The American Spectator : Choosing Ayn Rand or Jesus?

Text Size

Choosing Ayn Rand or Jesus?

By Mark Tooley on 6.6.11 @ 6:07AM

Liberals suddenly are more holier than thou.

A liberal group is attacking Republican fans of Ayn Rand for supposedly undermining Christianity. “Christians Must Choose: Ayn Rand or Jesus,” the new campaign by the American Values Network. Specifically it is targeting Congressman Paul Ryan, Senator Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh and others who have praised Rand’s brand of Libertarianism. The network is headed by sometime Democratic Party strategist Eric Sapp. Board members eclectically include former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Townsend, former Democratic Party National Committee Chair Don Fowler, Huffington Post religion editor and Princeton religion associate dean Paul Raushenbush, and former pastor to the Clintons and United Methodist ethicist Phil Wogaman.

“GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values,” the network explains. “Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible.” The network complained that “GOP leaders want to argue that they are defending Christian principles” while also praising Rand.

Rand, of course, was a Russian émigré intellectual who wrote novels like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged that championed ardent individualism against oppressive big government and cultural conformity. The former was a famously classic film featuring Gary Cooper as the hero. The latter was recently turned into a movie that largely flopped at theaters, though Rand devotees and many other diehard Libertarians dutifully watched it. Rand denounced all religion and portrayed her own version of reason and self-initiative as a worthy substitute.

Network chief Sapp told Religion News Service of Congressman Ryan’s ostensible hypocrisy for admiring Rand: “You’ve got a guy who is a rising Republican star, and who wrote the budget, saying he’s read her books and Washington needs more of her values. If you’re a Christian, you’ve got to ask some serious questions about what’s going on here.” According to the report, the network aims to divide conservative Christians from Libertarian activists, especially in the Tea Party, by highlighting Rand’s impieties. Sapp reported that he will mail his anti-Rand video to over 1 million Christians in Wisconsin, presumably in an effort both to weaken Ryan in his home state and to help Democrats’ overturn Gov. Scott Walker’s historic budget as they move to recall Republican state senators who backed it.

Sapp promised in the Huffington Post that his campaign against Randian Republicans could be a “a game-changer” because “it uncovers the heartless GOP and Tea Party wolves who’ve been parading around in sheep’s clothing among the Christian flock, leading them astray. Christians, especially conservative ones, know what to look out for.” He and his network point at an anti-Rand video by evangelical prison ministry icon Chuck Colson, who derided Rand and her followers as the “cranks” and “crypto-cultists” that conservative maven William Buckley strove to ostracize from mainstream conservatism. Buckley’s National Review famously published Whittaker Chambers’ damning review of Atlas Shrugged, whose ultimate message he surmised was “you, to a gas chamber — go!”

Joining the campaign to save Christians from Ayn Rand is Faithful America, a group originally created during the 2004 presidential campaign by the National Council of Churches when headed by former Democratic Congressman Bob Edgar. Faithful America was founded as a liberal interfaith group and once even touted the prayer of one of its Wiccan supporters. It’s now promoting a petition campaign titled “Ayn Rand vs. The Bible,” which implores: “As a Christian, I am concerned that so many of our political leaders are taking their cues from the radical philosopher Ayn Rand. Citizens, especially people of faith, need to know the truth. I commit to telling 3 friends about Ayn Rand’s incompatibility with Christians ethics.” The petition includes a sidebar with Bible quotes that supposedly illustrate how Congressman Ryan’s budget plan contradicts Christianity.

It’s touching how liberal, religiously pluralistic groups like Faithful America and American Values Network are suddenly very concerned that Christians specifically remain faithful to the Bible and to Jesus. Their respective boards are populated with activists and clergy not themselves known for careful adherence to Christian orthodoxy. Rev. Wogaman, from the network’s board, has been one of United Methodism’s most liberal theologians, across the decades expressing doubt about the miracles in the Bible like the virgin birth. Bob and Elizabeth Dole, long time attenders at Wogaman’s Foundry Church in Washington, D.C., very publicly quit the church in 1995 because of the pastor’s liberal politics and theological heterodoxies. Chuck Colson at least has the theological and spiritual pedigree to question why Christians would admire Rand. It’s uncertain how religious pluralists effectively ostracize an atheist intellectual.

And it’s uncertain whether average evangelical Christians, along with traditional Roman Catholics, will become greatly exercised over some Republican admiration for Ayn Rand. But we’ll maybe know more after Eric Sapp and his network mail their video supposedly to over 1 million Wisconsin Christians.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (238) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 6:36AM

Neither the Old or New Testament calls on Jews or Christians to have the government take money from citizens to give to the poor and needy. The Bible presents three ways to address them: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

People who say otherwise are just the latest incarnation of Liberation Theologists attempting to co-opt religion to advance socialism/communism. We all need to spread the word about the passages noted above to counterbalance the propaganda being spread regarding these matters.

Brian Mc| 6.6.11 @ 7:11AM

It's also quite amusing concerning the fact that these promoters of socialism fail to realize the breech of the tenth commandment, JimP. Not to mention their trust in Man over God...I believe that it is in the Bible somewhere as well.

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 7:52AM

So true, Brian.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 10:16AM

Yep - the Democratic Party is based on pretending that the Tenth Commandment doesn't exist and coveting my stuff. And they are going to preach at me?

David Shoup| 6.7.11 @ 1:10AM

Hooah, Old Solder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 11:29AM

How convenient for Republican policy makers that Ayn Rand's philosophy, derived entirely from a worldview based on egocentric, hedonistic atheism, turns out to be 100% compatible with Christianity.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:35AM

Christianity has little to do with government. Any form of government that allows Christians to worship in peace and generally leaves them alone is "100% compatible."

It’s always fun when leftists who have no understanding of Christianity or any other religion decide to start preaching.

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 12:19PM

Any form of government that allows Christians to worship in peace and generally leaves them alone is "100% compatible."

That's what Christianity has come to mean in this country. Thanks for putting it out there so plainly.

A more traditional view would be that you can be a Christian, fully and completely, even under the most oppressive of governments. Does "slaves be subject to your masters ..." ring a bell?

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 12:46PM

You have to be joking.

Okay, Mao's China was really great for Christians too. Since we love to be murdered and suppressed, you could even say it was 100% compatible.

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 3:05PM

China under Mao wasn't a very nice place for much of anyone. Millions were imprisoned or forced to work on farms under brutal conditions, and millions starved to death. The problem wasn't about "compatibility" with Christianity.

There were Christians in China under Mao and it would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the "persecution" that Christians in this country complain about. Kids doing solstice pictures instead of coloring the Easter Bunny, or the JC Penny having a "Holiday sale" rather than a "Christmas sale."

It's as if the goal is to separate "Christmas" from the true meaning, the birth of Christ, except that this "defense of Christianity" that is actually a defense of Christmas trees and Easter eggs is coming from the right, not the left. Why? Because real doctrine is divisive, and the point of politicized Christianity is to get evangelicals and Mormons and Catholics and Objectivists and as many others as possible to vote a certain way in November.

To be a Christian in China under Mao you had to really believe something worth dying for. What politicized Christianity has become in this country is nothing of the sort. On the other hand, what politicized Christianity has become in this country is entirely compatible with the anti-Christian philosophy of Ayn Rand, as a number of people are insisting here. In that sense, they're right.

Ryan| 6.7.11 @ 8:36AM

Somewhat in agreeance here.

No Apostle, in the midst of some pretty awful governments, ever promoted rebellion. The ONLY law they broke was in continuing to preach the word when told not to by legal authorities. That's it.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:28PM

But the books are boring.

Nick| 6.6.11 @ 7:26PM

MM,

Ditto!

David Shoup| 6.7.11 @ 1:13AM

I challenge you to show us who said that Rand's philosophy is 100% compatible with Christianity.

Tyler | 6.7.11 @ 10:43AM

Rand told people that they had to choose her or Jesus, which makes it perfectly evident that her philosophy was incompatible with Christianity.

She was an evil woman who idolized a serial killer.

Anna K from Emory U| 6.6.11 @ 9:27AM

The doctrines of Ayn Rand and the core values of Christianity are explicitly opposed - as Rand herself insisted.
And this poses a philosophical problem for contemporary Republicanism which insists on both Randian capitalism and evangelical Christianity. That can only work if you treat Christianity as a cultural signal and a political organizing tool, rather than Christianity.

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 10:19AM

Bunk.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:37AM

You have no idea what you are writing about. You made a blanket statement then failed to support it in any way.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 1:34PM

As Anna states, Ayn Rand made the point that her philosophy is in opposition to Christianity. Soldier, yours is the blanket, unsupported statement.

Given me a quote from Any Rand (along with the source of your quote) to disprove what Anna wrote.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 1:40PM

So now I have to prove the negative of Anna's unsubstantiated statement? Why?

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 2:05PM

To establish credibility as someone whose opinion is rooted in fact.

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 11:43AM

Get with the program, Anna K. Under the guidance of the GOP and the Tea Party, Christianity has expanded. Mormons were once called "cultists" by many evangelicals who viewed Mormon theology as incompatible with true Christian doctrines. But you don't dare say that about Glenn Beck! So just within the last few years Mormonism has become more widely viewed as mainstream Christianity than ever before in history.

Is it inconvenient that public policy is now being based on the teachings of Ayn Rand, a hack philosopher and bad novelist who dedicated her life to eradicating Christianity because she regarded it as pure evil? That's old-style thinking. Today there's no need to choose. Just expand the tent until there's nothing incompatible between Ayn Rand's atheistic objectivism and the teachings of the Bible.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:54AM

How about you debate the idea instead of name-calling the messenger?

Purpleguy| 6.6.11 @ 5:47PM

Bingo - not that the group here will agree - it shakes their belief system (R is good, D is bad) and their faith in their Republican Corporate masters.

C.K. Amos| 6.6.11 @ 7:02PM

". . . it shakes their belief system (R is good, D is bad) and their faith in their Republican Corporate masters."

Your comments add more to the all-too-obvious: Liberals and leftists, including members of the original Slave Party in America, have nothing substantive to say.

Instead, you make sophomoric statements and use what you think are pithy phrases--". . .their faith in their Republican Corporate masters"---that will product giggles and chuckles in the intellectually bankrupt circles in which you travel.

That makes it easier for you to actively engage in cognitive dissonance.

And it allows the false peace of not having to confront reality.

My sympathies. But, then, you made the choice.

Deco| 6.13.11 @ 3:28AM

Y'know what's funny about your comment? I'm not a liberal (well, not a modern one, as in not your intended meaning) or leftist (political spectrums are bollocks, anyway, but, again, I'm using your intended meanings here) at all, yet I fully agree with Purpleguy.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 10:40AM

And when family, church and charity are insufficient to meet the need, the Christian's proper response is what?

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 11:26AM

First, to appeal to guys like you to donate because everyone knows that non believers/atheists/leftwingers think of their taxes as their charitble donations. Second, you assume that there would be times when it would not be sufficient. Third, if non believers would stop influencing people to not believe there would be a larger base upon which to rely. Fourth, reduce the federal government and taxes and there would be more for believers to contribute, as well as greater opportunity for the poor, who are also obligated to work to the extent they are able according to scripture. I could go on and on but don't have the time now. Suffice it to say, your premise is wrong.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 11:58AM

A little projection, Jim? I know non-believers, atheists and left wingers who are quite generous and I know religious people who are less so.

Who needs to assume there would be times when family, church and charity were insufficient. Study the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. We've seen this movie.

Look at employment figures during the Bush administration after the tax cuts. Look at the employment numbers under the Obama administration following the tax cut extensions. The numbers undercut conservative theology about the relationship between tax cuts and job creation.

Instead of trying to square Randian theology with Christian theology, why not just admit that most of us are not Mother Teresa.

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 12:42PM

LOL Come off it Mike. You know you are just being argumentative to distract from the fact that you have no legitimate point to make.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 1:30PM

Look the employment figures and tell me there is no point to be made.

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 2:37PM

Huh? LOL But for 'liberal'-to include Rockefeller Repubs- economic policies/programs/spending/taxing unemployment would be much lower. What has that to do with Christian teachings? Nada. It's just you distracting from the original point I made which you still have no legitimate argument against. You keep trying to change the subject. I'm not going for it. Maybe..... maybe some naive person is reading this and will be convinced by your tangential comments, but I doubt it.

USSAlabama| 6.6.11 @ 1:33PM

If you DO know generous lefties and libs, then you know the ONLY ones who are generous.

Since I sincerely doubt you could know the magnitude of their contributions it sounds like a patent lie.

C.K. Amos| 6.6.11 @ 7:05PM

If I may suggest, let no one take this troll's bait. As you said, he has no legitimate point to make. To have one would violate the social and political contract among liberals and leftists.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:38AM

It isn't the Leftist response - send people out to confiscate wealth by force.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 12:01PM

You mean the duly elected people in Congress?

