Atlas Shrugged

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

http://www.sodahead.com/living/video-the-truth-about-gop-hero-ayn-rand/question-1695221/

[frankenstein]

papa,

here is basically were tss got some of the information.

watch the video http://thinkprogress...about-ayn-rand/

Mike Wallace: You are out to destroy almost ever edifice of American way of life, our Judeo-Christian religion, our modified government regulated capitalism, our rule by majority will ... you scorn Churches and the concept of God. Are these accurate criticisms?

Rand: Yes.

Wallace: If a man is weak or a woman is weak then she is beyond love?

Rand: He certainly does not deserve it, he certainly is beyond.

Wallace: There are very few of us by your standards who are worthy of love.

Rand: Unfortunately very few.

------------------------

Now ask your yourself upon what do all the law and the Prophets hang?

Ask yourself "Who is my neighbor and how should I treat my neighbor"?

Ask yourself, "What is the greatest love a person can have", and would a selfish person have this type of love?

Then ask yourself, who has the better way, rand or the Gospel.

The Gospel promotes Zion - a place of refuge - in Zion there will be no poor, all things will be in common. In Zion, according to times past, the poor and widows will be looked after.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

Same video clip. Different source.

[Deborah]

here is basically were tss got some of the information.

And here was my response when tss first put that that she said such horrible things like "Man's life is a standard of Value; we should not force other people nor accept force from other people; we should allow others to follow their own rational self-interest; man is entitled to his own happiness but he must work to achieve his own happiness and not demand others provide it for him (which in my view is impossible anyway)."

She was an atheist. Get over it. But she also had some very insightful things to say about man's right to live without government interference and that man if left alone could accomplish great things. Atlas Shrugged was very prophetic which is why it has had such a resurgence in popularity today. People don't care about her religious beliefs; they do care what is happening to our country and see it described in the book and movie.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

To a LDS what is the value of man? Is it our own self pleasure? Or is it in good part our contributions to the betterment/helping of others. To give compassionate service.

It doesn't bother me that she was an atheist. Though I do believe she was wrong in that belief.

What I don't understand is her appeal to LDS.

The whole purpose of government is to "interfere" with the not so nice actions/interactions of its citizens. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

James Madison

[frankenstein]

She was an atheist. Get over it. But she also had some very insightful things to say about man's right to live without government interference and that man if left alone could accomplish great things. Atlas Shrugged was very prophetic which is why it has had such a resurgence in popularity today. People don't care about her religious beliefs; they do care what is happening to our country and see it described in the book and movie.

she was much more than an atheist, she preached against God.

Further, I do not understand the appeal she has with LDS or anyone who would call themself a christian, as rand philosophy are not compatible with the gospel. her philosophy is closer (if not the basis for) anton levays satanism.

[Jeff K.]

Frankenstein you don't understand because you choose not to. Individual responsibility is an important component in the lives of most Latter-Day Saints. The fact we will be judged for our own efforts and actions and are expected to provide for ourselves as well as others. We are independent entities not an ant farm to be run by some various species of queen ant or bee.

As has been explained to you many times over, much of Rand's philosophy revolves around those self same philosophies..

Can you tell me how you can be an atheist as an advocate of your position and NOT preach against the existence of God?

Your emphasis that somehow

she was much more than an atheist, she preached against God.

Makes no sense at all.

Further, I do not understand the appeal she has with LDS or anyone who would call themself a christian, as rand philosophy are not compatible with the gospel. her philosophy is closer (if not the basis for) anton levays satanism.

I didn't realize Satan taught personal responsibility. Perhaps you can show us all where he does that? Or are you simply interpreting far afield as you tend to do?

[Jeff K.]

Deborah:

To a LDS what is the value of man? Is it our own self pleasure? Or is it in good part our contributions to the betterment/helping of others. To give compassionate service.

It doesn't bother me that she was an atheist. Though I do believe she was wrong in that belief.

What I don't understand is her appeal to LDS.

The whole purpose of government is to "interfere" with the not so nice actions/interactions of its citizens. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

James Madison

Those are interesting philosophical positions. Is a man's worth equal to his virtue? Or is there an intrinsic value that lack of virtue cannot erase? What does that say of anti-Christs?

