home
RSS
My Take: Christianity and Ayn Rand's philosophy are 2 distinct religions
Ayn Rand's book "The Fountainhead" and the Bible.
August 15th, 2012
11:29 AM ET

My Take: Christianity and Ayn Rand's philosophy are 2 distinct religions

Editor's note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

Now that one of the Republican Party’s least ideological men (Mitt Romney) has christened one of the GOP’s most ideological men (Paul Ryan) as his running mate, Ayn Rand is back in the news.

Ryan, who used to give away Rand’s novel "Atlas Shrugged" for Christmas, once described this Russian-born preacher of heroic individualism as "the reason I got into public service.” “There is no better place to find the moral case for capitalism and individualism," he told the pro-Rand Atlas Society in 2005, "than through Ayn Rand’s writings and works."

Ryan’s religious conservatism obviously distinguishes him from Rand, an atheist who despised efforts by Ronald Reagan and others to marry church and state. And recently Ryan has tried to distance himself from her.

In an April interview with the National Review, he rooted his controversial budget plan, not in Rand’s laissez-faire philosophizing, but in Catholic values. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he said. “Give me Thomas Aquinas.”

Which makes me wonder just how these two influences on Ryan stack up against one another. Is it possible to love Aquinas and Rand at the same time? About as possible as loving God and mammon since Christianity and Randism are, in my view, two competing religions.

I know that Rand was an atheist, so it may seem like a stretch to call Randism a religion. But there are plenty of religions (Buddhism, for example) that have rejected God. And like Christianity, Randism has its founder, its scriptures and its miracles (since in the Gospel of Ayn Rand there isn't anything laissez-faire capitalism and its secular saints cannot do).

Randism also has its committed devotees, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and conservative talk-show hosts Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, not to mention the myriad commenters (see below) who will no doubt object to my efforts to brand her atheism a religion.

Here are five big differences I see between the  theologies of Christianity and Randism:

1. Jesus preached the virtue of selflessness; Rand wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" (1964). Altruism is evil, she argued, and egoism the only true ethics.

2. The Apostle Paul called the love of money the root of all evil. Rand wore a dollar sign brooch and saw to it that a florid dollar sign stood guard by her casket at her funeral. She also put a love letter to the almighty dollar on the lips of one of her "Atlas Shrugged" heroes, copper magnate Francisco d’Anconia (a speech Ryan has said he returns to repeatedly when pondering monetary policy). There d’Anconia calls money “the root of all good."

3. “Blessed are the poor,” Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke. And he says in the Gospel of Matthew that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” In the Gospel according to Ayn Rand, however, it is the “traders” (“job creators” in modern parlance) who like Atlas carry the weight of the world on their shoulders, while the poor are denounced as “moochers” and “looters."

4. The hope of the Christian gospel is the kingdom of God, but Rand's objectivist philosophy opposes "collectivism" at every turn. “Man - every man - is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake,” the inventor John Galt proclaims in "Atlas Shrugged," “and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.”

5. The ultimate concern of Christianity is God. The ultimate concern of Randism is the unfettered freedom of the individual. While the Christian Trinity comprise the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Rand’s Trinity is I, me, mine.

For years, Ryan and other conservative Republicans have been trying to have their Jesus Christ and their Ayn Rand,  too. But the two clash at least as much as an Obama/Ryan ticket.

Conservative icon William F. Buckley rightly recognized this fundamental incompatibility, running a blistering review of "Atlas Shrugged"in his National Review and denouncing that novel himself in a Charlie Rose interview as "a thousand pages of ideological fabulism.”

Evangelical leader Chuck Colson was equally critical, referring to Rand’s “idolatry of self and selfishness” as “the antithesis of Christianity.”

To his credit, Ryan seems to be acknowledging the gap between Randism and Christianity by attempting in recent months to distance himself from an intellectual mentor and emphasizing instead the Catholic roots of his budget plan.

But as Jesus once said, “By your fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16), and I for one still see much more Rand than Jesus in Ryan’s Robin Hood budget.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this piece said that Jesus called the love of money the root of all evil. The statement should have been attributed to the Apostle Paul.

