It's Official Now - You MUST choose between Ayn Rand abd Jesus!

[Selene]

THANK YOU American Values Network!

New ad being run here

Now we get an even larger audience who will be more than interested in finding out what a morality not based on faith looks like!

Ayn Rand & GOP Budget vs. Judeo-Christian Morality

Their home page - the battle for the soul of America with a picture of Atlas Shrugged [the book] EXCELLENT Advertising!

Adam

Edited June 12, 2011 by Selene

[Greybird]

Well, that's not very difficult.

I'm reasonably sure that Ayn Rand actually existed.

[Greybird]

The second link above is a notable and useful compendium of Rand's comments on matters of religion and faith. A useful reference even for us infidels. Except, of course, for The Hickman Thing, which once again comes back to bite Rand admirers in the arse.

[anthony]

Well, that's not very difficult.

I'm reasonably sure that Ayn Rand actually existed.

Ha, yes.

The question now is, has she been crucified long enough?

Tony

[Selene]

Well, that's not very difficult.

I'm reasonably sure that Ayn Rand actually existed.

Ha, yes.

The question now is, has she been crucified long enough?

Tony

Maybe this is why this is Ayn's favorite painting...

[anthony]

Well, that's not very difficult.

I'm reasonably sure that Ayn Rand actually existed.

Ha, yes.

The question now is, has she been crucified long enough?

Tony

Maybe this is why this is Ayn's favorite painting...

Adam,

Indeed: a very good tie-up you made there. I didn't connect to the painting, but it does all fit with her statement (excised from Galt's speech) about the best minds being martyred - Jesus, Wagner, Galileo, etc (if my memory is right).

If Rand identified with such august company, caused by her bitterness at the criticism and rejection she received, I, for one, certainly won't cast any stones at her.

Tony

[Selene]

Tony:

I know that the opening line to Roark's speech to the jury goes to that concept:

Judge

: The defense may proceed.

Roark

: Your Honor, I shall call no witnesses. This will be my testimony and my summation.

Judge

: Take the oath.

Court Clerk

: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Roark

: I do.

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.

Here is the link to American Rhetoric: Movie Speeches

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

Well, that's not very difficult.

I'm reasonably sure that Ayn Rand actually existed.

Ha, yes.

The question now is, has she been crucified long enough?

Tony

Maybe this is why this is Ayn's favorite painting...

Adam,

Indeed: a very good tie-up you made there. I didn't connect to the painting, but it does all fit with her statement (excised from Galt's speech) about the best minds being martyred - Jesus, Wagner, Galileo, etc (if my memory is right).

If Rand identified with such august company, caused by her bitterness at the criticism and rejection she received, I, for one, certainly won't cast any stones at her.

Tony

ADAM: The "American Values Network" (1!) is about 53 years' late in making that pronouncement. Buckley's rag jumped on her with the hyperbolic attack by Chambers (a style that has been largely adopted by both her early and current critics, which, as I never tired of repeating, ultimately increases her readership among the intellectually curious and simultaneously damages the critics' reputations when their misrepresentations of her views become evident).

In any case, anyone who actually read her written and audio/video interviews (e.g., the Mike Wallace interview, the Playboy interview, her published speeches - in particular, Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World, Conservatism: An Obituary, etc.) Rand made it abundantly clear that she opposed christian theology, its ethics, its institutions, and certainly its effect in almost all cultural manifestations. Some conservatives jumped right on her for this, and some attempted to downplay its significance (e.g., E Merrill Root, in a response to Chambers in National Review; Howard Kershner of the now-defunct Christian Freedom Foundation, John Chamberlain, and currently, Rush Limbaugh, Representative Paul Ryan, and Glenn Beck).

The Left, however,has become increasingly strident in its attacks on Rand, to a large extent due to the notice by the media of the increasing sales of Atlas Shrugged and what they rightly view as the widespread adoption of large parts of her political-economic analyses by the "Tea Party" activists. True to form, however, rather than engaging in a point-by-point refutation of Objectivism (a curious, but revealing, omission, since those on the Left invariably presents themselves as the intellectually superior), they have mostly reeled-off with shotgun blasts of smears, outright misrepresentations, attacks on her sex life, and the embarrassingly bizarre rewriting of economic history (in the current BBC "documentary", All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace) to blame virtually everything (e.g., the current recession/depression; the technological "takeover" of our lives by the internet; and, of course, the ongoing Middle East political chaos and wars - now blamed Rand's "sinister" influence on recent American political and business leaders.)

