The Pope and environmentalism Options

[PhilO]

This news story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

has some interesting declarations from Pope Benedict XVI:

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Notice that the Pope feels it necessary to cater to people - including I would surmise a large number of otherwise religious people - who respect science enough to reject Biblical nonsense.

I think the more important declarations are these:

Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence. [...] The pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”

“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.

Last April, the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that willfully damaging the environment is sinful.

I would say that this constitutes strong evidence of the religious nature of environmentalism, as I and others have observed for a long time now. And if environmentalism is a religion, it is a religion growing in strength and adherents far more rapidly than any other religion (explaining why the Pope would want the Church to get on that bandwagon) - and one can also ask, which political party of America is most strongly behind this religion?

[bborg]

I would say that this constitutes strong evidence of the religious nature of environmentalism, as I and others have observed for a long time now. And if environmentalism is a religion, it is a religion growing in strength and adherents far more rapidly than any other religion (explaining why the Pope would want the Church to get on that bandwagon) - and one can also ask, which political party of America is most strongly behind this religion?

Actually, this is evidence that the moral bankruptcy of the religious right will offer no sanctuary from environmentalism.

[ewv]

Actually, this is evidence that the moral bankruptcy of the religious right will offer no sanctuary from environmentalism.

The Pope does not represent the American right. Conservatives here remain the biggest obstruction to the viros. Almost all religious support of environmentalism in this country comes from the religious 'progressives'. Al Gore was even doing that from within the government during the Clinton-Gore administration.

[PhilO]

Actually, this is evidence that the moral bankruptcy of the religious right will offer no sanctuary from environmentalism.

Not fundamentally, though in the near term the Democrats are far more ready and willing to steamroll America towards environmentalist goals.

In the long term they are both utterly bankrupt. I've heard there's a third philosophy that offers an alternative to both sets of altruism though.

[bborg]

The Pope does not represent the American right. Conservatives here remain the biggest obstruction to the viros. Almost all religious support of environmentalism in this country comes from the religious 'progressives'. Al Gore was even doing that from within the government during the Clinton-Gore administration.

The Pope is a religious icon, and the Republicans make a point of appealing to religious values. If they want to maintain that public support, they’re going to have a hard time opposing someone millions of American voters consider to be the world’s authority on religion and morality. The alternative is to renounce Christian policy making and run on a platform of objective law and individualism, which their current trend indicates they’re not about to do.

I thought I would read through the transcript from the Republican debates in May. When the moderator asked whether the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed would be a good day for America, Romney said, “Absolutely”, Sen Sam Brownback said, “It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.” Gilmore said, "Yes, it was wrongly decided." Huckabee said, "Most certainly." Hunter, "Yes." What of Giuliani? The pragmatist that he is, he said it would be “Ok” either way, so long as it was the decision of the courts. Rep Tom Tancredo said:

After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, I would say that that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned.

On Church and State, Brownback said:

This is a key point, I think. And I think it's a key point for the country. Because we've had 40 or 50 years, now, of trying to run faith out of the public square.

And we're a nation of faith. As my colleague, Senator Lieberman, a Jew, says, America is a faith-based experiment as a country. We should celebrate and invite faith.

And our motto is, "In God we trust." This isn't something that divides. This is something that pulls together and lifts us up. And it's key, and it's important. We shouldn't be trying to run it out of the public square. We should invite it in and celebrate it.

And from Huckabee:

I said, in general -- and I would say this tonight to any of us -- when a person says, "My faith doesn't affect my decision- making," I would say that the person is saying their faith is not significant to impact their decision process.

I tell people up front, "My faith does affect my decision process." It explains me. No apology for that. My faith says,
“Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you...”

What do the secular leaders have to say about this? Well, when the moderator asked Giuliani whether the increased influence of Christian conservatives in the party has been good for it, he said

Sure. The increased influence of large numbers of people are always good for us.

Great. Pragmatism at work. I was reminded once that Democrats are also Christian, but I think we'd be hard-pressed to find such open and enthusiastic support for religion in policy making there.

In any case, despite their Christian leanings environmentalism is a point of debate in the Republican Party, so I expected to see some mention of it. Unfortunately there were only two references. One from Huckabee:

The most important thing about global warming is this. Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change is going to be left to the scientists, but it's all of our responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it.

And one from Rep Hunter, on the subject of “An Inconvenient Truth”:

No, I didn't watch it. But, you know, I think that global warming and the need to be energy-independent gives us a great opportunity.

There were no objections to either of these comments. While I realize that a small cross-section of a Party does not necessarily represent the views of all, these are the candidates for President and not a single one seems to have a problem with environmentalism.

