Concerning Palestine he’s another fake Catholic, like Santorum.

“I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.”

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa

I am a Catholic who has read Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged and I find many of the ideas expressed in the book to be very relevant in today’s economic environment. Does that mean I adhere to all of Ayn Rand’s philosophy? Of course not. Why can’t I (or Paul Ryan) agree with the positive elements of Ayn Rand’s book that are llisted in this article? Just because I have a favorable opinion of the book and believe that people who work hard, work smart, take personal risks, and build a successful business (while employing and paying numerous workers fair wages thus enabling them to also live productive and successful lives) should be able to reap the rewards of their labor and sacrifice,modes that make me an atheist or an objectivist?  In the 2008 election a majority of misguided Catholics (unfortunately) voted for the current president. Does that mean they believed in 100% of his policies, including his extreme views on abortion? According to a number of pro-life Catholics I know who voted for him, they were able to overlook his acceptance of killing unborn children in the late stages of pregnancy, in exchange for him promising a wealth of “free” benefits to those in need. Apparently they were able to reject
Mr. Obama’s “dark” side. Can’t I do the same with Ayn Rand?

To say that certain philosophers advance some odious thoughts does not mean that ALL their thinking is objectionable.  There ARE, as the article points out, certain things about Rand’s thinking that are appealing viz capitalism and eschewing statist approaches to government.

The matter with Paul Ryan is that he is much, much smarter than most of his criticisers who, being the leftists they are, are simply looking for something to hang on him and know little of what they are talking about.

Paul Ryan could run circles around the likes of Obama when it comes to debating economic philosophies.

I wonder if Mr. Wiker strained this hard to defend Obamas association with Bill Ayers.

I think it was St. Augustine that said, “Take what is good and leave what is bad”

I’ve heard many references to Rand, but was not familiar with her, or her philosophy.  Thank you very much for the explanation (and the links to the Catechism.)  I didn’t even have to get up, and go find mine!

Never read Ayn Rand, nor do I care too, but, there is a big difference between Paul Ryan and the American catholics, including some of our Bishops that want us Americans to be controlled under the slave masters of the government: he knows how to think!!  +JMJ+

THANK YOU! Your analysis of Rand is on the mark! I have been saddened to see how so many good people have looked to her as an icon of independance and self sufficiency and more… yet if all that she espoused was to be our role model for life then the result should not be a self centered Godless existence that ended with her being alone and friendless..you know it by it’s fruits!! No man(woman!)is an island… but she encouraged an independance of self centered existence. The ideals of self sufficiency are to make us strong only unto ourselves but to use that strength for good of others.  How about Jesus as our Strong, unwavering, courageous and willing to give his life for others role model!

Because Ryan admires some of what Rand taught doesn’t bother me.  We admire the late great pope, John Paul II, who was greatly influenced by the philosophers Max Scheler, Edmund Husserl, and Immanuel Kant. He did not accept all they taught, and went on to clarify the wisdom he learned from them with Catholic teaching.  This, it would appear, is how Ryan is looking at Rand.

“So, if Paul Ryan wants to attract Catholic voters, he’s going to have to make much clearer what he’s taking — and even more, what he’s leaving behind.”

I find this statement totally absurd when I consider that the “alternative” is an abortion on demand pres and VP.  How can Catholics vote otherwise.
If I based my vote on a candidates reading material I wouldnt vote for myself…..

I have read Ayn Rand and agree she is dark but had i not read her writings, I would not realize that.

I found this a very helpful introduction to Ayn Rand.  I’d heard about her for years but never saw a summary like this or read any of her books.  This really frames the topic and helps me make more sense of this philosophy.

Thank you, Mr. Wiker, for your clear, concise and cogent insight.

I think one way to clarify the issue would be to point out one strong similarity between Aquinas (whom Ryan says he prefers to Rand) and Rand. They both held that human beings act for the sake of ends. We are all trying to achieve something. The difference is that, for Rand, that’s all there is to it. Aquinas, however, goes deeper. He held that a human being, as a social creature, was necessarily bound up with other people. That is, a human being’s ends or goals would include other people. Therefore, by doing what is best for himself, he will simultaneously be doing what is best for those around him. So, a Catholic can learn a lot from Rand, particularly in what pertains to human nature, but a Catholic must also complete the picture with a healthy dose of Thomas Aquinas.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I,as a practicing Catholic, have to vote for the right to life candidates,which are, Romney & Ryan.

Then I pray…........that they do no harm and learn more Truth.

Thanks for writing this article!

to get a better personal understanding of Ayn Rand read, “Architects of the Culture of Death” by Dr. DeMarco.  Truly a disturbed woman….to say the least.

One wonders at Ryan’s choice of champions and his willingness to publicly support this one.  Most of us who at one time admired Rand’s ideas soon grew out of them as a child outgrows his belief in Santa Claus.  Even a cursory inspection of Rand reveals a woman of such monumental egotism that other human beings were just pebbles in her path, to be kicked out of the way—a belief system the Obama campaign planners will be only too happy to point out in their portrayal of Ryan as a throw-granny-off-the-cliff monster.

Rand liked to cloak her massive self-importance as egoism, but it was really nothing more than the former.  Dr. Wiker’s statement that there must be something positive about Rand’s books because so many have been sold makes me wonder:  Would he not gasp at the statement that there’s something positive about abortion because so many have been performed?  No, there’s only one thing that attracts people to Rand’s books:  We like to think selfishness is okay and touting Rand’s popularity soothes us.

Let’s hope Ryan uses better judgment in the future.  Conservatives are never given the opportunity, by the Obama lap dogs in the press, to “articulate” their beliefs; and they won’t give Ryan a do-over on this one.

Nice attempt at justifying Ryan’s belief system. I doubt that you would be so generous to someone who expressed admiration for some of Karl Marx’s writings. Ayn Rand despised all religion, particularly Christianity an all it stands for because she believed that both religion and altruism are “evil”. She explicitly says this in an interview with Mike Wallace (available on you tube). She goes on to say that most people - those who are not successful elite - do not deserve to be loved.

For Ryan to cite her as the inspiration for his getting into politics, urging his staff to read her books, etc. shows he is either trying to hide his devotion to her philosophy or he is too intellectually lazy to have bothered to read anything by her beyond her novels. His budget cuts to programs for the poor - cuts denounced by the US bishops strongly suggests the former to be the case.

So many conservatives had spoken about this book that I looked into the author, as she was from Russia, and knew about the evils of that system, BUT I found her ideas so contrary to Christianity that I had NO interest in reading Atlas Shrugged.  Yes, there were SOME thoughts that were positive, yet far too many were not.  Glen Beck is one that loves this book and pushes it all the time.  Far too much “dark”, as you say, in her and her philosophy, and unless one is doing it for a class with a great Christian teacher, that leads the in and outs, it could be offsetting to many.

