EdSalti

A good lead. Thanks. I'll put a copy on order.

Re: Ayn Rand's quote: Exactly the reason I stated the maxim the way I did and not the way it's given in Christianity. It's been a good many years, but I remember that most religions state it the way I did. You don't go around spring-loaded to do good; you just treat people the way you would be treated. As to shared values in many religions, I agree with the "common sense" statement. That is precisely why the same principles show up in so many otherwise dissimilar and unrelated body of ethics. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't lie. These are basic rules for getting along with other people you must live with. My point in all this is that too often we dwell on the differences between Objectivism and the belief system of whomever we are discussing it with. Universal Health Care is a hot topic that can generate a spirited argument on both sides of the aisle. If you state flatly that you are against it and it is another step on the road to Socialism (which I am and it is), you immediately set up an adversarial discussion and you are unlikely to convince anyone of your position or change theirs. However, you can very easily lead someone from an agreement on man's inalienable right to his life to no one having a claim on someone else's life to the true nature of universal health care. You may not kick any doors down, but you may get it opened a crack so a little light can shine in.

HOW DO WE GO ABOUT INTRODUCING OBJECTIVISM TO THE AVERAGE PERSON? Is this even something we want to do? For most Objectivists, the principles of Objectivism, once understood, are so obviously right that the desire to share them is overwhelming. The apathy with which they are usually met is monumentally frustrating at the very least. Maybe it’s in the presentation? I have spent a fair amount of time visiting assorted sites dedicated to Objectivism. The impression I come away with is that Objectivism is viewed as a Golden Tabernacle on a High Hill. Those willing to make the climb are welcomed in but I have found little effort to make the way inviting. Ayn Rand’s plot line in AS was a world-order crisis brought on by a global march toward Collectivism and speeded to its climax by The Strike. I’m not quite ready to go on strike just yet; as if the loss of my tiny mind would make a difference. It is my contention that most people in the world who subscribe to some major religion are more in touch with the principles of Objectivism that we give them credit for. I have posted the point several times in my brief association here that The Golden Rule, stated as, “That which you would not have others do to you, do not to them,” is a very handy basic principle to follow as a practicing Objectivist. I have noted that this principle in some form or another is a key tenet in seven of the world’s major religions. Objectivism departs from religious beliefs mostly in the realm of the mysticism that clings to religions from their origins. In guidance on how to deal with your fellow humans, the similarities are greater than the differences and should provide a foundation for spreading the word. If there is a consensus that it is in our interest to introduce people to the truths of Objectivism as we see them; and if we agree, at least for the sake of argument, that there is a shared core of values among Objectivism and other philosophies based on religion; what we can contrive through this Forum is something in the way of a checklist that will help us all present Objectivism to others in a way that makes it more palatable and less threatening. If I can convince someone of the true meaning of man’s inalienable right to life and property; that no man has a claim on another man’s life; that all transactions among men must be voluntary; that the purpose of government is the protection of an individual’s rights; I shall be pleased. If he wants to cling to his concept of God as the creator, I am happy to let him have his security blanket. If there is a thread here, and I suppose it should have one, it might be: HOW CAN WE PRESENT OBJECTIVISM TO OUR FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES IN THE MOST POSITIVE LIGHT; AND HOW CAN WE BEST AVOID ALIENATING THEM TO THE IDEALS OF OBJECTIVISM?

If the diploma is valuable to you for better job opportunities, and it often is, here's a couple of options that will take you out of the classroom. You might be able to CLEP some classes. Without stopping to look it up, I think it means College Level Examination Program. It amounts to taking a final exam without taking the course and if you pass you get credit for the course. The number of courses you can CLEP is limited but it's a help. Community college courses are generally slanted toward working adults. They are often compressed and involve a lot more self-study and less classroom time. Universities will accept a certain number of community college credits which reduces your classroom time in the BS classes. Some profs have a very liberal class attendance policy. If you show up for the exams and pass them, they don't care if you attend class or not. You can check around and find out if you can sign up for classes under one of these. You might still end up having to give the BS answers on the exams, but a couple of beers afterwards helps wash the taste out of your mouth.

Well, sir, I shall leave you to your watch on the ramparts. I admit there are some strange birds nesting in the fringe. It is comforting to know someone is keeping an eye on them. My wife was raised in the Church of Christ, a name she still can't say without a shiver. She converted long ago to Reform Pagan and is currently working on her 32d degree Crone. A comforting statistic perhaps: From 1990 to 2000, Christianity showed an increase of 5%. Slightly less than the rise of the population at large. Nonreligious/secular beliefs showed a rise of 110%. Hang in there, folks, we may have them on the run.