- CNN Belief Blog contributor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Atheism • Christianity • Economy • Paul Ryan • Politics • United States

soundoff (1,069 Responses)
  1. open400

    Being political science/history major in the 1970s, I find it strange in the middle of this Conservative “Christian revolution” we have a VP pick that has publicly made it known that Ayn Rand was "a great influence on my life and a reason to enter public office" In college, after we studied the left wing atheistic economic philosophy Marxism, the we studied right wing atheistic philosophy of Ayn Rand. Both economic philosophies are fundamentally hostile to American civilization in the post-New Deal era.

    August 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Which is why the extremes on the left AND the right run to them.

      We have been fooled into believing we are either R or D, when in fact most of us would rapidly move to any party in the center we were offered.

      Which is why we will NEVER be offered one.

      Fascism and Communism are presented as our only two possible paths, when almost all of us want something more in the middle.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • paulronco

      >> Which is why we will NEVER be offered one.

      Um, you're always free to vote the Green Party. F-ing whiners.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • William Demuth

      The Green Party is Northern Left.

      The center are the ones who are unrepresented.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • paulronco

      My profanity was uncalled for. I am upset at seeing Ayn Rand promoted as an instrument of cruelty by Paul Ryan and I am upset at the liberals who believe his mischaracterization of her to be accurate. This is not the first time Rand has come up in recent American politics. I was impressed by her novel immediately, long before I realized after finishing it that it had been cleverly modeled after the Christian Gospels; whether to affirm or compete with them, or both, it doesn't really matter, because the lesson to be taken from them is the same. I don't believe that Rand was a closet deist. I believe she really thought God was imaginary. But I have yet to see anything from her own mouth or pen that disparages the man Jesus Christ. Anyone who understands her character in the novel realizes that the two were made great precisely because of what they had in common with one another, which was an unfailing determination to lives their lives according to the way they saw fit, regardless of how many people it angered and regardless of the outcome.

      August 15, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • paulronco

      How does one represent a center? Even they don't know what they stand for. The concept of a "center" by definition excludes the existence of a side. I don't think the "Northern Left" is taking too extreme a position to be unpalatable to the undecided center. End war, spend more on developing our communities, stop dumping toxic waste into our environment, figure out how to reduce our prison population without executing people. All sounds pretty reasonable to me. The difference between the Greens and the two main parties is that the Greens actually talk about it and have a plan. It's why the two parties have colluded with each other by their acts in Congress to ensure that third parties will always be shut out of the debates. I still support Obama's presidential campaign over theirs. At that level of politics in the current day and age, he's the best we can do, and he's not all that bad, either. I generally support Green candidates at grassroots levels.

      August 15, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  2. Reality

    Only for new members of this blog:

    And more yackety-yack from Stevie P who still does not know what to believe about the gods and religion even though he is a professor of religion.

    So Stevie P what sayest about the following with respect to your illumination of the magic man Jesus?

    The Apostles' Creed 2012: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years) (prayer = a reiterated peti-tion such as the Our Father)

    Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
    and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen
    (references used are available upon request)

    August 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  3. SRC

    Because you are intrigued by or like some of a writer's ideas does not mean that you believe them all. I like the book "Charlotte's Web" and have given copies as gifts, but that doesn't mean that I'm a pig or a spider; it just means I like to read. Yet another pointless article on a no-news topic.

    August 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  4. paulronco

    Rand is too often misunderstood and demonized by liberals and twisted and taken political advantage of by conservatives. Rand heralded individualism as a primary force, not a competing one. She is on record stating that if it is a person's true desire to help others, then it is technically a "selfish" act and thus a good thing. Rand did not have a problem with altruism per se. What Rand rejected was the notion that grudgingly sacrificing one's own needs for the needs of others is noble. She claimed it was counterproductive and ultimately destructive to both giver and recipient. A woman ahead of her time, modern psychology has now caught up with her. In a nutshell, Rand's spiritual message was "be true to yourself and all else will follow." In her novel _The Fountainhead_, Rand's hero, by placing his need to create his architecture HIS way– above what everyone else thought he should be doing with his gift– created works that brought great comfort and happiness to all of his clients. She confuses atheists, too: despite being one herself, that does not mean she rejected the notion of a God-centric life, as long as it was pursued out of genuine love for God, and not out of guilt or fear. There is voluminous evidence contained within The Fountainhead to indicate that Rand extolled the example of Christ's life; in fact, it is difficult to argue that the main character in the book is anything less than a secular version of Christ, and that the book itself isn't a cleverly-written secular version of the Gospel from start to finish. It starts with a baptism, contains an act of violence against a building, culminates with an attempted crucifixion, and ends with a redemption. All throughout, the character is angering the establishment, following the tune of his own drum, battling a particularly evil character who seeks to destroy him by influencing that establishment, and making a small handful of fiercely devoted friends. Call it what you want, but this Russian immigrant knew what she was doing.