Paul Ryan will attract Catholic voters by being Catholic and living and working like a Catholic should, respecting the teachings of the Church wherever possible.  He will not attrectCatholic voters by salvaging   some   worthy provisions from   thr Rannd dogma

like Joseph replied I’m shocked that you can make $6190 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you see this website http://bit.ly/Axjzj6

Yet another ‘analysis’ of objectivism to substitute the philosopher for the philosophy (by yet another catholic -wouldn’t you know it) that is steeped in distortions. Not to mention intellectual dishonesty. “0ne of the reasons she hated it [christianity] was that it extolled charity. Intellectual dishonesty (or, perhaps, gross ignorance(?)). Which is it, Benny?(!) Ms rand hated christianity for its embrace of subjectivism, its war against reason, and its supposed war against reality. For the record: on this last Ms. Rand was, sadly, way off the mark. As for charity (paraphrasing, sorry, i’m working from memory): “i do not consider it to be a major virtue”. Ms Rand was always asked, and always clear on this, which is why i’ll presume the author is intellectually dishonest rather than ignorant. For Rand charity was perfectly fine if a person can both afford and wished to help others. She insisted, though, that when you are a ‘selfish’ person you will not let a charitable drive get in the way of your primary moral goal -the futherance of YOUR life. For her this meant furthering it ‘spritually’ (ie: emotionally) as well as ‘materially’. If it were more important for you, as an example, that you not see someone you care for suffer or do without than it is to keep whatever material value they might need (and can afford to help them WITHOUT INTERFERING SUBSTANTIALLY with your more crucial life choices) her philosophy REQUIRES that you help, providing you are truly ‘selfish’. Rand’s objection to christian ‘virtue’ on this (the christian morality of self sacrifice) is that it REQUIRES you to give up your interests in order to be considered ‘moral’. So much for ‘darkness’ in her morality - it insists you not give away your soul in the name of morality! Benny ought to be a bit more honest (or less ignorant) if he wishes his readers to not have his words remind his readers that he, in this ‘argument’ against the objectivist morality, is bearing false witness.

Mary D, I think you will find it very true that you know a man by his fruits.  If that be true, I believe that you will be more than satisfied with Paul Ryan.  He is a fine Catholic family man… and pretty intelligent besides.  Should he become our VP, I think you will find that he is very rooted in the Truth.

Plain and simple Ryan is a phony for the Catholic vote, no better than Romney, they both play to their audience at the time.

I don’t know anything about this guy Wiker, but I bet he has never voted for a Republican in his life.  His snarky tone tells me all I need to know.

Ayn Rand….she is the most boring woman I have ever read. Yuck. I’m glad Paul Ryan only believes a little of her tripe.

I first read “Atlas Shrugged” back in the late 1950s, and was not impressed. Like William F. Buckley. I had to “flog myself” to read it. After all, there must be something to be found in a book of over 1,000 pages, mustn’t there?
I agreed wholeheartedly with the devastating review of “Atlas Shrugged” published in the “National Review” back then, and after recently rereading Rand’s works, from “Anthem” to “Atlas Shrugged”, I see nothing but a cult of the personality surrounding a sociopathic woman. She never bothered to learn colloquial English, resulting in prose totally devoid of humor, totally incapable of portraying human relationships, and totally devoid of morality.
In 1968 I went on leave from Naples, Italy, where I was serving with the Army, and went to Paris. There I picked up some souvenirs, among which were two posters. One poster was the classic “Phi Zappa Krappa” poster depicting Frank Zappa sitting on the “throne”. The other was a depiction of Ayn Rand on a playing card as the Queen of Hearts, smoking a cigar. Back in Naples we hung the two posters side by side, all while listening to Zappa’s “We’re Only in it for the Money” album.
There is more to be learned from Frank Zappa than ever could be learned from Ayn Rand.
The title of his album, “We’re Only in it for the Money” could well serve as a representation of Rand’s philosophy.
Anyone cabable of being an apologist for Ayn Rand would probably be able to read the “Turner Diaries” and see it as a patriotic defense of the Second Amendment.

It is sad to see how many people misrepresent Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. How many of you know her metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political, and esthetic views? It seems that only her ethics and politics are discussed, and then only poorly. How many of you know what she meant by “selfishness”? No, she didn’t mean “self-centered,” as a previous commenter claims. And contrary to her opponents, Rand did not die alone (which is yet another unfounded and dishonest assertion).

It’s also sad to see that not one rational argument was offered to back up claims as to why Ayn Rand is wrong in this or that philosophical issue. Read Rand’s works and, at the very least, try to understand and properly present her views BEFORE you proceed to offer arguments against them. It’s the honest thing to do.

poor article, because it’s either dishonest or misinformed. Rand led a “wretched life”? She came from total poverty in Russia to be a guest of presidents and Johnny Carson. She achieved her lifelong ambition. She died wealthy and loved by millions, even if she never found a satisfactory partner in life. Did she have everything? No. But she achieved more than you or I can probably dream in our short lifetimes, and that is a testament to—not indictment of—her philosophy.

Which you misunderstand or misrepresent. Her book is, yes, “The Virtue of Selfishness”. But what is meant by that? That you have a right to choose your goals and live. Something the Catholic Church should be embarrassed if it denounces. You are “selfish” every time you eat a bite of food that someone else needs more.

She didn’t hate Christianity, she merely saw it as a primitive attempt to create a philosophy. She admired Aquinas for bringing in Aristotle and reason. As to charity, she didn’t hate it or oppose it. What she opposed was the idea that you don’t have the right to exist without giving charity. The moral duty ethic was what she opposed, not helping others or being benevolent which she saw as something in your rational interests.

I think you are projecting when you say Rand is “very dark”. I have read of horrors, predations, and historical evils of the Catholic Church that make Rand look positively holy by comparison.

A dumb article.

By explaining how Paul Ryan interprets Church teaching on the poor and his devotion to both his faith in God and his devotion to the church, he has already defined that he rejects atheism.

Individualism is not anti-Catholic.  Socialism is anti-Catholic.

“I wonder if Mr. Wiker strained this hard to defend Obamas association with Bill Ayers.”

Not sure what this has to do with a Catholic politician who has professed being influenced some by Ayn Rand?

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-paul-ryan-ayn-rand-connection-whats-a-catholic-to-think/#ixzz23xI2JYgX

Here is the basic problem… Paul Ryan says he admires the way that Rand lays out the morality of capitalism and the moral basis for freedom.  But the central tenants, indeed the foundation of morality for Rand is atheism, materialism and selfishness.  How can you reject the foundation of her moral system, yet accept her moral arguments for capitalism as relevant?

Rand gets some conclusions right… but her approach is flawed.  It is akin to a flawed proof in mathematics.  The fact that the proof is flawed does not make the thing proven incorrect, but it also doesn’t mean that it is proven. 

I am willing to give Paul Ryan the benefit of the doubt, but I think Catholics should recognize that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is deeply contrary to the Catholic faith and a true Objectivist is an enemy of the Church.

Do not accept Wiker’s superficial analysis of Atlas Shrugged.  The book is approximately 1000 pages long, and was written in the 1920’s, but it is so relevant to today, you would think it was written in 2012.  Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions. Reject Rand’s atheism but consider her views on capitalism versus communism. Learn about macro economics and understand why western Europe socialist leaning economies are failing…while all communist countries cannot even feed their own people, and see the future of the united states if we continue on the current economic path.

What’s a Catholic to Think? I think Ryan is pro-life, Pro-Traditional Marriage and is a much better VP prospect than pro-abortion and pro-Gay Marriage Biden.

