American Values Network Bashes Ayn Rand

This is the crux of our difference. I acknowledge that her atheism was integral to her philosophy from her perspective, but I don't have to make it integral to her philosophy regarding the objective content upon which she commented. It's precisely because I'm able not to view it as such that I can compartmentalize her views, whereas she as the originator of her views couldn't have. For instance, she equated atheism to capitalism. Obviously that's not only wrong but dumb. The majority of theists, virtually all of them, are capitalists. So, I can disregard that premise as flagrantly untrue while still appreciating her adament defense of capitalism insofar as state intervention is concerned. "Integral" is then in the eye of the reader. Is atheism integral for capitalism? For her, yes: for me, no. In this way, I can appreciate her defense of markets and disregard her reason for defending them.

 

Forgot to address this. Paul3144 gave me the impression he was by citing the AVN, which is known for brilliant statements such as: "Christian voters must choose, Ayn Rand or Jesus." Question: why not Obama or Jesus, etc? Worse, they go on to imply that anyone in favor of Paul Ryan's budge is choosing Rand against Jesus. It isn't that far of a stretch to assume that they're giving Ryan's opponents a pass, to the point of calling them good Christians... or counting them as ones who aren't prone to this sort of error. They state:

If this isn't painting with a broad brush, I'm not sure what is. Granted, I could have misinterpreted Paul3144's point, but it seemed as if he was agreeing with their generalization. That being: true Christians are to be a monolithic movement who systematically denounce Rand and vote liberal.

[hijack]Where's the left's call for separation of church & state when you need it? Can you imagine the backlash if conservatives had a page called Scripture and Budget trying to force their religious convictions on the nation?[/hijack]

 

Its not that you can't compartmentalze things about a person and how you view them, but that it's not reasonable to laud their philosophy when it is, at it's core, fundamentally opposed to your own.

 

While I can find many points on which I agree with her, overall I find more I would disagree with from a Christian point of view. Its one thing to agree with parts of what she says, but its another thing to laud her or her philosophy.

 

Paul, you have to be careful touching those exposed nerves like that! :laugh: Rather than dialog, you see you got immediate insults and people kicking their own behinds with those sudden knee jerks.

 

To say that captialism leads to a philosophy void of God, love, and compassion is a non-sequitur at best, and......well, I won't say what it is at worst.

 

But it does make the godless commies squirm in delight.

 

Rand was anti-religion as a personal philosophy, but advocated an absolute freedom of conscience and freedom of religion in public policy.

The OP greatly overplays the less-than-christian aspects of the woman.

I have had fifteen semester hours of philosophy courses in an accredited university, and have yet to see her even mentioned as a by word in one of the textbooks. Having learned of her outside of the classroom, I can see why left-leaning institutes would avoid her.

I think that a review of her philosophy should be a mandatory requirement in ALL educational institutes, including secondary schools, in order to balance the collectivist/jacobian mob-rule filth that has been poured into us from our birth.

By the way, her dislike for altruism was not based on inhuman coldness but rather on a pragmatic effectiveness. What good does it do to cry for the cripple (my paraphrase of her philosphy)? Will crying make him un-crippled? No, it takes the burning energies of a medical genius that will be well-financed in his efforts by a system that rewards his efforts.

Or, why committ millions of dollars to making mentally disabled people happy when a 50 cent ice cream cone will get the job done? But then, if we only bought them ice cream cones, how could the Benevolent Dictator be able to take credit for his "compassion"?