All of these attacks, and their increasingly hysterical tone, should not be surprising to anyone familiar with Rand's works, at least since the publication of Atlas Shrugged. Considering her own declaration, "I am opposing two thousand years of Western cultural traditions," (a paraphrase, it's in the preface to the Playboy interview),and then following-up with 25 years' of writings, speeches, and interviews demonstrating that statement. What would be surprising, indeed inexplicable, would be if these attacks do not increase in number and stridency from both the left and the traditionalist/evangelical/fundamentalist conservatives on the right.

So, we should be used to it by now. And expecting much, much more.

And TONY: "Has she been crucified long enough?" Nope. They're just getting warmed-up.

As for her selection of that painting of Christ's crucifixion, by Salvador Dali, remember that she has said, on a number of occasions, that one of the things that she found offensive in Christian theology was its glorification of the sacrifice of what is viewed as a representation of the ideal man for the sake (salvation) of the less than ideal (it's in her Playboy interview). In addition, of course, she liked Dali's style of painting (but not necessarily its surrealist aspects).

As for your reference to Rand allegedly including Jesus and Wagner as representatives of the "best minds being martyred," do you have a reference for this quote? Perhaps, in context, it would fit in with her observations mentioned above about what she viewed as the inappropriate glorification of the sacrifice of the ideal to the un-ideal. But, it doesn't sound right, my understanding from the various biographies that have been written, was that she did not admire Wagner's music (nor his "philosophical" writings) , and she definitely did not view Jesus as a moral ideal that she would recommend.

STEVE:

Hmm, "reasonably sure" Ayn Rand existed? That kind of "snide" ;) comment will not endear you to whatever christians are reading this board! However, it reminds me of a somewhat more oblique - but equally irritating (to religionists) book title by the 19th century freethinker, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, by Kersey Graves. But, it does appear that the Left (and some on the right) has a candidate for the "17th."

As for their dredging-up Rand's previously unknown, private, and never-intended-to-be-published notes (and, according to Barbara Branden, were never shown or discussed with them during their close association with Rand in the 1950s-1960s) regarding Hickman (for which posthumous publication, we owe our "thanks" to the self-appointed "defenders" of Ayn Rand's legacy, ARI. Especially, the editor of her unpublished "journals," David Harriman). Despite her reconsiderations, clarifications, and ultimate disavowal of the behavior of this reprehensible murderer (which are conveniently omitted when her critics bring up her earlier entries on Hickman), it now requires explanation to those unfamiliar with her published writings.

When this is brought up to me, (and if it otherwise seems appropriate to discuss, e.g., the person is genuinely interested in understanding Rand's views), I first inquire if they are familiar with Rand's phjilosophy and can they briefly - and accurately - explain its essentials. If they cannot, I end the discussion and suggest that they first read what she has written, not just what her most vocal critics claim that she has said.

If, on the other hand, they do demonstrate a familiarity with Rand's positions, I suggest that they read the whole journal entries on Hickman. My own explanation is that even with her later disavowals of Hickman's behavior, the whole discussion is totally out of character with her later published writings. If the respondent offers the argument that her Hickman comments are the foundation, and are in evidence in her published writings (an unsupported claim made by some critics on the Left), I ask them, "How so? Show me evidence! Demonstrate in Rand's writings a consistent chain of thought between her later fully developed philosophy, and her earlier unpublished Hickman aberration" Usually, this ends the discussion.

[anthony]

And TONY: "Has she been crucified long enough?" Nope. They're just getting warmed-up.

As for your reference to Rand allegedly including Jesus and Wagner as representatives of the "best minds being martyred," do you have a reference for this quote? Perhaps, in context, it would fit in with her observations mentioned above about what she viewed as the inappropriate glorification of the sacrifice of the ideal to the un-ideal. But, it doesn't sound right, my understanding from the various biographies that have been written, was that she did not admire Wagner's music (nor his "philosophical" writings) , and she definitely did not view Jesus as a moral ideal that she would recommend.

