You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus

[_EAllusion]

Objectivism is necessarily atheistic, which would seem to preclude Christianity or require abandoning Rand on this point.

[Guest]

Jesus never made a distinction between abolishing poverty via collective or individual means,

Jesus made no such distinction because, for one, "abolishing poverty" here and now in mortality among human beings was never an aspect, and is not now an aspect, of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You beg the question.

but there is plenty of evidence to suggest Christians acted as a collective whole.

They did nothing different than what Church members do today, work together as individuals to solve problems and serve others in need. The term "collective whole" is hiding, I suspect, ideological baggage not being overtly stated. We work together for specific purposes, unified in doctrine and motives, but what is this "collective whole?"

Does this mean "individuals acting together," or is it something more...Hegelian?

The point is, Jesus was always on the side of the poor,

This is a meaningless statement. He was "on the side" of everyone, even sinners who weren't on his.

and the Right Wingers make fun of the poor, belittle their plight as a result of laziness or what not, and they are almost always on the side of the wealthy.

Graham's simple minded, polemically charged anti-intellectualism is actually almost breathtaking, at this point. His ability to deploy bigotry infected lies of this kind is beginning to take over his entire personality. The longer he rants, the more bizarre the content becomes.

From their arguments to tax the poor at a higher rate,

CFR

or for the FAIR tax,

Not a good idea. A single, low, flat tax is the better concept.

or to tax the rich less,

An excellent idea, as they are the job creating and wealth investing classes.

from their arguments against labor unions,

"organizations for the destruction of labor markets," as Jörg Guido Hülsmann has termed them (and the destruction of much else besides).

and for extended rights for corporations, etc.

Such as?

This was proved last December. While America was suffering through this horrible economy, the Right wanted to block extended unemployment benefits while at the same time they fought tooth and nail to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is pure puffery. Unemployment benefits, whatever positive things can be said for them from the perspective of those receiving them (and I have, on a number of occasions), pay Americans not to work, and the higher and longer the payments, the less incentive to return to active employment is created. They do not create wealth or increase the size of the economy. They have nothing whatsoever to do with recovery from a recession, any more than any other form of redistributional economic policy.

They also attack medicaid and social security, which mainly benefit the poor.

After 2015, Social Security will be paying out far more than it takes in in tax revenue. In 2037, Social Security is over. Economy crushing taxes, more debt and inflation, and serious cuts in benefits, are the possibilities we face. Or, we could privatize much of the system, allow Americans to stay in or opt out as they so choose, and decide to pursue policies that lead to dynamic, sustained economic growth.

But that is nothing compared to Medicare.

They also attack the public school system, because they can afford to.

We attack the American public school system because is the laughingstock of the world and America is has been at the bottom of all industrialized nations for nearly 30 years in all basic subjects. It is attacked and reform is attempted again and again and again because the American public school system is not maintained and managed for the consumers of educational services (American children), but for the producers of educational services (teacher unions, unionized "certified" teachers, and the educational bureaucracy at the state and federal level).

American public education is a scam, intellectually fluffy, deeply politicized, and riddled with political agendas.

Even as the housing industry was collapsing, the Right started propagating this racist and bigoted argument that the blame can be laid upon the poor and the minorities who didn't have the education to understand their mortgage contracts,

Another flat footed lie. Rack em' up Kevin, you're on a roll, and its only Monday.

the well refuted piece of idiocy that says the big bad "government" forced banks to give loans to those minorities, for the sake of equality.

An empirical, historical, and political fact of contemporary American social and political history. Graham is the Walter Duranty of the MDB board. Goebbles was right. If you're going to deceive and prevaricate, do it big.

Pick a political issue that affects the rich and poor and I'll tell you which side the Right Wingers will fall on usually 95% of the time, and who their boogy-man will always be (either government,the poor, immigrants or minorities). This is essentially anti-Christ.

This is vacuous demagoguery at a megalithic level. I never thought of crossing Keith Olbermann with Father Coughlin, but Graham has accomplished that feat. He had to leave the Church to do it, but he dood it.

[_Droopy]

ROFL!!

There it is. If you have hate in your heart Droops, just LET IT OUT.

Adda Boy!

Good, keep it short and sweet. Very short, if at all possible.

[_EAllusion]

Ayn Rand wasn't against just government-based charity. She was against any act of altruism. She likened it to suicide, which she thought was always morally wrong. She thought that all human action should only be done for one's own interest, so she thought you should only donate to the poor when doing so was in your self-interest. So any argument for the compatibility of Rand and "Jesus" can't rest on just being opposed to coercing involuntary aide to the poor. It has to reconcile Rand's ethical egoism with what is found in the gospels. You have to argue that the Bible is against altruism, basically. Good luck with that.

