Posted on 06/08/2011 9:34:29 PM PDT by Shalmaneser
Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation’s capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his “foundation book.” On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book.
A leading radio host called LaVey “brilliant” and quotations from the The Satanic Bible can be glimpsed on placards at political rallies. More recently, a respected theologian dared to criticize the founder of the Church of Satan in the pages of a religious and cultural journal and was roundly criticized by dozens of fellow Christians.
Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn’t we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn’t we all—especially we Christians—be mobilizing to counter the malevolent force of this man on our culture and politics?
As you’ve probably guessed by this point, I’m not really talking about LaVey but about his mentor, Ayn Rand. The ascendency of LaVey and his embrace by “conservative” leaders would indeed cause paroxysms of indignation. Yet, while the two figures’ philosophies are nearly identical, Rand appears to have received a pass. Why is that?
Perhaps most are unaware of the connection, though LaVey wasn’t shy about admitting his debt to his inspiration. “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings,” he once told the Washington Post. On another occasion he acknowledged that his brand of Satanism was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Indeed, the influence is so apparent that LaVey has been accused of plagiarizing part of his “Nine Satanic Statements” from the John Galt speech in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
Devotees of Rand may object to my outlining the association between the two. They will say I am proposing “guilt by association,” a form of the ad hominem fallacy. But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy. LeVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic.
I realize that even to invoke that infernal word conjures images of black masses, human sacrifices, and record needles broken trying to play “Stairway to Heaven” backwards. But satanism is more banal and more attractive than the parody created by LeVay. Real satanism has been around since the beginning of history, selling an appealing message: Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.
You can replace the pentagrams of LeVayian Satanism with the dollar sign of the Objectivists without changing much of the substance separating the two. The ideas are largely the same, though the movements’ aesthetics are different. One appeals to, we might say, the Young Libertarians, and the other attracts the Future Wiccans of America.
What is harder to understand is why both ideologies appeal to Christians and conservatives. My guess is that these groups are committing what I’d call the fallacy of personal compatibility. This fallacy occurs when a person thinks that because one subscribes to both “Belief X” and “Belief Y,” the two beliefs must therefore be compatible. For example, a person may claim that “life has meaning” and that “everything that exists is made of matter” even though the two claims are not compatible (unless “meaning” is made of matter). This take on the fallacy has long been committed by atheists. Now it appears to be growing in popularity among conservatives and Christians as well.
But to be a follower of both Rand and Christ is not possible. The original Objectivist was a type of self-professed anti-Christ who hated Christianity and the self-sacrificial love of its founder. She recognized that those Christians who claimed to share her views didn’t seem to understand what she was saying.
Many conservatives admire Rand because she was anti-collectivist. But that is like admiring Stalin because he opposed Nazism. Stalin was against the Nazis because he wanted to make the world safe for Communism. Likewise, Rand stands against collectivism because she wants the freedom to abolish Judeo-Christian morality. Conservative Christians who embrace her as the “enemy-of-my-enemy” seem to forget that she considered us the enemy.
Even if this were not the case, though, what would warrant the current influence of her thought within the conservative movement? Rand was a third-rate writer who was too arrogant to recognize her own ignorance (she believed she was the third greatest philosopher in history, behind only Aristotle and Aquinas). She misunderstood almost every concept she engaged with—from capitalism to freedom—and wrote nothing that had not been treated before by better thinkers. We don’t need her any more than we need LeVay.
Few conservatives will fall completely under Rand’s diabolic sway. But we are sustaining a climate in which not a few gullible souls believe she is worth taking seriously. Are we willing to be held responsible for pushing them to adopt an anti-Christian worldview? If so, perhaps instead of recommending Atlas Shrugged, we should simply hand out copies of The Satanic Bible. If they’re going to align with a satanic cult, they might as well join the one that has the better holidays.
I think the review of "Atlas Shrugged" that Whittaker Chambers did for National Review did a perfect job of exposing the inherent fallacies and flaws of Rand's philosophy.
How many people have read Nietzsche? Or at least enough to follow that thread?
