Tea Party Taboo: The Atheism of Ayn Rand
It began without controversy. At a routine board meeting of the North Star Tea Party Patriots (NSTPP), a coalition of activist groups in Minnesota which this author chairs, a vote was taken to admit a new member organization. The new group was the Minnesota Objectivist Association (MOA) which advocates the philosophy of Ayn Rand as expressed in her novel Atlas Shrugged. Though not a Tea Party organization in name, MOA was nonetheless supportive of the movement’s mission and principles. Signs reading “Who is John Galt?” in reference to Rand’s novel had been a staple at Tea Party rallies since the movement began.
Within days, word got around to the broader NSTPP membership that MOA had been admitted. Pushback began. Some complained that MOA did not have “Tea Party” in their name. Others noted that MOA was not listed on Tea Party Patriots’ national directory. The concern over these relatively minor points seemed disproportionate. Provision had been made in the NSTPP constitution to include organizations which predated the Tea Party movement yet sought the same ends. A group without “Tea Party” in its name had been admitted before.
After some beating around the bush, the crux of the matter emerged. Ayn Rand was an atheist, and her philosophy of Objectivism did not acknowledge the existence of God. Thus was alleged an irreconcilable difference between the Tea Party and Ayn Rand.
As the controversy progressed, MOA ultimately withdrew from the coalition, citing the episode as a needless distraction to all parties concerned. Precluding debate left some important questions unresolved. What role does religion play within the Tea Party? Must one be a theist in order to be philosophically aligned with the movement?
These questions are important because their answers define what the movement is really about. Is it solely an effort to affect fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets? Or is it something more which goes unsaid? Is the movement on a mission from God? Or are its principles applicable to the religious and the non-religious alike? The answers to those questions could affect the integrity of the movement.
The role of religion in the Tea Party evokes the role of religion in government. How we view the separation of church and state informs how we emphasize our religion in political activism. Debate on the intent of the establishment clause typically falls into two camps. Religious activists observe that the words “separation,” “church,” and “state” are found nowhere in the First Amendment. They argue that the establishment clause was meant to protect the church from the state, but not necessarily the state from the church. Many secularists, on the other hand, see no place for religious expression in the public square. Atheist groups make headlines seeking to remove the Ten Commandments from court houses or nativity scenes from town halls.
Neither of these perspectives sees the whole picture. There is a difference between separating church and state and separating religion and politics. The first is possible. The second is not. Church and state are institutions of authority, one ecclesiastical and the other civil. By saying “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the First Amendment builds what Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between those institutions. This denies any church the use of force, and denies the state jurisdiction over religion.
Next: Is atheism anti-American?
Yes Atheism at it’s crux is Anti-American. As John Adams said our constitution is only for those who would govern themselves. This is only possible if fallen man is ruled by an outside agency. That agency is God. Not allah,buddah, or Jim Jones or even the federal government its self(which is the god of the liberals).
No use replying to Ralph, of course. He’s a goner for those of us who use logic as our benchmark. Despite that, I was planning to reply, but replies 3 and 4 said pretty much what should be said. Good job, 3 and 4. The only point of this post is to let you know that others agree.
“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people.” (James Madison).
“I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price from Paris, January 8, 1789.
Think about that. Paraphrased, your point is that man can only govern himself if ruled by another. This is a contradiction. More than that, it fails to take into account the nature God gave us. We are free to obey or disobey. Obviously, this is how it was intended. Otherwise, we would be automatons or mere instinctive animals.
What man needs is not to be ruled, but to act productively in service of his own life. From an objectivist perspective, that is confined to objective reality. For those of us who acknowledge reality beyond the objective, we take action to serve our eternal life. In either case, in this world, we are responsible only for ourselves and restricted only by the rights of others.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. It’s simply the Truth. Unless man binds himself to the Law of God, he must be restrained by men. Properly governing oneself means fearing God and keeping His commandments, in spite of our tendency to break them. Self-government means that if the girl next door wants to have a one-night-stand, I have the discipline to say no. Self-government means that I am honest in all my dealings, even when no one is watching. Self-government means I don’t even entertain evil thoughts, lest they fester. That is what self-government is.
Whether you govern yourself or are governed by others, there must be a standard by which the governing takes place. The Founders recognized that the standard civil government must apply is rational and secular. Otherwise, why not establish an official church?
You and I, as individuals, are free to choose a subjective religious standard to guide our lives. We do not have the right to impose that standard on others. All of us are individually accountable to God. But none may claim authority over the life of another. Not even God forces people to live by his standard. How dare we impose where He will not? Instead, the standard upon which to base civil government is an objective standard. To that end, Rand’s work offers unmatched clarity.
The founders prohibited religion controlled by the state, because their knowledge of history told them that the state would abuse that power. It was based on their belief in mankind’s right to be master of one’s own conscience, whether political or religious. If someone had told the writers of our constitution that the first amendment would be interpreted to mean that the ten commandments couldn’t be in the Supreme Court or that it prohibited prayer in schools for that matter, they would have thought that individual insane. Belief in God isn’t a requisite for morality but it helps. The fact that all totalitarian ideologies try to stamp out religion has a point.
I do believe that the Tea Party group probably made a mistake in this case. To me atheism seems to be of two basic strains, those who simply don’t believe in God and the militantly anti-Religion strain. The latter are invariably leftist statists or they wouldn’t be so worked up about what they consider a stupid superstition. That they attack religion and the religious so vehemently say’s a great deal about them.
Walter
Excellent summation. The necessary condition of a free and civil society is the assurance individual rights and freedoms can be exercised as long as they do not pose an imposition on the right and freedoms of others. Collectivism whether formed under theistic are atheistic principles crush individual rights.
The Founders had zero problems with a state-sponsored religion. They did have problems with an official religion imposed by the central government. That’s why the 1st Amendment prohibits any action by the central government “respecting” (i.e., effecting in any way, pro or con) an establishment, which each individual State remains free to do or not. As several States which had State religions and ratified the Constitution made clear, their acceptance was conditional on the Bill of Rights which allowed them to maintain their state religions with no interference from the central govt.
@Jacobite
First, let us each concede that referencing the Founders as some sort of monolith is disingenuous. They had disagreements. The fact that they ratified the First Amendment, along with explanations among them as to why, indicates the dominant trend in their thinking regarding state-sponsored religion. The fact that states had official religions (primarily prior to the Constitution, not since) evidences only that American political philosophy was in a state of flux, as it has always been.
Our purpose is not to emulate the Founders or revive some glorious past. Our purpose is to further the Founders’ discovery and implementation of just natural law. Therefore, the relevant question is; should government establish religion or otherwise impose upon each individual’s freedom of conscience? What say you?
@AdobeWalls
Saying something a lot of times does not increase the ‘truthiness’ of it.
Example in point: ‘The fact that all totalitarian ideologies try to stamp out religion has a point’.
So Romanian communism tried to stamp out the church, did it? Al Shabab, the totalitarian de facto rulers of Somalia stamp out religion, do they?
Sheesh.
@ Adobe Walls
“The fact that all totalitarian ideologies try to stamp out religion has a point”
That is a pretty easily refuted non-fact, can you say “Islam”? Can you say “dark ages”? Can you say “Catholic Church”? How about the Pope supporting the Nazis and the Facists in WW2? Many totalitarian ideologies are DRIVEN by religion.
Unless man binds himself to the Law of God, he must be restrained by men.
Yours is the type of thinking that is unamerican. Man restrains himself, even if he tells himself that his imaginary god is doing the restraining. We do not require cops — either secular or christian — every few feet to restrain us. You desire an all encompassing state and Obama is your antipodal opposite; you desire precisely the same thing and argue only over WHO gets to rule rather than standing for freedom. Freedom, which can be messy, somtimes means that man is free from what he regards as an imaginary god.
The worst thing that ever happened to the tea party movement was the co-option of it by the social conservatives. It will be the ruination of the movement.
“We do not require cops — either secular or christian — every few feet to restrain us.” You don’t get outside much, do you? Lack of restraint abounds in today’s society, due to an imagined right to “genital relief”.
John Adams: “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.” we’re getting to a point where it’s obvious that many of our leaders don’t believe that our rights are unalienable, endowed by our Creator, and that’s my major concern. If you don’t think our rights were endowed by our Creator, then someone can take them away.
I didn’t say I desired that result; I merely regard it as inevitable. If people are unwilling to restrain themselves, they must be restrained by others to protect the innocent from them. Wicked men cannot abide in freedom. When the people are wicked, freedom is anarchy, and the innocent suffer. Living under a tyrant is better than living under a mob of wicked men, because at least the tyrant will be clear about what he wants. The end of righteousness is the end of freedom. If we want to preserve freedom, we must also preserve righteousness.
@Anonymous
“If you don’t think our rights were endowed by our Creator, then someone can take them away.”
This is a common refrain among the religious which I used to agree with. However, Rand accomplished something in philosophy which no one before her had, including the Founders. She demonstrated the *objective fact* of individual rights. Regardless of our origin, we have objectively describable rights which no one may justly deprive us of. I defer to Rand’s work, rather than summarize it here. Start with “Atlas Shurgged” and follow it up with “The Virtue of Selfishness.” Read them earnestly, then demonstrate how she is wrong.
If you consider self government as doing the right thing by your interpretation of God’s will, you must also consider that others will self govern themselves by their interpretation of God’s will. If this differs from yours, will you want to govern them to bring them in line with your vision of good, evil, etc..?
If someone stones their child because he talks back to them, would this be acceptable self government? It is after all in the Bible. Or would you like to choose the passages that are OK to follow and those which need interpretation?
If man is to live by the law of God, you have to decide which God?
Do you have more proof that yours is more real that Allah or any of the Hindi Gods, etc ..?
If you wish for a society that allows each person to be free to believe in God in the way they choose, you need a society to protect this right for all. If you want a society where 1 view of GOd is the only one allowed and that is considered the truth, look no further than Iran. Very religious, but not very desirable.
You are only “good” because you think your imaginary “God” is watching you.
Others are sometimes good, and sometimes bad, but rely that their imaginary “God” will “forgive” them.
Atheists that choose to be good do so knowing that there really is NO ONE watching.
Hitler was a Christian, and the Nazi’s often proclaimed that their mission to eradicate all others was a “mission from God”
This is the line of thinking that will likely keep the left in power.
And how dare you invoke Adams’s name to support that deluded and contradictory assertion. Those of us that care the most about individual liberty align ourselves against the Left because the Left represents a greater threat to it.
This only holds true to the extent we ALL agree to use reason as our guide away from the fallacies and ignorance of the past. If you’re too timid to abandon your fairy tales, at least leave them out of the public square. And all that morality and guidance you feel would be lost without it; bring it to the square instead and let’s determine what can tolerate the daylight.
“fairy tales”? If you can’t summon any more respect than that, for the people you want for allies, then don’t be surprised if we aren’t on your side!
Considering he’s responding to someone who dismisses people as “unamerican” for not buying into the same claptrap he does I’d say your advice is misdirected.
And not for nothing, but objectively speaking it’s a lot more accurate and logically defensible to call religious texts “fairy tales” than it is to call atheists “unamerican”.
Ralph doesn’t appear to want a coalition but just wants to berate us sinners or something; who knows. Scott555 seems to think his contemptuous remarks will get Christians to join him. He can be as much of a jerk as he wants; I believe that God gave him free will. But again, I don’t think his tactic will be successful, that’s all.
Ralph: Your first sentence, ” Atheism is at it’s crux, anti American” is an opinion, not a fact. Your following words are therefore not worth reading. Furthermore, your opinion is false. I am an example that destroys your ‘hit piece’ on 100% patriotic Americans, that are waiting for any evidence, not here say, that God exists. Until then, I, and many others are on the side on this issue.
Atheism isn’t just anti-American; it is anti-human. The quotation from Rand claiming that what separates man from animals is rationality is idiotic Enlightenment fantasy. Man is a social animal. Men live in social groups — no other way. Social groups operate upon innate Human Nature. Specific norms can vary, but norms there always are and must be. E.g., men’s occupations are higher-status than women’s occupations. Whatever men do is high-status (chef, doctor, athlete, warrior). If women do these same things, they are not high-status (cook, nurse, athlette, broad-*ss marine (BAM). Take a high-status occupation, doctor, in the USSR, and place women in it as a majority, and it becomes a low-status occupation, with low pay and low prestige, as indeed happened in the USSR. Any occupation’s status is determined by the norms and mores of every society. No government, no matter how totalitarian, can alter these rules. Leftists and Libertarians are people who base their entire philosophy on the belief that all these social rules are incidental, accidental, and irrational products of unthinking, prejudiced masses. All that’s required for the Leftist, ratioanl human society is for education in the ‘right ways’ to be instituted. Whe Leftists get into power, they implement their philosophy and punish opposition. They think they might have to use some nudging for adults, but the kids will fall right into line when properly taught. Ooops, somehow the first generation still maintains all the old prejudices. Well, never mind, we’ll bet the next batch. As the poliburo hacks found out, no amount of indoctrination or force eliminates the old social structures. BTW, did anybody ever dare to ask how many women sat on the inner-circle of the politburo? See Siberia now!!!! Leftism also required denial of scientifiic knowledge and the institutiton of Lysenkoism in Russia as the scientific concensus. Think it’s any different over here in Leftist-land? What do Leftists think about IQ tests? Racial/sex differences? Do you believe that the only difference bewteen men and women’ behavior is determined by environmental influences? Ayn Rand, was of course, a detestable human being. But I would argue that her inherited personality accounts for her philosophy, which only validated her anti-social behavior, as with all Libertarians and Leftists. Do you imagine that Karl Marx would have worked his entire life to concoct a philosophy discrediting normal, natural human societies if he’d been able to get along with anybody? Look into the lives of influential Leftists and get ready for the side-show. J.S. Mill, Rousseau, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot: the freak parade goes on and on.
