Here are some thoughts and observations I have had of late. They deal with the struggle between self-centeredness and self-sacrifice, a movie, some books, and a budget proposal.
Representative Paul Ryan, who is promoting the new budget that would privatize Medicare and cut many programs you and your family likely depend upon, is a devoted follower of the teachings of Ayn Rand. He says it is because of her teachings that he is in politics; her books are required reading for all his staff. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80552/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand
If you have not yet heard of Paul Ryan and his budget proposal, here is some info -- http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
Ayn Rand was an atheist whose books preached the value of self-centeredness, get all you can for yourself, the rich deserve to be rich and don't owe anything to anyone else, and the poor and middle class are worthless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
(This is not to say that I think atheists are all self-centered, but it is what Rand taught. And isn't it odd that the Party that wants to claim we are a "Christian Nation" and talks about "Christian values" when running for election, once in office, promotes the ideals of an atheist instead, ideals that are patently counter-Christian? Do you not find that deceptive and offensive?)
I think if you were to read Rand's novel The Fountainhead, you would be scandalized. In this book, the “hero” is praised because he raped a woman, and after she thought about it for a while, she was glad he did. Then, he goes on to blow up a housing complex because it does not meet his artistic standards. The final 40 pages of the book are his testimony on the witness stand, defending what he did as his right to self-expression. Here is my more detailed discussion of this novel -- http://dnspeak.blogspot.com/2011/04/book-review-fountainhead-by-ayn-rand.html
Another of Rand’s books is called Atlas Shrugged. The movie based upon this book will be released April 15. (http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-trailer) This is no mere coincidence; April 15 was chosen because it is tax day, and Ayn Rand is popular among the leaders of the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party. I expect that in coming months we will be liberally drenched in Ayn Rand-ism in the hope of making more palatable more harsh cuts in spending for the middle class, the disabled, the poor, and children, and even more tax cuts for the rich.
I can’t say the movie will be worth seeing for its entertainment value; I don’t know. But I do think it is worth all of us knowing who Ayn Rand was and what she taught, so we recognize Rand’s teachings when we hear them uttered by certain leaders. It comes down to deciding for ourselves whether we want to accept the politics of Ayn Rand devotees like Paul Ryan and leaders of the TEA Party. Whether you see the movie or not, I urge you to research Ayn Rand and the politicians who follow her.
Meanwhile, here is what Evangelical minister Jim Wallis has to say: The budget is a moral document that reflects our values. He is currently leading dozens of religious people and politicians in a hunger fast to call attention to the needs of the poor. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKnt9gLN-io) More from Jim Wallis: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/this-is-not-fiscal-conser_b_827885.html.
Whose side are you on -- Paul Ryan's or Jim Wallis'?
And for those of us who call ourselves followers of Christ, I think the question we have to ask ourselves today and in coming weeks is whether we are in favor of a budget that reflects the values of Ayn Rand or one that reflects the values of Jesus Christ.
I welcome your reflections and comments.
What neither side talks about is that to be fair, everyone should pay a set percentage of their income to taxes - no loopholes. This is an idea that neither side has the courage to speak. - from Bob
ReplyDeleteShould Christians, or anyone, rely on the government for charitable and humanitarian efforts?
ReplyDeleteIf certain government programs to help the poor were cut, would anyone step up to the plate? Perhaps even do a better job of it than a bloated beauracracy that's tied down by the necessities of politics? That, to me, would be one true test of whether the religous mean what they preach. After all, why do religions rely on secular governments to do the work for them?
Perhaps if religion were truly taken out of government, it would force the self-proclaimed religious to take a closer look at what they do themselves.
This isn't to say that all who claim righteousness through faith simply rely on paying taxes to take care of their commitments to the less fortunate. There are plenty of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and yes, even Wiccans, Druids and aethists that do good deeds through their communities or on their own. But there are seemingly a great number who are lazy, and in my opinion, pushing the responsibility on those who profess to care.
On another note, I'm not so sure this would be fair. After all, religions, including nearly all Christian denominations, are notoriously fickle in who they help. I have a feeling well-meaning, unemployed homosexuals would be left to rot in the streets, while child molestors and drug addicts who simply showed up to church once in a while would be given handouts and pats on the back.
"Should Christians, or anyone, rely on the government for charitable and humanitarian efforts?"
ReplyDeleteIsn't this a function of government in a civilized society -- *ensuring* the welfare of those too weak to fend for themselves -- the disabled, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, children in poverty in need of medical care, etc.? Is this not the meaning of the prophets who urge us to care for widows and orphans if we want a just and strong nation?
Yes David, it is. That was kind of the point I was trying to make. The disadvantaged won't ever be taken care of unless the majority of people are forced to pay taxes in order to do so.
ReplyDeleteI have read Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. As with every other philosopher, Ayn Rand can and is being partially taken out of context by people, currently by the TEA party. Please remember that most of her philosophies were germinated in Russia just after the Bolshevic revolution of 1917. Hers was a response against Communism, and many of her ideas, including open mindedness of all politicians, is welcome and needed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, hers is also a philosophy based on self reliance to the point of being totally unable to accept a higher power. This is her main and critical weakness, and anything that is said by her without taking into account Social Justice cannot be used in a modern, caring society.
Most of the ongoing economic problems we are currently facing is really not an issue of past failure, but rather a failure to ensure that the distribution of wealth is such that all members of the economy can participate. An economy is healthy when all members are able to spend on goods and services. It is unhealthy and will remain unhealthy when too much money is held by a minority of the people and not spent to foster more opportunites.
TCS.