Posted on 03/30/2010 4:56:15 AM PDT by marktwain
Conservatives love Ayn Rand for her great writing and the moral case she makes for individual freedom, but typically we reject her atheism. Many of us are surprised to learn she was anti-gun, or at least very equivocal on armed self-defense. Relevant Ayn Rand quotes: “I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it’s not of primary importance.
Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact he has a gun. It’s not an important issue, unless you’re ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn’t very practical.” [Answer to question “What is your opinion on gun control laws?” at Lecture, “The Moratorium on Brains” (Boston, Ford Hall Forum, 1971).] “It’s a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people—they are not carried for hunting animals—and you have no right to kill people.
You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.” [Answer to question “What’s your attitude toward gun control?” at Lecture, “Censorship: Local and Express” (Boston, Ford Hall Forum, 1973).] Granted, Ayn Rand did not grow up with American gun culture (though my wife came from Soviet Ukraine and understands well the importance of guns). Also, she did not have benefit of the voluminous legal and criminological research over the last several decades demonstrating the utility of guns. Yet in noting her surprisingly anti-gun statements it is interesting to speculate on whether her atheism may have something to do with her lack of enthusiasm for armed self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at opposingviews.com ...
Yes.
Don’t leave your foxhole without him!
Disarming personality and wit only work to a point.
Check out this article. I got the link in an email today.
Even if we only consider “god” a construct representing the principle of good (being opposed to evil), it is necessary to have “god” in order to be able to make good choices.
Of course, God is so much more than the embodiment of a principle...
Yes He is. All you have to do is read the accounts in the old testament and through out history of what people are like without Him. Russia under Stalin, china, nazisim, Rome under the Caesars, cuba, ect. They have no moral standards, what ever they deem as being moral at the time. There morals were always changing, which makes it chaotic and unreliable. Like abortion, starts out with you can only have one within the first 3 months. Now it’s a free for all any time as long as the baby is still in the womb. And moving right along into assisted suicide, which will lead into some sort of genocide, probably with the elderly or anyone deemed not worthy of living. Then it will be with anyone who disagrees with whoever the leaders are. Without God it’s always a slippery slop of chaos.
“Praise God and pass the ammo”
AR bookmark
I’m a big fan of AR but have never considered her an oracle out of which spurts only absolute truth and revelation. She was wrong about many things; usually, things she didn’t give her usual rigorous thought to.
Only Jesus is to be followed blindly. This all-or-nothing “puristry” we have for potential leaders among our fellow mortals is foolish.
All societies need God for survival. Chapter 1 of Romans tells us what happens to societies that reject God. We have seen this played out again and again over the course of history. Give up on God and he will “give you over” to your own depravity and from there it is a long downward spiral ending in destruction.
will “give you over”.
It’s the person who gives himself over to depravity. God simply honors the person’s free will to choose that.
Three times in Romans 1 it specifically states "God gave them over". So it's clear that God does withdraw that portion of common grace which prevents man from acting as depraved as he is capable. But you are correct, in that God basically says, "You don't want me? Fine, I'll remove myself from you and then see what happens".
At her core, Rand was a Russian athiest. Same mold as the communists and nihilists, different twist. She was not American and didn’t understand the value of our traditions.
“I have come to the view that religion does a lot to hold society together and to help people live with each other and cooperate”.
It isn’t religion per se, otherwise, say, the environmental movement would suffice to hold a people together. It is granting unto God that which is His. Those who accept God take Truth FROM Him. Those who do not accept God SUPPLANT Him.
“So it’s clear that God does withdraw that portion of common grace..”
My sentiments exactly. I believe that when a person starts down the road to depravity God’s Grace is with him...to a point. Then he is on his own. I don’t think it is an ‘on’ ‘off’ switch, rather, it is God’s grace which makes us human and it is not revoked quickly.
Societies with a strong moral religious culture and a strong pro-family culture thrive. Those missing one or the other eventually lose both and die.
Gee, which way is the left taking us?
God does withdraw that portion of common grace which prevents man from acting as depraved
Yes, it is His grace and mercy which covers us, but He will withdraw it in accord with the self-will of the individual. I think we agree.
http://emmettgrayson.com/GraysonEmmett_ThatRockIsGonnaRoll_2.mp3
Have a listen if you like. It’s my song for Holy Week.
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.