Ayn Rand on religion and America

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I offer these words by Ayn Rand as moral support, as emotional fuel for those who do not see the spectre of theocracy lurking behind every religious person and event in our country today.

This is my own transcription of a section of the Q & A from Miss Rand's speech The Political Vacuum of Our Age, which I believe was presented on April 8, 1961 to The Matrix Table banquet of the National Fraternity for Women in Journalism Columbia Club, Indianapolis, Indiana. Note that there are substantial differences between what I have transcribed and a portion of which appears on pages 63-64 of the book Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, edited by Robert Mayhew. I believe my transcription accurately corresponds to the recording of Miss Rand's words.

At the beginning of Miss Rand's answer, she is echoing back a question posed to her.

In other words, you feel that religion is very instrumental in spreading altruism among people, and we cannot fight against altruism without fighting against the power of religion. Is this your question?

Well, I would say this. particularly in America, religion is very non-mystical. Religious teachers predominantly in America, compared to Europe, are good healthy materialists. They would go with common sense. They would not stand in the way, er, if you want my impression of the general run, the majority of religious people in this country, they would not make an issue of mystic faith out of the idea of jumping into a cannibal's pot and giving away your last shirt to the backward people in the world. A great many religious leaders are teaching this today, but it is because their own politics are leftist.

It is not intrinsic to religion, or, rather, there is a great many historical and philosophical connections between the altruist morality and most religions, but, that is not the real function of religion in this country, and you would not find too much opposition and, even among some individuals, you will find support (as I was very pleased and astonished to hear today, and the gentlemen knows whom I am acknowledging). There are rational religious people.

I would personally say, no, if you wanted to be a full Objectivist you could not reconcile this with religion. But that does not mean that religious people cannot be individualists and cannot fight for freedom. They can, and this country is the best proof of it.

[...]

But, so long as a country is not under a dictatorship, a trend, an intellectual trend, can be turned peacefully, particularly in a country like the United States, which was fundamentally based on the ideas of freedom. It would be harder in Europe, where they are traditionally statist, where freedom is a kind of exception, where the basic subconscious values are all statist in one form or another. Not here, and I would take the last election as proof of it. Here people bear too much, too innocently and too naively. But I don't think any totalitarian dictatorship would ever hold here. Because under all their errors the American people's basic premise is freedom. That is the unspoken emotion, the emotional sense of life atmosphere in this country. And traditionally, historically, the American people can be pushed just so far, and then they stop it.

[Paul's Here 0]

I offer these words by Ayn Rand as moral support, as emotional fuel for those who do not see the spectre of theocracy lurking behind every religious person and event in our country today.

----------

Thanks, Stephen, very much for the historical insight of a great mind. I always find her words inspirational.

But I can hear the words of those who support the assertion that a theocracy is imminent: "Things have changed in America in 45 years and one cannot use Ayn Rand's words in today's context. That's being 'concrete-bound.' "

[~Sophia~ 0]

Do you think that an average Joe Smith in America today (aside having 'a feeling') actually knows what freedom requires?

Do you think that he would be able to recognize if he was slowly loosing it?

If he would recognize the fact that he is loosing it, would he be able to correctly pin point the reason behind such trend?

If he would be able to name the reason, do you think he would be able to reject it?

[RickWilmes 0]

Do you think that an average Joe Smith in America today (aside having 'a feeling') actually knows what freedom requires?

Do you think that he would be able to recognize if he was slowly loosing it?

If he would recognize the fact that he is loosing it, would he be able to correctly pin point the reason behind such trend?

If he would be able to name the reason, do you think he would be able to reject it?

Here are my answers to your questions?

Question 1: Not when he willingly takes his shoes off in an airport for 'security' reasons.

Question 2: Not when he willingly gives up his tooth paste and hair gel in an airport for 'security' reasons.

Question 3: Let's hope so. This upcoming election will determine that.

Question 4: He will if he votes the Republican Party out of power. HONESTY vs. LOYALTY

[Free Capitalist 0]

Do you think that an average Joe Smith in America today (aside having 'a feeling') actually knows what freedom requires?

Do you think that he would be able to recognize if he was slowly loosing it?

If he would recognize the fact that he is loosing it, would he be able to correctly pin point the reason behind such trend?

If he would be able to name the reason, do you think he would be able to reject it?

