Religion

Chuck Colson Warns the Right: Ayn Rand Hated God

|

Chuck Colson points out to right-wingers enamored of either Ayn Rand or the new film based on her novel Atlas Shrugged that they need to condemn her three times and more:

He made a two minute video attacking Rand and her devotees, deriding Rand as an anti-Christian atheist. "Not only should you stay away from the film," Colson says, "you ought to stay away from anybody who wants to see the film, unless their interest is ironic." Colson warns that Rand's "patently anti-Christian ideas seem to be gaining steam" among conservatives, cautioning that her Objectivist philosophy is the "antithesis of Christianity" and that her followers are "undermining the Gospel"

Indeed they are! See my December 2009 Reason article on why the contemporary right might not be able to handle the radicalism of Rand.

See also my May issue feature on the making of Atlas Shrugged Part One, the movie.

It may of course be that the right has to make political cause with people who don't share its dominant religious beliefs, but that's not a lesson we should expect to hear from Colson.

And check out Chuckie's anti-Rand, pro-God video:

NEXT: The Poultry Farmer Liberation Front

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What is this “revealed truth” that Colson and his conservative ilk speak of?

    And why did Ayn Rand hate Reagan, Buckley and his brand so much?

    1. “And why did Ayn Rand hate Reagan, Buckley and his brand so much?”

      Ayn Rand did not play well with others. Do a Youtube video search for “Mozart Was a Red”. This is a parody of hers, If you did not agree with everything she believed she thoguht something must be wrong with you. She did not consider herself a libertarian either. She called libertarians “Whim worshipers” or “hippies of the right”. I used to be an objectivist and studied her. Many libertarians are FORMER objectivists. Few are current ones.

      1. I meant it is a parody of her. Mozart was a Red that is.

      2. Well hold on a second. You shouldn’t imply that most objectivists are libertarians. You are right that few libertarians are current objectivists, and I wouldn’t even say “many” are former objectivists, unless you are counting every teenager that got excited while reading [[insert book here]].

  2. Charles Colson started me on the road to libertarianism.

    As a 16 year old conservative I read his fascinating book Kingdoms in Conflict. In it he argued not only that Christians should get involved in the political process, but that they should not necessarily be voting for Christians. What is important, he said, is to vote for principle, not just person or party. Lights went off in my head when he argued that supporting a leader is not that much different from any other transaction. I buy potatoes from a farmer, regardless of his religion, he argued. I should do the same with my politicians.

    The fiction of other Christians, CS Lewis and Tolkien instilled in me a love for individuality and a suspicion of central managed planning.

    1. You don’t give a fuck about liberty.

      1. Care to back up that claim? Which of my views are not excessively pro liberty?

        …So glad you can read minds. I’ve looked for you all my life.

        1. You don’t give a fuck about mind reading.

          1. Damn, you read my mind! I stand naked before you.

            NOOOOOOOO intellectually naked. Save me from a lascivious shrike!

        2. You claim to be a conservative.

          I guess it could be past tense and you have since reformed – in which case I would be wrong and happily admit such.

          1. I’m still personally very conservative. I’m probably the most pro Ayn Rand, pro drug legalization of drugs, pro religion, pro gay contracts conservative out there.

            I know that Ayn Rand would hate my guts for a number of reasons, two being religion and libertarianism, but I think she makes a number of very valid points. I believe that every Christian should read her books and take her critique to heart.

      2. Shrike masquerades as an atheist, when the truth is that he/she just wishes to hate, and has decided that religion would be the target of that hate.

        As a true (scotsman?) athiest, I have no hate or fear for something I don’t even believe exists. How does one hate the nonexistent exactly?

        While I think that the religious are completely wrong, I don’t hate or fear them in any way. I just pity them their ignorance, as I do Shreek.

        1. Is it cumbersome hauling around such an awesomely enormous e-penis?

    2. Until I was exposed rather late in life to objectionablists and libraritarians I refered to myself — somewhat jokingly — as a “moderate anarchist,” seeking absolute minimum of government but not willing to initiate the use of force to bring it about. I found ideas that resonated in me while reading a wide array of fiction authors, especially Robert Heinlein. But my start down the path of a radical for individual liberty was very early.
      Oddly, for me it was a gang of bullies, my elementary school principal and comic books that introduced me to the concepts of the evil of initiating force, expecting authority too often to be a source of injustice, and the individual as an intervening actor for good.
      Yes, I said ‘comic books.’
      That might be why I talk the way I do, Fiend!
      (And also wear these nifty tights!)

  3. Who wouldn’t be anti-Christian? The whole thing is based on a human sacrifice. Some people even take part in a ceremony where they eat the flesh and drink the blood of that sacrifice. Bunch of sickos.

    1. Let’s build a straw man said the scare crow.

      1. Well, it’s true that some of them only do that metaphorically. Cost a lot of lives to get things to that point though.

        1. All humanity went horribly wrong cuz some chick ate an apple? All was fixed by executing an innocent man by slow suffocation? Not my idea of a plan, nor a basis for teaching morality.

    2. *Sets a Roman Catholic priest in front of IceTrey*

      Here’s the guy you need to discuss transubstantiation with. Some of us find god-flesh cannibalism beyond strange.

      1. Human flesh contains nearly all the nutrients humans need to survive. If we’re made in God’s image, then God’s flesh, of which our own flesh is but a poor copy, is surely even more nutritious. So what’s wrong with “cannibalism” involving a deity? It does no harm to the one being eaten and brings a blessing to the ones doing the eating.