I read your article with some interest, having once been a Catholic before converting to Objectivism, and having graduated from a Catholic university, the University of Dallas. I was rather surprised while attending that university that they pretty much permitted me to promote Objectivism, and your article gives some clues as to the Catholic outlook on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. The modern Catholic, primarily due to Aquinas, does have a high regard for reason and science, but also wants to retain Faith in God (which Objectivism rejects). But what has been missing from all the 2,000 years of Catholic teachings is a rational, factually oriented morality.To follow Catholicism and its morality, one has to have Faith that God presented what we ought to do in our daily lives,say in the Bible and other sources or even as understood by the High Priests. But Objectivism and the morality of self-interest says to take a first-hand look at the facts and reason out for yourself what is best for you by a rational standard. That you consider this to be dark shows your disdain for reason when applied to human morality. And, of course, this is why Paul Ryan rejects Objectivism qua philosophy.

No, Objectivists do not consider charity to be a major virtue, though it is certainly beneficial to offer assistance to those struggling insofar as those struggling are a value to oneself—i.e. while it would not be morally mandatory under Objectivism, if a friend or loved one is in need of temporary assistance, then one can offer assistance selfishly, for one’s own sake. What we are against is the unbridled acts of charity towards anyone who needs it with their need as the only claim. You may well consider this to be “dark”, but Objectivist are totally against becoming self-sacrificial, as this would be a logical contradiction to the fact that each man lives himself and doesn’t live another person’s life, not if he takes his own life seriously.

But thanks for the article, since you did present some of the key issues succinctly.

Like every single post-Reformation philosophy designed to replace the whole of Catholic truth, Objectivism uncovers some elements of truth but possesses far more elements of falsehood. Every post-Reformation replacement philosophy contains a truth that is elevated above or hides all other truths. They are all, by definition, heresies. All heresies are destructive, because they select only certain truths, isolate them, elevate them, and then claim them as universal truth. All modern attempts to replace Catholicism fail because they cannot be balanced by the fullness of truth found only in Catholic thought. Ultimately they are all false, and as such, they all contribute to a culture of death.

...Ryan needs to make clear what he accepts in Rand and very, very clear about what he rejects.
-Benjamin Wiker

I can see why Rep. Ryan doesn’t feel the need, why should he indulge you in trying to breathe life into a non-issue?

Thanks though for bringing to light the “merit” (your word) of Ayn Rand.  Your hinting about but never being honest nor explicit about what is “dark” (your other word) about her (disappointed that she’s a fallen human being, eh?) darkened your opinion column.  Oh well, it was your own mud.

I read her books too and liked them when I was younger.  At that time, we were going through the excesses of Vatican II such as stripping down the altars, removing the statues, (and at our parish) replacing the beautiful Stations of the Cross with ugly modernistic plaster ones.  So, when she was talking about the architect in one of her books (was it Atlas Shrugged?) I could identify with her.  Ugly buildings were also being constructed at that time.  But at that time I guess i dismissed or didn’t even see the selfishness displayed, because I was more interested in the plot of the story, and I didn’t make a point of studying the philosophy (maybe because of no college).  If I read it again though as an aging adult, I would probably discern some of that philosophy as wrong.  However, I did enjoy her books but perhaps because of my Catholic education didn’t take that “dark side” to heart.

Excellent discussion of Ayn Rand; nonetheless, isn’t dissecting the philosophy of Paul Ryan sort of pointless without similar scrutiny of Barack Obama? Obama’s “philosophy” is characterized by his passionate belief in the “right” to partial-birth abortion; his clear affinity for socialism over capitalism; his lust for greater state power at the expense of the traditional family; and his utter contempt for religious freedom. (No, sadly, I am not exaggerating.) How can a professing Christian think for a nanosecond that they have to struggle to make a choice in this election? Why the hand-wringing over Ryan’s beliefs?

The voters in this election have lost whichever candidate they choose. On the one hand, you have a candidate waging war on the unborn, on the other hand you have a candidate who is waging war on the vulnerable who have made it out of the womb. This is a lose-lose election.

Ryan: .”...you can’t help America’s poor by making America poor,” Ryan says. “The president’s policies are failing the poor. We have more of them than ever before. [Liberals] are walking us toward a debt crisis which will hurt everybody in society. We know this and see it and have a moral obligation to prevent it.”

“It’s important for conservatives to never cede the moral high ground,” he says. “We shouldn’t and we don’t have to. We have just as equal a claim.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa?pg=2

I did not think his reading Rand was important enough to waste our time talking about it, but since it was brought up I find it necessary to comment.  How about something on the New EWTN, Life after Mother Angelica, and the compromise with the American Catholic Church?

This is a very well-written article that makes a very good point.  I would like to say, however, that the same argument espoused in this article regarding Ryan’s youthful devotion to Ayn Rand (and I’m assuming he was youthful in 2005) can be made for any philosopher’s works.  There’s truth to be found in Nietzsche, Hume, and just about any other philosopher whose ideas are, ultimately, at odds with the Faith.  If Ryan had a youthful devotion to Karl Marx and said that Marx was the reason he got into politics to begin with but that he now rejects the bad parts of Marx, would we be so forgiving?  I wonder.

There has to be a morality change if there is to be any sort of economic change in this country. In the mind of a liberal, virtues have become very isolated, they’re disconnected and prove nothing on their own. If you happen to ever have a conversation with a liberal or moderate you will notice that they will often state that subjects are not related, when in reality they most certainly are. That abortions in cases of rape and incest are not related to other forms of abortion. They basically state that consensual sex justifies the murder of a child, but so does non-consensual sex, in their minds, murder has varying degrees, however, these two types of abortion are not connected because of the experience of the mother, when it is not the experience of the mother (as lamentable as it may be) that connects them, but the murder of innocent life. Yet, they do not see this, and so it is the means that justify the end, whereas if the women was to give birth to the child the end would bring redemption to the means. They do not think so, if something was damned to begin with, then the whole lot should be damned to its end, to them one virtue has justified the means and another has committed the murder. This is because their virtues have gone mad, they are wandering. Whereas one virtue can justify something, and at the same become lost and have no relation to the subject. Yet, because they use one virtue as justification, they find that they have done some good, when they have really done far more damage. G.K. Chesterton put is best ““The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered…it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”

Ayn Rand’s objectivism may be atheist at the core but it respects the Christian believer’s free will. Obectivism takes a “non-initiation of force” approach - use force only in self defense. Something both Republican and Democrat politicians proclaiming to be Catholic, Christian, or other religion should seriously consider. Compare it to our Just War Doctrine… I think it aligns better than with the Dem & Rep World domination approach that is bankrupting our nation and killing innocent people. On selfishness, think of it more as self interest. It is my self interest to do God’s will over mine, including acts of charity. On abortion, I’ve corresponded with Atheist/Objectivist Doris Gordon who is pro-life no exceptions. It’s worth visiting her “Libertarians for Life” website (http://www.l4l.org/) as it has some handy material to use when discussing why abortion is wrong with your non-believing friends - God Bless!

