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.
Why is that?
^^^^^^^^^^
When Ayn Rand is right she is very right!
And...Yes, parts of her philosophy are flat out wrong. That can and should be acknowledged without discarding and discounting everything that is true. True is true and will **always** be true. Truth can not be made to disappear simply because wrong also exists.
How absurd.
Equating Rand to Satanism? Let alone LeVay’s cult version of Satanism?
Maybe if you are naive enough to buy into the mythology, but LaVey was a hoax who started a cartoonish cult that was in vogue for a short period of time (No really, the Rolling Stones were counted as fans)...and later in life, fans of metal music, and a certain Dungeon and Dragons crowd picked up on the imagery of it. He is not influential. He essentially mixed ideologies from Darwinism, and a bunch of -isms, including even Calvinism, and mixed it with Aleistor Crowley and Alice Bailey mumbo jumbo. If a real Satanic church exists - he isn’t it, and likening Ayn Rand to that legacy is even more far fetched.
Within hours(?) of signing up. Expect to be under the microscope for months.
You noobs think you're a big deal, don't you? If you had any integrity, you would name names instead of trying to have us follow a link of dubious origin.
Your premise is shaky and your conclusion is, well, retahded.
Time for the Kitties!!
IB4TZ!
Take a look at
Again, welcome to Free Republic, and have a good time.
I find it hard to reconcile Rand's moralistic streak - obvious in her non-fiction writings, particularly her later ones - with the claim that Rand was a proto-Satanist. Don't Satanists want to obliterate all moral judgments?
Good god man give it a rest!
Be prepared for criticism......
Your post will come under close scrutiny......
N00Bs who post the first thing after joining FR usually don't fare too well.......
Good luck....
It won’t be around long enough to have a good time.
IMHO...
You’re absolutely right. I think it every time I see fawning over this or that book or author.
Christians must remember their faith, and if they do, they will not be so caught up in this or that non-Christian ideology or philosophy. Then someone will say “but that’s blind belief”. No, I’m simply saying to take things with a grain of salt, digest them (intellectually), then in your daily prayers and meditations, take some time to analyze this new ideology or philosophy, and validate it against Scripture. Of course, in order to do that, one has to be quite familiar with Christian doctrine. Then again, we should be that, anyway. Over time, we will come to see where our secular works differ with the word of God. Of course, in the mean time, in our zeal to think that some ideological author has happened upon some magical cure for our problems, we can very easily mislead ourselves, which is why Christians need to study the Bible and consult properly ordained pastors. And if we hear unsound doctrine, doctrine that, try as we might, we can’t escape the fact that it seems to be flawed, find another. Because as sure as Jesus is truth, the word of God is perfect. In the Bible is everything we need to meet life’s challenges. And every man, in his conscience, must come to terms with God. This is why people change congregations or even denominations. Bible study is the most important study we shall ever undertake.
It is neither my premise nor my conclusion. I did not write the article. I only posted it.
There is no need to attack me personally. I am sorry you found the ideas in my first post to be offensive. I did not realize that criticism of Ayn Rand's ideas was forbidden here.
Lighten up on the newbie.
First Things is a well respected Catholic opinion journal. There is nothing new here. Rand’s atheism has always been criticized by Christians. See Whittaker Chambers in National Review in 1957:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback
What would Christ/God think of someone who prays, tithes and does charitable works due to guilt, hedging their bets on whether there's an afterlife and/or to feel superior to others?
Rand clearly speeks to these types of people and her opinion of them is just as low as Christ's would be.
Rand deals with government forcing one to give what they earn at the point of a gun. Government is us - the people.
Jihad on behalf your your God, whether by beheading the infidel or having government force one to obey the tenets of your God is wrong, un-Christian and not what Jesus taught us.
I can make the same case you do that Rand is laying the blueprint to follow Christ's admonition to render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's...
Christ wants us to come willingly to his Father out of love, not guilt, superiority or bet-hedging.
If we then force the unenlightened to come to God via the point of gun (social justice) they are not saved and neither are we.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being saved and recognizing that Rand correctly pointed out the dangers of a collectivist government and a theocracy.
Regards.
The link works just fine. First Things is a conservative Christian Magazine which is often cited here on the Religion Forum. Personal insults like the one you hurled above are generally not accepted here. It is true, however, that nasty responses like that are quite common on the Religion Forum after criticisms are leveled against another religion. In fact, your response bolsters the case made in the article that Any Rand's philosophy really is a religion!
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.