Just cuckoo.
Posted on 09/10/2012 3:32:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
Increasingly, priests and pastors are preaching that socialism (in the name of “social justice”) is Christ-like. In truth, capitalism, not socialism, reflects Christian values. I think Christians would be less likely to embrace socialism if they understood that the economic philosophy of Ayn Rand is compatible with Christianity.
‘Social Justice’ Evolves
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle speaks of a general form of justice that encompasses all virtue. Describing general justice, Aristotle writes: “It is complete virtue and excellence in the fullest sense… It is complete because he who possesses it can make use of his virtue not only by himself but also in his relations with his fellow men; for there are many people who can make use of their virtue in their own affairs, but who are incapable of using it in their relations with others.”
Thomas Aquinas, a renowned Catholic philosopher adopted a form of Aristotle’s idea of general justice. Eventually, the Catholic Church attempted to modernize Aristotle and Aquinas’ idea of general justice by calling it “social justice.”
The Catholic Church developed the term primarily to help explain justice in a modern society that was moving from farming to more complex forms of production and human interaction. As Michael Novak with the Heritage Foundation points out, Pope Leo XIII specifically slammed socialism and praised the natural differences in talents and abilities among human beings as beneficial to society.
Novak explains how, over time, progressives warped the term “social justice” to mean “equality” (redistribution of wealth and resources based on arithmetic, not individual production), the “common good” (determined by federal bureaucrats) and “compassion” (forced sharing).
Today, numerous pastors are preaching a version of social justice that is basically no different from socialism. I encourage Christians to exchange the convoluted idea of “social justice” for “capitalism.”
Atheism, A Mere Distraction
Rand was one of the best defenders and articulators of capitalism. Unfortunately, many Christians dismiss her economic philosophy because of her personal beliefs on religion.
Rand was an atheist. However, one does not need to be an atheist in order to be a capitalist. Indeed, in Rand’s magnum opus novel, Atlas Shrugged, the core takeaway is not that the hero is an atheist but that he is a capitalist.
Rand and her fictional heroes believe with almost religious zeal that there is no God—a belief that takes “faith.” For, it is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God does not exist, just as it is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he does exist. To say either with absolute certainty takes faith (rational yet unconfirmed belief).
If it is rational for Rand to believe (without proof) that God does not exist, it is also rational for a Christian to believe that God exists. Since both atheists and Christians are rational, atheism is unessential to being a capitalist.
If there is a God, He is a Capitalist
That said, one may not believe in any “god” and still claim to be rational. For example, one cannot believe that God condones socialism because socialism is inherently irrational and violates natural law, as I explained here.
Natural law (that which we know through reason alone) tells us that private property and freedom are inherent human rights. Aquinas writes in his Treatise on Law that all human laws must stem from natural law: “But if in any point it [human law] deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of the law.”
Jesus did not say: “Blessed are the wicked, for they shall obtain equal salvation.” Jesus did not tell Caesar: “Take 90 percent from the wealthy and redistribute it among the poor.” As I’ve written, Jesus’ own biblical teachings were capitalistic in nature. So, if you claim to be a rational Christian, you must admit that Jesus is a capitalist.
Capitalism, Not Social Justice, Reflects Christianity
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.
Bump!
Eyes
Christ's 'sacrifice' was not altrustic according to the Objectivist definition of the word, in that He exchanged a lower value (dying for the sins of mankind) for a higher one (love for the Father and the Church)
The Kantian view is that one must sacrifice the higher value for the lower for it to be a true sacrifice.
Ferlater
I was in a play she wrote The night of January 16th.
Is "Ayn Rand" the standard against which all things are to be measured?
What sort of person asks "Is Christ compatible with Rand?" Since when do we measure The Creator against a mere creature?
Socialism is based on COVETING. What don't these so-called moral teachers not understand about "THOU SHALT NOT COVET"?
Just cuckoo.
Mark for later read...
Somehow, I don’t think Rand would be agreeing with this if she were still alive.
Tread should be full of inanities by the time I get back to it
You cannot serve both God and mammon.
“I could die for you. But I couldn’t, and wouldn’t, live for you.” Fountainhead
As Christ gave his life for another, so too would a follower of Rand. But, Rand makes it clear that she would not be a slave to another.
There is a difference between these two manifestations of true love for others. God chooses us before we choose Him. Rand advocates that we choose those whom we love based on our ideals (not that we expect anybody to always live up to them). So, Rand has a religion - if you want to call it that - of works, not of grace.