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 12:48PM

No. I mean federal bureaucrats and LEO’s who answer only indirectly to any elected official.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 2:09PM

No bureaucrat can "confiscate wealth with force" unless authorized to do so by law passed by duly elected officials. And, if you are asserting that there is no oversight, give me your evidence.

Irish22| 6.6.11 @ 8:14PM

Refer to Walter E. Williams essay, "Socialism is Evil". The fact that a legislature "voted on it" does not make it right, ethical, or good. Taking a person's property by force is evil.

John Hastings| 6.7.11 @ 3:16AM

Irish, you are a goob. If all taking of a person's property by force is evil, may we infer that you would staunchly oppose this:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

That is certainly one hell of an example of a time when the government "took someone's property by force." It is unfortunate that you support slavery, and regard the most honorable act done by a Republican as "evil." Enjoy the trailer park. I hear they're serving mayonnaise-drenched corn dogs today.

Larry| 6.7.11 @ 11:39AM

Sir, your inference is incorrect and disingenuous, and you know it. The whole basis of abolition was the idea that a person could NOT be another person's property. It is clear that Irish22 is not equating the freeing of slaves to his notion that taxation is evil. Just because you don't like what the man says, please don't insult him, mobile homes, and corn dogs. There are plenty of upstanding citizens that live in mobile homes, and corn dogs are delicious with mustard (never heard of anyone consuming them with mayonnaise, but to each his own).

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:34PM

Mike is a TROLL.

Nate W.| 6.6.11 @ 2:51PM

Yeah, Mike, go back to posting your trolly comments on YouTube instead; where all the good trolls dwell.

Purpleguy| 6.6.11 @ 5:51PM

Why? Because you don't agree with him?

Franco| 6.6.11 @ 12:48PM

A legitmate point. Takers?

Walking Horse| 6.6.11 @ 12:27PM

This is a very old game. One can go back to the Social Gospelers, a subset of the original Progressive Movement. These con artists struck a pose, insisting that desirable individual traits such as charity cannot be fully realized unless appropriated as State policy, enforced at the point of a gun. They were frauds then, and they are frauds now.

Ayn Rand's insights regarding unlimited government, while not original in and of themselves, were rather eloquently delivered and remain true, even if one must reject her atheism. If one limits oneself to the depiction of religion in the historical record, how one can look at organized religion and reject it ought not be a mystery.

Alan Brooks| 6.6.11 @ 12:39PM

If Jesus came back youi would kill him again. You'd say:
"you guy dressed in a bathrobe, don't you ever do something like turn over the money changers' tables as you did way back when, it 's private property. And get a haircut 'n' shave, you goddamned hippie!"

Patrick| 6.6.11 @ 1:58PM

Every time you sin, you drive those nails in by your own hands. The same is true for me as well.

No, mankind would most certainly fall upon Christ with no less brutality at this hour than at the time of His Passion. That is the way of man, who is most readily disposed to violence when he learns that praying requires that "Thy will be done".

Larry| 6.7.11 @ 11:41AM

Sadly sir, this is the truth.

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 12:53PM

ROTFL

I'm truly surprised at the number of comments my original comment has received. Could it be because of the citations to scripture that show that God, the ancient Israelites and Christ were NOT a socialists; thus negating their current propaganda du jour? Did that press the leftwingers' panic button? Their arguments just got blownup by a halfway decent Christian education and citing the same? It appears that may be the case.

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:35PM

It sure brought out the trolls.

big bob| 6.6.11 @ 1:12PM

JimP:
I read through all comments and I think yours was the only one to actually QUOTE what the Bible really said; or at least use the Bible as a source. The whole thread was "he said; she said". And actually that sort of pissing match is rather boring. The overarching attempt here is to discredit Ayn Rand, for whatever reason and by whatever means necessary. I would have thought by now that we who claim to be conservative would begin to recognize this MO. The short version is that if we can discredit the messenger, we can discredit the message. For a group of government students, that might just work. After all, those students have spent the better part of their lives telling everyone how they "feel". Nothing in the way logic or thought process in that game. And now we have this attempt by the left/libs in theology who have historically denied Christ's claim to His concurrent Deity and humanity. Every 4 or 5 years another "expert" comes forth with new research to help us all see that Christ was not who He said He was. Now, in an attempt to discredit Rand and all related ethics, they pit Jesus against Ayn Rand. What a strange comparison/contrast. In reality, it shows how little the left knows about EITHER Jesus or Ayn Rand. 'Nuf said.

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 1:24PM

Right on, Big Bob. Very well said. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:37PM

Well that last sentence (sans 'nuf said') sums it up.
Completely.

John Hastings| 6.7.11 @ 3:34AM

You are fundamentally mistaken.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." Matt. 22, 21. "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him, etc." 1 Pet. 2, 13f

Here is a link to the commentary of a pretty-darn-famous theologian (see the section entitled "What Subjects Owe to the Magistrates"): http://www.immanuelevluth.org/catechism/c-aii.htm

Despite all of the goobs that constitute the regulars around here, I think we can agree that the cited gentleman is a higher authority on matters of theology than the greatest goob, JimP.

alice moore| 6.6.11 @ 6:39AM

Such Crocodile concern is coming from the Left on this! Christian conservatives probably are or have been aware of Rand's atheism for years.

dee see| 6.6.11 @ 6:46AM

----Nice article, but WHY today?

Putting aside the ongoing Rockefeller/Ford/Carnegie cultural subversion ops viz a viz GENUINE, scriptural Christianity
----WHY?

Perhaps a tantalizing DIS-traction from the day's awesomely significant status as being the 61st Anniversary of the start of the KOREAN WAR.

Whatever the case, 61 'EUGENICS friendly',
Globalist treason op years later

WE REMEMBER---------------------

Now, as police state surveillance coalesces all
about us, and as bankster POST American,
POST industrialism (a la North Korea?) sets in
---time for your moment of NON-silence
on behalf of those who sacrificed in the conveniently
'forgotten' war, and on behalf of our own lost land.

NO MORE time for blogs and cow words.

----------------FAREWELL-----------------

SlamDunk| 6.6.11 @ 9:31AM

dee see,

Your delightful, persuasive posts are articulate and polished in their verbal dexterity. Keep them coming, please. They are a joy to read.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 12:04PM

Police state surveillance. Are you referring to the Patriot Act initiated under Bush and praised by conservatives and continued under Obama and questioned by conservatives?

Bill| 6.6.11 @ 4:20PM

Could it be because of those pesky capstone Freemasons and the Tavistock Institute?

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 6:56AM

Silliness. Saying that Christians cannot use the philosophy of Ayn Rand is like saying they cannot use the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.

In fact, some people did make that argument, back in the day. Tertullian, a North African Christian writing in the 3rd century, famously asked, "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

It turns out, quite a bit. Just as hellenism had been influencing Judaism since the 4th century BC, so it influenced Christian thought and provided the necessary rhetorical and logical tool both to explain Christianity to the pagan world (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen), as well as to resolve some of the major disputes within Christianity, such as nature of the Trinity, or the relationship of the divine and human natures within Jesus Christ.

Church Fathers such as Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nanzianzen and John Chrysostom, received excellent classical educations, including at the pagan Athenian Academy. This allowed them access to the vocabulary, categories and methods of Greek philosophy, which they then applied to the mysteries of the divine economy of salvation.

Basil himself was aware that not all Christians approved of reading the classics or the Greek philsophers. For them, he wrote his "Adress to a Young Man", in which he exhorts his reader not to turn his back on pagan works, because "a knowledge of them should be useful to us in our search for the truth". One should therefore approach these works with discernment, taking from them all that is useful, rejecting that which is contrary to Scripture.

This approach, used by Basil, his brother and their circle of friends, allowed them to accept that which was helpful in Greek philosophy, while rejecting its pagan preconceptions.

One can do likewise with modern philosophers, including Ayn Rand--accepting that which is true, rejecting that which is not. It's hypocritical of the left to say otherwise, considering that they unconditionally supported Marxist theologians who drew their inspiration from a philosopher whose atheism was just as militant as Rand's, and whose philosophy was, if anything far more brutal and heartless.

Christianity, after all, requires us to view each human being as a person. Rand, in her own fashion, does this. Marx, in contrast, has no room at all for the individual, but deals only in aggregates, thereby objectifying the person and treating him as an interchangeable element in the immutable forces of history.

Ryan| 6.6.11 @ 8:22AM

This is exactly my take on Rand. I wholeheartedly accept that I demand that no man need to work for my benefit, but I reject the premise that I will not work for another's through charity.

It's the government mandate of charity that I am mostly against.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 9:37AM

Rand believed that happiness resulted from each man following his own self-interest. Rand's shortcoming was in defining self-interest so narrowly as to exclude any and all forms of altruism. Put another way, it's my time and my money, and if I want to spend it on helping other people, who is Rand to say this is not in my self-interest?

This was, no doubt, the result of Rand's childhood and adolescence in the Soviet Union, when "altruism" was merely a figleaf for state compulsion; it made here blind to the real thing.

At the same time, the experience made Rand exquisitely sensitive to the manner in which the exploitative class (basically, those she defined as the "Second Raters") attempted to use religion and guilt as a way of forcing the productive class to make sacrifices in favor of the Second Raters and their interests--which we still see today. And, of course, the "poor" and the "needy" are usually the last to benefit from such policies, which are really about concentrating power in the hands of those who have no other way of justifying their existence (Are you listening, Barack Obama?).

So, I am perfectly capable of reading Ayn Rand and extracting from her that which is true and valuable, while rejecting that which is false and worthless.

One can also seriously make the case that, for Christians, the mandate to treat the least of those among us as we would treat Christ (i.e., that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore worthy of our respect and charity) is a purely individual mandate, one that cannot be delegated to the state. When the state preempts the individual it deprives each of us of the opportunity to act as Christ would have us act. Mandatory charity is a contradiction, in the same manner as "mandatory volunteer service".

Ryan| 6.6.11 @ 10:42AM

I don't know that it's a "problem" in the theology, per se, but to strictly adhere that Christ command as a "purely" individual mandate also needs to take into account the old Hebrew regulations of leaving behind crops for the stranger and those in need (the story of Ruth arises out of this idea - Boaz saw her collecting the leftovers and had his men leave some more behind...voluntarily).

Of course, I don't think that there was a punishment for completely gleaning your field or going back for the stuff you missed - it does appear that a lack of charity is between man and God, not man and government (see Jesus' teaching on the rich man who stored up too much).

Bob Grant| 6.6.11 @ 12:27PM

Outstanding. I struggle with this and you have addressed many nagging contradictions I have had.

The bottom line is the Bible should be that last word on any and all issues regarding altruism, charity, and sacrifice, not Atlas Shrugged.

I believe Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy has more in common with Biblical principle than many people are willing to acknowledge.

Altruism, per the Bible and Ayn Rand, should never be coerced by the government and only should only be addressed per the individual. Notwithstanding Ayn Rand's personal view of altruism, I believe she would agree with this premise.

You could argue Jesus was the ultimate Libertarian.

Patrick| 6.6.11 @ 2:15PM

Rather, that man restored to innocence, through Christ, from his fallen state has no need of such things as state, welfare, etc.

Sadly, even those filled with and guided by the Spirit are not yet perfected. Temptation and sin are never far away in this life, and for this reason we have need of laws, police, armies, and such nonsense.

Even so, Caesar cannot replace God, nor can the State restore man's lost dignity.

jolizoom| 6.6.11 @ 8:41PM

Thank you all for such cogent comments. I am in agreement with you all (from Stuart on down), and it's a refreshing and rational change from all the mudslinging going on in other comments on this article.

mike daniels| 6.6.11 @ 11:06AM

I just finished reading all 1000 pages plus of "Atlas" and I don't recall anything in there that would be at odds with personal charity. The point of the book was that charity should not be mandated by the government and used as an excuse for a ruling class to continue to extract wealth from, and assert power over the population. Dagny's hapless brother James was a prime example of how the ruling class sucked in useful idiots with its mantra of "charity" and "not for profit"exultation. I saw no conflict with Christian beliefs but then I'm a Catholic and maybe not as enlightened as the liberals who have their undies in a knot suddenly.

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 11:55AM

I just finished reading all 1000 pages plus of "Atlas" and I don't recall anything in there that would be at odds with personal charity.

It's only shortly after breakfast for me here on the west coast, but I'm willing to wager that I won't read a funnier statement anywhere today.

Rand believed that faith was the opposite of, and incompatible with, reason. She believed that religion is nothing but a primitive attempt to understand the universe and should be shrugged off by anyone able to think clearly. She believed that religion is extremely detrimental to society.

I slogged through "Atlas" too, and several other of her novels as well as a bunch of her non-fiction. There's no way you can read it, and understand what she's saying, and come away thinking that her philosophy is compatible with Christianity. Find your nearest Objectivist discussion forum and post about the compatibility of Objectivism and Christianity there ... I'd love to watch the fireworks.

