Last updated on 2013.01.06
Rep. Paul Ryan drew hosannas from the Rom-Paul announcement crowd in Norfolk yesterday by wheezing, "Our rights come from nature and God, not from government." Of course, the Battleship Irony in front of which Ryan said these words wouldn't have been around to secure those rights if we hadn't instituted a big government among men to build those big guns.
And Paul Ryan's philosophical godmother, avowed atheist Ayn Rand, would say God had nothing to do with it:
Ayn Rand said religion is "evil," a "sign of a psychological weakness." Ever the Nietzschean überfrau, Rand said, "I am the creator of a new code of morality... not based on faith."
Paul Ryan says that Randian morality does "a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism." As we've discussed previously, Ryan cloaks his Randian-atheist political philosophy in Catholicism, and does so shabbily and theologically wrongly.
I suppose I should be happy. For the first time ever, a major American political party will nominate two non-Christian cultists for the Presidential ticket. Mitt Romney is a Mormon who rejects the basic completeness of the Bible. Paul Ryan is a pretend Catholic who bases his politics on the atheist writings of weird demi-tyrant Ayn Rand. Conservative men of faith are twisting themselves into pretzels of religious tolerance to declare Paul Ryan a good choice. For those of us seeking to prove that atheists are Americans, too, the Ryan nomination could shout, "Mission Accomplished!"
But as I've told some right-wing correspondents who try to paint me into the tolerance corner, I don't consider tolerance a primary value. I don't tolerate deliberate philosophical dishonesty. And Catholic Paul Ryan's public piety, paired with his willingness to turn Ayn Rand's selfish atheism into public policy, is deliberate philosophical dishonesty. For the next three months millions of faithful Republicans will commit similar dishonesty, telling themselves that Paul Ryan, who embraces an atheist philosophy, who writes a budget to take from the poor and give to the rich, affirms that America is an exceptional Christian nation. Ugh.
As an atheist, I reject Paul Ryan's selfish Randian values. If I were a Christian, I'd do the same.
Related: John Nichols of The Nation says Romney has ceded the floor to Ryan, making the election a referendum on the Ryan politics that now define the Republican Party and giving us a harder right ticket than we've seen since Goldwater-Miller 1964, "when the true believers got a nominee, a platform and 39 percent of the vote." In 1964, Ayn Rand endorsed Goldwater, although she got mad when she perceived he went soft.
Thanks for reminding everyone about Ryan and Rand.
He apparently has disavowed her. That should be good news, but it's not clear what he has converted to. http://thedisplacedplainsman.blogspot.com/2012/04/has-paul-ryan-been-on-road-to-damascus.html
The Catholic Bishops, a group not fond of Obama, doesn't seem fond of Ryan's budget.
Matthew 7:16 quotes Jesus as saying "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"
The fruit of Ryan's budget comes straight from Ayn's seeds.
Thank you, LK, for reminding me of your own attention to the Ryan-Rand connection. His disavowal is pure election-year posturing: he knows that his base, if it had any intellectual honesty, would have to throw him overboard for the principles that guide his politics.
Cory,
You're probably right about the posturing. He certainly still walks the Randian walk.
I forgot to say earlier, it's impossible for any of us to be completely philosophically consistent. We all have blind spots, but I wish my fellow Christians would be able to toss Rand to the trash heap of history. I don't understand why they can't. I would cut them a little slack if her fiction were any good but it's as boring as her philosophy is pernicious.
"The Heart Mountain Interpretive Center at the site of a World War II Japanese-American internment camp outside of Cody, Wyo. will present a new exhibit featuring self-portraits that reveal Muslim Americans in everyday life."
http://hummingbirdminds.blogspot.com/2012/08/muslim-self-portraits-exhibit-at-heart.html
Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum a sociopath?
http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/was-ayn-rand-a-sociopath/
My husband's been in exactly this same email war all morning with staunch conservative Christian men, complete with various Rand videos.
I'm appalled by all of this. In less than 36 hours since this VP announcement, the national discussion is now about religion: who's is better and who's better at it. Warring religions.
I'm not at all interested in using one person's religion against that person or anyone else because it's all fantasy and, while the fantasy world of religion beats the crap out of each other, NOTHING gets done.
One can subscribe to altruism - naturally or learned - and not have anything to do with religion. All the "prayers" to any deity(s) aren't going to pay for sick kids, hungry homeless people or pay the utility bills when winter arrives.
Religion is the biggest farce known to man.
The ironies and coincidences here abound.
Here are a few, just off the top:
I noticed with interest, watching Scott Walker and Reince Priebus singing the praises of Paul Ryan that all theree of these boys are from Wisconsin. Moreover, the announcement was made with both candidates tunning to the microphones from the deck of the retired "Battleship Wisconsin." Perhaps posterity will record this passage of GOP history as the "Cheesehead Era?"
As to your observation, Cory, what the candidates are decidedly NOT is a) Southern and
b) Fundamentalist Christian. And yet, that descriptor is the "base" GOP presidential candidates have traditionally courted, especially in their GOTV efforts. Perhaps this is the Christian right adding a few new wings to the Big Tent?
Regarding the Ryan Plan... here se see the first signs of the same-old same-old with Mitt. He's not saying whether he likes it or not. His handlers want to point to the $700 billion Obama has cut from Medicare (to help fund ACA) as a bad thing, even as the Ryan Plan contains those exact same cuts. Similarly, Ryan has been highly critical of Romney's Massachusetts health care solution even as Romney's staff has once again just begun to defend it.
And then of course there are the ironies you mention Cory... ie, the Christian right may indeed be in the position of having to defend a ticket that deep down, many of them dont consider to be Christian at all. i.e. tey'll be voting for them only because they are NOT Barack Hussein Obama. Very interesting indeed.