        You haters are all so narrow-minded and intolerant…

        1. And you look so delicious…

        2. God has the electrolytes souls crave!

      2. Some of us find god-flesh cannibalism beyond strange.

        Relax dude — tastes like chicken.

  4. God wasn’t fond of Ayn Rand either. He gave her lung cancer and then outed her as a welfare queen.

    1. Max: Isn’t it amazing that it didn’t violate her principals either?

      But you wouldn’t know that. Or care. And no, I’m not an Objie.

    2. She wasn’t on Welfare, she accepted her Social Security benefits. Which she had paid into. So she was just really getting her own money back.

      1. A person rarely gets all of it back.

        1. A person rarely gets all of it back.

          If that was true then SS wouldn’t be bankrupt. Most people get far more back than they ever paid in. That’s how a ponzi scheme works.

          1. Not so, Mensan. Since it’s being paid for by current employees, if the ratio of payers gets out of whack with payees (i.e. boomers retiring in increasing numbers), then even if they never get back what they put into it, it still goes broke. Remember…that money was not “kept” for them, it was spent on other things, so it’s being supported by current workers, not some hoard of cash that’s been built up.

            1. For workers who earned average wages and retired at the age of 65 in 1980, it took 2.8 years of receiving old-age benefits to recover the value of their payroll taxes (including interest). For workers who retired in 2003, it will take 17.4 years. For workers who will retire in 2020, it will take 21.6 years.[57] This assumes Social Security will have enough money to pay scheduled benefits for this entire period, which it is not projected to have.

              source

              I stand corrected. I should have said that, historically, most people have gotten back far more than they paid in, but that has changed in the past decade or so.

          2. SS has been consistently raided to fund the Boomer agenda (mass incarceration, endless war, transportation boondoggles, etc). It’s always been adequately funded. Put aside 13% of your pretax income every year for 40 years and save it in low risk investments and you will be fine. Unless you get robbed.

            1. Haven’t we already done this?

              1. But you were robbed to pay for the operations of the federal government. I am arguing with Mensan’s characterization of SS as a Ponzi scheme.

            2. Don’t forget ‘Nam.

      2. But Social Security is statist.

        (Disclaimer – I like Ayn Rand. I am playing Devil’s Advocate)

        1. Say a carjacker uses overwhelming deadly force to steal your car and wallet but, in a fit of compassion, offers you a $20 bill for cabfare. Are you gonna refuse it because it’s stolen property?

          1. I’m dead, why the fuck should I care.

            1. Or need a cab

          2. that the welfare state returns my money in “fits”.

      3. She also took much more in medicare than she ever paid in. She smoked heavily and then turned to the government for help with her medical costs. Don’t tell me the nasty old cunt didn’t violate her prinsiples, you simpering dimwit.

    3. God wasn’t fond of Ayn Rand either. He gave her lung cancer and then outed her as a welfare queen.

      And you can prove this? Logically? She may have had lung cancer, and been on SS, but did God do it to her?

      1. No, you fucking moron, it was a joke.

    4. I chuckled. Good post, max.

      1. would you have chuckled if he said JsubD? He died of lung cancer, too.

  5. Well, I think a measured and intelligent response to all this is OH SHIT LOOK OVER THERE, A NEWLY MARRIED GAY INTERRACIAL COUPLE BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG!

    1. at the White House:

      http://nhjournal.com/2011/05/0…..try-night/

  6. God has also killed every Christian that ever lived.

    So I guess he pretty much hates everybody, by Max’s standards.

    That makes a lot of sense, frankly. I think Hannibal Lechter has God sized up just about right.

    1. That’s one way of looking at it. The Christian way of seeing things is that we never die. The City spans time and space. Once you live inside of it, this tent is of little consequence.

      1. That is why you cannot appreciate nor accept liberty.

        Religion is a dying relic – a desperate attempt to cling to an old order where diversity is killed by the staid elders.

        Again – you don’t give a fuck about liberty.

        1. Again, in what way do I restrict your — or anyone else’s– liberty?

          1. Shrike wants you to be a raving statist. It confirms his biases about religion.

          2. I’m surprised you’re bothering to engage him. Shrike is a vehement bigot. You’d have as much luck as a black man questioning David Duke’s beliefs.

          3. As much as I hate to agree with shrike on this, you did say ‘this tent is of little consequence’, which might lead some to think you ‘don’t give a fuck’ about the liberty within.

          4. Again, in what way do I restrict your — or anyone else’s– liberty?

            Who just spilled holy water all over my spaghetti monster? This cannot stand, this aggression against my spaghetti monster…

            1. What? Someone pissed in your spaghetti? Oh sick, man, don’t eat that shit.

        2. This proves you don’t give a fuck about liberty, if you want to judge people based on their faith.

          While there are religious types what want to kill diversity, there are plenty more religious types (Progressive Christians, Hindus, Buddhists) who embrace diversity.

          1. Oh, when I watch a bunch of Hindus cook down a 600-year old Muslim temple while killing a few hundred of’em I would guess there are many brands of Hindu out there.

            It’s not the ideology or theology, its psychology. The bedtime stories just animate the malice already within. Some more than others at different times in history.

            1. when I watch a bunch of Hindus cook down a 600-year old Muslim temple in retaliation for a muslim terrorist attack I would guess there are many brands of Hindu out there.

              Fixed it for you

              1. in retaliation for a muslim terrorist attack

                So, by that logic, the USA would have been justified in dropping a B83 on Mecca during the 2002 Haaj then Really?

