Posted on 03/11/2005 6:17:42 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
I don't 'blindly' follow anything, and won't dignify your indirect claim that Christianity is itself a cult. And I certainly can't be faulted for thinking you're an Ayn Rand acolyte, given your staunch (if inept) defense of her work and ideas throughout this thread, although it is good to be reminded that you're largely unfamiliar with those ideas. Lastly (and finally), I don't have the time or patience to walk you through the rudiments of reasoned argument. I do suggest, however, that you know at least something of a given position before you defend or attack it. I had to slog through the entire, turgid length of 'Atlas Shrugged', as well as 'The Fountainhead' and numerous nonfiction essays and lectures in order to grasp the essentials of her thought and philosophy. While I don't wish that particular fate on anyone of intelligence and discernment, it is required reading if one wants to engage in knowledgeable discourse or debate on the subject.
Some are fooled into not recognizing their own selfishness being satisfied by some of the rewards and call it altruism. While others seeking those same rewards find a good deal of self satisfaction in their own selfish giving.
This concept can be expanded all the way to the risking of ones own life for others. But taking it one step beyond that to the actual giving of ones life for another brings rationality in to question in most, but not all cases. For example, a mother giving her life to save her child's life, I think could be called an act of rational selfishness, in most cases.
This view of altruism and selfishness I learned from arguing with the writings of Rand. Its been so many years since I read Rand's stuff, that it is now impossible for me to draw a line between what is from Rand and what is from myself and others. But I must giveher the credit for the insight, even if all of it is not hers.
Do you realize how self-righteous your posting is? On top of that I have yet to see you actually address anything specific, you just keep harping on general writing style and your personal opinion of her as a person.
BTW, I wasn't inferring that Christianity is a cult, I was using your own words on you. Your response makes it perfectly clear that you can dish it out, but don't like eating what you served. More hypocricy.......
Goodbye and good day.
Yeah he sure does, but Gibson also has the common sense and good taste not to produce a film based on one of the most horrid and turgid novels ever written. I think you really want that Pulp Fiction fellow doing the film.
'hypocricy'. (chuckle)
ZC: As I explained to you in a recent private Freepmail, I have decided to generally refrain from picking or performing in theological fights with my reformed brethren and sisters on Free Republic. I have little doubt that they are generally as firm in their religious affiliations as I am in mine. It is for the good of the conservative political movement that we recognize that we agree on about 95% of doctrine and make a mountain out of the rest (important as the differences may be and certainly are).
I do not want to have fights with reformed folks of perfectly good will who are my allies on life issues, marriage, the divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, creation, that G-d so loved he world that He sent His only begotten Son to give up His life on the Cross in atonement of our sins (however great or small) and so many other areas of agreement. My fellow Catholics and I on the one hand and our reformed brothers and sisters on the other hand, have not earned the right to squabble with each other in public before for the entertainment of our common heathen enemies.
I am not at all interested in participating in obscure arguments over what my reformed brothers and sisters in Christ may think the Holy Scriptures may mean when the Holy Father or any of his predecessors going back to Peter has taught otherwise. As I have previously told you privately, if the Roman Catholic Church, speaking through the office of the pope, says so, then that is and always will be good enough for me. I reserve the right to defend my Faith from those who claim Catholicism but are otherwise of whatever stripe. You do not make that claim.
I do not doubt that others who are not Catholic hope to act in my best interest (as they see it) or that of other Catholics by leading me or others out of the Roman Catholic Church and believe that they are sharing with me other Catholics what is most valuable to them in giving me (without my asking for it) and those other Catholics those beliefs and arguments which the reformed believe are compelling and Scriptural to require that I be what they are (non-Catholic). All I can say is that it will not happen, not now, not ever.
None of this is meant to be an offense to the sincere beliefs of the reformed but rather a recognition of their sincerity and my Catholic assertion of adherence to the Roman Catholic Faith with which non-Catholics, for whatever reasons, may disagree.