"tunning to the microphones" should of course be "running." Sorry.
alawites v. shiia: what a surprise.
joe mccarthy was a member of the church of the holy roman kiddie diddlers, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
Ryan summarized the importance of Rand in forming his value systems and beliefs in a recent New Yorker magazine interview.
"I grew up on Ayn Rand," Ryan told the Atlas Society, a group of Rand devotees, in a 2005 speech. "That's what I tell people ... you know, everybody does their soul-searching, and trying to find out who they are and what they believe, and you learn about yourself ... I grew up reading Ayn Rand, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are."
I'm guessing that the religious right will try and ignore the last sentence of his statement.
Bill - You've done an excellent job of identifying the lines of battle and where to find the deficits and resources. The GOP ticket will flounder without the white, Southern fundamentalist Christian foundation to their voting bloc. Well, if they can't appeal to fundamentalists via religion to galvanize and stoke the fires, that leaves race.
The Tea Party has masterfully used a long list of complete lies (death squads, birthers) to stoke hate and suspicion against the first African American to become President of these United States. But Romney, with or without Ryan, does not and can not resemble the Tea Party, despite his frenzy of shape shifting on health care reform, taxes, abortion, human rights for gays and other issues.
I can't wait for the GOP national convention when the Tea Party loyalists are demanded to swallow and enjoy a ticket which is entirely farcicle. They will be asking themselves, "Why did we win all those seats in 2010 and obstruct America's recovery from the Cheney/Bush junta only to embrace a Massachusetts moderate and his Ayn Rand lapdog?"
How ironic, but, in the world of politics nothing surprises me anymore. And to think the political right always loves to bring up Ayn Rand and her philosophy to use against the President.
I thought "The Fountainhead" was an okay book.
But I found Rand's philosophy to be self-contradictory.
Oh... okay... now I get it.
Seriously, the lights went on for me
right while I was typing "self-contradictory."
Wild!
My first "Aha! moment" on a blog.
joe mccarthy was a member of the church of the holy roman kiddie diddlers, too:"
Don't know if it means anything but wasn't Joe McCarthy from Wisconsin?
Paul Ryan likes Ayn Rand because it allows him to be totally self-serving under what he can persuade himself is a philosophy: her doctrine of "rational self-interest." He can pretend that he is John Galt, the Nietzschean Superman, leading a movement that will bring about an earthly paradise based on the ill-paid labor of the worms, I mean "second-handers." He can and does ignore the fact that Ms. Rand was an atheist. He can use the fact that she repudiated mercy and pity as irrational and weak to justify destroying Social Security (which he lived on after his father's death and she lived on in her old age), Medicare, and other things that children, the elderly and the poor depend upon. And it's a standard tactic among strong-armers to use whatever help they can get on their way up - Social Security, grants, help, affirmative action, democracy, voting rights - and then, when they have gained their power, to deny the same things to other people. It is indeed self-contradictory; unless your self is the only thing that rules your policies, morals, and behavior.
battleship irony is not just a river in egypt, owen.
i found it interesting Romney immediately distanced himself from Ryan's budget saying he would "make his own".
what i wish the CBO would do is put out a version of their budget minus the supply side growth estimates that are bogus.
the only thing keeping me sane are the polls.
Another Wisconsin thing. This is getting kind of creepy...
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics
...I wonder if Sibby has looked into this "Wisconsin Cheesehead" thingy. Forget the Bildebergers... how about these Milwaukee Limburgers? Hmm Limbaugh...Limburger... ya think?
I tried calling Mr. Sibby this afternoon to discuss some things about this. But as to burgers, I had to eat yours last night because I couldn't get a ride downtown. It was very good.
Larry: you were quasi famous today at the Missouri State Fair. I was laughing out loud when I read your line, "joe mccarthy was a member of the church of the holy roman kiddie diddlers" and shared it with more people than I can count, who also laughed. Some left calling other Wisconsinites that. It could wind up in a national ad. ;)
I have the feeling that Randian philosophy, except for the atheism, isn't that far removed from some of conservative Catholic practices and the more fundamentalist sects who stress Old Testament values mixed with predestination and end-times eschatology. They get to the same sociopathic place, just using different reasons.
Thanks anyway, Grudz. Sounded like a good one (the Grudz Build-a-Burger). Hey, on this Wisconsin Cheesehead Conspiracy thing... do you think the Kurds are involved?
Way to ruin cheese kurds, BF. Stop now before everything is tainted.
Yeah, I know, Taunia. I used to like Wisconsin. I gotta snap out of it.
Cheese doesn't taint anything. Cheese fixes stuff. This Mr. Ryan is very very young but he sounds like he has ideas to fix stuff too.
LOL. I'm not even going to ask what you have that cheese fixes, Grudz. Let's just hope you haven't spent your Depends budget on gourmet Burgers to Go.
Young Mr. Ryan's ideas seem like the young cheese in this advertisement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZW6YggJZEE
LK great! Love all of those ads.
Taunia, Wikipedia sources that Joe McCarthy was catholic: the funny line belongs to Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.
He contributes to Montana blogs Left in the West, Electric City Weblog and Montana Cowgirl. He lives in Great Falls, is a rabid Democrat, and is a very funny guy.
Taunia, I understand your aversion to a religious war. It is a distraction from talking about real, solvable problems. Strangely, that's why I'm o.k. with waging that war, to put it to bed once and for all. I will shout "Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, atheist!" every day until Republicans declare a cease fire. Conditions: no Republican may ever again accuse Barack Obama of being a radical because Jeremiah Wright was his pastor, and no Republican may say, insinuate, or countenance without rebuttal accusations that Barack Obama is a Muslim (not that there'd be anything wrong with his being a Muslim, but we're talking truth here). Paul Ryan has put numerous statements on the record (Jana's quote is key; Eve's psychoanalysis shows how Ryan practices Rand!) justifying the contention that he puts an atheist philosophy into practice. Barack Obama has offered direct and consistent repudiations of Wright's ill-considered, self-serving blowhardery, as well as clear declarations of his Christian faith and policy clearly connected to it.
