Jesus or Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both?
Author Ayn Rand stands in New York City in this 1957 photo. Her criticism of religion outraged some, but her books remain popular.
June 29th, 2011
10:22 AM ET

Jesus or Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both?

By John Blake, CNN

(CNN)– Can a person follow Ayn Rand and Jesus?

That’s the question posed by a provocative media campaign that claims that some prominent conservative leaders cannot serve two masters: Jesus and the controversial author of  "Atlas Shrugged," Ayn Rand.

The American Values Network, a group of political activists and pastors, sparked a debate when it recently released a video challenging some conservative and Republican leaders’ professed admiration for Rand,  an atheist who saw selfishness as a virtue and celebrated unfettered capitalism.

Eric Sapp,  AVN’s executive director, said the Republican Party cannot portray itself as a defender of Christian values and then defend the worldview of "the patron saint of selfishness" who scorned religion and compassion.

Sapp singled out Republican leaders such as Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh after all of them expressed admiration for Rand.

Ryan,  architect of the GOP’s propsed budget and Medicare plan, once said that Rand’s philosophy was “sorely needed right now,” and that she did a great job of explaining “the morality of capitalism.”

Sapp sees little morality in Rand's worldview:

Rand said religion was ‘evil,’ called the message of John 3:16 ‘monstrous,’ argued that the weak are beyond love and undeserving of it, that loving your neighbor was immoral and impossible…

Sapp cited conservative leader Chuck Colson who released a video condemning Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” as a silly novel that “peddles a starkly anti-Christian philosophy.”

Sapp added:

Hard to reconcile leaders of ‘God’s Own Party’ praising someone who is about as anti Christ as one can get, huh?”

Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights in Washington, said the philosophies of Christianity and Ayn Rand are incompatible.

Jesus taught that people should love and serve others, including their enemies. Rand taught that people's fundamental focus should be on their individual happiness, he said:

 I don’t think what Ayn Rand advocates in 'Atlas Shrugged' and what Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount are compatible. She’s an egoist and therefore an individualist.  Jesus is advocating altruism and collectivism.

Rand died in 1982, but she remains polarizing. The great recession has triggered new interest in her novel, “Atlas Shrugged.” The book depicts a bleak future where the U.S. government has seized control of private industry and discouraged innovation.

The book may have been rooted in Rand's childhood trauma. She was born in Russia in 1905, and saw the Communist Party come to power in a violent revolution. Her family was left destitute after party officials seized her father’s business.

She immigrated to the United States where she eventually became a screenwriter. She ultimately made her mark through her novels. Critics say Rand’s characters were stilted mouthpieces for her philosophy of  Objectivism, which insists that individuals should be driven by “rational self-interest.”  Still, "Atlas Shrugged" is now considered one of the most influential books of the 20th century.

Rand's philosophy didn’t say much good about religion. In a 1964 Playboy interview posted on the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights site, she said that religious faith is “a negation of human reason” and charity wasn’t a virtue.

Rand told Playboy:

There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

Defenders of Rand say that a person can adopt elements of Rand’s philosophy and reject whatever clashes with their faith.

Yaron Brooks, president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, also defended Rand’s philosophy in a recent CNN.com commentary.

He said while people call Jesus or Mother Teresa heroes, they should use the same description for people like 19th century oil tycoon, John D. Rockefeller and inventor and businessman, Thomas Edison.

Their pursuit of personal profit is a virtue because it enriches society, not just individuals, Brooks said.

Brooks wrote:

It is they, not the Mother Teresas of the world that we should strive to be like and teach our kids the same.

Elections, some say, are ultimately a contest of ideas. It’ll be interesting to see if those political leaders who admire Rand continue to talk openly about her philosophy as the 2012 presidential campaign escalates.

Or will they deflect a question I suspect they’ll hear again and again:

How can you invoke Jesus and follow Rand?

- CNN Writer

Filed under: Belief • Books • Business • Christianity • Culture wars • Economy • Ethics • Politics

soundoff (1,025 Responses)
  1. Heather

    WHAT?!?! Republicans and Christians are hypocrites? Say it ain't so!!