                I don’t see how Hindus slaughtering random people fixed or fixes anything. But to each his own fool.

        3. You…you…ChimpyMcBushitlerChristfagHalliburtonpig!

      2. “The biggest crime perpetrated by religion, is that it has allowed irrationality to become acceptable, and infact, respectable.”

        1. I’m a Deist, and I think that plenty of irrationality is both acceptable and reasonable. The irrationality of charity, of assuming the best about people’s motives when you can, of believing that certain ‘goods’ like family, friendship, community, and even individualism matter for reasons greater than temporal happiness; I think these are profoundly good in themselves, and make for good people who are better able to live under liberty. Even if you don’t like them, these beliefs make for the kind of people on whom libertarianism depends – people who can live communally AND individually, not collectively.

          I object to Rand because she fails to recognize the limits of reason. She is so insistent that humans really can know everything that she strips all the ineffable from life. Everything in religion and custom that allows people to transcend being animals she disdains. She ultimately tries to make people who can’t be free as humans, only as individuals incapable of seeing anything beyond themselves.

          1. Yeah, but Deism isn’t really a religion. Being a Deist is like being a Rotarian.

          2. Irrationality is reasonable? Ever heard of cognitive dissonance?
            Ineffable is defined best as missing vocabulary.
            Deism? Why a clockwork universe? Why is that more reasonable than, say, a corpse universe? Why not believe it all came about by GOD committing suicide out of pure curiosity what would happen if he’or’she’or’it no longer existed?

            1. I’m actually not big on the clockwork universe idea; I think that the existence of choice makes for a far more organic, and interesting universe. And I think that this is what makes for my problem with Rand and yourself: the existence of the truly unknowable.

              You say that the ‘ineffable’ is really a failure of vocabulary; I would say there is that which you or I truly could never begin to conceive, let alone place in a system of language. This is why words such as ‘God’, ‘Eternity’ and ‘Love’ are really suggestions, not descriptions. They hint at things which humans never fully apprehend; can you really define and restrict ‘love’ as Rand attempts to? They recognize the existence of a universe with rules outside of ourselves – that morality does not stop at the borders of humanity.

              And I think that this unknowability of existence makes respect for liberty all the more important; while you can begin to apprehend certain parts of moral existence, you are unlikely to have parsed moral reality to the point where you can commit an evil – the violation of choice – against another in most circumstances. And there is more to respecting the moral being of another person than their ability to make choice too.

              1. Yes, you can define love. It’s an emotion or set of emotions. Where you draw the line between ‘love’ and ‘like’ is arbitrary – draw it wherever you like. It’s not magic, it’s just a feeling.
                Incidentally, you can also define ‘eternity’ – it’s time without end.

                1. Yes, you can define love. It’s an emotion or set of emotions

                  I am certain some can only describe the wind but never feel the breeze.

                2. Love is not emotion, love is action.

                  1. Love is like oxygen.

                    1. I guess some people can hold their breath

                  2. This.

              2. Deism isn’t really a religion. I always thought it was a religion of cowards

              3. You say that the ‘ineffable’ is really a failure of vocabulary; I would say there is that which you or I truly could never begin to conceive, let alone place in a system of language. This is why words such as ‘God’, ‘Eternity’ and ‘Love’ are really suggestions, not descriptions. They hint at things which humans never fully apprehend; can you really define and restrict ‘love’ as Rand attempts to? They recognize the existence of a universe with rules outside of ourselves – that morality does not stop at the borders of humanity.

                Morality is a product of our rationality, so any being, human or not, with similar rational capacity will likely have the same questions concerning the “oughts and ought nots” of existence.

                And I think that this unknowability of existence makes respect for liberty all the more important; while you can begin to apprehend certain parts of moral existence, you are unlikely to have parsed moral reality to the point where you can commit an evil – the violation of choice – against another in most circumstances. And there is more to respecting the moral being of another person than their ability to make choice too

                Your argument is logically contradictory, in that it argues with certainty that there is no certainty. There is a difference between understanding that one does not have certainty to truth and the claim that certainty is an impossibility, which you seem to be arguing. Likewise, you seem to raise this unknowabiliy to a virtue. How can something we can’t know, be known to be “good”?

                1. One is autogenous observation and the other, emotional communion.

          3. What limits of reason do you refer? Your comment didn’t address this very well.

          4. She is so insistent that humans really can know everything that she strips all the ineffable from life. Everything in religion and custom that allows people to transcend being animals she disdains.

            I think transcending being animals was exactly why Ayn Rand valued freedom so highly, actually.

          5. Every last statement you make here could just as easily be made about any kind of hippie collectivism you want to name.

            As soon as you resort to the ineffable, all is lost.

            “Why should I labor for the greater good of the Soviet, comrade?”

            “It’s ineffable.”

            1. “Why should I labor for the greater good of the Soviet, comrade?”

              “It’s ineffable.”

              The pain of having your testicles hooked up to battery cables is kinda hard to put into words.

        2. “Atheists are inherently total hypocrites, constantly preaching rationality and never practicing it. No religion is more irrational than Atheism.”

  7. I don’t agree that Rand hated God. What she hated was collectivism. Organized religion is one of the biggest forms of this.

    1. Rand formed her very own “Collective” so she couldn’t hate it all that much. There’s a world of difference between forced collectivism and voluntary association. Christianity advocates voluntary association only. Rand would, I believe, concur.