We could win this religious war against the GOP truth-stretchers; I'm willing to settle for cease fire.
By the way, Dougal: farcicle... is that a particle transmits farce? Does farce equal mess times acceleration?
Right-wing SD blog P&R Miscellany is sufficiently alarmed at this line of attack that he has written a response to us darn leftists. He calls Rand's objectivism an "atheistic and immoral philosophy." We don't have to hang Rand on boringness, LK: at least P&R agrees policies based on Rand would be bad.
But P&R accepts Ryan's new spin, separating Ryan from Rand, even though Ryan says Rand was important in forming his worldview.
The biggest line in P&R's response: "Frankly, I wouldn't care if Ryan were an atheist. Such irreligion would still be preferred to Obama's religious infatuation with government and the fiscal bankruptcy to which it is driving us." I appreciate emphatic use of the subjunctive... and I will likely give P&R a full post response. I welcome your input here and on his site!
Cory, the point is Rand, like this blogger and many pseudo-Christian fundamentalists, are more than willing to blindly follow any successful strong man (or false prophet). Rand gave an atheist and libertarian patina to a kind of iconic figure already present in the Old Testament. There is both a Christian and an atheist pathway to fascism. As Hitler and the Nazi's showed, when you blend atheistic, pantheistic and the most extreme Christian interpretations and back them up with corporate money, you can usher in fascism very quickly.
This blogger doesn't understand that Ryan is a big government guy. He's big government when it comes to paying off the Supermen, ie., the Wall Street elite, the fossil fuel industry, and the military industries. He's big government when it comes to using government policy to destroy the middle class. He's big government when it comes to not wanting people having a say in how government operates. He's big government in terms of stripping people of their rights.
Here's the link for Jana's quote and more, straight from The Atlas Society: http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again
Another huge passage from that speech to Ayn Rand fans: Ryan says he uses Rand's writing like the Bible:
"It’s so important that we go back to our roots to look at Ayn Rand’s vision, her writings, to see what our girding, under-grounding [sic] principles are. I always go back to, you know, Francisco d’Anconia’s speech (at Bill Taggart’s wedding) on money when I think about monetary policy. And then I go to the 64-page John Galt speech, you know, on the radio at the end, and go back to a lot of other things that she did, to try and make sure that I can check my premises so that I know that what I’m believing and doing and advancing are square with the key principles of individualism…" [Paul Ryan, 2005].
Farce equals myth plus exaggeration.
There's the formula I was looking for. Thank you, Stan!
Donald, good point: if Hitler can sell himself as a Christian, anyone can. But tell me: why are the Republicans so good at saying the exact opposite of what they are and what they do?
Look at the whole Ryan rollout for a key to the fascist mentality. The cloak and dagger machinations the Ryan cabal used to slip the media stakeout are the sorts of secretive adolescent things that appeal to a certain kind of American pathology. Add in Romney's bullyboy attitudes and you get the kind of adolescent German who is willing to, for instance, cut off some boy's hair. It's made to appeal to a certain kind of less than together male. Then, of course, you have pointed out the ridiculous backdrop to the announcement itself-- full of fascist imagery.
That's why there is faith and religion. Now that is my opinion and you can disagree with me. My faith is personal to me as I suspect it is to most people. However, I believe religion to be something completely different. To me (and once again, my opinion) religion is something men have made up thousands of different versions of to manipulate, and decieve people in an attempt to control their lives and take their money.
I throw out a bit more on Rand and the P&R Miscellany post http://thedisplacedplainsman.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-little-more-on-rand-and-ryan.html
"I wonder if Sibby has looked into this “Wisconsin Cheesehead†thingy."
Yes I have and Taunia is way off base (Again!) with the religious war thingy, insead it is about ecumenism:
Mormonism is impossibly at odds with the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology, history, philology, theology and common sense.
In view of that, why are Catholic Prelates and priests defending the ridiculous cult? A Latin phrase aptly convicts Card. George and Fr. Massa for their action: Tacent, satis laudant [Silence is praise enough]. Their silence about the egregious errors of Mormonism is baffling.
The faithful Catholic must ask this Prince of the Church and priest: Why instead of fulfilling their ecclesiastical office as teachers, are they confusing and deceiving the faithful? Why are they gratuitously plugging this cultic nonsensical jumble and playing the role of sycophant to infidels. One must wonder whether their words stem from a sick ecumenism or downright dereliction…
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e027rp_George_Mormons.html
Good one, Sibby: one more feces tacked to the cathedral door.
And this analysis really gets to what is going on in the GOP 2012 election season:
It is an Illuminati book. The book was ordered written and produced by Philip Rothschild, the leader of the Illuminati in his day and age. It was ordered written by a woman named Ayn Rand. She was, at that time, one of Philip Rothschild's mistresses. She was already a well-known author and her books sell nationwide. She wrote this book, it was suppose to be a novel. It's 1100 pages.
It was written as a novel supposedly, but it is a codebook. And what's in the book, is a step by step plan to take over the whole world by taking over the United States.
Now, the power of the Illuminati and I'll give an explanation, the Illuminati did this following: First, most people have found the Illuminati in things that have crossed their path. People have found it in the occult and mistakenly they have said, "Ah ha, the Illuminati is the occult." Then, they have found it In the Masons and they have said, "Ah ha, the Illuminati is the Masons. Then, they have found it in politics and they said, "Oh, it's politics". So they found it in the International banking system or they found it in Zionism so they list it as just being that.
