Many of the Libertarian and Tea Party Republicans have built their economic philosophies on the writings of Ayn Rand. While Randy "Rand" Paul was not named after her, he and his father are two examples. Paul Ryan has his staff read her books. What I find to be interesting, though, is that these politicians publicly hold strongly to religious beliefs. Ron Paul mostly holds to his beliefs that the federal government shouldn't be involved in anything not specifically granted by the constitution, so it would not appear that his religious belief affects his votes, most of the time. However, many of these Tea Party types hyping up Rand, such as Paul Ryan, are also strongly opposed to certain issues such as legal gay marriage on religious grounds.
While the Ayn Rand-loving Neo-conservatives love her views on economics, they make no mention of her views on religion. She believed reason should guide us, not faith. I don't know that there is any point I'm trying to make here. I just find it interesting that so many religious conservatives praise a non-believer like Rand.
This is just one more example of people cherry picking the parts of something and disregarding that which they don't like.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on June 09, 2012, 09:45:30 PM
This is just one more example of people cherry picking the parts of something and disregarding that which they don't like.
What's wrong with cherry picking? If I have two independent (but not contradictory) beliefs I wouldn't expect you to object to both just because you disagreed with one.
I am a fan of Rand - not that I know anything of her economics - but her Objectivism resonates with me. And of course her religious assertions make good sense. I don't think we can blame Rand for the politics of those that champion parts of her philosophy.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 10, 2012, 12:19:48 AM
What's wrong with cherry picking? If I have two independent (but not contradictory) beliefs I wouldn't expect you to object to both just because you disagreed with one.
This has always been my question. Personally, I have no use for Ayn Rand at all, but if I came across something she said that I thought made sense I would not reject it just because I reject everything else.
I think refusing to cherry-pick is just an exercise in black and white thinking, which some find intellectually consistent but I find simply lazy.
You don't have to agree with a person's entire philosophy. It is possible to agree with some things and disagree with others... I'm an atheist and agree with a lot of Rand's philosophies but was completely turned off by Objectivism. The idea only atheists are capable of rational thinking is ludicrous. That does not mean it undermines every premise it is based on and every conclusion it comes to. I'm also an anarchist and she hated people like me. That does not mean I should discredit all of her ideas.
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism. Simply because, if you tried to show them that the principles they are espousing are "Satanic" they would be horrified. Or more likely, put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
Quote from: Ali on June 14, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism. Simply because, if you tried to show them that the principles they are espousing are "Satanic" they would be horrified. Or more likely, put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
^ :D
I'm just a bit concerned they're dragging down the profile of LaVeyan Satanists... :D
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 14, 2012, 03:14:33 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 14, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism. Simply because, if you tried to show them that the principles they are espousing are "Satanic" they would be horrified. Or more likely, put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
^ :D
I'm just a bit concerned they're dragging down the profile of LaVeyan Satanists... :D
Haha, Siz, that's a good point.
Quote from: Ali on June 14, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism.
I never knew that one before! I'm totally bringing that up the next time some right-wing nutjob espouses her viewpoints.
Quote from: Ali on June 14, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism. Simply because, if you tried to show them that the principles they are espousing are "Satanic" they would be horrified. Or more likely, put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
Ayn Rand was a Horrible Person, but not as bad as you proclaim. Seriously, when, how or why did Ayn Rand ever condone this type of horrible mysticism?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe5%2FAnton_LaVey_photo.jpg&hash=3015a558bdd874b02ec094b4e82cd33db2c4affe)
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on June 24, 2012, 02:04:32 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 14, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism. Simply because, if you tried to show them that the principles they are espousing are "Satanic" they would be horrified. Or more likely, put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
Ayn Rand was a Horrible Person, but not as bad as you proclaim. Seriously, when, how or why did Ayn Rand ever condone this type of horrible mysticism?
I don't think condoning mysticism is the issue, condoning a self-centered lifestyle is. And frankly, I don't think LaVey was anywhere near as bad as Rand on that score.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 24, 2012, 02:10:13 AM
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on June 24, 2012, 02:04:32 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 14, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism. Simply because, if you tried to show them that the principles they are espousing are "Satanic" they would be horrified. Or more likely, put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
Ayn Rand was a Horrible Person, but not as bad as you proclaim. Seriously, when, how or why did Ayn Rand ever condone this type of horrible mysticism?
I don't think condoning mysticism is the issue, condoning a self-centered lifestyle is. And frankly, I don't think LaVey was anywhere near as bad as Rand on that score.
Non Sequitur.
Please explain.
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on June 24, 2012, 02:04:32 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 14, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism. Simply because, if you tried to show them that the principles they are espousing are "Satanic" they would be horrified. Or more likely, put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
Ayn Rand was a Horrible Person, but not as bad as you proclaim. Seriously, when, how or why did Ayn Rand ever condone this type of horrible mysticism?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe5%2FAnton_LaVey_photo.jpg&hash=3015a558bdd874b02ec094b4e82cd33db2c4affe)
Believe it or not, I don't just make stuff up to be inflammatory (being inflammatory is just a bonus side effect ;))
I'm not sure how Ayn Rand felt about LaVeyan Satanism, but I do know how Anton LaVey had to say about Ayn Rand.
QuoteSome accuse LaVey of paraphrasing the Nine Satanic Statements from Rand's Atlas Shrugged without acknowledgement, though others maintain that LaVey simply was drawing inspiration from the novel.[28][29] LaVey later affirmed the connection with Rand's ideas by stating that LaVeyan Satanism was "just Ayn Rand's philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible#CITEREFEllis2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible#CITEREFEllis2000)
Sorry for the Wiki, but I'm too lazy to find another source. Also, from the Church of Satan website, an analysis of how Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism influenced LaVeyan Satanism.
http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html (ftp://http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html)
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on June 24, 2012, 02:31:02 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 24, 2012, 02:10:13 AM
I don't think condoning mysticism is the issue, condoning a self-centered lifestyle is. And frankly, I don't think LaVey was anywhere near as bad as Rand on that score.
Non Sequitur.
Please explain.
I don't understand how it was a non sequitur.
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on June 24, 2012, 02:04:32 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 14, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I think it's funny that the Tea Partiers tend to be Conservative Christian types. And they just love Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand's philosophies provided a lot of the inspiration for Laveyan Satanism. Simply because, if you tried to show them that the principles they are espousing are "Satanic" they would be horrified. Or more likely, put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
Ayn Rand was a Horrible Person, but not as bad as you proclaim. Seriously, when, how or why did Ayn Rand ever condone this type of horrible mysticism?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe5%2FAnton_LaVey_photo.jpg&hash=3015a558bdd874b02ec094b4e82cd33db2c4affe)
No horrible mysticism here. In fact more in-touch with earthly truths than many airhead notions of noble greatness.
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on June 24, 2012, 02:04:32 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe5%2FAnton_LaVey_photo.jpg&hash=3015a558bdd874b02ec094b4e82cd33db2c4affe)
Its Ming the Merciless
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2minds1brain.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2Fming_the_merciless.jpg&hash=531bfc446d6d420c0cc00d09a069b6711bd53a1c)
I don't believe the similarity is coincidence.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 24, 2012, 05:55:26 AM
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on June 24, 2012, 02:31:02 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 24, 2012, 02:10:13 AM
I don't think condoning mysticism is the issue, condoning a self-centered lifestyle is. And frankly, I don't think LaVey was anywhere near as bad as Rand on that score.
Non Sequitur.
Please explain.
I don't understand how it was a non sequitur.
You are right. Sorry.