Living in a rural area of the plains in Northwest Illinois, I find it curious to be accused of belonging to a Roman Catholic religion that allegedly disses the Heartland. If anything, Catholicism is a lot stronger among Catholics in the Heartland than it tends to be in coastal precincts (where I used to live until 5 years ago, such as Los Angeles (Cardinal Mahoney), DC (Cardinal McCarrick), Baltimore (Cardinal Keeler) and others of their ilk. If our complaint is a populist complaint against imagined upper class snobbery of some Catholics, I can assure you that the pews contain few economic or social snobs. My dad was a production worker in a cardboard factory and my mom spent most of her working years at a sewing machine in a garment factory and then took a cut in pay to open mail at Yale's Admissions Office. Snobs we are not.
Half of my ancestors since Luther have been either Lutherans or Anglicans or Presbyterians and all of my wife's ancestors of recent centuries have been Anglican, Lutheran or Presbyterian. That does not lower our status nor does it raise our status. My wife has some very classy and well-known ancestors who were Plantagenets and, better yet, included Philip the Fair of France, but we still have to do all that pedestrian stuff to pay the same bills you probably have to pay and hope there is enough to save a little for the education of the Elkettes. I bless the memory of my once-Anglican paternal grandfather who chose Catholicism over bachelorhood and of my once Presbyterian maternal grandfather who chose Catholicism over bachelorhood. Intellectuality was not necessarily a reason for either of them. Their surrenders, as one might say, saved a wretch like me. My wife had more intellectual reasons but don't hold that against her.
Your last paragraph is a bit shameful and not much of an argument. I am not going to attack your faith whatever it may be just because it contains sinners, as do they all. I have never denied the sinfulness in high places or low places in my own Church and freely admit that there is all too much sin to go around in more modest characters such as me.
As to charges of "Mariolatry" or worship of statues, I cannot convey to you just how silly those charges sound to any properly catechized Catholic. They have as much weight as claims that the Red Sox are made up of natives of the planet Pluto. As a lifelong Yankee fan, I suppose it is theoretically almost vaguely possible but not really.
One thing ought always to be remembered by those non-Catholics who feel compelled to preach at Catholics their individual ideas as to what the Scriptures may mean. We do not like to be preached at by those who are not among the members (better yet, popes) of our Catholic Faith any more than non-Catholics like to be preached at by Catholics. Sometimes, we may respond forcefully. We can become angry in the face of what YOU call Fundamentalist insults. I try not to respond at all any more.
Oh, and try NOT to speak for the Heartland. It is far more diverse than you apparently suspect.
None of this post is hostile in nature to you, to Heartlanders, to modest folks or to non-Catholics.
God bless you and yours.
La Rand had a newsletter (The Objectivist Newsletter?) in which she endorsed Gerald Ford breathlessly over Ronald Reagan solely on the basis of Reagan's opposition to abortion. Given her life of atheism and serial adulteries, we are hardly surprised.
May I suggest that you take a look at something quite different from Rand. Pope St. Pius X wrote, in 1907, an encyclical called Pascendi Dominici Gregis (aka On the Theories of the Modernists) and a syllabus of errors called Lamentabile Sane. His predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, wrote a short but revolutionary (in the best sense) encyclical called Rerum Novarum in 1893, which might well surprise you by its libertarianism. Best of luck in entering upon the ongoing conversation of mankind.
Rand, distinguished charity from altruism, and said that altruism has the premise of the self, or "selfishness", as evil. She found that idea itself evil:
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice--which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction--which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
You asked earlier from another FReeper Rand's views on abortion. I wish I was able to post earlier, but work comes first... Anyway, here is one of several of Rand's key remarks about abortion:
"Nevermind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a "right to life." A piece of protoplasm has no rights-- and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a _potential_ with an _actual,_ is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former is unspeakable. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, life-long responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. The concientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone's benefit, but for the sake of misery qua midery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."
