The problem with trying to drive a wedge between the altruistic nature of Judeo-Christian charity, objectivity and production is this...
If it is in the objective decision of a producer to award a portion of his production to a religious organization or charity he has done so of his own free will and accord. There has been no implied or directed pressure to do so.
This is in sharp contrast to the moochers and looters in Atlas Shrugged who preyed upon the willingness of the victim to subvert his production through guilt or taxation. At no point in that book was religion brought up.
I took that to mean that religion was separate from either since participation in it wasn’t coerced by implied moral societal stigma or implied government/legal action.
This is one of those examples where I see the problems with the Atlas Shrugged society and the Rayndians in general. Any dissension is immediate cause of banishment from the group.
The problem, of course, with Objectivism is that it assumes virtue in the productive man. This was Rand’s capital mistake.
Christianity assumes Man is Fallen, and provides Restraint. Without quite meaning to, Rand falls into the trap that Nietzche fell into: the unaccountable Superman bound only by his own conscience and the clauses of Contract and free trade.
The real world, unfortunately, is filled with Gordon Gekkos. Christ recognized this. Rand was writing in a period in which 20th Century Progressivism was eclipsing Victorian Positivism and Nietzche was all the rage.
Objectivism is just another ideology for Supermen, but it’s one great strength is that it recognizes the virtue of free will and capitalism as virtues, not vices. Christianity’s strength is that it’s law’s recognize man’s fallen nature.
Objectivists don’t get this.
Best,
Chris
Religion was brought up in the book. Who do you think Rand was referring to with the term, “mystics of the spirit”?
“At no point in that book was religion brought up.”
It not’s part of the plot in any way, but Galt does mention it, quite prominently, in his speech, particularly the idea of “the sinful nature” as taught in most versions of Christianity.
This article however, does not address Atlas or Rand’s teachings, but the interpretation of those I call OINO’s, Objectivists In Name Only. They are rabid Christian haters, and have completely twisted Rand’s views, and they are very dangerous.
Three of my articles explaining:
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/rand/chritstianity.php
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/objectivism/oino_fear.php
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/objectivism/oino_hate.php
If you have an interest in Rand, or what goes by the name “Objectivism” today, or religion, for that matter, I think you will find them interesting.
Hank