Column: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus

[reillym]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-05-Ayn-Rand-and-Jesus-dont-mix_n.htm

The new darling of the Republican Party is pro-choice and anti-religion. She once wrote that, since "an embryo has no rights," abortion "should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved." And when asked by Playboy magazine whether religion "ever offered anything of constructive value to human life" she answered "no," adding that "faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life."

By Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY

Enlarge

By Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY

Her name is Ayn Rand, and though she died in 1982 this novelist, philosopher and anti-communist crusader is the hot new thing in the GOP. The American public may have met the April opening Atlas Shrugged, a film based on her novel of the same name, with a collective shrug, but Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tout her books, and her genius. And the opening line of "Atlas Shrugged" ("Who is John Galt?") pops up regularly on handmade signs at Tea Party rallies.

 

[BuddyRey]

Inasmuch as Ayn Rand derided charity and said that it wasn't a virtue, she and Christ admittedly parted ways. But in her methodology, there's little conflict between the two that I can see. Christ never used government to force people to follow Him, nor did He ever run for public office to try and get state power on His side. His means were almost always non-coercive.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I agree that you can't reconcile the two and there is no need to reconcile them.

Ayn Rand's view of man as nothing more than the product of chance being acted on by the random forces of the universe invites the very tyranny she said she opposed. There is no basis for man as man in Objectivism.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

There are certainly orders that are sent down from a puppet master that makes these people badmouth Ayn Rand as they do. They fear her and her ideas.

 

[Seraphim]

Yet she happens to be right 99.5% of the time.

There are certainly orders that are sent down from a puppet master that makes these people badmouth Ayn Rand as they do. They fear her and her ideas.

 

[amy31416]

Why would anyone try to reconcile Ayn Rand's philosophy and Jesus? She was Jewish, for Christ's sake....

 

[low preference guy]

Inasmuch as Ayn Rand derided charity

link?

 

[low preference guy]

Ayn Rand's view of man as nothing more than the product of chance being acted on by the random forces of the universe invites the very tyranny she said she opposed.

bullshit. she specifically criticized that view. that's not her view of man. random forces don't determine man's actions.

 

[doodle]

I agree that you can't reconcile the two and there is no need to reconcile them.

Ayn Rand's view of man as nothing more than the product of chance being acted on by the random forces of the universe invites the very tyranny she said she opposed. There is no basis for man as man in Objectivism.

She is liability overall.

Caution, video in this link contains language about God that some may find objectionable

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/03/paul-ryans-ayn-rand-problem/

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

lol...

if you are going to propose a Robin Hood budget, you have to decide whether you are robbing from the poor to give to the rich, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Because you cannot do both. You cannot worship both the God of Jesus and the mammon of Rand.

Once the poor can no longer be robbed blind from the FED the Robin Hood budget is going to get really interesting.

A budget that is going to get paid for by the FED raping and pillaging the poor with inflation is a false choice between robbing the rich or poor. We already know who is getting robbed...

 

[amy31416]

She is liability overall.

Caution, video in this link contains language about God that some may find objectionable

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/03/paul-ryans-ayn-rand-problem/

Catholics are renowned for their charitable institutions, too bad they're also renowned for thinking that they need to supplement them with government largesse.

 

[erowe1]

How is Ayn Rand "the new darling of the Republican party"?

 

[low preference guy]

How is Ayn Rand "the new darling of the Republican party"?

I think Rush Limbaugh mentioned her once or twice on his show, so she must be.

 

[jmdrake]

She is liability overall.

Caution, video in this link contains language about God that some may find objectionable

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/03/paul-ryans-ayn-rand-problem/

LOL @ Paul Ryan not being able to deal with a fellow Christian with a different viewpoint trying to foist a Bible on him.

Anyway, the short answer Ryan could have given this person is "Is it moral to put your great grandchildren in debt to pay for social programs now? And is it moral to make people dependent on the government instead of on themselves, their community, their family and their God?" The liberal Christians response could have been "Is it moral to spend money on elective wars abroad when their are people hurting at home?" Paul Ryan wouldn't have had an answer for that. But Ron and Rand Paul would. The R Pauls are >>>>>>>> than the Paul R.

 

[jmdrake]

How is Ayn Rand "the new darling of the Republican party"?

What they realized she was anti welfare state, pro warfare state and pro zionist? They just forgot to read the atheist fine print.

 

[low preference guy]

What they realized she was anti welfare state, pro warfare state and pro zionist? They just forgot to read the atheist fine print.

She opposed U.S. involvement in at least WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. I love her type of warmonger!

A good link with Ayn Rand's positions on many wars.

 

[jmdrake]

Inasmuch as Ayn Rand derided charity and said that it wasn't a virtue, she and Christ admittedly parted ways. But in her methodology, there's little conflict between the two that I can see. Christ never used government to force people to follow Him, nor did He ever run for public office to try and get state power on His side. His means were almost always non-coercive.

link?

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7
What was Ayn Rand’s view on charity?

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

[From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”]


Edit: Now I guess one can quibble over the difference between charity not being a "virtue" and it not being a "major virtue". Anyway I disagree with her position on this.

 

[low preference guy]

Edit: Now I guess one can quibble over the difference between charity not being a "virtue" and it not being a "major virtue". Anyway I disagree with her position on this.

I asked for a link that shows she derided charity.

There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

That doesn't sound like deriding charity to me.

 

[specsaregood]

Why would anyone try to reconcile Ayn Rand's philosophy and Jesus? She was Jewish, for Christ's sake....

So was Jesus, so clearly they must think the same. Glad I could clear that up.

 

[jmdrake]

I asked for a link that shows she derided charity.



That doesn't sound like deriding charity to me.

You snipped out part of BuddyRey's quote.

Ayn Rand derided charity and said that it wasn't a virtue

Further you have to consider the definition of charity. The original definition is closer to altruism which (sacrificial love) which Ayn Rand did deride.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html
It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_(virtue)