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:40PM

Boring, boring books.

mike daniels| 6.6.11 @ 1:53PM

I'm glad you had a laugh. Here's mine- She wrote a NOVEL not a philosophical treatise detailing whatever she felt about God, Christianity or any religion. The NOVEL was about slow government enslavement of a population not smart enough to see it happening except for the John Galt types. I don't care what Rand personally thought any more than I care what Scott Turow personally thinks about judicial propriety or personal morals. They are both telling a story. Nothing in "Atlas" is inconsistent with voluntary giving.

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 4:13PM

It's a novel, true, but it's a novel intended to illustrate her philosophy. And one reason it's boring is that she didn't trust fictional illustration of her philosophy to get the point across so she has characters going off into long, dull explanations of her philosophy. She also wrote plenty of non-fiction, making the same points without surrounding them by one-dimensional characters, silly plots and wooden dialog.

As for voluntary giving, in the words of John Galt: "Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? ... Yes---if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure ..."

If that's what you have in mind as a motive -- voluntary giving motivated by your own selfish pleasure -- then sure, Rand would have no objections. (Actually that's not the whole story. Galt goes on to talk about how it would only be sensible to give to someone who has "virtue" ... and the question of whether Rand's idea of "virtue" is consistent with a traditional Christian view of virtue is probably not going to end up helping your argument.)

Bob Grant| 6.6.11 @ 8:13PM

"Find your nearest Objectivist discussion forum and post about the compatibility of Objectivism and Christianity there ... I'd love to watch the fireworks."
-----
There might the two completely different arguments here. What type of government is best suited for individual liberty as opposed to one's spirituality. True, Ayn Rand had no respect or time for religion but she would be the first to tell you the dangers of outlawing it. After all, just look at the country from which she fled.

Nunya| 6.6.11 @ 6:40PM

Stuart, excellent post, your points are absolutely spot on, and my thoughts exactly.

DW| 6.6.11 @ 7:03AM

Jesus Christ never defined and empowered a vast bureaucratic world government to rule over others and confiscate the fruits of their labors by force to spend on immoral acts like perpetual war and abortion mills. The fundamental flaw with the liberal mind set is that they presume to be doing good and utterly ignore the suffering caused by their works. They are constantly lecturing all of us about the specks in our eyes while ignoring the planks in their own. I'm perfectly capable of separating out Ayn Rand's good ideas while ignoring those I don't agree with. We all ultimately synthesize and amalgamated philosophy for our lives based on a myriad of inputs and very few ideologically cling to only a single train of thought.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.6.11 @ 7:10AM

Stuart,
Very well spoken, sir.
Mr. Tooly,
You too sir.

Carol| 6.6.11 @ 7:12AM

Godless liberals admitting they are using Christianity again to get conservatives to change their minds about Ayn Rand and conservatism.

Hey liberals: Ayn Rand touted individualism which is why we are fans of her writing. We aren't mind-numb robots like you who follow what your masters on earth tell you to think or how to act.

You same Godless liberals use God to try to get Americans to falls for your "social justice." Ha! What a crock. Social justice is just another feel-good term to get the big government to hand out more freebies to parasites and moochers who Rand was really against.

Try a different argument. This one isn't working as much as you haters try.

Tina B| 6.6.11 @ 7:13AM

Awesome responses, I resonate! Informative article also, Thanks.

Mark| 6.6.11 @ 7:23AM

Are these progressive Christian groups hypocrites for lambasting conservation Christians about Ayn Rand while at the same time flaunting Scripture regarding a boatload of issues? Sure. That doesn't mean, however, these progressive Christian groups are wrong. Ayn Rand is a first-rate philosophical hack who deserves to be ignored by all.

the permanent newbie| 6.6.11 @ 8:21AM

Sorry, Mark, but you mean "flouting," not "flaunting." Normally I don't play grammar cop online, but in this case the word you chose inverts your point to its opposite. I am NOT trying to be disrespectful; you obviously have something serious to say, and this will help you say it.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 9:48AM

These progressive groups are not taking issue with any of her non-conservative points of view but rather her conservative views particularly her objection to central command economies, big government control of all the private sector, and the discouragement of innovation, incentive, and private ownership. This is what they do not want anyone to promote nor would they want anyone being influenced or hear her message about these critical points. So, they hypocritically and manipulatively use christianity and impressionable christians to suppress this message. This is what this whole thing is about. Furthermore, I do not give a rats ass what some socialistic totalitarian progressive group thinks about Ayn Rand, Palin, or anyone else associated with Conservativism or anything else for that matter. Conservatives need to stop listening and reacting to what Liberals have to say about anything regarding our candidates, our platform, our ideas, our values, our potential, our constituencies, etc. We will evaluate the merits of our own and make our own minds up about whatever the subject is and if we find some value in someones message or books then that is for us to decide. I am certainly not going to be played by the Left and their propaganda, phony arguments, and their hypocritical misleading use of our own values against ourselves ( which is a classic Alinsky technique).

Joe Oliva| 6.6.11 @ 2:30PM

EXACTLY!

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:42PM

And her books are boring.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 7:13PM

Good. I take it you read them and came to your own conclusions.

Appleby| 6.6.11 @ 7:33AM

I discovered Ayn Rand at around age 25; having spent 3 years in Bible College during the Sixties, learning to sift wheat from chaff, I had already heard most of the anti-Christian hoohah endemic in her work, and understood that a good deal of it was the result of the way she was brought up. The salient message in her work is that of individual responsibility -- which is just what Jesus, and the prophets who preceded him, mandated.

As has been pointed out frequently here and elsewhere, Jesus never led prancing hippies down Main Street with a bullhorn shouting *Force your neighbours to feed My sheep!* This is an individual mandate for individual Christians and always has been.

**posttenebraslux**| 6.6.11 @ 7:36AM

Please, please all be informed read the short book Christianity and Liberalism to help you think through and see the places where the liberals are trying to blend both, doesn't work, never will. The book is online at: http://www.ccel.org/m/machen/liberalism/home.html

Michael Tomlinson| 6.6.11 @ 7:37AM

I think the American Values Network may want to focus their efforts on a man who was a congregant of a racist, anti-Semite whose harangues were laced with profanity and invectives of hate and violence against those he despised and hated. I’m of course talking about the student of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright – Barack Hussein Obama.

These people, who disparaged President George W. Bush for saying Jesus was the philosopher he most admired, might want to swallow their pride and apologize to him for their arrogance and politically motivated misuse of the Bible for partisan political reasons to attack a fellow Christian.

As for finding value in the teachings of non-Christians I realize many adherents of the modern Democrat party are intellectually challenged, but I would bet they’ve found a lot they like in the teachings of the false prophet of Islam. So if they can find value in the teachings of a duplicitous and rapacious homicidal militant why can’t conservatives find value in the writings of a woman who espoused the philosophy of the individual over tyrannical group think championed by Hitler, Stalin and Mao?

I wonder how many of these folks have worn a Che’ t-shirt? Considering he is an icon of the left, despite being a cold blooded murderer and torturer, I’m betting at least one has or at least associated with people who find Che’ inspiring. I don't remember it being documented that Ayn Rand dragged people out of cells and executed them on television the way Che' did.

As for the National Council of Churches this is the same organization that defended the shooting down of civilian aircraft and systematically butchering survivors in the name of an independent Zimbabwe – a nation ruled over by their fellow-traveler the genocidal Robert Mugabe who practiced ethnic/tribal cleansing against the Matabele, but since they’re black I’m sure the NCC found the burning of people alive an acceptable way dealing with political opposition.

As a Christian I’m shocked at the indifference of groups like this who support dictators, tyrants, sadists and murderers in the name of a questionable theological doctrine based on the interpretation of the gospel through Karl Marx. It is time for these folks to worry about the beam in their own eye and not the speck in Rand Paul's or Rush Limbaugh's (I'm not a big fan of either gentleman).

C.K. Amos| 6.6.11 @ 7:19PM

"As a Christian I’m shocked at the indifference of groups like this who support dictators, tyrants, sadists and murderers in the name of a questionable theological doctrine based on the interpretation of the gospel through Karl Marx."

I once was shocked, even before becoming a Christian--or, at least, doing my best to walk the path and let the Lord God lead.

By as a Christian, I'm no longer shocked. Outraged at times, though.

But this is the unfolding of the last days.

And, no, neither I, nor you, nor that yahoo in California, nor the angels in heaven know of that day and hour. But the signs point increasingly to the Second Coming.

"It is time for these folks to worry about the beam in their own eye and not the speck in Rand Paul's or Rush Limbaugh's (I'm not a big fan of either gentleman)."

Couldn't agree more. But you and I know they lack the discernment or humility or love for their fellow man to do just that.

As the Apostle Paul said in his first letter to the church at Corinth, in the letter's second chapter: "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."

All we can is pray for their salvation and that their hearts of stone would be softened to allow some witness to them.

John Hastings| 6.7.11 @ 3:55AM

"As for finding value in the teachings of non-Christians I realize many adherents of the modern Democrat party are intellectually challenged." That is a strange proposition considering that we constitute the overwhelming majorities of every single tier-one school. Ya'll can keep third tier toilets such as Liberty and Bob Jones "University". Here are some interesting stats for Liberty (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3446&profileId=6) and Bob Jones (I would like to be able to how poorly their students score, but they're too embarrassed to publish it). Now, compare that with any T-1 smarty school. If you're really looking for a good time, compare it with any school ranked in the range between Harvard and Georgetown (a Jesuit school). Out of charity, I won't even address the graduate schools.

Gary| 6.6.11 @ 8:23AM

So, Faithful America is criticizing conservative Republicans for taking their cues from “radical philosopher,” Ayn Rand, while the Democrats continue taking their cues from Karl Marx. Also, aren’t these the people, now suddenly concerned for conservative Republicans’ Christian values, who take every conceivable opportunity to drag America through lawsuit after lawsuit about the separation of church and state?

It’s actually entertaining to watch the Left tie themselves in rhetorical knots as they approach total intellectual bankruptcy.

alice moore| 6.6.11 @ 7:19PM

As I said above; the Religious Left's Crocodile Concern for Christianity is hilarious.

Ed White| 6.6.11 @ 8:30AM

When you read the biographies, you will learn that Ayn Rand was narcissistic in the extreme. She lacked empathy and was also prone to outbursts of rage and frustration.

She exploited young, emotionally vulnerable people and frequently sabotaged their self-image with her vindictive cruelty. She claimed to love her husband but carried on an affair with a younger man right in front of him, a situation that drove her husband to alcoholism.

She was a hypochondriac. She showed signs of paranoia. She had an addictive personality, smoked two packs of cigarettes daily, and gobbled handfuls of diet pills (amphetamines).

She despised "average" people, whom she regarded as ugly and stupid and irrational, while viewing herself in exalted terms as the greatest writer in history and the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

She was concerned with no one's needs or wants or suffering except her own. She was able to claim in print that no one had ever helped her, when in fact she had benefited for years from the charity and goodwill of relatives and business associates and friends. She alienated nearly all her friends and allies by the end of her life, and died nearly alone.

This is hardly a person who should be seen as the epitome of rationality - yet this is how her right-wing followers see her.

Ho-hum. Another day at AmSpec.

the permanent newbie| 6.6.11 @ 8:40AM

So we are only to pay respectful attention to the thinking and writing of people of sterling and unimpeachable character. That limits your intellectual intake to the Rev. Mr. Billy Graham and a "diverse" selection of rabbis.

Emma L.| 6.6.11 @ 8:54AM

Billy Graham? That anti-semitic nuisance!
An old fool who will soon be dead, Billy Graham was the chum of presidents who always trotted him out in times of crisis.

Every time there is some rumblings in the Middle East, Graham mutters something about "the end of time being at hand."

We have no respect for this old anti-semitic goat.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.6.11 @ 9:20AM

Emma,
There are a couple of million Jews alive today that wouldn't be, if it were not for Billy Graham. Go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.
...and, oh by the way, the end of time is at hand, for every one of us as we inevitably pass on into eternity.

Emma L.| 6.6.11 @ 9:33AM

". . . a couple of million Jews . . ."

Explain.

H National| 6.6.11 @ 9:35AM

Old Texican, you need to read the Nixon transcripts to see how antisemitic Billy GrahamCracker was . . . and is .

Ryan| 6.6.11 @ 10:46AM

Not entirely. It's a few lines that he apologized for, and his entire life needs to be taken into account.

C.K. Amos| 6.6.11 @ 7:23PM

Emma, that hatred and resentment and anger in your hear will kill you if you do not take some positive action.

I'd suggest you seek the face of the Lord, repent and ask Him to become your savior and friend.

Not much at stake, though, right? Just the rest of your life on Earth and your eternal life afterward.

Emma L.| 6.6.11 @ 8:41AM

Rand was evil.

Anyone who has read her books and biographies will arrive at this conclusion.

Thanks, Ed White, for putting her life into a little perspective for the American Spectator readers, who know practically nothing about her dark side.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 9:44AM

Was Aristotle evil? Plato? Cicero? Marcus Aurelius? Are we only to read those who pass some sort of morality test to be administered by. . .who? You, Emma?