Myself, this is where I have my biggest break with Rand. Her reasons supporting practice of abortion come across, to me, more like excuses and her argument (normally very precise) is surprisingly sloppy.
First of all, a developing baby is not "a piece of protoplasm." At least not for very long. And as for saying a developing baby has "no life in the human sense" flies in the face of the experience of every human being ever born: EVERYONE has had to pass through every stage of fetal development to take breath as an infant. Her argument does everything to dehumanize the developing baby. Very ironic, IMO.
Rand is correct that carrying and caring for a baby is a tremenous undertaking and should never be entered into lightly. I think she is correct that procreation is not a duty. I think she is also correct when she says that having sex with another human being you love is the greatest act two people can share. However, I wish that men and women that engage in casual sex would also remember that. And therefore their private party might be joined-- not by a stranger-- but by a son or daughter they explicitly invited by creating it between themselves.
Individuals are supposed to be responsible for their actions. And a man and a woman should be responsible for their actions when they create a baby. They should practice birth control if they are going to engage in sex and don't want children: whether married or not.
And I don't think that it needs to be the disaster that Rand foretells, either. A mother could carry a baby to term and then give it up for adoption. I know it's not always that easy, but there can be a win-win for the mother that can't support a child willingly allowing to have it adopted by a couple that can.
I'm honestly at a loss to assess a penalty for the individual(s) involved in aborting a fetus. Killing a baby merits a severe sentence, up to capital punishment, depending on the circumstances. And I don't know what the penalties were in place while abortion was illegal. Naturally, it gets worse where rape is involved. For now, I'd make peace with the classic exceptions for rape and incest. I'll have to punt on the rest for now. I'm genuinely conflicted and this is where my argument breaks down.
Basically, the union of human sperm with a human egg can produce no other living organism except an innocent human being (or possibly beings!). Does anyone else think that the case for Objectivism might actually be _stronger_ if it acknowledged that a developing fetus is a _living human being?_
good posting!
Bump
I do however have a question with regard to the exception you put forth. Are you saying that an un born baby resulting from a forced incestuous rape of a minor is some how not an innocent human baby? What are you proposing it is? A demoncrat?
It's certainly an innocent human being and I'd like to see it live. But the mother had no choice in the matter, either, so the baby is an univited guest.
On the one hand, I could see how the fetus is at the complete mercy of its mother. On the other hand, it's also wrong that the fetus should pay for the crime of another. In such a case, I'd like to see support for the mother until she could bring the baby to term and is adopted. (But then all the "Who pays?" arguments spring up.) The father should pay for his crime, certainly.
Can you imagine this terrible option? What if the fate of the father is then tied to the fate of the child in some way? If the fetus is terminated, the father simply does jail time. If the baby is allowed to live, the rapist receives capital punishment.
I freely admit, I haven't thought it all through as thoroughly as even suggesting it deserves. Folks could probably poke huge holes in the argument as it stands and there's not much I could say to defend it.
...And I am also aware of the handicap folks work under if they see it Rand's way and say so on FR. I should think, however, that so long as the debate is civil, no one should be banned.
"Given her life of atheism and serial adulteries...."
And these are the reasons I haven't gone gung ho into studying her works. I violently disagree with these practices and beliefs. Thanks for the information regarding her stance on abortion/murder. That is another area that I am in disagreement with her philosophy.
"Does anyone else think that the case for Objectivism might actually be _stronger_ if it acknowledged that a developing fetus is a _living human being?_"
Good post. Thanks. I am in agreement that an embryo is a human being upon conception and abortion is nothing less than murder. I am surprised that Rand took this stance considering the emphasis she had placed on human intellect and consciousness, over the physical efforts of the human. I'm sensing some conflict in this stance of the physical being not being human, yet no considerations to the potential intellect of the developing human mind.
Did Ayn ever have an abortion?
Good luck and God bless you and yours!
As far as I know, she did not.
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.