It is pretty ironic that I seem to find myself Defender of The Faith since I became a believing, practicing atheist about half a century ago. I'm sorry, gents, I just can't work up a proper shiver over the prospect of marauding Christians storming my home to drag me off to toil in the fields of the Lord. It just ain't gonna happen. What I see in the Christian community is a rapid rise in secularism and a corresponding decrease in emphasis on the mystic aspects of the religion. Mega-churches are the trend in most cities. Many of these mega-churches are non-denominational. Young, energetic ministers are rejecting the rigid doctrines of the established religions and are concentrating on messages of optimism, hard work, fellowship, and community service. There is little concern in these churches over whether a person truly believes or if they have been saved. These churches thrive because a great many Christians today are also less concerned with the mysticism. What they want is a community to help them cope with the daily grind and help them teach their children how to cope. Their church essentially functions as a small town inside a big city. I think you need to look at the whole of Christianity and not just the radical element. Almost everything can be plotted on the ubiquitous Bell curve. I learned a long time ago if you lift up the little flaps on either end of the curve, that's where you find the really weird stuff. The 80-some-odd percent in the middle is usually pretty tolerable.

I think I need an explanation as to why God, Jesus, Christianity, et.al.; are so frightening to Objectivists. Aside from the creator mysticism and the extreme altruism allegedly personified by the death of Jesus, I've had zero run-ins with Christians over the years. No muggings for God, no forced labor in the soup kitchens, no ransacking of the house for booty for the collection plate. Nada. I guess I've become complacent. Most Christians I've dealt with are mostly pretty decent people. They take the "do unto others" thing pretty seriously. I have the occasional God peddlar stop by the house to show me the light but a polite "No, thank you," is usually sufficient for them to leave me to my darkness. The American Inquisition, if there even is such a thing, has to be either very, very benign or very, very inefficient. I have expressed my heresy quite often over the years and have successfully managed to avoid the rack and the whip. I did have a brief run in with an Iron Maiden once, but that is quite another story. According to a notable array of opposing religions and a growing list of opponents of any religion, Christianity has been hauling us to hell in a handbasket for two millenia or so. If our present location is the best they can do, I say leave them alone. When Christians start lopping off heads, again, and modeling the latest in TNT vests, I shall become concerned. My suggestion is to stand in front of your mirror and practice a gentle, tolerant smile. Something you can use when a Christian starts a raptuous revelation over their recent rebirth. Rejoice with them. Someone in that state will probably be moved to stand you a beer or two in celebration. Take advantage of it while it lasts. It usually doesn't last very long.

I've made a few pieces of furniture for the house. I enjoy working with handtools and I like the handmade look of Southwest colonial (if there is such a category). I've made a few jewelry boxes for my wife, daughter, and oldest granddaughter.

Nothing quite like a little political zig-zag to send the most rational of us running for our soapboxes, the better to flail at the nearest horse carcass unimpeded. Sarah Palin was an inspired choice. I had hoped for Condi Rice, but I think there may be some baggage there not visible to the general public. Governor Palin was chosen because she is a she. Simple as that. It remains to be seen just how disaffected the Hillary supporters are, but Ms. Palin will pull a number of them away from "the empty suit" who stole the nomination away from their girl. She is, after all, just the beat of an aging heart away. McCain has a strong, attractive, articulate woman on either side of him. I think the guy is a shoo-in. B.T.J.M.O., I.C.B.W.

You make some excellent points, but I think you depart from reality in the above paragraph. "Americans should not be accepting a lesser of two evils;" but, unfortunately, we will be required to do just that. So far, I have not heard any pronouncements, tacit or implied, that federal marshalls will be pounding on my door to drag me off to church. I have heard plenty of rhetoric which indicates that they will certainly be there for their pound of flesh should I be remiss in the proffer. I am not a big fan of either candidate but I am a realist and will endeavor to choose the one who will leave me a shekel or two more than the other one. More important than that, we need a leader who deeply believes in this country and will ensure its survival. That is, after all, the primary responsibility of a government. If, as you suggest, both candidates will lead us down the same path, perhaps their devotion to this country should be a deciding factor. I may misjudge; but I shall judge.

Why, thanks, hon. I knew it had to be somewhere. As I am wont to do, I did a quick scan of your posts. Quite a wide range of interests there. If I may ask, what area of art and design are you working in? I got my BA in Fine Arts about a hundred years ago. About the time I was finishing up, I was realizing I was never going to make a living with it. Fortunately, the AF saved me. I had to go but I ended up liking it and stayed in. I satisfied my creative urges with photography, woodwork, and, most recently, gourd craft. I will keep an eye out for your posts. BTW, the picture you posted of you in your 20s do was amazing. You should keep your hair marcelled. It's a good look for you. ES

A belated welcome, young sir. Apart from about 50 years of generational gap, I think we have a lot in common. I grew up in Bastrop at the top of the boot, went to Northeast when it was NLSC, and have pretensions of being a writer. I wrote for a few years for a little newpaper in NM awhile back. It was a great experience. You didn't mention where in the state you are, but I hope you remember where you left the hatch battens. Gus may be coming to call in a few days.