I’ve read several of Ayn Rand’s books, including “The Viture of Selfishness”, and I think Benjamin Wiker’s article is pretty much an accurate assessment of Rand.  As a Catholic I am uncomfortable with a candidate such as Ryan who expresses such a strong admiration for Rand, but, between the Romney-Ryan ticket and the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual “marriage” ticket of Obama-Biden, there is no contest.

I’m sick of some Catholic bloggers always putting down pro-life politicians.  Catholic politicans don’t have a chance with some Catholics.  We had a chance to get Catholic presidential candidate but blew it. The Catholic nominees were given more support by Evangilical Christians than Catholics.  I guess we Catholics aren’t supposed to vote since no one professing to be Catholic is good enough.  Paul Ryan’s bishop supports him so that’s good enough for me.

It’s really hilarious that anyone has to defend a Ryan reading Rand. I just finished a graduate class at a highly respected Catholic University. The main text was Diffusion of Innovation by Everett Rogers (2003) and the many of case studies he used throughout the books as innovative exemplars were based in providing contraception to poor people. Moreover, Rogers tells us that those who are not “early adopters” of universal birth control are intellectually inferior, undereducated, illiterate, dogmatic, irrational, low-aspiring laggards. That is what’s being taught at the grad level but there are so many other examples of left-wing brainwashing. Many of the professors and the director of the program openly support Obama - the guy who supports euthanizing live newborns who survive abortions. But Ryan is scary? come on.When are these Catholics and their institutions going to show some heroic leadership?

I am an Objectivist that believes in God.  I choose to love my neighbor and I choose to forgive my enemy.  I do not believe you should be a slave to other people or to pretend to love people that you do not love.  I do not believe that people are part of a community unless they choose to be.  I do not believe that we owe each other or own each other.
Unless you are free, you cannot choose and unless you have chosen to be a Catholic, you are not a Catholic.

I don’t think Ayn Rand is such a grand deterring factor in attracting or detracting Catholics.  Anyone who has been interested in Ryan’s Catholicism as it pertains to his pubic service has or has had access to this info.  Author Benjamin Wiker’s ending paragraph applies more to engaging in a far left liberal point of distraction because they are the ones making a big deal about and twisting Ryan’s intellectual comments about Ayn Rand- not specifically liberal Catholics.  Most people don’t even know who what when and whatever about Ayn Rand, let alone left leaning Catholics.  Ryan’s point about her writings is an intellectual analysis about specific factors only.  I would guess that about 40% of the public is merely up for ranting, and way more than 40% of the public is not equipped for a discussion on Ayn Rand.

Jonathan B., well said.

I think it’s high-time Catholics realize a painful truth: The Church doesn’t give a damn about the individual. Oh, sure, the Vatican has made a lot of academic pronouncements about the dignity of the individual, but it’s all lip service and hot air. Remember, the Vatican didn’t eliminate the Index until 1966! The popes who ruled the papal states were the polar opposite of the Founding Fathers in terms of guaranteeing individual rights. One Catholic chancellor, Dollfuss of Austria, led a corporatist government that did not allow the formation of other political parties!

Despite the flaws in Rand’s thinking, she stands up for the dignity of the individual and his right to create far more than the Church ever did.

Perhaps this is why Rand is viewed as such an abomination by Catholics. She tells a truth that many Catholics don’t want to hear.

As far as Ryan being a “phony on Palestine,” matt, why don’t you hold the Palestinians and the Arabs in general to the same standards that you claim  
to hold the Israelis to? For that matter, why don’t you hold the Vatican to the same standards, since they haven’t done a damn thing about the situation!!

First off it is Romney who is running for President not Ryan(I’ll get to him later), Romneycare pays for abortion and who is the one who created romneycare?, Romney supports gay marriage, Romney thinks it would be great for boyscouts to include gays. Romney is no better than Obama. They are the same person with the same master. Now we get to Ryan who is a neocon:
“A neoconservative (also spelled “neo-conservative”; colloquially, neocon) in American politics can appear to be conservative while in fact favoring big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then dominated the George W. Bush Administration after 2001. Neoconservatives are often preferred by liberals to portray the conservative voice in the media, as in television talk shows, newspaper columnists, magazines, think tanks, and advisory positions in Republican Administrations.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues, [and] are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with paleoconservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do”.

Ryan is for big government he isn’t a true conservative. He is another Catholic being used by the government to help destroy the Catholic Church. i.e. Kennedy,Biden,Pelosi,Cuomo,Guliani and the list goes on and on. We also have Sean Hannity who does not espouse true Catholic values, he is bought and paid for cheerleader for the neocons and telling people what to think. People really need to wake up.  If Biden claimed Rand to be what she is to Ryan their would be an outcry.Lets stop the double standard. The govermnet through the 2 party system is dividing and conquering Americans.  Now to set the record straight, I am not a liberal nor a neocon I am a Catholic who is faithful and puts my trust in God nor man. Our government has been hijacked and we are going down a blackhole to the USA’s demise. It does not matter who is in the White House as a priest friend told me recently it is either a man who puts his foot on the throttle all the way or another man (Romney) who puts the breaks on alittle and we are only going 65 mph.  We will still end up with the same thing! I’m not voting this year and if I change my mind it will only be because I am writing in someone.
Peace.

I missed the part of religion that says creating a permanent underclass via government dependency is a godly ideal.  Ayn Rand actually believed people were very capable and could excel in life, which does not seem like anti-God to me.  I suppose Dave Ramsey saying God does not want you to be poor makes him a heathen too.  How is the belief that people are very capable and can do great things anti-God?  Yes, IF you believe everything Ayn Rand wrote, that is a problem.  However, the current president supports gay marriage, did illegal drugs, and supports abortion, yet Catholics voted for him, as numerous commenters have pointed out.  It is disturbing that a religion would support calling Caesar’s welfare godly.  Christian charity is by Christians, not the government.  That’s Caesar’s taxation.  Where did God say to create a permanent group of people utterly dependent on charity to exist?  Or did all of that get rewritten so churches no longer have the burden of charity?  Does God now want us to make sure there are poor people so we can make ourselves feel good by eternally propping them up?  It’s all very disturbing.

Would you please find the time to explain “How ALL “the brighter side ” of Ayn Rand and especially, the aspect of Rand endorsed by Paul Ryan is solving the blight of being an African American in THIS GREAT SOCIETY OF the USA,  with special emphases on how over 400 years of “hard work” and “perseverance” did not make and has not made the “slaves”—the African Americans—economically wealthy.

IHIS WOULD BE A MORE INTELLECTUAL POLITICAL DEBATE, IF IT CENTERED ON WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT RYAN ,NOT ABOUUT WHAT WE THINK HE THINKS ABOUT AYN RAND AN ECLECTIC MIX (REALLY MIXED UP) OF A FICTON WRITER,  WHO INCORPORATED INTO HER NOVELS   THE DANGER OF TOTALITARIANISM , THE VALUE OF FREEDOM AND THE DELIGHT OF HEDONISM. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH FUN WITH AYN RAND , NOW LETS GET ON TO RYAN AND HOW HE IS GOING TO SAVE OUR ECONOMY.( save ayn rand for her expert ,  Ron Paul and hid son Rand.)

