If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Can a confirmed Catholic also be a card carrying Randian? Find out on today's episode of cognitive dissonance   (cnn.com) divider line 92
    More: Interesting, Rep. Paul Ryan, Randian, Roman Catholic, Howard Roark, laissez-faire, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Dagny Taggart, building codes  
•       •       •

1185 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Aug 2012 at 3:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-14 03:05:53 PM  
I don't understand why it is that the "Religious Right" flocks to the party of Randites. I mean she wasn't "also an atheist", it was her atheism that caused her to believe in social Darwinism!

Check out wiki's article on Objectivism, it sheds some light on Rand's "rational self-interest" views, which held a person had no responsibility towards his fellow man, and did himself a disservice in helping others.

You just can't rationalize this point of view with the teachings of Jesus.

Why does it seem that more actual atheist, agnostics, and general non-church-goers tend to vote Democratic? The Democratic party clearly is the party of more social welfare and entitlements, who want to tax the rich more to make sure everyone has somewhat of a basic standard of living. The Republicans view the economy as a social Darwinism - i.e., bad and non-contributing people should go broke and die, so that the stronger ones will survive. This is ironic because they believe so strongly against actual Darwinism.
 
2012-08-14 03:16:53 PM  

ox45tallboy: This is ironic because they believe so strongly against actual Darwinism.


I think they prefer the term "prosperity Gospel".
 
2012-08-14 03:22:19 PM  

ox45tallboy: This is ironic because they believe so strongly against actual Darwinism.


Many on the religious right, yes. The Catholic Church has no problems with the Catholics believing in evolution. Of course, Catholics also used to be a very reliable base of support for the Democratic Party, but I don't know if there has been a shift towards the Republicans in recent years, and if so, how much of a shift.
 
2012-08-14 03:22:24 PM  
And just how does this practicing Catholic feel about those other practicing Catholics from down South?
 
2012-08-14 03:26:11 PM  

Nabb1: ox45tallboy: This is ironic because they believe so strongly against actual Darwinism.

Many on the religious right, yes. The Catholic Church has no problems with the Catholics believing in evolution. Of course, Catholics also used to be a very reliable base of support for the Democratic Party, but I don't know if there has been a shift towards the Republicans in recent years, and if so, how much of a shift.


They're still pretty reliable Democrats. 55% or thereabouts over the last couple of national elections.
 
2012-08-14 03:28:00 PM  

ox45tallboy:

You just can't rationalize this point of view with the teachings of Jesus.


That's it in a nutshell. Your entire post was quite good - but I want to respond directly to the bold comment.

This goes back to the old adage, "God helps those who help themselves." It's no where in the Bible but it's something that people often believe to be a part of the Bible. So, you've got people that aren't scholars of the Bible making arguments that are based in what they've been told is part of the Bible.

The religious angle is designed to hide the real issue: fear. Fear of having nothing despite all of your hard work. Fear of different people sharing different ideas. Fear of change and progress.

The goal was never to consult the Bible for guidance. The goal was to use the Bible to justify these low-effort beliefs that gays are bad, God will always reward hard work, and an obligation to assist others an enables sinful laziness.
 
2012-08-14 03:35:39 PM  

abb3w: ox45tallboy: This is ironic because they believe so strongly against actual Darwinism.

I think they prefer the term "prosperity Gospel".


True: but you have to admit the cognitive dissonance necessary in believing that the strongest humans should naturally receive the greatest earthly rewards, but that the practice in the rest of the animal kingdom (and hell, the rest of life as we know it) is ridiculous.

If these religious folks believe so strongly against Darwinism, why do they practice it?
 
2012-08-14 03:38:08 PM  
yeah that's more satanism than anything
 
2012-08-14 03:38:24 PM  

Nabb1: Many on the religious right, yes. The Catholic Church has no problems with the Catholics believing in evolution. Of course, Catholics also used to be a very reliable base of support for the Democratic Party, but I don't know if there has been a shift towards the Republicans in recent years, and if so, how much of a shift.


As one can see from the recent debate about birth control in Obamacare, there is a huge difference between the support of the institution of the Catholic Church and the support of its members. When birth control is condemned by the leadership, but 98% of practicing Catholic women have used some form of birth control, there's not a lot to say other than the church is not reflecting the needs of its members.
 
2012-08-14 03:38:25 PM  

ox45tallboy: I don't understand why it is that the "Religious Right" flocks to the party of Randites.


because money
 
2012-08-14 03:39:45 PM  
Well, since its all a bunch of hocus pocus peddled by shysters and soothsayers, none of it has to make any sense. So, its got that going for it.
 
2012-08-14 03:40:10 PM  
i47.photobucket.com


i47.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-14 03:40:12 PM  

Headso: yeah that's more satanism than anything


It is, good old Anton LaVey satanism.
 
