"The Passion" of Howard Roark

Capitalism Magazine ^ | April 10, 2004 | Joseph Kellard

[presidio9]

"The Passion of the Christ," a movie that highlights Jesus' suffering and crucifixion, has met with both strong praise and heated criticism. Yet virtually no one has condemned this movie for championing the anti-life ideas fundamental to religion.

By contrasting the ethical codes of two moral ideals -- Jesus of the Bible and "The Passion," symbolized by the Crucifix, and architect Howard Roark of "The Fountainhead," a novel by philosopher Ayn Rand, symbolized by his stance atop his skyscraper -- we can understand why this condemnation is needed.

Christianity preaches that the ideal moral man sacrificed his life for a human race tainted by original sin. Christians primarily feel guilt for both their corrupt human nature and their Savior's supreme sacrifice. In reality, however, man's moral character is formed, not by some alleged inborn immoralities, but by his knowledge of right and wrong and his chosen actions.

Nevertheless, Jesus loves and forgives you despite your sins. Christians are commanded to love others unconditionally, and to turn the other cheek in forgiveness, even if the subjects we must love and forgive committed murder.

But when good and evil men are treated equally, evil becomes empowered. A murderer, for example, gains an unearned moral sanction, and subsequently the innocent, good man is morally impotent to defend against and defeat evil. Jesus' twisted, bloodied body nailed to the Cross -- after he sacrificed himself to his torturers and to men less virtuous than himself -- embodies this sanction of evil.

The historical examples of this morality, basic to all religions -- in which men either sacrifice themselves to other or others to themselves -- are legion, from the Christians who burned heretics at the stake throughout the Dark and Middle Ages to the Islamic terrorists who incinerated "infidels" by crashing planes into skyscrapers.

Conversely, Howard Roark lives by rational self-interest in America, a secular land that champions the selfish pursuit of happiness. Roark is Ayn Rand's first significant characterization of Objectivism, her philosophy that identifies each man's right to live for his own sake. Rationality and productivity being his highest virtues, Roark pursues a career in architecture, and with ironclad individualism and integrity he achieves his top values: self-esteem, happiness and pride. Roark judges and trades with, loves and forgives, befriends and marries other individuals only to the extent they share his values.

Fiercely independent, Roark chooses a career he is most passionate about and that makes him happiest. By contrast, his self-sacrificing counterpart, Peter Keating, wants to be a painter, but pursues architecture instead to please his mother. Midway through "The Fountainhead," the unprincipled Keating has a thriving career building his secondhand structures, while the principled Roark is an unemployed innovative architect laboring in a granite quarry.

Unlike Jesus, however, Roark lends no significance to his suffering and pain. He focuses instead on pursuing his career passionately and uncompromisingly. Later, when other architects add classical features to one of his modern buildings, compromising the integrity of his work, Roark dynamites the structure, and faces trial for this act. In his courtroom speech, he demonstrates to the jury the life-advancing values born of rationality and selfishness, and they acquit him. Ultimately, the morally bankrupt Keating becomes spiritually broken, and Roark achieves his values.

The 1949 movie of "The Fountainhead" stylizes this resolution expertly, as Roark (played by Gary Cooper) stands erect against whipping winds atop his Wynand Building, the world's tallest structure, with his hands on his hips. Christianity condemns this pride -- the crowning emotional achievement of a man devoted to rational values -- as a deadly sin.

Miss Rand created the fictitious Roark based on the artistic principle of what men "might be and ought to be" -- meaning individualist like him -- Christopher Columbus, Galileo, Thomas Jefferson, Frank Lloyd Wright, Bill Gates -- can and do exist. Roark embodies what she coined the benevolent universe premise, "the conviction that joy, exaltation, beauty, greatness, heroism, all the supreme, uplifting values of man's existence on earth, are the meaning of life -- not the pain or ugliness he may encounter."

In contrast, Jesus in "The Passion" embodies, as one reviewer wrote, "religion in its fundamental sense"; the theme "that suffering, not joy, is man's proper fate."

Criticism of "The Passion" should properly center on the fact that Christianity continues to sell its essentially guilt-inducing, self-sacrificial morality of pain, suffering and death as life-affirming, while it makes man's mythical inborn depravity the scapegoat for the immoralities religion generates and sanctions. Meanwhile, Objectivism is, as Ayn Rand described it, "a philosophy for living on earth," but remains controversial.

This controversy must end, with self-sacrifice understood for the death-worship it is, and rational self-interest as the foundation for human achievement and happiness.

[omega4412]

Bill Gates is no Howard Roark.

[Victor]

Boy, now you've gone and done it. Posting an article that compares Jesus with Howard Roark.

This should be good for a few thousand replies.

[steve8714]

Almost funny the way nonbelievers twist the tenets of Christianity to justify their disdain...

