Satanism: The Seduction of America's Youth
The Screwtape Letters: With Screwtape Proposes a Toast
Lord Foulgrin's LettersBut read these with caution, they ARE EVIL.
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.
This place just oozes friendliness.
Satanism: The Seduction of America's Youth The Screwtape Letters: With Screwtape Proposes a Toast Lord Foulgrin's LettersDiscuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I thought the article was an interesting take on the Rand phenomenon. I had no idea that Rand was above criticism here, nor did I imagine posting an article critical of her would lead to personal insults and so forth.
I have lurked this site recently, and my conservative friends have told me it is fun to post something here occasionally, so I thought I’d try it. I must say that so far, the fun seems a bit muted.
Since I have no desire to stir up rancor on this forum, I guess it’s back to lurking for me. Apologies to all for the controversy.
We like it just fine. If you don't...take a hike.
Give me a break. This guy has been on FR for two hours.
“Don’t Satanists want to obliterate all moral judgments? “
I think that’s the Christian view of the Biblical concept, but it doesn’t really reflect in the junk LaVey compiled.
He believed in judgement and morals, in cases of revenge. An “eye for an eye” was big in his crowd. A lot of it was based around some survival of the fittest, Individualist thing.
Common to the two is the erroneous proposition that man, and not God, is the ultimate authority behind morality, but there they depart. For LaVey the true character of man, freed from the strictures of a false religion, was that of swine; for Rand that true nature was that of angels that replaced the ones in whom she refused to believe. The first is contemptible, the second, pitiable, but they are not the same illusion. IMHO, of course.
Welcome to FR.
And I think it’s a great first post.
LaVey would have made a great Ming the Merciless.
Freegards
Leninist/Stalinist Communism, Facism and Objectivism.
Objectivism at it's heart is atheistic economic Darwinism. It is a philosopical counterpoint to atheistic Communism
Under both Objectivism and Communism the strong oppress the weak
Leftists Using Ayn Rand to Smear Republicans, Conservatives
Don't let the name "American Values Network" hoodwink you. This organization is run by a bunch of dhimmicratic leftists like Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Recently they put together a video that contains a small segment of Mike Wallace's interview with Ayn Rand. The segment showcases Ayn Rand's hatred for religion, God and Christianity. Then the video features a photo of Rush Limbaugh and quotes him as saying that Ayn Rand was "brilliant". Completely removed from the context of course. What the AVN makers of this video did was to feature a brief segment of Rand bashing God--and then--a photo of Rush Limbaugh quoted as saying "brilliant".
As if to imply that Limbaugh believes Ayn Rand to be brilliant because of her rejection of God.
If you can't win an argument with facts, then distort the facts. The method used most vigorously by the leftist/islamist alliance in America.
There is also a brief spot of Rand Paul likewise giving praise to Ayn Rand.
Just because Limbaugh, and other conservatives, may agree with some take of Ayn Rand on fiscal matters pertaining to free-market capitalism, that does not equate with an endorsement of her rejection of God and hatred for Christianity.
Unbelievably, that is exactly the smear this video wants to imply.
Leninist/Stalinist Communism, Facism and Objectivism.
Objectivism at it's heart is atheistic economic Darwinism. It is a philosopical counterpoint to atheistic Communism
Under both Objectivism and Communism the strong oppress the weak
Leninist/Stalinist Communism, Facism and Objectivism.
Objectivism at it's heart is atheistic economic Darwinism. It is a philosopical counterpoint to atheistic Communism
Under both Objectivism and Communism the strong oppress the weak
Yes, he did look like that character!
Thank you, Shalmaneser, for the post. Tell us what you personally think about Rand and your own faith. You posted an article that is thought-provoking so let us know what thoughts it provoked in you. Thanks.
P.S. Don't let the turkeys get you down. Some - no make that all - are all bark and no bite. ;o)
Thank you. I feel more welcome.
Are you claiming that FirstThings.com has anything to do with that video?
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.