[Guest]

Rand admitted to Mike Wallace to wanting to destroy America, to wanting to destroy religion.

If there ever were an anti-Christ, or someone who did not invite and entice people to do good it was Rand. The basis of her philosophy is selfishness, and seeking ones own pleasure. She is the antithesis of the Gospel of Christ.

Christ himself said "You can not serve God and mammon", You can not be a follower of Christ and a follower of Rand, the two are diametrically opposed. It is just that simple. A honest follower of Christ can not follow Rand.

Also, Satanism, is based on Rand's philosophies. And, one of the 9 Statements of Satanism (think Article of Faith for Satanism) is based on Rand philosophies.

She also states that it is immoral to love everyone as Christ commanded us to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxFYSB0vmag

[_Euthyphro]

and the Right Wingers make fun of the poor, belittle their plight as a result of laziness or what not, and they are almost always on the side of the wealthy.

What? Could you explain that? In my town I know many people who participate in the United Way, Salvation Army, and other minor charities. Becase I live in Utah, most of these are registered Republicans. A large majority of our activities benefit the poor in a very direct sense. I cannot recall any conversations with these people where we accuse "the poor" of sloth. That I know of, none of them harbor secret beliefs that "the poor" are to blame for their predicament. How can this be? In your view are we serving two gods? Are you willing to hear an alternative perspective?

From their arguments to tax the poor at a higher rate, or for the FAIR tax, or to tax the rich less, from their arguments against labor unions, and for extended rights for corporations, etc. This was proved last December. While America was suffering through this horrible economy, the Right wanted to block extended unemployment benefits while at the same time they fought tooth and nail to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. They also attack medicaid and social security, which mainly benefit the poor. They also attack the public school system, because they can afford to.

Attack, no. Reform, yes. Why are some progressives so uncomfortable with meaningful reform? Can't we agree that at least a few of these programs and institutions could use some improvement? This whole post is 60's-style Democrat class warfare. For a while I was beginning to audaciously hope for something new from the left. And my Democrat friends have mostly stopped talking like this. I want to believe you're just a bit behind the times.

[_moksha]

Ayn Rand being an atheist, had no desire to tie her philosophical justification for greed to Christianity. Greed being antithetical to the message of Jesus. Those who are shills for the wealthy would deny this reality simply to retain Christian voters whom they view as rubes.

[_Kevin Graham]

Jesus made no such distinction because, for one, "abolishing poverty" here and now in mortality among human beings was never an aspect, and is not now an aspect, of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You beg the question.

So when Jesus commanded us to give what we have to the poor, according to you this wasn't for their benefit, but rather for ours? Poverty is on earth so those who have will be given the opportunity to be charitable? Keep in mind I'm not talking about your whacked out Skousenesque Mormon gospel, I'm talking about what Jesus taught according to the New testament. Jesus Christ discouraged all aspirations to be wealthy in the worldly sense. To Jesus, there was a worldly sense of wealth and a heavenly sense of wealth. He encouraged his followers to abandon the former and aspire to the latter. In fact he taught them that seeking the latter could only come about by abandoning the former. You were either hot or cold he said. Those who were "lukewarm" he would spit out. Hence, it is impossible for a rich man to enter into heaven. Most kids in Sunday school know this, but color me surprised that RIght Wing ideology has skewed these basic biblical teachings for the middle-aged bigots.

They did nothing different than what Church members do today, work together as individuals to solve problems and serve others in need

Except Churches today act as corporations, and give very little by comparison. BIblical Churches gave well beyond their means(2 Corinthians 8:1-5), which is anathema to conservative philosophy.

This is a meaningless statement. He was "on the side" of everyone, even sinners who weren't on his.

Yes, he was rooting for everyone of course, but the rich were sent to hell simply because they were rich. The poor had a huge advantage simply because they were poor. Whereas the Bible describes the poor as those who inherit the Kingdom of God.

The term "collective whole" is hiding, I suspect, ideological baggage not being overtly stated. We work together for specific purposes, unified in doctrine and motives, but what is this "collective whole?"

Sorry to throw you off with a simple word, but I assure you this has more to do with your paranoia than a hidden code for Communism.

Graham's simple minded, polemically charged anti-intellectualism is actually almost breathtaking, at this point. His ability to deploy bigotry infected lies of this kind is beginning to take over his entire personality. The longer he rants, the more bizarre the content becomes.

