A Christian endorsement of Ayn Rand?
The author is a lawyer and legal professor who maintains his own blog on legal issues. I find his reasoning to be pretty solid in most cases and was gratified to find that while theologically he didn't see eye to eye with Ayn Rand, he could and did appreciate her economic philosophies and endorsed Rand's books as insights into economic matters.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
please, flag me. sigh. it won't be the first time I've been hauled into the principal's office.
Here's the difference, if you'd calm down. I am speaking about the culture of abuse. You may make the argument about schools and I'll agree. the reason you are hearing about those cases is that they are reported and acted upon. The culture in the Catholic church has been to hide and deflect-to shame those who were abused. Again, I point to control-hence my post on the refugee camps and Muslim abusers of young girls in "grooming." Shame is an important part of this. No shame in Objectivism.
I do think that a mention that Rand was not into religion was valid, but did not need repeated emphasis, which did not further the article.
I found his recommendations of the three novels and their value, despite lack of religious content, to be very valuable. I did find the song reference, although interesting, to be a bit off subject - actually leaving me wondering which was the main topic of the article.
Nonetheless, I found the article interesting and with merit.
As to all the snarkie behavior today, that's freedom, I guess. I grew up in dogmatic Catholic school with a non-Catholic dad who turned the air blue during normal conversation. One of the best, most reasoned men I ever knew. He had about the same reaction as below the first time he heard me use one unladylike expression, which I still seldom do, except during Obama speeches. It shows we are all individuals,that's all.
You are smart enough to know the culture within which you live. Whether you believe or agree or not is not important, you know that others do. Just as when I lived in Mexico I wouldn't intentionally say or do anything that would embarrass or offend the Mexican people, nor should you or any other member on this site INTENTIONALLY seek to offend other members. That has occurred lately - and not merely by the censured member.
Now, to the assertion that somebody rationalized the rape of children - 1) if that is true, it certainly wasn't me, so why the hell are you using it in any argument to me? 2) How the hell does that have any relevance to rudeness in postings? 3) What the hell do you think I have to do with any priest or bishop committing or covering up such activity? Looking to lay that at the feet of me or any other Catholic is a specious argument at best, and highly offensive.
This is the first posting of yours that has riled me to a point that I would use the now available "Flag" capability. How dare you? You want to say that you use reason and act rationally, but then try to lay that kind of bullshit on me? I'm just as infuriated as anyone about what occurred. The Catholic church has no more a problem in that regard than society as a whole. Go look at the perverts in your school systems. Hell, it seems that there's a new teacher being convicted every week for molesting a child. And how many step-parents have been accused/convicted of molesting children? I still don't condemn all of those people because of some subset that have committed evil.
I apologize, I can't go any farther on this discussion, I do not think we are communicating well with one another. See you on another post.
The example of an Objectivist rationalizing rape of children is completely specious and unfounded. The "colorful" language was meant to chill an manipulate those contributing to the discussion into silence.
Note-this is different than posting about a pervasive, factual situation of child rape, for example, pervasive in the Catholic Church. The culture of priest/child relationship, the covering up by those in authority, is a pervasive problem the church has to deal with. Note that I am not comparing that real and testable problem with Christianity as a whole, but you cannot deny the Catholic Church has a real and unique and evil problem on their hands which is widespread.
What are the most effective systems to pull people into prosperity and pursue virtuous endeavors?
The creeping tyranny of government, in support of "the people," ultimately leads to the people becoming the serfs of the political elite.
One could look at the matter from an Objectivist standpoint, however, as an opportunity for the Market of Ideas to do its work. Those dogmas which espouse unreasonable or paradoxical tenets can be discarded leaving only those with clear and precise tenets standing. I fully support the search for a single life philosophy and believe that the quintessential philosophy should be all-encompassing, logical, and present no inherent contradictions.
I don't endorse that manner, but that in and of itself doesn't make them moochers. Now, if they went and pleaded for tax dollars, that would be different (most of them, at least in our area, do not receive tax funds, they are privately funded).
Kind of makes one wonder why, though, if a dogma is supposed to be clear and precise how it could devolve into the hundreds of individual denominations now in existence...
Now let's move to the New Testament. Peter, one of Christ's Apostles had been approached by a tax collector. The Romans ruled far and wide and the Roman Emperor had called for a tax - usually a coin from each male. Those who couldn't pay the tax were usually flogged or pressed into service on Roman slave galleys. Christ asks Peter if doing so divides their allegiance. He reasons with Peter that paying one's respects for the laws of the land by paying taxes does not interfere with the worship of God. As such, it would be prudent to pay the tax and then instructs Peter how to miraculously obtain the tax money. The exact quote is "Render unto Caesar the things of Caesar and unto God the things of God."
I'm not familiar with either Hayek or Von Mises' statements in detail, so I'll defer to a more studied commentator.
Load more comments...