I suspect that there are conservative atheists, as well as religious liberals. Certainly there were Catholics who supported communists as “Liberation Theology” became fashionable.
My personal idea is that conservatives are guided by experience. Young people don’t have much experience and tend to be more liberal, unless they are educated enough to be able to access the experience of others. Experience can be in any of many areas. Religious education permits accessing prior experience of other’s religion.
Progressives/liberals tend to reject lessons of experience. An airy “Oh, but things are different now” and off they go having hundreds of sexual partners, loaning money to people who can’t pay it back...
The central tenet of Objectivism is the virtue of selfishness [properly understood]. As Ayn Rand said: "In order for civilization to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men need to reject."
It is possible for some kinds of Christians to be Conservative, and for some kinds of Conservatives to be Christians. It is possible for a type of Conservative to be an Objectivist, and vice versa. It is not possible under andy circmstances for an Objectivist to be a Christian, nor for a Christian to be an Objectivist.
John Galt makes this clear in his semi-climactic discursis toward the end of Atlas Shrugged and Rand made this clear in all of her writings.
Conversely, jesus makes it pretty clear that his morality is entirely a morality of altruism.
While the author was an atheist and opposed religion as authoritarian I believe that many of the sentiments she expressed only work with Judeo-Christian values. If you have read the book you will find the one thing missing is the soul. She had no concept of Christian love and of spiritual faith, even her denunciations of it are shallow because she knew little of what she attacked.
It is really the only huge glaring flaw of her work.
I think a person can be very sympathetic to libertarianism and smaller government, while recognizing that Atlas Shrugged is spiritual poison and severely at odds with Christianity.
“Men are gods” is not consistent with a religion that highly values humility and condemns pride as a sin
I think Atlas Shrugged is an important book to read and understand, and there are definitely parallels. But Ms. Rand was just a person - who at the end of the day believes that money=power, and that power is the goal.
She was an atheist, and reportedly very demanding and woe to the person that disagreed with her.
(From what I can tell of people who believe in the gospel of Rand there is no charity of any kind, and really they are the most self centered, non charitable people I have ever come into contact with.)
The only thing conservative about the objectionists are they believe in free market capitalism. Everything else I see is left leaning libertarian.
The religion of Rand is really quite interesting to observe, and it really truly is a religion of sorts.
Are you asking if you can be a believer and an objectionist? If so perhaps if it’s by misunderstanding what Jesus taught or what Ms. Rand taught, but they seem to be mutually exclusive.
My view is that Big Government wants to kill me and take my money. Christians don’t. Conservatives don’t. Objectivists don’t. There aren’t any other issues that matter.
The quintessential essence of Atlas Shrugged goes beyond libertarianism. The essence is this: the gov’t does not have the power or the right to make me give my all to others. What Jesus taught goes along with this.
The disciples and early followers of The Way - in the book of Acts - sold all that they had, distributed the money to all, and they had all things in common.
That is Commonism. Commonism is “What is mine is thine.”
Communism is “What is thine is mine.”
In Atlas Shrugged, people labored under a totalitarian system that is at least eerily similar to Communism. Since Jesus never taught “What is thine is mine,” Jesus would not be against Atlas Shrugged - at least within those narrow confines that I elaborated.
I know atlasshrugs a long time, it’s very conservative, AND very pro Christian!
Here the short version. Atlas Shrugged = morally bankrupt.
Jesus = abundant God.
I believe there is a religious part of freedom that can't be expressed in other countries that are secular. Islam breeds it's own type of morals as does atheists do in communism. In the end, doing the right thing comes from God, and others will fail trying to figure out what the "right" thing is from their made up rule books.
I like Atlas Shrugged. There is fundamental truth concerning the basics of good and bad government in this book. Truth is what it is. Whether it comes from Rand or Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is a brilliant body of work that God used in the beginnings of this nation, although Thomas Paine himself eventually became a Deist and rejected the Bible in his later years.