@bella

While I share your frustration, I am a libertarian, I will vote for Romney because he will slow the march toward complete socialism, he will reduce abortions, he will improve religious rights and he may help avoid the collapse of the US economy, if only for a few years.  I can only hope he will be less pro-war than Obama and our last several presidents.
—-
We are a long way from true American freedom.  There are very few politicians who even can even envision limited govt, but I cannot stand by and not try to stop Obama’s misguided destruction of the country.

obmama is an evil man.  his policies are explictly evil.  Anyone that votes for him is voting for explicit evil.  Therefore if you support Christ and his Church then you must do EVERYTHING to defeat oabma.  So get to it!

Ayn Rand was a product of her time & was more of a novel writer than a serious philosopher.I wouldn’t give her more than her due.Most young people will read something like Ayn Rand which inspires them to move on to more serious stuff.Just like Paul Ryan did.It’s just a process of maturity & if it wasn’t an election year we’d probably not even hear about it.

I do not buy your assertion that “Ryan needs to make clear what he accepts in Rand and very, very clear about what he rejects.”  Are we no longer free just to read books, and gather information and read opinion from all sources?  This comment is an affront to academic freedom, and true intellectual growth.  I remember that Blessed Pope John Paul II brought some Marxist journals into his conclave to read during the tedious task of vote tallying.  One of this fellow cardinals joked, was it not sacrilegious to read these writings in the Sistine Chapel?  His response, “My conscience is clear”.

As for myself, I savored and enjoyed reading “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”.  Oh, I could see through Rand’s atheism and selfishness within ten minutes.  But then, I encounter this in the secular world today.  The secular world lost God, and increased in selfishness, all without the help of Ayn Rand.  I will stay that three components of Rand’s writings did help me to be a better Christian.

First, Rand’s characters never stop striving for excellence.  They never lay down to complacency.  Christians need that sense of urgency, and drive towards greater living the word of Christ.  Our early church fathers said the same.  Aged Polykarp, near 80, spoke as a runner stretching for the finish line.  Secondly, Rand fights hard to break the presumption of “entitlement”.  The problem with altruism is not that the giver suffers injustice; the real problem is the entitlement that breeds among recipients.  Religion, and true charity, can distinguish from misfortune and someone who is not motivated to get off their behind and help themselves. 

Finally, government is not the solution.  Any one of us can make a personal choice to sacrifice and contribute to people that need help.  Mother Theresa and Dorothy Day are beautiful examples of personal sacrifice.  Many of my own contributions also come with a day of fasting.  Yet, activism to have the government fund a solution is remote from the personal experience of charity that Christ taught to us.  Nowhere did Christ teach that government should help the poor.  All I ask, as an individual in a free society, is that government does not burden me with so many taxes that I may give to the poor. 

Yes, Jesus knew about tax burdens.  Burdensome tax kills.  Tax collectors were so despised that failure to pay tax usually meant the man died, and his wife and children were taken as slaves.  So, personal charity, especially in Jesus’ time and today, is His way of love.

No matter who wins this election I hope Catholics realize we are engaged in spiritual cinflict and will continue to be. Likely a larger percentage of Catholics have no knowledge of the conscience threats in the HHS contraception mandate than the percentage of Catholics who do not believe in the true presence in the Eucharist. The Church needs to do its utmost to educate every member of where it stands on these issues. There are larger issues at stake for Catholics and indeed all people of conscience.

I laugh.  Rand’s “Objectivism” is merely a species of “Subjectivism” by another name.  Surely I’m not the only one who sees this truth “hiding in plain view.”  “Self-interest”, “selfishness”—however you care to define them—make this inescapably clear.  If that’s not enough, nearly every single com-boxer, pro and con Rand (particularly the U of Dallas poster) demonstrates this again and again.  It’s like a New Yorker cartoon, where the guy is saying “Objectively speaking, I’ve just got to be me.”
Rand was simply another scam for the weak to feel strong and “rational” and “objective” (and, especially, not guilty).  But Rand’s fulcrum of “Objectivity” is the Self.  Some may try to read into this the “dignity of the individual”, but without God, the “dignity of the individual” cannot be established.  It is simply a Subjectivist myth, regardless of the terms it chooses to disguise itself in.  Only with God does a whole new world of true objectivity open up.  But then we have to play by His rules.
Wiker, with his learning and PhD, would have better served his readers if, rather than show what Rand “got right” (which was simple, common sense things of natural philosophy), he had shown how she went from that to be so wrong.  Eliz. Brady got it right, though –lib theologians and their groupies did/do the same thing with Marx for 100+ years.

The greatest number of people in a religion is Catholic in the US.  The second largest group of people are non-catholic.  Been in the church from birth and now at a later age everyone I know back then are non-catholic. uumm.  Why is that?  Pro-life is pro-death for some women and that is very scary. I will vote for Obama because he is a christian and a family man with a wife and two growing children. There is no dirt on this man and he is very honorable.  He now has 4 yrs more experience than Romney. Don’t kid yourself Ryan was George W. yes man with 6 trillion dollars added to our debt he voted for and 2 wars he voted for destroying American families and caring a lot of blood on his hands. You call this christian.  What would Jesus say.  love ,tolerance and forgiveness.

Oh Daniel,  Obama is not evil and you would not recognize evil if it bite u on the hand.  Get real. u moron You must not have had a mother or do you remember her telling you if you do not anything nice to say just don’t say it at all.

Bill, thank you. You are one of the very few on this web site with common sence.

@ Bill

There are 5 intrinsic evils of our day.  They are:

1) Abortion
2) Fetal Stem Cell research
3) Human Cloning
4) Gay “Marriage”
5) Euthanasia

You can call Obama a “nice family man” if you want to, but he is rabidly promoting all of the 5 intrinsic evils the Church teaches against.

Bill was not listening to his mother, either.

Bill,

You can paint Obama as a “Good, Christian family man,” if you want, but you need to look at the facts.

There are 5 intrinsic evils of our day:

1) Abortion
2) Fetal Stem Cell Research
3) Human Cloning
4) Gay “Marriage”
5) Euthanasia

The Democratic Party champions ALL five of the above evils.  Obama is the MOST RABID supporter of them.  (Simply look at his voting record, his “Czars,” and the work of his administration.)

His agenda is evil.
And…
Do you realize you called someone a “moron” and then admonished THEM “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”

Bella, spot on! you nailed it. Romney or obama, we get the same people behind the curtain.

The answer is clear.Don’t vote for Obama or Romney.

kATHY ....YOU STATE CATHOLIC VALUES   WITH WISDOM. But you must remember that Catholics ar a minority in this country.(Minorities often lose to secular materialists)  I prefer to cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which the Catholic   Church strongly supports.  It is a broad umbrella a universal standard, and well documented in its opposition to killing innocent human beings and the moral standards that you state.

I read Rand while in college and enjoyed her books and movies and recommended her books to friends. So what does that make me?
Pope Benedict XVI reads and quotes from dissident sources as well as JPII did.  So what does that make them?
I think people are merely looking for something to criticize Ryan.  In my estimation, it is pettiness.

