Satanic Versus: Ayn Rand as Scarecrow (4)

Here’s Joe Carter writing in the theocon journal, First Things:

Devotees of Rand may object to my outlining the association between [Rand and vintage Satanist Anton La Vey]. They will say I am proposing “guilt by association,” a form of the ad hominem fallacy. But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy. LaVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic.

Oh dear.

This entry was posted in culture, philosophy, politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Satanic Versus: Ayn Rand as Scarecrow (4)

  1. ◄Dave► says:

    Of course Ayn Rand dismissed all forms of altruism, including Christianity. I reject both of Christianity’s deities, Jesus or the Devil; but if I were forced to choose one, I would have to agree with Eve. Given the choice of mindless bliss zoned out in the Garden, if I just agreed not to ask the “jealous” god any questions; or a functioning inquisitive mind and a “devil” god responsive to my inquiries – I gotta go with the Devil. My rational mind is short on “faith”; it desires to know, even if said knowledge is not always blissful. ◄Dave►

  2. Frederick Santal says:

    For Christians the devil is not a deity. He is a fallen angel. He wanted to put himself in the place of Deity. He failed.

  3. Frederick Santal says:

    On Rand, simple. She had some understanding of how free markets work and are vastly superior to command ecomonies. She was also a commonly shallow atheist.

  4. stuhlmann says:

    Oh course Rand was satanic – look she’s smoking a cigarette!!!!!

  5. RandyB says:

    Ever since wealth transfer came to be viewed as a legitimate function of government, conservatism has labored under burden that it can be difficult to distinguish tough love from hate, effort from success, and luck from skill. We want everyone to do what they can for themselves, but making that determination is difficult without the evidence of results.

    Liberalism has been taken over by the view that everyone does make their best effort, and only victims of circumstances beyond their control rely on largesse. This has required them to expand the concept of victimhood to include anyone whose lack of prosperity is in any way correlated with demographics.

  6. Don Kenner says:

    I can remember when First Things was a serious journal. Even if you disagreed with much of what they said (and most of what it was based on)you could still profit from reading it. I stopped looking at it when thoughtful essays began to read more like blog shots across the bow of every ideological enemy. If this piece typical of current offerings, it has gone even further downhill.

    First the author laments that he will be accused of guilt by association, then proceeds to give us a variation on that very theme. Personally, I’d have more respect for the tried-and-true “without God anything (bad) is possible” attack.

    The idea that non-believers like Rand are satanic because they put their own judgment above a deity they don’t believe to exist is pure sophistry.

    Then again, the kind of limited government favored by Rand (and the Tea Party?) would not only keep government out of the boardroom, but also remove it from the bedroom. Perhaps First Things sees a possible future and doesn’t like it.

  7. John says:

    Was Satan for or against the auto bailouts?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  8. Mr. Wonderful says:

    Even conservatives (especially skeptical ones) will find laffs aplenty in the definitive parody of Atlas Shrugged. Find out what John Glatt, Dragnie Tagbord, and the rest of the demi-god gang are up to, ten years later:

  9. Frederick Santal says:

    >Was Satan for or against the auto bailouts?

    To know what Satan is for just watch what leftists do or try to do.

  10. ◄Dave► says:

    @Frederick Santal

    An omnipotent god could, by definition, eradicate a “fallen angel,” whatever that might be. One wonders how many of those there might be flitting about. The notion of an eternal celestial battle between the forces of good (God’s camp) and evil (Devil’s camp) that is supposed to affect our daily lives, necessarily posits at least two powerful gods – neither of which can overcome the other – presumedly using Earth as a game board and humans as cannon fodder for their amusement. However do they keep score? ◄Dave►

  11. Frederick Santal says:

    Why assume equality? Satan is God’s monkey, as Luther said.

    God’s plan of redemption exists for a reason. The mechanics of it. The forces involved. Real understanding, real consciousness, real will has to develop in individuals in God’s plan. To create such beings by fiat obviously would result in a different kind of being.

    To know good and evil is part of God’s people developing in a real way. Jesus himself says that the negative part has to exist, yet woe to those who play that part.

    Satan fell like Adam fell, and in Satan’s case God uses his evil and evil influence for the purposes of His plan.

  12. CJColucci says:

    The relative merits of the teachings of Ayn Rand v. Jesus is not something I care to take sides on here, but I have long been tired of people who pretend there is nothing to take sides about, and sell one product while trading on the good will (whether earned or not is irrelevant for my purposes) of the other. There’s something to be said for laying the conflict on the table and seeing what people will choose once they know they need to choose.

  13. Polichinello says:

    The main question one should ask of those looking to Rand is whether they view as a guide for a positive program, or a negative critic of crony capitalism. If the former, they should be treated with caution, if not derision. If the latter, I don’t see any problem. Her chapters describing the unintended consequences and distortions created by government intervention are rather prophetic. Even a liberal could profit by reading those chapters. I think Ryan and the others view her as a negative critic. They’re certainly not Objectivists.

Comments are closed.