And isn't it amazing that ThreeSources allows this exchange of viewpoints without the need for a federally-imposed Fairness Doctrine?

I have always been a great admirer of Rand, having discovered her early in life. I was introduced to her in the seventh grade with "Anthem," and recognized immediately that she "gets it" in ways that no one else did. That being said, now being just short of forty years distant from my discovery of Rand, I've grown into an amazement that she could come to her views without theism.

You were all pleasantly surprised when I identified myself as a pastor who agreed in large part with Rand. But that should come as no surprise; short of her views of the existence of God, Rand's Objectivism in practice is very consistent with genuine Biblical Christianity - in practice.

I am right there with Rand and JG, right up until the quoted paragraph that starts with "The concept of individual rights is no new..." I'd propose that individual rights and responsibilities go all the way back to Creation. That paragraph states that there had been two schools of thought on man's rights: the mystical (that rights originate as a quality from the transcendent Divine) and the social (that rights originate from the collective or the State). She proposes a third: that rights derive from man's intrinsic nature. Yes, I'm fine with that, but she needs to explain that. How did Man get to be Man with those rights, and animals, which must have evolved from the same primordial goo, not?

I would give serious consideration to Samuel Rutherford's "Lex Rex," which is the foundation in Western thought for individual rights and the rule of law. Locke drew very heavily from Rutherford, and I daresay the American Revolution, without Rutherford's influence, would have taken a very different form.

At the risk of running afoul of the automated comment police again, I'd recommend this think for a more full discussion of the Biblical role of government:

http://alhbible.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/the-other-side-of-romans-13/

Keith: The problem with excerpting Rand is it's easy to leave out important points. First a clarification, however: I'm confident Rand agreed with your assertion that "individual rights and responsibilities go all the way back to Creation." Rand's point was that this concept is new.

Rand's next paragraph gives the explanation you seek:

The Declaration of Independence stated that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind - a rational being - that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

The difference between man and animals is that, regardless of the dispute over their origins, man IS rational and animals are NOT.

As for your equation of Objectivism and "genuine Biblical Christianity" - "in practice" I will ask you this: Does altruism have any place in "genuine" Biblical Christianity? For this is where modern Christianity breaks down, in practice.

JG, quick question for you (or any Objectivist reading):

If rationality is the determinate of individual rights, what do you with the externalities? Does the mentally insane, the comatose, or the newborn babe have rights? Indeed, many an animal-rights activist has used these examples of these reasonless humans to claim that all vertebrates should receive rights equal to those recognized in humankind. Do you have a response to such arguments?

JG: I'm still with you on that - and forgive me if I try to choose my words carefully; I try to never forget that when I'm at ThreeSources, I'm a guest in the house of people I respect, where I try to abide by their rules and not give offense (though I confess with a twinkle in my eye that I have tested that a little). I know that in matters of religion, it's not the theme of this blog, and if my hosts were to say "we're not going there," I'd shut up on the subject. Your house, your rules.

Most followers of Rand I've talked with focus on her firm atheism in these matters, which is why I've raised the hackles of some of my peers by citing Rand. But I've always read Rand's criticisms of religion in terms of her opposition to the dominant liberal Church in America - that of what we often call "mainline Protestantism" within Christian circles. By this we mean the modernist school typified by Harry Emerson Fosdick and leading through the twentieth century with the social-gospel movement, ultimately to the post-moderns and the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement of people like Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, and Rob Bell in our decade. This stream tends to be on the left side of American politics, with the sense that the purpose of the Gospel is to cure injustices in this life, redistribute wealth, direct government to solve people's problems, and manufacture Heaven on Earth.

I know I risk making your eyes glaze over. To make things easier, here are some parallels: in my theological circle, we see people like Machen, Spurgeon, Schaeffer and Mohler exactly the way you see Hayek, von Mises, Friedman and Rand. We see the theological liberals the same way you see Keynesians. It's not a perfect parallel, but it gives you a frame of reference.