Your rant only demonstrates that you have never read Rand. I challenge you to do so in earnest and attempt to substantiate your characterization of her philosophy using her own words.
Leftists and Libertarians are people who base their entire philosophy on the belief that all these social rules are incidental, accidental, and irrational products of unthinking, prejudiced masses.
Strawman argument and absurdity on stilts. Nobody has this belief, much less leftists and libertarians. “Secular humanists” tend to think that morals and ethics are a necessary component of sentience i.e. an emergent property. That some humans prefer to think that these things were handed to them from upon high by a god is the result of tradition, belief, training, and an inability to grasp the concept of emergent properties.
It’s not a lot different than 20,000 years back many humans reckoned the world was flat and truly believed this to be so. They lacked the perspective at the time to deduce otherwise. And yet no matter what they believed about the gods the world still wasn’t flat. But once the concept was introduced then by the time of classic antiquity everyone knew the world was round.
If evolution is reality then morals and ethics being emergent properties is also real. Of course if you’re one who thinks evolution is about accidents then you’re certainly not going to grasp more advanced material. Intellectually you’re still at the “it is TOO flat” level.
Leftist and Libertarians???? That’s two very broad groups that don’t necessarily agree with each other and have nothing to do with religion. Go back to the 60s and 70s, the religious conservatives were more often than not Democrat voters. The GOP’s religious conversion is a fairly recent occurrence.
I thought the Tea Party upheld Libertarian goals of limits to government activity as well as maximizing individual liberty and political freedom? If you look at Ron Paul’s political positions they certainly cover the whole Libertarian spectrum (whilst ‘conservative’ in the lef-right sense I’d call them pretty radical in regards to changing the status quo). If you are just complaining about your “high taxes” (your tax base is low compared to the rest of the western world) and welfare state (again low to non existent comparatively) then you are really just arguing in the existing political paradigm.
Why religion is any factor in this discuss is difficult for a non-American to understand. Then again, the % of people that believe in evolution in the States is comparable to those of third world countries. A very unusual anomaly. From some of the comments here, their are some truly nutty beliefs in play!
One has nothing to do with the other. Being involved in atheism is much harder on the individual but it doesn’t mean they don’t love life. It doesn’t mean they “cause” harm on others.
They do have ethics and loyalty. Personally? I would find it hard to be that way, but I have known several atheists, and they were ethically and morally sound people.
Sorry Ralph, but this just isn’t so. Firstly, an atheist is not automatically a ‘fallen man’. Ayn Rand was entirely right that Objectivism is not hostile to individualist religions like Christianity, and it is entirely inappropriate for the Tea Party to make a religion litmus test. The Tea Party is about economic issues, not social issues. The Tea Party was created because lots of us have gotten tired of evangelicals hijacking the Republican Party and making everything about religion. I dont care what religion my President or congressman is, so long as they are literate when it comes to economics and understand that limited government is essential to a strong economy.
In the late 1600s & early 1700s those most strident for keeping church and state apart were the Baptists! Having experienced, perhaps within their own lives (& many generations before), they understood that freedom of religion MEANT a government that took no action on any religious pretext: no religious test for political candidates or civil employees, no specific funding, no laws based on religious texts etc. For a full & very factual explanation, see “Vindicating the Founders” by Thomas G. West. It should be required reading by Grade Ten.
Nowadays, too few Americans understand —partly because public education, towards the abstract ideas required, is terrible. Rand sought to set that right. She knew that the historically & politically uninformed Ralph Reagans (of the Left and the Right) regularly advocate principles that are inimical to American freedom. They are the true anti-Americans.
Your point only works if you can prove the existence of god. Better men than you have tried. Without proof of existence, there is no god.
Mashiach will not destroy free-thinking atheists. They’ll have the intellectual honesty to recognize the proof.
Indeed, anyone who is intellectually honest will repent when they see His prophets rise from the dead after they are martyred by the little horn that Daniel spoke of. They will repent and fear God, but as for the hard of heart, they shall swear allegiance to and worship the little horn, and they shall perish and Gehenna will be their lot.
This is a Halloween joke right? Spooky!
Just the fact that you used “intellectual honesty” to justify religion as the know-all be-all makes me want to facepalm. Furthermore, there can be and used to be a very solid relationship between Christians and the rational-minded.
If I do not view God in your light, or per chance do not acknowledge he exists, then my logical assertions will be based on facts of the physical world around me. I will form a basic series of beliefs to solidify this logic.
If I do view God as you do, worship regularly and firmly believe in the teachings of Jesus I will form a series of rationalized logic patterns. I will then form a basic series of beliefs that will both support, defend, and clarify the higher power I subscribe to.
The difference between these two camps is plain as day. You can be logical and Christian and still end up with the same belief set of the atheist Objectivist. It’s called compassion for your fellow man. Objectivism does not demand that you share nothing and leave the fallen to wither and die. Christianity does not demand that you give up everything to follow the teachings of Christ.
Instead, they both urge for rational logic. If you have something of value that is unwanted by you, you can always donate it to help someone else out. It really doesn’t matter if you’re Christian or atheist in this matter.
Alright, you tell me what the logical conclusion to draw is if you saw two men rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven, while the news cameras broadcast it all over the world. I can promise you it will happen; I just can’t promise you you’ll live to see it.
I would call it a satanic deception, or the work of space aliens;
God does not win converts by using Special Effects.
I don’t know what “two men” you are referring to. The Revelations of St. John say that the rapture will happen in the twinkling of an eye. To me that means one second everyone is going along fat dumb and happy and the next instant, the saved are gone. Like in the book “Left Behind”. If I see that, I will be an instant convert.
Chris- the passage I’m referring to is Revelation 11, where the Two Witnesses testify for 3.5 years, are then killed, laid out in the street for 3.5 days with the entire world watching, and then rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven.
Well, there was Lazarus and Jesus, but that stuff is the embellished stories of illiterate shepherds 2 millennia past. No life once rotting revives. Faith fails when reason’s found.
This incident is very uncalled for,. The circling media sharks are just waiting to drive a wedge between people of like mind. I am in the last 100 pages of Atlas Shrugged…I do not care for a lot of the ramblings, and Philosophy..So i skim over it, or fast read it, but that dear lady sure preached against Communism, American Style, and it has had a lot of good effect…I am a Christian, and could identify with TEA party. I also identify with conservatives Jews, Morman`s, Athiest, Catholics,and Hindu, if they believe that we need to be a Conservative country…Very few people can agree on a religious principal, so lets drop all these requirements that we have to meet a certain level of religion to be a good person…. We are talking about living on this earth, Earth is not our Permanent dwelling, Not mine, for sure…Most of the Founders of this great republic were Free Masons, and How many TEA people frown on that group, DC was reported to be laid out as the masonic order called for…..How many 33rd degree Masons will there be in heaven…So we can overlook a lot of petty differences and rid this white house of the stench of the 0b0m0s, or we can cut off our nose to spite our faces, and divide, and be conquered, and ruled by the EVIL that 0b0m0 and ILK represents….Friends, Be sure you are Right, before you cast out your ally in the bath water….Thank you, ….Jimi
Believe it or not, Catholics were the first Christians, and continue to be Christian to this day.
You hit upon an important point. What intrigues me in this controversy is that the dividing line is belief in a god of some kind, not belief in a specific God defined by a particular ideology. Believers of various stripes can join hands in spite of adhering to contradictory theologies, but scoff at the unbeliever is if disbelief is a greater contradiction. I find it truly mind-boggling. If you’re are a Christian who is going to get upset at an atheist for being an atheist, then you should be upset at a Jew for being a Jew, and upset at any other denomination of Christianity. If you believe in a Creator, it matters who that Creator is. Regardless, that argument has no bearing on our objectively discernible nature from where our rights are derived.
Objectivists are not anti-American. Just the opposite. What the founders said was that a fee society requires a virtuous citizenry. And religion teaches people to be virtuous, referring to the Judeo-Christian tradition. The first government schools in America taught basic Christian principles of virtue as the primary subject. In one sense, Objectivism can be seen as a rationally derived secular grounding for the same basic principles of virtue taught by Christianity. You will not find a lot of argument from objectivists regarding the basic principles of government found in the Declaration of Independence, which principles are derived from the Christian tradition and attempts to rationally determine God’s guidance for a just society.
The author wrote: “Unfortunately, attacks upon religious expression by a relentless secular minority have placed many religious people on the defensive…..” As I read the websites of various religious right/fundamentalist Christian groups, I find that the opposite is true. Those who are not fundamentalists or are non-believers do indeed have much to fear as these groups gain ascendancy.
And yes, some have been infiltrating Tea Party groups. Why else would US House representatives like Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and Mike Pence (R-IN) be talking about a “grand coalition” of fiscal conservatives with social conservatives? Why else would Rick Perry pander to a certain brand of Christianity at his prayer meeting in Houston a couple months ago?
The author is right in most other respects. I lean towards being a Tea Partier due to the focus on fiscal matters by most Tea Party groups. But I don’t need to be told what my religious beliefs should be nor do I want to see big government intervention in citizens’ bedrooms. This is socialism, not conservatism.
Replies #1, #2 interesting religious statements, particularly #1 who implies that atheism is anti-American. Suggest that you re-read Article VI of the US Constitution regarding religious tests.
From your perspective, I can see why you would be defensive against the religious. As a religious person who nonetheless applies objective morality to civil concerns, I would submit that you and I face the same adversary attacking from different camps. There are secular activists who would use the government’s monopoly on force to restrict my religious expression just as there are religious activists who would impose their subjective morality on you. In either case, they fail to recognize our respective rights. To my mind, that makes you and I political allies despite any disagreement over religion.
I agree with SteveB. Social conservatives comprise 27% of the electorate; not enough to win an election. As for Ayn Rand, her philosophy has been wildly distorted by her enemies: she did not stand for anti-social values, but rather believed that developing one’s unique abilities would translate into social benefits. I tried to elucidate her novels here: http://clarespark.com/2011/04/16/index-to-ayn-rand-blogs/. The author of the article was correct to comment on the furious response to We The Living (1937). It struck a rare note in the collectivist 1930s.
I’ve been to a couple Tea Party events and there was zero religious content.
The one I went to in Searchlight, NV, began with a reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance and I think there was a prayer asking for a blessing on all who attended amongst other things. I’m not sure, it’s been awhile. But the pledge has “under God” in it and that makes it religious.
Hogwash. That’s the kind of tripe that is destroying our country.
The Pledge was written by a Socialist. You will note no mention of the Constitution in the Pledge. Just adherence to a flag. I Pledge to the Constitution. Just as any new citizen has to.
Godless conservatives are a fringe subset of general conservatism. General conservatives understand and embrace the Judeo-Christian roots of our philosophy, while atheistic or agnostic conservatives grasp that conservatism is a superior philosophy without understanding its roots, simply because conservatism always works and all other systems ultimately fail.
Atheists would have us go down a road that has never been successful, freedom without religion, civil accord without religion, prosperity without religion, rule of law without religion.
If you haven’t considered Rand’s work, I strongly suggest you do. It’s easy to assume that the reason someone disagrees with you is because they don’t understand you. But that is not always the case.
In point of fact, government of the kind Rand advocates has never been tried anyway. The closest the world has seen was America from the Founding until the late 19th century, before the progressive era. The question worth perusing is; why did we revert from a system that worked better than any before it to the incremental Marxism we see today? Rand offers a provocative explanation.
Well first off, we could not “revert” to an incremental Marxism as we were never Marxist in the first place. (A vague case could be made regarding the communal nature of the first settlements that abandoned such practices in order to survive, but as they all predated Marx they cannot be properly called “Marxist”.)
Second, while the system was certainly working better than any before, it was also not working perfectly, and was very much experiencing growing pains that were constantly increasing in severity. Of course that does not mean that various Marxist and Marxist derived policies were the solution, only that some evolution of the system was in fact required.