What are your qualifications for so doing, and what criteria will you use to judge?

Your statement, and that of Ed White, were precisely what I said in my first post--silly. But also narrow-mnded, bigoted and parochial. If you follow that sort of thinking you will never develop the breadth of knowledge and the power of discernment needed to have true wisdom.

But I am not the kind of person to force you to eat your broccoli. If you don't want to read Ayn Rand, don't. Just don't presume to make value judgments about the people who choose to do so, simply on the fact that they have.

Emma| 6.6.11 @ 9:53AM

You rightwingers will always ignore the facts, if the facts are a little troubling to your assinine positions.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:10AM

LOL. And you liberals like to make them up as you go. Do not even try to lecture us about facts or reality while you live in your litle fantasy totalitarian utopias. Once again I could give a rat ass what you, Emma, useful idiot, has to think about anything. You are either to be pittied or scorned.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:14AM

Odd, what you wrote actually sounded familar. Then I realized why. the GlobalWarming Hoax where you CAUGHT making up the FACTS and distorted the data to justify taking over the world's economies with cap and trade taxation. Projecting again?

Young Auburn U. Footballer| 6.6.11 @ 11:29AM

MEDICAL ALERT!

Attention, geezers:

If you keep sitting on your butts typing your vitriol, you're gonna develop prostate cancer.

Your fat asses are applying way too much pressure on your tender, swollen prostates.

Get your asses up right now, and help serve lunch to the homeless.

And while getting up, you can stick Ayn Rand up your ass.

Lilian Tryon| 6.6.11 @ 11:51AM

Young Auburn U Footballer,

Are you, by chance, Eric P.? If so, you're a real hottie, and we need to hook up to discuss politics. I'm over at U of Southern AL. We met at Wally G.'s shindig.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 12:20PM

Attention, you dip shit! When you get your first paycheck, if you ever get a job, you will be ranting with the rest of us and thinking less about the homeless and lunch. By the way, every time you open your mouths you prove my point. Yeah, you are certainly going to contribute to society with the deep analysis and understanding of these issues that you demonstrate. You know, there is an old saying, “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” You have to start working on your brains, my little fellow. Hey, maybe you and Lilian can hook up and have a few abortions, a few kids, and then ask us to pay for the consequences. Please use a condom. I actually do not typicallly speak this way but I thought I try it in your language so you could comprehend it.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 12:22PM

Auburn..what a frigin joke.

Franco| 6.6.11 @ 1:36PM

Serving lunch to homeless people doesn't create fewer homeless people.

Cpm| 6.6.11 @ 2:03PM

How's that football scholarship treating you? Come back when you actually have to pay your own way.

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:45PM

Troll alert.

C.K. Amos| 6.6.11 @ 7:31PM

"You rightwingers"? That's akin to some Cacausian male or female saying to a group of black Americans: "You people..."

Have you not yet learned that you do not stand a chance of having a dialogue if you call those you'd like to influence names?

Have you and your ilk so taken leave of decency that you can no longer restrain yourselves from such vitriol?

And having spent time in that emotional, intellectual, social and spiritual prison called liberalism and leftism, I suggest you're wrong--dead wrong--about conservatives not using facts.

Ignore the facts is one of liberalism's and leftism's mottos. Just as manufacturing facts when needed.

But, then, your ears and eyes would have to be open to know that.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:19AM

No. Emma you are evil. We really do not need another self deluded, 'know it all' liberal telling us we are not informed. The readers here at TAS are light years ahead of your understanding on anything including Ayn Rand's faults and strengths. Your group is the one that marches in lock step, that's why one of your founding fathers called you useful idiots.

John Hastings| 6.7.11 @ 4:07AM

That's a pretty baseless attack on a seemingly nice girl. Evil? Not likely. Judging on the basis of both of your relative abilities of English and grammar, I am willing to bet that "Evil Emma" has more degrees and a significantly higher level of income than the TAS readers purported to be "lightyears ahead" of her understanding. Emma seems T-1. Simplar has more of a Bob Jones feel with a heavy dose of advanced training in a conspiracy theorists' institute. Neither is a real school.

YeloStalyn| 6.7.11 @ 3:10PM

You do realize that there is a very large difference between education, quality of educatin, years/amount of education and actually being intellectual... right?

Oh... I forgot... our dear leader is one of your beloved intellecual giants... and look where it got him... President of all 57 states.

Teaghan| 6.6.11 @ 9:02AM

"She despised "average" people, whom she regarded as ugly and stupid and irrational, while viewing herself in exalted terms as the greatest writer in history and the greatest philosopher since Aristotle." Sounds like obama.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:42AM

Sounds like every left-winger from Marx onward.

jwrock| 6.6.11 @ 9:21AM

Speaking of 'ho-hum', this is a ho-hum list of the standard exaggerations and ad hominem attacks against Ayn Rand.

Emma| 6.6.11 @ 9:54AM

Read the biographies.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:20AM

Emma, just Read. Read something besides the huff and puff and the communist manifesto.

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:48PM

Emma - get off here, you uneducated moron.

Mimi| 6.6.11 @ 9:37AM

Thanks, Ed, for adding a little perspective.

Bryan| 6.6.11 @ 11:18AM

I'm with you, Mimi.

In contrast to most of the other posters, you can always cound on Ed White's calm, reasoned responses to issues.

The shrill, adolsecent tone of Simon Templar and many other posters diminishes their credibility.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 12:28PM

Just so you do not miss my response...

Bryan needs to take a closer look particularly at himself. Ed indeed made some relevant points as I have already stated. These points can and have been challenged by others through other biographies that claim otherwise. One has to sift out for oneself what is true and not. It is his innaccurate claim that TAS readers and the right wing are all sycophants of Ayn Rand that I found objectionable. Now, for you and Bryan. That is another story. See, when adults analyze issues and topics as these they do it with great nuance and do not loose focus on the primary core aspect of the argument. They see beyond the outer superficial and typical knee jerk arguments and counter arguments that often accompany these debates. It is not a question of picking between Jesus and Ayn Rand nor is it a question about Ayn Rand's personal and often controversial personal life. This is all fluff and distraction and rather adolescent thinking..sophmoric analysis. The central issue is as I stated and many here agree with, as you put it. That IS, the motivation behind these criticisms that these progressive groups have hypocritically and manipulatively presented.
Being 29, I am not sure you will get this..but I am pretty confident that you will respond with some lame smarmy response. I think you and Bryan need to carefully reread the responses and posts in this thread and attempt to understand more than one point of view (other than your own) on this subject. You just might learn something. By the way, I personally have some very strong doubts and objections about Ayn Rand's personal life and philosophy but I do not let that distract me from the central issue here nor do I throw the baby out with the bath water and dismiss everything she has done or said as incorrect or irrevelant. See, this how adults think.

John Hastings| 6.7.11 @ 4:18AM

If someone were to respond to another's post with, say, "No Emma, You are evil," would you categorize that as seeing "beyond the outer superficial and typical knee jerk arguments and counter arguments that often accompany these debates."

Boom. Roasted.

BD57| 6.6.11 @ 10:04AM

As for your last point, about "epitome of rationality" .... ummm ..... no.

Nice try, though.

Now, go pat yourself on the back for being morally superior.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:30AM

Ed, many of your points have some grounding in truth about her personal life. However, do not lecture us about how the right wing sees her or generalize that all TAS readers and writers are some kind of sychophants for Ayn Rand. If you do not like what is out here at TAS, then skip back to the huff and puff, troll.

MOS was 71331| 6.6.11 @ 10:40AM

Those biographies of Ayn Rand White cites are just two, "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden and "Judgment Day" by Nathaniel Branden. The Brandens were college students when they met AR in the early 1950s while she was writing "Atlas Shrugged." They married after AS's completion and before it was published. AR valued their apparent dedication to her ideas so highly that she dedicated AS to them and her husband.

The Branden's AR biographies are unreliable, according to a detailed analysis of them by James S Valliant, a retired criminal lawyer and judge. Valliant first met the Brandens while he was an undergraduate at UCSD in 1982. He interviewed Nathaniel Branden for the school newspaper and then introduced Branden who gave a talk at the school, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". About a year later he met Barbara Branden, who asked him about the impact AR's books had had on his life and told him she was nearly finished writing a book on AR. N Branden had also told Valliant he too was writing an AR bio.

Valliant's book, "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics," concluded "What I found upon careful examination and comparison of both of these authors' works, however, was that they had erected monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents -- and that Rand's critics have been building on a foundation of historical sand in their widespread reliance on these works."

Valliant's book has many examples of the Branden's inventing "facts" with little or no corroboration. As one minor example, take White's mention of AR's affair driving her husband, Frank O'Conner, to alcoholism. Both Brandens wrote of O'Conner becoming an alcoholic, supposedly because he couldn't accept NB's affair with AR. However, there's not a single person, other than the Brandens, friendly with O'Conner who ever saw O'Conner drunk or drink to excess. Actually, O'Conner's beverage of choice was Coca Cola, and, except for water, he seldom drank anything else.

As for "AR exploited young, emotionally vulnerable people and frequently sabotaged their self-image with her vindictive cruelty.", cite ONE instance, just one. AR lived from 1905 to 1982, a span of 77 years. It's asking a lot to require her to have NEVER been unfairly unpleasant to anyone over such a period of time. If White could describe one instance of AR's "cruelty", we could judge for its significance for ourselves.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 2:05PM

"Those biographies of Ayn Rand White cites are just two, "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden and "Judgment Day" by Nathaniel Branden. "

My wife and I enjoyed reading Brandon's book aloud to each other. We called it "I Was a Teenage Objectivist Sex Slave". Barbara's book was made into a not bad bioflic starring Hellen Mirren, who was surprisingly good (she is Russian, after all, and looks the way Rand wished she had looked). In the end, Rand, like many philosophers, developed a cult of personality. But her influence extended far beyond her cultists.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:42AM

Well, Ed. Let's take a little trip down history lane and drop by your freind Karl Marx's house. Wow. Karl, man, you are one crazy, selfish, evil, lazy bum. You never worked a hard days work in your life, never had a real job, sponged off your rich factory owner father, let your wife and children live in squalor and eventually die of starvation and disease, stole most of your ideas and writing from your pal, Engels, and actually knew nothing about economics. My, lord and epitome of integrity, scholarship, and moral values. Hardly a person one would want to follow or or let alone listen to for guidance on how to change the world or base a political philosophy upon.

29 and sublime| 6.6.11 @ 11:21AM

Simon, you need to read Bryan's post.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 12:02PM

J.C.Eaton| 6.6.11 @ 11:56AM

You just described most Liberals. Nice job Big Fella.

Cpm| 6.6.11 @ 1:12PM

It is curious that you bothered to read biographies of someone you clearly despise.

Patrick| 6.6.11 @ 2:20PM

Ed, are you somehow suggesting that Rand was secretly a Kennedy!?

the permanent newbie| 6.6.11 @ 8:32AM

Great comments almost all, especially Stuart and Michael! Those Bible-thumpers-of-convenience only know what reinforces their real religion, doctrinaire Leftism. Reminds me of my college days and an encounter with a loudmouthed agnostic shiksa who'd been dating "exotic" Arab guys. Said moron lectured me on how true Judaism was incompatible with my Zionism, to which the only necessary reply was, "And how the hell would you know what constitutes Judaism?" Happy ending: She actually thought about it, which caused the exotic boyfriend to dump her like last week's pop hit...

tsd| 6.6.11 @ 8:33AM

Give me a break, if this is all they have left to support they're position, they should go home and cry in bed. What happened to a position with intelligent debatable ideas??? Seems they have none, liberal BS thinkers got us into this mess with bad ideas and now they have no way to get us out. Reason shows up with a way out, they don't like it cause it is not warm and fuzzy, so they whine and bicker and use crap like this try and put off the fix. At some point these liberal intellectuals have to begin realize how little they really know! Then again I may be asking for too much.

Gary| 6.6.11 @ 8:56AM

How ‘bout we use Ernest Hemingway’s character flaws to cancel out his life work? Or, since we’re on the subject, how ‘bout we open a discussion of Obama’s character flaws? Any takers from the intellectual giants on the Left?

Larry| 6.6.11 @ 9:00AM

Typical of socialist lib-scum. They allow for no ideologic disagreements. If you're not marching in lock-step then you're a liar, a hypocrite, etc.

I think that Jesus said something about helping the poor, not about being slaves to the government which has such a negative view people that it assumes that IT and only it will be there to help the poor. And of course it's just a way to ensalve even more people.

Jarhead76| 6.6.11 @ 9:03AM

The one thing Ayn Rand and Christianity have in common is the primacy of individualism.
We, Christians, come to the "altar" as individuals responsible for our own sins and behavior.
Liberals cannot think that way; for them it's all about the greater good and the end justifies the means, and the "masses...
They cannot stomach that libertarians can be pro-life (Ron Paul) and pro-prayer in schools.
Though I reject Ayn Rand for her atheism and libertarian social views (pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, etc...), I do not reject her commitment to liberty, something liberals cannot be trusted with.

