Posted on 06/07/2015 5:38:13 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
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 . LaVey 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.
what a crock
Ayn Rand Satanist? She’s just a mediocre writer who had some interesting ideas and a complete lack of character development.
Every woman was an empowered whore and every guy was either impotent or Captain Caveman.
Ann Rand cult? Never heard of it. How do you join?
Sounds like a scapegoat to me
ECO, good read. Thanks for posting. Many still do not understand how objectivism works, and so entertain the idea it reflects a healthy individualism. But the author is right. I wish however he had taken a paragraph or two spelling out the specifics.
Peace,
SR
Absolutely false.
I recall that Jesus said you can’t serve two masters. Choose Jesus. Choose life.
But to be a follower of both Rand and Christ is not possible.
One does not need to be a "follower" of Rand to admire Atlas Shrugged as an amazing piece of predictive literature, detailing the inevitable outcomes of Liberalism, and how they turn a vibrant and healthy nation into an unproductive rabble under the heel of government hyper-intervention (along with some truly lame love scenes and FAR too much repetition of her central themes). This book does not prevent one in any way from being a Christian (unless you're the stupidest sort of Christian, who believes that using the force of government to enforce your beliefs is acceptable, and that Leftists are simply enforcing the wrong set of rules in their authoritarian abuses).
I have read and enjoyed the books of George Orwell, JRR Tolkien, Isaac Asimov, and many others. Heck, I've read, and even enjoyed, the feel-good nonsense of new-age buffoons. That does not make me a disciple of theirs, or their philosophies.
I also fail to see where there is an Objectivist movement of any kind growing anywhere on earth... and yet the author, and clearly some here, seem to need to make a strong stand against this non-existent group. Believe it or not, I am not a worshipper of the personal beliefs of Mr William Shakespeare, and yet I will post a partial quote of his here (shocking!!)... and those with a modicum of education will know the full quote and how it applies here... The author, Mr Carter, is clearly "full of sound and fury".
To read a book... and admire its message, and appreciate how it teaches millions to open their eyes to the abuses of Leftism... is NOT to “serve” the author as a “Master”. Choose intelligence and reason sometime, too.
I see the abuses of leftism first hand. I also read about it in the news and in history books.
I believe in The Church of Baseball.
He also said He came to give us life abundantly. Paul also said that where the gospel is preached, there is freedom.
Being a Christian and prizing freedom are not mutually exclusive.
Not familiar with LaVey in the least but it would seem to me equating Satanism with Objectivism is a big a mistake as incorporating Social Justice into Christianity. While superficially similar an intelligent person would know better.
Thank you, I would have struggled hard to say it and not done it nearly so well. He seems just another opponent of a Rand who has never existed in the real world. People may say what they wish about her but every day that passes seems to bring reality closer to what she described in Atlas Shrugged, the distortion of language, the fake “science” produced with government funds and all the rest.
As a function of natural law it is always possible, perhaps even inevitable, for even the most vile of philosophies to stumble upon some nuggets of truth. The author does not spell out the particulars of the conflicting philosophies but it truly is not possible to reconcile Christian moral belief with the idea that radical selfishness, no matter how enlightened, is the supreme good. It is not the model taught by Jesus.
Furthermore, precisely because it does appeal to certain truths accessible through natural law, it is an appealing “antidote” to religious sentiment of all kinds, and is thus very popular with atheists. I personally knew a man some long years ago who, as I under stood him, viewed Christianity as one of those useless things Atlas, when he finally shrugged, would cast off from rational society. I should mention that this man was not some lone crank, but a brilliant and very successful engineer.
Again, Rand accomplishes her best subversion of Christian belief in those who best understand what she was really promoting. The fact that she was able to incorporate some values that appeal to Christians is not at all surprising. That is how seduction works. Sweet to the taste at the beginning. But in the end, if you follow it through to its logical conclusion, there are bitter consequences.
Peace,
SR
Ayn Rand is just the other side of the Karl Marx. They both promoted atheistic materialism. Both held up money and wealth as their gods. They both wanted to eliminate Christianity, destroy traditional societies, and replace them with philosophical fabrications.
One can’t understand the world and your place in it without understanding YHVH’s Word as recorded in the Holy Scriptures. Godel’s Incompleteness Proof tells us that one can’t reason about a system from inside that system and discover all the truths in that system. So pure reason won’t get you there regardless of your intelligence. YHVH gave us His Word so that we could know what was going to happen before it happened. His Word tells us that the world is quantized and is an accounting system. If you believe His Word, then it is accounted to you as righteousness. After Yahshua’s crucifixion, death and resurrection, this means believing in Him, and following his commandments. One of those commandments was to avoid the leaven in the world. Objectivism is leaven! ;-)
Rand was a flawed individual (like all of us) who was telling her readers and audience about the dangers of socialism. I tend to separate someone's personal life from many of their actions. The fact that facets of Rand's personal life were objectionable (no pun intended) means little to me.
The author didn't even make a cursory attempt to substantiate his claims.
What a weird screed this is.
Hammer, meet nail.
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.