Today is Sunday and many conservatives around the country will be making their way to church to worship Jesus Christ. But Christianity isn't the only religion that many of these folks practice.
At first glance, this new religion seems completely at odds with our savior. It is a system of morality "not based on faith" or emotion, "but on reason." In fact, the leader of this new religion has stated on many occasions that Christianity (and all religions in general) are parasitic weaknesses. "Man's highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness," the leader of this new church has said.
What is this new religion? It's the Cult of Ayn Rand. And this recent story illustrates just how far her catechisms have permeated our government.
When I told my wife that my post about her reading of Atlas Shrugged had received 71 comments, she chuckled. "Made some people uncomfortable, eh?" We've had a few conversations about the book over the last week since she has completed reading it and both of us are still completely befuddled that the over the top characters in the book are equated with reality. "People just aren't that stupid as Rand portrays them in the book," my wife commented yesterday. "They're just so unbelievable I can't understand why anyone would fall for it." If your entire ideology is based around anger, hate, and fear, well...
What I can't understand is how one can claim to be a Christian on one hand and a Randian on the other. The two are honestly mutually exclusive. Rand talks of enlightened self interest and Jesus directs us to be as selfless as possible. Somehow, the conservative brain has melded these basic principles together to mean that the government is forcing us to do things, taking away our liberties and destroying capitalism. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
The one thing that does make sense, however, is the shared belief between Randians and those folks who believe in Republican Jesus that the world is constantly ending (see: Mike Lofgren's Apocalyptic Cult).
I feel that it is terrible that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until and unless all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected.
That's Rand in 1959. 50+ years later and...we're still here. In fact, we've accomplished quite a bit over the last 52 years and have remained the leading innovator in the world despite Rand's cries of a boiling pit of sewage coming "soon." Yet guys like Paul Ryan, a prominent GOP leader and current fave of the Tea Party, insist upon perpetuating the lie that innovators (as in the book) are on strike. It's not just him.
"Every time you submit to a regulation, it diminishes your liberty," says Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, speaking just off the House floor a few weeks ago. King says he loves Rand.
"If you start to demonize a certain segment of your society that are the producers, eventually they'll stop," says Allen West, a Tea Party favorite.
Freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina Republican, has read Rand's novels six or eight times each."It's almost frightening how accurate a prediction of the future the book was," Mulvaney says.
Accurate? Really? I guess Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, Jawed Karim, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Steve Jobs (just to name a few) didn't get that memo on the demonization and the apocalypse.
It truly is a bizarre world they live in and when folks like King and Mulvaney proclaim to also be Christian, I have to wonder if they were kicked in the head a few times as youths.Or, perhaps they skipped over the parts in the Bible where Jesus said things.
Actually, I wonder sometimes if I've been kicked in the head as soon as recently in comments when I'm told that it's simply "less" government they want (but can't really seem to define what that means specifically), not "no" government but then embrace this view from Rand, who said, in a question about taxes, "That's right. I am opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute, laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy."
So which is it?
In looking at all of this, there's much more delusion going on and it's much deeper than I originally thought. Leading members of the GOP think that our country is constantly being destroyed and that the last 50 years of astronomical innovation never happened. They also think that one can be a Christian and also be a Randian. And, as always, if you don't believe any of this, then you are a Marxist.
As Gandhi said, "The enemy is fear. We think it is hate; but, it is fear."
16 comments:
I don't have any love for Rand, but your caricature of her (and those who do admire her thinking) is sophomoric at best. All you do is hate on those you disagree with, you never try to understand. You never see the differences in "them" - you just see "them" as the enemy of "us" (even though you recognize that your "us" is pretty diverse). You have all the sophistication and intellectual depth of George W. Bush.
I will say it again - YOU have more in common with Michelle Bachmann than I do by virtue of you both claiming to be Christians. And I might add in your shared to desire to force other people to do as you want - since you and Bachmann are both so convinced that you know what is best for everyone.
Also, although you claim status as a Christian (of some sort), your truest devotion is to the state.
Here are some interesting points to consider: one, two, and three.
At first glance, this new religion seems completely at odds with our savior. It is a system of morality "not based on faith" or emotion, "but on reason."
…says the guy who puts his personal biases above the Bible's teachings, even when what the Bible says is crystal clear.