The most dramatic element of this was that until the late 19th century the U.S. was still constantly expanding. After that, except for a few territories that have never become states, our expansion ended and we had no choice but to stop being a colonial economy.
Third, the question begs the simple reality that until those evolutions began the U.S. was a third-rate backwater of a power, with no relevance or significance, and utterly dependent on intra-European conflicts to protect us from the exclusive attentions and destruction at the hand of any European Great Power.
Granted, the decision could have been made to remain merely a Minor Power, allowing the Great Powers to resolve their differences alone, but that raises the possibility that one of them would have become a Superpower after WW I, still leaving the U.S. existing on sufferance.
It is nice to pretend a weak, isolationist U.S. could have remained blissfully neutral while the world changed around it, but pretense is all that will ever be, and a utopian one at that as we have in fact chosen to become a Superpower, and the relevant question is where we go from here.
Keeping on point, while it is certainly true that Marxism as such was a product of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the fundamental premise underlying Marxism – the altruist/collectivist ideal – has been the dominant notion of nearly every civil authority throughout history. In essence, Marxism amounts to is a prescription for sacrifice. In the case of Marx, the beneficiary of sacrifice was the state, otherwise termed “the people.” But for millennia before him, in virtually every nation and tribe, the same essential prescription was given. Sacrifice for the people. Sacrifice to the gods. Sacrifice to make the crops grow, to bring the rain, to ensure fertility. The arguments have become more sophisticated. But their root notion remains the same. In this way, “revert” is the proper verb.
In short, the answer to why we have reverted is because we have not shed that primitive proto-Marxist notion. We still think sacrifice is a good thing. We still accept the fundamental notion that our life belongs to someone or something else. This is why conservatives perpetually fail at affecting public policy consistent with their values, because deep down inside we don’t really believe that we are free. We buy into the idea that we owe someone else, that we are duty-bound to the have-nots, that selfishness is a vice. Worse, we attribute these notions to God, who never conveyed them. In context, the biblical narrative is a prescription for obtaining our own individual eternal life, an essentially Randian ideal if she had been willing and able to see it.
It would help to keep on point if you did not try and stretch sympathetic magic sacrifices into the equal of communal sacrifices.
They are not the same.
However that does explain rather well how one can confuse elements of religious altruism with pre-capitalist government taxation and redistribution with actual Marxism, and come up with something that turns into Objectivism.
Sacrifice is sacrifice, immoral regardless of its rationalization.
You can’t even decide if it’s Judaism or Christianity. The two are not the same, and do not share an ethic or a theology. And they are not the roots of our philosophy, the roots of our constitution, or or polity.
This comes down to the argument about whether it’s possible to be moral if you don’t believe in God. And evidently according to the serious Southern Christians you have to believe in a specific version of God with specific, and rigid, rules concerning behavior. As there are many Christian sects, all with differences as to what’s right and wrong, and how to interpret the Bible, it is a little difficult to justify a rigid moral position in all matters. We can all agree on general rules, but so can atheists.
So it comes down to the empirical, observable fact that atheists can be moral individuals. The problem seems to arise when you have political religions which replace actual religions with atheism as a fundamental dogma. Then you have a mob, and a mob has no morality. None whatsoever.
I think the difficulty lies in defining what a ‘belief in God’ is. I know many people who have a serious spiritual life without subscribing to either atheism or some standard religious doctrine. Such matters are never ‘either, or.’ I know many people who have a deep spiritual connection without being able to verbalize it or fit it into a specific philosophical/religious framework.
Looks like you’ve run across some interesting Protestants. I can only give you the Catholic POV: when we say “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”, it means (perhaps oversimplified) that if you die specifically rejecting Church teachings, you are rejecting Heaven. So if you accept the general definitions of good and evil, and you think the Ten Commandments are good guidelines for your life, it’s not for me or any other Catholic to claim that you’re not going to Heaven, if you have repentance for “sins” you commit.
But the Church doesn’t care, for example, how you translate the word “yom” in Genesis so there isn’t an insistence on accepting every syllable as infallible (I find it goofy, in fact, since the “sola scriptura” crowd uses a Bible which already has the inconvenient parts yanked out lol). The “shall not”s aren’t just an arbitrary set of no-nos, but are guides to happiness (not to be confused with pleasure). Self-restraint makes a man more mature, whether he himself is plagued by temptations of the flesh, money, food, other people’s stuff, gossip, yada yada.
Since children do best when they live in a household with a woman and a man, married to each other, it’s in the state’s best interest if there were more children being brought up in this way (hence the anti-polygamy laws, and resistance to gay marriage by conservatives).
One other thing about Christianity and capitalism: my son’s econ prof pointed out that in Christ’s time, the only way to be a rich man was on the backs of others. But under capitalism, you get rich by making other people’s lives better. Puts that “Easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter Heaven” into perspective, imo.
The Tea Party are a bunch of angry old white people — who are angry because they realize that the time of white hegemony is (soon) coming to an end…and because they understand that they will soon be a minority — and a shrinking minority at that.
The white racist Tea Partiers are fooling themselves if they think that their efforts will change anything. We are taking over this country — and we will soon be a majority in Texas, and when that happens you white racist Republicans will be out of power, FOREVER.
The Tea Party is the last gasp of white America. They know that their time is nearly up, so they are panicking.
2010 was the last hurrah for the Tea Party. The white racist Republicans will soon be extinct. And not a moment too soon.
Our Reconquista is nearly complete. You gringos can’t stop it. It is too late for you gringos. You gringos will wind up in the dustbin of history.
Viva La Raza!
See author photo.
OK. So there is a 1% exception — which you are part of. Big deal.
We are taking over this country — and you gringos are powerless and irrelevant.
We are the future. You gringos are finished. You gringos are fading away. Our Reconquista is nearly complete.
Viva La Raza!
Obvious troll isn’t even trying.
If you’re fantasy becomes true and you take over this fine country we will have nothing to look forward to but you turning into the same tragic, pathetic cesspool that is Mexico. Gee I can’t wait.
You know, seeing La Raza inducing any kind of logic leads me to believe that this is not the La Raza that used to frequent VDH’s columns.
I call this La Raza a fraud!
La Raza,
I assume that you are a mexican-american and, as such, history has understandably given you a chip-on-your-shoulder vibe about racism in “white america”. There are certainly many racists in this country, as there have been in every country ever (since racism is a logical extension of in-group biases, a fundamental piece of human psychology, this should be no surprise,) but you must see that your comments are just as racist, just from another angle. It’s true, once-minority populations within this country will become the majority within our lifetimes, and that is not in any way a bad thing. Those with majority population deserve majority representation, which will ultimately follow, as you also suggested, and that is not bad either. The bad arises when you begin acting as though your “raza” is going to “take over” America. What exactly do you think that means? To me, a caucasian american, I would like to think that “brown america” will attempt to represent all americans, majority and minority. If not, what’s the difference between you and the “gringos” you apparently despise? Your group will be on top for a while until some other former minority out-populates or out-immigrates your “raza”. Would you then wish them to call you racists or oppressors? For the good of our country, I would hope not. I’ve grown up in an age of progressivism which has modeled me to believe that people should be judged by their actions and character, not by their race or ethnicity. These are the ideals I would like to pass on to my future generations, and I hope you would agree. Otherwise I hope that you and your regressive ideals are not representative of the “brown america” to-come.
Lovely Earth is that your repetitious droning I hear?
Yeah, good luck with that…
In the meantime, do you know any good houskeepers? Mine got deported.
Yeah, and we’re all (hispanic/non-hispanic white/black/oriental/polynesian) all looking forward to living in your requonquista paradise replicating the conditions in Tijuana and Juarez all across the southwest.
Funny how all the requonquista’s actually were born and live in the US want Mexico here. While the vast majority of folks actually living under the reqonquita’s desired conditions in Mexico want to live in the ‘angy-old white folks US’.
Hmm. La Raza huh? Which “Raza” are you? Are you a Mexican Indigenous (MI) “Raza”? Are you a Spanish “Raza”? Or a Spanish/MI hybrid “Raza”? Are you part European “Raza”? Hmm. There is a lot of interbreeding going on all over the world, just which “Raza” are you and how do you prove it?
This made me smile. I don’t have a problem with most white people at all; in fact, I have many white friends. But the racist and atheist intolerant nonsense spewed by some of the commenters and bloggers i find is nauseating and unscionable. They don’t even have to stones to acknowledge when they are being racist like when they say things like Obama is a barbarian in the white house or Michelle dresses “ratty.” Obama may not be that great but criticize him substantively. Anyway thank you
Oh for crying out loud. What part of “Lower taxes and smaller government” refers to any deity?
Keep your eyes on the ball, folks.
The problem is that the tea party is being co-opted. The author of this article shows an instance. If only the excreble social conservatives would for once STFU and just leave things alone, I wouldn’t need to worry about things. Obama has done enough to guarantee the election of GOP moderates for the next 60 years. However Obama looks like he could in fact win a second term if the social conservatives get their way. I’m guessing that social conservatives must work for the DNC. If not then they’re far dumber than even I imagine (and trust me, given that I tend to already view them as breathtakingly stupid, I can imagine quite a bit) for not collecting the cash that the DNC would throw at them to screw stuff up.
The author of this article deserves a prize, exposing the sleazy underbelly of the tea party usurpers.
Moderate republicans are driving to the same destination as Obama, just at a slower rate.
We need true economic conservatives who will leave religion out of it (well, except maybe Paul’s quote from the Bible about those who don’t work shouldn’t eat), and focus on the fact that a government can never be fair to everyone. The best it can hope for is to pass laws/regulations which do promote opportunity and enforce those laws equally.
Politicians who will point out that all entitlements are charity, but charity with funds forced from the contributors and given to folks who’ve forgotten that it is in fact charity and lost all sense of gratitude.
“Charity” at the point of a gun is not charity at all. It is stealing and receiving stolen property. Charity is voluntary. I do it when I buy a sandwich for a beggar, not when I pay my taxes.
Not my problem. Why don’t you just do as we say and there won’t be a problem. The only problem here is that you want our support, but you don’t want our agenda. Well tough. You either get both or neither. If you choose neither, you deserve to have Obama re-elected.
If you choose neither, you deserve to have Obama re-elected.
As per David Frum’s most recent article he makes the case that it is YOU who will guarantee Obama gets re-elected. And he’s right. And frankly I do want to see you social conservatives push for a hard right candidate and watch the whole thing crater. Obama is a weak candidate that mickey flipping mouse could win against. But a hard right social conservative? Not a chance in hell. As per Frum once the hard right social conservative fails miserably then you morons won’t be able to blame it on “s/he wasn’t conservative enough” and the entire social conservative influence on the GOP will vanish overnight. Good riddance.
So not only no but HELL NO we don’t need your “help.” With help like you who needs the democrats?
Get used to saying “President Obama” until 2016.
The founders were more products of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason than specifically products of Christianity. But of course, Christianity of the time was also under the influence of the Renaissance and had been since Thomas Aquinas.
The point is that the most important tenets of Christianity are incompatible with capitalism. Capitalism’s proper defense is based upon observable fact, reason and logic, not faith, and the self-sacrfice espoused by Christianity. That is Ayn Rand’s greatest contribution. Hopefully, the Tea Party will not make the same mistake as Bill Buckley and the conservatives of the 1950s and reject Rand because of her atheism. She offers the moral defense of capitalism it deserves. Christianity does not.
Christianity endorses Capitalism, with the one caveat that a man’s life does not consist of possessions. If you make money your god, you will perish. If, however, you work honestly, build up your household, and show charity for the poor and infirm without regard for your own reputation, you shall be greatly blessed. Love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself, for this is the highest virtue.
And yes, God does demand us to be willing to die for Him if the choice is between death and committing evil- if you sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the dead and will return to raise His faithful ones from the dead, dying in testimony of that faith is no loss. Better to die and be raised to life than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season and be cast into Gehenna for eternity.
I agree with most of that, except the part about charity being the highest virtue. Putting that much emphasis on charity is precisely why Christians are too ashamed to openly call for the abolition of government entitlement programs. They will live with any collar – as long as that collar is for the benefit of others. Charity is more of an infrequent, emergency thing – not an everyday, highest-virtue thing.
I share your hope that the Tea Party will not reject Rand. Obviously, I am no objectivist, as I am religious. However, it’s clear to me that objective morality is the only legitimate basis for civil government.
I do take issue with you on Christianity being anti-capitalist though. By Rand’s definition of sacrifice, the Bible prescribes none. If anything, it is a cosmic model of trading value for value and pursing long-term self-interest. Jesus bought something for his trouble, something He valued more than mortal life. We are not asked to give without return, but are promised eternal if undeserved value.