Actually, it is all these things, and much more. They found it in the Mormon religion. That's because the leaders of the Mormon religion are in high echelons in the Illuminati. They have found it in the John Birch Society, that's because the man who leads the John Birch Society is both a high degree Mason and a Mormon. It is all these things and its power is finance. If you would take its finance away, which is impossible. I am getting ahead of myself. The book is called Atlas Shrugged. They did not want people to buy this book other than those told to buy it within the occult and within the Illuminati. They're extremely mad because just this year alone (1977?) they have sold a million of them, mostly to Christians. And they don't like that. In fact, they tried to stop printing it, but people don't want to stop printing it they're raking so much money.
http://www.kt70.com/~jamesjpn/articles/atlas_shrugged.htm
The last link I provided has something for Kool Aid drinkers on both sides of teh political faux war (especially you Taunia):
The common name for the Illuminati is The Conspiracy, or the Great Conspiracy. Now until we lost the school system to people within the Communist party and within the Illuminati and so on, you were taught in your history classes and some people can remember this, that history was taught that it happened because somebody conspired for it to happen. Then, we didn't want in this nation anybody to get ideas that maybe our Government was a conspiracy so they decided to start teaching that it happened because it happened. World War II happened because some people got mad, World War I happened because some people got mad. The Depression happened because we bought too much too soon without enough money. They did not want anybody to get the idea that it all happened because somebody conspired for it to happen.
Bravo Sibby, a tour de force tri-fecta. But what's the Wisconsin connection? Did the Illuminati wear cheese hats?
So, if Ryan's reading and learning from Rand is so defining, I guess we should also find pertinent the socialist/marxist/radical anarchists in Obama's formation?
Ayn Rand's philosophy in many ways is an anathema to me as it is Ryan's. Our faith's social teaching not only includes the regard for the individual and each person's inherent and undeniable human dignity, which both Ryan and I embrace. Rand's cogent presentation of this does resonate with us.
But, as Bill properly mentions, it is self-contradictory. Her books talk about "love" but that form of love is incompatible with a love that gives of itself for the other. It disrespects rather than respects self-sacrifice for another or true filial love. Her philosophy rejects or diminishes equally important values Ryan and I hold, such as solidarity and the common good.
The contradiction is less in its intellectual underpinnings. It is "rational" and highly intellectual. But, it rejects what we all know outside of our mind that is True. I can and do love others greater than myself, even to the point of death.
Because they are incomplete and deny certain Universal Truths, Marxism taken to its logical conclusion is a form of self-hatred as the individual is meaningless except to the degree it serves the "collective." Randism taken to its logical conclusion is a form of hatred of others as the collective is meaningless except to the degree it serves "me."
Each philosophy is incomplete (self-contradictory as Bill says). On one hand, how can the collective have value if its components have no value? At the same time, how can the individual have value if nothing around the individual has value.
Here is a pretty good summary of what Ryan believes (or is called to believe as a Catholic). This explanation assumes one understands other certain principles not specifically named but are a common thread with regard to virtue, conscience formation, prudential judgment.
a. Dignity of the Human Person – means that the human person has an elevated character and nobility, distinct from the rest of the created world.
b. Common Good – The sum of the spiritual, material and social conditions needed for a person to achieve full human dignity. Basic necessities needed to achieve a full human life.
c. Solidarity – social charity that helps us see all people as members of one family sharing equal dignity.
d. Subsidiarity – Justice and human welfare are achieved best at the most immediate level given possible given the circumstances of the situation. A higher level of society should only intervene in a lower level of society when the lower level can’t properly handle the issue being addressed.
• Dignity of the human person and common good - the two foundational principles of the Churches social teaching.
• Remember - The principles are used for reflection, they provide us criteria for our judgments and give us guidelines for action. They are not black/white propositions therefore we want to remember both sides of a justice issue can use the same principle to argue their point. There are always multiple ways to achieve the end or organize society and the Church doesn’t usually say one particular way is the best or take sides, but reflects on the positives and shortcomings of each political system.
• The objective of the principles – this is how we root our judgments and actions in Faith. The principles provide the foundation for what we say and do.
In short, Randism is "individual human dignity" taken to an extreme with no regard to common good and solidarity. Marxism is "common good" taken to an extreme with no regard to dignity of the human person and solidarity. Both are at best incomplete.
If you want to pin Randism on Ryan (which when you look at his entire life is blatant balderdash.), you should then accept pinning Marxism on Obama.
from a cult that has helped rape the globe.
Okay, Here we go. Mormons in Wisconsin, for your files, Sib:
http://www.strangite.org/Wisconsin.htm
You're still mad at Justice Roberts, aren't you, Troy?
http://ows.edb.utexas.edu/site/sah-site/editorials-4
"I guess we should also find pertinent the socialist/marxist/radical anarchists in Obama’s formation?
Ayn Rand’s philosophy in many ways is an anathema to me as it is Ryan’s."
Troy, there is a common thread to both: the complete rejection of God and replaced by man can take care of himself.
Chris Cillizza author of The Fix, Byron York chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Michael Gerson author of "Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace American's Ideals.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-13/mitt-romney-chooses-running-mate
Good work, Mr. Jones.
Sibby, read Troy's write up and let it sink in.
There is a middle path, grasshoppah.
It occured to me this morning that Romney's selection of Ryan was brilliant, but in kind of a "Shogun" kind of way. Shows his skill as a business executive on numerous levels, not the least of which is that it allows him to be viewed as a moderate without lifting a finger.
...as in:
MR: "Don't like the Ryan Plan? Don't worry, were going to write a new one. Right, Paul?"
PR: "Yes, Mr. Romney."
Taunia: do you think crackers even show up to vote?
"There is a middle path, grasshoppah."
No Bill, there is the believers and there are the unbelievers. No middle path. Middle paths are for the monistic New Agers, which fall into the unbelievers side of the equation.