What jumps out in your article is this:  Notice how the press jumped all over Ryan’s disclosure of being influenced by Ayn Rand in his youth.  It seemed as though some in the msm were looking to discredit him.  Contrast this to what we read and learned about Obama when he first ran for the highest office of the land in 2008. Little or nothing was said about his grandparents and his mother’s definite socialist leaning. Not much at all was mentioned in regards to his friendship with Bill Ayers.  The atmosphere then seemed the opposite.  Only those in position of power and influence can answer the question of why there was not a full vetting process of Obama.  I would suggest that one reason the msm is held in such low esteem is precisely because members of this professional field failed to ask the tough questions.  Our country is now suffering because of it.  Let us hope and pray that this election will begin the remediation of the error.

Mein Kampf railed against communism, so I guess Hitler had some redeeming qualities….point is evil will ALWAYS mask itself with some good to draw you in. Some will escape but others will fall…..be very careful of Satan, he is sneaky…

I also read Ayn Rand over 30 years ago and remember being very impressed by her writing.  But I saw her story lines more as showing the extreme of what could happen in a socialist/communist country.  If she hadn’t taken it to the extreme outcome, I doubt anyone would have seen the evil of socialism/communism as clearly as she was able to show it. I feel sorry for her that she actually lived her life in that extreme and reaped what she had sown, how sad.

Paul ryan is complicit in the banker takeover of america , conservatives who support these bush type neocons are just as ignorant as the liberals , this is what our country does , sponsors terrorism at home and abroad , outsourced our economy, steals trillions from us to give to the banks, lusts for war and torture, you owe 911 truthers an apology bc if you dont know or understand that our gov created funds and operates al quaeda you are living in a fantasy land . All this tyrannical legislation passed since 911 is for the american ppl not muslims, we funded the al quaeda takeover of lybia and now syria and theres christians being slaughtered on a daily basis   i love Jesus and i am not afraid but if you care about politics you better go to infowars dot com and find out the truth about our world politically bc we are under attack from our gov which has been hijacked by the devil via international bankers aka the new world order

Posted by bella on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 8:07 AM (EST):

“First off it is Romney who is running for President not Ryan (I’ll get to him later),...Romney is no better than Obama. They are the same person with the same master…”

bella, I agree with your commentary.  Cathy

As a faithful remnant of the Catholic faith, I will not vote for either candidate, Romney or Obama because both are of the culture of death. Christ is the culture of life.  I am not comfortable with Romney changing his deep position of pro-choice as Governor of MA to pro-life. Is it just for votes opposing Obama’s pro-choice stand?  Furthermore, Romney is affiliated with the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations which tells me that we will be in for another PUPPET and I am not comfortable with the Damon Org operation bilking Medicare and Medicaid out of Millions of dollars. Is this his brand of a businessman?  I will do either of two things:  Refuse to vote or vote a write in for DR. Ron Paul, a pro-lifer for his entire life…God bless him.

Hey Mitch, AH might have hated Communists but AH spent his last breath hating and warning of international bankers ie Romney. With 21 trillion off-shore nad the effect it has on nationalism THINK HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CORRECT?
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450429a.html

To Jacqueleen:

Any vote not for Romney (such as Ron Paul) is a de facto vote for Obama, thereby making it easier for him to be re-elected.  Whatever you may think about Romney, consider what will happen to the United States if Obama has 4 more years…there is only one choice…vote for Romney…I do not particularly like Romney any more than you do, but Obama must be defeated.

Rand herself accepted social security payments and medicare benefits.  Quite the objectivist!  FYI: Ryan paid for his college education with social security death benefits from his father.  He also accepted federal money from Obama’s stimulus spending.

Did I miss the article:
The Barak Obama-Karl Marx Connection: What is a Catholic to think?

@ Rob,

Point well made!

Why would I vote for someone I don’t believe in like Obama/Romney.What is this defacto nonsense.I would rather not vote at all.I vote for people I believe in.

To vgmrmojo.  “De Facto” means “in fact.”  If Republicans/conservatives splinter their vote between Romney and a 3rd party candidate like Ron Paul, that will guarantee the re-election of Obama, and that would be bad.  There is no doubt that Obama’s war against Christianity would accelerate if he is given a second term.

vgmrmojo:
Don’t vote often, do you?

I am far from a historian, but isn’t there a lot of Catholic rituals that were taken from the pagan cultures we evangelized?  If so, how is this different from taking the good from Rand and leaving the bad.

I realize Rand was an atheist and that she hated religion. But that doesn’t make much of what she wrote any less true. Each individual IS primarily responsible for his/her own happiness. And although she saw no moral DUTY for charity, she was not opposed to an individual being charitable voluntarily, presuming that charity led to happiness for the individual.  But she was absolutely against FORCED charity, i.e. the Welfare State, which of course isn’t charity at all. And as far as saying she favored war on the weak, I never saw it that way. A prosperous, free market economy allows even those those with only their labor to trade to also successfully participate whereas Statist systems result in poverty all around (except for the elitists who run them.) Now, if you say she favored war on the lazy, I might agree with that.

If you are a Republican/conservative why would you vote for a non-republican-conservative?

To vgmrmojo:

Because I believe that Obama’s socialist/communist policies are so devastating for our country…I would vote for an old shoe and sock.  To be clear, I wish that any other person than Romney obtained the Republican nomination.  But since Romney did, I have no choice but to vote for Romney to make sure that Obama is not re-elected.

I have to say that I listen to allot of Catholic radio and watch allot of Catholic TV, and I have never heard any of the professional catholics take apart even one of the high profile CINOs like cuomo, pelosi, biden, or the current HHS head for any of their excesses or heresies like your guest took apart Paul Ryan for his flirtation with ayn rand. I can only conclude that it is because he is Conservative. But then I should expect that a Catholic Conservative would be treated this way by those in the Church who have latched onto the social justice mantra and consider eradicating poverty such a high and sacred calling that they are willing to give unto caesar the things that are God’s and place it even above the salvation of souls.

Look. . . Paul Ryan is a politician. The fact that he is a GOOD CATHOLIC by all accounts, and the he is at least trying to bring his policy initiatives in line with his Faith is a plus for me. However, I am also a Patriot. I believe in the principles upon which this nation was founded. I believe in free enterprise. I do NOT believe that the latest attempts to buy votes by redistributing wealth from hard working achievers to 51% of the electorate is an attempt to alleviate poverty OR establish “social justice”. I believe it is tyranny. And I believe we are in grave danger of losing this Republic to a rot-gut culture and a scheming marxist regime. 

So I am going to vote for a Mormon, and I don’t care that Paul Ryan likes ayn rand. Maybe this would be important if he was running against a Faithful Catholic the likes of JP2, but he is not. He is running against b.o. - a secular marxist. That is not a hard choice for me. I trust Ryan to work out his salvation and this Faith with his bishop and his spiritual advisor.  I trust he will make a great vice president - even better than pro-death and gay marriage catholic joe biden.  And I HOPE he and the Mormon will do their level best to restore Liberty and Constitutional limits on government, and leave us, Christ’s Church, to do His work and thus give unto God the things that are God’s.

I believe readers would be better served by a direct critique of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, how it can be found in her work, and how it can lead Catholics into error. Dr Wiker’s assertion that Rep Ryan must pass some philosophical benchmark to win the loyalty of Catholic voters is out of place. As a counter example, consider Abraham Lincoln. In his own time he was severely criticized for some of his unorthodox views, but he is considered a great leader. We are not asked to vote for a prophet, or a rabbi, or philosopher—but for representatives, senators, governors, mayors, and presidents. We should examine candidates qualifications for those offices.

