Catholics United has called Paul Ryan on the carpet for his admiration of Ayn Rand. Rand, an atheist, is touted by many conservatives and libertarians as the quintessential capitalist.
Ayn taught the value of self over all other values. She considered anything less than regaling the individual close to slavery. Catholics United reminded Ryan of the teachings of Christ and he backed off the Rand worship. Larry O’Donnell plays a tape that seals the deal between atheist Rand and Ryan. It establishes his close relationship to the movement that has grown out of her philosophy.
Can people walk themselves back from commitments like this? Is it possible to greatly admire individuals whose core values are different from ours? Is it possible to espouse far-right (for lack of a better term) capitalism and practice the major tenants of Christianity or Judaism who tell us that we are our brother’s keeper?
I love watching the Catholic Church shoot itself in the foot by hopping into bed with politicians. Guess what, Catholic Church? This isn’t a school boy you’re messing with here! These politicians will have you bent over so fast you won’t know what hit you!
Good for the Catholic church in calling out this atheist turd politician named Paul Ryan. Mr Ryan worships a godless atheist.
Tell us how you really feel, Starry. 😈
It’s a shame that this self-admitted socialist, collectivist, hack atheist doesn’t provide the actual FULL quote in this poorly written hit piece. It’s a shame that this stupid “smart” guy doesn’t actually do any journalism.
“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan told National Review on Thursday. “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. Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”
In no cited quote does Ryan state that he agrees with Rand on RELIGIOUS matters. He is clearly stating that he agrees with her on ECONOMIC matters and on the nature of individual rights. There’s a huge difference is agreeing with Rand’s views on the free markets and individualism and being an Objectivist. Paul Ryan is not a follower of Objectivism. He is a believer in the value of freedom and free markets.
@SlowpokeRodriguez
It wasn’t the Catholic Church. It was ONE Jesuit. When Ryan’s priest, etc, condemns him, THEN it counts.
Don’t you love how smarmy the atheist news hack got when he was crowing about how Ryan was immune to attack until his religion “criticized” him?
Oh, and Catholics United is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. Its a non-profit progressive, social justice orgainzation. In fact, many of IT’S stances are antithetical to Catholic doctrine. And Father Reese appears to reflect the same ideological stance.
Soooo…. let’s see,… what we have here are two socialists and ONE cherry picked Catholic priest that conflates federal government spending with Christian charity, criticizing Paul Ryan.
Socialists criticizing and sound biting Ayn Rand’s philosophies. Go figure.
Typical MSNBC hackery.
Had I or any other contributor here used O’Donnell’s language in this diatribe we would certainly have been put in moderation. Listen to the name calling. Talk about a Demogog hit piece.
Blue, have I put anyone in moderation since you have been here? No. Didn’t think so.
Which names did you object to? I can’t really remember what all he said. My intent was getting some new material to respond to which took zero effort on my part. I am tired after getting the play out each day, come rain or shine. I take it you don’t live in the city?
Ayn Rand has always posed a dilemma for conservatives. I have long been a fan of her work and appreciate her portrayal of the contribution of the individual over the collective. Her writing is even very relevant to the workplace world. How many have become frustrated with whole “teamwork” mentality prevalent in many jobs where you get little or no credit for your individual accomplishments?
However, her atheist views pose a problem for most conservatives. The first prominent renunciation she suffered was from William F. Buckley in his “National Review,” which is the publication Congressman Ryan is now turning to explain himself. Buckley’s reasons for taking the stand he did were many fold, but her atheism was key. You can search YouTube for old videos of Buckley explaining his rational for not becoming a Rand fan.
I think the key point is that we can admire and accept some of the ideas anyone poses, but are not required to advocate all. I can’t name a single philosopher, writer, commentator, etc. with whom I can truthfully say that I agree or disagree with everything they said. That’s what makes us individuals. We are each a combination of what we’ve learned that fits our own philosophy, and views we synthesize ourselves based on our experience. That’s how I feel about Rand.
How boring it would be if we each had to pick one person after whom to mold ourselves in that person’s entirety rather than become our own individual self. I think Ayn Rand would smile at that thought.
THe more I hear about Paul Ryan, the less I like him –
@Need to Know
+1 on this. I had a workmate that is very devout and likes Rand’s view on individualism but stops short when it comes to matters of faith. He can take a piece from the Rand pie and still take a piece from his faith and put them together to come up with his (own) world view.
As it is he’s a little too socialy conservative for me and he thinks I’m way too fiscally conservative for him but we get along famously (in agreeing that Democrats are dingbats and republics are Democrat-lites)
Pat, Good to see you back. I was beginning to worry about you.
@Cargosquid
In your world, everyone you like is perfect, Cargo?
Have you ever found out more than you thought you knew about a hero? I have. You have to adjust your thinking a little.
You argue in the negative a lot. Because it isn’t in print? BS. I am going to suggest that there might be some room here for discussion if you didn’t jump off the deep end and start off with the name calling of Larry O’Donnell. Your opinion of him really doesn’t matter.
What does matter is that we are often called upon to have differing points of view co-existing in our brains. How do we handle it? How does Paul Ryan handle it?
Sorry for thinking that discussion was possible.
arrgghhh–I had to come back. Cargo, you are trying to distance Catholics United from the Catholic Church. Why? If I had to pull out the one thing I respect the most about the Catholic Church it would be its ministering to the poor and the less fortunate. I guess I am trying to say Catholic Charity. You speak of Catholics United as being antithetical to Catholic Doctrine? How about we compromise, assume “teachings of Christ” and I will ask you what it is that this organization does that is antithetical to the teachings of Christ?
Many Many organizations aren’t part of the church but are practiced and run by Catholics. You can’t take the Catholic out of them.
O’Donnell is a self-admitted socialist. And I’m just repeating HIS mantra of “stupid.” And this piece IS hackery.
I have found out a lot about my different heroes and adjust my thinking. But I don’t understand your comment. Where did I say that everyone I like is perfect? And I don’t understand your comment “Just because it isn’t in print….”
You seem to be arguing my point. RYAN states that he’s holding differing points of view. I agreed with that. Its O’Donnell that states Ryan is lying.
I am trying to separate Catholics United from the Catholic Church. O’Donnell was implying that CHURCH authorities were criticizing Ryan. But, instead, it was a political opponent, not a religious authority. Many causes supported by this group goes against Church doctrine. They support ACR, which a)DOES have structure to provide public money for abortions, B) tries to force Christian institutions to support abortion. And they support Gay rights, which goes against Church doctrine which proclaims homosexuality to be a sin.
Ok, let’s assume “teachings of Christ.” Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Charity begins at home.
My point was that O’Donnell was trying to paint a picture of Ryan to undercut him with any possible supporters. My point was that Ryan was able to support Rand’s economic thesis and not her philosophical/religious views. O’Donnell was trying to conflate the two while insulting Ryan. My point was that having O’Donnell worry about Ryan’s “problems” with the Catholic church, is hypocritical.