    August 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Frank

      Rand classified all Christians as ' deluded fools'. I don't thinks she really thought of her protagonist as 'Christ-like'.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • paulronco

      Most of them are. It is incontrovertible that The Fountainhead is modeled after the Gospels. An atheist, she may have been competing with it, but she definitely lifted the story.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • paulronco

      As for this author's analysis, it's junk. Jesus did not call the love of money the root of all evil; Timothy did, and when asked what to do with his taxes, Jesus said to pay them. We split with Britain because of taxes and our Founding Fathers talked about currency all the time. If Rand saw currency as an important part of freedom, she was right. If we think our currency important enough to put "In God We Trust" on, the Rand has the right to be buried next to it.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • Huh?

      paulronco,

      "Timothy did"? What? It seems as if you are not very knowledgeable about your own NT.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • paulronco

      Yes, Timothy did, in 1 Timothy 6:10. It's the only instance of that quote in the Bible.

      August 15, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • What IF

      paulronco,

      Better check again. Timothy did not write the Book of Timothy.

      August 15, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
  5. Mark

    I would think that the Bible's assertion that a rich man cannot possibly get into heaven would put the lie to the notion of the Bible's infallibility. Really? NO rich man has ever gotten in? They are ALL that bad? Come on.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • George

      The actual wording is 'It is more difficult for a rich man..."

      It doesn't eliminate the possibility.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Mark

      Hi George, the exact quote was that it is more difficult for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. If that's not impossible, I don't know what is.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • MarylandBill

      The Bible said it is impossible for the rich man to enter heaven on his own merits (The whole like about the camel passing through the eye of a needle), but you missed the next line where Jesus said with God all things are possible. The idea here is that attachments are one of the things that keep us from God, but that with God's aid we can over come those attachments and be saved.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • ArthurP

      Wealth is a gift from God to be enjoyed by those who receive it. (Ecclesiastes 5:19)

      August 15, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Since there is no evidence that there is a heaven, this may be a true statement.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • George

      I am not an advocate of the value system of the rich, I just hate misquotes.

      By the way, the 'eye of a camel' referred to in that verse was a name for the gate merchants used to bring their goods into the city. It was so small that they had to unload their pack animals, move them through it, move their goods through it, and reload everything on the other side. Its main purpose was to force them to display all of the goods in a way that the tax collector got an accurate count. It had little to do with a sewing needle.

      In light of that knowledge the quote takes on a whole new meaning.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • jd

      Mark,

      The Bible is there, read it for yourself, so you understand the context and what it ultimately means.

      No one will need to explain it too you.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @George,

      I assume you mean 'eye of the needle'? (I don't understand your misquote reference.)

      The allegory of the camel and a narrow gate in the old city wall of Jerusalem doesn't change the meaning much at all. The implication that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom is clear.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • ArthurP

      "The implication that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom is clear."

      Which is odd considering that wealth is a gift from God. (Ecclesiastes 5:19)

      August 15, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Actually the quote references moving wealth around outside the scrutiny of the state.

      Render onto Ceasar and such.

      Do Mormons have a similar quote?

      August 15, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
  6. rosie

    Both religions and both suck mightily.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
  7. MM

    I'm an atheist, but I believe in conservative economics.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • Roger

      Why wouldn't you?

      August 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Walter

      There is a difference between conservative economics and GOP economics.

      August 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Horus

      Define conservative economics.....if you mean trickle down, and tax cuts to the rich then you are ignoring over a decade of evidence that those economic "policies" are ineffective for the majority, and only benefit the wealthy.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Walter

      Horus – Closer to 50 years of evidence than a decade of evidence.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Horus

      Walter – I was refering to the Bush era ideology of "if we cut taxes for business owners they'll hire more workers and spend more money". The first idea was idiotic because a business owner will hire based on demand for their product or services. The second (that they'll spend more) was shown to be wrong, as most simply padded their retirement funds.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Walter

      I know...but the evidence on your side is much stronger than you give it credit. In recent times it goes back about 50 years. Before the late 1920s there is about 40 years of evidence.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
  8. patch vader

    Miss Rand is dead. so are ron Hubbard, Brigham Young, and Mohammed. Pick your own dead hero and keep it to yourself and let the rest of us move forward.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
  9. William Demuth

    Randians require a stable society.