Jerry,

One of our "Search" wizards like ND, William, or Adam could and I hope, will, look up the AR excerpt - I'm a bit of a klutz at this.

It provoked a short discussion about one month ago. The Wagner (and I think Beethoven, too) inclusion was a surprise, knowing she didn't appreciate his music.

However, the real eye-opener was the very complimentary things she had to say about Christ, extolling him as an advocate of individualism, albeit misinterpreted by his followers.

I believe the gist of it all, was not their creations or philosophies, but the miserable ends these fine minds all shared in the hands of the masses.

Sorry about that: can someone re-post the quote please?

Tony

Edited June 13, 2011 by whYNOT

[Selene]

This gauntlet thrown down by the left wing of Christianity is an immense blessing!

This is from the 5/16/2011 page here of Politics Plus: Overcoming right wing insanity, one day at a time., the lead to the Rand photo from the Mike Wallace interview is as follows:

The Republican Party has a greed guru. In fact the son of America’s most prominent tinfoil hat addict named his son after her. Her teaching has provided a philosophical rationale that allows Republicans to take from the poor and give to the rich. In a nutshell,

her philosophy is that government exists to serve the rich, because they and they alone are worthy of government support.

Her ideas are not new. If we examine them closely we can see that see that similar thinking is responsible for the some of the greatest atrocities in modern history. Will history repeat itself?

[emphasis mine]

How do you thank someone for getting your name out there and in being so wrong that it allows us to correct the false statement with a smile and a wink. Additionally, we get to undercut the rest of their positions by simply saying to the person who brings these false statements up that they should check Ayn Rand out themselves as Jerry noted.

Additionally, we can say in passing, wow, how much other stuff does that website make up about other issues. What is their position on global warming? What is their position on.....and go right down the list.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

As much as I hate seeing all the misrepresentations of Rand, I'm glad that the left have finally admitted that there IS a difference between conservative Christians and libertarians generally, especially Randian ones.

[BaalChatzaf]

Tony:

I know that the opening line to Roark's speech to the jury goes to that concept:

Judge

: The defense may proceed.

Roark

: Your Honor, I shall call no witnesses. This will be my testimony and my summation.

Judge

: Take the oath.

Court Clerk

: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Roark

: I do.

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.

Here is the link to American Rhetoric: Movie Speeches

Adam

P.A.M. Dirac one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century (indeed in all human history) won the admiration and acclaim of his countrymen and the world. He did not suffer from the disdain and disrespect of anyone. See -The Strangest Man- by Graham Fermelo. This is a thorough biography of P.A.M. Dirac, one of the creators of quantum electrodynamics. Einstein won the love, admiration and acclaim of the free world. Only in fascist Germany was he cursed for being a Jew. I think Rand exaggerated the genius/creator as martyr a bit too much.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

One of our "Search" wizards like ND, William, or Adam could and I hope, will, look up the AR excerpt

I guess I have a reputation to live up to.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10644&view=findpost&p=135501

Socrates, poisoned by order of the democracy of Athens. Jesus Christ against the majority of [indecipherable] crucified. Joan D'Arc, who was burned at the stake. Galileo, made to renounce his soul. Spinoza, excommunicated. Luther, hounded. Victor Hugo, exiled for twenty years. Richard Wagner, writing musical comedies for a living, denounced by the musicians of his time, hissed, opposed, pronounced unmusical. Tchaikovsky, struggling through years of loneliness without recognition. Nietzsche, dying in an insane asylum, friendless and unheard. Ibsen [indecipherable] his own country. Dostoevsky, facing an execution squad and pardoned to a Siberian prison. The list is endless.

First, Wagner didn’t write musical comedies for a living. Second, while some musicians and critics disapproved of him, you should see what he wrote about them! Let’s see, beyond that, “Luther hounded”, I don’t know, if you read his antisemitic stuff you might come away saying he wasn’t hounded enough. Jan Hus had a great influence also, in spite of getting toasted, but wait, she includes Joan of Arc, I guess she didn’t want two burning victims. Tchaikovsky? As composers go he had it pretty easy, with financial security (through a patron) and great fame in his lifetime. I’d swap him out for Schubert here.

[Rich Engle]

Yes, that was all very cute, boys.