Steve,
I agree that is a common thread. But, it also is a warning with regard to putting ideology (any ideology) above the person for it becomes just a clashing cymbal.
"If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing." 1 Cor. 13:1-3
when you find your servant is your master.
1 Corinthians 5:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.â€
So then, what is love Troy?
Love is a just war.
"There is the believers and the unbelievers..."
Reminds me of the observation that:
"There are two kinds of people in the world:
1. People who think there are two kinds of people in this world, and
2. People who think there are more kinds than that."
Scott Walker's apparatchiks dropped the ball on Wisconsin shooter so Mitt announces Ryan: how conservative.
Love is never having to say you're Sibby.
Tell us about the 14 words, Sibby.
Steve,
Paul tells us what is love in the next section of what I referenced.
Ok, does love include expelling the wicked person?
A saint on opium: priceless.
Can love include homosexuality?
Love is another 4-letter word for Sibby.
Mitt the Twit, Ryan the Twerp.
Romney-Ryan
Your ticket
Back to 1929
can love include homo habilis?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/a_big_bang_theo063141.html
santa claus, sani-flush, drano....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCadlN8fexk
"Love is another 4-letter word for Sibby."
So is hope:
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
Paul arrived in Jerusalem in 57 with a collection of money for the community there.[13] Acts reports that he was warmly received. But Acts goes on to recount how Paul was warned by James and the elders that he was gaining a reputation for being against the Law, 'teaching all the Jews living among the gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs'.(Acts 21, 21)
Paul sold out to the Whore of Babylon, fer crissakes.
Ryan's little trip back to Catholicism seems to be more a matter of politically convenient faith than a repudiation of his faith in Ayn Rand.
I think it was the Catholic Bishops who panned his budget that provided him with his "return to faith" moment.
It does pose an interesting dilemma in the unlikely event Romney/Ryan win the election...does he hold his hand on "The Fountainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged?" I mean, really, there is some discussion on what should come first. For that matter, does Mitt hold his hand on "The Book of Mormon?" ;^)
Troy, I too like what Troy, just a little puzzled by your statement: "...I guess we should also find pertinent the socialist/marxist/radical anarchists in Obama’s formation?"
So first we have this from Paul Ryan - "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."
Do you have Obama speaking to Socialists, Marxists and radical anarchists publicly declaring his devotion and their importance of forming his beliefs and values?
Didn't think so...nice false equivalency Troy.
I did like your summary of what Ryan believes (or is called to believe as a Catholic). I find him and his budget lacking in putting those beliefs into works.
The connection is likely through Augustine of Hippo: the Church's original stand your ground guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tz3qShugQ9I
Jana,
If you want this campaign to be about formation, fine. Here Obama said Derek Bell speaks the truth. Do you think the majority of America believes this?
Go for it Troy.
But for those thinking that the President of the United States was giving full-throated reverence to Derek Bell might want to read this. Troy is still practicing the false equivalency game.
Did I miss it? Did President Obama say "I have built my beliefs and values based on what Mr. Bell said?"
http://gawker.com/5891738
Troy? Bueller? Bueller?
Watch Mitt's eleven seconds of horror during interview w/Ryan:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/13/opening_act_gigotmentum.html
So the Ryan/Romney ticket has Catholics in a quandry.
First there is this from the US Council of Bishops (I know Troy...you think they are hacks)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/222003-catholic-bishops-criticize-ryan-budget-cuts-to-food-stamps
Then of course there is that pesky little belief on the part of Catholics that Mormanism has some spiritual problems.
"Mormonism teaches that human beings may, by practicing the tenets of its faith, become gods and goddesses themselves, with their own planets full of people worshiping them."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-catholic-church-say-about-the-practices-and-beliefs-of-mormonism
Jana,
You too make me laugh. Obama said he speaks the truth. Are you saying then Obama doesn't believe in truth? This is hair-splitting and for you to assert otherwise is a feeble attempt to be too cute by half.
You really have two choices. You can examine Ayn Rand's philosophy in the context of greater influences on Paul Ryan (home life, Catholicism, life experiences) and come to a complex but more accurate understanding of Paul Ryan. Or you can assert Paul Ryan is a devotee of Randism (I don't like her term "objectivism" as so much of her philosophy rejects what I consider objective) out of ignorance and possibly a desire to deceive.
At its core, Randism is a type of atheism. In many ways, just the tails as Marxism is heads on the same coin.
In the end, this line of argument is the tails as birthism/Obama is a Muslim is heads on another coin. Argue it if you want. But, it only makes me laugh. It certainly doesn't pass as intellectual.
I don't think a large majority of Americans even know who Ayn Rand is. As for me I read Ayn Rand books the same way as I read L. Ron Hubbards, both are good fiction writers, one political and one science fiction. Both gave me something to think about but certainly did not form a belief system for me. Think Ryan is probably the same way.
One of the interesting ironies about Rand to me is her solution. Correct me if I'm wrong because it's been quite a while since I went over it. But wasn't her big beef all about unions? (one of them anyway) And wasn't the solution basically that the people with "talent" all ended up going on strike and refusing to negotiate? So, bottom line, the message was, "Just keep stroking our egos, paying us well, and stop asking us to kiss your butts and we'll keep making you look good."
Seems like class warfare to me. LOL.
(p.s. am I being too simplistic here, or is this the acquiescence Mr. Romney just made to Mr. Ryan?)
Jana,
You frankly are full of crap. I listen carefully to the US Council of Catholic Bishops, prayerfully consider EVERYTHING they say, without reservation accept their Teaching Authority with regard to Faith and Morals, not because they are a council but as successors to the Apostles).
Read closely what I pasted above including "There are always multiple ways to achieve the end or organize society and the Church doesn’t usually say one particular way is the best or take sides, but reflects on the positives and shortcomings of each political system."