      1. Rand merely detested the irrationality of religion. She was not prone to faith of any manifestation.

      2. The name ‘collective’ was used as a joke by Ayn Rand and her friends when they got together.

        ie. “Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if when we got together to talk and exchange idea’s, we called ourselve’s ‘The Collective'”.

      3. I don’t believe she would concur, because christianity was voluntary even back in her time, and she still hated it.

        1. How is objectivism not a voluntary collective?

          1. Objectivism was a rational association, Christianity was an irrational one.

            1. Non objectivists and Christians would reverse the order.

      4. Christianity advocates voluntary association only.

        That certainly hasn’t always been the case – either on the part of its officialdom or many of its practitioners.

        1. But it is the case presently.

          If we made every group pay for the sins of those who preceded them, we’d be damning everyone.

          Face it, Christians actually justify libertarianism. (Indulge me for a moment.) Take away government programs and let charities take care of a lot of things like disaster relief, the homeless, world hunger, the indigent, etc. Who has traditionally done that? Christian charities have certainly been at the forefront.

          Face it, we need Christians to act like, well, Christians for libertopia to function and for the progressive statist fuckholes to shut their gobs. And I believe if you give Christians another 30% of their income back, they will give a share of it to their church or charity out of compassion and consideration for their fellow man, which is what we always say will happen.

          Irrational? Perhaps.
          Silly? Absolutely not.
          Libertarian? Hells yes!

          1. Erm, Christians didn’t invent charity nor do they have a monopoly on it.

            1. But they perform the vast majority of it.

              1. Maybe because, I don’t know, they are the vast majority?

              2. Citation please. Do you actually know it’s true? Sure that, say, Muslim charitable spending doesn’t surpass Christian?

        2. That certainly hasn’t always been the case – either on the part of its officialdom or many of its practitioners.

          True, but the same could be said for the adherents of the philosophy that America must spread the Gospel of Democracy(tm) with bullets and bombs whether the natives like it or not.

    2. She also hated irrationality. Her philosophy was Objectivism, not Individualism.

    3. You cannot hate what you believe does not exist. Rand no more hated God than she hated Bigfoot, the Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus.

      1. Wait, so what are you saying about Santa?

        1. Yes, Ballpunch there is a Santa Claus but Ayn Rand did not believe in him.

      2. Rand no more hated God than she hated Bigfoot

        RAND LOVE STEVE SMITH AS MUCH AS STEVE SMITH LOVE RAPE…
        PERHAPS THIS WHY RAND LOVE STEVE SMITH.

        1. She did like rape. She wanted someone to do it to her. It’s right there in her novels.

    4. Jacob good point. Especially the Calvinist Protestants believe that family should be handled as a system of government. It is no different than the liberals and their “it takes a village”. Both sides are collectivists. She believed that religious zealots are dangerous.

  8. How many times did Colson take it up the ass in prison?
    Just a thought.

    1. Said like a true libertarian 🙁

    2. None. But you take it there daily, and voluntarily at that. Faggot.

  9. “He made a two minute video attacking Rand and her devotees, deriding Rand as an anti-Christian atheist.” I didn’t realize that there might be a pro-Christian atheist. BTW which gospel is colson speaking of? the ones in the bible don’t even agree on the stupid story, let alone all the gospels that weren’t included in the bible.

    1. apparently SE Cupp is a pro-Christian atheist (and hot).

  10. I can’t wait to die and find out that not only is there a god, but that he sent his only son down to Earth to preach his gospel and everyone thought he was crazy, even after he launched his “Torpedo of Truth” tour.

    1. Oh please, if any of Martin Sheen’s kids is the Messiah, it’s Emilio.

      1. Emilio is John the Baptist. He paved the way for the chosen one.

        1. Are you sure that’s not backward? After all, Charlie’s the one who’s always losing his head.

          1. good point

  11. He made a two minute video attacking Rand and her devotees, deriding Rand as an anti-Christian atheist.

    So, it’s, like, the two minute hate?

    1. More like three minute… His title is off by 50%.

  12. Colson shot some hot hate jism in the face of Ayn Rand in that video, let me tell yah.

    1. Colson shot some hot hate jism in the face of Ayn Rand in that video,

      And believe me, the wife and I will be doing a little Chuck Colson/Ayn Rand role playing tonight. And no, she will NOT be playing Colson. NTTAWWT.

      1. “Take it up the ass you fucking atheist cunt. NO, SHITHEAD! I WILL NOT BE USING LUBE ON MY LONG, THICK COCK AS I RAM IT INTO YOUR FUCK ASSHOLE! Stop crying, bitch! Just take it! Oh, you think that’s bad, let me fist your tight little asshole with my being Christian fist! Where’s your fucking Objectivist philosophy now, cunt?! WHO AM I?! WHO AM I ?! That’s right, you dirty atheist fool! Now, swallow my jism! NO! Don’t spit it out. SWALLOW IT!”

        1. (wipes Parody Ayn Rand’s shit off his cock)

        2. Keep on trucking, Chucky. Just keep on trucking.

        3. Parody Colson, you are no sugarfree. Also, you failed to include a reference to female ejaculation.

        4. Parody Colson, you are no sugarfree. Also, you failed to include a reference to female ejaculation.

          1. squirt

  13. Ayn Rand Hated God

    One cannot hate something that DNE

    1. Nonsense. Lots of people hate wise atheists, inherent human goodness, and purely materialistic morality, among other things that DNE.