And I believe you conflate the supposed purpose of government with the actual actions of government. While the government is supposed to stop not so nice interactions, they also stop nice one's. They also take away personal responsibility, and they often stifle innovative actions. If men were angels no government would be necessary, but why then replace the little tyrants of man with the great powerful tyrant of government which can crush all men.

[frankenstein]

[ayn rand supporter or ayn rand detractor] you don't understand because you choose not to.

her philosophy fits closely, if not inspired, the central tenants of the Satanism.

[frankenstein]

I didn't realize Satan taught personal responsibility. Perhaps you can show us all where he does that? Or are you simply interpreting far afield as you tend to do?

"We Satanists drain the cup of life, and, through informed choice and full personal responsibility, handle the results of our decisions with skill and grace."

satanism101.com

"We don’t accept faith or mysticism. We demand bedrock knowledge—Understanding—which can come from outward research and observation as well as carnal intuition." (this is very similar to what rand told mike wallace)

churchofsatan.com

"Nine Satanic Statements", one of the Church of Satan's central doctrines, is a paraphrase, again unacknowledged, of passages from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. "

SOURCES: ASL, The Satanic Bible; Ragnar Redbeard, Might is Right, Port Townsend: Loompanics (reprint), 1896; Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (Galt's speech, ca. pages #936-993); "Yankee Rose" by Sidney Holden & Abe Frankl (Irving Berlin Music, 1926).

satanismcentral.com

[Deborah]

The whole purpose of government is to "interfere" with the not so nice actions/interactions of its citizens. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

James Madison

The "whole" purpose? Nonsense. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens, not to interfere with them, particularly if they are not doing harm and just because those in power disagree with them.

[Deborah]

her philosophy is closer (if not the basis for) anton levays satanism.

You have no idea what you are talking about. It appears you know nothing about her philosophy or LeVay's.

[Jeff K.]

"We Satanists drain the cup of life, and, through informed choice and full personal responsibility, handle the results of our decisions with skill and grace."

satanism101.com

"We don’t accept faith or mysticism. We demand bedrock knowledge—Understanding—which can come from outward research and observation as well as carnal intuition." (this is very similar to what rand told mike wallace)

churchofsatan.com

"Nine Satanic Statements", one of the Church of Satan's central doctrines, is a paraphrase, again unacknowledged, of passages from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. "

SOURCES: ASL, The Satanic Bible; Ragnar Redbeard, Might is Right, Port Townsend: Loompanics (reprint), 1896; Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (Galt's speech, ca. pages #936-993); "Yankee Rose" by Sidney Holden & Abe Frankl (Irving Berlin Music, 1926).

satanismcentral.com

Gee, where to begin.... You use a D list celebrity to define doctrine for a church, any church (even Satan's) can ruin credibility. The individual spouted off all kinds of fell good phrases without establishing any known doctrine. The individual you quote isn't qualified to speak for any church. Though I heard he was good with a wurlitzer.

Based on the context of your quotes, you probably think all rationalists are satanists then? They have the same position based strictly on your quotes.

In fact you could argue then that the LDS church which teaches that the greater light is what we seek follows the same tenets you are arguing are being followed by the source you quote.

Or we can all agree that D-List celebrities in San Fran really aren't what we would call authoritative in any sense of the word.

I think you need to come up with something better than celebrity wannabe's to establish the link you claim.

[frankenstein]

You have no idea what you are talking about. It appears you know nothing about her philosophy or LeVay's.

do you care to counter the statements I put forth, particularly the one about atlas shrugged being a inspiration for the satanic bible? I know quite well what I am talking about. You and others want to place your heads in the sand and deny that rands overall philosophy is not in line nor any where near the Gospel; that is your perojative, but please do not tell me that after the many posts on this thread the videos I have linked, that I do not know what I am talking about.