There are some things the Church says that are non-negotiable (Christ is God, Mary is His Mother, He rose from the dead). There are others where we are to listen with a heart of deference but if we disagree after prayer discernment, we are to follow that conclusion.
The latter are areas for each to exercise their prudential judgment. Specific examples:
1) Bishops opposed Iraq War. I agreed with them yet didn't accept all their rationale.
2) Bishops oppose capital punishment. I agree with them and their rationale.
3) Bishops oppose parts of Ryan Budget specifics. I disagree with them. in some cases, I think the intent of the government program is good but should be done by States (subsidiarity) or the community. Other times, I think the program is a negative for the poor in the long-term.
In matters of prudential judgment, the critical question is not whether I agree or disagree with the conclusion of the Bishops. What is critical is rationale and motives.
I'll take the Iraq War just because it is easiest to make the point.
1) If I had opposed the Iraq War because I think Saddam was a moral leader, my view would be illicit even though on the surface I'm in agreement.
2) If I had supported the Iraq War because I believed the social justice and abuse of the people in Iraq was so egregious and an affront to basic human dignity and only armed intervention would stop the abuse, my view would have been licit even though on the surface we were in disagreement.
PS: the capitilized words "Faith" and "Morals" has a very specific definition and context within Catholic Teaching. The application to discussions (especially secular) about faith and morals often times does not apply.
Troy, here's some more crap from me...only this time I will just quote the Bishops as it refers to the Ryan budget and to stay topical, the farm bill.
In the letter to the Agriculture Committee, the bishops urged lawmakers to reject “unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition†programs for “moral and human reasons.†They said spending cuts should instead be made to subsidy programs that “disproportionately go to large growers and agribusiness.â€
Lawmakers should “protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises,†said the letter, signed by Bishop Stephen E. Blaire.
“Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.â€
In joint letters to the House and Senate sent on March 3, the bishops addressed the “moral and human dimensions of the federal budget,†and their fear that pressure to reduce the deficit would wipe out Pell Grants, workforce training and development, nutrition assistance, low-income tax credits and safe and affordable housing for the less fortunate.
So you and Paul Ryan seem to be in agreement as Ryan says: “Those principles are very, very important,†Ryan said. “And the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life, help people get out of poverty, out into a life of independence.â€
So jerking their safety net out, eliminating Pell grants, workforce training and cutting education all the while giving more to the rich is good for the poor?
You do realize that Ryan is doing the Christian thing with his plan by making sure that Mitt Romney's taxes go to zero...that should be a real help to the poor. After all Mitt told us all he is unemployed...right?
you make a good point, troy: the international community should push for an invasion of the vatican for crimes against humanity.
Then there is this that makes me think you are in agreement with the President of the United States with regards to "...in some cases, I think the intent of the government program is good but should be done by States (subsidiarity) or the community."
Kind of like giving states more authority over their TANF and welfare to work programs. So why is it that Republicans see this turning power over to the states as gutting welfare to work? Because they lie? Because Governor's Pawlenty, Romney, Jeb Bush, Huckabee, Rick Perry et. al. are closeted socialist liberals...
On these matters, I disagree with the Bishops. They speaking on matters of prudential judgment.
And, while I listened with respect and deference, my difference on these matters makes me no less Catholic, moral (small m) or concerned about the plight of the poor than them.
P.S. My comment about you being full of crap is directly in response to your arrogant, uninformed and bigoted comment of "(I know Troy…you think they are hacks." There is not a single one of the Bishops I don't think is very likely a better person than me and I presume this to be true for everyone of them (always hold open the option of changing my mind upon presentation of suffcient evidence otherwise). At the same time, I have a duty to question them on virtually any matter and no obligation to accept any view they hold outside their teaching office.
FYI: Your insistence to try to characterize Ryan as a bad Catholic only points out your ignorance of Catholicism. One's adherence to Catholic Teaching is only relevant on matters of Faith and Morals, as well as the application of prudential judgment. Unless you are Ryan's or my spiritual director, you and everyone else is incapable of making any judgment.
Regarding the welfare to work change, I'd be very open to it with one additional change- State cost sharing for the program similar to Medicaid. This would make implementation of the change more accountable. The "reform" as proposed is insufficient and counter-productive to the long-term accountability of the 1996 reform.
Obama should have submitted the change to the Congress for their input that could have implemented this part of the Ryan Budget to have more cost-sharing from the states (incidentally, blunting some of the critiques of the Bishops which assume the only alternative to these program cuts were the federal government). Any state and its citizens that oppose specific shrinking of a federal program are always free to take up the obligation.
Does it shift paying for it to the states? Yep. The closer spending and programs get to the people, the more liberal I become.
And yet more crap...
As far as examining Ayn Rand's influence on Paul Ryan...beyond him saying it formed his belief and value systems...there is this.
"He said government shouldn’t be responsible for lifting its citizens out of poverty — rather, that it’s the obligation of the citizens themselves to be society’s caretakers."
That is so Rand!
So let's replace the word citizen with business...does that mean that we are defying Ryan's interpretation of Catholicism if we give tax payer money to business?
Jana,
Now I'm laughing so hard I can't sit still. Might pee my pants.
Ryan never said that. You are taking a quote from liberal's who interpreted the following that Ryan actually said.
"To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best, having a civil society of the principal of solidarity where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that’s how we advance the common good. By not having big government crowd out civic society, but by having enough space in our communities so that we can interact with each other, and take care of people who are down and out in our communities.†-Rep. Paul Ryan
I couldn't help but notice how many liberal blogs repeated this as if it were Ryan's words (group think at its epitome) when it was one person showing either their ignorance of Catholic Social Teaching or appear to believe every poverty solution comes from the federal government and every proposal someone else can assist and be more effective is a threat.
Absolutely hilarious. It might be wise to quit digging when you are up to your nose in crap (mixing metaphors I know).
