narrow Protestant borders. I wouldn't lose any sleep, in other words. "The Christian dominionist is a huge potential danger." You go ahead and fret and worry about this if you want to -- me, I can see very real threats to this country, and "Christian Dominionists" ain't on the list. "What I am arguing against is the attitude I have seen expressed by many, many Christians that atheists aren't real Americans." I've never encountered this. Never. Not ever. Oh, I suppose you could go online and find some wack job, but are you really going to pretend that this attitude is common? " Christians like, for example, George Bush Sr." I never think of "George Bush Sr." and "very religious" as being compatible. He always struck me as your basic WASP.....So, do you have quotes from him that express this view? And even if you could find an oddball statement or two, how would that serve to prove that "many, many" Christians hold the view you want to claim that they do? Evidence, please. "I know you are not un-educated enough to think that Jefferson believed the U.S. was a Christian nation. So, what idea are you trying to smuggle in here?" You're right, I'm not that un-educated. This country was NOT founded as a Christian nation, though some of the individual colonies definitely were. The Constitution gave those colonies the right to keep their religious expressions, though they evolved over time and most ended up being fairly tolerant of the varying religious affiliations of the citizens, especially as this changed with immigration. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but not all. A good number were Deists or Unitarians, and some (like Washington) held on to tradional Christian affiliations (in Washington's case, the Episcopal Church) while imbibing lots of other theist ideas of the time. It could be said that the country was founded upon theism, as the Declaration assumes a Creator, and certainly this country has always, until recently, tolerated (and even encouraged) religious expression in government. History is clear on that point...the public square was open to religious views. "As SteveD pointed out through Jefferson, it's tyrannical to use a man's tax money to fund the celebration of those things he finds objectionable. The government has no reason to celebrate Christmas, Easter, Hanukkah, Rammadan, Ayn Rand's birthday or even the birthday of the nation." Maybe in principle.....but certainly not in historical practice. Which ought to tell you that your vision of what the country ought to look like is very different from what the Founders imagined and what came to be for most of this country's history. Which leads me to tell you and the Christian Dominionists: a pox on both your houses. I like the vision that the country was founded upon. If you want to start your atheist Randian Utopia somewhere, well, you go girl....just do it somewhere else. And if equally fringe Christians want to remake the country in their own image, I say the same -- do it somewhere else.

"As for manger scenes, etc., on public property, it's a similar issue to "In God We Trust" and "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. These are relatively recent add-ons from the 1950s (IGWT started appearing on coins in 1864, but didn't hit paper money until the 1950s). Unfortunately now, Xians use them as evidence that this is a "Christian Nation," which doesn't just mean a nation with a Christian majority but rather, a nation that is _explicitly_ Christian in form. This is a VERY dangerous meme to have people believe, as it helps those who want to turn this into a theocracy (e.g., the Christian Dominionists)." This is ludicrous --- "Christain Dominionists"? And just how many people fit that description?? Not many -- not enough for any rational person to fear. Religious observances, references, and practices on government property or by government officials are not "recent add-ons" but date back to the earliest days of the nation. You do recall, do you not, the reference to the "Creator" as being the source of unalienable rights in the Declaration? That's a biggie...and it's not a solitarty reference. The objection to manger scenes and other things -- that's the recent add-on.