Now there's the droopy we all know and love! I stand by my statement. Point to any form of proposed legislation, determine who benefits the most and least, and I can almost tell you 100% of the time which side the Republicans are on. The list of programs that benefit the poor is long, and you can usually find them on Right Wing blogs being isrepresented by ignorant folks as the next step towards Communism and the death of a free market.

CFR

Uh, hello? Seriously? The flat tax or fair tax, both benefit teh rich and nail the lower classes with a heavy hammer. I've heard Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh argue that:" 50 percent of American households no longer pay taxes." OF course he is referring to the bottom 50% on the economic ladder. Those moochers who want to live off his income which the government takes by force, etc etc. The same stupid crap Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh vomit on a daily basis.

Not a good idea. A single, low, flat tax is the better concept.

Based on the fringe opinion of some obscure Economics professor in South Carolina? Consider me unimpressed.

An excellent idea, as they are the job creating and wealth investing classes.

Which doesn't matter when they choose to create jobs overseas no matter how little they pay in taxes. I've already beaten this stupid aargument into the ground numerous times. To keep dancing to the Right Wing beat just proves you're no where near interested in learnimg. Corporations have been sitting on record profits thanks to the Bush Tax cuts, and they have not been hiring because they don't need to. Corporations have never hired according to tax rates. Many corporations pay nothing in taxes and are still laying off people, so your silly theory - which you merely borrowed from FOX News - has been dead for quite some time now. The Bush tax cuts for the rich is the single greatest contributor to the current deficit.

"organizations for the destruction of labor markets," as Jörg Guido Hülsmann has termed them (and the destruction of much else besides).

I'm guessing this is your way of trying to sound cryptic and witty, given rthat EAllusion recently manhandled you on the topic of unions.

Such as?

Uh, you can start with the case of Citizens United, where corporations were granted the right to buy elections with unlimited funds, thanks to Clarence Thomas and his little band of Republican judges. Or you could look to the Republicans' knee-jerk defense of the Oil industry whenever prices are jacked up or whenever an oil spill happens. But their loyalty to corporate America isn't limited to the oil industry at all, and Democrat politicians are guilty of this as well. The problem in America is that corporations own our politicians, and the laws they propose are written by corporate lobbyists and they vote on them according to the amount of money they donate to their campaigns. You see, bribery is legalized in America, so naturally those who are in a position to take advantage of this are those who have the money, and that leaves out the middle-poorer classes, which means the wealthy minority and corporations are those who have all the power. Laws are written for them because laws are written by them and laws are voted on by those they bribe. It is all designed to funnel more money to those who already have it, and to screw the poor as always. Campaign Finance reform would address this problem, and it is usually the Democrats who dare to try it (with the notable exception of John McCain, who I voted for in the 2008 election).

This is pure puffery. Unemployment benefits, whatever positive things can be said for them from the perspective of those receiving them (and I have, on a number of occasions), pay Americans not to work, and the higher and longer the payments, the less incentive to return to active employment is created

You apparently do not know much about this, since the benefits are provided because workers pay into unemployment insurance during their employment. So it is something that is entitled to them if they qualify. To suggest it creates a system of laziness is stupid. Generally speaking, these benefits simply do not provide enough money for most people to sit back and relax without working, which is the silly picture you folks on the Right love to create. Like with foodstamps, you guys immediately talk about these urban myths about how some people use foodstamps to buy drugs, or to pay off their Escalade, all of these memes are created by the racists on the RIght. Months ago I heard a few Right Wing politicians come out and state quite clearly that people are unemployed because they don't want to work. Nevermind the fact that there were only two jobs for every ten jobseekers, because apparently the folks on ther Right strugglle with basic math. Somehow everything can be explained with a simplisitc accusation against those who are suffering the most.

After 2015, Social Security will be paying out far more than it takes in in tax revenue.

Which means Social Security has been self sustaining for many decades, right? In fact, it had run a surplus on occasion. Reform should be made of course, perhaps the retirement age should be increased a few years. The baby boom is the main reason why SS will be paying out more than it takes in. But the fact is the majority of Americans do not want the Right Winger idiots touching Social Security because they are entitled to it since they've been paying into it all their lives.

Economy crushing taxes

ROFL! I guess you fall into the category of "special" Right winger, since you obviously haven't heard the news that taxes are lower now than they've been in sixty years. Even taxes under Reagan were much higher than they are under Obama. But go ahead with the "economy crushing taxes" myth. If correlation equals causation, then the only conclusion is the lower taxes have contributed to the "crushed" economy, but this is what I had already proved to you in another thread.

