An Interesting Position
Mar 6th, 2010 by Randy Toman
Last night at the lehigh Valley 9/12 meeting we heard Professor Andrew Bernstein gave a talk on the virtues of reason and with his talk mentioning Ayn Rand and how much the book “Atlas Shugged” had influenced him. He also was promoting his new book “Capitalism Unbound”. An interesting thing happened in the Q&A Someone ask him—- And I Para-phase—Were does the “Christian Faith” fit into reason and the founding of the country? To which he said, It didn’t and that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of the country. I heard or at least I think I heard some voicing of disapproval around the room.
I tell you this only because a house divided cannot stand and we either put God and His Bible first or Ayn Rand and her book “Atlas Shugged” first. And from everything I read about her she was not a Christian and as a matter of fact she hated Christ and Christianity. Her position and thinking cannot line up with God if that is true and we than must consider our position and her teachings.
She promoted “Objectivism” which she called a philosophical system and claimed it as her system. Her system hinged on reason alone without the need of faith in anything but self and reason—–a very dangerous position to take. For if you take that to the extremes you have self reason with anarchy and power replacing authority of God’s law. Reason has no univocal meaning and will be guided by any number of terms and conditions, from blowing yourself up (which some think reasonable) to you name it.
Objectivism: Any of the various philosophical doctrines that stress the external, independent existence of what is perceived or known, an ethical theory equating ethical assertions with assertions about natural or social processes.
I found the Friday evening 9/12 meeting interesting and that it enlightens the seriousness of the problems. So WE SHALL SEE how things work out.
Randy
What Randy’s post fails to do is to tell you what Dr. Andrew Bernstein said in his 30 minute talk that will help us to take back America from the Marxist Statists (aka Progressives).
Dr. Bernstein said that Marxist Statists had begun their takeover plan for America in the late 1800s during the period of America’s greatest, productive, industrial achievements. The Statist historians unjustly smeared this period as “The Gilded Age” and the giants of industrial productivity as “Robber Barons.” Dr. Bernstein corrected this historical smear by naming the historical period “The Inventive Period” and the industrial giants “Productive Geniuses.”
The reason that America reached this enormous level of achievement in the 1800s was that the Constitution’s protection of Individual Rights, unique in all of history, allowed all Free men to use their minds to apply Reason & Logic to make judgments about reality, production, invention, and business. Throughout all of recorded history, productivity, invention, and achievement rise dramatically when Individual Rights are PROTECTED by Government and they fall dramatically when Individual Rights are VIOLATED by Government.
The war against statism is a war to reassert the crucially important message of the Declaration of Independence, “…to secure these RIGHTS government are instituted among men…” To protect Individual Rights is the ONLY justification for the existence of government. This “Rights protection” is the sole function of government and it protects invention, industrial production, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, and the freedom of RELIGION and the freedom to have no religion.
It was brilliant of the Founding Fathers to recognize that ONLY by protecting everyone’s Unalienable Individual Rights could America terminate forever the incessant, illogical, inter-religious wars and Monarch-based Statist conquests that had destroyed Europe for the previous 1,000 years and destroyed the whole world for millenia before that. Dr. Bernstein powerfully made the point that “Atlas Shrugged” and “Capitalism Unbound: The Incontestable Moral Case for Individual Rights” celebrate the Founders’ brilliant recognition of the fundamentality of Individual Rights to achieving tolerance among all men of reason and all men of faith. There is no conflict among men of reason and men of faith in an Individual Rights protecting nation!
Randy sets up an entirely false dichotomy when he says, “we either put God and His Bible first or Ayn Rand and her book “Atlas Shrugged” first.” The correct dichotomy is, we either put Individual Rights, tolerance among men, immense productivity, and Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness first or we put Statism (slavery to the State) first, whether that State is Environmentalist, Marxist, Nazi, Monarchical, or theocratic.
Randy, I was upset with what Prof. Andrew said…. Of course he is not a believing Jew. I thanked him for his presentation when I left and asked him if he ever heard David Barton from Wallbuiders? He replied “no”. I told him David Barton speaks about “America’s Godly Heritage ” and Education and our founding Fathers.” You might want to look it up!
He needs prayer. We can’t compromise with these non-believers, although I understand where he is coming from…..They are so smart, but they are Ignorant….. Keep on keeping on.
Maudenia Hornik and I are planning to go to the Easton School board meeting, she lives in Palmer but her children go to Christian school, nervertheless she is looking at 11% school taxes…..
iT’S TIME THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH…….cut the unecessary funding and giveaways…..
Randy,
Anyone who is into Philosophy is looking for Answers…..I understand Ayn Rand is or was an atheist. I don’t care that some of her ideas sounded good or believable. Apart from the “Book” it is all man’s thinking….if course she grew up in Russia…so one can understand her ideas….
so when the gentleman Asked the Professor, “What about the Judeo- christian influence on America? He couldn’t answer. He is a graduate of the Liberal Harvard University. so can we expect anything more……
Keep up the good fight….Perhaps someday he will see the “LIGHT!”
This response is a little “long winded”, but hopefully it’s worth the read and worth giving some thought…
When considering the seemingly opposite poles of perspective regarding faith and liberty between folks like Ayn Rand and Professor Bernstein on one end, and the fellow who asked the question regarding the effect the Judeo-Christian faith has on forming and sustaining a free government, I simply turn to our founding documents and the recorded statements of the Founders for insight.