Emma| 6.6.11 @ 9:56AM

"We, Christians, come to the "altar" as individuals responsible for our own sins and behavior."

Sins and behavior?

According to what I read in the newspapers, your sins are staggering and your behavior, repulsive.

BD57| 6.6.11 @ 10:05AM

And you think yourself morally superior.

Guess what ... you aren't.

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:52PM

C'mon guys . . . what gives? Emma is pathetic at trolling. Stop eating up all the bait.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:22AM

Emma, you have 58 million babies blood on your hands. Do not lecture us about our indescretions.

Larry| 6.6.11 @ 11:10AM

Pathetic Emma. You're beneath contempt.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:44AM

"According to what I read in the newspapers..."

And Islam is the religion of peace, and the government is good albiet too small....

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 2:08PM

All good Christians acknowledge that they have fallen short of the mark. "There is not a man who lives and does not sin, in thought and word and deed", which is why we are constantly in need of redemption, and are constantly redeemed. But our individual shortcomings do not invalidate our faith, and I would rather be someone who holds to the Christian ideal and falls short, than someone who has no ideals, and therefore never falls short.

David T| 6.6.11 @ 10:44AM

Jarhead76--Although I think I understand what you mean, I would hesitate to say that Christianity teaches the "primacy of individualism." The largest collective in the world is the Church. Granted, we are unique members of Christ's body, but we are called to serve others, not ourselves. Rand's individualism is of a completely different order. Because of the constant tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group, societies have always struggled to avoid the extremes of anarchy and tyranny. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that the problem of "the one and the many" is resolved in the Triune God, where the individual and the collective are equally ultimate. Nowhere on earth is this better illustrated than in the Church.

Jarhead76| 6.6.11 @ 1:00PM

David: I agree with you violently.
We come to the altar not a Whites, Blacks, Feminists, etc... we come as individuals as part of the "largest collective in the World" to quote you.
God values EVERYONE of us equally because we are his children.
Thanks for the clarification.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 2:09PM

I do not disagree, and yet, at the end of the day, we will stand before the awesome judgment seat of Christ to make a good defense of our lives. Then we will see ourselves as we really are, without cover or excuse.

An old Christian aphorism holds that each man condemns himself, while no man is saved by himself.

Peppermint Tea| 6.6.11 @ 9:03AM

It's not that we "deluded religionists" like Ayn Rand, it is that we like her ideas of individual responsibility, small government, and freedom including the free market. As we have seen, freedoms allow wealth to grow as well as religions. It is the state subsidized churches in Europe that are decaying. Let us breathe free!

Jarhead76| 6.6.11 @ 9:08AM

Mark Tooley, in an effort to bring the Methodist Church back to the mainstream of American Christian thought, understand really well the efforts of the left to corrupt everything Christian to undermine its (our) foundation and values.
I recall a pastor (RIP) who blurted out that the Virgin Birth was metaphorical... and got away with it...
That's how it starts... before we know it people do not recognize the Bible and prefer golf to church on Sundays because the former has rules...

Uriel| 6.6.11 @ 9:12AM

I hate to admit it, but the kook libs have a point--Ayn Rand and her followers are not friends of the conservative movement. Their motivation for saying so may be wrong, but Rand was a rabid atheist and abortion fanatic. Having read "Atlas Shrugged", I agree whole-heartedly with Chambers assessment of her (I highly recommend reading his NR article). It may be good to know her writing, but conservatives don't need her; Rand really didn't have much to say. The only useful thing she said was that individuals are important, but then she also insisted the unborn are not individuals and had no rights. Further, her "virtue of selfishness" is simply wrong. The Christian faith is inherently altruistic, and thus their can be no compromise with Rand. She takes a basic idea of individual worth and perverts it by taking God out of the picture; our own founding document states we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights"; by removing God, she removes the basis for essential human value. That is why in her world only "producers" have value; she in fact endorses a form of tyranny, an oligarchy of capitalists who are not governed by any form of morality other than their own selfish desires. There is a lot of naivete in the conservative response to Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is just as evil as socialism, but because she talks about the individual so much, people blind themselves to what she is really saying. It isn't difficult to point out the faults of socialism; the hard part is showing what a viable alternative is, and that is the genius of the American form of government. Rand exposed the hypocrisy of socialism, but so have many others. What she failed to do was show a legitimate alternative for socialism--she simply substituted one form of tyranny for another. It is all right there in "Atlas Shrugged".

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 9:52AM

Revolutions take all types. It needs its John Adamses and its Thomas Jeffersons and its George Washingtons. It also needs its Sam Adamses and Thoomas Paines. I find both of the latter to be abhorrent human beings (especially Paine), but there would have been no American Revolution without Sam Adams, and the Revolution might have foundered without Paine's "Common Sense" and "The American Crisis".

The Conservative Revolution needed its Bill Buckleys and its Ronald Reagans, but do not forget that millions upon millions of people growing up in the 1960s and 70s were first exposed to a convincing repudiation of the Welfare State through "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged".

Most of them did not turn into raving Objectivists, but they did become receptive voters who heard the message of Ronald Reagan, and yes, Newt Gingrich, and gave conservatives something they had not had in a long time--a governing majority.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:02AM

Yes, I was just thinking of Thomas Paine. Excellent points!

Uriel| 6.6.11 @ 4:02PM

I disagree that Thomas Paine was needed. I would say the American revolution succeeded in spite of him, and not because of him. He wanted a very different sort of Revolution than we actually had. The Founders weren't too fond of him. John Adams, for example, despised him. Paine was an atheist who ginned up revolution for revolution's sake. After he wore out his welcome in our country, he went to France and started propagandizing for the French Revolution, which was completely different ideologically than America's, based on atheistic principles--hence the bloodbath that was the Reign of Terror. It is easy to see him writing for the Bolsheviks, had he still been around then. As conservatives we don't need mere revolutionaries, but people with the correct principles who are operating from the proper foundation. I keep mentioning atheism because it is a fundamentally different way of thinking. Human life and human rights are gifts of God, and thus sacred. Take away that essential value, and oppression is inevitable. The American Revolution was so phenomenally successful because it was a conservative revolution, basing rights on "endowment from the Creator". Socialists make the government God; Rand made herself God; both errors are equally egregious.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 9:19PM

"I disagree that Thomas Paine was needed. I would say the American revolution succeeded in spite of him, and not because of him. "

I guess, then, that you and George Washington will have to agree to disagree.

MOS was 71331| 6.6.11 @ 12:42PM

What tyranny did Ayn Rand supposedly support in "Atlas Shrugged"? I've read AS three or four times (over the nearly fifty years since I first read it in 1963), and I can't recall any preference she expressed for some form of tyranny.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 2:11PM

From the liberal perspective, I imagine it's the tyranny of the skilled, talented and capable to hand over the fruits of their labor to those who have no claim upon them. The nerve of those people!

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 2:15PM

For a complementary vision of the Randian universe, see C.M. Kornbluth's brilliant novella, "The Marching Morons", in which the intelligent ten percent are held in thrall by the lazy and incompetent ninety percent.

Also very good are several of Jerry Pournelle's future history stories, in which the United States is divided into "citizens" who are wards of the welfare state that provides for their every need (basically, food, sex and drugs); and "taxpayers" (a small percentage of the population) who work hard to pay for the benefits bestowed upon the citizens.

Given that the top twenty-five percent of wage earners now pay 95% of all Federal income tax, while the bottom 50% pay nothing at all, he might have been on to something.

Uriel| 6.6.11 @ 4:09PM

She doesn't say "I support tyranny"--she simply lays out a philosophic foundation that does not make all individuals equal, and ends with an oligarchic minority ("technocrats" I believe Chmabers called them) large and in charge. In "Atlas Shrugged" there are two types of people: producers and looters. John Galt, Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, Francisco D'Anconia and their friends are the producers and the people who deserve to rule the world. If you get in their way, they will destroy you. Thus, tyranny.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 8:16PM

All individuals are not equal, except in the ontological sense of sharing the same human nature. Gifts are bestowed quite unequally by God, and it is the responsibility of each person to develop those gifts to their fullest potential and to use them in the service of God.

Because of the unequal distribution of gifts, there will always be distinctions of class and wealth. Jesus Himself said that "The poor you will always have with you". He also said that "When you do such to the least among you, you do so to Me".

Charity is, therefore, an individual mandate that cannot be compelled, as Marx would have it, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Such an approach does not respect human dignity or human free will. Charity compelled is no charity at all.

Rand had a contradiction in her formal philosophy, which on the one hand endorsed total human freedom, yet on the other hand, denied the right of the individual person to use his freedom on behalf of others. Like most philosophies, Objectivism (just like Stoicism, Epicureanism, Existentialism, Marxism, etc.) tends to be reductionist and abstract, hence unworkable in pure form in the real world. Rand posited human beings as purely rational, but we are indeed human and not Vulcans, hence--as her own life demonstrated--pure rationality tends to run afoul of emotionalism, and degenerates into rationalization (that which I want is rational because I want it). So sue her. But sue Rousseau, Voltaire, Satre, and ever other philosopher who has ever lived.

There is not much "ruling" in Ayn Rand's world. It's a lot more like the Kingdom of God than most people would realize. The Kingdom is a pure communion, in which all defer to all in Christ, each according to his own gifts and status. In Rand's ideal world, all likewise defer to all in competence, each according to his own gifts and status. Since everybody knows and recognizes where each person has a comparative advantage in skill, intelligence, diligence, etc., nobody "gets in anybody's way". There can be no tyranny where there is no ability to compel. You don't want to use Taggart Transcontinental, nobody says you must. By the same token, nobody says you can't. Nobody tells anybody to build with Reardon Metal, but nobody tries to keep people from building with it in order to protect the vested interests of others. Nobody tells anybody to work in D'Anconia Copper's mines, nor to buy their copper from D'Anconio, but nobody says you can't work for D'Anconia if that's what you want, and nobody tries to keep you from buying copper from him.

It's a weird sort of tyranny you posit, where every transaction is done by mutual agreement, were nobody has the ability to coerce anyone to do anything, and in which everyone is free to accept or reject what is offered.

Nick| 6.6.11 @ 11:37PM

Mr. Koehl,

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. (I tried when I was 13 or 14, I don't think I got through 20 pages. I've started The Fountainhead 4 or 5 times, stopped reading by chapter 3.)

What recourse does one have if D'Anconia Copper delivers 99 tons of copper, mixed with one ton of scrap metal, when I paid for 100 tons?

In the Objectivist world, is it not my fault for not verifying the purity of the copper? Don't the laws of caveat emptor and survival of the fittest rule in the libertarian world view?

Where do you go when contract disputes arise in Rand's world? Are not fraud and theft, a result of man's fallen nature, a form of tyranny? If I cannot coerce D'Anconia to live up to their end of the agreement, or get my money back, that is?

Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 6:24AM

"What recourse does one have if D'Anconia Copper delivers 99 tons of copper, mixed with one ton of scrap metal, when I paid for 100 tons?"

Two recourses: the first is not to do business with D'Anconia Copper, and to let the world know D'Anconia is a cheat and a fraud (which will put a dent in D'Anconia's business, for certain). In the New York diamond business, run almost exclusively by Orthodox Jews, transactions worth millions of dollars are done on the basis of one's word and a handshake. A diamond merchant who attempts to cheat one of his peers would be ostracized and out of business very quickly indeed.

The second is to sue for compensatory damages in a court of law. Contrary to what most people think, Rand was not opposed to government per se, and did believe that it was necessary to have an independent arbiter of contractual disputes.

In the Objectivist world, by the way, one would not deliberately short a customer with whom one made a binding agreement, for that would be contrary to Rand's conception of what self-interest means. Rand views the individual's purpose in life as the pursuit of what the Greeks called "arete", or excellence. Deliberately cheating would be a gross violation of the ethos.

An Orthodox scholar of my acquaintance once caused a stir in a lecture by suggesting that if one wants to know what St. Augustine said, one should read Augustine, and not rely on the commentary of "some dyspeptic Greek". I suggest that if one wishes to know what Rand said, one should read Rand, and not commentary by some dyspeptic collectivist.

Nick| 6.7.11 @ 11:41PM

Thank you for your response, Mr. Koehl.

Your first remedy means that I have to waste huge amounts of my time, without compensation, to inform the world that D'Anconia Copper cheats its customers. I would probably decide that it wasn't worth my time. Also, don't Orthodox Jewish diamond merchants do this because they live by the Torah?

I was unaware that Rand believed in independent arbitration to settle disputes. I thought she had a Darwinian view of economics.

Still, without a belief in God and the fallen nature of man, I think Rand's philosophy is just another in a long line of Utopian pipe dreams conceived by "enlightened" souls since the Terror.