    June 29, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • Christopher

      No dimwit, and perhaps if you actually read the article you'd know that. The point is that people who claim to follow both Ayn Rand and Christ are hypocrites. There are plenty of Christians that reject Ayn Rand, and plenty of Republicans who reject Christ. Neither of those groups are "hypocrites".

      June 29, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
  2. Bruce

    It's quite easy to reconcile embracing both Rand's philosophy and Christianity, and people do it all the time: complete and total ignorance, borne out of an inability to read with any sort of comprehension, or an outright refusal to read with an open mind, either Rand's books, or the scriptures and other Christian religious dogma such as the catechism, or both.

    June 29, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
  3. EricP

    The real question is not whether Conservatives can believe in Jesus and Ayn Rand at the same time it is whether Conservatives can claim any kind of patriotic idea and Jesus. It is claimed that Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love thy enemy – given that how can they justify any war or any military response to Sept 11, 2001? How can they support the military at all or gun ownership for that matter. It's a a ridiculously internally conflicted belief system. Ayn Rand simply reminds us that the injection of extreme religion in the right wing is a somewhat new development.

    June 29, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
  4. Den

    Can anyone give us a succinct definition of "conservative" as it's currently practiced in this country? Does it mean small government? Does it mean championing personal responsibility? Does it mean private enterprise above all? More to the point, does it mean traditionalist Christian values – charity, love of the other, inclusiveness – or is it advocating those other "Christian" values – judgementalism, exclusivity, self-righteousness?

    From my reading of both Ayn Rand and Jesus, I can't see how they can be seen as in any way compatible. They're poles apart. From the one, in essence, comes this: "Greed is good!" From the other comes: "It's better to give than to receive." Politicians are known for speaking out of both sides of their mouths. To invoke both Rand and Jesus is a heroic feat indeed.

    June 29, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
    • Charles

      There are three types of conservatism in the U.S. right now; Cultural Conservatism, Neo-Conservatism, and Classic Conservatism. Some people put Libetarianism in that group too but it really falls outside of it. Which do you want a definition for?

      June 29, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  5. Stew

    I always wonder the same thing myself. Personally, I preferred Fountainhead to Atlas, partly b/c I felt Atlas was over the top. Also, I would hardly liken Chevron or Wal-Mart to Taggart Transcontinental or Rearden Steel.

    June 29, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
  6. Peikovian

    The fact that former Governor Jon Huntsman, now running for the Republican Presidental Nomination, must remind people that he's "not running for guru" says much about the cultural shift in this nation. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison were of different churches or highly skeptical of the Church. They didn't have to win election on the Messiah ticket.

    June 29, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
  7. Carolyn

    Ayn just like to hear herself – it's all about her.

    June 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
  8. Bryan

    Self-actualization or self-efficacy are better terms than selfishness. I think everyone on either side of the argument would admit that there are people who are simply unwilling to pull their own weight. They become dependent on charity and hand-outs, when they are capable of more. If someone wants to stay where they are, financially and/or socially, that's fine, but I really wish that liberals would stop pushing the notion that those folks towards the top of the ladder are *required* to support the others (aka, "Robin Hood" mentality).

    June 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • Christopher

      ...and by "better terms", you mean "less accurate". The fact that you're embarrassed by her dogma, and thus want to alter the terms used to describe it is understandable, but keep in mind: Rand isn't some 2rd Century figure who wrote in Latin. We have her on Video saying EXACTLY what she meant.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
    • Bryan

      By "better terms" I meant ones that haven't been demonized by liberals. And I'm not at all embarassed by her dogma. I use it to teach my kids that they need to think for themselves, that they need to solve their own problems, that they should not rely on other people to think or act for them. When my kids do poorly at something, I make sure they understand that the outcome was a function of their ability, effort, and/or dedication. IMHO, it's much more compassionate to teach them to be self-reliant and self-actualized, than to be *dependent* on the charity of others.
      I've been donating to various chairities for the past twenty years...it just irks me that some bleeding heart liberal/bureaucrat tries to guilt/tax me into giving away the things (inefficiently) that I have earned. Charity should be optional and up to the individual, not the govt!