Rand’s approach is fine except it doesn’t have a first mover. Somebody who first initiates a cooperative relationship, who takes that risk. Jesus said, “go thou and do likewise,” using the example of the Good Samaritan, a person who took a small risk with another (amounting to one day’s wages of a laborer). So, initiating kindness, giving a small favor, and seeing if there is reciprocity; this is both scientific and Christian.
Pope John Paul II reconciled the free enterprise, private property system with Christianity in the following way: by ownership, man can come to see himself as a unique and wonderful person, and by inter-acting with others on the basis of voluntarily offer and acceptance, we have the opportunity to see that others are also unique and wonderful persons. Thus, a capitalistic system promotes the Christian ideal that we love others as we love ourselves.
“To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. That’s what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul - would you understand why that’s much harder?” The Fountainhead
“What does it profit a man if he gain the world and loses his soul in the process.” Matthew 16:26
In both Christianity and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, the goal is to dedicate your life to what is good, to rise above all petty concerns, distractions, and temptations.
The difference, according to Rand, is that religion has clouded the pursuit of the good with mysticism, so that the truth is not allowed to be revealed by man’s reason.
I find Rand’s approach lacking in the following way: She presumes we have a deep knowledge of the good. But, where did we get this deep knowledge if not through social traditions and the feedback we get from a social system in which our rewards are the result of our choices.
In a perverted communistic system, the social traditions are reversed, and our rewards are the result of choices made by the state. Our perception of the truth need not be grounded in objective reality. Just look at Obama and the other ideologues in the Democratic Party. They live lives in denial of the truth. Their economic programs result in disastrous consequences, that they easily dismiss.
Thus, in a dynamic world, freedom is necessary for virtue because it is only through freedom that we come to know what is good.
“I could die for you. But I couldn’t, and wouldn’t, live for you.” Fountainhead
As Christ gave his life for another, so too would a follower of Rand. But, Rand makes it clear that she would not be a slave to another.
There is a difference between these two manifestations of true love for others. God chooses us before we choose Him. Rand advocates that we choose those whom we love based on our ideals (not that we expect anybody to always live up to them). So, Rand has a religion - if you want to call it that - of works, not of grace.
Rand’s approach is fine except it doesn’t have a first mover. Somebody who first initiates a cooperative relationship, who takes that risk. Jesus said, “go thou and do likewise,” using the example of the Good Samaritan, a person who took a small risk with another (amounting to one day’s wages of a laborer). So, initiating kindness, giving a small favor, and seeing if there is reciprocity; this is both scientific and Christian.
Pope John Paul II reconciled the free enterprise, private property system with Christianity in the following way: by ownership, man can come to see himself as a unique and wonderful person, and by inter-acting with others on the basis of voluntarily offer and acceptance, we have the opportunity to see that others are also unique and wonderful persons. Thus, a capitalistic system promotes the Christian ideal that we love others as we love ourselves.
“To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. That’s what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul - would you understand why that’s much harder?” The Fountainhead
“What does it profit a man if he gain the world and loses his soul in the process.” Matthew 16:26
In both Christianity and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, the goal is to dedicate your life to what is good, to rise above all petty concerns, distractions, and temptations.
The difference, according to Rand, is that religion has clouded the pursuit of the good with mysticism, so that the truth is not allowed to be revealed by man’s reason.
I find Rand’s approach lacking in the following way: She presumes we have a deep knowledge of the good. But, where did we get this deep knowledge if not through social traditions and the feedback we get from a social system in which our rewards are the result of our choices.
In a perverted communistic system, the social traditions are reversed, and our rewards are the result of choices made by the state. Our perception of the truth need not be grounded in objective reality. Just look at Obama and the other ideologues in the Democratic Party. They live lives in denial of the truth. Their economic programs result in disastrous consequences, that they easily dismiss.
Thus, in a dynamic world, freedom is necessary for virtue because it is only through freedom that we come to know what is good.
But other than that...
The problem is a lot more basic. IMHO (and experience) 90% of folks who call themselves christian reallydon’t understand “Grace”. I could go on but why?
Exactly
You are right. She said that capitalism and Christianity were incompatible because the basic premises of Christianity were exactly the same as Socialism; that man is not an end in himself but a means to others ends. That his life does not belong to him but to others and his highest moral purpose is to serve God (religion) or the state (Socialism).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.