Ayn Rand or Jesus?

No, it's not a cage match between the two, though that would be awesome $5 on Jesus, but a media campaign by a group of pastors decrying the hypocrisy of Republicans holding up an avowed anti-theist to be as important as the savior they claim to emulate.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/?hpt=hp_c2 (CNN)– Can a person follow Ayn Rand and Jesus?

That’s the question posed by a provocative media campaign that claims that some prominent conservative leaders cannot serve two masters: Jesus and the controversial author of "Atlas Shrugged," Ayn Rand.

The American Values Network, a group of political activists and pastors, sparked a debate when it recently released a video challenging some conservative and Republican leaders’ professed admiration for Rand, an atheist who saw selfishness as a virtue and celebrated unfettered capitalism.

Eric Sapp, AVN’s executive director, said the Republican Party cannot portray itself as a defender of Christian values and then defend the worldview of "the patron saint of selfishness" who scorned religion and compassion.

Sapp singled out Republican leaders such as Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh after all of them expressed admiration for Rand.

Ryan, architect of the GOP’s propsed budget and Medicare plan, once said that Rand’s philosophy was “sorely needed right now,” and that she did a great job of explaining “the morality of capitalism.”

Sapp sees little morality in Rand's worldview:

Sapp cited conservative leader Chuck Colson who released a video condemning Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” as a silly novel that “peddles a starkly anti-Christian philosophy.”

Sapp added:

Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights in Washington, said the philosophies of Christianity and Ayn Rand are incompatible.

Jesus taught that people should love and serve others, including their enemies. Rand taught that people's fundamental focus should be on their individual happiness, he said:

Rand died in 1982, but she remains polarizing. The great recession has triggered new interest in her novel, “Atlas Shrugged.” The book depicts a bleak future where the U.S. government has seized control of private industry and discouraged innovation.

The book may have been rooted in Rand's childhood trauma. She was born in Russia in 1905, and saw the Communist Party come to power in a violent revolution. Her family was left destitute after party officials seized her father’s business.

She immigrated to the United States where she eventually became a screenwriter. She ultimately made her mark through her novels. Critics say Rand’s characters were stilted mouthpieces for her philosophy of Objectivism, which insists that individuals should be driven by “rational self-interest.” Still, "Atlas Shrugged" is now considered one of the most influential books of the 20th century.

Rand's philosophy didn’t say much good about religion. In a 1964 Playboy interview posted on the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights site, she said that religious faith is “a negation of human reason” and charity wasn’t a virtue.

Rand told Playboy:

Defenders of Rand say that a person can adopt elements of Rand’s philosophy and reject whatever clashes with their faith.

Yaron Brooks, president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, also defended Rand’s philosophy in a recent CNN.com commentary.

He said while people call Jesus or Mother Teresa heroes, they should use the same description for people like 19th century oil tycoon, John D. Rockefeller and inventor and businessman, Thomas Edison.

Their pursuit of personal profit is a virtue because it enriches society, not just individuals, Brooks said.

Brooks wrote:

Elections, some say, are ultimately a contest of ideas. It’ll be interesting to see if those political leaders who admire Rand continue to talk openly about her philosophy as the 2012 presidential campaign escalates.

Or will they deflect a question I suspect they’ll hear again and again:

How can you invoke Jesus and follow Rand?

[edit] dangit, can't nest quoteblocks.

edited 29th Jun '11 1:07:03 PM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

You can't, without corrupting both of their philosophies into worthlessness, since they are, on nearly all practical levels, diametrically opposed.

They were both cult leaders who had some good ideas but got a bit too excited about how absolutely right about everything they were (well, we don't know much about Jesus beyond from some second-hand word of mouth, so it's hard to tell how much that would apply to him).

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

You lose the right to call it a cult when it gets more than 500 members.

Kill all math nerds

Both loose interest when compared to Plato.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult.

How about the Church of Happyology? I'm quite sure it's got more than 500 dudes on it.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

A cult is any religion I don't like.

^^Yup, not a cult.

Kill all math nerds

Hardly inconsistent. They want others to follow Jesus's teachings and be selfless and giving, while they themselves follow Rand's advice and take all that they can get.