2012-08-14 03:40:24 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: And just how does this practicing Catholic feel about those other practicing Catholics from down South?


malialitman.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-14 03:40:27 PM  
Disapproves:
i759.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-14 03:40:39 PM  
FTFA: "....imagination of the tea party and people like Ryan."

Yes that is some make-belief stuff right there.
 
2012-08-14 03:41:19 PM  
Today's GOP is the greatest threat America has ever faced.
 
2012-08-14 03:41:37 PM  

Bontesla: The goal was never to consult the Bible for guidance. The goal was to use the Bible to justify these low-effort beliefs that gays are bad, God will always reward hard work, and an obligation to assist others an enables sinful laziness.


And oppression of the gays goes back to the innate bigotry of many religions - the fact that one is part of "God's chosen people" and is somehow "better" than others.
 
2012-08-14 03:41:53 PM  
Oh, it's blessed are the MEEK! Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time.
 
2012-08-14 03:42:19 PM  
To be fair, at least Rand's work has a single, consistent message.

The actual problem here is the bible and associated literature, which have a chaotic nest of interweaving, mutually contradictory messages such that if you pick the right one you can quite truthfully interpret the New Testament to mean whatever the fark you want, including agreement with Rand.

//Especially since a lot of the passages about giving were about giving to the church, not the needy to begin with.
 
2012-08-14 03:43:10 PM  
Unlike normal people, Republicans crave cognitive dissonance. For conservatives, it's like meth without all the tooth decay.
 
2012-08-14 03:43:22 PM  
Why does nobody on Fark know that cognitive dissonance is a GOOD thing?

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling that the two pieces of information you have conflict. It's something you have to resolve.

*Without* cognitive dissonance, you accept conflicting information.
 
2012-08-14 03:45:25 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Why does nobody on Fark know that cognitive dissonance is a GOOD thing?

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling that the two pieces of information you have conflict. It's something you have to resolve.

*Without* cognitive dissonance, you accept conflicting information.


It's not when two pieces of information conflict, it's when two held pieces of belief, or cognition, conflict. If you change your beliefs when new, conflicting evidence arises, you never engage in cognitive dissonance. If you decide instead to adapt contrary stances, that's two cognitive structures that are dissonant.
 
2012-08-14 03:45:28 PM  
He threw Rand under the bus back in April.

Link
 
2012-08-14 03:45:38 PM  
The Christians have become the Pharisees that Jesus set out to oppose. They go to great lengths to put on shows of religion, demand God be on money, in every public square and shoved down everyone's throats via a theocracy, but miss that fact that Jesus did all his best work while under Roman control with opposition from the Jewish authorities.
 
2012-08-14 03:45:48 PM  

Bontesla: This goes back to the old adage, "God helps those who help themselves." It's no where in the Bible but it's something that people often believe to be a part of the Bible. So, you've got people that aren't scholars of the Bible making arguments that are based in what they've been told is part of the Bible.


Same applies to the constitution.

cdn.pearltrees.com
 
2012-08-14 03:45:52 PM  
Rep. Paul Ryan calls reports of his adherence to Ayn Rand's views an "urban legend." But that's not what he said in 2005

Jumping Jebus, now it's a matched pair of flip floppers. They were made for each other.

i.i.com.com

weknowmemes.com
 
2012-08-14 03:46:22 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Unlike normal people, Republicans crave cognitive dissonance. For conservatives, it's like meth without all the tooth decay.


Too bad about the brain decay it causes
 
2012-08-14 03:46:25 PM  
If they can rape children, they can pretty much do anything.
 
2012-08-14 03:46:41 PM  
In "The Fountainhead," which was published in 1943, her hero was an architect, Howard Roark, who pursued his vision despite opposition from the media and the architectural establishment. He dislikes money and status and is solely focused on seeing his vision expressed through his work.

I liked that bit the most. Here's one of their canonical heroes that really couldn't have cared less if you had taxed him at 100% of his income as long as he was still allowed to design skycscrapers. Let's go ask the Koch brothers if they would be willing to sacrifice all of their earnings as long as they are allowed to continue with whatever it is that they do.
 
2012-08-14 03:48:26 PM  
The bigger question is how a modern American conservative can still be a Christian while completely ignoring every single thing Jesus ever said.
 
2012-08-14 03:48:31 PM  

StrangeQ: In "The Fountainhead," which was published in 1943, her hero was an architect, Howard Roark, who pursued his vision despite opposition from the media and the architectural establishment. He dislikes money and status and is solely focused on seeing his vision expressed through his work.

I liked that bit the most. Here's one of their canonical heroes that really couldn't have cared less if you had taxed him at 100% of his income as long as he was still allowed to design skycscrapers and rape women until they enjoyed it. Let's go ask the Koch brothers if they would be willing to sacrifice all of their earnings as long as they are allowed to continue with whatever it is that they do.


FTFY.
 
2012-08-14 03:48:52 PM  

ox45tallboy: abb3w: ox45tallboy: This is ironic because they believe so strongly against actual Darwinism.