      June 29, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
    • meemee

      It is easily observable that many dependents are created by the system, not by their own decision. Once you are marked in this society, you cannot easily get out. Unemployed for more than a year? Forget it. Health issue? Forget it. Over 50? Forget it. The history of capitalism is littered with continual episodes of exploitation and abuse of the powerless. That is why people like Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan became philanthropists in later life. History also shows that your formula produces bloody uprising, revolutions in the end and then a new era of political imbalance, which hurts everyone again. You are just trying to justify your own personal greed, thinking that no harm will come to you or yours in your life. But look around you, it is coming.

      June 29, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • Bryan

      So we should be more "compassionate" and "fair" like the Greeks? And then all of our problems would be solved...that's a convicing argument. The world is too unfair and we just need to take more property and wealth from those who have earned it and distribute it to those who haven't. I will vote Democrat from now on! Thanks for enlightening me!

      June 29, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • @ @


      June 30, 2011 at 3:27 am |
  9. Rusty Freedom

    "Defenders of Rand say that a person can adopt elements of Rand’s philosophy and reject whatever clashes with their faith."

    So I guess these "Christians" would have no probem with me taking the bible with the same pick-and-choose approach, right?

    June 29, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • Carolyn

      Every human being picks and chooses – faith is one of the many life's facets. Your point is weak.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
    • ssolilrose

      They do it all the time...

      June 29, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
  10. Will

    Ayn Rand was 100% right about religion.

    She's pretty much the lowest common denominator, but at least she based her theories on the observable, and not 2000+ year old fairytales concocted by shepherds to help them deal with their families dying of typhus, and then ultimately put on paper by conmen and liars.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
    • Mavent

      You and Rand are both juvenile d0uchebags, but at least you're not claiming to be "Christian" while supporting her.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • Slowgun

      Money isn't the root of all evil...religion is...always has been.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • IndependentReader

      @ Slowgun – The exact verse is "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil." While some might argue that verse supports the anti-Rand (socialist/Marxist) views, others might argue the opposite. Socialist/Marxist views require that money be taken from those who have it to be distributed as the government sees fit. In this respect, it is the politicians and those who will benefit most from the distribution who LOVE the money.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
  11. Jai Buddh

    Jesus, Ayn Rand, etc. Don't follow anyone. Walk your own Middle Path, avoid extremes, be mindful and compassionate and you'll need no leader.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  12. Peikovian

    Ayn Rand understood Christian ethics to mean that the perfect man was sacrificed for sinners, and so in practice all good men must suffer on behalf of all bad men, who gladly accept what they haven't earned. Atruism ("other-ism") calls for the negation of the self for the sake of others. The Enlightenment Era values of the Founding Fathers was based on invidualism. The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" exisrs nowhere in the Gospels. Nietzsche inverted the equation, and wondered whether the weak should be sacrificed to the strong. Ayn Rand said simply that in a good society, no one is sacrificed to anyone. No one is looted to pay for it. By 1608 the colony of Jamestown Virginia had a "no work, no food" policy. There is no example of them failing to provide for their sick or their elderly. Ayn Rand's philosophy in no way describes a world where people treat one another without value. Just the opposite.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • Christopher

      ...and yet the fact remains that what you're describing is NOT "Christianity", so if that's really the system you embrace, stop calling yourself a "Christian". That's all we real Christians are asking. Stop stealing our name as some sort of Badge of Honor, when in fact you believe nothing that Christ taught.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
  13. abby

    A Christian cannot support Ayn Rand because she supported the concept of "me, myself, and I" first and foremost, that the rich are "better" and "more deserving" and that everyone else is a "parasite" and only deserves to "serve" the rich....

    What did Jesus teach? Read Matt: 25:35-46

    Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
  14. man

    Rand pointed out a possible (certainly, most of her loyal readers would say probable or certain) outcome of pursuing total and enforced equality. The possible endgame of government intrusion at the level certain liberals advocate is illustrated by Rand, Orwell and other "apocolyptic" style writers. I would say the last sentance describes the problem. Followers of Jesus don't follow anyone else and they don't "invoke" Jesus like some magical amulet. I can only assume the author of the article, Mr. Blake, is using hyperbole to describe a problem with some conservative's focus on trendy ideas versus bedrock faith. Of course, he could just be an atheist or agnostic baiting Christians and conservatives.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
  15. John

    ahahah! Republicans caught in a quandary. Should we thump bibles or Atlas Shrugged?

