Ayn Rand and the cult of selfishness

Who is John Galt? He is Anti-Christ, that's who.

Mike Wallace interview Ayn Rand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y&feature=related

Her philosophy is not based on Judeo / Christian morality. It is based on selfishness, greed, and hatred and contempt for the "weak", which is just about 90% of the human race. Her ideas were drawn from Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer, and are an absolute repudiation and rejection of Judeo Christian morality, and of Jesus Christ in particular. God help us if her views ever take hold of our society. If they do, this country will not be fit to live in.

Christians must choose http://americanvaluesnetwork.org/aynrandvsjesus/

GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values. Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible. Rand advocates a law of selfishness over love and commands her followers to think only of themselves, not others. She said her followers had to choose between Jesus and her teachings.

GOP leaders want to argue that they are defending Christian principles. But, at the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (author of the GOP budget) is posting facebook videos praising Rands morality and saying hers is the kind of thinking that is sorely needed right now. Simply put, Paul Ryan cant have it both ways, and neither can Christians. As conservative evangelical icon Chuck Colson recently stated, Christians can not support Rands philosophy and Christs teachings. The choice is simple: Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ. We must choose one and forsake the other.

http://usatoday30.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."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/aynrandled.html

"Ayn Rand changed my life. When I embraced her philosophy, Objectivism, the conversion was far more dramatic than my decision, several years later, to follow Jesus Christmore dramatic, but in the end transitory. Yet Rand, the novelist, philosopher, and uncompromising atheist, inadvertently opened a door for the gospel. I don't believe dead people spin in their graves, but if they did and she could read these words, I imagine Rand would be twirling violently.

As many have noted, Rand's ethic of rational self-interest is incompatible with the gospel, and leads to social as well as spiritual disaster. "Most observers see Rand as a political and economic philosopher," wrote Gary Moore last year in Christianity Today. "I believe that she was first and foremost an anti-Christian philosopher." A six-foot dollar sign wreath towered over her casket, Moore pointed out, an icon of the false gospel she labored to proclaim. I agree entirely that Christianity and Objectivism are utterly incompatible. But my gratitude to Rand remains profound."

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Amos_Umwhat

You mean, the central message of Christianity isn't "Every man for himself"? You'd never know it.

Vulchor

This is to assume the right cares about any sort of congruency or that they are capable of honest enough thinking of themselves to allow this deep idea to penetrate their often closed minds.

Vulchor

Also, the ability for one to interpret the bible to fit their other beliefs or desires is uncanny. Its actually the same kind of way so many Muslims use to Quaran, a peaceful book, to justify their aggression. The difference being the Christians justify their motives because their god is real and they are the ones who are just.

kuzi16

though there are many points here that are true (especially that rand was not a christian), i feel that there are many points within her philosophy that are very much compatible with religion.

when most people read a book, a religious text, a political theory or any other philosophical type piece, they tend to take out what they want from it and discard what does not work within their personal philosophy.

what you seem to be saying here is that one cannot believe 100% of what Rand teaches and 100% of what Jesus teaches.
though i agree with that, i feel that we have very different ways of getting there.

I would call myself a Libertarian and i am fairly non-religious, so i am not "at odd with myself," however, if i was more religions i could very easily take parts of Objectivism and apply them to my life without compromising my my religion.

in addition to that point, Objectivism does not stop people from giving to charity under their own free will. Many people (myself included) that do subscribe to Objectivism actively give to charity, a decidedly selfless activity.

JDH:
Her philosophy is not based on Judeo / Christian morality. It is based on selfishness, greed, and hatred and contempt for the "weak", which is just about 90% of the human race. Her ideas were drawn from Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer, and are an absolute repudiation and rejection of Judeo Christian morality, and of Jesus Christ in particular. God help us if her views ever take hold of our society. If they do, this country will not be fit to live in.

actually her philosophy is based off of the assumption that people will want to get the best for themselves and will do good work to get it. It is based that everyone has good within them and if left to their own devices, that good will come out in the form of creating goods that they have a passion about in a way that nobody else does it. The philosophy is about bringing individuality to your passions in life with the goal of success. all of this while assuming you are not violating the rights of others to get there.

this concept of fierce individualism can be seen in Howard Roark and his unique outlook on architectural design. It can be seen in how Dagny chooses to run her company, in a way that is unique to her own idea of what her business should be.

neither of those concepts are against Christianity in any way. it is about people expressing their ideas in their own way, with the general populous deciding if your product is good.

for another personal example:
i make chocolate the way i like it. if i like it the way i make it, i can bet that others will like it as well. if they do, my business is successful. this is not against religion. if this idea got a hold in the country, it would be a wonderful thing.

as far as the rest of your post goes, i feel that i have already addressed it.
but again, in short, not everyone takes everything from any philosophy and applies it to their life. just parts. they may be incompatible in their entirety, but nobody takes anything in its entirety.

ok... one more thing:

JDH:
http://usatoday30.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."

does this mean that the left should embrace her(Rand)? or does this mean that religion and the left are incompatible as well?

the left is pro-choice and (arguably) anti-religion. should all the Christians in the Democrat party abandon their beliefs because they took some of their personal philosophy from their church and some from their political party?

personally i say no.

your rant here is interesting, but inapplicable to anyone. the only person out there who believes in Rand's philosophy 100% is Rand and she is dead.
yes, she has followers but none of them have the exact same philosophy as her. no one ever will. we are all individuals. and in a way, thats what Rand herself was trying to say.

kuzi16

Vulchor:
Also, the ability for one to interpret the bible to fit their other beliefs or desires is uncanny. Its actually the same kind of way so many Muslims use to Quaran, a peaceful book, to justify their aggression. The difference being the Christians justify their motives because their god is real and they are the ones who are just.

uh... you just said in one little blurb what took me damn near a page to say.
you can take the same concept and apply it to to how people interpret Objecivism.

jadelt

kuzi16:

when most people read a book, a religious text, a political theory or any other philosophical type piece, they tend to take out what they want from it and discard what does not work within their personal philosophy.

Reminds me of the recent jobs report or debate

kuzi16

Not trying to sound mean here. Seriously.
I feel that the original post also shows a fundimental misunderstanding of self intrest vs. Greed.
two very different things.

beatnic

When you guys find the meaning of life, let me know. I would suggest you can go all the way back to Aristotle. He posits three souls ("psyches") in humans: the vegetative soul, the sensitive soul, and the rational soul. Humans share the vegetative soul with all living things, and the sensitive soul with all animals, but only humans of all beings in the world have a rational soul. It would be this "rational soul" that has Ayn writing I have affirmed that knowledge is unlimited, leaving no room for faith. Of course she is wrong.