blarman,
Make a logical argument for your point of view on "taking the Lord's name in vain"? This is a site based on logic and reason, not rules that Christians hold important.
Many on this site are offended by Christian moral arguments against Objectivism-however, the discussion is free to be made here-as long as things stay in some rational bounds.
I am otherwise enjoying the discussion. It's an excellent post.

the audacity of this man to state that Ayn Rand did not know the reasons for what she said is ludicrous

The author, and everyone in here, should read David Kelley's excellent paper on Rand vs Hayek

sorry for the long response, blarman, but I thought now was a good time to bring in Rand on the author above's claims:


"This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.
Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists."-Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Rand

Well Christ worked as a carpenter all during His formative thirty or so years before beginning His mission on earth after which He and the apostles relied on the generosity of others to support themselves. Rand and religion are not mutually exclusive but actually morally supportive. Not a shekel was ever taken or requested from the state or the government.

"He is right in his implied assertion that Objectivism supports the interpretation he gives, but the overtone is that unless there is a direct connection to the Judeo-Christian teachings there is something lacking."

Being somewhat familiar with this author's writing style and arguments, I'll explain a little bit on his mindset: his starting point is that Christianity was and remains the fundamental belief society started with at Adam and Eve and that all other philosophies are creations of men. You don't have to believe this interpretation, but I say this to point out that you correctly identify an implied assumption of the author. You are obviously free to challenge this assumption.

"To me it was almost damning with faint praise."

Having read many of the author's articles, I will tell you that when he gives praise, it is not mocking or damning. He saves his harsh criticism for liberals/progressives. Is he going to give the ringing, 100% praise Objectivists clamor for? He can not because finds Ayn Rand's atheism at direct odds with his deism. What he says is that one should read to find the parts one can agree with in order to broaden one's horizons. He is focusing on the evil of marxism/communism and points out that even Objectivists agree as to the repressive nature of
these types of societies.

I would take the praise for what it is: a partial endorsement that points out areas where his Christian ideals mesh with those of Objectivism. You aren't going to get 100% endorsement of Objectivism by those who call themselves Christian. But at least the partial endorsement is something politically you can share in common. It's a lot more than you are going to get from the communists or progressives.

I find it interesting that Ayn Rand rejected the Soviet teachings on everything, yet wholeheartedly accepted their teachings on religion.

This should surprise no one.

I am a Christian myself. And I *also* endorse the economic and political philosophies of Ayn Rand.

The "Christianity" that Ayn Rand condemned was inauthentic. She accepted uncritically the distortion of Christianity, on the part of socialists, as the real thing. Even the explicit rejection of all things religious by Lenin and especially Stalin and Mao did not alert her to that mistake. What she took for Christianity was and is actually Marxism in religious dress.

And she was right to reject the papal encyclical "Populorum Progressio" by Paul VI. She would have done better not to recognize Paul VI as an accredited spokesman for Christ.

I suspect also that her rejection of all things religious was a rejection of what her native Russia had made of Christianity. If she knew anything in her early life about Grigoriy Rasputin, let's just say his mad-monk act didn't help.

But: if anyone here wants to discuss evidence that this earth is not as old as conventional nuclear physics tries to establish, and that an ultra-violent event having only eight human survivors *did* take place, and that about 5300 years ago, I would be glad to share that.

I agree that he is trying to stretch Christian dogma too far. I would actually take the opposite stand - that economics come because of people's desire for society - not because of man's fallen nature. Society recognizes the differing talents and strengths of the individual and the market grows out of the individual's being able to provide something of value that person excels in which he/she can then barter to offset areas in which they are not specialized. Though man may come from a fallen state, he seeks to better himself and his family.

As to communism, it isn't the masses who clamor for it. The USSR was evidence of that. Communism, fascism, marxism and their ilk are brought about by the powermongers who deceive the people into enslaving themselves. You will note that in all of the nations that practice this social structure, there is strenuous and overbearing enforcement of the social hierarchy - those in power and those ruled. In terms of lifestyle, there is little real difference in outcome between socialism and feudalism.

There are plenty of Christians who love and admire Ayn Rands works. Glenn Beck is devoutly Christian and a huge fan. I myself consider myself a Christian and believe Rand to be remarkable. I'm not sure I agree with the authors reasoning about religion and capitalism, but plenty of people believe in God and see the genius in Ayn Rand.

For one, I would ask that in deference to the author and other Christians you refrain from taking the name of the Lord in vain - especially in this context. You are welcome to disagree with the author (I don't agree with 100% of the article), but please don't mock what you don't believe in.

The author made no pretense to hide his feelings about Rand's philosophy. He disagrees with atheism. Whether or not he identified the correct reason for man's struggle is a philosophical question which I would submit is completely open for debate. I don't agree with him on it either as a basis for economics, but I think it would be a topic worthy of exploration through reasoned thought.

His analysis doesn't hold up with me. He's basically saying Capitalism works better because man is sinful and sinful man wants to compete and Capitalism therefore succeeds because it accounts for sinful competition desires where other economic system's don't. I would make two points about this:
a) Socialism / Communism appeals to so many people precisely because they don't want to compete and be perceived as doing "better" work than others. Quite often this is because when the comparison is made, their work is not recognized as superior, and that grates on them. It's not fair that others get more because they're better. They don't want the competition element to exist. Its exactly the Maple attitude described in The Trees. Mr Adams well understands the song, but I don't think he perceives it kind of undoes his point about sinful man. If men are all sinful as evidenced by this desire for competition, we wouldn't have so many people loving what communism/socialism promise: reward without consideration of effort, talent, or skill. They'd reject such a system because it wasn't providing the competition they wanted. What do we see today but a clamoring for more socialism?
b) The desire to be good at something is not evil. The desire to do better than what has been done to date is not evil, either. If one seeks ultimate fulfillment in this, it's a rather empty thing. But it is not an evil - I don't think he's got that right at all. Two thoughts from the Bible on this topic:
Eccl 4:4 - I have seen that every labor and every skill which is done is the result of rivalry between a man and his neighbor. This too is vanity and striving after wind.
Prov 22:29 - Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men.

The autor of the article endorses three bookd - Anthem, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. He does this by quoting the lyrics from "The Trees" and then comparing them to Marxism. Then he comes around to Objectivism as semi-justification of his interpretation of the lyrics.
He is right in his implied assertion that Objectivism supports the interpretation he gives, but the overtone is that unless there is a direct connection to the Judeo-Christian teachings there is something lacking. [If I'm wrong here, someone please correct me]
There is nothing lacking in Objectivism. True as with any philosophical system there are areas that need exploration and elucidation but the frame is there. a very sturdy frame. The frame is capable of holding many ideas and thoughts. It is a system whereby individuals, groups and cultures my live, work enjoy life and provide for the needs of the culture without demanding that the individual Creator (e.g. Howard Roark, John Galt etc.) give up his integrity, self-worth, even his humanity I order for the society as a whole prosper.
If you want something, pay for it. Your need does not entitle you to a single thing from anyone. The collective does not override the individual. Perhaps I’m wrong in my read of the article but I did not take it as a ringing endorsement of Ayn Rand or of Objectivism. To me it was almost damning with faint praise. It was as if he were saying “These three are good, but be careful, there are many half-truths and falsehood therein so be very careful when you read and apply what you read.”

Bla... she did too understand capitalism...he's trying to make economics a religious experience. Christ Almighty!