CNN Belief Blog Highlights Christian Debate Over Ayn Rand, But Would They Hit Christian Democrats Over Social Issues?
CNN asked Wednesday if a person can follow "both Ayn Rand and Jesus," pulling quotes from both a Democrat and a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights to answer that Christianity and Rand's philosophy oppose each other. Buried deep within the post on CNN's Belief Blog was the contrary view that Christians can adopt certain tenants of Rand's philosophy while rejecting others contrary to their faith.
The question is popular among Christians at odds with the Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), a Catholic, who is a fan of Rand and her defense of capitalism and individualism. The American Values Network (AVN) in particular has tried to make known his endorsement of Rand and pitch it side-by-side with her anti-religious beliefs.
Eric Sapp is the AVN's executive director and was quoted in the piece hitting Christian Republicans for endorsing Rand. Sapp, according to a bio in the Huffington Post, helped found a political consulting group to work with Democrats and the "progressive faith community" on voter outreach.
In the past, Sapp was also a legislative aid to none other than the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, which shows where his real political beliefs lie. CNN was content not to report this, simply saying that Sapp was the executive director of the American Values Network.
The rest of the article focused on the debate between Rand and Christianity, which does raise some poignant questions. For instance, if Rand offered a moral defense of capitalism and individualism and praised self-interest, how much of her philosophy squares with the Christian principles of charity, sacrifice, and caring for the poor?
Both Sapp and a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights argued essentially that Christianity and Rand's philosophy of "Objectivism" are incompatible. They opined that Rand preached selfishness and egoism, while Onkar Ghate at the Ayn Rand center insisted that Christ preached a message of "altruism and collectivism."
Really, the only argument to the contrary that CNN presented was this one sentence towards the end of the piece: "Defenders of Rand say that a person can adopt elements of Rand’s philosophy and reject whatever clashes with their faith."
However, some Christians who oppose the marriage between Rand and Republicans also support the Democrat Party, which generally holds beliefs in contradiction with the Catholic Church and many Christian churches – such as support of gay marriage and abortion. Would CNN's Belief Blog be willing to address that rift in faith?
To read the entire blog post, click here.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Not Mutually Exclusive
Submitted by Samaritan01 on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:39pm.
Ayn Rand and Christianity is NOT mutually exclusive...and certainly not as mutually exclusive as, say, common sense and leftist politics.
That's an easy one.
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:54pm.
For instance, if Rand offered a moral defense of capitalism and individualism and praised self-interest, how much of her philosophy squares with the Christian principles of charity, sacrifice, and caring for the poor?
How it squares with Christian principles is ridiculously simple. People use capitalism, individualism and self interest to accrue money and goods. They then apply principles of charity and self-sacrifice to contribute a portion of their money and goods to caring for the poor.
And Jesus never preached collectivism; He taught individual responsibility of each of us to take care of our brothers. (If a man needs a coat and you have two...give him one....etc.)
He never said take up a collection among everyone you know.
That is an easy one.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 2:11pm.
Self-sacrifice. You have just hit upon the exact opposite of Randian belief.
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
intheftmo, Add ...rip off ..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 2:57pm.
http://unitproj.library.ucla.edu/col/bruinsuccess/03/01.cfm
You Didn't Build That.
My error in using the word
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 4:32pm.
My error in using the word self-sacrifice. I meant simply sacrifice.
I simply pointed out that one could use Randian principles to acquire wealth and goods, and then use Christian principles to care for the poor; my point being that one does not exclude the other.
So I have no idea what your problem with that is; or your point, for that matter.
Even sacrifice is
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 4:42pm.
Even sacrifice is antithetical to Rand's beliefs and philosophy.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
You said that it is ridiculously simple how her philosophy squares with Christianity, when in fact it doesn't. That is my point. Your statement, "He taught individual responsibility of each of us to take care of our brothers," is an entirely anti-Randian view. The two cannot be reconciled.
You Support Incest.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:31pm.
Therefore, whatever you say has no value. Clean out your mind before you dare lecture us.
Visions and Principles blog
No, I support limited
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:36pm.