Very predictable, though. Oh, run the crucifixion jokes. Jesu Xsti, I thought I had that done a few years ago.

You better be careful, or the next you know, you'll become a narcissist, and, for sure, I for one don't want to see that happening.

I'm not even an Xstian and those riffs you are running are just weak.

If you want to get to work on this thing, you're going to have to bear into it.

Blessings, and let's get this fuckin' party started.

rde

Edited June 16, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Reidy]

The only reliable way to judge authors and their writings is by what's down on the page in the finished work. Drafts and diaries might provide leads, but the final product takes precedence. That said...

In addition to ND's objections in #13, I also wonder if you could call Joan of Arc a "creator." Die Meistersinger might qualify as comedy, even if you aren't the type to find any opera a laff riot.

What happened to Hugo and Dostoyevsky was for their politics, not their creative accomplishments. Probably Socrates, too, and by some accounts Galileo. Tchaikovsky, as mentioned, did pretty well popularly. Most of his troubles came from his being gay in a culture where custom and law made him an outcast.

Every artist, no matter how popular and commercially successful, gets a bad review now and then. If you select them and string them together and ignore the good ones, you can make any big name in any artistic field out to be a persecuted genius.

[Roger Bissell]

We need some spiffy new sayings and "hymns" to promote with Objectivist (and compete with Jesus-ism). Here's one I like:

I don't care if it's rain or sand,

As long as I got my plastic Rand. (Statuette on dashboard)

[BaalChatzaf]

Tony:

I know that the opening line to Roark's speech to the jury goes to that concept:

Judge: The defense may proceed.

Roark: Your Honor, I shall call no witnesses. This will be my testimony and my summation.

Judge: Take the oath.

Court Clerk: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Roark: I do.

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.

Here is the link to American Rhetoric: Movie Speeches

Adam

The work of James Clerk Maxwell was accepted by many physicists right off, as soon as they read it. He did not suffer from rejection at all. Maxwell correctly identified light and his works made electromagnetic transmission of energy and information possible. He figured out what the speed of light really was.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light especially the last equation in that section

One could easily say Maxwell invented the modern world. With some help from Nikola Tesla.

By the way Thomas Edison was never rejected or or persecuted for his discoveries either.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

One of our "Search" wizards like ND, William, or Adam could and I hope, will, look up the AR excerpt

I guess I have a reputation to live up to.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10644&view=findpost&p=135501

Socrates, poisoned by order of the democracy of Athens. Jesus Christ against the majority of [indecipherable] crucified. Joan D'Arc, who was burned at the stake. Galileo, made to renounce his soul. Spinoza, excommunicated. Luther, hounded. Victor Hugo, exiled for twenty years. Richard Wagner, writing musical comedies for a living, denounced by the musicians of his time, hissed, opposed, pronounced unmusical. Tchaikovsky, struggling through years of loneliness without recognition. Nietzsche, dying in an insane asylum, friendless and unheard. Ibsen [indecipherable] his own country. Dostoevsky, facing an execution squad and pardoned to a Siberian prison. The list is endless.

First, Wagner didnt write musical comedies for a living. Second, while some musicians and critics disapproved of him, you should see what he wrote about them! Lets see, beyond that, Luther hounded, I dont know, if you read his antisemitic stuff you might come away saying he wasnt hounded enough. Jan Hus had a great influence also, in spite of getting toasted, but wait, she includes Joan of Arc, I guess she didnt want two burning victims. Tchaikovsky? As composers go he had it pretty easy, with financial security (through a patron) and great fame in his lifetime. Id swap him out for Schubert here.

Joan of freaking Arc??Yeah, at the end of her life she was alone, as those described by Blackadder as the "condemned community" tended to be, but she had lots of company before that in like, leading her army and stuff. And her innovative idea was "get the English out of France", a notion that had been popular in France for quite a while, hence the term "Hundred Years War". She had a lot of popular support for somebody who heard voices in her head.

Did Rand never hear of Giordano Bruno? Maybe she just wanted to put a woman persecuted lone crusader on her "endless list" but could not think of anyone except herself.

[caroljane]

Incidentally, did Rand really perceive bad reviews as the same in kind, only different in degree, as burning at the stake?

Oh, dat wacky artistic-philosophical temperament...