Gee, where to begin.... You use a D list celebrity to define doctrine for a church, any church (even Satan's) can ruin credibility. The individual spouted off all kinds of fell good phrases without establishing any know doctrine. The individual you quote isn't qualified to speak for any church. Though I heard he was good with a wurlitzer. ;)Based on the context of your quotes, you probably think all rationalists are satanists then? They have the same position based strictly on your quotes. n fact you could argue then that the LDS church which teaches that the greater light is what we seek follows the same tenets you are arguing are being followed by the source you quote. Or we can all agree that D-List celebrities in San Fran really aren't what we would call authoritative in any sense of the word. I think you need to come up with something better than celebrity wannabe's to establish the link you claim.

rather than insult, try addressing the substance. second, do a little reading, from the churcofsatan website

Our members span an amazing political spectrum, which includes but is not limited to: Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Independents, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists, Stalinists, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Zionists, Monarchists, Fascists, Anarchists, and just about anything else you could possibly imagine. It is up to each member to apply Satanism and determine what political means will reach his/her ends, and they are each solely responsible for this decision. Freedom and responsibility—must be a novel concept for those who aren’t Satanists.

that you and others want to deny that satanism and rands philosophy go hand in hand, is well, just fine with me, but you can not be honest and deny the similarities or connection between rand and satanism.

i am glad someone of you found a book to read that you enjoyed, having read john galts speech from the book, i see no need to read any more of, and knowing that the author has wrapped what is a satanic message in roses, I again see no reason to read her book.

[Walden]

From FB site on the movie: Mike Hall's link to The Hollywood Reporter:

"The critics are "revitalizing me with their outrageousness," John Aglialoro, who spent $10 million of his own money on the film, tells THR.

The man who says he spent $10 million of his... own money to bring Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 to the big screen vowed Wednesday to go through with his plans to make the next two installments, even though critics hate the movie and business at movie theaters has fallen off a cliff."

I guess this keeps alive the mantra that "a fool and his money are soon parted"

[Jeff K.]

do you care to counter the statements I put forth, particularly the one about atlas shrugged being a inspiration for the satanic bible? I know quite well what I am talking about. You and others want to place your heads in the sand and deny that rands overall philosophy is not in line nor any where near the Gospel; that is your perojative, but please do not tell me that after the many posts on this thread the videos I have linked, that I do not know what I am talking about.

rather than insult, try addressing the substance. second, do a little reading, from the churcofsatan website

Our members span an amazing political spectrum, which includes but is not limited to: Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Independents, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists, Stalinists, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Zionists, Monarchists, Fascists, Anarchists, and just about anything else you could possibly imagine. It is up to each member to apply Satanism and determine what political means will reach his/her ends, and they are each solely responsible for this decision. Freedom and responsibility—must be a novel concept for those who aren’t Satanists.

that you and others want to deny that satanism and rands philosophy go hand in hand, is well, just fine with me, but you can not be honest and deny the similarities or connection between rand and satanism.

i am glad someone of you found a book to read that you enjoyed, having read john galts speech from the book, i see no need to read any more of, and knowing that the author has wrapped what is a satanic message in roses, I again see no reason to read her book.

And here I thought you were insulting our intelligence by getting a celebrity wannabe and attempting to tell us his doctrine defines a religion and isn't simply your typical feel good Hollywood do nothing with a touch of bad boy. The individual is no more a satanist than the Lone Ranger is a real cowboy, and one would have to be tonto to believe that.

An empty amorphous mass of any and all beliefs is no more satanist than our church is. I suggest you take the subject matter a tad more seriously.

One could say you sound as much like a satanist as the fictional character and philosopher you seem so distracted with. Do you admit to it also given that he names your doctrine in his own?

[Deborah]

I guess this keeps alive the mantra that "a fool and his money are soon parted"

And that is the beauty of freedom. One can spend his money his own way without some Big Brother telling him what to do with his life. I may not agree with how someone spends his money but I have the same freedom (or should have if the government would get out of my pocket). Besides I think he'll recoup his money in DVD sales. There are so many people all over the world who want to see this but can't get it to play near them.

[Deborah]

You and others want to place your heads in the sand and deny that rands overall philosophy is not in line nor any where near the Gospel....

Neither is supporting gay marriage, especially when the church has officially taken a stand on this, yet there are members of the church who support this. So are they all satanists too because that belief is not in line nor anywhere near the Gospel?

And again, I say you are wrong. Just because you read it somewhere and take it out of context doesn't make it so.

[USU78]

The "whole" purpose? Nonsense. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens, not to interfere with them, particularly if they are not doing harm and just because those in power disagree with them.

Francis, apparently, has failed to read the first article of the USmerican Bill of Rights.

It begins: "Congress shall make no law . . ."

It's about restraint of governmental and not restraint of citizens' behavior.