I understand why objectivists see Christianity as anti-capitalist. But I think they misconstrue it as many Christians misconstrue Rand’s notion of selfishness. The reason it’s so hard for a “rich man” to get into heaven is because he is too content with this life to perceive eternal value. His sin is not being rich. If material prosperity were inherently evil, God would not have blessed so many of his servants with it.
Rand’s moral defense of capitalism is reality & logic based. Historically, religious conservatives have conceded reason to the progressives and socialists. They also gave up the ethical high ground by conceding the moral superiority of self-sacrifice that progressive and socialist propogate. Capitalism deserves the moral, reality base Rand gave it, and the fact it protects the individual in his pursuit of rational self-interest.
Obviously, capitalism and the free society that goes with it allows people to pursue religion as long as they do not force their religious beliefs on others. A theist state does not. This is the purpose of the strict separation of church and state and is the hallmark of a free society.
I don’t know where you got the idea that Christianity and capitalism are incompatible; you might want to read Pope Benedict’s encyclical “Charity in Truth”. He pointed out capitalism’s drawbacks, Catholicwise, but he was far from hostile.
The incompatibility is based upon logic.
Jesus died on the cross for man’s sins. His self-sacrifice is held as the ideal. Capitalism’s greatness is that it allows mankind the freedom to pursue his self-interest. Self-sacrifice versus self-interest. I am sorry, but the fundamental contradiction is impossible to avoid. At some point Christians will have to decide.
+ or $
I understand and agree with your point, that capitalism’s danger is in worshiping money. But everyone has a job, and if a small business owner has a great product, it isn’t evil to grow the company, employ many people, and create a product that make people’s lives better. Look at ultrasound, for example. It did as much or more, I’d say, for the pro-life movement as Operation Rescue. And it probably makes money for the patent owner. It can be misused of course too.
“Christ did say that you must love your neighbor as yourself, but He never said that you must love your neighbor better than yourself”
Nor did he say your brother is a parasite, and you should shrug him off your back and go straight to Hades before letting him benefit from your work.
And that is what Randians simply refuse to accept about their ideology.
That it all highlights the raw hubris of a committed atheist insisting on telling religious people what their religion “really” means passes almost unnoticed.
Indeed, giving your life to save that of a neighbor is noted as being worthwhile, something that was obviously inconceivable to Rand, who preferred trying to explain why it was acceptable to kill a security just because someone else misused your idea and were building something you didn’t like with it.
And of course that exposes a more critical fact:
Objectivism is neither definitive nor synonymous with reasonable and rational atheism.
Being compatible or incompatible with the one neither mandates nor precludes compatibility or incompatibility with some other.
“Indeed, giving your life to save that of a neighbor is noted as being worthwhile, something that was obviously inconceivable to Rand,…”
Nonsense. Have you read Rand? Her point was that we are not *obliged* to give our lives for our neighbors. If you value your neighbor’s life more than your own, your life is yours to give. Rand’s point is that no one may justly *require* you to give your life for another. Indeed, Christian virtue is impossible if compelled.
Not nonsense at all.
Yes, you are free to give your life in such a manner; but how is that judged?
If serving the self is the highest act, how can ending the self ever be regarded as worthwhile?
Which of course is why taking life can be treated so casually if it involves a mere intellectual property right.
Rand created a giant non-issue. Obsessing like she did about selfish purity was more of a neurosis than anything.
Yes, respect yourself and avoid moochers… that’s great advice, Ayn, we get it…
Sam–it is all about values and determining what is valuable in your life. Sometimes you value things more than your life. This is not self-sacrifice. Here are two examples:
1. I love my wife so much I could not imagine living life without her. In fact I would rather not. I would gladly give up my life for her. If I did, it would not be self-sacrifice, it would my highest testament to my own life and my capacity to love.
2. I love freedom. Patrick Henry said it perfectly. Give my liberty or give me death. I value freedom so much I would rather give my life than live without it. This is not self-sacrifice. This is the height of selfishness–living for and dying for your own values.
Rand addressed this question frequently. Ending the self can serve the self if it is done in pursuit of a value. I would give my life to save my son. That is not irrational because my son is a value to me. Dying in defense of yourself, your freedom, your country, etc is likewise consistent with objectivism.
“Walter Hudson
Sacrifice is sacrifice, immoral regardless of its rationalization.”
Your answers are incompatible:
Where it serves to equate any government or religion with absolute Marxism, sacrifice is always objective and immoral.
Where it serves to demonstrate “normal” emotional ties ties, sacrifice is subjective and potentially moral.
Which is the belief of Objectivism and which is not?
@Sam
You perceive contradiction where there is none. Check your premises and define your terms. You’re conflating two separate concepts. The fact that sacrifice is immoral is objective. Whether an act is sacrificial is a separate matter which depends upon individually defined values.
Sacrifice is trading a greater value for a lesser value. Our values are quite often subjective. Some people will pay hundreds of dollars for an old comic book. I will not, because the book is not of greater value to me than hundreds of dollars. For the collector, the price is not a sacrifice. For me, it would be. Such a disparity in subjective value does not affect the objective moral fact that sacrifice is wrong.
If you really want to understand Objectivism, just read Rand.
As a practical matter,
these Tea Partiers aren’t some bunch of Americans who never thought about politics until 2009.
Rather, they seem to be drawn mostly from the usual Republican rank-and-file base. And the vast majority of the GOP base are deeply religious and socially conservative.
That the Tea Party meetings and protest demonstrations don’t deal with religion and abortion doesn’t mean that the Tea Partiers don’t care about those things. While they don’t deal with those things within the Tea Party, issues like abortion still heavily influence how they vote.
The fundamentalists have usurped the Republican party and the Tea Party also…..they have even taken the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. I wish they had just stuck to their condemnation of the massive expenditures and national debt.
agreed
One could logically conclude that Ayn Rand is a heretic. Her basic worldview is derived from Christianity (“If any man refuses to work, let him not eat,”) but who has perverted this worldview into something contrary to the Gospel.
Rand’s philosophy started with the laws of logic and reason of Aristotle not the arbitrary quote from from the Bible you have offered. I encourage you to learn about her philosphy before calling it perverted.
If I am not mistaken, it is Evolution that first stated “if you don’t work, you won’t eat and you’ll be extinct.”
“Evolution” doesn’t “state” anything. Evolution is just something that happens. If you can’t survive to breed then your characteristics are not passed on to the next generation. If you are fast enough, smart enough, agile enough, resourceful enough to survive and breed then those qualities will be passed on to future generations and they will be faster, smarter etc. Only now we are supporting the lazy, the stupid etc. and they are breeding faster than anyone else. This does not bode well for the future.
Conservatives, whether they are Christians, Jews, or atheists, are looking for an organization of society optimal for people who themselves are far from optimal. While Christians and Jews base their ethical decisions on tenets of their respective religions, atheists base their ethical decisions on texts or beliefs drawn from other realms. For example, many atheists have what philosophers call a “virtue ethics.” Indeed, much of capitalist bourgeois society is based on a virtue ethics, which may account for the lessening effect of Christianity over the past 150 years in bourgeois societies, such as our own.
The most obvious capitalist bourgeois virtues are prudence, justice, courage, and temperance–all of these virtues are obviously necessary for a capitalist who wishes his/her venture to succeed. The virtue of hope is essential, otherwise no one would persist in a business enterprise. Of course, other virtues–such as love–pertaining to personal relationships and the family are also part of an atheist’s repertoire. A person does not have to adhere to a religion in order to be ethical and virtuous. It is simply foolish for conservatives to argue that atheists cannot be conservatives.
Gloria: “The most obvious capitalist bourgeois virtues are prudence, justice, courage, and temperance”
I find your Marxist language off-putting. The virtues mentioned here are more accurately attributed to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and are the virtues of a rational society.
I thought it was Plato? And then Aquinas et al brought them into Christianity.
It’s Aristolte, Jeanette. You may want to Google it to verify yourself. You are correct about Aquinas bridging these virtues and reason in general from the Greeks, though.
Google took me to Wikipedia, which is why I didn’t express much confidence in my response
Communism, fascism, and theocracy are all collectivist totalitarianisms, differing only in the rationale each proffers as a justification for their arrogation of individual rights and freedoms to state prerogative. Communism appeals to the erasure of class distinctions, fascism appeals to racial purity, supremacy, and/or exclusivity, and theocracy appeals to divine mandate exegetized from some holy text or other. They end up killing vast swaths of inconveniently in-the-way people in pursuit of their utopian schemes, for to them, humans are not individually valuable, but are a replaceable, renewable, fungible mass; ‘the people’ will always breed more. Of course, at the other end of the spectrum is anarchy, which eschews all justification for government whatsoever, as it desires to abolish government entirely. But Hobbes has already informed us where that path leads, a war of all against all, where life is poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short. CDRs (constitutional democratic republics) inhabit the golden mean sweet spot sensible center between these injurious extremes, guaranteeing identical basic rights and freedoms for all in ordfer to avoid the tyranny of the majority, while still furnishing a standardized means by which a nation can form and execute consensuses to accomplish essential common tasks that are beyond the scope of individuals.
Communism and theocracy share more in common than either of them is comfortable admitting:
http://www.myspace.com/salamantis/blog/247520315
Compartmentalization is necessary. Neither religious faith of any kind, or the lack of it, should either rationally or in all good moral conscience serve as a litmus test for membership in a movement dedicated to economic reform. The most important social proscriptions – against murder, theft, coercion and lies – are to be found in the vast majority of faiths, and can also be rationally deduced as the best way for large numbers of mortal people – individuals, families, friends and strangers – to share space on a finite sphere in peace, prosperity, and security. Other so-called social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, gambling, prostitution, pornography, substance use, and assisted suicide should be left to the individual consenting adults to decide. It is only in collectivist totalitarianisms that such life decisions are either mandated or forbidden; constitutional democratic republics should grant individuals the freedom to come to their own conclusions on such matters, and if other people do not agree with their personal choices, then they can make different choices for themselves, but should not be allowed to dictate such choices to the rest. The synthesis of the Hegelian master, who is willing to kill or die in order to be the master of others, and the slave, who is willing to be enslaved rather than to kill or die, is the free individual, who refuses to rule others in such matters, but also refuses to be ruled by them, instead choosing both voluntary participation and the right to decline it depending on the issue, and who is also frequently willing to risk his own life to free others from the shackles of slavery and oppression, recognizing that as long as slavery and oppression exist for anyone, everyone else is in danger of its spread.
“Other so-called social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, gambling, prostitution, pornography, substance use, and assisted suicide should be left to the individual consenting adults to decide.”
Wait, but you said “the most important social proscriptions are to be found in the vast majority of faiths, and can also be rationally deduced as the best way for large numbers of mortal people – individuals, families, friends and strangers – to share space on a finite sphere in peace, prosperity, and security.” Who says you get to be the one who decides which “social proscriptions…found in the vast majority of faiths, rationally deduced as the best way…to share space…in peace, prosperity and security” we should keep and which we shouldn’t? It’s like you’re the new Magisterium, now that you’ve rejected the Catholic one. Acting out one’s homosexual urges is definitely on the list of no-nos in most religions and cultures; why didn’t you include that in the other list? I’ll want to see some kind of a chart with valid data before I’ll accept that lame claim.
Oops, that was me.
Yeah, and most world religions also used to treat women like property and condone racism and slavery, and some still do at least the first of those. Doesn’t make it good or right or just or fair or decent.
The basic idea is to maximize the personal rights and freedoms of all. Murder, theft, coercion and lying infringe upon other people’s right to live, to have, to choose and to know. But homosexuality and the other things I listed as social choices are no skin off anybody else’s nose. And no, Christian fundamentalists and the otherwise devout and pious have no more right to not be offended by other peoples’ non-freedom-infringing words or behavior than jihadis do. And the former generally recognize this, which is why they have been far better fits in free societies than the latter have. It’s that non-coercion principle. You don’t like it, don’t do it, but don’t try forcing anybody else not to do it too. Try talking them out of it if you wish, but don’t work to pass oppressive, puritanical laws or resort to terrorism and murder.
The basic maxim followed to decide which behaviors fall on the permitted-yet-not-mandatory list and which fall on the forbidden list is this: All people should have all rights and freedoms that do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others, and where conflicts between competing rights and freedoms inevitably occur, they should be resolved by equal, reciprocal, and proportional compromise.
I think that there is always something that goes unsaid. Tribalism often comes with a total lifestyle package. I find these total packages personally insufferable and politically detrimental. It’s all part and parcel of the ingrained American binary proclivity. It stems from the Puritan notion that one is either a member of the elect or the damned. America, whether religious or not, is culturally Calvinist.
Another litmus test that stems from this history is American exceptionalism. I find the notion that God ordained a shining city upon a hill wanting. If anything, today we’re seeing His rebuke. But to say such thing in one tribe gets one accused of being in the other tribe.