Why, thank you, young sir. Your photo v your avatar. A case of extreme juxtaposition, wouldn't you say? Kipling? In such a modern youth? Amazing. Has been quite some time since I kipled. Must try it again sometime. The Alpha Scot and Michael Caine starred in a wonderful little movie, THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. Did you see it? If not, you must track it down. Being a retired military man, I have a particular fondness for Mr. K, especially TOMMY. I'll watch for your posts. ES

And, I have noticed that you do it with great style and grace.

Did a quick search on Mensa and found several old threads. Had to comment on the above thought. I was told that Mensa was founded early in the 20th century at Oxford by a pair of young scholars. Their lofty objective was to meet a class of young women with whom they could enjoy intelligent conversation after enjoying less cerebral activities. The club was successful enough to attract a succession of young men and women for some years. When England entered WWII, a former member remembered the club and called together as many other former members as he could find and formed a think tank to help solve some of the problems that England faced in fighting the war. The club was legitimized and became the international organization it is today.

Appears to be an old, frayed thread, but, what the hell, so am I. I think the subject was well covered. If you're going into a field where intellect is a prerequisite, Mensa might be a plus. I heard Mensa described as being like a club for women who were 44DD or bigger. They basically have nothing in common but the number and it's considered gauche to talk about the number. I joined and dropped out because there was no commonality among the members. Everybody else wanted to talk about what interested them. How rude. A thing I learned: There is a direct correlation between intelligence and success up to an IQ of 120. There is continued rise in success with a rise in IQ up to 129, but it isn't a direct correlation. There is no further correlation after IQ 129. The scant research is mostly anecdotal, but it appears that up to 120 the person is smarter than the average but is close enough to relate effectively with the average population. Higher IQs don't seem to relate as well. Also, the higher IQs seem to lose the ability to focus on a single thread. They have a lot of interests and seem to get distracted more easily. May be over-simplification there, but it sounds plausible.

Thank you, ma'am. Learned two things. What I did wrong and it can be fixed after the fact. 'Preciate your help.

One member, Sophia, recommended SOPHIE'S WORLD. Don't know if you're familiar with it. Looks like an ideal book for a 12-year old girl. I ordered one for my granddaughter. Twelve is an age of developing social consciousness. My daughter is very level-headed about environmentalism, homelessness, global warming, etc., but she will be resistant to a head-on assault on her church. I'm not going to beat the door down, just open it a crack. I saw it mentioned in another thread and immediately thought what a great idea it is. It's been decades since I read it and will re-read it again. TF might have to wait a few years. If she wants more, I'll tell her about it. A worthy subject for another thread: Ayn Rand's depictions of sexuality. I'm sure it's been done. Just haven't found it yet. OOPS!! Gotta figure out what I did wrong.

Love it!! Cattle grid, huh? As a kid in Louisiana, we called them cattle gaps. Never saw the commando-roll. Always wondered how the rascals got out.

Thank you, sir. Can't tell you how good it is to find this place. Not familiar with Shirley, but with a name like that, I will definitely go in search. "How's your momma 'n 'em" is a Southernism/Texasism. I am an incurable wordhawk and phrases like that stick to me like a football on Fred Biletnekoff.

Thank you, ma'am. Looked up the info on Sophie's World and ordered a copy. Will read it first, then pass it along to the grandgirl. Wouldn't want her to catch her grampa unprepared to answer a question. Your reward, should you not know about it is: paperbackswap.com.

Don't know if it's approved form to comment, but in the few days I've been messing around in here, I am mightily impressed with the site. The responsiveness, the logic (go figger), and the flexibility are superb. Whoever designed the site did a great job.

Welcome, Daniel. I'm fairly new myself. As your friend suggests, stroll around, check the topics and the discussions and get a feel for the place. You are among friends.

Mercy!! Squids, Aussies, and Canucks. See what happens when you leave the gate open. Never did, Rearden. Managed to spend most of my career at the operational lever. TAC recce, running the photoprocessing and interpretation function. Closest I got to the Joint arena was Hq, TAC, back in the 70s before the purple suit push really gained momentum. You? Maybe the two of us can do something to dispel the nasty rumor that military intelligence is an oxymoron. Thanks for the welcome. I'm just so proud to be here.

A aspect of this issue that I didn't see mentioned is that if you voluntarily enter into the team sport understanding the rules of the game require subjugating your individuality to the team and you are willing to do this for the benefit of the team, there is no conflict. This is an important question because it can as well be asked: is it possible to be an Objectivist in the military, or in a corporation? Same answer. Of course, it is. The goals of the team and your goals must coincide or you shouldn't be there. Your reasons and your rewards can be many and varied, but as a team member you must be willing to pursue those goals within the framework you have chosen. The hot-dogger on the b'ball court, the officer or NCO who works for promotion at the expense of the men or the mission, the corporate member who undermines fellow workers to make himself look good are all frauds who are on the wrong team for the wrong reasons. More often than not, they are recognized for what they are and are gotten rid of. More often than we'd like, some of them make it further than they should.