USU "Needs to find his copy of 'Plain English for Lawyers' and begin lending it to his knee-jerk illiberal friends" 78

[frankenstein]

Neither is supporting gay marriage, especially when the church has officially taken a stand on this, yet there are members of the church who support this. So are they all satanists too because that belief is not in line nor anywhere near the Gospel?

And again, I say you are wrong. Just because you read it somewhere and take it out of context doesn't make it so.

I took what out of context? I posted unedited videos or verbatim transcripts....care to think of some better smear campaign.

And lets turn your example around:

Committed gay couples, can adopt and will love the children they adopt. Those children will be grow up and most likely contribute to society, so therefore, based on your reasoning - which seems to be "any amount of good is good enough for me to ignore the bad" means that we should actually support ssm and heterosexual, to be more particular we should support responsible marriages same sex or otherwise. There is good to be found in ssm.

[frankenstein]

Francis, apparently, has failed to read the first article of the USmerican Bill of Rights.

It begins: "Congress shall make no law . . ."

It's about restraint of governmental and not restraint of citizens' behavior.

USU "Needs to find his copy of 'Plain English for Lawyers' and begin lending it to his knee-jerk illiberal friends" 78

speaking of knee jerks and jerks in general, you might want to go back a page or two and see who deborah was responding too about the role of government, and you might want to find (which you wont because there are not any) post in this thread wherein I have made statements about the role of government or the role of congress. My activity in this thread has consistently been the similarities between rand's philosophy and satanism as founded by anton levay.

I was not the one who made a statement about the role of government.

Also you might want to post the whole of "Congress shall make no law" as you present it, we should be a nation of no law created by congress; but that is not what it means is it, nice try, please try again. what a fine representative of the state bar you are.

[WalkerW]

Committed gay couples, can adopt and will love the children they adopt. Those children will be grow up and most likely contribute to society, so therefore, based on your reasoning - which seems to be "any amount of good is good enough for me to ignore the bad" means that we should actually support ssm and heterosexual, to be more particular we should support responsible marriages same sex or otherwise. There is good to be found in ssm.

That the video absolutely incredible.

To add my two cents, I can support the principles of loving relationships between spouse and children. Doesn't mean I have to support SSM. I can support free markets. Doesn't mean I have to support Ayn Rand in all she says and does. You can praise her for one thing and blast her for another and weight the options to see how much support you give her philosophies.

I do the very same thing with the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

And what pray tell is the government protecting if not against not so nice actions?

[USU78]

speaking of knee jerks and jerks in general, you might want to go back a page or two and see who deborah was responding too about the role of government, and you might want to find (which you wont because there are not any) post in this thread wherein I have made statements about the role of government or the role of congress. My activity in this thread has consistently been the similarities between rand's philosophy and satanism as founded by anton levay.

I was not the one who made a statement about the role of government.

Also you might want to post the whole of "Congress shall make no law" as you present it, we should be a nation of no law created by congress; but that is not what it means is it, nice try, please try again. what a fine representative of the state bar you are.

My apology: it was actually tss and not Francis who opined:

The whole purpose of government is to "interfere" with the not so nice actions/interactions of its citizens. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

James Madison

Government's police power is restrained by the Bill of Rights. This remains true regardless what the commentary by the Founders may say and which some may misconstrue. It was unrestrained exercise of police power by the Brits after the 7 Years' War that led to the Revolution. It was the unrestrained exercise of police power by the Sovs that led Ayn Rand to her low tolerance for government intervention in people's personal and economic/public lives.

Liberty is a big deal, even in the day of Barry Rex's "We can do more," with its "pie in the sky" absence of restraint on government's seeming limitless buttinskyism.

Francis' comparison of Ayn Rand's paean to Human Liberty to Satanism is so much vacuousness, as our friend Deb has so well demonstrated.

USU "Aims to achieve highest jerkiness in support of Man's G-d-given Liberty" 78

[Deborah]

You can praise her for one thing and blast her for another and weight the options to see how much support you give her philosophies.

Except according to Frankenstein if you don't like part of her philosophy then you should throw the whole thing out.

Frankenstein also has this little obsession with Satanists taking from her philosophy. So I suppose that means we should throw the Bible out as there are those who justified heinous actions because of their interpretations of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is satanic. And while we're at it we need to condemn the Quran because a fanatical group uses it to support it's bloodshed.

The problem with such illogic is that you need to apply to things you might not want to apply it to.