The two statements of utmost importance from which to draw well reasoned conclusions are the preambles, first of the Declaration of Independence, and then of the US Constitution. One precedes the other, both in time and in prominence. It is the preamble to the Declaration of Independence that “declares” the “self evident truths” of the “separate and equal station” that we as men are “entitled” to, by virtue of being a “creation” of “Nature’s God”, established among “the powers of the earth” governed by the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. That’s the “big idea” that the Founders discovered, and I say “discovered” because that “big idea”, as “self evident truth” exists instantly with the existence of the first man and survives until the extinction of his kind. The “big idea” doesn’t rely on man for its existence, but man relies on the “big idea” for his “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (aka virtue)”.
The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is all about man coming to the political realization of the source of creation, the source of “good”, of his orientation to the “good” emanating from his “creator”, and his need to form an allegiance with the “good”, along with an aversion to the forces of evil and destruction that rise up in rebellion and opposition to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. The great “Declaration” was made by men who were both what could be called “men after God’s own heart”, and great political philosophers attuned to the revelations of “The Enlightenment”. Such a combination of faith and intellect is the ultimate crystallization of the spirit and mind as it relates to the human condition, and exactly what led to the exceptionalism of the government formed by the United States of America and its people.
However, moving on to the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, we search every word, especially in times of dispute much like the one triggered by last night’s Q & A, and are startled to find that there is no mention of the Creator and no mention of Nature’s God. The closest thing we can find to what we’re looking for is in the phrase “to secure the Blessings…”, but even here, we find the Founders speaking, not about the blessings of God, but about the blessings of Liberty. And we can search and search the document and find no reference and no specific mention of the deity of the great Declaration, except that clause in the First Amendment which establishes that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…
What’s happened here? Did the Founders get overcome by “political correctness” sometime between 1776 and 1787? Or were they “losing their religion” or backing away from the faith expressed in the great Declaration to which they had previously pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor?” Not one bit. But with the Constitution of the United States of America, the Founders were establishing a government carefully crafted to uphold and protect the “big idea” of America’s great Declaration of the “self evident truths” to all mankind, not only to govern the people of this new nation, but also to serve as an example to the world.
They looked to the future with a knowledge of the past. They had seen and even suffered the atrocities committed by governments who regulated the practice of religion and where religion controlled the government. And they realized, just as explained to us by our speaker last evening, that external governmental regulation of the spirit as well as external government regulation of the mind is the eternal and most effective enemy of Liberty. And thus they established a secular framework for a “nation of laws” that would protect the “big idea”, which includes the free exercise and expression of faith in both the “Laws of Nature” and in “Natures God”, and protect all the rest of the “inalienable rights” of mankind from the evils of men who would surely seek to destroy them.
So, I don’t fret when challenged by an Ayn Rand, or sit down to learn from a Professor Bernstein, who are still working on reaching a truly complete grasp of the relationship between faith and political philosophy. I am eager to learn all I can from them, and from what they don’t know, (or even don’t know they don’t know), in spite of their shortcomings. To be honest, I’m a little more afraid of my fellows in the faith who, with equal fervor, would, but for the protections of the “big idea” of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence provided by the Constitution of the United States, seek to subject me to the evolving tenets and doctrines of any particular religious sect. The key to avoid the pitfalls of becoming a “house divided” is to understand the paradox of becoming a man “after God’s own heart” with a “head worthy of establishing, exercising, and preserving a government to which I should choose to consent”. If we as a movement can grasp this paradox, we’ll have become worthy of what we’ve been handed by our nation’s Founders.
“So, I don’t fret when challenged by an Ayn Rand, or sit down to learn from a Professor Bernstein, who are still working on reaching a truly complete grasp of the relationship between faith and political philosophy.”
“To be honest, I’m a little more afraid of my fellows in the faith who, with equal fervor, would, but for the protections of the “big idea” of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence provided by the Constitution of the United States, seek to subject me to the evolving tenets and doctrines of any particular religious sect.”
This is an argument I hear often. Many are more afraid of people of faith than from people who are Atheists. I really don’t see people of faith expressing their beliefs to others or that it is such a dangerous thing. I am, however, not saying they should force their beliefs on others. When someone attempts to teach us anything, they are, in a way, forcing their beliefs on us when we are a captive audience. An example of that would be students in a government school setting. What I do see is an effort by Atheists to remove any teaching of religion or the teaching of good moral practices as teaching a religion which it may not be at all. The teaching or suggestion that their is a GOD, is not the same as teaching a specific religion. This can be a dangerous thing because the difference between right and wrong definitely has roots in most religions, (IE the Holy bible), Atheism has no such foundation to draw from.
I did enjoy these comments from all who responded to Randy’s posting.
Correction:
“faith expressing their beliefs to others or that it is such a dangerous thing.”
Should be “faith forcefully expressing their beliefs to others or that it is such a dangerous thing.”
arlene writes ” of course he is not a believing Jew.” why? did he say so? or do you think a Jew has to have a beard, wear a skullcap and keep kosher to be a believing Jew, while a Christian can go to church once a year and wear pastel on Easter?
I read ayn rand and never saw a conflict between her doctrines and religion.