    Although, I know a lot of Democrats who have professed admiration for Ayn Rand, so I don't think that Conservatives somehow "own" this quandary. I always thought Ayn Rand was more an Independent / Libertarian political thinker, not a Conservative.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • Mavent

      The question isn't "Would Any Rand consider herself a Republican or a Libertarian." It's "How can Conservatives be such hypocritical D-Bags that they claim to be "Christian" while embracing a woman who, BY HER OWN ADMISSION, absolutely loathed Christianity, and was diametrically opposed to every single precept of it? It's interesting to me to see how quickly Conservatives abandon Christianity in favor of Rand's Objectivism once they're actually asked to live one of the two philosophies. Christianity is great as long as Conservatives aren't asked to live it.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
  16. Colin

    Ayn Rand's view of religion is spot on. It promotes stupidity and unquestioning adherence to 2,000 yeard old myths. In doing so, it not only stifles innovative thought, but positively punishes it and makes mediocrity and gullibility values to be strived for.

    Ih this respect, Copernicus, Gallileo, Keppler, Martin Luther, Jean-Paul Sartre, Voltaire, John Calvin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, René Descartes, Francis Bacon, Huldrych Zwingli, Blaise Pascal and Saint Faustina Kowalska have one thing in common.

    They have all been banned by the Catholic Church.

    Even the simplest minded Christian must feel a little suspi.cious that the one personality trait their sky-god is said to value above all others is unquestioning belief – the one value that would have to be promoted if the whole thing is untrue.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
    • Ryan in Michigan

      @Colin – The most ironic (or moronic, in your case) part of your statement is that nearly all of the people you mentioned have a second thing in commond: they were all firm believers in God. You can also add to this list people like Werner von Braun, Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, and many others. Under your modernistic Atheism, none of these people would be allowed to teach their views in the public school system today. They would likely be banned from government-funded public colleges as well for their "extremist" views.
      Even the most simple-minded Atheist has to wonder that if the greatest minds in history had one thing in common, the belief in God, that maybe there was something to it.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • Colin

      They were not all believers in god. To take one example you cited, Einstein, he was a complete atheist by any standard. Perhaps a little research before citing facts is warranted.please research facts before stating them.

      Here are some Einstein quotes on religion. In point of fact, Einstein was a complete atheist. I know he admired Spinoza and brandied the word “god” around as a metaphor for the numinous, but he certainly did not believe in the notions of life after death or a god that in any way worried itself with human beings. Indeed, he referred to this as “the god of the naïve man.” For example, in his 1954 letter to the Physicist Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote,

      "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

      By the way, whether this gifted man (or any of the others you cited) believed or not is quite beside the point of whether there is a god, but I get frustrated when people wrongly attribute a belief in [always their] god to him. Here are some more quotes.

      "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

      "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

      "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

      "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body

      Stephen Hawkins, likewise rejects the notion of a god, as do 95% of the American Academy of scientists and 97% of Britain's Royal Society of Scientists.

      No Ryan, I am sorry, but you will not find much support for the supernatural/magical elements of your Bronze Age belief in the scientific community.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • Ryan in Michigan

      The fact that you could only come up with two "champions" of Atheism, with one of those still in doubt (Einstein still held religious beliefs), doesn't do much to promote your point. Stephen Hawkins may be a brilliant man, but he's also extremely closed-minded. He won't allow himself to consider other options or opinions that might violate his beliefs, something that will disqualify him from being a truly great scientist like the ones we listed above. They were open-minded to new ideals and new discoveries. Hawkins turns his back on advancements in Creationism without consideration, much like the Catholic Church of old.
      Also, I'm not at all surprised of the percentages of people in the British and American scientific academies who believe in Evolution, as it practically a requirement to get in. That's like saying 99% of people who go to church believe in God; it's a weak argument. Besides that, 86-94% of people (depending upon the company doing the poll) here in the United States believe in a god of some kind, and the number that believe in Creationism is growing. After all, there are modern scientist who are beginning to see the fallacies in Evolution and are turning away from it based on scientific evidence, including Michael Behe and Ken Ham. Once you're outside the Academic circle, out in the field where real science takes place, you'll find the percentage of Evolutionists much lower, more around 60%. The flaws in your theory are being found out, and they won't stay hidden and covered forever.