Not many nowadays. The author went for Rand because she is fairly popular today.
I don' think you really believe that. If you did, you would go a Viking and raid surrounding towns.
“”Do as thou will” shall be the whole of the law.” Satanism creed.
Don’t see any similarity between that and a materialistic and moral based philosophy on the proper economic balance between the individual and the State.
Which doesn’t mean that she isn't right about other ideas.
However Satan can use anything that isn't what God wants. Islam, socialism, nationalism and internationalism, yoga, even.
Some of the things Satan uses may be neutral in themselves, but if they are not used to the greater glory of God, then there is the danger that they are being used by Satan
Done.
You have as much right to post as anyone and FR without a little rancor just wouldn't be fun anymore.
Welcome to Free Republic!
i know my Bible fairly well. and i’d like to hear the author give specifics where it’s Satanic.
- - -
The article relies upon conflating anti-Christianity with Satanism.
///
i’ve never actually read anything by Rand. i admit ignorance.
and i am still confused. is her entire philosophy Satanic simply because she is an atheist? again Oriana Fallaci was an atheist, who i admire for her courage in telling the truth about Islam, that most Christian leaders WON’T.
...and i would deplore Rand for wanting to destroy Christianity. but, the progressives and socialists CERTAINLY do. and Rand’s principles of personal responsibility and small government, seem a good weapon against them.
...perhaps i am simply missing something here, but i think Alinsky and Soros are are threat to our very existence. not Rand. if anyone is a Satanist, i think it is Alinsky. (didn’t he dedicate his book to satan?!?)
the goverment lawyer defending Obama’s health care in oral arguments before the appeals court, actually trashed Rand IN COURT.
and there is more info here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2731883/posts
Leftists Using Ayn Rand to Smear Republicans, Conservatives
Amerisrael ^
“The use of dead people... is a sort of necromancy...”
What does this even mean?
We use the words and thoughts of “dead people” all the time for inspiration. How does one talk politics and avoid an awareness of “dead people”? I get your desire to discredit this topic, but that seems a strange basis in doing so.
Unless you were going for more sensationalism. The 1960’s pop ideology of “Satanism” was a short lived group of Adams Family goofballs. Don’t buy into the mythology they created.
Bang-on! I've read Nietzsche, and I've also read the Satanic Bible (once.) Le Vey just vulgarized Nietzsche's master-morality by claiming that morality is an impediment; he hooked that vulgarization up with the old Satanic lie that claims all moral people are phariasical.
Amazing how many people assume that a self-confessed Satanist would tell the honest truth about his system when selling it. Isn't there something about Satan being a liar?
You're right; Objectivism is incompatible with Christianity. Rand has more in common with the pagan philosophers, who all agreed that the purpose of morality was to act as a guide to live the good life. Even the Stoics and Cynics, which saw self-denial as a way of making oneself a better person, saw reward in self-denial: independence and self-respect.
For themselves, yes, but Satanism is a con game strategy. The primary method of their con is to impose a false morality on others.
Well said.
I disagree with Hobbes's political points - his elevation of the state to "mortal godhood" gives moral reasoning to kleptocracies.
I see the similarity between Marx and Hobbes myself. There's nothing in those snippets from Hobbes except take-it-or-leave-it claims attached to the kind of cynical motive-guessing that Marxists are fond of.
Hobbes had a motive of his own: he was eager to disparage any authority that could be held over the head of the King.
Wrong. See the Anclient Greeks.
Why a false one, since Le Vey said morality itself is detrimental? Logically, Satanists want saps because saps are easy to exploit. An emasculated Christianity fits the bill far better than a "false morality."
Good job. I was just getting ready to post this.
You will receive a lot of flack over posting any criticism of Rand from the small minority of rabid Libertarians on Free Republic.
Though they can be loud and obnoxious, ignore them. They do not represent the majority conservative Christian viewpoint here on FreeRepublic.
I think Jim Robinson, the owner of FreeRepublic, understands the shortcomings of the Ayn Rand camp followers and their party platform of fiscal conservatism at the cost of jettisoning social conservatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.