As an aside, I also think Rand is off in her theology. Salvation isn’t solely an individual endeavor. It’s in the context of a community, and a self-negation plays an important role stemming from the crucifixion itself. Still, I’m not convinced that Natural Law requires a deity.
In any case, the Tea Party would best to keep their message focused on the essentials and not get co-opted by shibboleths and jingoism.
“Salvation isn’t solely an individual endeavor. It’s in the context of a community, and a self-negation plays an important role stemming from the crucifixion itself.”
Interesting. How, in your view, does salvation take place “in the context of a community?”
Without getting to esoteric, self-negation in a Christian context has a blatantly self-serving purpose. We’re trying to get to heaven, to live forever, to pursue eternal happiness. If that’s not selfish in the Randian sense, I don’t know what is. The self we negate is temporal, and abandoned in pursuit of the self that is eternal. I believe this process is necessary because God’s nature requires it. The Cause of Cause is necessarily supernatural, and therefore requires faith to acknowledge. Faith, by definition, is a negation of the objective self. There’s much to be said on the subject, much more than could be reasonably addressed here.
First, without sin, salvation is irrelevant. So we begin with Adam. If original sin is to be inherited, and concupiscence which leads to personal sin is to be inherited, then sin is in the context of our human family. Then God raised up patriarchs and formed a people. He then led that people. He tested that people. He rebuffed that people. In time be brought forth his Son in that people, a path cleared by prophets. He formed a community of apostles who were commanded to go forth into other communities. And we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, whom we pray for and who pray for us. No man is an island.
To be clear, I’m only talking about context. The free will of the individual is still intact, and the salvation comes from God alone.
As for the selfishness of self-negation, the selfishness of attaining heaven, that’s not so cut and dried. What motivates us all is different. To take a greater than typical example, was Mother Theresa motivated by the stick of hell, the carrot of heaven, or by love? What motivated her to offer herself up? When we love our neighbors, what’s our motive? When the widow gives her last penny, what’s her motive? If it’s not love, if it’s only reward or punishment, what are we left with?
Yes, there’s too much that can be said in comboxes.
I sense we could have a very interesting conversation in a more direct forum. As it is, I’ll stick to a simple point.
Of what value is love in and of itself? All manner of unprofitable decisions are made on the basis of love. Let’s say you lived your entire life as Mother Theresa, but were never saved and died and went to hell. What would your expressed love have profited you? Let’s say the people you helped likewise were never saved, died, and went to hell. What would your expressed love have profited them?
This is my point. The meaning of life, the reason we’re here, is profit. Life is its own end, and we act to preserve it and maximize its quality both on this Earth and beyond. And we’re not the only ones. Why did God create us? To what end does He work? To bring glory to Him. Sounds kind of selfish, doesn’t it? So it is, and so it should be.
If you don’t have love, no amount of self-negation is of any profit to you. Even laying down your life is a worthless act if it is done for vainglory rather than righteousness and love.
Can the author please reconcile the Founder’s belief that public schools should specifically teach religion, morality, and knowledge (in that order) with his assertion that belief in God is not embedded in the fabric of what is America? Methinks he should research the beginnings of this nation more closely. Jefferson’s singular statement regarding “separation” has for decades been taken out of context of Jefferson’s own extensive statements on the subject and used to distort the original meaning of the Constitution’s establishment clause. He even advocated use of Public buildings for shared religious services… Why not include that in our Constitutional interpretation?
While it is not necessary to believe in a Supreme Being to be an American, it is a gross distortion of history to assert the Founders did not intend for God to be recognized as the source of our basic human rights.. yes even that right not to believe in Him.
Furthermore the Establishment clause only regulates the Federal Government, not those of the States and that was intentional as well. Application to the states is yet another broad (and unconstitutional) reach by the weakest and unelected branch of the government to expand it to the States. It’s high time we corrected the Judicial Branch’s overreach in the many areas where they have trammeled our country’s founding principles.
Thanks, oldie.
I don’t believe I ever asserted that “God is not embedded in the fabric of what is America.” What I said is that the institution of the church and the institution of the state were separated in order to protect freedom of conscience. If you don’t think that’s what Jefferson meant, methinks you should join me in your prescribed research.
While I agree Jefferson has been abused by secular activists, he was no friend of biblical Christianity. He craved up the Bible, excluding what he regarded as mystical nonsense, and published his own edition. Though secular activists tend to overstate the fact, it was certainly true that many of the Founders were deists whose theology was as influenced by the Enlightenment as was their politics. For more on this history from a Christian perspective, I recommend the ministries of Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto – Worldview Weekend and Adullam Films respectively.
So wait, you don’t believe the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights against the States?
You believe the States are fully entitled to deny freedom of speech, worship, and assembly?
That they can ignore jury trials, try people multiple times for the same offense, can conduct searches without warrant or cause, and inflict cruel and unusual punishments?
That they can infringe, even prohibit, the keeping and bearing of arms?
Yes, those clauses originally only applied to the Federal government.
Most people are quite happy that has been amended.
You need to keep in mind that when “Christianity” was taught in schools, it was Protestantism; Catholics had to form their own schools and go to the Supreme Court (Pierce) in order to be able to avoid having their children “mistaught” Christianity. So imo it was a little bit of “what goes around, comes around” when the Supremes took Protestantism out of public schools.
Oh yes – and society took a nose dive after that.
Of course, Catholic schools are now synonymous with “academic excellence”, too.
If we don’t want them in the Tea Party, what do you think we should do? Encourage them to go vote for Obama? They may not be traditional conservatives in the social sense, but we need to acknowledge that we need their help to defeat the left. In that sense, there should easily be enough that we have in common. Now is not a time for division between us, but a time to hang together.
Jesus’s statement, made in a different context, “he that is not against us is for us” is appropriate. If atheists wish to work with Christians to save the country, we should welcome them.
Mr. Hudson has acknowledged, that there are many atheists who feel that their role in life is to trash Christians, and to suppress the public practice of the Christian religion. These are the atheists whom Christians should oppose, since they are very destructive. There is no way that people of faith could partner with them. Ayn Rand is different. She does not appear to be antagonistic towards people of faith. Her assessment about her own philosophy, that it is generally compatible with Christian beliefs, seems accurate. Some of her ideas are difficult for Christians to embrace, but that doesn’t mean we should reject everything she wrote.
Christians have embraced the philosophy of non-Christians from the second century or earlier. The gospel of John uses terminology which would appeal to the Greek culture. Plato and Aristotle were pagans, but that didn’t keep the church father’s from using thier ideas in a Christian context. Why should Ayn Rand be different? Good ideas are good ideas, regardless of the source. If Ayn Rand has something positive to say, Christians should be willing listen to her, in those areas in which we can agree.
Leftysm is a religion. Its deity is an amorphous gov’t that distributes justice based on a perpetually moving set of standards. It’s important that we understand that both atheists and Evangelicals reject the religion of gov’t and laws that depend on a productive peoples’ wealth generation and their acquiescence (sic). Both evangelicals both arrive at the same place and similar conclusions more than not.
I probably side more toward the atheist that the evangelical (don’t tell my wife). The bible thumpin used to make me feel uncomfortable. However I have discovered that both of us despise edicts like ObamaCare and anything idea derived from Barney’s Frank.
Atheists don’t protect crosses on the highway and prayers before PTA meetings and you will find more brotherhood in the evangelical community.
Guys, this ain’t complicated. An atheist cannot agree with the constitution. The preamble states the premise for our entire concept of citizen rights. We are created equal and given rights by our creator, God, and that is why government cannot alienate us from our inherent natural rights. If we are not created by god, on what basis do we deserve equal justice before the law? If god did not give us these rights, what is our claim to them? This is the constitution. If you disagree with its foundational premise, what is your reason for agreeing with the rest of it? The tea party is all about the constitution, period. Covers it all, in my view.
The Preamble of the Constitution states no such thing.
The Preamble of the Declaration of Independence does, but that is not the Constitution.
Further, the Preamble of the Declaration refers to “Nature and Nature’s G-d”, and “their Creator”. Neither meets the qualifications of what is described in the Bible, and it is quite easy to construe them as being completely independent of any Biblical structure.
An atheist can quite easily believe that we have and deserve equal rights purely on the basis of inherent humanity. They do not have to derive from anything but our mere existence. Such a belief, meets all the requirements of inherent and inalienable rights, and is quite sufficient to sustain the Constitution derived from those principles.
Excellent explanation, but I bet it went right over Dave’s head. Let me give it a shot.
Dave, you, as a religious person believe that god endowed all men with noses, right?
I, as an atheist, do not believe that god endowed all men with noses. I can plainly see that all men have noses, but I disagree with you on the source. We can come together on issues regarding noses without having to agree on where they came from.
In the same manner, I fully believe in and endorse the notion of natural rights without believing in a deity to convey them.
As Sam eloquently said, it is our inherent humanity that gives us those rights.
By the way, to everyone else here, including the author – atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of a specific belief. That does not in any way create a group of people who have anything in common other than lacking that specific belief. It makes as much sense to refer to atheists as a group as it does to refer to all non-blondes as a group.
My father once told me he was thinking of joining an atheists club. I responded with ” Is that kinda like the Organization of Anarchists?”. I think the ‘atheist club’ lasted about 3 months and fell apart. Go figure.
Dave got the document wrong, but his concern was right; we see your lack of respect (“but I bet it went right over Dave’s head”), and so we don’t trust you to believe that our rights are unalienable.
We’re stupid people who believe in “fairy tales”, see the above comments? We need to “STFU” as one atheist above stated so lovingly. It’s a short hop from there to thinking we aren’t able to think for ourselves; history is clear on that. It’s clear the above commenters are not my allies.
Christians have a lot more to fear from people who don’t believe that a Creator endowed us with our rights, than atheists have to fear from Christians who believe that a Creator endowed you with yours.
Overblown much? Oh, poor, poor you.
It’s not the atheist republicans who insist that god is left out of an agenda; the atheists are REACTING to the insistence by the god squad that their deity permeates the proceedings. Hence the wish for you to STFU.
What we need is a candidate who knows foreign policy and jobs and energy and economics and focuses on things that matter. Faith in the christian version of god or the lack thereof is the *least* thing to worry about. But no, the excreble social conservatives (like you) can’t leave well enough alone and stupidly insist that faith etc is at the top of the list.
It is *YOU* who isn’t the friend of the republican party. If you want to believe in god then by all means do so, but try to have the common decency to leave your belief out of my business. We have a country to run here, and you need to quit getting in the way and run along and believe anything you want in your church of choice. And keep it there, in your church. If your belief influences your vote, great, but I don’t need to hear about it. Keep it to yourself.
You don’t sound like a fan of the First Amendment. I gotta say, “STFU” is an extremely poor substitute for a substantive response, and tells me you don’t really have much of an argument at all (otherwise you would have presented it). Especially given the discussion at hand.
You don’t sound like a fan of the First Amendment.
Yes. Telling you to stop hijacking the process and dictating the political discussion with your fairy tale belief nonsense is precisely the same thing as putting you in jail for saying what you think. Are you this dense? Yes. You really are a moron.
Are you a troll? Most tea-party types I know aren’t anywhere near this angry and vicious.
Given the nature of some of the attacks here I can understand your defensiveness, but it is unwarranted with regards to me. It is possible that Dave can understand all of this just fine, but he clearly has not thought it through and his grasp seems a little muddled. You might note that I never told you or anyone to STFU.
Trust me or not, I will still lay my life down to defend your inalienable rights.
LaSuthenboy,
The comments are so indented that I can’t reply specifically to “random”. Most of the exchanges are rather civil, including yours, since the topic is more “how do we forge a coalition?” rather than “who is right?” Several posters on both sides of the discussion seem to have forgotten, or just want to rant (beginning with post #1, who claims to be Christian). My posts here should be read in that context (ie, I’m not “complaining” about contempt toward Christians here, so much as pointing out that they hinder our willingness to go along with a particular movement or candidate.)
I’d like to see a coalition happen, in order to get the Borg out of the Oval Office. I think “small government” proponents would get a lot of cooperation from Christians of all kinds if the federal government got out of the “funding abortion” business (maybe overturn Roe and send it back to the states where it belongs!), the “funding ESCR” business (doesn’t work as well as ASCR anyway, which is why ESCR can’t get private funding and is so dependent on my tax dollars), the “gay marriage” business (separate religious marriage from “registered roommates” who would have hospital rights, “married/roommate” tax rates, inheritance rights? I know two sisters in their 50′s who live with each other and have done so for a relatively long time. But they don’t get any benefits at work or the government because they don’t have sex with each other, of course). Do you see more federal laws in my suggestions, or fewer?