You have all the sophistication and intellectual depth of George W. Bush.
I disagree. Bush, for all his faults, has considerably more intellectual heft than Mark. Mark's intellectual skills are closer to those of a recalcitrant donkey.
That's Rand in 1959. 50+ years later and...we're still here.
So when the Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century was it caused by something that happened less than 50 years prior? Or was it the result of a series of political, economic, military, and other social changes that occurred over the course of centuries?
says the guy who puts his personal biases above the Bible's teachings, even when what the Bible says is crystal clear.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!
Sorry, I just had to get that out, Hebrews 8:12, which will be how I will address you from this point forward.
has considerably more intellectual heft than Mark
Ad hominem...right on cue.
GD, so are you going on record and saying that the apocalypse is coming due to THE LEFTIST AGENDA.
In looking at Rand's comment and what actually happened, the exact opposite is true. Again, if we had such an oppressive government, how is it that all the guys I mentioned in this post have made so much money and been so successful at innovating?
Mark, you are on record as saying that the US can't go broke because we are too big to fail....
Anything I say in response to that would be futile.
Food for thought - likely wasted on a bunch of intellectual anorexics.
Well, there you have it. The president won't talk specifics, but government consists of specifics. The reason we cannot have a large budget deal is that Americans haven't been prepared for one. The president hasn't educated them, and so they can't support what they don't understand. Left or right, there are no comfortable positions.
the guy who puts his personal biases above the Bible's teachings, even when what the Bible says is crystal clear.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!
That's what you said, and I quote:
It's up to me how to receive the word of the Lord.
Accompanied by a bunch of (false) excuses you used to "permit" you to throw out any part of the Bible you don't like. I noticed that you never even addressed the simple issued I pointed out—let alone admitted it—despite me bringing that debate up several more times.
I also noticed that all of a sudden you went absolutely silent (deafeningly so) on that verse you kept quoting which supposedly gives you permission to have government do what the Bible instructs believers to do:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.”
— John 14:12
That's bias in action.
Hebrews 8:12
Just what work do you claim this verse does for you? (Don't forget that you let your biases override the entire 9th chapter of Hebrews in the debate where you first brought this verse up.)
Ad hominem
Yep. It's also a conclusion based on many years of seeing your AAA* debate style. I didn't base any arguments on that statement, so either suck it up and take it, or prove me wrong.
( * Assertions Asserted Assertively )
M: Actually, I wonder sometimes if I've been kicked in the head as soon as recently in comments when I'm told that it's simply "less" government they want (but can't really seem to define what that means specifically), not "no" government but then embrace this view from Rand, who said, in a question about taxes, "That's right. I am opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute, laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy."
Then it should be easy for you to show where some of your commenters have actually taken that position, shouldn't it, Mark? I actually don't recall anyone taking that position, so I'm calling bullshit on that one.
And even Rand didn't want "no" government, she wanted government limited essentially to police, courts, and national defense. Which is to say, "no government interference in the economy" does not mean "no government" any more than the idea of "no government interference in religious belief" means "no government" (though by the standards of much of Europe in previous centuries, many people might have thought so). So yes, I'd place you in the same category as religious reactionaries of previous centuries who were incapable of imagining anything but calamity at the thought of government not being deeply and forcefully involved in an important aspect of life.
I just wish that for once you could make an honest argument instead of building up and tearing down strawmen. Sigh...
To clarify, I mean I don't recall any commenter calling for "no government".
And Mark, you damned well know the difference between "less" and "none". Otherwise, when you call for defense cuts, are we to assume that what you really want is "no defense"? If not, why not?
Fascinating. Once again Brave Sir Marxy is on the run.
What is he...CHICKEN?
Not childish at all. Nope.
Or it could be that he's responding in three different threads right now.
sas, (Wait, why am I responding to a fantasy?)
He's responding in every active thread except this one, including older ones. He's also starting new ones. Clear signs that he's actively avoiding this one.
Uncle Pete, sasquatch - you are both free to read the articles I linked to and comment intelligently on any of that material. Not that I expect more that what I usually see from the yippee dog posse.
Hebrews 8:12, we are having essentially the same conversation in the other thread so I thought it would save time.
Post a Comment