I really enjoyed this blogger’s article, made some good points, etc.  Many of us do not agree, however, that you can divorce any of Ayn Rand’s ideas from the foundation out of which they grew.  While it is true that there are good and bad aspects of every person, Rand’s economic ideas, being tied to the foundation of selfishness, cannot be adopted without tremendous risk.  With someone like Rand, who idolized a serial murderer/dismemberer and used him as the model for her male heroes, no theory that came from her twisted mind should be used by any Catholic for any reason.  We cannot trust that the concept is not tainted.  If we want to rely upon someone for economic ideas, I recommend an actual ECONOMIST, not a sociopathic fiction writer.

I agree with most of what you said about Ayn Rand.  One thing I disagree with in the analysis of the few good things she did believe is that statement that Rand rejected materialism.  I think the exact opposite, that Ayn Rand was very materialistic.  When she basically says that man’s only goal should be the achievement of his own happiness, is this not materialistic thinking?  Let us also remember that Karl Marx also valued naked self interest, and that Marx valued it for many of the same reason that Rand does.  Whittaker Chambers argues convincingly in his devastating 1957 National Review critique of Atlas Shrugged that Randian objectivism is very much a materialistic philosophy.

I’m sure the moderators of these comments would not permit me to take on all the smears and misconstruments of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, but perhaps I can take on one or two in rebuttal. Miss Rand did not admired Hickman, the murderer, due to the fact that he was a murder; but rather due to the fact that he had the attitude that “What is good for me is the good,” an egoistic approach, which she found wanting in the American culture. In Objectivism, man’s life—what man is factually and can be proven with reasoning about the facts—is the standard of morality. And she found it curious that such a prosperous country as the United States when she immigrated here from the Soviet Union did not understand that more explicitly—like Aristotle’s eudaimonia, of happiness on earth as a motivation and assertion of man’s ability to live his own life. That Hickman was a murder severely contradicts her morality—the Objectivist ethics—and she condemned him for taking that route. As to Objectivism being a type of materialism, nothing could be further from the truth. Miss Rand and Objectivists are very concerned with human consciousness and its proper functioning, and we do not think that material reality is all there is insofar as we do have a consciousness and can experience and have spiritual values related to man’s well-being of consciousness. That a man can love another or even value well-made art are spiritual values which Objectivism rightfully embraces. What we do reject is the idea that man has a separable soul in the Christian sense. Man is an integrated being of mind and body, it’s not one or the other. We don’t reject the material in the name of the spirit nor do we reject the spiritual in the name of the material—we recognize that each man is something specific in reality and that he can understand and value different aspects of existence. For more information, I highly recommend actually reading Ayn Rand’s books so you can come to a more informed conclusion about her and Objectivism.

Thank you.

A budget is a moral document.
Mr. Ryan’s budget best describes his moral positions.
To wit, I am with the “Nuns on a Bus” and I reject Mr. Ryan’s claim that his work is based upon his Catholic faith. It is based upon Ms. Rand’s blithering, inconsequential, self-indulging precept of a philosophy.
Actual philosphers, show the multitude of weaknesses of Ms. Rand’s thought. It is not a philosophy so much as it is a utopic view that is not witnessed in action, or closely actualized by any other than the sociopaths among us. A philosophy that has never been lived, even by Rand herself. It is a compassless course predicated upon a life without compromise or compassion.
Mr. Ryans budget heeds none of Christ’s admonitions, and until it does so fails as a ‘Catholic’ inspired document.

Vote for Joe Biden, not for Paul Ryan. That’s what a Catholic is to think.

@Dirk Schneider
“Whittaker Chambers argues convincingly in his devastating 1957 National Review critique of Atlas Shrugged that Randian objectivism is very much a materialistic philosophy.”
-
I have to disagree, Chambers opens his critique with insults and admitting that he does not understand the overwhelming appeal of the book. This is not a serious review, it is a snide attack, and it fails to understand the premise of the book.  Her message in simple terms is that what separates man from animals is his ability to envision and create. This production process is not a selfish act, in fact all mankind benefits from the invention and creation of other men.
—-
What makes some people hate the book is that it shines a light on those people who do not envision and create.  Those people who steal ideas, those who use politics to take what others have created and those people who make a living restricting creativity or tearing it down rather than creating themselves. So it is no wonder that Chambers hates Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.  Rather than writing and creating, he uses his position as a reviewer not to explain, summarize or evaluate books that others create, but he uses his position to tear down others work. I urge you to read his review because it is vile and filled with such ill will that one cannot take it seriously.
—-
In Ayn Rand’s books the ideal characters are honest, pure and noble.  They strive painfully to use the gifts that they have received, to use those gift to their greatest ability.  As a Christian I see these characters as correctly representing man - man created in the image and likeness of God.
The evil characters are those that cheat, lie, sneer, feed of of others and tear people down. This includes intellectuals that use their position to teach moral relativism.
—-
If you have ever asked yourself, how does my job make a difference?  Am I advancing us, helping, creating, leaving the world better off? Then you will see the simple message in her books - “Be a creator not someone who tears down”

Having served in a State Constitutional Convention and managed several State and Federal campaigns , I was suprised that anybody   considered a budget to be a moral document. A budget is a purely POLTICAL DOCUMENT which shows how you will accomplish proposed legislative goals.You cant fulfill goals to help the poor with a failing financial plan… A second comment “Vote for Biden , not for Ryan . That is what a Catholic should think” That   I suppose is a joke . He should have said .“Vote for Bin Ladin” That also is a poor joke! Unfortunately Biden and the Democrats , have left the Catholic fold!!I wish they had not been won over   by the financial lobbyists of Planned Parenthood.

To Steve:

A budget is not a “moral document.”  A budget is merely one aspect of economics, and is a plan on how to spend money (remember, money is a limited resource) and takes into account many issues, including but not limted to, the amount of income available to meet expenses.  But I ask you, who is John Galt?

Ayn Rand, with all her “genius” philosophy of “To each his own”, married an American, was left widowed & depended on welfare!  !  !

Meanwhile, the Romney/Ryan attitude of “to each his own” never mentions the handicapped, those unable to hold a job due to their illness, such as erasure of memory due to seizures, the slowing thought process due to seizures, a 12 year old girl in an umbroller the size of a 3 year old in a regular size stroller, and many, many more examples.  Ryan wants to eventually get rid of Social Security, which members of both parties like. It was obvious at the Republican convention.  “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”  Republicans want each state to take care of its own people.  Governors like in Texas doesn’t do that.  So I disagree 100% with Ryan.  Why did the U.S. budget suddenly go red during the Bush years?  He (they) don’t care about the less privileged at all.  Very un-Christian.  I applaud Warren Buffet.  Romney doesn’t pay taxes to his own country that he should.  He prefers to be a miser by putting his money in other countries.  Romney/Ryan & all the Bush staff on down don’t want a middle class in the U.S.  They want rich/poor only, making the middle income/poor their own slaves.  Greed is hateful, pure hatred.  I speak for those who cannot hold a job due to limitations from childhood to those who have worked most of their lives, then something has happened to them, keeping them from working.  I know I have always wanted to be normal, work, be self sufficient, but never have had the privilege.  Life has always been frustrating, hopeless, tearful, but as long as others well off don’t experience this, they don’t care.  They honestly do not care.  A very recent example of that attitude, is the supervisor of the handicap bus reservationist.  The Americans with Disabilities Act has allowed the handicapped to go places, which was not possible before.  This supervisor knew some handicap passengers could not take extreme heat, yet didn’t bother having the a/c fixed, or arranging for a city car available to transport these people until the city manager was spoken to.  The supervisor was managing the handicapped passengers as if he owned the “business” (which it is not…a private business). We need more Warren Buffets and less greed; neither money nor material goods can be taken to heaven.  So what controls what?  Does the rich person control his money, or does it control him?  His spirituality?