    We can create one, and then we can each "do our own thing" but until we create one collectivisim is required to protect the individual from the tyrany of chaotic masses.

    As any shopkeeper who survived the riots in LA can attest, this whole rugged individualisim, and our universal worship of the cult of capitalisim can easily be overthrown by a small crowd of determined looters.

    Collective effort is the only real safety net when the stuff hits the fan.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Roger

      Now Bill, don't start making sense.

      August 15, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @WD

      Indeed so. The "Occupy ..." movement was evidence that there is great disaffection out there. The tinder is dry and the right spark could turn this resentment into a nasty conflagration of violence that 'rule of law' will be hard-pressed to contain.

      I do not see this as inevitable, and certainly do not hope for this, but I think the possibility is more real than most people imagine.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • William Demuth

      GOP'er

      I saw Brezinski on TV the other day (The father not the daughter) and he expressed a surprisingly strong concern about social unrest developing here in the US.

      Having survived rioting in NY and Newark back in the day, I would suggest we heed his warning.

      If we don't accept the concept of some form of equity, at least equal opportunity for children, regarless of social staus, we may find Americans may subdivide into smaller more militant enclaves.

      The idea of a civil war isn't as crazy as I might have once thought it was.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
  10. Liberal atheist

    I am an atheist who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus as the esence of moral life and who finds the tennants of Rand's philosophy as repugnant. If all subscribed to her teachings, we would soon be in a civil war where every man (woman) was out for himself (herself). What a life to think others only value you as a means to their own satisfaction.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Liberal

      So you believe he was real, just not divine?

      The how can you believe what you read has any basis in what was actually said or done?

      What you really mean is that you are a Christian who dosen't belive in God. The Bible was written by the Church, it is not an autobiography written by Christ.

      It has been edited, modified, manipulated and distributed by men with an agenda, and based on my reading is chock full of contradiction.

      With thousands of years of men putting words into, and removing words from the mouth of Christ, he has degraded into nothing more than a spokesman for a product.

      Something akin to the Quaker Oats Man, Aunt Jemima, or Max Headroom.

      Hardly the deep philosopher type we portray him as.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @WD,

      why do you say this? One can equally appreciate words ascribed to Jesus, the Buddha and Lao Tsu without believing in God.

      The writings ascribed to Jesus are less contradictory than the whole span of the bible, but if your argument is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, OK, but that doesn't make them wrong.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • William Demuth

      GOP

      I agree it is worth review, but with a grain of salt.

      A classic example is the very first commandment. There are two versions. Thou shall not kill, and Thou shall not murder.

      Each version contradicts the other profoundly. We must each determine right from wrong and this can not be done by playing Post Office with a Palestinian from the Bronze Age. We must be prepared to think deeply and profoundly OURSELVES, and we can not "outsource" our obligation to others, no matter how well intended.

      August 15, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @WD,

      that's why my reference was specifically Jesus and not the old testament. The old testament is rife with contradictions. The Gospels aren't quite as bad – Matthew, Mark and Luke are derivative of each other anyway.

      August 15, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
  11. Adam

    Don't have much regard for Rand, but I'll copy something she once said that I like quite a bit:

    "Reliance on revelation is like reliance on a Ouija board; it bypasses the need to show how it connects its results to reality."

    August 15, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • DC

      It must be a requirement of your cult to prefix every grudging like of her views with "I dont like/support/regard her but ..."

      August 15, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • Adam

      Do you wish to have a conversation? If so, then that was a very poor start of it, DC. If not, then remove yourself, as is your right. Thank you.

      August 15, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
  12. edmundburkeson

    In the process of splitting hairs you may see many things that look like hairs but are not. In the same way Christianity has many things in common with individualism even if it is not one and the same. For someone like steven who idolizes culture I have to wonder, why is he suddenly into disecting an ideology when he is not nearly so critical in his analysis of most other points of view. Steven's broad minded, all inclusiveness is suddenly exclusive not inclusive.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
  13. ...Good news though

    Ayn Rand really did exist.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Sam

      About the only thing giving her any credibility in comparison.