It’s all in the phrasing, and the approach. Mutual respect WORKS a lot better than contempt. I don’t feel defensive about the nasty responses; (eight kids, you get thick skin. Plus, I’ve been helping to shut down a cult over the past six years so I have some experience in “character assassination) in the end, it turns back on the attacker. See what’s happening with Herman Cain right now? So many conservatives have been borked, we don’t believe the accusations any more.
Well, to be clear, I am not an atheist.
I have a very strong, very definite, religious faith.
Further, atheism is very much a belief system.
Just because it is a belief that something does not exist in no way means it is any less dependent on faith in an unprovable principle.
That said, I still find absolutely nothing incompatible in a belief in alienable rights no matter your beliefs.
Yes, I absolutely believe my inherent humanity endows me with inalienable rights.
I also absolutely believe my inherent humanity derives from the action of the Creator.
For those who do not believe that second part, nothing funtional changes; they still have that belief in inalienable rights deriving from the inherent humanity of an individual.
Further, because I believe one of the more critical of those inalienable rights is freedom of conscience, I see no contradiction in fully accepting people who believe only the first part, as they are obligated by their own belief to fully accept people who also believe the second part.
And of course, I see that as the particular, objective, genius of the Declaration and Constitution; it actually accepts both types of believers as equal.
Imagine that:
The Founders didn’t care WHY you believed in inalienable rights, they just wanted you to believe in inalienable rights.
Sam, this athiest thinks you put that beautifully!
Thanks.
Very good articulation Sam. I hope you dont mind if I steal that. I often have a hard time explaining that principle and you just did it beautifully.
So how did God give us those rights? By declaration? “You have rights.” That just makes him like a government that declares that we have rights to X, Y, and Z. (No it does not matter that he is the Supreme Being or whatever you want to rank him as.) Or did he create us as beings in whom the rights inhere by nature? In which case, it doesn’t matter, after creation, whether God continues to exist or not–because of what we are, however we got that way, the rights inhere in us.
If morality comes from God’s declaration or commandments, then it is worthless and arbitrary. God could as easily have made the opposite of any moral commandment you think he made a moral law into the moral law. Honor they mother and they father? No–God declares that eliminating thy mother and thy father when thou reacheth the age of 21 is his moral law. If you say God can’t just make ANYTHING moral by declaration, then you must concede that morality originates not in God’s commanding, but inheres in the nature of man–however man got his nature.
Rand spelled out exactly how and why we have rights. All you have to offer is “God said we do, so we do.” Rand’s explanation is more coherent, noncontradictory, and in tune with the Founders’ philosophy–which was not a religion.
Again, read the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,”
Why do we have rights according to the Declaration?
Because it is “self-evident” that we do.
That is the basis of all ideologies, that the “truths” they base their beliefs on are “self-evident”, with not merely no need for explanation, but with no functional explanation possible, and none ever provided.
And by all ideologies I mean all, secular and religious.
And by all secular ideologies I mean all, from Marxism to Objectivism to Federalism to everything in between and beyond.
Every last one of them is absolutely dependent on you taking at least one essential principle completely on “faith”, with no direct evidence ever provided, though circular evidence will appear in abundance, because that principle is “self-evident”, and any “reasonable” observer will have no choice but to agree with it immediately upon becoming aware of it.
The pretense that one’s ideological faith is more provable than someone else’s is always just that; pretense; and nothing more.
It is just as wrong to assert that inalienable rights cannot exist with secular musing as it is to assert they cannot exist with divine intervention.
God cannot be untrue to Himself. He cannot issue commands that contradict each other. Thus, he cannot say both, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” and “You shall forsake your aging parents.” Besides which, it is impossible for God to judge arbitrarily. He is neither capricious, nor a respecter of persons, that He would judge two identical circumstances differently because of the persons in question.
“God said we do, so we do.” Ah, turns out that a few times over the past 2000 years, some people had a little more to say than that. You might want to google a bit, because that’s a pretty stupid statement.
Well said, David. As a Bible-believing Christian, I couldn’t agree more. The problem my article points toward is the inability of many people of faith to perceive that civil harmony is possible regardless of religious belief. Indeed, our rights are derived from our nature, not our origin.
For a quick summary of Rand’s theory of rights, please see Craig Biddle’s article in this quarter’s The Objective Standard:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp
As Mr. Biddle points out, Rand’s theory goes beyond the indirect, but still faith-base justification of rights the Founding Fathers offered. They talked about man’s nature, but simply said the Creator made him so. Rand explains man’s nature and connects the dots.
This is wrong and is one of the problems I have with religion. I consider liberty and individualism to be self-sustaining and self-justifying. The notion that liberty and individualism are not self-justifying, that these must come from an external source (e.g. god) implies that non-freedom is the default condition. I consider freedom to be the default condition and that the burden of argument lies on those who take the opposite view.
I am a free autonomous individual because it is an inherent condition of myself, not that it comes from any external source.
In a free, civilized society where force has been banned from social relationships, Reason becomes the only means for men to deal with one another….Well, because it is hard to debate/argue/discuss on someone’s faith – it is faith after all – there is no observable, demonstrable, facts that can be presented as evidence (to an arbitrator) – and one person’s faith can differ from another’s and that’s that.
Ayn Rand points out that if Reason is abandoned, the only other means for men to deal with one another is Force – and then you cannot have a free, civilized society. The US constitution and the Declaration of Independence recognizes this fact and so should everybody today who are fighting to revert to its values.
Unfortunately the term “reason” has been hijacked by those who claim anything “anti-God” is “reason” and that “reason” has failed. Thanks to Ayn Rand for not only providing a proper definition of it but also reclaiming it.
This article cuts to the heart of why I WON”T go near my local Tea Party. Every event I think might be fun to attend seems to be headlined by some loud mouth bible/soccer mom – Rose Tennent – which pushes my support to the fringe. I don’t want to hear about how “Gawd has ordained” the tea party etc. I want to hear about smaller govmnt and less taxation. Leave me to my own God, who is Jesus Christ which I do not shove in peoples faces out of context. America has room for everyone when our gov. is small and too weak to bully us. Sanity, not religion should be the fulcrum we use to topple big govmnt. Rand exemplified this perfectly.
One of the most interesting and CIVIL debates I’ve ever seen on a “political” topic on the Web. Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
I thank Ayn Rand. She, more than anyone, will bring reason and civility back into our society.
Congratulations to the author. You have pointed out the Achellie’s heal of conservatism. Those of the religious right of the sort of the first respondent above and a few others, is pathologically incapable of tolerance. Certainly, not all people of faith are this way, but the vocal minority like some of those above give religion on the right a very bad reputation. This drives far more votes, particularly of the young, into the arms of the Marxists than most think.
Most of the framers of the Constitution were religious, yet, to their great credit, they kept their religion out of the document that forms the basis of our legal system. That’s what makes these religious men great, while others are simply “religious”. . . with an emphasis on “simply”.
This sort of article does nothing to strengthen the conservative movement. Leave it in church.
I think the tea party stands for what made this county great. Hard work, and morality. The New Age hates morality, and hard work. It loves self, and government control.
So, there is going to be a fight. CFR New Agers like DaOne, Billery, the Bull Dike, and Holder wear pink panties, so I do not expect to see them at the fight.
I can’t write anymore now, I have to go cling to my Bible, and weapon.
Is it anti-American to be an atheist? Let’s consider what that means.
Atheism means only one thing: the absence in a belief in a supernatural creator of that which exists. Atheism is nothing more: it is not a philosophy, an ethical system, or a political system. That a person is a self-proclaimed atheist indicates literally nothing about his philosophy, ethics, or politics. It is not a belief system.
An atheist might be a mystic, as are communists. Rather than believing in the supernatural power of a god, they believe in the supernatural power of the collective. Communism is a secular religion.
One might be an environmentalist atheist and believe in the supernatural power of the earth or nature, and hate man for needing to alter nature in order to survive.
An atheist might be a run-of-the-mill typical American who sometimes votes Republican and Democrat, went to school, has a job, your kids play with his, etc.–and he loves this country as described in the founding documents. He just can’t quite believe in God.
An atheist might be an Objectivist. He has a strict standard of what evidence is needed to believe in something, and nothing supernatural qualifies. He believes that reason is mans only means of survival, not faith, which he views as anti-reason and anti-survival. He believes strongly in morality that’s based on man’s nature and need to think and act for the long-term, and he rejects whim-worship as leading to misery and death. He believes in the need to prohibit the initiation of physical force in society, because reason stops where a gun begins. He supports individual rights for this reason. He thinks America’s founding principles are the basis for the only moral country in human history. He thinks that our country has betrayed, almost in entirety, those principles. He wants to fight for a free society.
I am such an Objectivist. I take incredible offense to someone who dares to say I am anti-American. What is anti-American is people like that, who create their arbitrary designations of what is American–designations that have nothing to do with what is essentially American. Namely, we who believe in the right to one’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If someone says I am anti-American because I do not choose to believe in a supernatural being, I say to them: your position is anti-American. For you are letting your religious views, that according to America’s ideas should not be in politics or to be imposed upon others, be the standard for judging what it means to be American. America the idea is open to all people, as long as they believe in the right to one’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Do not confuse us Objectivists with the statist organizations like the ACLU, who are using lawsuits to intimidate you from practicing your religion. Do not confuse us Objectivists with those leftwing organizations that are at war with Christianity while coddling Islam. We Objectivists believe in your right to your Christianity. We have no interest in silencing your prayers or taking down your crosses and Nativity scenes. We like “Merry Christmas.”
However, we do insist on a separation of church and state. That is profoundly American.
No, “separation of Church and state” wasn’t exactly what the Founding Fathers said: they didn’t want the establishment of an official Church, like England has.
No, they really did believe in the complete separation between state and religion. This is why they put up the firewall between the two. Religion is purely a personal belief system. Different people belief in different things and there is no way to objectively “fact check” to determine that one particular religion is a correct description of reality and all others wrong (this is called scientific method). Hence, Heinlein’s comment (as Lazarus Long) that “one man’s theology is another man’s bellylaugh”. As such, the founding fathers realized that religion is purely subjective in nature and, therefor, could not be defined as a single standard for all humans. This is the reason and purpose for the firewall between state and religion. The state has to serve as a single standard for all the people in the country. Any particular religion, by definition, cannot serve this function.
same thing applies to the term “sin”. Sin consists of causing intentional harm to others. Any other definition of “sin” is invented non-sense.
One man’s supernatural is another man’s engineering. The term “supernatural” is a null one.
There is nothing to substantiate the claim that the Founders believed in a complete separation between church and state or, as we have today, in atheism as the official state religion. And I say that as an Objectivist and non-beliver.
Many states at the time of the founding had official religions and the Constitution would not have been ratified if it banned religion in government.
In addition, the First Amendment was as much to assure those states that the Fed would not interfere with official religions as it was to protect the freedom of conscience of individuals.
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69
The goal of affecting public policy consistent with the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets is explicitly secular.
Yes it is. (effecting?)
I can separate Ayn Rand’s atheism from an appreciation her take on the “morality” of capitalism.
This is John Galt: the key chapter in Atlas Shrugged
I am absolutely, positively sure that my rights and status are inalienable (or unalienable, if you will) as stated in the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
I am OK with the notion that said inalienable rights are endowed by a Creator, as opposed to endowed by Barack, or Nancy or Harry or any number of insane statists who now hold some kind of power in Washington DC.
Every totalitarian regime in history has wanted, above all else, to dictate and place limits on the notion of rights that inhere in the individual.
Twice in the past year, Barack Obama has cited the Declaration of Independence and left out the phrase “endowed by our Creator”.
It is ugly and subversive that a United States President would cite our founding documents and intentionally omit a key phrase.
This is an Obama speech from a little over a year ago.
His citation from the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is a little…incomplete
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When asked about this omission, White House Press Secretary at the time, Robert Gibbs, replied: “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”
Pertaining directly to this topic: there is an interesting exchange between Glenn Beck and Yaron Brook, the head of the Ayn Rand Institute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izfvUyKPqjQ — there is the link. Sorry about that.
Ayn Rand put the ideals of our Founding Fathers back on the map.
The values that define “Americanism” are individualism, limited government, free-markets, and productive accomplishment. Why do I need religion to believe in these values?
Do realize that all of the founding fathers were Deists.
Another lie from the left. Read George Washington’s letters, and you will understand he thought G-d acted in the here, and now, plus he asked G-d for help.
Its no lie. Its well documented historically that all of the founding fathers were deists. Those who claim otherwise are engaging in historical revisionism.
You lie. Jefferson was the only diest among the founding fathers. Provide evidence or blow off.
Ahh, no, I don’t think so. And, in any case, a deists believes in God and Jesus as the savior. I’m not even religious and I know that.
Individual rights can only be defended on the grounds of reason.
Reason yes, but more precisely direct observations of man’s nature & logic. For a quick summary of Rand’s theory of rights, please see Craig Biddle’s article in this quarter’s The Objective Standard:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp
Or, better yet, go to the source: Atlas Shrugged and/or The Virtues of Selfishness.