They do not create wealth or increase the size of the economy. They have nothing whatsoever to do with recovery from a recession, any more than any other form of redistributional economic policy.

Tell that to the world's expert on recessions/depressions, the conservative economist Ben Bernanke. Raising taxes is what helped pull us out of the Great depression, but knowledge of this would require reading beyond Hayek, Sowell, Heritage and WND.

But that is nothing compared to Medicare

Medicare was never meant to be self sustaining, but asI already told you before, the government controlled VA health system is the best and most efficient system in the country.

We attack the American public school system because is the laughingstock of the world and America is has been at the bottom of all industrialized nations for nearly 30 years in all basic subjects.

Yes, and this is due to the poverty levels in America, which is also a laughingstock for the industrialized world. Your argument is easily refuted by pointing out government run schools that are some of the best in the country. I just purchased a home after shopping for nearly a year. We were struggling to get a home in the better school districts, and those school districts were always determined by the economic success of the residents within said district. It had nothing to do with a distinction between public and private. But the simple minded folks like you choose to see everything in terms of government or private, black and white, because that is what your Right Wing priests keep telling you - and they tell you this because those with money own them; those who want to capitalize on the education industry by removing government competition. You refuse to understand the complexities of these issues because, well, some don't like to entertain these notions that some government school suck simply because they're forced to take in everyoone living in said districts. This is just a corporate funded falsehood that gains supporters because it gets fed to them over and over and over. Simply put, the distinction between better and poorer schools can be determined by demographics.

Wherever I go in the Atlanta area, FOX News is on. It is so "conservative" in this part of the country that my folks take me to this place called the "Right Wing Tavern" to celebrate family events. Talk radio is more popular than the FM stations it seems. Before moving to Brazil, one might ask, "Did you watch teh Braves last night"? But nowadays people are more inclined to ask me if I heard Neal Boortz's show earlier today, or Rush Limbaugh. They don't even think of the possibility that I'm not Republican. I actually have to make an effort NOT to expose myself to the same propaganda nonsense that has apparently brainwashed most of my friends and family. These folks are just as religious about modern Right Wing ideology, than any theist I've ever known. It is friggin SCARY.

It is attacked and reform is attempted again and again and again because the American public school system is not maintained and managed for the consumers of educational services (American children), but for the producers of educational services (teacher unions, unionized "certified" teachers, and the educational bureaucracy at the state and federal level).

Oh yes, attack and blame the unions again, and do so without a shred of evidence. They're sure to be members of the poorer, working classes so they are your obvious target. Again, you prove my point above about how you are always on the side of thr rich and never the poor. You quickly blame the people who are not guilty, simply because they fall within a certain tax bracket. And who benefits from privatizing schools? The rich, of course. The same scam artists who run Kaplan and Phoenix universities. The poor will naturally suffer if we did away with public schools because they will likely never go to school since they'll never be able to afford it. Even if they could, these single-parent homes can pretty much bank on the fact that their kid will get kicked out of these schools anyway because privatized schools pick and choose the best students and discard the rest. Those who don't make the cut scholastically or economically, get left on the streets. So your so called solution will make the problem worse because the problem was never government. The problem has always been poverty. Poorer kids are generally the least educated, not because they don't go to private schools, but because their parents (asuming they have two parents, which the probablly don't) didn't teach them the value of education. They probably don't have a single book anywhere in their home. By ridding ourselves of the public education system (which amounts for something like 2% of the government spending!) all we are doing is taking away little hope and replacing it with zero hope for the millions of children raised in poorer neighborhoods. At least with government schools, everyone has an equal chance, or at least a more equal chance, than with a system you envision. Giving this over to the private sector is just asinine, the same way it is asinine to hand over the judicial system to the private sector.

Another flat footed lie. Rack em' up Kevin, you're on a roll, and its only Monday.

And yet, unfortunately for you, all you can ever do is assert that I'm lying. You've never been able to demonstrate it. I was in the USA in the summer of 2008 and FOX News had several specials covering the CRA as the primary cause of the collapse. Sean Hannity specifically stated that those who were too stupid to read, shouldn't have signed these contracts to begin with. He was of course referring to those who had been defrauded and taken advantage of by the predatory lenders who would tell them their initial payment schedule, but fail to explain the intricacies that are involved with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage. They wanted to keep the borrowers in ignorance because they earned more interest with these loans, as opposed to a flat rate mortgage. Again, these guys are so dumb that they allow themselves to slip up and speak what they really think, but then they realize most of their listeners are equally racist and bigoted, so they feel safe in expressing these abhorrent viewpoints and assumptions.

