RE: Poverty in the USA is a scandal
June 26, 2012 at 4:18 am
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2012 at 4:22 am by sponger.)
Democracy and equitable wealth distribution go hand-in-hand. That is, it is not possible to live in a truly democratic society so long as there are rigid lines of division between the social classes -- lines of division which take the form of wealth gaps...etc.
A common misconception is that "communist" russia (as we all know, that was not real communism, but rather fascist totalitarianism) was an atheist/ secular country. This misconception gives rise to the notion that America owes its status as a "free" country to the pious and the faithful, whose inherent good nature no free society can do without.
Point in fact is that the Russians were deeply religious people, and the Russsian Orthodox Church was a state-sponsored religion during much of the 20th century. There may have been a brief reign of "militant" atheism under Stalin, but IMO it was the strong cultural identity and deep religiosity which made the Russian people so susceptible to a fascist take over in the first place. That is, their sense of individual empowerment --a virtue of which we Americans are so proud-- had been widdled down by their need for shelter under a cultural identity.
Of course there are a other factors at work such as transition of power, desperate poverty...etc., but I just don't believe that communist Russia can be used as a valid example of atheism's impact on a society.
Religiosity and self-knowledge are inversely correlated from what I can tell. Sure there are exceptions, but for the most part it seems that emotional intelligence and a dutiful sense of faith are mutually exclusive concepts. Thus, without an accurate sense of who we are as individuals, we naturally look towards other indicators of identity such as culture and societal status -- hence the term "job creators."
Ayn Rand was a self-described atheist, but I would say that she was wrong about that. She may not have subscribed to theological dogma in the conventional sense, but that does not make her an atheist. Instead of a traditional deity, her gods were CEOs, high-brow intellectuals, ...etc. Her complete and total faith in their ability to lead a society is the equivalent of an act of worship, and atheists do not practice worship of any kind. You might say in fact that Rand engaged in what theists like to call "idolatry," and idolatry does not qualify as atheism.
What's more is that her concept of "rational self-interest" which is interwoven with "atheism" in her words implies that religion is not an ideology centered around self-interest. This, of course, is something with which most atheists would disagree for numerous reasons.
So, it isn't so much that Ayn Rand was an atheist. Rather, it was that she was confused about the underlying meaning and purpose of religion.
A common misconception is that "communist" russia (as we all know, that was not real communism, but rather fascist totalitarianism) was an atheist/ secular country. This misconception gives rise to the notion that America owes its status as a "free" country to the pious and the faithful, whose inherent good nature no free society can do without.
Point in fact is that the Russians were deeply religious people, and the Russsian Orthodox Church was a state-sponsored religion during much of the 20th century. There may have been a brief reign of "militant" atheism under Stalin, but IMO it was the strong cultural identity and deep religiosity which made the Russian people so susceptible to a fascist take over in the first place. That is, their sense of individual empowerment --a virtue of which we Americans are so proud-- had been widdled down by their need for shelter under a cultural identity.
Of course there are a other factors at work such as transition of power, desperate poverty...etc., but I just don't believe that communist Russia can be used as a valid example of atheism's impact on a society.
Religiosity and self-knowledge are inversely correlated from what I can tell. Sure there are exceptions, but for the most part it seems that emotional intelligence and a dutiful sense of faith are mutually exclusive concepts. Thus, without an accurate sense of who we are as individuals, we naturally look towards other indicators of identity such as culture and societal status -- hence the term "job creators."
Ayn Rand was a self-described atheist, but I would say that she was wrong about that. She may not have subscribed to theological dogma in the conventional sense, but that does not make her an atheist. Instead of a traditional deity, her gods were CEOs, high-brow intellectuals, ...etc. Her complete and total faith in their ability to lead a society is the equivalent of an act of worship, and atheists do not practice worship of any kind. You might say in fact that Rand engaged in what theists like to call "idolatry," and idolatry does not qualify as atheism.
What's more is that her concept of "rational self-interest" which is interwoven with "atheism" in her words implies that religion is not an ideology centered around self-interest. This, of course, is something with which most atheists would disagree for numerous reasons.
So, it isn't so much that Ayn Rand was an atheist. Rather, it was that she was confused about the underlying meaning and purpose of religion.