I understand that the Republicans have been an obstacle to the viros, but in my judgment we’re no safer with them in the long run than we are with the Democrats. They’re going to lose the fight. They have no rational principles with which to fight it, and some of them are even viro supporters. Remember that even though Bush has opposed mandatory controls, he has conceded the legitimacy of the manmade Global Warming fraud. Even on the question of socialism they are a contradiction; they oppose the practical implementation, but approve of the morality. And in the debate, Republican Mitt Romney praised his own socialized healthcare “experiment” in Massachusetts. The Party is not a defender of individual rights, it is just altruism on the Right practiced to varying degrees and in a different form.

Are we racing toward an impending theocracy if we vote Republican? Despite the comments above that suggest that some Republicans would love to remove the line between Church and State, it's hard to imagine that they could gain that sort of power in this country. However on one issue they have succeeded in blurring the line, and it promises devastating results: the "War on Terror". We are now engaged in a self-sacrificial campaign of subsidizing "moderate" Islamic governments with the blood of American soldiers. We stand to gain nothing from this strategy, and it was never designed to gain us anything. This war is built on the moral premise of self-sacrifice, that it is our duty to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers". Also, Bush and other Republicans see no contradiction in supporting Islam because to them, bin Laden and co. are “misguided” in their beliefs and “pray to a false God”. Our leaders have allowed their religious beliefs to influence policy making by refusing to identify and neutralize the threat from our enemies. Instead, they make our enemies stronger.

As far as the paradox of freeing the Afghanis and Iraqis by helping them to live under Islamic law? This is as clear an admission as you will get that our Republican leaders who support the war strategy see religion as compatible with government. Looking above at the candidates, this idea and its influence in the party doesn't appear to be marginal or something we can dismiss.

Are these not reasons to be concerned for both the future of the war under Republican leadership and the future of the religious right in politics?

[PhilO]

Are these not reasons to be concerned for both the future of the war under Republican leadership and the future of the religious right in politics?

Yes. Neither they nor the Democrats are going to properly prosecute a war, until America is hit hard enough that the average man on the street cares. Maybe not even then, if you see what obviously liberal writers did to the most recent season of 24, which was a propaganda prep. for the day when America is hit by a nuclear weapon (where the response is seen as: almost literally nothing, except for the temporarily-in-power VP who wants to launch a small retaliatory nuclear strike and is depicted as a lunatic because of it.)

It is ludicrous to have the faintest shred of hope that either the Republicans or Democrats are going to do anything right, which is why it's critical that the ideas of Objectivism be spread as widely as possible, as though they meant something and had efficacy.

One can only surmise which group (R or D) will do the most damage. (1) The Christians want to stop abortions and have been unsuccessful in doing much about it legally in decades; (2) the environmentalists, of the Environmentalist religion, want to kill everyone and are making great progress in halting industrial civilization on a daily basis (take a look at the recent thread on dam destruction in Oregon). And very significantly: at least half the country is utterly opposed to a Christian theocracy in America and will strongly fight attempts to get religion injected further into the country's laws, and the Constitution is squarely on their side. Environmentalism is not widely seen as a religion (including by many Objectivists), there is otherwise not a particular Constitutional restriction on environmental laws, and a large majority of the country now feels that environmentalism is a Good Thing after years of indoctrination.

Apparently there is serious doubt in some minds as to which is worse, but I am personally not sophisticated enough to think that #1 is worse than #2 - or worst of all, the union of Christianity and Environmentalism.

[Capitalism Forev...]

“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.

But, Your Holiness, isn't this rather secular language? Have you been reading Sir Francis Bacon? I certainly agree that my long-term survival is more important than satisfying whims of the moment, be they mine or those of environmentalists--and I fully intend to do what Nature requires me to do in order to survive: to produce wealth, including energy, and to consume it so I can produce more.

[Carlos]

Bborg, banning abortion and having "In God we trust" on money isn't blurring the lines between Church and State. Christians fighting to advance individual concrete laws that were inspired by religousity isn't tearing down the wall between Church and State; it's just a bunch of politicians pushing for certain laws because their particular blend of morality inspired them to do it.

The wall between Church and State is breached when the state enforces or sponsors some particular church or religion...that isn't happening. A bunch of Christian rednecks trying to ban Harry Potter and Abortion does not equate to a massive theocratic movement bent on toppling the very foundation of a nation.