Sophia, I note that two of the questions you ask (2 and 4) are the domains of statesmen, and the other two questsions (1 and 3) are domains of philosophers/intellectuals. The average person in the 1776 America was not able to answer those questions on his own any better than an average person could now (and in fact he was then far more religious too). What was different about those times was that they had far better intellectuals to teach the people about freedom, and far better statesmen to lead the people towards it. But if you look at the core fundamental values in the people, they're still there. They people just need a channel of expression, and a right person to help them express it.

For instance, great American statesmen were once in a position to show to the people, and make them realize, whether their actions were slowly getting away from freedom they had once fought for; similarly, it was primarily the statesmen that had brought people to reject those reasons. A clear example is the American Revolution, where the American statesmen brought the people to reject their adoration for kings, and to value self-determination. Patrick Henry was one of the best examples of this.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Do you think that an average Joe Smith in America today (aside having 'a feeling') actually knows what freedom requires?

Do you think that he would be able to recognize if he was slowly loosing it?

If he would recognize the fact that he is loosing it, would he be able to correctly pin point the reason behind such trend?

If he would be able to name the reason, do you think he would be able to reject it?

Based on the tone of your questions, I suspect I have a higher degree of respect for the "average Joe Smith in America" then you do. But, then again, I actually live in America, and have done so for more than six decades.

Anyway, whatever your estimate of the average American, and whatever it is based upon, in the answer I transcribed Ayn Rand made the point that the unspoken emotion of the American people is the basic premise of freedom. Do you think otherwise, and if so, then upon what facts do you so judge?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Do you think that an average Joe Smith in America today (aside having 'a feeling') actually knows what freedom requires?

Do you think that he would be able to recognize if he was slowly loosing it?

Here are my answers to your questions?

Question 1: Not when he willingly takes his shoes off in an airport for 'security' reasons.

Question 2: Not when he willingly gives up his tooth paste and hair gel in an airport for 'security' reasons.

I am rather astounded by these answers. Do you think that obeying the law when you travel by plane means that you do not know what freedom requires or know when you are losing it? Do you suggest civil disobediance to protest these rules? Have you protested by civil disobediance of these rules yourself? If not, does that mean that you do not know what freedom requires nor when you are losing it?

Perhaps it is just me, but I would focus on the American people's response to somewhat more fundamental issues than taking off their shoes at a security checkpoint. Besides, I suspect if you asked most people they would say that taking off their shoes is a small price to pay for the added security of flying safely. Now, perhaps they do not know what many Objectivists know, namely that if we crushed our enemy we would not have to take off our shoes. But, generally speaking, I would think that Objectivists are more knowledgeable than the "average Joe Smith in America," which enables them to make the more abstract identifications (or, at least, repeat what was said by others). But, just try to take away some of his fundamental freedoms and you might find that the "average Joe Smith in America" might punch you in the face.

I like this country.

[Paul's Here 0]

Do you think that an average Joe Smith in America today (aside having 'a feeling') actually knows what freedom requires?

Do you think that he would be able to recognize if he was slowly loosing it?

If he would recognize the fact that he is loosing it, would he be able to correctly pin point the reason behind such trend?

If he would be able to name the reason, do you think he would be able to reject it?

1. Yes. That's why the gun control nuts didn't make much headway nationally or in most states.

2. Yes. That's why there is so much opposition to regulation of gun ownership.

3. Probably not. But then, that not the job of the "average Joe."

4. See #3.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Based on the tone of your questions, I suspect I have a higher degree of respect for the "average Joe Smith in America" then you do. But, then again, I actually live in America, and have done so for more than six decades.

I am not anti-American. I do have a respect for American people. I consider myself a defender of American values (those that are not tied to religion). I donate only to one charity, the ARI.

I live 40min away from the American border. I do not think that my understanding of what is happening inside the USA would have been increased, or my opinion changed, by living 40min south of my current location.

My opinion is that America was changed after the September 11 attacks. It went from a country motivated by hope to a country controlled by fear. For the last several years, feeling neither safe nor secure, Americans have lived in anxiety of another impending terrorist attack. As a result, a lot of Americans sought out their faith and reaffirmed their conviction in God. The Religious Right used this as an opportunity to push their agenda of thinning of the wall between church and state. Americans allowed for personal religious beliefs to infiltrate American political framework. I know what results from that from experience - loss of freedom, slowly but surely.

I don't think that 'doom is comming' but things are not good. A turn arround is needed.