No, I support limited government not dictating whom consenting adults choose as a sex partner.
Regaurdless what the
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 10:31pm.
Community thinks, Right Ru?
Satchmo is grooming his daughter as a potential sex partner.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 7:50am.
Right Satchmo. You can't spend 18 years tellling your daughter she will someday be daddy's sex toy. No., That won't happen will it? That is not what these father's do. No. They just up and decide on day to engage in incest when the daughter turns 20.
You lie Pervmo. The father's GROOM their daughter for incest and YOU support it.
18 years of GROOMING
groom 3: to get into readiness for a specific objective : prepare
"Randian"? No, that doesn't sound like a cult. Nope.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:13pm.
.
using and discarding
Submitted by jazzact13 on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:55pm.
I read "Atlas Shrugged" a few years ago. There was a good bit in it that I found interesting and good. There was also stuff in it that I found repellant.
Her defense of the individual, and the right of those who work to enjoy the fruits of their work, were things I liked. And it wasn't just limited to the great men, but also to the normal workers. If I remember right, among those who resided in Galt's valley along with all the big men of business, there were also ordinary workmen who simply too pride in their work and did it with skill.
On the other hand, I think her atheism undercuts her argument. I found it telling that the one place at which she and the Communists agreed was in being opposed to Christianity. But if there is no God, no one who gave the individual the rights she celebrated and defended, then they were given by the very state, and if the state gave them, the state can take them away. If there is no absolute morality, then it is simply a coin toss between those who want freedom and those who want to control, we cannot say that one is right and the other wrong.
Perhaps it is time to ask how the religious Left can claim to follow Jesus while also looking to certain atheist thinkers for inspiration. Marx comes readily to mind, as well as Neitsche. Among the philosophical-religious Left, there is Derrida and Foucault and all their disciples. Not to mention Michael Dowd and his essentially atheistic 'evolutionary christianity', of which the only Christian part is that he puts the word 'christian' in the name of his teachings. And they seem much more committed to the totality of ideas from these atheists than a vast majority of Conservatives are to Rand.
"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true."
Chesterton, Orthodoxy
granted rights
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 1:05pm.
It is not assumed that the state grants rights if not endowed by God. Rights are inherent in those actions that benefit the nation and they should be protected by the state not granted by the state. The solid Christian beliefs that founded this nation were used as the base to which the founders established the basic rights needed to provide for the people the ability to live in liberty and pursue hapiness. The blindness of justice to human condition and the concept of the 'level field of endeavor' were also important aspects.
While true that many believe as you that God grants these rights it is not the fall back position that the state grants the rights if you do believe in God. It is an inherent truth, a societal necessity and a fact of individual freedom in the minds of those neither have religious faith nor secular faith in the state.
Compatability of Christianity and Objectivism
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 1:53pm.
I can always find points of agreement and disagreement between two ideologies or philosophies. Consider two separate aspects of Christianity -- Calvinism and Liberation Theology -- and one could find plenty of incongruence.
So, why do Christianity and Ayn Rand have to be totally compatible? I'm not aware of either making such a claim.
But once again we witness the politicization of Christianity. It would appear that the Left has frustrated itself too long trying to get people to abandon their faith merely because Leftists say so. So the contemporary tactic is to pose to the faithful that if Jesus were alive today, he'd be a progressive Democrat and not a conservative Republican. Pick and choose selected Bible verses and one can support or dissemble the argument.
Since I am not a Christian, it matters little to me what Jesus's political affiliation would be today. But I find the quarreling amusing.
Small-c
Submitted by dmntd1 on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 1:56pm.
Usually when people tell me that the Bible preaches a version of communism, I reply in the affirmative. The difference is that it preaches small-c commune-ism, as opposed to Communism.
Small-c commune-ism is different than the political set of Communism. It's a voluntary, small-scale system whereby the participants are able to be removed from the set. It requires the able-bodied to work hard, generally at a capitalistic venture, while taking care of those that have already participated in the commune (or those that are too young to participate).