P.S. There is nothing "Rand" about what he said. In fact, it is anathema to Randism.
Troy...more crap, arrogant, uninformed and bigoted musings.
Keep in mind, I am not Catholic and so I am unable to parse the words of Bishops into small m and large M.
So what specifically is there in the Ryan plan that aids the poor, young and elderly that doesn't first need to go through the base...I mean wealthy donors...sorry.
Bishop Blaire writes:
“Congress faces a difficult task to balance needs and resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices,†Blaire wrote to the House Agriculture Committee. “Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.â€
Where do you differ with Bishop Blaire...who obviously is wrong in your eyes...with regards to shared sacrifice and raising revenues. Are you thinking like Ryan and Romney that those revenues should come from the middle class and working poor.
Now I'm not sure if the capital J in "Just"is for theological and intellectual purposes or just because it was at the start of a sentence...but the word "Just" does seem important.
I may be simple in your eyes (not to mention full of crap, bigoted, arrogant and uninformed,) but I think the Bishops' sentiments are pretty clear. I know that whole shared sacrifice thing is a little weird to you Republicans...given we were told to celebrate war, freedom and liberty through the sacrifice of shopping during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars....but I think the Bishop might be on to something here.
Oh yeah...and as long as we are thinking Ryan is the savior of the economy...how many bills and budgets did he vote for over his 13 years in Congress that added to the deficit? He was in control after all.
How many of the bills he voted for does he now don the garb of the fiscal champion in eliminating for purely populist purposes....as long as Mitt's tax burden goes to zero...
Heck, I'll let you battle with the Catholic Bishops...and I'm sure you will tell them that you were more prayerful and that they are wrong...but that's your fight.
It might be best that we don't even get into Paul Ryan's views on contraception and his support of personhood bills?
Oh Troy...
You peed your pants laughing because you say Ryan didn't say this:
Then grab another pair of Depends...cuz this will have you laughing hysterically...
That's the Ryan quote from his interview with The Hill...you know that crazy liberal blog...7th paragraph down.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/222003-catholic-bishops-criticize-ryan-budget-cuts-to-food-stamps
Here's more crap Troy....bigoted, arrogant, uninformed crap...
Paul Ryan is pushing "Personhood" and "Die on the Floor" bills. H.R. 212 and H.R. 358.
Personhood bill (You know...it's a fetus at conception...so most birth control would be illegal bill)
The "Let her Die on the Floor" act would give hospitals the right to let a woman die in the ER rather than perform an abortion.
Thank god (little "g" as opposed to big "G" in case that matters) he will never, ever be pregnant or even have to worry about conception inside his own body.
Jana,
Except for your silly statement about me claiming I'm more prayerful than the Bishops (which is not true), your tone is at least more reasoned.
On the surface, I agree with those words of the Bishop. I think they are a good summary of the principles of how public policy should be considered (not only for a Catholic but everyone).
First, I wouldn't tell a Bishop he was wrong (unless his reasoning or facts are wrong). For instance, if he said higher taxes or more regulations don't affect output, I'd say he is wrong. Virtually no economist says that. If he said higher taxes were worth the cost (and for whatever benefit he deems the cost is worthwhile), I may end up just disagreeing with him, accept his rationale, or defer to his judgment.
But there is alot of room for individual prudential judgment in those words where honest disagreement can occur.
His idea of adequate revenues and mine could legitimately differ. His idea of what is wasteful military spending could legitimately differ. Our views on addressing health care access and costs could legitimately differ.
So, in your mind, and desire to interpret the Bishop to support your views (more importantly infer what a Catholic should believe), what you see as the Bishop being clear is not clear in practical application. Or it is the opinion of a Catholic exercising his prudential judgment. I applaud that even when I disagree.
If a Bishop wanted to discuss what is a moral military policy, I will listen to him (and he might convince me to change my mind). If he has an opinion on how many battleships we should have to fulfill a policy, I'd tell him to stick to theology. He is outside his pay grade. BTW,I assume you are referring to Bishop Stephen Blaire of California and not Bishop Leonard Blair (I didn't look up his quote even though you misquoted Ryan as I assume you wouldn't make the same mistake twice). As much as I respect alot of Bishop Blaire's experiences, he has little expertise or experience outside the Church. I have more practical experience and expertise in matters of the economy. Bishop's speaking outside their charism have no more authority than anyone else. And, if there is an expert in the area across the table, it is they who should be deferential.
Here is the distinction I'm trying to make clear. Bishops have special charisms on Faith and Morals. Justice is a virtue. Pursuit of Justice and giving another one's "just due" get into gray areas as it requires the exercise of prudential judgment. The preferential option for the poor is a pursuit of Justice area.
Since Johnson declared War on Poverty, we've spent ever increasing percentages of our national output with the intent of both diminishing the number of poor as well as mitigate the effects of poverty. And, what do we have but more poor and more serious effects. At this stage, my prudential judgment continuing to do what we have been doing only harms the poor.
While everyone advocating for this programs (you, the Bishop) may have good intentions, I can't get past the results. Maybe transferring both the administration and the obligation to pay for them to the states will get better results. Maybe ending them altogether because the unintended consequences are greater than the intended consequences justify eliminating or significantly shrinking the programs. All I know is the results are unjust and immoral. And, intentions are only relevant in matters of sin.
P.S. I won't even comment about your snide comment about shared sacrifice.
So once again..I of the arrogant, uninformed, bigoted and now new and improved with silly have yet another silly observation.
Why won't Troy address the Catholic view of Mormanism? Will that be a problem at the polls?
We can talk about shared sacrifice later when you change your depends from laughing at what your guy Ryan had to say as reported on The Hill.
Jana,
HR 358 proposes no such thing. Here is the Congressional Research Service Summary. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00358:@@@D&summ2=m&
When I summarize this conversation, I'm not even going to look up the other bill.