Because of the heightened climate of anxiety coupled with religious fervor, Americans already became willing to give up their personal freedoms (accepting even blows to freedom of speech) instead of being willing to fight a proper war, which would have made laws 'to increase security' unnecessary (laws which do not make anybody any more secure).

I don't think one can rely on the 'unspoken emotion of the American people ' as means to prevent further loss of freedom in the current situation. Out of feeling fear and unsafe combined with bad ideology people are willing to be pushed much further.

[B. Royce 0]

Among the people with whom I work, and throughout the states through which I passed a few weeks ago as I traveled to Philadelphia, then back to LA and on up to Sacramento, I did not come across people filled with fear, but mostly confident and happy (sometimes cynical) people going about their affairs in no different a way than I have seen them do for the past fifteen or twenty years.

[PhilO 0]

I live 40min away from the American border. I do not think that my understanding of what is happening inside the USA would have been increased, or my opinion changed, by living 40min south of my current location.

Leaving aside cruel jokes about the sub-population of far leftists in Seattle ...

I've driven to Vancouver from Seattle. Whatever the length of drive, Canada and Canadians have some big differences from Americans. A border crossing can certainly take one into a very different place; try crossing from the U.S. into Mexico for instance, or Singapore across the Straits of Johor into Malaysia - a short drive but a world of difference.

Having spent some time working in London and a bit of time in Switzerland, I would say that Canadians probably have more in common with Europeans than Americans.

[KurtColville 0]

My opinion is that America was changed after the September 11 attacks. It went from a country motivated by hope to a country controlled by fear.

It's not fear, it's apathy. We put up with the inconveniences because we don't regard them as that big a deal, because we don't value our freedom and our lives enough. Even so, freedom is a value that is still pretty strong, albeit not nearly enough, among Americans.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

Because of the heightened climate of anxiety coupled with religious fervor, Americans already became willing to give up their personal freedoms (accepting even blows to freedom of speech) instead of being willing to fight a proper war, which would have made laws 'to increase security' unnecessary (laws which do not make anybody any more secure).

----------

And how is this different or anything other than a trend that began in the early 20th century and still continues? Objectivism has been fighting against this since it came into being. There is nothing new in what you say that the "religious right" is doing that the "religious left" hasn't been doing for generations. You think people are more anxious now than during the Great Depression or during WWII? I don't think so.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I am not anti-American.

I certainly did not mean to imply that you were. However, the description you give of the overall emotional state of America is a far cry from the America in which I live. Instead of seeing a country "controlled by fear," of people living "in anxiety of another impending terrorist attack," the country I see and the people I meet mostly have smiles on their face as they enjoy the bright shiny world of America.

I speak to the checkout lady at the supermarket and I hear of her joy and love for her new child, of her prospects for a bright future. I speak with the guy who bags the groceries, and he proudly tells me about the test that he nailed in his nightschool classes, a big smile when he says he had the high mark in class. I speak with the busboy at my favorite restaurant, and I hear the excitement in his plans to move up and become a waiter. I speak with the assistant in my dentist's office and she tells of the expectations for the car she is saving up for, and asks if I want to drag race her when she gets it. I speak to lawyers, doctors, and scientists too, and I see no anxiety or generalized fear in these accomplished people. From bank tellers to CEOs I see mostly hardworking, conscientious people who enjoy the world they live in and look forward to the future. Sure, there are others, but these are mostly some grouches, not people paralyzed by fear while waiting for some terrorist attack.

I get my evaluation of the sense of life of this country from looking at and talking with its people for more than six decades, from the East Coast to the West Coast and many points in between. I can tell you, honestly and emphatically, that based on all of my experience the American sense of life is healthier now than it has ever been in the last 60 years. For those who lived through the 1960s with their eyes wide-open, if they could stand it, today's world is brighter and shinier than ever. You may not know it by reading the leftist media, or by reading some websites and blogs that spew out bromides of fear, but the American sense of life is fine and well, thank you.

[~Sophia~ 0]

My post was refering to the combination of elements which I think predominantly shape Americans' political ideology today. I did not mean to imply that people are paralized in some way, that they are unable to pursue their values, or afraid to leave their house. America is still the best place to live in the world; the most free; it is still the land of opportunities with one's own ability and productiveness as the only true limits to the personal level of achievement.