I liken it to a large old-style nuclear family: Father works outside the home, 'bringing home the bacon' for the family to eat. The mother works within the home, keeping the house clean, laundry taken care of, etc etc. The older children have chores that must be completed based upon their age and ability (lawn care, trash, cleaning the kitchen). They get jobs to provide for their own amenities once they reach a certain age. They leave to begin their own 'commune'/family once they reach the age of majority. Mother and Father take care of their parents when their parents reach an age that no longer allows outside work (however the grandparents don't necessarily stop contributing). I think this 'family' issue is the biggest part of their problem. It seems our left-most friends are constantly and consistently working to disrupt the nuclear family.
The biggest problem with Political Communism is the inability to disassociate from those that do not toil towards the betterment of the society. Face it, Political Communism is a fantastic idea, with a p!$$-poor reality. It does not take into context the generalities of the human condition. It assumes that everyone will work towards the betterment of the society, in direct contradiction to the fact that human nature tends to require risk, reward and punishment. We, as humans, learn more and quicker when we get 'punished'. We don't know what 'hot' means until after we've first burnt ourselves. We don't know what 'sharp' means until we've first drawn blood.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
Charity and liberals
Submitted by ferv888 on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 1:58pm.
Study after study finds that conservatives by far give more of their personal wealth to the poor than the liberals who want to reach into our pocket and redistribute. Case in point, Joe Biden made over 1mm in the last decade, his charitable giving? Less than 4,000. This is verifiable by going to Google and check it.
The gospel of Mathew says nothing about the state, but all about the individual. A correct reading of the the rich man and a camel going through the eye of a needle addresses those of us who have worked hard and are capable of giving, but do not. Those of us who have done well should look for opportunities to give to those in need, not want.
Finally heard a politician utter a truth the other day. Those receiving help should have to "volunteer" to help out with things in the community to get the help.
FERV888
"The question is popular
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 2:07pm.
"The question is popular among Christians at odds with the Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), a Catholic, who is a fan of Rand and her defense of capitalism and individualism. The American Values Network (AVN) in particular has tried to make known his endorsement of Rand and pitch it side-by-side with her anti-religious beliefs."
Ryan may be fan, but he is definitely not a Randian. He's no conservative, either.
"Both Sapp and a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights argued essentially that Christianity and Rand's philosophy of "Objectivism" are incompatible."
And they are correct; they are incompatible.
"how much of her philosophy squares with the Christian principles of charity, sacrifice, and caring for the poor?"
It doesn't square at all. It is antithetical to her philosophy.
Satch
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 2:20pm.
Are you taling absolutes? Otherwise I would have to disagree.
I am. Where do you disagree.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 2:25pm.
I am. Where do you disagree?
absolutes
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 2:34pm.
There is plent of overlap but if as you say you are speaking in absolutes then there are pieces that are incompatible and there for there is not an absolute meshing of ideas.
Objectivism doesn't disqualify all ideas that are may be considered Christian in nature but does it also does not recognize the idea of a diety behind these ideas.
They are incapatible because faith based Christianity has as its core a degree of faith outside the human condition that is not recognized in Objectivism. However, different routs do sometimes reach the same conclusion and there is a suffecient amount of self-determination and self-reliance (though couched in terms of faith) in Christianity to allow plenty of overlap between the two ideas.
Given her views regarding
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 3:17pm.
Given her views regarding original sin and self-sacrifice, two big tenets of Christianity, I don't see any compatibility. The first, that we are already sinners:
"Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.
It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code."
The second, self-sacrifice, personified in Jesus, is aluded to in another of my posts above. Objectivism is not compatible with Christianity or any other religion. I don't really see the overlap. Can you give an example?
Satchmo -
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:30am.
The capacity for sin or committing evil and being an evil person is not the same. Many good people do evil and evil people do good deeds either by design or accident. Allowing for imperfection is less than a condemnation of the species. There is an assumption in these statements that you are not following the more Puritan forms of Christianity. Nobody is perfect and while that may be a shocker to some people I think it is a readily accepted truth of human nature.