      August 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
  14. TG

    1. It is Objectivism, not "randism"–I think I get why he chose Randism.....but no need to add a new term to the 'name calling' choices.
    2. Nice read, thanks– I wish more would dig into this divide in the "right"- I am on the Rand side-and don't like that my party is often steered by the Aquinas side....just as the author is on the Aquinas and not fond of steering by the Rand half. Can we just move to 4 parties??
    a. Do want you want, just leave me alone to make money (econ right, social left) (money grubbers, screw everyone else) (gives me a home)
    b. bleeding hearts (econ left, social left) (big government handing out money) (gives my wife a home)
    c. good Christians (econ left, social right)- (big Judeo/Christian government) (gives a religious 'common man' a home..AFL/CIO)
    d. let the church run things (econ right, social right)

    August 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      And it all comes back to whether it is a role of Government to give a hand up to those who are incapable of doing so all by themselves.

      Objectivists say no.
      The religious right say it is the purview of religious charities.
      The left says anything else is inconceivable.

      I guess that's why we live in a democracy.

      August 15, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  15. Mark

    I'm an atheist, but Rand's philosophy is distasteful.
    And look at the list of losers embracing it. They
    claim to want what's best for the country, but
    they're obviously in it just for themselves.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • TG

      exactly. That is the point....that everyone should pursue self interest

      August 15, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Roger

      If you look at the logical consequences of the works of the most important Atheist philosophers, the results are scary: Ayn Rand, Vladimir Lenin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Mao Zedong....you can claim that there is no connection between Atheism and their philosophies, but there is: the END justifies the means.

      August 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "The end justifies the means" is Niccolò Machiavelli. While he believed that religion was man-made, he thought religion was essential to the society of a 'strong prince' to control the masses.

      This is very different to the Marxist take, that "religion is the opiate of the people" and should be eradicated.

      Atheism simply means disblief in God. There is no orthodoxy to atheism. It is not a religion.

      August 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • scribebaby

      That's the spirit. No need to understand something in order to denounce it via ad hominem. Would you consider a job writing fascist propaganda?

      August 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Liberal atheist

      Atheism and individulism (as described by Rand) are not one and the same. Some try to claim that Christianity is the basis for capitalism. That is something that leaves me saying "huh" ?

      August 15, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
  16. Ayn Rand: against Disability

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vJoaWa-kWQ&w=640&h=360]

    August 15, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Roger

      Brilliant: paying taxes makes you "SLAVE LABOR" in the opinion of Rand.

      August 15, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  17. power and money

    Politics and reliigon are ruled by power and wealth, sure they throw a a symbolic bone to the poor and powerless from time to time to keep up their image. Rand simply told it like it is, money is the root of all good to the politicians, because it can buy power and lead to more money. The heads of the various religions, follow the same principles, collect massive amounts of money, do a few good works, far less than they could afford to do and build on the wealth of their insti*tutions.
    One example from the business headlines not long ago.
    Shhh!,,,the Vatican has received a report on financial transparency, but it is secret.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
  18. Julie

    This explains why the Republicans claim to be Christians and their policies are quite opposite! Its a bunch of smoke screens. They use moral issue to devide the people then utilize their positions for their own personal selfish reasons. People need to wake up before its too late for our country and freedom.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • TG

      Yep. For my view, I am a republican that has no interest in being Christian. I hate the moral view stuff too. Wish I had a party that just pushed the economic view (which, for many, feels the opposite of Christian). Would love to separate it all so voters like you and I could make a choice instead of having to get in bed with one thing we don't like to support another.

      August 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
  19. Jake

    I agree, Randism is also a religion-it just has self as the God. And like all religion they are created by one's need to feel as if they have control over their environment. It fills the gap in between what one knows and can prove and what they strongly feel they think they know, but cannot prove; that gap is really called "bias". And if you need to justify your bias you will find the proper religion to fill it. That's human nature.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
  20. Honey Badger Dont Care

    @Topher
    “What is your definition of slavery, by the way?”

    Are you really trying to use that ridiculous argument that slavery that we think of isn’t the slavery of the bible are you?

    When you pay money for a person (as it says in the bible) and can beat that person (as it says in the bible) that is a slave in every sense of the word.

    Stop trying to rationalize away the bad parts of the bible you cafeteria xtian.

    August 15, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.