In 1940s America was a country which was able to fully defend itself, despite being more religious than it is today. But there was a major difference then - the enemy was not religion. Americans today have to face their own religious beliefs in order to correctly name the enemy and approprietly defend themselves (and let's face it - the Western world). In my opinion, the fact that there has been a religious uptrend in America since Sept 11 is a much bigger problem today than it would have been 20 years ago.

[jdperren 0]

"My opinion is that America was changed after the September 11 attacks. It went from a country motivated by hope to a country controlled by fear. For the last several years, feeling neither safe nor secure, Americans have lived in anxiety of another impending terrorist attack."

Sophia,

I join those who believe you are empirically in error. In my view, however, the error goes beyond merely being incorrect about some particulars. See these two posts of mine on SOLO.

40 Years of Progress

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1821#comment-22538

Pause for Optimism

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1821#comment-22405

Summing them up, America is both materially and culturally healthier than it was 40 years ago. I will giveyou this much: What you observe about America has some foundation in fact, albeit shaky. But that trend didn't being with 9/11/2001. It's been going on for more than 20 years, as a consequence of the 'values vacuum' created by the so-called Left.

Among the other theses I put forth, this last is important. If you want the religionists to continue to be strong and victorious, give credence and/or support to the so-called 'Left'. The latter are the major factor in what success the so-called religious Right has had.

[AisA 0]

I can tell you, honestly and emphatically, that based on all of my experience the American sense of life is healthier now than it has ever been in the last 60 years.

Stephen, I was shocked at the post 9/11 polls that showed nearly half the country did not support the sending of ground troops to Afghanistan if it meant getting into a long war and suffering significant casualties. Doesn't this indicate the population is substantially more pacifist now than 60 years ago? Did nearly half the population oppose going after the Japanese after Pearl Harbor?

Unlike Sophie, I don't think it's a pacifism rooted in religion or related to the fact that our current enemy's ideology is religious. I think it’s a natural result of the intellectual’s war on reason and reason's greatest achievement: America. Our comprachico-dominated education system has done a lot of damage.

[TomR61 0]

I certainly did not mean to imply that you were. However, the description you give of the overall emotional state of America is a far cry from the America in which I live. Instead of seeing a country "controlled by fear," of people living "in anxiety of another impending terrorist attack," the country I see and the people I meet mostly have smiles on their face as they enjoy the bright shiny world of America.

I speak to the checkout lady at the supermarket and I hear of her joy and love for her new child, of her prospects for a bright future. I speak with the guy who bags the groceries, and he proudly tells me about the test that he nailed in his nightschool classes, a big smile when he says he had the high mark in class. I speak with the busboy at my favorite restaurant, and I hear the excitement in his plans to move up and become a waiter. I speak with the assistant in my dentist's office and she tells of the expectations for the car she is saving up for, and asks if I want to drag race her when she gets it. I speak to lawyers, doctors, and scientists too, and I see no anxiety or generalized fear in these accomplished people. From bank tellers to CEOs I see mostly hardworking, conscientious people who enjoy the world they live in and look forward to the future. Sure, there are others, but these are mostly some grouches, not people paralyzed by fear while waiting for some terrorist attack.

I get my evaluation of the sense of life of this country from looking at and talking with its people for more than six decades, from the East Coast to the West Coast and many points in between. I can tell you, honestly and emphatically, that based on all of my experience the American sense of life is healthier now than it has ever been in the last 60 years. For those who lived through the 1960s with their eyes wide-open, if they could stand it, today's world is brighter and shinier than ever. You may not know it by reading the leftist media, or by reading some websites and blogs that spew out bromides of fear, but the American sense of life is fine and well, thank you.

Maybe I'm one of the grouches , but to me what you've said here makes me think of the phrase "the blind leading the blind." I'm willing to put it down to a lack of knowledge on thier part. Perhaps they believe that the stream of help that the federal and state governments provide in education, medicinal care, grants, subsidies that support their hopes and dreams will last forever. After all, how bad could it be? I've got mine, jack. And there ain't no bread lines in my neighborhood.

But you and I know better. We know that much of what they assume about the future is false, if we continue going in the direction we are going. We have some expectation that we, as Objectivists, might be able to turn the tide. Let us hope so.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen, I was shocked at the post 9/11 polls that showed nearly half the country did not support the sending of ground troops to Afghanistan if it meant getting into a long war and suffering significant casualties.