      June 29, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
  17. Clark Nova

    Sure they can. Christians have always been experts at maintaining incompatible believes simultaneously without having the insight to notice.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • Clark Nova

      Make that 'beliefs', not 'believes'. Not enough coffee yet.

      June 29, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
    • Colin

      Agreed, but it is nothing peculiar to Christianity. For some reason, otherwise smart, articulate people accept the most bizzare supernatural nonsense under the guise of "religious beliefs".

      June 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  18. Jonathan

    This piece mischaracterizes Rand's objectivism. Using "selfish" to describe Rand is a misnomer. "Selfish" implies promoting onesself for its own sake. Rand's objectivism promotes achievement at the highest level for the sake of whatever field your achievement is in; not just because you subjectively think you're the best. Rand would agree with giving to the poor who actually "NEED" charity. This reflects the fact that a very small portion of the population actually needs charity. If everyone pursued their goal with the same relentless drive that Rand's protagonists portray, there would be little need for charity She would not agree with giving to the poor just for the sake of giving; as a moral command in a vacuum. Jesus did not promote giving to the poor just to give to the poor. He promoted giving to those who actually needed it. If Rand's selfishness of goal is applied to a life of following Christ, Jesus's message and Rand's philosophy are completely compatible.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • Tom M

      Ayn Rand actually does not promote giving to anyone because they are'in need'. She advocates giving only when it somehow benefits one's self. Go to Youtube and search for 'Ayn Rand' and 'altruism'

      June 29, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • M.

      In so much as God demands wholly focused love that is willing to forsake everything else, Rand's philosophy (and its extreme drive) and Christianity have something in common. But it's odd to say Jesus and Rand are compatible when Jesus exemplifies humiliation and sacrifice for those who deserve nothing and says that his followers should demonstrate the same. (If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.Luke 6:29)

      My other issue is simply....I'm pretty sure some of these republicans that claim to adore Jesus and Rand have NOT read Atlas Shrugged or the Bible cover to cover. I'm pretty sure because I have and they're pretty different.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
    • Michael Amey

      Hi Jonathon,
      The article may have mischaracterized Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I think you may be guilty of mischaracterizing what Jesus taught. You wrote that, "Jesus did not promote giving to the poor just to give to the poor. He promoted giving to those who actually needed it."

      Because I'm not a Christian it has been awhile since I've read the gospels, but I don't recall Jesus EVER differentiating between the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor. Rather, in Mark 10:21, Jesus tells a "rich young ruler", “One thing you lack. [...] Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The passage is repeated in Luke 18:18-23. In addition, in Matthew 5:42, Jesus tells his listeners, "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." All of this seems to suggest that Jesus advocated a radical form of charity that Ayn Rand would have opposed.

      It's also worth noting that Jesus advocated paying taxes – "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" he tells his disciples.

      June 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • Vulpes

      I disagree. Jesus promoted giving freely without thought of need or judgement. Also, unless it helped attain a selfish goal, Anne Rand would *not* agree with Jesus on this issue.

      June 29, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
  19. Jonathan

    straw man

    June 29, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
  20. Michael

    Ah, a lively debate about atheism and Ayn Rand - in the same forum. Have fun, chaps.

    June 29, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
    • M.

      Want to wager on how long before it degenerates into ad hominem attacks? 😉

      June 29, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • Bruce

      Hey M., you're an ad hominem attack. 😛

      June 29, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • Vulpes

      I think all of you are part of the Obama administration's conspiracy to promote ad hominem attacks. 😉

      June 29, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • M.

      I was just trying to make some $$ peoples. Isn't that the whole point of cnn.com? 😉

      June 29, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
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.