Greed is a sin Vs. Greed is Good (Wall Street)
In economic terms (which what prompted me to reply) this is the ideological divide in the concepts. Objectivism places emphases in economics on human nature being such that decisions are made by individuals in a manner which are concerned with taking care of oneself, family and friends. Opponents of Capitalism call this selfish and point to it as an example of a contradiction for a Christian nation but it is not. Nothing in Christianity I have ever studied or read says that you must destroy yourself in order serve society though there are stories of those who did sacrifice everything for their beliefs but even those were for some greater good or because they actually talked to God – that is a little different than giving everything away to atone for sin. The truth about charity in the Christian world is that you cannot help others if you cannot help yourself and the religion allows for this to occur because Christianity is not a political religion though it has been used as such in the past. Greed as it is needed for Capitalism is really the reliability that people will look after their own self interest and make decisions based on a hierarchy (an often debated hierarchy).
“Good” is not an abstract idea which cannot be obtained by mankind but absolute good (perfection) is beyond our grasp and ‘good’ is merely a relative definition within the boundaries defined in the teachings of the religion. Not being a religious person myself I don’t how strong the drive is in a Christian to obtain a state close to perfection but in general observation my opinion is that most Christians aspire to be better but the knowledge they are not nor can they be perfect is both a comfort and motivation. Read any self-help book that deals with setting goals and they will say not to set impossible goals so Christians have the impossible goal removed and are left with the freedom of choice to set more realistic goals.
‘Sin without volition’ is an issue for guilt/remorse and how the individual deals with their own guilt is an issue best left up to the individual and their teacher/counselor/minister. There is a little projection in this, IMO, as to how an Atheist/Objectivist would shoulder the responsibility of living a life with the burden of acknowledging your own mortality and that you are never going to be perfect. Anyone who obsesses about these two ideas in their life is going to have issues whether they are Christian or not. Faith is the tool that Christians have to cope with these issues which is not much different than the idea of building upon positive thoughts/actions a psychiatrist will try to counsel.
Original Sin is about harboring the ability of doing evil/sin. If you read original sin as verdict on the human condition there would be no need for the New Testament or Heaven because all would be evil and this clearly is not the case. Certain things may be truly evil but in life most evil, as it pertains to human actions, is simply a failure to attain perfection.
‘Objectivism is not compatible with Christianity or any other religion’ as long as you look at the tenets of Objectivism with the same projected rigidness and absolutes Christianity is critiqued by Objectivism.
As alluded to above my original response was along economic lines in that a mixed/free market system could stand up to the philosophies espoused by both Objectivism and Christianity.
Self-sacrifice can also be viewed as an determent from self-indulgence and in this manner it can fit into both Christianity and Objectivism.
"Ryan may be a fan,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 2:32pm.
but he is definitely not a Randian. He's no conservative, either". Maybe, he's conservative enough for me, he has an R after his name, and he doesn't worship at the throne of Ronpaul. That's more than good enough for me, not even addressing the point that if a perv like you doesn't like him, that just makes him more than good enough.
OK. If you want to stand
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 3:01pm.
OK. If you want to stand behind a "conservative" who voted for TARP, the auto/union bailouts, and confiscating CEO bonuses, (votes he recently defended in an interview with Breitbart's BigGovernment website),that's certainly your perogative, but don't fool yourself into thinking that's conservative.
""conservative""
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 3:09pm.
Don't you hate when a politicians actions don't match their rhetoric? Perhaps Socrates was right afterall.
Can't say I do because that's
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 3:20pm.
Can't say I do because that's expected of a politician. I would be disappointed if it occurred with a statesman, bu there are so very few of those.
Hey look,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 9:15pm.
Incestmo found a buddy. Or, one of the other personalities on his computer agrees with him.
A Tempest in a Teapot
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:43pm.
So they're going to spend all this time on Paul Ryan? Why, when he's just one person? Ohhh I know. Ryan is THE ENEMY, and so all the stops must be pulled out to prevent his ideas from taking hold. Never mind the elephant in the room -- the generational conflict between liberalism and Christianity (abortion, forced redistribution of wealth, destroying the black family, et cetera). Those things aren't worth talking about, but yes, by all means, let's find a gnat and swat at it. And the press wonders why they are headed towards extinction. A group of less self-aware and less observant people there have never been.
Visions and Principles blog