[presidio9]

This should be good for a few thousand replies

Let's up the stakes a little:

Liberaltarians are a bunch of infantile mush-heads.

Think that ought to do it?

[dirtboy]

Think that ought to do it?

I'll bring the cheese, someone stop at the Circle K and grab a moose.

[dirtboy]

This should be good for a few thousand replies.

We'll just have to see how the thread evolves.

Oops, I said the e-word.

[ikka]

A very poorly-reasoned article.

[Abcdefg]

"Christianity preaches that the ideal moral man sacrificed his life for a human race tainted by original sin."

Christians believe Jesus was God, not man.

[international american]

"Bill Gates is no Howard Roark."

No lie here! Gates was very shrewd. and had his mothers connections to help hin on his biggest deal!

[Guvmint_Cheese]

Heck, Gary Cooper was no Howard Roark either. Howard Roark was a passionate man. Gary Cooper made him look like he had a 10-foot pole shoved up his keister. I know Rand wanted him to play the part, but geez, Gary, loosen up!!!

[dead]

This controversy must end, with self-sacrifice understood for the death-worship it is, and rational self-interest as the foundation for human achievement and happiness.

Obviously, we need a new federal law to ensure this is achieved.

Write your congressperson.

[dead]

Worse than that, Dominique Francon was supposed to be gorgeous. Patricia Neal was just a couple rungs up the ladder from Fred MacMurray in the looks department.

[Xenalyte]

Isn't Howard Roark that architect who WILL NOT COMPROMISE his ideals or principles or artistic integrity or what-the-hell-ever, and ends up being horsewhipped or something by Patricia Neal? Freakish movie.

[gogeo]

It's sad when non-believers talk about Christian faith.

[dirtboy]

In contrast, Jesus in "The Passion" embodies, as one reviewer wrote, "religion in its fundamental sense"; the theme "that suffering, not joy, is man's proper fate."

Looking to a movie reviewer for scriptural analysis?

[newgeezer]

Christians believe Jesus was God, not man.

Correction: Christians believe Jesus is God and man.

[job]

So many places to start.

First of all, the author's first argument is a straw man. Loving a sinner does not exalt the ungodly to the godly. He takes the extreme example of forgiving a murderer. Christ also stated that we must still render to Ceassr what is Ceasar's. Paul wrote that we are to submit to the laws of the nations in which we live.

The murderer will have to render what is Ceasar's and subject himself to the laws of the nation by standing trial and serving his sentence. He will be punished for his actions here on Earth. Christ, or Paul, never called for society to let criminals go free. Criminals are not exalted for their crimes under Christianity. But Christ and Paul did admonish to show them love, to pray for them, to show them mercy, and kindness.

G-d can forgive the murderer from his sins. And if he accepts Christ, Christ will take on his sins before G-d's judgment. So, the criminal can be punished, but he can also find salvation for his soul.

Perhaps another straw man is that the author separates murderers from all the rest of the good guys. G-d loves all, yet all are unworthy of his love. From a criminal perspective there is a difference between murderers and Roark; from a spiritual perspective, all have sinned, and none can ever overcome the sin committed on their own merit. Even the good guys, like Gary Cooper, need G-d's forgiveness and salvation through Christ.

Finally, (for this post), the author decries Christianity as a religion based on guilt, sorrow, and painful sacrifice. Whatever sorrow he has seen here on Earth will be nothing next to the judgment for those that are eternally separated from G-d. And guilt, although sorely out of fashion since the 1960's, is a necessary component, not only for spirituality, but for society. Guilt, and remorse, can and does prevent people from doing a whole host wrongful things that cannot be fixed.

The author does not address, for whatever reason, the joy that Christians celebrate every moment of their day because of Christ's sacrifice. First, the sheer fact that G-d loves us enough to send His only Son to the cross for our salvation. Second, that G-d loves us enough to forgive us from our sins, and that he even provides the way for forgiveness. Absolution from sin. An incredible, supernatural thought. Finally, that those who accept Christ shall dwell in G-d's presence, in love, free from sin, corruptible bodies, and want, forever.

The author should contemplate what drove Handel to write the Hallelujah Chorus.

[Ditto]

This controversy must end, with self-sacrifice understood for the death-worship it is, and rational self-interest as the foundation for human achievement and happiness.

Joseph Stalin used rational self-interest. It worked very well for him, if not so well for those around him. Thomas Jefferson used enlightened self-interest. It worked very well for the entire world. Libertarians can't seem to tell the difference between the two.

God save us from the "rational" self-interested.

BTW. I have always wondered. Where does a Libertarian get the right to destroy other people's property? Are they a destruction cult?

[presidio9]

You appear to be a Christian. Why is it that you won't type out "God," but you will type out "Christ?"