All wisdom comes from God. When Rand, Thomas Paine, or anyone speaks of things like liberty, individual freedom, self reliance, self government, they are speaking wisdom and that wisdom comes from God. Whether they believe it or not.
Just as the earth itself comes from God, so too does wisdom. You can worship the earth yet still deny the One who made the earth. You can worship reason and common sense, yet deny the One Who is Reason and Common Sense.
It is unfortunate, but the way of man. Worship the creation, yet deny the Creator. Yes, Ayn Rand’s books expose the lies, corruption and waste of big government, while revealing the truth and wisdom of self government. Yet she denies the Author and Source of all Truth and Wisdom, Jesus Christ. Unfortunate.
Atlas isn't an "all or nothing prospect" few issues are. I mean if so then then the United States of America should be disbanded being that some of people who wrote the founding documents were evil slave owners. (See how easy such things can be manipulated?)
I posted a bit back in April of 09 called: Five Ways You can Shrug like “Atlas Shrugged”
Lately I have been getting lots more traffic at my site. In checking the traffic data I find a goodly part of of this increased traffic stems from searches about Atlas Shrugged and how people can shrug themselves. (I surmised such through the keywords used for the searches)
Seems people are looking for ways to throw off the yoke of heavy handed government taxes and regs here in America. That is music to my ears!
First, she denied she was a libertarian although her political philosophy resembles it. She denied she was a Christian although her characters often behaved as if there were a God's-eye view - the "objective" in "objectivism" - of the world, and although she did not ostensibly believe in an eternal human soul she constantly cited it within the narrative of Atlas Shrugged both as if it were personal and something that transcended death. The duck is walking and quacking like a duck but logically it couldn't be, and so to her it wasn't. Best of luck with that.
I don't believe her grasp of Christian doctrine was as complete as she thought it was, certainly not up to the standards with which she approached Aristotle, for one. In Galt's interminable speech she cites a doctrine of Original Sin that leads Galt to reject Christianity as shamanism. Unfortunately it isn't a particularly accurate rendition of that thorny topic.
What I'm suggesting is that within Atlas Shrugged is a marvelously rich dynamic between the dramatic narrative, which most resembles a man-is-God, God-is-dead Nietzschean philosophy, and her own philosophy, patterned closely after Aristotle. And we must remember that Aristotle concluded that God must exist. Rand did not agree with him that there must be an eternal Unmoved Mover, preferring to transfer this role to man after Nietzsche (she makes this explicit in her fourth chapter, entitled "The Immovable Movers"). I don't think either Nietzsche or Aristotle would have appreciated the juxtaposition.
Were I pressed for a guess, it would be that Rand's characters were brave, high-minded, idealistic revolutionaries, but a bit silly theologically. That would go for Rand herself as well. Just my $0.02.
Interesting thread. Too bad I always seem to catch these two days after all the fun’s over.
Always fascinates me to see how poorly Rand is understood, especially by those who only know enough to criticize but not enough to really grok what she was saying.
Now, a couple of things that stood out if I can find them on the thread.
“But Ms. Rand was just a person - who at the end of the day believes that money=power, and that power is the goal.”
See, the above doesn’t show an inkling of what Rand’s position on money was.
Then there’s this classic beauty that gets batted around the thread on several occasions.
“Everything else I see is left leaning libertarian”
Not only does this not show an understanding of Objectivism, it doesn’t even show an understanding of Libertarianism. There is no “left leaning libertarian” point of view at all. This is akin to the common misnomer of a “fiscal conservative” and “social liberal” which demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is common between the two.
“Is is possible to be a Christian Objectivist? Why yes, . . .”
Only if you misunderstand Objectivism, otherwise no.
“The nature of altruism really isn’t selfless. Most so called selfless acts have a vested self-interest which causes them not to be altruistic. The kindest thing one can do for another also makes the beneficent individual feel good about himself.”