The mistake made by many is to claim that without God there can be no morality. That is absurd. Men acting in their own rational self-interest can certainly develop a moral code with a religion. “Thou shalt not kill” is more than a command from God, it is also part of the logical framework of any moral code. One can argue that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are rights that must be protected in order for men and women to live in peace with each other without involving God in the argument.
The atheists I know are incredibly moral, wise, and fair-minded people, while some of the thugs I have known over the years rarely missed Church. You can make the sign of the cross all you want but if you then whack someone in a drug deal I would hardly call you a Christian.
Your anecdotes don’t constitute proof; my experiences are opposite yours (except for members of “lay movements” like Opus Dei, LC/RC, LM..).
Thank you for this article, Mr. Hudson. I suppose we need to get this issue out in the open, or it’s just going to keep coming back and biting us.
I hope we can all work together toward the goals we agree on, and leave the rest for later. Or: just agree that there’s a line between things that actually need to be debated in public, and things that are best kept personal — between ourselves and our consciences.
If people really really want to, we can argue about religion AFTER the federal government is about 1/10 its current size.
Good point. The public issues are those of limited government and fiscal sanity. Religious belief is a private, personal matter. This is why the founding fathers (who were all Deist, BTW) put up the firewall between state and religion.
As Robert Heinlein put it, “one man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh”.
I grok that. What is our goal? Throw all the progressives out in 2012. Renew our commitment to a Constitutional Republic. Reinvigorate the private sector. Revive the entrepreneurial spirit by getting government out of the way. Practice enlightened self interest. Elect persons who think rationally as opposed to those who appeal to people’s feelings, aka those who are willfully ignorant of facts. End, on a national level, the codependent cycle of victim, rescuer, persecutor, which is simply an effort to satisfy the neurotic need to control others. Scratch a progressive/Marxist/communist/socialist or a fundamentalist of any religious hue and you will find a frightened human being addicted to trying to control others. I want the government out of my wallet, bedroom, kitchen, church, doctor’s office, schools, and business. Got it? Go TEA PARTY!
Precisely!
I believe in individualism, limited government, free-markets, and productive accomplishment. I see no reason why belief in these values require belief in any concept of god. I view “god” as a monopoly-authoritarianism indistinguishable from any other. I consider monopoly-authoritarianism in any form to be fundamentally evil.
I’ll drink to that.
“Forget about these silly questions about Life and Death, Heaven and Hell, and where we’re all going to spend Eternity! This is about MONEY!!!”
Yawn. This isn’t a compelling argument for any real Christian.
I’m Christian, and it’s compelling to me. Why? Because of the context in which it is offered. The craft of civil government is an answer to the question of when we ought to apply force to men and why. Religious concerns are matters of conscience which ought never be subject to the use of force. Therefore, they are simply irrelevant to the craft of civil government.
But if the atheist wing of the ‘small government’ movement doesn’t respect that 50 million dead unborn is a lot more important to a lot of us than tax rates, there won’t be a coalition. And it looks like “the coalition” was kind of your topic, right? No, I haven’t read Rand so I can’t address that big part of this post.
“Forget about these silly questions about Life and Death, Heaven and Hell, and where we’re all going to spend Eternity! This is about MONEY!!!”
But Jeannette, aren’t those (Life, Death, Heaven, Hell, Eternity) matters for RELIGION? They’re NOT why governments are instituted among men.
Again, I’m pointing out that this approach to us will not get you a coalition, that’s all. There’s more to life than “what the Constitution says”; you might want to go a little farther than “I’m not violating Christian’s constitutional rights” if you want cooperation.
The problem with a philosophy of rights without a higher order as the underpinning is that it leads to licentiousness, as we see clearly today.
Take the right to life. How did you get that? Is it absolute? Who can take it from you? By what power? The state claims power over your right to life daily. The state as either a representation of the will of many or few or one grant you what is no longer essentially a right but a privelege. History is replete with the manifestations of the right to life undergird by the will and wisdom of men and it is a sorry state, indeed.
If your right hinges on a mere claim, written in solemnity, spoken in defiance or silently assumed it is only kept by an open threat of violence and is lost by the same.
When people in either individual or corporeal capacity no longer fear God as the ultimate judge who shall be obeyed, or else; at that point rights cease to exist. Fom that point forward power passes into the hands of men raw, naked and vicious.
Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. The question is, in what way does a libertarian society based on limited government and free markets in anyway restricts your right to belief as you want and to practice your religion? Your right of religious freedom is protected by and is an intrinsic part of such a libertarian society. You are also free to seek out like-minded individuals and form your own private associations based on your religious beliefs. As such, it is not necessary to tie the tea party into religious issues.
In your libertarian society, would Christmas be a public holiday? Or would you have to change its name to “Festivus”?
There seems to be a misconception that libertarianism precludes religious belief. It does not. If anything, libertarianism and religious belief are orthogonal to each other.
Well this is stupid. Making the TP a purely “Christian” thing is really dumb. I mean over-the-top-stupid dumb.
Way to go handing your critics ammunition and weakening your coalition, fools.
Nice of you to make it harder for erstwhile allies like me who vigorously defend Christians against vicious attacks by the left and militant atheists. Would it be such a difficult thing to broaden your political horizons a bit?
Most people see Ayn Rand as nuts, kind of a right-wing version of Karl Marx (who was also nuts). Any serious national organization should do all it can to distance itself from her and her followers.
If the Tea Party embraces Randian values, then it will have become anti-Christian. Talk all you want about what she meant, but 99 people out of 100 will always believe Rand was hostile to religious beliefs.
As a religious person, I would be more comfortable living in a benevolent monarchy with a state church. The King represents God on earth – heaven is not a democracy. Living in a republic is fine, but has its unique challenges.
Your name is apt.
“Most people?” If we fail to vanquish the tyranny that is now breathing down our necks I will remember you. What other religious and metaphysical beliefs does your bigotry encompass Mister I’d-rather-die-than-share-a-lifeboat-with-him!
You’re cherry picking early Rand on christianity. Mature Rand thought it was christianity was alturistic. Mature Rand also knew better than to say GOD is where our rights come from.
If the TEA Party has a religious test for membership, I will fail.
Is it too difficult to understand Ayn Rand’s distinction between what she believed is true and moral versus what she thought others were entitled to believe? She believed that Christianity, like all faiths and all altruistic beliefs, were disvalues to human life. However, she is the strongest advocate in history of banning the initiation of force and respected all people’s rights to have their own opinions and act on them so long as it did not violate anyone’s rights.
Yes, and this is the reason why anyone who claims Randian values are anti-Christian are way off base.
If this country is supposedly Christian then why is Christ not mentioned anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution?
This country has always been predominantly Christian by headcount. But it was not founded to be Christian–thankfully. Otherwise it would have been as much a failure as every other theocratic country.
As a wise friend put it:
“There is a difference between being a predominantly Christian country and being a Christian country.”
“…if atheism leads inexorably to progressivism and communism, why did the atheist Rand spend her entire life decrying collectivism and advocating individual rights more aggressively than most of her American contemporaries?”
The term you’re looking for is cognitive dissonance.
Here’s the reason why introducing religion into the tea party movement is a mistake:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=165544
I happen to also be an atheist, but I’m certainly no follower of Rand, and I happen to agree with much of the Social Conservative platform. The problem is not that Rand is an atheist, but that she was an anti-theist. She believed that anyone who was religious was inherently irrational. In many ways, her beliefs paralleled those of Marx who thought that religion was the opiate of the masses.
It’s also funny because Rand and Marx both believed that marriage was an evil, Rand because it tied people to one another in manners that were not in their self-interest, and Marx because it kept capital tied to a particular person rather than spreading the wealth. Although they are often regarded as opposites, I usually regard Rand and Marx as two sides of the same evil coin.
For goodness sakes, please check your facts. Ayn Rand married Frank O’Connor on April 15, 1929. They were married until his death 50 years later.
“Atheist groups make headlines seeking to remove the Ten Commandments from court houses or nativity scenes from town halls.”
——–
Those who worship government, those see government as a standard of a moral order, they aren’t real Atheists.
Religion, in the western tradition, seeks to convince followers of it’s argument. A ‘moral’ government tries to force people to do (what it considers to be) “the right thing”. We are having these discussions now because a secular religion, Socialism, has decreed that ‘Individual Wealth’ is a moral crime.
The church, or any other CHOSEN moral order (Atheism too), conducts its business exclusively in the moral realm. But as Jefferson wrote; “Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations.”.
Liberals got things backwards. It is not the individual moral order that should be kept out of government. It is government that should not dictate the moral values to sovereign individuals. It is impossible for any person to separate from himself that moral substance that makes him an individual….that gives him his identity.
All opinion, all religion, and all morality is SUBjective in nature. Government must make every effort to act OBjectively. It must limit itself so as not to interfere with the individual CHOICE between good and evil. The only “moral government” is one that never interferes with that choice.
-
There is no natural conflict between Christianity and Objectivists:
“And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”
- Mark 12:17
.
Rand, like myself, was very pro-choice. Pro choice for everything. Some in the Tea Party may not agree with her stance on religion or abortion, but I am staunchly pro-America, an atheist, and supporter of abortion. Does it mean that I loathe religious people or anti-abortion people? Not at all. When it comes down to the truly important matters of preserving what is left of capitalism and individual liberty, I know which side we’re on.
Rand might have agreed with abortion depending on her view of the fetus. If she viewed the fetus as a living human being, she most certainly would have opposed abortion. If she simply saw the fetus as a congregation of cells and not human, she would have been for choice.
The only purpose of American government, and the only reason that government exists, is to protect the freedoms of the American people. (“That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men….”)
While a great number of our laws may be seen as ‘moral’ by some, they are not meant to be ‘moral’ laws. Their purpose to to protect the civil rights of every individual.
ALL civil rights are individual rights! (5th Amendment: “No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime……”)
Too many atheists are fighting to sanitize the public square from religion (to use language reflecting their mentality). To suchlike, any mention of God or religion or faith at a political event is offensive, even oppressive. Herman Cain, a Tea Party favorite, expressed his faith at press event by singing a spiritual hymn. I wonder how many MOA enemies he made by doing so?
Atheists, a very small percentage of Americans, can’t force the religious to shut about their faith in the public square in the name of tolerance or separation of church and state. Yet they try anyway. I wonder if they’d try to do the same thing at Tea Party rallies or meetings?
I could be wrong, but I doubt that many followers of Rand have a strong opinion about what Mr. Cain sings in the public square. Afterall, he has a nice baritone voice. However, as President, when he promotes and signs legislation where the force of law is involved, he must be tone-deaf to religion.
Hopefully most of us can agree on this. It certainly seems to be Mr. Hudson’s plea.
Even during the Civil War, devotion, or piety, was a minority mark of Union soldiers, even while their commanders rated the devout as better soldiers. Some stupid Christians are mistaking the purity of the (ideal) church for the compromise and bloody-knuckled reality of politics. That is a huge mistake.
There will never be agreement on the question of “Existence of God”, since Christianism answer that by faith. Objectivism approach is like St. Thomas (see to believe). So, the debate is more productive if we compare ethics.
As someone who has been grown Protestant and then made my own “road to Damascus” to end as Objectivist, I have to say that very much of the principles in the Bible are good and in accord with Objectivism. Of course, there are irreconciliable differences, but so there are between different branches of Christianism. The best part is what we have in common: individual responsability, limited government (read 1° Samuel 8 ) and long time tested principles like “He who does not work, neither shall he eat”.
Ayn Rand stated she was NOT a activist-atheist: she didn’t believe but she didn’t go around bothering people with that. I remember she said, whether you believe Man was created by God, or evolved in Nature, it is still true Man is an specific entity with specific characteristics (reason, free will) and specific requirements for functioning (freedom).
Therefore, I firmly believe we can collaborate when our objectives are the same, and go separate ways when is not, but we can respect each other.
Thank you for the objective view of the “Tea Party” vis á vis objectivism and religiosity, theism, whatever.
I must take issue with some proclamations however:
Rand: “Since man is a rational being, his morality must be individualistic, for the mind is an attribute of the individual and there is no collective brain.”
Morality has become “individualistic”, which is part of the problem. “What feels good, do it!” Homo Sapiens-Sapiens flourished because of a “social contract” – that includes a collective “morality” in order to survive (as well as a division of labor). If Americans did NOT share morality, would our country even exist? Of course not.
QUOTE: “Why then vet political relationships with a religous test? What end does that serve?”
It DOES help to weed out the dregs, obnoxious preachers and cultists, does it not?
THAT is only one variable however, but an important one IMHO.
As for the Tea Party, eschewing Ayn Rand, it’s a good thing as she is very much overrated. To be sure, Ayn Rand was a pioneer, her ideas make people think. Espousing atheism was, and still is, a losing campaign plank.