One of my favorite hobbies is refuting what Christians say with quotes from Jesus. Here's one that's applicable:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matthew 7:15-20

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Is that quote saying we should just kill ("cut down and throw in the fire") people who don't work ("don't bear good fruit") or are criminals ("bear bad fruit")? I'm not sure Ayn Rand would disagree.

edited 29th Jun '11 1:40:56 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

Except that is wholly Randian in outlook, simply using Christianity as a means to an end rather than end in and of itself.

edited 29th Jun '11 1:44:18 PM by MatthewTheRaven

That's not my reading. It says that you should look at what people actually do, rather than what they claim to stand for. Which is good advice in any case. I wouldn't take the "fire" bit literally. The point is that you shouldn't follow people who hold themselves out as good and righteous, but who only do bad things.

Did Rand advocate dishonesty? I'm not sure she did, but one could easily see how exploiting people's religious beliefs for one's own gain would be in line with her idea of pursuing one's own self-interest for profit.

edited 29th Jun '11 1:48:08 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I have to agree with the Lawyer Dude's reading. It's essentially, "actions speak louder than words" or "you can tell if someone's good by their actions, not by how they present themselves."

Agreed, I was mostly doing a bad faith attempt to read that statement in as a Randian a way as possible

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

Ha ha, very clever. I wonder what other Jesus quotes one could twist into Randian malarkey?

I call it malarkey for various reasons. One of which is that the logical result in pursuing one's own self interest would be a tyrannical dictatorship or a bully state. Really, if you didn't care for anybody's well-being but your own, then those in power would fight exclusively to keep themselves in power, regardless of the cost to society. Just look at the track records of certain dictators, kings, emperors or even CE Os. If they adopt the "forget you, I've got mine" mentality, they almost inevitably wind up destroying everything around them.

edited 29th Jun '11 2:00:37 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Umm, regardless of what this one thinks of both, holding two philosophies that contradict each other that much seems to be impossible. They are in direct opposition.

But then again, those who use Jesus name in politics usually use it as nothing but "morality club" to beat their opponents with. At least now we can be sure that when those guys evoke religion, they care nothing for what it actually teach - only about how much power and control it gives them. To oppress women? Sure, let's cite a biblical passage! To spend money to help people - nay, we have Rand for that.

It seems to this one that they intend to take worst parts from both.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

They are inherently incompatible.

hashtagsarestupid

jesus all the way. when not the author of anthem, ayn rand is a jerk.

edited 29th Jun '11 10:03:03 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

Vine Jesus:

He is benevolent and green. Can Ayn Rand offer that?

Ayn Rand once mutated into a Hulk-like being after being confronted by a Salvation Army Santa. So, malevolent and green.

I would always go with Jesus over Rand. He's misquoted for selfish reasons, she's quoted for selfish reasons.

I keep thinking of the story of the bread and fish, how he used his miracles to help people who were suffering. Rand would likely have said that to help the suffering would be to take away from the people so they don't learn how to help themselves or something like that.

Rand's philosophy operated on the theory that every man is an island, made or broken by their will alone. Bullcrap, I and every other person in the world got to where they are because of some skill, luck, and what they learned from others. Even the business owners are not islands, because, hey, people have to buy their products.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Egoism and collectivism are perfectly compatible. [1]

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

I cannot possibly think of two more fundamentally and diametrically opposed historical figures than Jesus of Nazareth and Ayn Rand.

yey

The American Right is a coalition of several fuzzy groups, including some libertarians that like Ayn Rand, and conservatives that like Jesus, united in their support for some policies, and in their dislike of liberals. I don't think the presence of different views in a coalition is all that surprising.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to both libertarian and conservative views, but I don't care much for Ayn Rand (never read much of her work) or for Jesus (how is some Iron age Jewish messiah relevant today?).

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

Yes, but I don't see the Repub's standing for social programs that help the disadvantaged, nor do I see them as especially keen to stop bombing the ever loving hell out of their "neighbours".

If anything, I would say that the GOP represents a Randian party with a Christian glaze rather than anything too associated with Christianity in its more "in depth" particulars.

Also, Rand did have a few good ideas. They were mainly stolen from other, better, philosophers or were good in the way that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

edited 30th Jun '11 2:51:03 AM by JosefBugman