I think they prefer the term "prosperity Gospel".

True: but you have to admit the cognitive dissonance necessary in believing that the strongest humans should naturally receive the greatest earthly rewards, but that the practice in the rest of the animal kingdom (and hell, the rest of life as we know it) is ridiculous.

If these religious folks believe so strongly against Darwinism, why do they practice it?


It's all the idea that's come down the pike in the last 100 years--it began with the robber barons of the 1890's actually--that one can be obscenely wealthy and trample on everyone else SO LONG AS one is also religious and behaves in accordance with the Bible as they think it is. It was Andrew Carnegie or someone of his ilk, who started the whole revisionist-Bible movement, finding new glosses for the camel and the needle's eye parable, for instance. It was these folks who "discovered" that there was a gate in the wall of Jerusalem that was so small only an unburdened camel could pass through it--hence if only these robber Christians divested themselves of enough money they could get into Heaven.

SSDD here. They want to have money and keep it--but they also want their slice of heavenly pie. So if they have money, it's because they were MEANT to have money, obviously God likes them because they have it--and since there is only dualism in their minds, if they have money, and they are good with God, it must mean that those who lack money are therefore naughty in his sight, and so f*ck them. It's less social Darwinism than an even older variance of Dieu et mon Droit.
 
2012-08-14 03:48:56 PM  
So my choices in this election are John Galt or Wesley Mouch.

i2.kym-cdn.com

/
 
2012-08-14 03:49:49 PM  
My client's followers have a long history of cognitive dissonance...
 
2012-08-14 03:50:47 PM  

Ayn Rand's Social Worker: My client's followers have a long history of cognitive dissonance...


+1 internets
 
2012-08-14 03:50:55 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com

Go forth and bring our gospel to the world, my son.
 
2012-08-14 03:51:00 PM  

sprawl15: Lenny_da_Hog: Why does nobody on Fark know that cognitive dissonance is a GOOD thing?

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling that the two pieces of information you have conflict. It's something you have to resolve.

*Without* cognitive dissonance, you accept conflicting information.

It's not when two pieces of information conflict, it's when two held pieces of belief, or cognition, conflict. If you change your beliefs when new, conflicting evidence arises, you never engage in cognitive dissonance. If you decide instead to adapt contrary stances, that's two cognitive structures that are dissonant.


Information in the mind. Things you believe. We're agreeing.

Fark nearly always uses it as its own antonym.
 
2012-08-14 03:51:11 PM  

pete1729: He threw Rand under the bus back in April.


Only because the PACs threw her under the bus first.

""I would argue that the Ryan budget is not in keeping with Christian principles," said Eric Sapp, executive director of the American Values Network and a founding partner of the Eleison Group, a Democratic political messaging firm. "What's been going on for decades is this unholy alliance between Christians, libertarians and big business, who disagree about everything except that they want power," he said."
 
2012-08-14 03:51:20 PM  

MasterThief: So my choices in this election are John Galt or Wesley Mouch.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻)

/


FTFY
 
2012-08-14 03:51:43 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Why does nobody on Fark know that cognitive dissonance is a GOOD thing?

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling that the two pieces of information you have conflict. It's something you have to resolve.

*Without* cognitive dissonance, you accept conflicting information.


Because people say "cognitive dissonance" when what they really mean is the lack thereof.

The word people should use for what the Republicans do is "doublethink".
 
2012-08-14 03:52:29 PM  
When I'm pope, I'll excommunicate all Randians.
 
2012-08-14 03:53:17 PM  

abb3w: ox45tallboy: This is ironic because they believe so strongly against actual Darwinism.

I think they prefer the term "prosperity Gospel".


This. Prosperity Gospel and Objectivism are bosom buddies to these people.
 
2012-08-14 03:54:04 PM  
 
2012-08-14 03:54:09 PM  

Loucifer: The bigger question is how a modern American conservative can still be a Christian while completely ignoring every single thing Jesus ever said.


From what I've picked up, they have an issue with government provided assistance, as the government is a Godless institution and that is forced charity. However, if that charity were to come from the individual based upon their Christian values, it is good. Lowering taxes and cutting government programs will allow loving, charitable, Christians to fill the void.

I don't really get why you can't vote to have government provide for the common good, based upon your Christian values.
 
2012-08-14 03:54:52 PM  

MasterThief: So my choices in this election are John Galt or Wesley Mouch.

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 497x263]

/


Obama is only Wesley Mouch if you listen to what Republicans have to say about Obama.
 
2012-08-14 03:56:08 PM  
s15.postimage.org
 
2012-08-14 03:56:12 PM  
Can a Mormon take tens of millions of dollars from a Casino magnate?
 
2012-08-14 03:56:38 PM  

sprawl15: Oh, it's blessed are the MEEK! Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time.


SSHHH! I'm trying to hear what he has to say...

Cheers.
 
2012-08-14 03:57:38 PM  
Technically i'm a confirmed catholic
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report