And an even more important question that I want you to ask is whether Christians in America even want a Theocracy. Having been raised in the Bible Belt amongst many Protestant Fundamentalists (the exact brand of religion held responsible for our coming Theocracy according to some), and actually been best friends with one, I see absolutely zero desire from these people to want to tear down the wall between Church and State. They simply believe that America has lost its direction and values (it partly has) and is in some kind of moral crisis (it just about is) and are sincerely trying to bring about some kind of change for the better. Unfortunately, they are a little mixed up about what should be done, and therefore advocate some negative, random concrete things (ban abortion, gay marriage, poorly run war on terror, etc.).

Are these the destroyers that we should be so afraid of? Though they may be mixed up, at least the Right proudly stands for some kind of morality, whereas the New Left openly smirks at the defiling and abandonment of all standards, values and morals.

[PhilO]

But, Your Holiness, isn't this rather secular language? Have you been reading Sir Francis Bacon? I certainly agree that my long-term survival is more important than satisfying whims of the moment, be they mine or those of environmentalists--and I fully intend to do what Nature requires me to do in order to survive: to produce wealth, including energy, and to consume it so I can produce more.

That is a benevolent interpretation but I think the context warrants a quite different one - more along the lines of Gaia, an old Greek goddess of the earth that's been adopted as part of Environmentalism. The common root between Catholicism and Environmentalism (and other religions) is mysticism.

[PhilO]

Are these the destroyers that we should be so afraid of? Though they may be mixed up, at least the Right proudly stands for some kind of morality, whereas the New Left openly smirks at the defiling and abandonment of all standards, values and morals.

Of those who've become Objectivists as adults, I have to wonder what percentage came from religious backgrounds that at least provided respect for ethics and the virtue of personal productivity, vs. New Lefters. In my personal observation, they are primarily people from Jewish or Christian families. While some of the worst smears *have* come from the religious conservatives (e.g. W. F. Buckley and his ilk), there are also those from that group who almost actively promote Objectivism (e.g. Limbaugh.)

I have asked this before and I've never gotten a single answer, but to ask again: Somebody, anybody, name one single socialist/communist/New Lefter who has good things to say about Ayn Rand and Objectivism (discounting mealy mouthed dishonest double-speak from the likes of Hillary Clinton), or somebody from that group who's now an Objectivist. The only one to my knowledge who remotely fits that description is David Horowitz, but even he has never mentioned Objectivism as far as I've read him.

[Vespasiano]

I have asked this before and I've never gotten a single answer, but to ask again: Somebody, anybody, name one single socialist/communist/New Lefter who has good things to say about Ayn Rand and Objectivism . . .

Good luck.

[Betsy Speicher]

The Pope does not represent the American right.

"The American Right" is a package deal including many things good and bad. Anyone concerned with an accurate and fair assessment of individuals and ideas on "the Right" would do well to make the necessary distinctions as the facts demand.

The Pope is the spiritual leader of Catholic Christians most of which are traditionally on the Left including American Hispanics, Italians, and Irish. Most American Christians are Protestants living in rural areas who tend to be on the Right. "The Right" also includes NeoCons who are, almost exclusively Jews tending toward secularism or even atheism. "The Right" also includes religious people like Rush Limbaugh who occasionally mention religion but usually makes cogent, rational political arguments an Objectivist can agree with. In addition, almost anyone, Left or Right, would include Objectivists on "The Right" because they share more characteristics, essential and non-essential, with those on the Right than those on the Left.

[Jay P]

...
I thought I would read through the transcript from the Republican debates in May. When the moderator asked whether the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed would be a good day for America, Romney said, “Absolutely”, Sen Sam Brownback said, “It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.” Gilmore said, "Yes, it was wrongly decided." Huckabee said, "Most certainly." Hunter, "Yes." What of Giuliani? The pragmatist that he is, he said it would be “Ok” either way, so long as it was the decision of the courts....

I was quite disappointed when I found out that Giuliani had said this. Based on this comment, I would not call him "pro-choice" on the question of abortion, since he has now said that he wouldn't care if the Supreme Court decided against the right to have an abortion. It's more accurate to say that he's just neutral on the issue. Ban abortion or keep it legal.... he doesn't care, apparently.

What I and I'm sure many others see him doing is pandering to the Christian Conservatives in order to get the Republican nomination. He's trying hard, today, to convince the anti-abortionists that he's not opposed to their position.

But this is going to backfire if he gets the nomination. Because then, he'll be trying to convince the many voters who value the right to have an abortion that he's somehow really pro-choice. In trying to please everybody, he's going to end up pleasing nobody. The Christian anti-abortionists won't really trust him, and neither will the pro-choice voters.

[bborg]

The wall between Church and State is breached when the state enforces or sponsors some particular church or religion...that isn't happening. A bunch of Christian rednecks trying to ban Harry Potter and Abortion does not equate to a massive theocratic movement bent on toppling the very foundation of a nation.