      1. By hating those things, you create them, even if it is only in your mind. Rand was indifferent towards God.

  14. Chuck’s just jealous because Ayn swung a bigger dick than he did. And she swung it with irony.

    1. It was barely funny the first time you made that crack, Anal.

  15. they need to condemn her three times and more

    Okay. But religious right nut jobs are such an easy target, and targeted so often. The market is flooded with opportunities to stone religious right nut jobs.

    What the market has a dearth of, is a) clear recognition of the fact that there are also religious left nut jobs, and b) opportunities to stone them.

    I’m very much an equal opportunity kind of libertarian type.

    Religious Left Nut Jobs believe in Socialism and Mother Earth Worship. They are at least as warped, demented, and pathological as anything the right has ever produced.

    Please give us more opportunities to both openly recognize, and then stone, religious left nut jobs.

    Also please tell us because I can’t tell: who hates Rand more, Religious Right or Religious Left Nut Jobs?

    1. Atheistic losertardians believe the entire universe is a big chemical accident, and that out of this chemical accident somehow arose rights, morality, legislation, and other immaterial abstractions that somehow apply to some of the chemical accident’s products and not others. Yet they keep acting as if people who don’t believe rights, morality, and legislation can possibly be derived from a big chemical accident are the crazy ones.

      Losertardians are the craziest people of all, trying to believe in God-given rights without a God. You can’t have one without the other. Atheists true to themselves should admit they have no rights whatsoever, and that all morality boils down to the strong doing what they can and the weak suffering what they must. In the present example, big government is among the strong ones doing what they can, and atheistic losertardians are among the weak ones suffering what they must. Complaining about this is therefore futile and hypocritical; not that there would be anything wrong with futility or hypocrisy either in an atheistic world…

      1. you’re stupid

      2. You are just an evil fuck aren’t you.

      3. I probably shouldn’t bother, but being an atheist losertardian, I can’t help myself. This is some supremely sad argumentation.

        “God-given rights” are absolute nonsense. People define their rights using reason and social discourse and assert them using available tools (government, private courts, grandpa’s shotgun etc.). No magical creation of abstract concepts is needed.

        Our rights(negative liberty) aren’t objectively supreme because God said so(and besides, he never did – God of the Bible, at least, has no respect for property), but because they promote human happiness and social cohesion. There are other permutations of rights and entitlements, but a broadly libertarian code of ethics seems to work best. The reason why I don’t succumb and let the big, powerful government take all my belongings is because I LIKE MY SHIT. Other people like their shit too, and have come to the conclusion that the best way to protect their property is to respect that of others’. How is this such a baffling concept that God must somehow be woven into the equation?

      4. Okay, first of all, look up ’emergent properties’. Then, look up ‘Euthyphro dilemma’ – it’ll show you that the idea of a god-given right is bull. That is, rights cannot be given by anyone, even god, or they’re not rights.
        Rights derive from the individual’s authority over their own lives. That’s all you need

        1. Sorry, “individuals'”.

      5. Wow. You’re one of the people I was talking about.

  16. I thought Chuck Colson was a photographer or something. Am I thinking of somebody else?

    1. Ok, I was thinking of Chuck Close.

      Who the fuck is Chuck Colson?

      1. In death, members of Project Mayhem have a name.

        His name was Chuck Colson.

        1. +1

        2. *comprehension dawning*

          His name was Chuck Colson.

      2. Who the fuck is Chuck Colson?

        You must be quite young. Colson was a member of the Watergate Seven.

        1. Well, I was less than a year old at the time, but I’m flattered if that makes me “quite young.”

        2. PS Holy shit, why would anyone heed this asshole?

        3. Oh, I take that back — he won the Templeton Prize. That’s nearly as good as a Daytime Emmy.

  17. Where do I start with this stupid fuck?

    Aggressive Atheism He he trying to imply that atheist are violent? Really? Could somone please show me a militant crusade started by mad athiest with a desire to make every body have a good time? Or is it our certitude and willingness to assert such certitude in his fucking face that scares him of those scary aggressive atheist.

    antithetical to Christianity Well, what is Christianity? A dogma? A social agent? A legal entity? A set of beliefs? Is that freak of nature in Rome that helped all those pedophiles get away with it? Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

    In a sane world, it would be something approaching life affirming, not power grabbing.

    true conservative ….sigh…. I wish I could beat anyone that use the true scottman fallacy. Or throw a bag full of lit dogshit in thier porch.

    God wasn’t fond of Ayn Rand either. He gave her lung cancer and then outed her as a welfare queen. They should call this the Rube Goldberg line of reasoning. So 4 billion years ago, god did the big bang so he could cool all the hot matter in spheres. Some of those spheres, though millions of years of changing circumstances, manages to support complex carbon based life that does stuff like store info in dna and exploit protiens. So god shortens the end of the telomerase in a dna sequence using a gamma ray spike 20 million years ago 300 lights years away. That cell happened to be in her lung. It metastasized over time slowly killing her over a few months.

    All because of a book god didn’t like?

    1. A lot of religious conservatives suggest that Communism’s cruelty arises from its atheism. Common meme. Roughly as justifiable as asserting that a theistic ideology’s cruelty arises from its theism, which incidentally is a common meme among atheists/secular humanists.

    2. So 4 billion years ago, god did the big bang

      More like about three times that number at least. Google quasi stellar objects.

    3. Atheists are violent because they want to kill TUH CHILDRUNZ!!!!111!!!1!1!

    4. Could somone please show me a militant crusade started by mad athiest

      Hey fuck you! What am I, chopped liver??