@ Pooka - “He (they) don’t care about the less privileged at all. Very un-Christian.” Which is more Christian - 1) charity or 2) coercion? Let me be clear, I am no Romney fan and am not registered Republican - registering Republican or Democrat, to me, is giving tacit approval to the corrupt two-party system. For you to suggest using the coercive force of a corrupt federal government to care for the less privileged sounds more Marxist than Christian. Take measure of what you have done voluntarily and stop using government thugs to “do good”. It’s ruining our country!

“Posted by steve on Friday, Aug 31, 2012 5:32 PM (EST):

A budget is a moral document.
Mr. Ryan’s budget best describes his moral positions.
To wit, I am with the “Nuns on a Bus” and I reject Mr. Ryan’s claim that his work is based upon his Catholic faith. It is based upon Ms. Rand’s blithering, inconsequential, self-indulging precept of a philosophy.
Actual philosphers, show the multitude of weaknesses of Ms. Rand’s thought. It is not a philosophy so much as it is a utopic view that is not witnessed in action, or closely actualized by any other than the sociopaths among us. A philosophy that has never been lived, even by Rand herself. It is a compassless course predicated upon a life without compromise or compassion.
Mr. Ryans budget heeds none of Christ’s admonitions, and until it does so fails as a ‘Catholic’ inspired document.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-paul-ryan-ayn-rand-connection-whats-a-catholic-to-think/#ixzz25T4mlEEb”

Steve, although I agree with you somewhat on your take on Rand’s philosophy it is your statement about the budget being a “moral document” with which I disagree.  Not so much that it isn’t a moral document, but your (and the “nuns on the bus”) interpertation of that morality.  Saddling our children with enormous levels of debt, and an entitlement state that is not sustainable in its present form, is a curious form of morality to my way of thinking.  I also question the amount of true charity in using the force of the state to take from some to give to others.  True charity is always voluntary.

At the end of The Day, you may claim that truth is objective, but if you do not recognize The Word of God Is a person, our Savior, Jesus The Christ, The Truth of Love, then your understanding of objective Truth becomes relative.

@Nancy D: ‘understanding’ is precisely the thing that is ‘objective’ ‘...‘Truth’ ALWAYS cooresponds w/ reality ie: is ‘true’. Facts are what they are. THAT was Aristotles ‘a is a’ formulation that rand expanded on. If we choose to not recognize reality, if we choose to NOT see a thing that is for WHAT it is, THAT is being ‘subjective’. The subjective nature of ‘faith’ or, as rand would call it, ‘feelings’ is one of the things that turns objectivists off to religion. Unfortunately they are unwilling to (or unable to) apply reason to the questions of faith, GOD, and their own ‘understanding’. As an apostate from objectivism AND a heritic, i’ve a unique ‘understanding’ of why and how objectivists got the concept of GOD so wrong. Also an understanding of why and how the faithful get rand and objectivism so wrong. Objectivists will not contemplate the notion than on reality vis a vis GOD that they and Rand could be wrong. The faithful will not contemplatebthe notion that on objectivism and its moral code of rational self interest that objectivism and rand could be right. Pity.

THE MISSING ISSUE: Force.

One of the critical components of Atlas Shrugged is its powerful argument that it is immoral to wield force against another human being except in very, very narrow circumstances of justification.

This is important because Rand (correctly) notes that government policy always involves the use of force.

This does not mean that government is always bad. Rand did not say that, nor does Paul Ryan, nor any Republican, nor any conservative, any Tea Partier, nor do the vast majority of Libertarians. (Don’t contest that statement; you’ll lose. The closest they ever come is calling government a “necessary evil” and the word “necessary” gives away their opinion that government is, within limits, a required good.)

But government involves the use of force, and since government are our representatives (indeed, our employees), its authority to use force is limited.

There are three levels of social solidarity to be considered:

At the lowest level, the individual: I may not justly shoot another man for any old reason, but if he attacks me or breaks down my door in the middle of the night, I have justification to use force against him. Under certain circumstances I am morally obligated to do so.

At the highest level, international conflict: My country may not go to war against another merely over some stupid minor trade dispute. But if we are invaded or an ally is invaded, and certain other conditions apply, we can engage in a Just War. Under certain circumstances we’re morally obligated to do so.

At the in-between level, that of civil society and criminal law: My government may not justly use force to outlaw Britney Spears recordings or motorcycle-riding or compel one person to pay for another person’s contraceptives. But government may criminalize murder and rape and other forms of violent injustice, and indeed is morally obligated to do so.

The VITAL insight of Ayn Rand is this: When the government uses the power of force to “pick winners” in the marketplace, to subsidize bad businesses, and to buy votes through welfare schemes that demonstrably displace private almsgiving and exacerbate class warfare, the fact that its policies don’t work and have bad side effects is NOT the most important argument against those policies.

The most important argument against those policies is: They are an IMMORAL, an UNJUSTIFIED use of force by some men against other men. Thou Shalt Not Do Evil That Good Come From It. Even if these polices did work, they would be immoral by being unjust uses of force.

It is not just that Democrats who want to expand the welfare state are guilty of pandering and vote buying and dividing society with class warfare rhetoric. It is not just that they are advocating policies that hurt the poor.

It is that they are willfully (but ignorantly) constructing a system of sin. They are institutionalizing evil every bit as much as a Republican who argues that torture of terrorists ought to be legal…and in a way that does harm to a much larger number of persons.

I would never vote for a Democrat (unless the Republican was somehow, beyond imagination, significantly worse) because I refuse to stab my poor neighbors in the back that way, but also because I refuse to endorse a wholesale institutionalization of the wrongful use of force against my fellow man.

Those who accuse the Republicans (with some justice) of constantly advocating wars that don’t meet the criteria for a Just War need to be consistent and apply that same reticence for using force domestically, as well.

And this is a realization which Ayn Rand’s moral outrage, expressed in Atlas Shrugged, helps a person to appreciate with clarity…even when he knows that the whole “selfishness as a virtue” thing is bollocks.

Hi ,

Anyone who hates Jesus or the Holy Spirit is not good..this is in the Bible.
So, why does Paul Ryan try to parse words. This is not a case of turning lemons into lemonaide. In the future, interviewers should have him stick to the faith/scriptures, or just go with the world view.

Bye

P.S. found the site by accident.. interesting site.