Would you consider a State built on Islamic law that did not sponsor some specific Mosque to be a secular government?

And an even more important question that I want you to ask is whether Christians in America even want a Theocracy.

Having been raised in the Bible Belt amongst many Protestant Fundamentalists (the exact brand of religion held responsible for our coming Theocracy according to some), and actually been best friends with one, I see absolutely zero desire from these people to want to tear down the wall between Church and State. They simply believe that America has lost its direction and values (it partly has) and is in some kind of moral crisis (it just about is) and are sincerely trying to bring about some kind of change for the better.

What values do they say America has lost? What is the "moral crisis"? What change for the better are they trying to bring about?

Unfortunately, they are a little mixed up about what should be done, and therefore advocate some negative, random concrete things (ban abortion, gay marriage, poorly run war on terror, etc.).

Are these really examples of how they are "mixed up", or are these some of the "changes for the better"?

Are these the destroyers that we should be so afraid of? Though they may be mixed up, at least the Right proudly stands for some kind of morality, whereas the New Left openly smirks at the defiling and abandonment of all standards, values and morals.

"Some kind of morality"? Carlos, I would not be so quick to prefer "some kind" of values to nihilism without understanding the nature of those values and where they would lead us.

[bborg]

Of those who've become Objectivists as adults, I have to wonder what percentage came from religious backgrounds that at least provided respect for ethics and the virtue of personal productivity, vs. New Lefters. In my personal observation, they are primarily people from Jewish or Christian families. While some of the worst smears *have* come from the religious conservatives (e.g. W. F. Buckley and his ilk), there are also those from that group who almost actively promote Objectivism (e.g. Limbaugh.)

As someone who grew up in a Christian family, I can tell you that my values did not come from religion. Our Church taught us to sacrifice, to turn the other cheek, to forgive any sin, to accept any suffering and to prostrate ourselves to the will of the Lord. My parents, on the other hand, taught me love myself, to pursue my dreams and to live independently on my own judgment. Should I really be crediting my religious background for that?

Most religious people in America do not really accept religious values, they just give them lip service by the habit of repetition. They go to Church and listen to half an hour to an hour of sermonizing a week, which doesn't really affect their lives. There's nothing to fear from those people. There are, however, some people who do accept and live by the code of altruism, and it is their life's mission to see that the rest of us accept it to. Whichever party you believe is the more dangerous, do not mistake the evangelical fanatics for your run-of-the-mill moderate Christians. The religious right is no ally.

I have asked this before and I've never gotten a single answer, but to ask again: Somebody, anybody, name one single socialist/communist/New Lefter who has good things to say about Ayn Rand and Objectivism (discounting mealy mouthed dishonest double-speak from the likes of Hillary Clinton), or somebody from that group who's now an Objectivist. The only one to my knowledge who remotely fits that description is David Horowitz, but even he has never mentioned Objectivism as far as I've read him.

Is it your hope to convert the Republicans to Objectivism?

[PhilO]

As someone who grew up in a Christian family, I can tell you that my values did not come from religion. Our Church taught us to sacrifice, to turn the other cheek, to forgive any sin, to accept any suffering and to prostrate ourselves to the will of the Lord. My parents, on the other hand, taught me love myself, to pursue my dreams and to live independently on my own judgment. Should I really be crediting my religious background for that?

No, you should be giving yourself credit for that. But also, ask yourself (since I was referring to a familial influence, not a Church influence): do you think you would have had a more rational childhood if your parents were tattooed pot toking neo-hippies who could barely hold down a job? That's what I'm talking about (and what I think most here are talking about.)

Most religious people in America do not really accept religious values, they just give them lip service by the habit of repetition. They go to Church and listen to half an hour to an hour of sermonizing a week, which doesn't really affect their lives. There's nothing to fear from those people.

Yes, exactly. Those people are what one might colloquially call "average Americans" (vs. the type I contrasted above.)

There are, however, some people who do accept and live by the code of altruism, and it is their life's mission to see that the rest of us accept it to. Whichever party you believe is the more dangerous, do not mistake the evangelical fanatics for your run-of-the-mill moderate Christians. The religious right is no ally.

You are preaching to the choir.

Is it your hope to convert the Republicans to Objectivism?

I have no hope of "converting" anybody to Objectivism. In my years of observation the only actual Objectivists are people who were independent thinkers their entire lives; but childhood influences can count for something as well.