1) You assert whatever parts of Rand's philosophy Ryan likes means he is a follower of Randism, even the parts that violate his Catholic faith.
2) You accuse his Catholicism as a convenient prop to promote his views on the Budget.
3) You assert we should take Ryan's words about Rand as definitive and complete about Ryan but dismiss similar words of Obama about Bell.
4) You put quotes around an interpretation of Ryan's views and present them as Ryan's words. And, then extrapolate this uninformed interpretation as proof his a Rand-ite. I looked at the Hill article. There are no quotes around it and it appears to be an interpretaton or bad summary of what he said. IT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID.
I do laugh at how you think you are clever because you aren't. But, I do not laugh at what appears to be intentional calumny, rash judgment, and deception.
OK. Jana,
I'll humor you one more time just to leave none of your nonsense open so you sit in your ignorance and make another false claim.
First, the Church opposes religious/theological tests for secular matters. I can hire an atheist, Mormon, or one who thinks Pluto is really a launching pad for green men wanting to take over the Earth if I deem them fit to perform the job. And, in the context of your question, Romney's or anyone else's religion is irrelevant. We are to only judge policies.
Second, historically, Catholics have been a victim of litmus tests. If anything, we will bend over backwards to discourage even the appearance of a theological litmus test.
So, I don't think the reality Romney is a Mormon will have any appreciable or measurable impact on his Catholic vote total. Maybe I'm wrong but I do interact with alot of Catholics. I can't recall a single one who mentioned Romney's Mormonism in the context of a criteria for voting against him.
Or are you asking the question of what does Catholicism think about Mormonism. We consider it a heresy (adherence to a false doctrine in the name of Christ). Where it stands on the continuum of heresy (from a very grave heresy or a minor one), I don't know for sure but I suspect it is up there.
There are faiths that consider Catholicism a heresy. While I disagree with their assessment (if I didn't I'd belong to their religion), I don't take the characterization as insult but a statement of their perspective. Personally, I'd prefer we were more open about speaking frankly about our disagreements as it would be discussed in context of our agreement. It would lessen prejudice and bigotry.
(Remember heresy is a clinical term with a specific meaning in this context. It has connotations in common vernacular, none of which I intend)
Oh great...now I'm uninformed, not clever, arrogant, bigoted, silly and a deceptive slanderer.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I was looking for the foreign policy experience of the Romney/Ryan ticket. Maybe I shouldn't have given up so quick.
Troy, to say that HR 358 doesn't amend the healthcare reform law to grant hospitals far-reaching powers to deny patients abortion care, without any exception for emergency situations. US law currently requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide emergency care to anyone in need up to the point at which they can be stabilized or transferred, if the original hospital is incapable of providing the care they need is a lie.
Did you read this section...pay attention to 1(C)
(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–
‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;
‘(B) require or provide such training;
‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or
‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.
I don't think I'm alone in this interpretation. HR 358 also dramatically limits a woman's choice in securing affordable health insurance through health exchanges.
Some may have noticed that Troy chose not to discuss HR 212 or as some states called it the personhood bill. I like to call it the No Zygote Left Behind law or the Great Zygote Battle in the War on Women.
Using Troy's source, here is the bill that Paul Ryan co-sponsored:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212:
I don't blame Troy for not wanting to discuss HR 212. The bill, The Sanctity of Human Life Act makes the once celled organism that is formed when a sperm cell meets an egg is a joke. So much of a joke that the state of Mississippi voted it down in a referendum. There isn't even an exception for rape and incest or the health of the mother.
I'm sure that as a good practicing Catholic, Troy sees popular forms of contraception as a sin. And that's fine...but a large majority of Catholics use contraception...and then there are all those millions of other women that use the pill, IUDs and Plan B.
The consequences, both intended and unintended, of this law are obscene.
If Troy were to bring that up, it would show that Paul Ryan is a willing combatant and leader in the Republican war on women.
I hope Ryan and Romney highlight Ryan's support of this bill to build up his Catholic bona fides.
So let's see where we are at with Ryan:
Against the Farm Bill
Ending Medicare as we know it
The whole Ayn Rand beliefs and values thing
Champions the war on women and contraceptives
So how does he do on education?
Note Taunia's comment on how crackers (white, protestant southerners) see Ryan's pick as their abandonment.
So when is Bill Fleming going to attack Jana for being a paranoid conspiracy nut?
Jana for Congress!
Okay, no problem, Steve. Jana, are you a paranoid conspiracy nut like Sibby?
Ewps...
I failed to give Mitt Romney any credit for his views on the No Zygote Left Behind personhood bills.
Romney is absolutely for personhood bills, like the one that went down in flames in Mississippi. From an interview with Mike Huckabee:
Mike Huckabee: Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Video of Mitt Romney: Absolutely.
There is a psychological temperment called the Intelligent Challenger. They are smart/clever. They have a very set world view. When faced with a challenge to their world view they throw a bunch of mud to see what sticks rather than examining both the facts/realities or their world view. Then, after their mud is washed from the wall, they just throw the mud back up and say "See, my world view is right."
This is throwing the adult version of a temper tantrum.
Smugness: how the Governors Club has erased the Democrat Party in the chemical toilet.
Napoli for Governor.
Troy, that descibes the South Dakota Blogosphere to a tee.
Not today Bill. I save my conspiracy theories for Vikings football.
i love big brother.
We are (on our worst days) a bunch of pants-peeing, mud-flinging, trash-talking, nard-kicking, tin-foil-hat-wearing, banana-peel-smoking, bible-thumping, back-stabbing, tree-hugging, brow-beating asswipes. I don't see why you are trying to be so polite about it. LOL.
There, you see, Sibby? Jana's not a conspitacy nut like you are.
That is an interesting straw man, Troy. What is his name?