      1. Amateur!

      2. We’ve gotta kill more niggers!

  18. It’s pointless to argue about religion.

  19. you ought to stay away from anybody who wants to see the film

    Umm, Chuck, aren’t Christians supposed to be seeking out unbelievers and saving them?

  20. What a retard. Objectivism is in no way incompatible with Christianity. It’s essentially – let the other person do their thing. If praying and making sandwiches for homeless people makes you happy, go for it! No objectivist is gonna stop you!

    1. Objectivism is about a hell of a lot more than NIOF politics. In addition to her atheism, Ayn Rand attacked the very core of Christian faith — the sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being to save the imperfect followers — as a monstrous moral inversion. (Seriously, she probably used almost those exact words a few times.)

      All of this is a good thing, of course.

  21. “you ought to stay away from anybody who wants to see the film, unless their interest is ironic.”

    You know who else enjoyed cinema ironically?

  22. Tales of the crypto-cult.

  23. This is a sad man, grasping desperately after his 15 minutes which have long since gone the way of his sanity…

    1. You didn’t have to go introducing yourself to us again there, Tony. Most of us already know what you’re like.

  24. Colson, if you really want to atone for the shit you pulled when you were working for Tricky Dick, nothing says “I’m sorry” like jumping off a cliff. The world will be better off without you.

    -jcr

    1. You’ve got to lead by example there, John. If you’re not willing to rid the world of yourself to atone for all the evil you’ve done, thereby making it a better place, you can’t expect others to do so either. Nothing says “I support abortion!” like aborting yourself.

      1. Tell you what, smartass: if I ever take a job as a criminal politician’s personal shyster, dreaming up capers like Colson did, I promise to shoot myself in the head.

        So far in my career, every penny I’ve made came from people who parted with it willingly.

        -jcr

  25. Ayn Rand has challenged us to make a choice between taking religion or freedom seriously. You can’t have both. The religious right and the Marxist left have exactly the same code of ethics: self-sacrifice as noble, self-interest as evil. And that code of ethics will lead to a politics of totalitarianism.

    1. I disagree. There is a huge difference between an ethical code of self sacrifice and enshrining that ethical code in law. The former should not concern libertarians, the latter should.

      1. Quite. Moral acts of charity and self-sacrifice are robbed of their moral quality by compulsion. It is compulsion that makes people means to gratification, rather than ends.

      2. Don’t pretend that imposing a specific moral code on people isn’t exactly what you want to do. Just because you slap a bumper sticker on it that says individual freedom doesn’t absolve you of this. You’d sacrifice the lives of significant numbers of old, poor, and young people on the altars of capitalism and low taxes “for their own good” with all the moral nannyishness of any Christian or liberal busybody, except without the democratic legitimacy.

        1. Don’t pretend that imposing a specific moral code on people isn’t exactly what you want to do. Just because you slap a bumper sticker on it that says individual freedom doesn’t absolve you of this. You’d sacrifice the lives of significant numbers of old, poor, and young people on the altars of capitalism and low taxes “for their own good” with all the moral nannyishness of any Christian or liberal busybody, except without the democratic legitimacy.

          Sorry, Tony, but this logical absurdity of “imposing” freedom on people doesn’t fly. And “democratic legitimacy” did wonders for African-Americans, huh?

          1. this logical absurdity of “imposing” freedom on people doesn’t fly.

            That’s your problem. The fact remains that if you had your way you’d impose what you call freedom on people and claim it was for their own good, all based on what amounts to an absolutist cult version of capitalism. You are no better than anyone else trying to impose a moral order.

            “democratic legitimacy” did wonders for African-Americans, huh?

            WTF is that supposed to mean? I understand that you don’t value democratic legitimacy, but that’s all the more evidence that you want to impose something on people against their will.

            1. That’s your problem.

              It’s my problem that you propose a logical contradiction? Interesting.

              The fact remains that if you had your way you’d impose what you call freedom on people and claim it was for their own good, all based on what amounts to an absolutist cult version of capitalism. You are no better than anyone else trying to impose a moral order.

              Continuing on this vein of logical absurdities doesn’t enhance your case. Redefining the concept of “impose” to mean “won’t give me everything I want, including the power to force others to comply” is and always will be intellectual dishonesty.

              WTF is that supposed to mean? I understand that you don’t value democratic legitimacy, but that’s all the more evidence that you want to impose something on people against their will.

              You worship force so much that you can’t see the hypocrisy in your own posts. Democratic legitimacy has nothing to do with freedom or morality or kindness to others, as evidenced by the numbers of atrocities that have been given the stamp of approval by the democratic majority. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to rail against your opponents, claiming that they wish to “impose” freedom on others, while you support the very practice of forcing others, against their will, to comply to legislative mandates.

              1. See I think my policies lead to maximum individual freedom and yours essentially to minimum individual freedom. You’re just claiming you’re for freedom, using the standard strict libertarian definition (freedom from government). I think your policies are radical and destructive, and the fact that you seem unconcered with their lack democratic popularity, all the more evidence of their lack of association with real freedom. People should at least be free to determine their own policies via democratic action, shouldn’t they? Or do you simply know better, and wish to impose a tyranny of a small minority in lieu of a tyranny of the majority?

                1. See I think my policies lead to maximum individual freedom and yours essentially to minimum individual freedom. You’re just claiming you’re for freedom, using the standard strict libertarian definition (freedom from government).