I agree with your Orthodox acquaintance, and, I will stick with St. Augustine. Based on what little I know about Rand, I just don't have the time to waste on what I'm sure is a fruitless philosophy. I have the rest of my life to learn the history and faith of the Catholic Church. And, I know I won't get to everything.

Again, thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Stan Redmond| 6.6.11 @ 9:46AM

There is NOTHING liberals will not whore out and distort to advance their cause.

USSAlabama| 6.6.11 @ 2:47PM

Because they all repeat each other and it all goes back to Alinsky. One of his tactics.

JimH| 6.6.11 @ 9:51AM

I recently reread Atlas Shrugged after many years and I can say my response to it this time was a different than the first time around. I still enjoyed it, but I could better see the flaws in both the story and her philosophy. As a work of science fiction I’ve read much better. As a platform to expound her ideas it works rather well. It does explicitly reject any faith or philosophy which subordinates the individual to any other purpose not of their choosing. Rand may have been an Atheist, but Objectivism says nothing that I recall of a Creator. It does reject much of what organized religion claims God wants of us though. But for her, that said more about religion than God. When the book came out there was nothing like it. It began for me to provide the ethical foundation of the notion that the individual is responsible for himself and is the rightful owner of his life and what he produces. After I first read it I read her other writing on Objectivism. I found it interesting but not entirely convincing. It did lead me to explore its roots in Aristotle. I then read other works on Liberty from the enlightenment to modern times. So while I cannot accept all of what she professed I am grateful for the direction it led me in. On another note, if one is an Objectivist one is a small l libertarian, though some might claim otherwise, however most libertarians are not Objectivists.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 10:00AM

JimH, great post. You are a thinker and you take the time to evaluate, weigh, and search out the truth.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 9:54AM

"As a work of science fiction I’ve read much better."

I think Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle do quite as good a job at harpooning liberal pretensions, while drawing a more realistic view of an alternative future, one populated with more believable characters.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:49AM

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" changed my political thinkng far more than anything Rand wrote.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 2:16PM

It gave us TANSTAAFL, which is a good a battle cry as one could desire.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 9:55AM

These progressive groups are not taking issue with any of her non-conservative points of view but rather her conservative views particularly her objection to central command economies, big government control of all the private sector, and the discouragement of innovation, incentive, and private ownership. This is what they do not want anyone to promote nor would they want anyone being influenced by or hear her message about these critical points. So, they hypocritically and manipulatively use christianity and impressionable christians to suppress this message. This is what this whole thing is about. Furthermore, I do not give a rats ass what some socialistic totalitarian progressive group thinks about Ayn Rand, Palin, or anyone else associated with Conservativism or anything else for that matter. Conservatives need to stop listening and reacting to what Liberals have to say about anything regarding our candidates, our platform, our ideas, our values, our potential, our constituencies, etc. We will evaluate the merits of our own and make our own minds up about whatever the subject is and if we find some value in someones message or books then that is for us to decide. I am certainly not going to be played by the Left and their propaganda, phony arguments, and their hypocritical misleading use of our own values against ourselves ( which is a classic Alinsky technique). Some of the critical observations of Ayn Rand given in this thread do have some merit and have been pointed out before. That is just fine. No one is expecting you to worship her or follow anyone blindly. In fact, following someone blindly is anathema to conservative thought. But bear in mind, Stan Redmond's warning, There is NOTHING liberals will not whore out and distort to advance their cause.

BD57| 6.6.11 @ 10:22AM

simon:

Bingo!

The left wants to delegitimize any response or approach to social issues but their own - if every policy, program, belief, etc. but theirs is "evil" and illegitimate, they never have to defend their program.

Thing is, it's hard to completely trash Rand when we see so many who have political power acting as if all of us work for them, as if it is their money and we should be damn glad they let us keep what we get, etc. Those attitudes are inevitable - the 'minders' believe they're better people than the 'minded.' In real life, I call it "Everything would be so much better if the rest of you got with the program!!!" thinking.

The main message I got from Rand was giving any group the power to take from some to give to others ultimately leads to corruption. The powerful will never "finish the job" and disband; they'll fight to the death to keep the power they have; they'll fight to the death to expand their power by defining ever larger groups as needing their protection.

Meanwhile, the "producers" - the people the powerful target - will, over time, lose any sense of altruism they have. It'll start with "let them (the powerful) do it - that's what they're taxing me for." Then it moves on to resentment of the very people who need their compassion.

And on the other end, the people who receive what's been taken from the producers (after a cut for the powerful middleman, of course) at taught to hate and resent the producers .... "All would be well," they're told, "if those people just paid their 'fair share.' "

These lefties aren't defending Christ. They're defending & trying to expand their own power.

Petronius| 6.6.11 @ 11:49AM

Some good stuff here. The anti Rand assaults get followed by the usual scolds at Conservatives to just shut up and pay up. Casting the aspersion that anyone who gives credence to Ayn Rand, an supposedly heartless creature without a soul, also makes him or her a vessel of evil is totally specious. She was irreligious. But how did she live her life? Was she a thief thief without portfolio unlike the taxaholics in government? Did she run an infant slaughter house? Or maybe she is reviled because she didn't possess that collectivist snout. Mencken also decried "social uplift" promulgated by all the buttinskis who desire to invade other people's lives, "to perfect humanity". The staff of the St. Louis Post Disgrace printed exactly that sentiment in their centennial edition. Well God gave almost all human beings Free Will and individual talents which Christ affirmed. And the statist liberals want to take that along with my property and portfolio to subsidize their own vices. But Rand and Conservatives are un Christian? It is the State which has no soul. Yet the feckless mob controlling it brought moral and now material ruin to so many people. Not in His name! Ergo, not in hers.

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:52AM

It is there standard operating procedure - attack the messenger. They can't debate their ideas so they just smear.

JimH| 6.6.11 @ 5:02PM

Simon, thanks for the kind words. Old Soldier and Stuart, these are some of my favorite authors as well. In that vein let me give a big recommendation for Poul Anderson. But I'm sure you gentleman are already familiar with his work.

dnha14| 6.6.11 @ 10:08AM

Who in the history of the world has been completely correct about anything? I don't see any problems with accepting parts of the teachings of both Jesus and Rand. They are not completely diametrically opposed to each other. And they are both correct about many things. You take the good for both and use it to make the world a better place.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 2:17PM

What are the bad points in the teaching of Jesus? I just want to know, because, well, he IS God and all. . .

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 11:03AM

Dear White House re-election boiler room trolls,

The Old Testament and Jesus existed long before Ayn Rand came along ("You can look it up."), and it is from them that we conservatives draw our “libertarian” inclinations which are backed up by scripture (See the citations to scripture noted in other comments for reference). Hence we are not blaspheming or acting heretically; nor are we apostates. To the extent that there are Rand fans within the GOP, it is only with regard to her oh so accurate predictions of the future and how detailed and uncannily accurate she was in predicting exactly how you left wingers would behave and the effects. Her writings serve as object lessons in those regards. That’s all there is to it, and nothing more. Nice try though. Perhaps the uninitiated will be fooled by your blather. Good luck getting their votes in 2012 after ‘Wreckcovery Summer, Part Trois’ this year and another encore performance next summer.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 11:29AM

Very good points, JimP. They are coming out with this manipulative attack because they are threatened by the release of the new movie of Atlas Shrug which seems to be doing well.

Oldefarte| 6.6.11 @ 11:20AM

I will not show my ignorance of Rand's works by debating whether or not same and Christianity are compatible [and will leave it to some of you who obviously are well versed in her writings to do so]. However, as to Mark's overall theme of liberals/progressives' use of religion/Christianity to disparage conservatives/Republicans, I will confirm that fact. Liberals are typically anti-religious, or at best drive-by congregants who attempt to capture/abduct religion for their own partisaned purposes. Whereas Christian churches/religions request/call upon its congregations [and the world at large] to administer/provide to the downtrodden/poor [as Christ would do], they do so with the understanding of the financially ability/capability of their requested givers/congregants' to do so. For instance, if one has substantial/adequate financial assets/bank accounts and encounters a starving/impoverished/homeless person on the street, the Christ-like/charitable thing to do would be to provide available wallet monies [say $5, etc] to said person for their welfare. This is not to say that said financially well-off person HAS TO donate same, only that it would be charitable to do so. If said person chooses not to donate, that is same's HUMAN RIGHT, and the consequences of same will come forth at his/her individual judgement day/death. Liberals however see to establish their liberal/progressive doctrines within their preferred GOVERNMENT RELIGION and use its power of force/coersion/mandates to legally compel that same well-off person to give that $5 to the street beggar. In their mentality, government becomes the RELIGION, and the dictates of same are controlled by them and their partisaned liberal doctrines of wealth re-distribution, as now exemplified and practiced by the current president and his administrative henchmen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cpm| 6.6.11 @ 11:28AM

So this group demands Christians must chose either Ayn Rand or Jesus? These same hypocrites have no problem chosing abortion over Jesus.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 12:06PM

You nailed it in two sentences.

MOS was 71331| 6.6.11 @ 12:51PM

I'd be interested in your thoughts about my 10:40 response to Ed White's post at 8:30. I hope you find it enlightening and interesting.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 3:41PM

MOS, Did you want my opinion or CPM? Well, I will share it with you neverthless. I have often found that bold, different thinking people are often portrayed by their critics and those they threaten with a very broad and suspect brush that sometimes makes it is impossible to get at the truth. The same seems to happen sometimes with the supporters. It is especially difficult today to get an accurate picture of anything due to the post modern relativistic 'write your own narrative' world we now live in. I am glad to see that you are at least out there reading and keeping yourself as informed as you can be. Too many people just rely on what they heard or picked up from someone else who does indeed have an agenda. The truth about the personal lives of many celebrities and famous people probably lies somewhere in the middle and perhaps more in their favor. I really do not know and try not to speculate or judge as I did not know this person personally. What I do know is what they write and say in public and I take their ideas and weigh them out for their value. Yes, compared to great literature, her novels were not masterpieces but they offer some interesting insights and ideas about big government, capitalism, and the freedom of individual initiative. I hear the movie is actually good and a parable of our times.

MOS was 71331| 6.6.11 @ 8:11PM

What is CPM??? I'm unfamiliar with this acronym.

I thought the movie was pretty good, with the best performance given by the actress who plays Lillian Reardon, Hank Reardon's wife. Every time she spoke, my immediate reactions were contempt, hatred, and disgust. Brilliant casting!

As I first read "Atlas Shrugged" not long after first seeing "The Fountainhead" movie, I wanted some of the actors in "The Fountainhead" to play characters in AS. Patricia Neal seemed a natural choice to play Dagny Taggert, and Gary Cooper could have been a reasonable Hank Reardon. Raymond Massey was a great Gail Wynand in "The Fountainhead", but I couldn't match him to any AS character. I also liked Ray Collins and Kent Smith, but I couldn't map them into AS parts.

The character I found most jarring in the AS movie was the Negro actor playing Eddie Willers, Dagny Taggert's assistant. I had always pictured Willers as white, and I was surprised to see a Negro play him in the movie. (I skimmed my copy of AS without finding any physical description of Willers. If my reaction is evidence of racism, it's my racism and not Ayn Rand's.)

Oh, the AS actors playing politicians and union leaders are all loathsome. And many of the proposals they espouse in the movie resemble contemporary liberal legislation in the US congress and in the 0bama administration.

USSAlabama| 6.6.11 @ 2:51PM

CPM - don't fall for the imperative . . . They don't choose Jesus.

Jarhead76| 6.6.11 @ 1:01PM

Amen!

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 2:00PM

Cpm,

On this point, the "liberal" hypocrites are more closely aligned to Rand than "conservative" hypocrites.

Cpm| 6.6.11 @ 2:06PM

Except Rand never cloaked herself in religion like these pious people are attempting to do.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 2:12PM

Which pious people?

USSAlabama| 6.6.11 @ 2:53PM

I don't think they pretend at piety. They are essentially saying that if your Jesus is so important to you, we think you can't hail Rand.

They haven't ever chosen Jesus or piety.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 3:45PM

Board members eclectically include former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Townsend, former Democratic Party National Committee Chair Don Fowler, Huffington Post religion editor and Princeton religion associate dean Paul Raushenbush, and former pastor to the Clintons and United Methodist ethicist Phil Wogaman.

I belive some of them are cloaked in religious piety and some of them think they have chosen Jesus.

USSAlabama| 6.6.11 @ 4:35PM

Barack Obama thinks he is a Christian because he has attended a church.

Not saying you are wrong. Just the sincerity of their 'piety'.

I don't like Ayn Rand's books. They bore me. I get the point way before she ever gets to it. On the other hand, I like Jesus - alot. Enough to want to strive to be as like him as a human could try to be.

Can't say that for Rand.

DaveT| 6.6.11 @ 1:37PM

If K. Kennedy Townsend is the best they can cough up when liberals get scrambling to locate a Designated Religious Democrat, then we can be confident this isn't fooling anyone. Any people unsophisticated enough to be impressed by such a campaign are likely already part of the Democrats' base. Lame "gotcha" tactic that will soon be forgotten.