Most people I've known who have read Rand thought she simply lumped all religionists together, but I've never been completely sold on that. She had no patience with the American mainstream left, which had already in her day become collectivist and statist (think Jimmy Carter here and imagine the comtempt she would have had for him).

By "genuine Biblical Christianity" (and I realize you don't mean the quote marks derisively), I'll use a better label: substitute here "Reformed theology" with its reliance on the five solas, and here I deliberately mean sola Scriptura. To answer your question, altruism as Rand used it - an ingrained obligation to act to one's own detriment to the betterment of another - has very little place in Reformed theology. I could cite numerous references in which this stream within Christianity puts massive emphasis on the individual, almost to the point of "rugged individualism;" duty to self primary over duty to others; and even emphasis on competition and individual excellence.

I'll end with this, rather than hijack the thread: within the Reformed mindset, charitable giving is always voluntary, and never viewed in the sense of an obligation one owes to the collective or one's fellow man. Rather, it is an act of undeserved and unmerited grace toward the recipient, with an eye toward making the recipient responsible for his condition going forward. The early Church, operating as a community-within-a-community of voluntary cooperation and mutual benefit, probably resembled Galt's Gulch as much as any other example one might name, without separating itself from the rest of surrounding society.

On that note, I'll stop, and await any guidance on where we might go with this, as well as the answer to T. Greer's intriguing question. Thanks for your patience, all -

Good stuff, gentlemen.

Quick point of order -- Keith, you are a very welcome guest, no need to pull back, we're pretty thick of skin.

Also, I do not consider ThreeSources an Athiest or even Objectivist blog. I am proud and happy that we have some bright and principled folks of that stripe, but we also have a devout Catholic in AlexC. We are united by belief in freedom and individual rights, not belief in belief.

I was raised Catholic. While I have chosen a little more Randian path,I laughed at your surprise that I referenced parables. I'm rather a fan of the text and am extremely comfortable with religion and the religious.

I'll put words in Johngalt's mouth. A person who wants to use reason to engage is pretty welcome to express his or her opinions strongly as he or she wants around here. (Until the Fairness Doctrine is signed in the Rose Garden.)

Not just pretty welcome, jk... completely welcome. If he uses reason.

TG: The answer to your question is that all humans have rights. (Even unborn ones, but that's another topic.) I can, and will if you ask, find where Rand explained this in her own words but I won't try to explain it myself because I'd likely confuse the matter.

Keith: I'll tell you up front where I'm trying to take this thread: To illustrate that belief in God (I call him "NED") and the philosophy of Objectivism can coexist. But belief in God or, in shorthand, "religion" is a package deal. I appreciate your explanation of the leftist elements in religious belief and that they differ from your, and what I would call "traditional" Christian belief. But without even refreshing my memory of Rand writings I can point out a single - extremely consequential - flaw in your argument that Christian charity is based on purely voluntary giving by self-sufficient - we call them "selfish" - individuals. It is this flaw that I contend has and will always be used by theologians to highjack rights from individuals. You wrote:

"Rather, it [charitable giving] is an act of undeserved and unmerited grace toward the recipient, with an eye toward making the recipient responsible for his condition going forward."

The problem here is "unmerited" or "undeserved." If charity is truly voluntary then the individual is free to make a judgement whether the recipient is worthy of his aid. Without that all important individual judgement all we are left with is the hammer and sickle. But then, Christianity forbids us to judge others for we are all "guilty" ourselves, right? Original sin. Rand called this "unearned guilt" and it is a principal weapon of the left.

You made analogy to Galt's Gulch. Remember what John Galt said: "I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values." ... "I will not sacrifice myself for others, nor ask another to sacrifice himself for me."

Beware of everything you read regarding Objectivism that isn't in Rand's own hand. I remember searching for any reference where she said she is an atheist. The most direct answer I could find was in the 1964 Playboy interview where having been asked if she believe's in God she answered, "Certainly not." It is an excellent interview and I highly suggest it to anyone who wants an introduction to Rand.

Let me close with just one last excerpt from that interview:

PLAYBOY: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?

RAND: Qua religion, no -- in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very -- how should I say it? -- dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.