                  Although I struggle with the inevitable use of government as a tool for force, I never proposed a government-free society, merely one where the powers of government are strictly limited.

                  I think your policies are radical and destructive, and the fact that you seem unconcered with their lack democratic popularity, all the more evidence of their lack of association with real freedom.

                  And your belief that democratic popularity equates to freedom is rebutted by simple logic and numerous historical events. Do you believe that people should be allowed ANYTHING they wish, so long as it is decided democratically? If you don’t, then you agree that there are restrictions on what people may do, regardless of how many may desire it.

                  People should at least be free to determine their own policies via democratic action, shouldn’t they? Or do you simply know better, and wish to impose a tyranny of a small minority in lieu of a tyranny of the majority?

                  The restriction of actions that infringe upon the rights of others is not a “tyranny” in any sense of the word, whereas the unlimited democratic process you propose has the very real possibility of “tyranny”. You cannot make a logical claim for the power to compell people to act against their will and simultaneously against compelling people to act against their will (even with the dishonest redefining of freedom as coercion).

                  1. Understand that I’m not advocating strict majorities deciding everything. Constitutional supermajority requirements for certain things are prudent (especially with regard to rights of minorities). But I fail to see what other standard there is for public policy than the will of the people that isn’t a form of tyranny. Do you think people should be subject to the restrictions of your philosophy, because you’re just right, regardless of what they think? I don’t think there is any legitimate policy that is not somehow connected to the will of the people that policy affects.

                    You have every right to argue for limited government. But in order to get such policy enacted legitimately, you have to convince the significant numbers of people it would affect that you’re right.

                    1. I think people here would agree that policy should come from the will of the people – my will with regard to my life, your will with regard to yours.

                    2. How big a supermajority makes slavery okay, Tony?

                    3. How big a supermajority makes slavery okay, Tony?

                      If 95% of the people wanted to enslave the other 5%, what’s going to stop them? An appeal to moral principles?

                    4. Just because the moral principles won’t stop them doesn’t mean they’re not moral principles. Are you saying it’s wrong for the 95% to enslave the 5%, or are you okay with that (whether or not you’re in the 5%)?

                2. “”See I think my policies lead to maximum individual freedom and yours essentially to minimum individual freedom. “”

                  Freedom is largely ability to choose. If I choose not to help someone out, that is freedom in action. Freedom has nothing to do with making a society better. It has everything to do with people being in charge of their life.

                  Consequences are a byproduct of choice, or reaping what you sow, so to speak. I say let people choose and reap that which they sow. If it’s not bettering one’s self then, that’s on that specific individual, not on society.

                  1. Freedom has nothing to do with making a society better. It has everything to do with people being in charge of their life.

                    I would dispute the claim that you’re not making a consequentialist argument. Presumably you think a society that promotes individual liberty is a better one than one that doesn’t. Otherwise, what’s the point?

                    But I agree with you on the definition of freedom. With things like social safety nets, the ability of individuals to make choices is increased hugely. The upshot is you’re not actually defining freedom as the ability to choose–you’re defining it as the absence of taxes and government.

                3. People should at least be free to determine their own policies via democratic action, shouldn’t they?

                  That’s the fucking problem, Tony, as we’ve told you many times. People don’t determine their own policies via democractic action, they determine policies which are then forced onto others against their fucking will.

                  1. That’s the fucking problem, Tony, as we’ve told you many times. People don’t determine their own policies via democractic action, they determine policies which are then forced onto others against their fucking will.

                    In other words, you don’t get everything you want from democracy, so you’re whining like a brat. I don’t get everything I want either. That doesn’t mean the system isn’t fair. It means I haven’t convinced enough people I’m right. What right do you have to impose your policy that I don’t have to impose mine? Because the freedom fairies have sanctioned yours?

                    1. In other words, you don’t get everything you want from fascist dictatorship, so you’re whining like a brat.

                      .

                4. Okay, if you believe that the libertarian definition of freedom is only ‘freedom from government’, you need to read a fucking book by a fucking libertarian. It’s embarrassing for you to post on this forum so long and not know what your intellectual opponents, with whom you argue daily, believe. The libertarian definition of freedom is freedom from aggression, or, to put it another way, the freedom from imposition (which is why your ‘you want to impose freedom bullshit is such bullshit). We’re against impositions coming from government. We’re also against impositions coming from murderers and thieves and rapists outside of government.
                  No, we don’t want to impose a tyranny of the minority, we want to do away with tyranny altogether, you dishonest fuck.

                  1. Well I want to do away with cancer. If I just believe strong enough, it will happen.

                    What you don’t realize is that there will always be coercive forces. Government exists to be the repository of legitimate coercion in order to combat all of those illegitimate forces. You don’t get to wish them away and claim it will work out according to the honor system.

                    1. “There are always going to be murderers, therefore murdering is okay.” That’s your argument.

                    2. Um, no. There will always be murderers, therefore we need government force to be there to respond to that fact.

                    3. But we’re agreed on that. I want the government to stop murderers as well. How does it follow from that that the government should do whatever 51% of the people within an arbitrary geographical area want it to do?

                    4. Because it’s better than doing what 49% want it to do?

                    5. And if the 51% are the murderers?

            2. Tony you’re argument is equivalent to complaining that the slave is imposing on the slave-owner by demanding his freedom be respected. You’re disgusting.