David T| 6.6.11 @ 1:41PM

Here's my take on Ayn Rand: Her novels were atrocious. Her philosophy was puerile.

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 1:51PM

I recommend that everyone Google Charlie Rose interviewing William F. Buckley concerning Ayn Rand.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 3:46PM

I will check it out, thanks.

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 3:57PM

Here is the link, for those interested..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPLkiqnO8

USSAlabama| 6.6.11 @ 4:36PM

What did you think of it Simon?

simon templar| 6.6.11 @ 6:53PM

Interesting interview..I always like listening to William Buckley...I can see his point of view and I think he was trying to be gracious but honest about his observations and interactions with her without being mean spirited. He admitted that he shared some viewpoints and causes with her but parted company on some others that he strongly disagreed with. The guy had a lot of class, sorely missing today in our world of public discourse.

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 8:22PM

It might be that Buckley was a tory, while Rand was a radical libertarian. The two world views overlap, but also remain antithetical in many areas. That is one of the problems of discussing American "conservatism" in monolithic terms: there is not one conservatism, but many different "conservatisms", and the main thing most of them share is antipathy to the kind of collectivist tyranny represented by the Left.

skip| 6.6.11 @ 1:52PM

Liberty is the freedom to enjoy social, political, and economic rights.

Ayn Rand's perspectives with respect to economic rights are intelligent and honest.

Ayn Rand's perspectives with respect to social rights are not as intelligent and as honest.

Ayn Rand's perspectives with respect to political rights are more intelligent and honest as they relate to economic rights.

Ayn Rand's perspectives with respect to political rights are less intelligent and honest as they relate to social rights.

Intelligent and honest Christians support Ayn Rand's perspectives on economic rights and how they relate to political rights.

Intelligent and honest Christians do not support Ayn Rand's perspectives on social rights and how they relate to political rights.

Steve A| 6.6.11 @ 2:31PM

Hey Skip, Please go ahead & define a "social right" for us.......

skip| 6.6.11 @ 3:38PM

The United States of America was established by the founding fathers, a group of Christians who established the nation consistent with their Christian beliefs, as evidenced by the founding documents (the declaration, constitution, federalist papers, and Washington farewell address), and volumes of writings left for us by them for the purpose of clarifying their reasons.

The founding fathers, in virtual unanimous agreement, stated the nation was established for a moral, religious, Christian people, and would only succeed provided the people were moral, religious, Christian people.

Social rights were established in America to be consistent with the Bible, the Ten Commandments, and Christ's teachings.

If it were otherwise, under the guise of social rights, an adult person could marry a child, or an animal, or a member of the same gender. A person could even forcibly confiscate other people's wealth and live off the fruit of other people's labors, if it were otherwise. Without moral, religious, Christian restrictions a person could even murder an innocent person in the name of social rights, if the the innocent were unborn they would be defenseless and could easily number in the millions killed in a brief period of time. Society could easily deteriorate to a condition where the social rights of all other people are violated at the expense of one solitary person's 'social rights'.

We are fortunate to benefit from the intelligence and honesty of the founding fathers to be able to live in the nation they established through a form of government that has not been improved upon in over two centuries of 'progress'.

It would be a tragedy to destroy it by redefining social rights, as well as political and economic rights, unintelligently and dishonestly.

AgentRose| 6.6.11 @ 2:39PM

LEFT WING HYPOCRISY!! IN SPADES!!!

Since when did the left wing care about the Bible? Since when did the left wing care about Christianity?

No one who reads Ayn Rand believes or subscribes to every single portion! We actually have intelligence. Amazing. We do not follow like sheep.

We look at Atlas Shrugged and see BIG GOVERNMENT. We look at today's economic news from OBAMA and his left wing and see Big Government.

And we note the hypocrisy!!!

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.6.11 @ 3:01PM

I read the Bible all the time and I read Rand all the time. You decide.

AgentRose| 6.6.11 @ 3:06PM

Ah, the social justice crowd! That was the giveaway. Giveaway to the propaganda and giveaway for redistribution.

Where did the social justice crowd come from?

Karl Marx → Franfurt School→ Political Correctness/cultural Marxism→ Social Justice

See and study all the connections. Agenda: Grinding America Down by Black Hat films. Give it to every American you know.

Steve A| 6.6.11 @ 3:13PM

Michael, I tell everyone that the Muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound on Earth. I went to a Christian Church for 20 plus years but never listened to the sermon. I believe in collective salvation & call myself a Christian. I think the vast majority of middle America clings to guns & religion. You decide, who am I??????

skip| 6.6.11 @ 4:45PM

Hey Steve A., Please go ahead and define 'collective salvation' for us...

Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 9:46AM

Ask Obama, I was quoting him. He defines it as his obligation to save everyone, otherwise, his personal salvation is not enabled. It has nothing to do with the blood of Christ. He may as well be a Jim Jones disciple.

PS: You failed to define or give me an example of a social right in your rambling response. I want to know, specifically, what the "social rights" are of all Americans.

skip| 6.7.11 @ 2:33PM

It was completely obvious who you were portraying. Liberalism is unintelligent and dishonest but at least it is possible to understand a basis for the positions taken. Who isn't against war, pollution, or intolerance, in a general sense? But collective salvation is stupid even by liberal standards. No one but the most evil among us want others to suffer in hell forever. But the logic of collective salvation breaks down immediately. I was looking for another viewpoint on it, is all. Your description above highlights just what a dithering idiotic liar the dithering idiot liar in chief really is. I wasn't blowing you any guff.

Social rights relate to the interaction of the individual to the group in human society.

Generally, the individual has a right to be free to do as he pleases provided it does not infringe on the freedom of any other individual to do as they please. Specifically, the exact line balancing the individual's right to do as he pleases against other indivduals' rights to do as they please is extremely difficult to define. The founding fathers were very aware of this and attempted to define this line. The Declaration of Independence establishes the individual's rights. The Constitution establishes the group's rights. The Federalist Papers seek to clarify these individual and group rights. Washington's Farewell Address seeks to provide additional clarification. Virtually every founding father was aware of the historical importance of what they were attempting to achieve and sought to provide clarification of their own individual positions on these matters and left letters for this purpose.

What exactly are the individual's social rights with respect to the group's is the fundamental question throughout the entire history of all human society, and is the basis for our national government, and the primary purpose of each branch of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Yours is the question of all questions. Providing intelligence and honesty to determine the best answer is what the founding documents are all about. And what the The Bible and Christ are all about.

Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 4:53PM

skip, Thanks for the well thought reply. My motive was to get at the root of your criticism or Rand in terms of the "social right." I was not clear on where you think she went off the rails.

I'm admittedly no expert on her but I have read Atlas & know of her background.

The fact that she was an atheist does not mean much to me in the big scheme. She recognized & illustrated the evils of collectivism with a novel that has stood the test of time & is still being debated all these years later.

Regards, Steve

GENE HAUBER| 6.6.11 @ 3:37PM

HE'S MAILING IT TO WISCONSIN CHRISTIANS BECAUSE HE THINKS, IN VIEW OF THE ATACK ON THE GOVERNOR, THAT ALL PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN ARE IDIOTIC MORONS. HOPEFULLY, HE IS WRONG.

Cpm| 6.6.11 @ 4:26PM

I don't know if this applies, but speaking as a Bear's fan, there are an awful lot of Packer fans up dere.

Ryan| 6.7.11 @ 8:46AM

Well, at least he probably takes his capslock off.

I Survived Arlen Specter| 6.6.11 @ 3:50PM

I have never read any of Ayn Rand's books & have no intention of starting. The Bible has everything one needs to know about life & how God intends for us to live. All the answers can be found in The Bible through careful study. I honestly didn't know much about Ayn Rand before reading this column & the comments & quite honestly, I don't have the time to spend reading her books whether I agree with her lifestyle, views, etc. or not. God has all the correct answers to life's questions. Why go to anyone else? Take care all & God bless!

USSAlabama| 6.6.11 @ 4:41PM

That's me too.

I had a boyfriend who wanted me to read AS so badly. It was just too boring after a while to finish. I guess it is the only book I never finished.

I don't know or care much about her lifestyle, or views. If other people like them - Fine! No quibble from me.

It does seem highly unusual to me that anyone, or group would tell people to choose between an author or Jesus.

No contest!

Bill| 6.6.11 @ 4:16PM

I question how many liberals are equipped to compare, contrast, and critique Christ and Christianity with Ayn Rand and objectivism. But no doubt some are.

So now we righties can compare and contrast the work of Satan and critique it against the liberal world view, right?

I mean, if they can do the one, we can to the other. We can start with the claim that eventually we will live through times when good will be called evil and evil will be called good.

Nick| 6.6.11 @ 8:05PM

It should not surprise any of us that lefty liberals will "call good evil, and evil good" (Isaiah 5:20). It is what they always do. So, of course, they will attack the few things Rand got right.

But (monkey!), Rand was correct about some truths in the same way that Islam got some truths right, i.e., because Mohammed stole these truths from Judaism and Christianity.

Rand promoted a philosophy that she claimed was good for mankind and would make people happy. Yet, her life shows that it was a lie. She was a hypocrite. It was okay for her to have an open affair, but, when her husband did the same, she had a big problem with his pursuit of happiness.

Plus, what new wisdom or insights did she bring to the cause of freedom? Her "prophetic" abilities to see the results of socialism were nothing of the kind. All you had to do was look at Europe and the Soviet Union.

She wasn't the only one who saw this threat or warned about it. Orwell did it earlier, in '48, with Nineteen Eighty Four. Conservatives were also warning about the Welfare State at this time.

Rand's personal life is proof that her philosophy was bogus. This, and the fact that she brought nothing new to the table (nothing I can't find by reading Christian writers,) is why she is not essential to the conservative movement. She is, at best, a triviality.

MOS was 71331| 6.6.11 @ 8:26PM

Where do you get this stuff? "When her husband did the same, she had a big problem with his pursuit of happiness." I've read every bio of Ayn Rand that's out there, and this is the first mention of Frank O'Conner having an affair after his marriage to AR.

Could you please cite some source for that tidbit?

As for "Rand's personal life is proof that her philosophy was bogus.", I doubt you know much about her personal life beyond what you've read in other posts to this article. If you read my 10:40 response to Ed White's post at 8:30, you may discover that your opinions are based on misinformation.

Nick| 6.6.11 @ 8:59PM

MOS was 71331,

My apologies. I was going from memory, from a documentary I saw years ago.

It was Nathaniel Branden, the man with whom Rand was having the open affair, who had a secret affair with Patrecia Scott, not Rand's husband.

When Rand finally found out about Branden's secret affair she slapped him and ended her relationship with both Brandens. What was good for the gander was not good for the goose, in this case.

Rand was a first-rate hypocrite. Nobody disputes this. Your disputations with Mr. White on the details of Rand's life don't prove that her pursuit of happiness actually made her, or her husband, happy.

Again, this was from a documentary I saw, which I now refreshed with a quick search of the web. I'm sorry for the mis-statement of facts.

Perhaps you could answer my questions? What new insights did Rand bring to the cause of freedom? Isn't the fact that Rand couldn't follow her own philosophy proof that it doesn't work?

MOS was 71331| 6.7.11 @ 12:48PM

Valliant's book covers what happened in 1965 through the final split with the Brandens in 1968, and a Google search on its title gets over 40K hits. I'll quote an explanation of the book's value and follow with my understanding of what really happened.

"The great value of 'The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics: the Case Against the Brandens' is in the lengthy quotations from Ayn Rand’s private journals of the mid-1960s, never before published, made available to Valliant by the Estate of Ayn Rand only after Valliant proved himself to Rand’s heir as an exceptionally capable and keen appraiser of the emotional turmoil to which Rand was subjected by her ernstwhile friends. The Estate reversed its policy of not allowing disclosure of the contents of these portions of Rand’s private journals, once Valliant proved, by the caliber a draft of an earlier version of the first part of the book, that the completed book would follow his particular approach, which is thoughtful, perceptive, comprehensive, and respectful."

The sexual contact between Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand peaked while she was completing "Atlas Shrugged" and diminished rapidly subsequently, with NB giving AR varied explanations for his decline in enthusiasm. AR suggested that her advancing age (she was then in her early 60s and they had met when she was in her late 40s) was a reasonable justification, and NB denied that that was the case. He then enlisted AR as a virtual psychological therapist to help him understand why his desire had diminished and his life was in emotional turmoil. And he did this while counseling patients of his own, some of them in the circle around AR! For two or three years AR struggled (as documented in her private journals with dated discussion notes) to help NB while NB and BB were deliberately lying to her. Eventually AR reluctantly realized / concluded that NB and BB had been systematically lying to her, and that's why she, AR, became enraged. For someone who admires AR, as I did and still do, much of Valliant's presented material was unpleasant to read.

