Katie Kiefer #fundie

Katie Kiefer #fundie townhall.com

Rand may have been an atheist, but she embraced reason and natural law. Christians must do likewise. As Aquinas writes, if Christians embrace laws that violate reason and natural law, such as wealth redistribution mandates, they are in fact embracing injustice.

When Rand’s hero, John Galt, explains justice, he does so in a manner that is consistent with Aristotle, Aquinas and the biblical definition justice—in relation to objective truth and goodness: “Justice is the recognition of the fact that— just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero—that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions—”

I think Christians should avoid rushing to judgment on Rand’s philosophy because, at core, she has much to say about living with integrity and pursuing true happiness. No matter what term a pastor uses (think “social justice”), socialism is neither ethical nor Christian. Next week I will delve deeper into explaining how Rand’s beliefs are compatible with Christianity.

54 comments

old comment by Swede

Socialism is much closer to the teachings of Jesus, than the Objectivism of Rand is.

I knew a guy once (about 25 years ago) who revered Rand; he was the boyfriend of my best friend. We three were walking and it started raining. He had an umbrella; none of us other had any. He permitted my friend to be under the umbrella, as HE wanted her close, but he saw no reason, that benefitted HIM, to allow me under the umbrella. If I could squeeze in, he wouldn't push me out, but he would do nothing to assist me not getting wet. He was proud of his egoism and egocentrism. Btw, he's no longer her boyfriend. My boyfriend then (husband now) was best friend with that guy then; he hasn't been in contact with him for a decade or two.

Sorry 'bout the rant, I kinda despise that guy...

Edit. That's strange; my Edit button works, it has just moved to the top of my post.

old comment by Really?

There is absolutely no fundie I love more than the Christian Right fundy who wants to so desperately reconcile his faith with Ayn Rand.

Seriously, one brief read through of "an introduction to objectivist epistemology" or "the virtue of selfishness" should show that Ayn Rand cannot be reconicled against the gospels because, and this is important, she thought that the christian domination of european thought with its focus on gospel teachings like do unto others/meek shall inherit the earth/harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to heaven were holding western society back.

Contrary to the belief of most fundies, there are very few things you can't be and also be a Christian. There are plenty of christian democrats, or people who practice yoga and are christian, but you cannot be christian and be objectist. It just shows you understand Neither philsophy....

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

- Acts 2:44-45 (KJV)

So, according to the bible, the first Christians lived in a genuinely communistic community. Its no wonder Rand hated Christianity so much. Oh, and here's something else from the bible:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

- Matthew 6:24 (KJV)

Ah, but those are the words of Jesus, and no True Christian(c) would ever waste time with anything Jesus had to say.

old comment by Azaqi

Ok, a few points.

First, Christians can only embrace "natural law" by redefining what the term means, as most of Jesus's teachings are contradictory to one's purely personal, Darwinic self interest.

Second, no matter how convoluted your contortions become, Randian Objectivism will NEVER be compatible with the teachings of Jesus. On many, many occasions Jesus specifically and in no uncertain terms said to feed and clothe the poor, share your wealth with others, take care of the less fortunate, and place the needs of others above your own.

Third, Rand was an atheist primarily because her philosophy is utterly incompatible with the existence of any power higher than the self.

Fourth, Objectivism is SO insanely assholish that even though it depends on atheism to justify itself, most atheist reject it.

old comment by dionysus

just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero

Really? Because Jesus hung out with lepers who everyone at the time (and even to this day) thought were literally rotting away. He hung out with the sick, the poor, the lame, the blind, and the sinners. There is no way you could have possibly gotten Jesus' teachings any more wrong because it is physically impossible to be further away than the polar opposite.

Next week I will delve deeper into explaining how Rand’s beliefs are compatible with Christianity.

That should be interesting. I'll be doing a lecture about how molten lava is compatible with ice. And I guarantee I'll make a better case for mine.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

This is what Jesus's mother thought justice was about:

He hath shewed strength with his arm : he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seat : and hath exalted the humble and meek. He hath filled the hungry with good things : and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Aquinas believed that natural law was based on good being done and promoted and evil being avoided, which says nothing whatever about wealth redistribution which can be rational or irrational, work for good or for evil.

Neither has anything to do with man being a heroic being or of egoism as a virtue. Jesus said: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24) On this point, at least, Jesus and Ayn Rand would have agreed. Both in disagreement with Katie Kiefer.

old comment by Skyknight

I have a hunch the idea of Christianity and Objectivism being miscible is connected to the elect/reprobate divide. Not necessarily in the sense of Calvinist predestination, but in the idea that virtue MUST be rewarded, and vice MUST be punished, or at least shunned. At the very least, the idea is that the community of believers comes first, and one ought not succor those outside, unless they wish to be assimilated into the church.

Yes, you read that correctly. There really are claims on the Internet that when the Christ said "whatever you did (not do) for the least of these, you did (not do) to me", "the least" isn't referring to the povertous as a whole, but to the believers and/or the Jews, the "little children" of God. (e.g. Tim LaHaye, as evidenced by the last part of "The Glorious Appearing")

old comment by capello moderno

Yes, Katie also devoted an article to expounding her views on why Jesus would be pro-capitalist (in a either-or, all-or-nothing paradigm of socialism and capitalism waging a titanic struggle).

Her agument was that even though the parable about Jesus paying tenant farmers the same whether or not they worked the whole day or just a few hours was clearly about people being able to go to heaven even if they turned to christ late in life, it also indicated that Jesus was anti-union. And - the miracle occurs - HALLELUJAH! - a goddamn capitalist.

Is that really the best you've got?

@Swede
What a wonderful story. Goes to show what happens when someone turn egotism into his supreme ideal.

old comment by SHODAN

"You do not value a rotter above a hero"

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1 : "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

You see Katie, there's the rub with your dear sociopath's argument. We are not hunks of metal to be bought and sold at the marketplace, judged solely by commercial value. We are life, the most rare and precious thing of all and every one of us, from the noblest to the most vile has intrinsic worth. For each of us represents a unique perspective on the world, one that never has been before and never will be again. We may admire the hero and revile the dictator but it does not take away that intrinsic worth which we all possess.