        2. Don’t pretend that imposing a specific moral code on people isn’t exactly what you want to do.

          Read what I said again Tony. I never said having laws that reflect a moral code is bad, I said having laws that compel one to sacrifice themselves is bad. The law should protect our freedoms, not go against them.

          And it makes no sense to claim that I am using freedom as a slogan. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy that actually holds freedom above all else. If you don’t think so, then give me an example of some other philosophy that does. I am confident that I can prove it doesn’t.

          Lastly, leaving someone alone and making them leave me alone is not “sacrificing them.” Sacrifice is what your kind do when they sacrifice my freedoms for their special interest. Leaving someone alone is the exact opposite of sacrifice and nannying. But yeah, we get it, you like the doublespeak almost as much as you like the cock.

          1. The only reason I have the political beliefs I do is because I think they maximize individual human freedom. You define freedom in such a restrictive way that the real-world effect is just about the minimum in human freedom. If we took the world as it is and imposed your ideas, significant numbers of old, young, and poor people would die or be otherwise disadvantaged. How is that an increase in freedom? It only is if you define freedom as ONLY freedom from government or collective responsibility. Most people rightly find that a ludicrously simplistic conception of freedom.

            1. Well TFB for the old, young, and poor people. People die, people live miserable lives, that’s life for you. If they don’t like it they’re more than welcome to make it better on their own. What I want is MY freedom to do with as I please. It’s not freedom if someone keeps forcing me to help people that I frankly don’t give a shit about. There is a very small subset of people that I feel compelled to help, I call them my family. I have a family of four and a roughly median income, every time you take my shit I have to give stuff up because you feel someone else is more entitled to it.

              1. No, what you want are YOUR handouts, but nobody else deserves any. You want the ability to make government-backed and be secure in your property with the support of government force, and a society kept stable by government. But a safety net for old and infirm people is anti-freedom, somehow. You are expressing nothing but the philosophy of a self-important teenager. And good luck selling it to a democratic people.

                1. And exactly what handouts do I get? I want the ability to make government-backed what? If the government told me they weren’t going to protect my land then I’d be happy to take on that role myself as long as they stopped charging me for it. I don’t believe that society NEEDS the government to keep it stable. A safety net for old and infirm people isn’t anti-freedom if they’re the ones that put it in place, why is that my responsibility? I’m not trying to sell my idea to “the people”, I’d love to be left alone to live my own life by “the people”. I honestly couldn’t care less if “the people” don’t approve of my thoughts.

                  I realize this may seem self-important to you but maybe it’s because I believe in personal responsibility, something you seem to have trouble with. I’m not trying to force my worldview or agenda on anyone and I’d really appreciate it if people like you stopped trying to force your agenda on me.

    2. All this goes to show is that Rand was illogical and not objective.

    3. Who says you can’t have both? I believe in God and pick and choose what I like from the bible. Thus I ignore the inconvenient commandments against premarital sex. See? I have both faith and freedom.

      In fact, if you read our declaration from independence you’ll notice that our rights come from the CREATOR. That’s a very American thing, in other countries rights come from government, here they come from God. Well, at least that’s the way it used to be until Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Roosevelt, LBJ, and Nixon destroyed our country with progressive policies.
      http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

      1. declaration from independence

        This has to be a joke.

        1. No, read your declaration of independence, the word CREATOR is there.

          1. No, read your declaration of independence, the word CREATOR is there.

            Genius, re-read the phrase you wrote that I italicized above.

        2. Freudian slip?

  26. For the record, “hating” me (or God) is impossible, because we don’t exist.
    Ayn Rand knew this.

    Hope this helps.

  27. What in tarnation is this!?

    I don’t give a shit about lightsabers.

  28. Reminds me of:
    “Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

    No, says the man in Washington; it belongs to the poor.
    No, says the man in the Vatican; it belongs to God….”

    1. A writer is no better than his ideas, and Doherty’s ideas aren’t worth the peanuts in Paul Krugman’s shit.

      1. That’s pretty harsh, considering that Krugnuts is literally COMPOSED of human excrement.

      2. But Max, those are your favorite!

  29. Sometimes, Doherty, you drive me crazy by beating a topic into the ground, but I have to say, you are a damn fine writer. I went back and read your piece on Rand. It was great.

  30. Rand may have been a shitty writer and a closet welfare queen, but she sure has Reagan’s number:

    “What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him ? and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called ‘Moral Majority’ and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling ? apparently with his approval ? to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.”

    — Ayn Rand, “The Sanction of the Victims,” her last written speech or essay, first delivered in New Orleans on November 21, 1981. Rand died in March of 1982.

    1. Max had to give himself 20 lashings for this comment.

  31. Ahhhh, a conversation about God on Reason. I see this going places.

    1. It comes, it goes, it comes again, like clockwork. Not that the universe is a clock. Or a watch. Or that I, who am imaginary, am a watchmaker. Hell, I can’t even fix the World Series. But we digress. We always digress.

  32. I am a Christian Fundamentalist and a Socialist. And I want to thank Colson for his criticisms of Rand.

    Logically speaking, Rand’s philosophy is reductionistic and eliminates all concern for others as well as dependence on God. In addition to the unnecessary all-or-nothing exercised by most reductionistic philosophies, the denial of other issues to include besides self-interest when making decisions or formulating policies is as denial of reality.

    The willingness to follow Rand’s philosophy by too many of our leaders gives more evidence to Sheldon Wolin’s contention that we are living in an inverted totalitarianism. Unfortunately, some confuse this totalitarianism with democracy because they confuse liberty with privilege.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.