Republicans are Trying to Mix the Ideologies of Jesus Christ with an Atheist

[TexasTowelie]

Republicans are Trying to Mix the Ideologies of Jesus Christ with an Atheist and That Doesn’t Make Any Sense

It’s amazing to me how few conservatives know who Ayn Rand is. Especially considering that she’s quite possibly the most influential person behind most of the Republican party’s economic ideologies.

She was a person who spoke out against social programs, believed that people should only worry about themselves, opposed big government and worshiped at the “glory” that is unregulated capitalism. In other words, she’s the epitome of what most Republicans support economically.

Hell, Ron Paul named his son Rand Paul after the woman, and Paul Ryan has cited her as one of his key influences in his life.

There’s just one problem – Ayn Rand was an atheist. Not that there’s any problem at all with being an atheist (more power to you) but there is a big problem with a political party that builds its social platform on “Christian” values while basing its economic ideology on that of someone who didn’t believe in God.

More at http://www.forwardprogressives.com/republicans-trying-mix-ideologies-jesus-christ-atheist-doesnt-make-sense/ .

[alittlelark]

1. I have pointed this out to a few fundy relatives....

They say that she has nothing to do with their beliefs/values......

[Archae]

2. Ayn Rand was a kook.

To put it mildly.

She openly fawned over a guy who butchered a little girl, and threw a fit when the guy was executed for his crimes.

I tried reading "Atlas Shrugs" years ago, found it to be a total crashing bore.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Mostly Unreadable Blathering

Read Fountainhead in college for a class. Tried to read Atlas. Couldn't get through it.

Pedantic, plodding, turgid prose that leads to nowhere.

The only thing i ever read as morally bankrupt and stiffly tedious was Mein Kampf.

The Pauls and Ryan must be so vacuous.

[defacto7]

3. Of course being an atheist is not what's at issue,

It's that the right wingers are so hypocritical they'll use anyone to be right in the name Jesus, even if it's Satan..

[spanone]

4. shhhh. facts disturb the right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. The article is crappy; the problem is not that Rand was an atheist

It's that Rand's particular ideas were about selfishness being compulsory.

There’s just one problem – Ayn Rand was an atheist. Not that there’s any problem at all with being an atheist (more power to you) but there is a big problem with a political party that builds its social platform on “Christian” values while basing its economic ideology on that of someone who didn’t believe in God.

Bollocks. Should all Christians throw away the ideas of Keynes because "he was clearly an agnostic, which he remained until his death. According to one biographer, "he was never able to take religion seriously, regarding it as a strange aberration of the human mind" ?

The problem was pointed out in the article before that paragraph. It's that Republicans think "that people should only worry about themselves". They happen to be following Rand in that, but it is the problem whether or not she was atheist, Christian or Scientologist. Their support of that idea is what makes the Republicans a bad party, and it also goes against their claim of being for 'Christian values'.

[pnwmom]

7. An atheist who pushed a philosophy of SELFISHNESS.

Kind of the exact opposite of Jesus's philosophy.

[djean111]

8. I do not think being an Atheist had anything to do with Rand's selfishness, and to

equate the two does a vast disservice to Atheism, not to mention a baby-wiped ass-cleaning for Christians who are just as rapacious. Religion, or the absence thereof, is only a window dressing here.
I don't see Rand's "economic theology" as a theology at all, and it seems, at best, awkward to frame it in those terms.

[Igel]

9. People like looking at superficial things. Form, not substance.

And to figure out what's going on takes a bit of good will and lots of information.

There are really 3 views of Rand. Note that most of the RW Xian popularity only showed up in the late '70s, and was a reaction to the same kind of policies that led to the Xian Right.

1. Rand preaches selfishness as a character trait, and it's just evil. Nobody could ever countenance anything like that because it's so morally objectionable.

2. Rand preaches in response to an evil, and in reading her works it's obvious how selfish her heroes are, but the real emphasis is on fighting an evil that most don't recognize as evil: imposed collectivism, sensu latu.

3. Some on both sides support/oppose her views for a variety of personal reasons, sometimes clothed in moral garb but only for 3rd party consumption. Her gospel of selfishness gets them stuff or adherence to it by others gets in the way of their getting stuff. For a lot it's a combination of both, depending on context--"I like this subsidy, but don't want to pay this tax." Consistency isn't required.

If you fall into group (2), you see the problem with the cardboard cut-out heroes that represent selfishness and, you know, you pick and choose what you'll accept as far as any of them being role models. For many, they're so stereotyped that they're obviously caricatures and not to be taken seriously. (Even if Rand would snort in surprise at the idea, we're talking about people other than Rand and their views, not Rand's, are what's at issue.)

Often in you're in (1) it's possible to overlook the background and antagonists and only focus on the heroes. In other cases, it's that the background is objected to by Rand that's the main problem. Ranting about the selfishness of her stereotyped strong-man heroes is a distraction.

People in group (2) have trouble seeing there is anybody in (1). For them, only selfish collectivists make this kind of argument as a kind of (self-)deception. People in group (1) have trouble acknowledging that anybody is in group (2), because only selfish capitalists make that argument as a kind of (self-)deception.

A decent critical reading of Rand's shoddy works looks at both aspects, both critiques. It would also entail, for comparison, reading works written in the opposite vein--in which "selfishness" is pilloried while some novel forms of altruism are held up to glorification. It would require looking at what intellectual thought said in the '30s and '40s in the US, and what Rand experienced in her childhood. It's not a simple stereotyping and superficial reading. There's quite a bit of sociocultural commentary rooted in history to be explored, and it's a fun thing to do for a while.

For the Xians that are at odds over the interpretation of Rand there's simply a sharp difference in assumptions about Xianity. Some are clearly OT Christians, and think that morality should be enforced by government decree--some in banning homosexuality, some in requiring that the third tithe be collected at gun point, if need be, for distribution to the poor. Some are more libertarian. Some are okay with a non-enforcing Xianity coexisting with a government run by non-Xians who enforce some sort of rules.