Just a Thawt
~(Ä)~
Karl, the “What feels good, do it” type of ethic is called hedonism and is not at all what Rand espoused. Please Google “Ayn Rand and hedonism” to see her exact view.
In fact, the religious ethic is closer to hedonism because it is not evidence based but “feeling” based. No rational standard can tell you that one religion is true over another. It comes down to something arbitrary such as “feelings” or “tradition”
Actually, it’s more complicated than that even among Christians (not to mention other religions). For just one example, there are those sects that believe that God speaks to the individual. Others find that notion fraught with danger because who’s to know if any given individual is truly hearing God or just his own vanity.
Both viewpoints have defenders. But the point is that the debate is centuries old and both sides claimed to be arguing from reason as well as faith.
I say this as an Objectivist for most of my life and as a non-religious person. But I know that without the Judeo-Christian philosophers there would not have been an Enlightenment and there would not have been a Declaration of Independence.
Ironically to this discussion, the group that Rand found most disgusting was not the religious but the libertarians who she disliked even more than conservatives (what are they trying to conserve, she asked). Rand saw libertarians as philosophically un-moored. They had no defining metaphysics. So you had libertarians who were Christians and those who were atheists and those who were leftist pacifists and those who were right wing hawks.
I sometimes call myself a conservative and sometimes a libertarian because the shoe fits and no normal person knows what an Objectivist is. But I have to agree that, when Rand was alive, most conservatives were of the RINO variety and the libertarian movement, though young, was already showing signs of Balkanization and dysfunction.
But, despite all that, unless we in the TEA Party suppress our purist instincts, we will fail. Notice that the socialists and communists fight tooth and nail for the smallest victories and ally with whomever they think will help them win, including Islamo-Facists. If Christians, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, atheists and the rest of us can’t tolerate each other long enough to preserve freedom — we don’t deserve it.
Reading the comments I have to say, I truly believe the government is putting something in the water to push people off the deep end.
A belief in God doesn’t make one moral. A disbelief in God doesn’t make one amoral. Many people have been murdered in the name of God.
There’s a few here who really need to check their premises. Reality check, aisle three.
Have No Fear of God? http://www.squidoo.com/fear-of-god
I hope that more people within the Tea Party will listen to you. If the Tea Party becomes a religious movement it is going to go nowhere, which will be a shame as it is currently the only hope we have for meaningful political change (unlike Obama’s Hope and Change
).
The way I see it, it is religion that leads to individual rights violations.. the religious concept that ‘every man is his brother’s keeper’ is the religious justification for armed extortion by the State (taxes).
Man should act morally and do no harm to others because LIFE is the standard–not some imaginary “god”. Imagine how awful a world where everyone is evil and only behave because they are afraid that ‘god’ will punish them? How about behaving morally because it is the ONLY way to live life to the fullest capacity. A moral man helps his brother–not out of fear of ‘god’ but out of valuing his relationship with his brother (I mean the term ‘brother’ generically). Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT want done unto you, is my motto.
We are moral because it is in our long term best interest to do so. The barbarian dies by his own sword. The civil man thrives and builds a metropolis.
You ended the last sentence too quickly. It should have end ” … civilized man builds a metropolis, … that gets chopped up by some other barbarian’s sword when he gets lazy, cowardly and effeminate.”
We need to control public sector spending, reform entitlement programs and promote private sector job creation, or Europe’s present becomes our (near) future.
And this philosophical back-and-forth will fade into the background of our children’s diminished future.
The media keep harping over and over about this. It is a non-issue. Just about no Tea Partier says “I agree with Ayn Rand 100% as my philosopher of life.” So there’s no contradiction, at all. Or, if there is, then all the Occupiers and Progressives must agree with Marx’s anti-Semitism. (Hmmm.)
Responce prompted by Michael R Brown, # 63.
You stated “Just about no Tea Partier says “I agree with Ayn Rand 100% as my philosopher of life.””, I can also tell you that no student of Objectivism would make that same statement! A lot of Mrs. Rands work can be looked at as a form of road map, going beyond the roads you may know. Testing her map by seeing existing places you know, with caution, you can try small steps advancing your horizon. From about 1979 until present, I have yet to find a flaw in her map. Each of us has their own context of knowledge, yet, this map will mesh up with the truth every time. Perhaps it is the “Tea Partier” that needs Mrs. Rand’s work to save what is left of the free world?
When and if the Tea Party people seek the true moral justification of rational self intrest, they will have earned the foundation required to champion our cause. Until then, many of us that could help the Tea Party advance, keep working on our own.
Look at this article from The Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/obama-spiritual-adviser-on-the-tea-party-i-distrust-a-movement-that-lifts-up-a-philandering-russian-atheist/
The Obama administrations “spiritual adviser” distrusts Ayn Rand and tries to use her as a wedge to divide the tea party. He goes on to claim that “we are our brothers keeper” insisting that Jesus would be all about wealth redistribution.
Fact: Christianity cannot defend Capitalism.
I know Christians who say their religion DOES defend capitalism and that all the “brother’s keepers” stuff is the Left twisting the Gospel. The best evidence of the Christian view of Capitalism is the fact that our religious founders did not draft a socialistic Constitution for us.
Neither Christians nor Objectivists nor libertarians nor conservatives should put thoughts into each other’s heads. It’s best to just ask. Comedian Evan Sayet was asked what changed him from a liberal to a conservative. He said that one thing was he started asking conservatives what they thought instead of accepting the liberal’s version.
Christian’s should understand that Rand made a distinction between charity being voluntary and mandated by the state. Objectivists should understand that Christians make a similar distinction, many agreeing with Roger Williams that “forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God” and so does forced charity.
Those here who are arguing in favour of religion and the existence of god and anti-abortion or whatever are missing the point of this article and the particular point brought up by Chip Joyce – and, frankly, seem to be using this commentary field as their very own bible-bashing podium (you know who you are).
The particular issue here is NOT whether Christianity is good and Atheism is bad (as an Objectivist, I obviously agree with Ayn Rand on this one). Rather, the point is what kinds of values or set of values can be designated as having the quality of being “American”. Is it “Christian Values”, or, specifically, being a Christian? The answer is a definitive NO. If that were true, if you really believe that, then (a) you know very little about the history of the founding of your country and the beliefs and ideals that propogated it, and (b) you are advocating a form of government that can be classed as nothing less than a Totalitarian Religious Theocracy – i.e., Iran. The only difference between you and Ahmedinedjad, in terms of your conception of the proper form of government, is which religious minority to forcefully convert or persecute. That is NOT America – America, put simply, is based on the values of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. By her philosophy and her convictions, that made Ayn Rand one of the most completely and consistently American people in the whole of the country’s history.
We are in perilous times. The next election may well determine if our republic survives or becomes a footnote in history along with the concept of individual rights and individual sovereignty.
When I’m back to back with an ally on the barricades or in the trenches the last thing I’m going to ask my buddy is his church affiliation. My attitude mirrors that of the Framers. Many state constitutions and other legal documents at the time of our country’s founding contained the enlightened phrase that “there shall be no religious test” for holding public office. I think we, the new defenders of freedom, the philosophical descendants of the Founders, should abide by that same wisdom.
Mr. Hudson, you are right that Ms. Rand would have been acceptable to the tea party, as would have been another enlightened pagan, Plato. But the Tea Party has a point in objecting to wholesale inclusion of other pagans in their movement. They are expressing their perception of the root of the flower of human nobility, which they believe is to be found almost exclusively within Divine inspiration. That others than Christian exhibit this nobility does not necessarily preclude this inspiration as source, as in the extraordinary cases cited at the beginning. In all practicality, what Christian can evaluate a group of pagan followers, of a preeminent and enlightened pagan, for the values they believe foundational to support living a meaningful life ? It took decades to look back in Christian perspective at Rand, and centuries for Plato.
You can still find an old Phil Donohue program series where his guest is Ayn Rand. One of the things he discusses with her is her odd condemnation of altruism.
As she explains why she believes altruism is bad, she gives her definition of the term.
Most viewers should raise their eyebrows at a definition of altruism they will find totally unfamiliar.
How does she get this so wrong?
Easy. She’s an athiest. She has constructed a view of the world that she calls “Objectivism”. Her objectivist-athiest world view, while working in many ways, leaves several loose ends and she concentrates all the loose ends in the definition of one term–altruism. Its like a company consolidating all their legal liabilities in one subsidiary and then spinning it off as a separate company. Only she doesn’t spin it off. She takes full responsibility for this one measly little term that most people will just marginalize as odd but inconsequential.
Her definition may strike you as odd, it did me at first, but that’s because you associate altruism with simple benevolence.
But she saw something in the history of thought on the subject that you do not. She saw Kant and other philosophers turn benevolence into an obligation and then rate human goodness by the severity of the sacrifice.
So skipping a meal so your child could eat is good. Not feeding you or your child to feed another is better. Giving up your life, all your hopes and dreams, for the benefit of someone you don’t know or otherwise care about is best.
That is what Rand objected to, the notion that suffering for the sole benefit of others is the measure of someone’s worth and that you have no right to your own life and your own values and, in particular, that it is governments duty to make sure you sacrifice your “fair share.”
So if altruism isn’t the right word to describe that view of morality what is?
When you help others without sacrificing yourself (sacrifice, meaning giving up of something that is of a greater value to you for something that is a lesser value to you) you are acting on the morality of egoism – i.e. acting on a hierarchical system of values where you hold yourself as the top value (or your life as your moral purpose and your happiness as your goal).
In such a case “helping others” is a win-win situation, not your duty and something that results in a benevolent society.
When you are expected to sacrifice for others (i.e. give up a higher value for some benefit of others which is a lesser value to you) – that is, hold others’ benefit over your own and others’ happiness as your primary goal in life, that is the morality of self-sacrifice or altruism – which is far from acting from benevolence.
This morality cannot be consistently followed because life demands value-gaining and not giving up and leads to mixture of guilt (when you don’t sacrifice) and hostility (when you are coerced into it). Thus leading to a malevolent society and malevolent view of life.
Charity is a moral virtue only in an altruist code of morality. In a morality of rational self-interest, it is “no big deal” – an optional, good thing that you pursue if that is your choice.
Ayn Rand is not against Charity, she is against elevating Charity to the level of moral virtue – i.e. prescribing it as a guide to man’s every thought, decision and action.
Using the term “sacrifice” to define what parents give up for their kids or what motivates our brave soldiers’ is insulting the parents/soldiers by making bad assumptions of they hold dearer.
Look, either way I hate the tea party. TEA PARTY TERRORISTS!!!!
Here’s some TEA Party terrorism for you:
http://youtu.be/mXmmT9FqmmE
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Does being brain dead hurt?
You are making the same mistake as the Tea Party, rejection out of hand for those who disagree with your beliefs. For instance, while I disagree with much of Occupy Wall Street, their views on crony capitalism are correct. We can find common ground without sacrificing our core beliefs.
Ayn Rand wrote this in a letter in 1963 (The Later Years):
“I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one.
This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy.”
–Ayn Rand
She was against using Faith to guide personal and political thoughts/actions but she recognized and complied with the nature of Reason – that each and every one must use his own reason and that all must be free to do so, in the social context, unless they violated rights of others.
Oops, didn’t mean to post as Anonymous
What i do not realize is in truth how you are not actually much more well-preferred than you may be right now. You’re very intelligent. You already know therefore considerably in terms of this subject, made me for my part consider it from so many various angles. Its like women and men are not fascinated until it?s one thing to do with Woman gaga! Your individual stuffs great. At all times care for it up!
I have been exploring for a little for any high-quality articles or weblog posts in this kind of space . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this site. Reading this info So i am satisfied to exhibit that I’ve a very excellent uncanny feeling I found out just what I needed. I so much definitely will make sure to do not fail to remember this web site and give it a look on a continuing basis.
The Tea Party has become a disappointment for me. Why do we need evangelicals making moral rules for society. Christianity does not advocate this. The libertarian influence of the objectivists can only help the Tea Party cause. Ayn Rand never requires compliance with her beliefs, only that reality is the final arbiter. Further she states that honest men can disagree but when reality supports one view over the other, rational men will come to an agreement. As a Christian, I welcome objectivists because they make valuable contributions to thought in all areas of society.
Attractive element of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing on your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently quickly.
Great beat ! I wish to apprentice even as you amend your site, how can i subscribe for a weblog website? The account helped me a applicable deal. I have been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided brilliant transparent concept
Great work! That is the kind of info that are meant to be shared around the internet. Disgrace on the search engines for not positioning this post higher! Come on over and consult with my web site . Thank you =)
wonderful post, very informative. I ponder why the opposite experts of this sector don’t realize this. You should proceed your writing. I am sure, you have a great readers’ base already!
Wow, amazing blog structure! How long have you ever been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is wonderful, as smartly as the content!