Count me in with them. I too do not support sending grounds troops into Afghanistan (or Iraq) and getting involved in a long war and suffering significant casualties.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Maybe I'm one of the grouches , but to me what you've said here makes me think of the phrase "the blind leading the blind." I'm willing to put it down to a lack of knowledge on thier part. Perhaps they believe that the stream of help that the federal and state governments provide in education, medicinal care, grants, subsidies that support their hopes and dreams will last forever. After all, how bad could it be? I've got mine, jack. And there ain't no bread lines in my neighborhood.

Well, Tom, I have to agree with you. You certainly do seem to be one of those "grouches." But, I take strong exception to your "blind leading the blind" as a characterization of the many, many people I meet. They may not have the broad intellectual perspective that I have, but their eyes are more wide open than some of the "grouches" I have met.

But you and I know better. We know that much of what they assume about the future is false, if we continue going in the direction we are going.

Tom, please speak for yourself, not for me. I do not think young people's vision of the future to be false. I am personally more optimistic about the future than ever. I have listened to the 'doom and gloom' crowd for many decades, Objectivists and otherwise, and I say to them now what I have said to them before: Bah Humbug to the Scrooges of the world!

[AisA 0]

Count me in with them. I too do not support sending grounds troops into Afghanistan (or Iraq) and getting involved in a long war and suffering significant casualties.

Even if that is what is required to defeat the enemy? That was the premise of the question in the poll.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Among the other theses I put forth, this last is important. If you want the religionists to continue to be strong and victorious, give credence and/or support to the so-called 'Left'. The latter are the major factor in what success the so-called religious Right has had.

I want to make it clear that nothing that I post is ment as an argument for voting for one political party over the other. I am not convinced that ideology can be affected by voting one way or the other. I see it as an overall problem, which in my opinion, must be first fought on intelectual forum not political.

[jdperren 0]

I want to make it clear that nothing that I post is ment as an argument for voting for one political party over the other. I am not convinced that ideology can be affected by voting one way or the other. I see it as an overall problem, which in my opinion, must be first fought on intelectual forum not political.

Sophia,

I believe and agree with you. Apart from everything else, no one with a smile like that could be an enemy of living the good life!

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen, I was shocked at the post 9/11 polls that showed nearly half the country did not support the sending of ground troops to Afghanistan if it meant getting into a long war and suffering significant casualties.

Count me in with them. I too do not support sending grounds troops into Afghanistan (or Iraq) and getting involved in a long war and suffering significant casualties.

Even if that is what is required to defeat the enemy? That was the premise of the question in the poll.

I suspect you are referring to the infamous FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 17-18, 2001.

"How many soldiers do you think the U.S. military should be prepared to lose in Afghanistan before stopping military involvement: under 100, between 100 and 1000, several thousand, or as many as it takes to stop terrorism?"

Under 100...............12

100 to 1000............10

Several thousand...... 7

As many as it takes..44

Not sure..................27

It is a bad question. Most people rightfully wouldn't accept the implication that fighting in Afghanistan would actually "stop terrorism." This would squeeze them toward other categories. I'm amazed that 44% opted for "As many as it takes."

Here's a few other polls:

The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2001

"Do you favor or oppose the United States taking direct military action in Afghanistan?"

88% Favor

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Oct. 11-12, 2001.

"In the fight against terrorism, the United States might also consider using military force against targets in other countries. In general, would you support using military force against [see below], or not?

81% Yes "Saddam Hussein and his military in Iraq"

79% Yes "Suspected terrorist targets in other MIDDLE EASTERN countries"

71% Yes "Suspected terrorist targets in countries OUTSIDE the Middle East, such as the Sudan and the Philippines"

ABC News Poll. Oct. 8-9, 2001

"Do you support or oppose the U.S.-led airstrikes on Afghanistan that began this week?"

92% Support

"Would you support or oppose sending a significant number of U.S. ground troops into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government?"

76% Support

"Would you support or oppose U.S. military action against other countries that assist or shelter terrorists?"

87% Support

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 7, 2001

"Today the United States led airstrikes on targets in Afghanistan, including military sites of the Taliban government and training camps of the Al Qaeda terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden. Do you support or oppose these U.S.-led airstrikes on Afghanistan?"

94% Support

"Do you think this will be a quick military action, or do you think it's the start of a long war?"

82% Long War

[Rose Lake 0]

Janet, that was very well stated.