You wrote: "Rand was a first-rate hypocrite. Nobody disputes this. Your disputations with Mr. White on the details of Rand's life don't prove that her pursuit of happiness actually made her, or her husband, happy." You're asking a lot in those three sentences.

My "disputations" with White on the details of AR's life merely show that White was wrong on those details. I didn't intend to prove that AR and her husband were happy! How could I possibly say AR's and Frank O'Conner's lives were happy? I can't even say my own life is happy. I'm happy some of the time, sad some of the time, and asleep, neither happy nor sad nor feeling any other particular emotion, for part of the time.

As for hypocrisy, as I understand the word, it's not practicing what you preach. I claim it's wrong to lie, and then I say I was delayed by traffic when I actually was late for another reason. Okay, that makes me a hypocrite, but probably only a second-rate hypocrite.

Tell me specifically what AR did in contrast to what she said that you think makes her a first-rate hypocrite, and perhaps I'll agree with you. However, AR was a lot more self-aware and self-consistent than I am, so I doubt you'll find many examples of her hypocrisy.

You also ask, "What new insights did Rand bring to the cause of freedom?" I'm hardly expert in the history of the idea of freedom, so I don't know whether AR was the first, the second, or the millionth person to say "freedom is good." All I know for sure is that millions of readers (including me) of AR's published works cite those works as having greatly influenced their lives.

You also ask, "Isn't the fact that Rand couldn't follow her own philosophy proof that it doesn't work?" I don't know what it means to say "a philosophy doesn't work." If by "work" you mean "solves all possible life problems," then, you're right, "Objectivism doesn't 'work', as it doesn't tell me, for example, who I should first throw out of an overcrowded lifeboat. Frankly, I suspect there's no philosophy that would 'work' in that sense of the word.

As for AR being unable to "follow her own philosophy", give me a specific example and we can discuss it. [I believe most of the examples you'd cite have already been discussed by Valliant and disproved to my satisfaction.]

Nick| 6.8.11 @ 12:22AM

MOS was 71331,

You obviously know much more about Rand than I do. And, yes, my assertions were a little hyperbolic, I will admit. "Nobody disputes this" is not accurate. I apologize, again.

I gather that your point is that Rand was upset because the Brandens lied to her, not because of Nathaniel's affair? I also gather that you believe she was justified in her anger, and, in cutting off contact with the Brandens?

But, if the Brandens thought it was in their personal interest to lie to Rand, how could she justify her anger? Based on the little that I know about Rand, I believe she tried to deny her basic humanity, kind of like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. This was a popular notion in the post-Modern era, but, impossible.

Yes, Rand wasn't the first to say "freedom is good." She wasn't the first to try to separate God from the idea that man should be able to live free by his own reason, either. Although, this notion is as Utopian as Jacobinism, Marxism, or Fascism.

I see that you are an atheist, and I'm sorry for that. As a Catholic, Rand has nothing new to say to me, concerning the liberty of man, that Christian writers haven't said for almost 2,000 years.

There are many political points on which I'm sure we would agree. But, as a Christian, there are things about which you, me, and Rand will never see eye to eye. Let's stick to the conservative views we have in common, and, agree to disagree on the rest, okay?

MOS was 71331| 6.8.11 @ 1:34PM

"I gather that your point is that Rand was upset because the Brandens lied to her, not because of Nathaniel's affair?"

"Upset" is a mild word for describing what Ayn Rand probably felt after deducing / realizing that the Brandens had been continually lying to her for years while she (AR) had been struggling to help Nathaniel Branden overcome the emotional problems he claimed were completely disrupting his life. AR had been deeply involved with the Brandens for over a dozen years, and she trusted both of them completely. Finally becoming convinced that the Brandens had been betraying her FOR YEARS (and possibly for as long as she had known them), makes her resulting rage understandable.

Just google "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" and read a few of the reviews of the book if you're really interested in whether AR's treatment of the Brandens was reasonable. Ten or fifteen minutes of reading should enable you to judge for yourself. [This also spares me hours of additional effort to compose a good response to your posting.]

Nick| 6.8.11 @ 8:37PM

MOS was 71331,

Still, though, didn't Rand violate her own philosophy to remain in control of her thoughts and actions? Didn't she succumb to her passions?

My main point is that by denying man's fallen nature, Rand's Objectivism was doomed to failure. Rand's belief that man can progress through only his reason is as Utopian as Jacobinism, Marxism, or Fascism.

Through these discussions I have also learned that Rand's thinking was extremely flawed, from an early age, thanks to Nietzsche. See my comment on Mr. Colebatch's column from 6.8.11 @ 7:57AM:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_554678

Richard| 6.6.11 @ 8:05PM

I was a college sophomore once, so I tried reading Ayn Rand. I gave up. Among writers of long novels that offer heavy dollops of the author's philosophy, I prefer Dostoevsky.

Look, I get it. The fascination on this blog with Ayn Rand is that her philosophy of objectivism offers a willing audience a rationale of some intellectual rigor in support of brute self-centeredness.

A person can be conservative and objectivist (several have already remarked on the importance of a big tent). A person can be a Christian and have read Ayn Rand. A person can be a Christian, and find value in some of the things Ayn Rand has written. But a person cannot be a Christian and an objectivist. One cannot be a Christian and a Randian. She said so.

If you want her permission to live a life of utter self-centeredness, you have it. If you want my permission, what the hell. You have it. You just don't have Jesus Christ's. It's that simple.

Thom| 6.6.11 @ 10:01PM

Stuart Koehl,

thanks for jumping in to this…..

I can’t wait till the religious Marxists here denounce the writings of Thomas Jefferson….. Given his issues with less than Christ like behavior and beliefs (at one point in his life) toward mixing government and religion.

I guess nothing he spoke to in the Declaration of Independence is consistent with Christianity at all…….

M R| 6.6.11 @ 11:00PM

They are hypocrites and wrong. There are many scriptures supporting prosperity and freedom. Psalm 72:6-8 In his days may the righteous flourish and prosperity abound till the moon is no more.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Galatians 5:1 Help me stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made me free

(And, Rand never had children so she had no idea what self-sacrifice was about.)

Ryan| 6.7.11 @ 8:48AM

Christ's experience, and that of the Apostles, directly contradict any prosperity theology.

Salvation and faithfulness to Christ is no guarantee of prosperity. Too many martyrs are dying in the name of Christ today even so.

David Shoup| 6.7.11 @ 12:53AM

Who the Hell is the American Values Network (AVN) to state the following: "GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values." ? The AVN are left wingers who have approved, sponsored, and supported the deficit spending that has given America $14 TRILLION in debt (and climbing). This is called multi generational theft. It makes no sense to demand that we chose between Ayn Rand or Jesus, when they both agree. If atheist Ayn Rand and Jesus of Nazareth both support limited government and limited government spending (and, yes, this idea is clearly in the Bible in several places, such as when Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's", which implies don't render to him the things that are not his.) Until the AVN gets their fiscal philosophy in order , they can keep their stupid values lectures to themselves. I would probably hear an "Amen!" from Ayn Rand on my point here. :-)

Osamas Pajamas| 6.7.11 @ 3:57PM

The “American Values Network” is a fake organization pretending to protect Christian values from some conservatives and libertarians who like novelist Ayn Rand’s defense of free enterprise and individual liberty.

Ayn Rand was a Russian Jewish émigré and an atheist who despised the communists and socialists of her time because those cheap killers “made a religion out of statism.” Government, she observed, was no replacement or substitute for “god.”

The American conservative and libertarian movements are mostly populated by Christians, followed by Jews, followed by atheists, followed by a handful of other religions, and some intellectually limp-wristed agnostics.

With the publication of Rand’s first novel until the day she died, she attracted a huge following among conservatives and libertarians --- although she was immediately despised by the sort of bloodsxcking, tax-eating, left-wing quacks who appear to run the “American Values Network.”

Over the years, I attended 5 or 6 of Rand’s annual lectures at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston. Often in the audience there would be priests and pastors in their garb, and I always wondered about their presence, given Rand's atheism.

Finally, one year I engaged several of them in discussion after Rand’s speech had been concluded --- and the story was the same from each of them.

They were aghast at Rand’s atheism at the philosophical level--- but to a man they observed that her radical anti-statism promised a future society in which government would never again interfere in the practice of freedom of religion.

I’m an atheist, a fan of Ayn Rand, and far more comfortable among conservatives and libertarians than I have ever been among Democrats and other left-wing critters.

Conservatives and libertarians pass “the fishing test.” I can be out in the middle of the lake in a rowboat fishing with them, no problem.

But stick me out there in a boat with a Democrat and I’ll grab an axe and chop a hole in the bottom of the boat --- JUST TO GET HIM OUT OF IT.

MOS was 71331| 6.7.11 @ 4:37PM

Bravo, OP! I'm also an atheist, a fan of AR, and ... My political self-description is "a strong defense libertarian."

I don't care for fishing, but I agree completely with your last sentence.

On a similar note, in answer to the question of what I'd do if stuck in an elevator with a lion, a tiger, a lawyer, and a revolver with two bullets, I'd shoot the lawyer twice to make sure he was dead. [For lawyer, you can read "Democrat".]

Osamas Pajamas| 6.8.11 @ 1:18AM

Dick Cheney is my all-time favorite VP. I was hunting with him a few years ago, when I cried, "Look, Mr Vice President --- a Democrat!" Darth Vader swung around and fired, and while his heart was in the right place, his shot was not, and he popped an old buddy, instead. Sheesh. He's gettin' old -- but no serious injury to his pal.

Susan R| 7.4.11 @ 1:24PM

Jesus spent his time with "sinners" and the "poor." He knew that sin led to poverty. Poor life choices in the U.S. lead to poverty...out of wedlock births, quitting school, drug use and participation in gangs. Money taken from workers does not change these choices. Money thrown at our poor only gets more of the same. The government has no right taking money from on to give to another.
None. It is modern day slavery. Jesus told people to go and sin no more. That is what the government needs to do ins'tead of financing "sin.

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|59 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|93 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 4:19PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Choosing Ayn Rand or Jesus?

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (238) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 6:36AM

Brian Mc| 6.6.11 @ 7:11AM

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 7:52AM

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 10:16AM

David Shoup| 6.7.11 @ 1:10AM

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 11:29AM

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:35AM

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 12:19PM

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 12:46PM

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 3:05PM

Ryan| 6.7.11 @ 8:36AM

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:28PM

Nick| 6.6.11 @ 7:26PM

David Shoup| 6.7.11 @ 1:13AM

Tyler | 6.7.11 @ 10:43AM

Anna K from Emory U| 6.6.11 @ 9:27AM

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 10:19AM

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:37AM

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 1:34PM

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 1:40PM

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 2:05PM

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 11:43AM

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:54AM

Purpleguy| 6.6.11 @ 5:47PM

C.K. Amos| 6.6.11 @ 7:02PM

Deco| 6.13.11 @ 3:28AM

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 10:40AM

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 11:26AM

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 11:58AM

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 12:42PM

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 1:30PM

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 2:37PM

USSAlabama| 6.6.11 @ 1:33PM

C.K. Amos| 6.6.11 @ 7:05PM

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 11:38AM

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 12:01PM

Old Soldier| 6.6.11 @ 12:48PM

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 2:09PM

Irish22| 6.6.11 @ 8:14PM

John Hastings| 6.7.11 @ 3:16AM

Larry| 6.7.11 @ 11:39AM

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:34PM

Nate W.| 6.6.11 @ 2:51PM

Purpleguy| 6.6.11 @ 5:51PM

Franco| 6.6.11 @ 12:48PM

Walking Horse| 6.6.11 @ 12:27PM

Alan Brooks| 6.6.11 @ 12:39PM

Patrick| 6.6.11 @ 1:58PM

Larry| 6.7.11 @ 11:41AM

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 12:53PM

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:35PM

big bob| 6.6.11 @ 1:12PM

JimP| 6.6.11 @ 1:24PM

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:37PM

John Hastings| 6.7.11 @ 3:34AM

alice moore| 6.6.11 @ 6:39AM

dee see| 6.6.11 @ 6:46AM

SlamDunk| 6.6.11 @ 9:31AM

Mike| 6.6.11 @ 12:04PM

Bill| 6.6.11 @ 4:20PM

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 6:56AM

Ryan| 6.6.11 @ 8:22AM

Stuart Koehl| 6.6.11 @ 9:37AM

Ryan| 6.6.11 @ 10:42AM

Bob Grant| 6.6.11 @ 12:27PM

Patrick| 6.6.11 @ 2:15PM

jolizoom| 6.6.11 @ 8:41PM

mike daniels| 6.6.11 @ 11:06AM

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 11:55AM

MM| 6.6.11 @ 1:40PM

mike daniels| 6.6.11 @ 1:53PM

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 4:13PM

Bob Grant| 6.6.11 @ 8:13PM

Nunya| 6.6.11 @ 6:40PM

DW| 6.6.11 @ 7:03AM

**posttenebraslux**| 6.6.11 @ 7:36AM