What you are describing higgmeister isn’t altruism, which Rand made clear was the supposed moral obligation that one put others before self, to sacrifice oneself for others. Having a “vested self-interest” is operating from a rational and not true altruistic position. Altruism is ‘selfless’ in the manner in which Rand wrote about it.
“Atlas Shrugged is a morally bankrupt tome to analyze conservative policies.”
This statement is a classic example of one which that is utterly devoid of any relationship to the issues that Atlas Shrugged addresses. What it was analyzing was so much deeper than ‘conservative policies’ that it was completely lost on this writer. He’s so far off base it makes one chuckle.
“I find much of what Rand tried to teach us in Atlas Shrugged consistent with Natural Law. The same Natural Law spoken of by our Founder’s and the Pope.”
Not only do I agree here, I would say AS is one of the best and clearest definitions of Rights according to Natural Law. It took Locke, John Stuart Mill and all the others of that time and re-stated it so clearly that it couldn’t be missed. Well, except for those who were trying very hard to miss it.
And yes, the Money Speech refutes any defense of any kind of collectivism if carefully read and understood.
(Moving on.)
“I had to look up what altruism meant:
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others
2. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.”
And if you stick with just the dictionary definitions you will miss Rand’s point, which is the philosophical imperative behind these definitions: that one exists for the sake of others first and foremost, and not for oneself first and foremost. The definitions you quote are based upon an unstated premise which is what Rand identified.
Your father was a moral man within the context of his own understanding because he didn’t force anyone else to do anything against their will, (at least nothing you have mentioned) and did what he did by choice, (which someone else pointed out already).
“When my dad (or I) treat an employee or client right - even to the point of generosity, it is also done with the thought that they’ll treat me well.”
That could be said to fall within the realm of being a “trader” if you get my drift.
(Moving on.)
“I mean if so then then the United States of America should be disbanded being that some of people who wrote the founding documents were evil slave owners. (See how easy such things can be manipulated?)”
I just recently learned of the original Declaration of Independence where Jefferson castigates the King for promoting and imposing the institution of slavery on the colonies. It was removed by the other delegates at the convention. You can still find the original wording on the net. Not all were evil.
“First, she denied she was a libertarian although her political philosophy resembles it.”
The reason why she refused to be termed Libertarian is yet more interesting. It was a rather predominant developing philosophy at the time.
“Give me a name of a pure capitalist. Not even Ayn Rand was pure at anything.”
Back to silliness. Rand was a pure Objectivist. (And thus a pure capitalist.)
“( I haven’t studied Ayn Rand as some have)”
Shows. (So why are you commenting on what you admit you don’t know?)
“There must be a moral base for capitalism to work and freedom to exist.”
Yeah, and Rand explained that but you haven’t studied her work so you don’t know. And your point was . . . ?
Finally, I’ll return to the opener on this.
“My granddaughter sent me this of a young conservative lady defending libertarianism and John Galt, and this person was saying that Jesus can’t go along with Atlas Shrugged. I want to know what a true conservative view is on the two things.”
Well, the proper question would have been to ask what was the Libertarian view on these two things. (Which two?) Notice that everyone got all bollixed up discussing Rand and AS but nobody actually addressed the Libertarian aspect. Interesting, no?
There are really four different issues here: Libertarianism, Objectivism, conservatism and Christianity. They only loosely correlate. Conservatism and Christianity are the closest with Objectivism and Libertarianism off to the side, kind of close.
The blog article you reference isn’t really all that well stated. Well, it is mostly blather. They all get so much wrong that it is hard to take, really. So I wouldn’t consider that a well formed discussion of the issues. There are many more, a whole lot better and clearer out there to pick from.
Oh, and the word Libertarian was never mentioned at all, so I fail to see how that figures into the discussion.
The thing that would interest me is: Why do you want to know? You never said there piggy.
Well, it is late. I’m just posting this, no editing, so I’m flushing any spelling or grammar criticisms, thank you veddy much.