An empirical, historical, and political fact of contemporary American social and political history. Graham is the Walter Duranty of the MDB board. Goebbles was right. If you're going to deceive and prevaricate, do it big.

And yet, another old argument that was pounded into the ground(with you laying on top of it).

This is vacuous demagoguery at a megalithic level. I never thought of crossing Keith Olbermann with Father Coughlin, but Graham has accomplished that feat. He had to leave the Church to do it, but he dood it.

No it is a simple observation which is obviously true since all you can do is respond like this. Name me a single issue the Republicans fight for, whereby the poor benefit and the Rich get screwed? From healthcare to pollution, from tax rates to worker's rights, the Right Wing is almost entirely on the side of the Rich. I'm not saying this is true because Republicans are fundamentally immoral or evil. I'm saying they are the ones who are generally bought and paid for by corporations, and the Right Wing Media machine, mostly owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch, has invested millions to tranform his network into a propaganda machine, which he disguises as "news."

[_Kevin Graham]

Hey Euthyphro,

What? Could you explain that? In my town I know many people who participate in the United Way, Salvation Army, and other minor charities. Becase I live in Utah, most of these are registered Republicans. A large majority of our activities benefit the poor in a very direct sense. I cannot recall any conversations with these people where we accuse "the poor" of sloth. That I know of, none of them harbor secret beliefs that "the poor" are to blame for their predicament. How can this be? In your view are we serving two gods? Are you willing to hear an alternative perspective?

Oh I know there are many Republicans who do care about the poor. I'm just talking about the extremists who seem to dominate this kind of thinking in my part of the country. Just to give you an example of what I've had to put up with, My mother stood up in my home a few months ago when we had visitors from Brazil, and told everyone in my home the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I remember it word for word, she said: "Republicans believe in presonal responsibility whereas Democrats want to live off those who work for a living." Of course my Mom has never had a job in her life, so I thought attacking the working class like this, just because they might need to tap into the social programs for occasional assistance, was a bit hypocritical. But this is how she is told to think, and it resonates quite well with those who begin with racist assumptions.

I remember when my wife from pregnant with my first child. We were recently married and struggling in Orlando at the time. Though my daughter was born in Brazil, my wife went to a "free clinic" in Orlando, and my mother found out about it. She called me from Atlanta and asked me if we were Democrats. My first response was "hell no," because of course, during that time I was a Right Winger as well. But I didn't quite understand her mentality until later on, when I moved up to Atlanta. My step-father told her I was a Democrat because I expected the taxpayers to pay for my wife's medical expenses. But his was just an expression of frustration - that I dared to marry a someone who wasn't an American. This is the same guy who screamed the N word when FOX News announced Obama was the winner in November 2008. But I remember this was his "logic" for quite some time: "Democrats believe in higher taxes for those who make money, so they don't have to work themselves." To me this is just as insulting as an unjustified accusation of racism, but when you listen to FOX News and the various talk radio hosts, you can understand how this theme has been built up over the years, and accepted uncritically.

Attack, no. Reform, yes. Why are some progressives so uncomfortable with meaningful reform? Can't we agree that at least a few of these programs and institutions could use some improvement? This whole post is 60's-style Democrat class warfare. For a while I was beginning to audaciously hope for something new from the left. And my Democrat friends have mostly stopped talking like this. I want to believe you're just a bit behind the times.

I have no problem with reform, but reform for folks on the Right is usually code word for annihilation. They cannot allow the possibility that government can do anything right, outside the "enumerated powers" since, according to them, the Founding Fathers were inspired by God to limit it to that alone. So you're telling me you wouldn't want to completely do away with medicaid or Social Security? If not, then you're unlike most Right Wingers in my neck of the woods who consider it bonafide socialism.

[Guest]

Hi, Kevin,

I thought the article was thought provoking, and I liked the 'collective shrug' line for its cleverness.

I think beefcalf's 'mandated charity' encapsulates the debate between the ideas of Jesus v Ayn Rand. Jesus made his appeal to individuals, not the formations of society. In literary terms, it was man v man. Jesus invited voluntary charity, and did not advocate for charity through taxation.

Tithing was used to care for the poor and could be looked at as a form of taxation.

Rand alternatively was addressing man v society, and what the proper role of government is. Leaving man the latitude to make his or her own choices about charity is not in my view incompatible with Jesus' plea that individuals be charitable.

Latitude in choices may not be incompatible but this is

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.