The issue at hand is not "converting Republicans to Objectivism", at least not for me: it's whether they politically represent a worse danger than the political party of the Environmentalist religion, which is actively working on the literal destruction of civilization and humanity, pretty effectively. And again, as much as I despise and loathe Christianity, as a conscious atheist since the age of 6, I can recognize that there are degrees of evil, and a religion/philosophy that advocates, including via political action, the total destruction of civilization and humanity, is simply worse than Christianity. Perhaps you disagree.

[Capitalism Forev...]

That is a benevolent interpretation but I think the context warrants a quite different one

Absolutely, I didn't think for a moment that the Pope was becoming an evangelist for production. I just found it remarkable that he felt the need to appeal to secular survival, rather than pleasing God, in his effort to push his anti-industrialist agenda.

[Jay P]

...
No, you should be giving yourself credit for that. But also, ask yourself (since I was referring to a familial influence, not a Church influence): do you think you would have had a more rational childhood if your parents were tattooed pot toking neo-hippies who could barely hold down a job? That's what I'm talking about (and what I think most here are talking about.)
...

This isn't what I have in mind when we're talking here about leftists. I know of many people who are very far to the left politically, who have absolutely no trouble holding down a job; in fact, this is the political orientation of many productive former co-workers of mine. In terms of their lifestyle, they are definitely not hippies.

There are leftists who are worthless flakes like you describe of course, but most far-left people I've encountered in my professional life are quite level-headed in their work, and in much of their personal lives, as far as I can tell. They're probably very good at compartmentalization - they can "check their leftist baggage at the door" when they really need to think and accomplish somethng productive.

Would growing up with nominally-leftist parents like this be any worse (or better) than growing up with nominally-religious parents, who only attend church occasionally and don't take their religion very seriously? I don't know.

If one is going to compare growing up having parents who are "tattoed pot toking neo-hippies who could barely hold down a job" (as representatives of the left) with something on the religious right, then I think a fair comparison would be with a very strictly religious household, in which the children are constantly told how sinful they are.

....

In trying to weigh the relative threats of the leftists versus the religious conservatives, I always try to focus on the ideas being advocated, not whether their advocates are good or nice people. There are many people, of many political stripes, who are good productive people I wouldn't mind having as neighbors, but it's still often the case that their ideas (like religious fundamentalism or multiculturalism, or environmentalism) would be quite deadly if they're ever implemented fully consistently.

[bborg]

No, you should be giving yourself credit for that. But also, ask yourself (since I was referring to a familial influence, not a Church influence): do you think you would have had a more rational childhood if your parents were tattooed pot toking neo-hippies who could barely hold down a job? That's what I'm talking about (and what I think most here are talking about.)

Well, I was responding to your comment that,

Of those who've become Objectivists as adults, I have to wonder what percentage came from religious backgrounds that at least provided respect for ethics and the virtue of personal productivity

Your thought was a response to Carlos E. Jordan saying,

Though they may be mixed up, at least the Right proudly stands for some kind of morality

But what kind of morality do these religious backgrounds teach, and what sort of “respect” for ethics do they encourage? I believe that Objectivists who came into philosophy with an implicit morality of selfishness or who accepted reason as the faculty of knowledge did not get these ideas from a religious background, even if they came from religious families. Nowhere do they teach these things in Church, and to credit the religious influence of the Republican Party for some perceived friendliness to Objectivism is wrong.

You ask whether I would have had a more rational childhood had I been raised by neo-hippies, but neither was I raised by bible-thumpers. As Jay P points out, there is as much difference between the irresponsible, “free love” pot smoking hippie parent and the moderate liberal as there is between the dogmatic, overbearing Christian parent and the moderate conservative. I don’t know that I would even call my parents conservative, as my mother at least does not approve of Bush (not sure about my dad, I don’t really talk politics with them). I think that the degree to which someone is rational is exactly the degree to which they are an independent thinker and not influenced either by religion or its altruistic alternatives.

The issue at hand is not "converting Republicans to Objectivism", at least not for me: it's whether they politically represent a worse danger than the political party of the Environmentalist religion, which is actively working on the literal destruction of civilization and humanity, pretty effectively. And again, as much as I despise and loathe Christianity, as a conscious atheist since the age of 6, I can recognize that there are degrees of evil, and a religion/philosophy that advocates, including via political action, the total destruction of civilization and humanity, is simply worse than Christianity. Perhaps you disagree.

Since Christianity did destroy civilization once before, I find a particular irony in this argument. If you disagree on the influence of Christianity in our government, that is a fair point to debate and one that I am still open to. My main objection to the Republican Party is their “war on terror” race to self-destruction that in my judgment trumps any short-term economic damage the Democratic Party can do, but the war strategy is a product of Christian policy-making and that makes me interested to see just how deep the influence goes. I presented the quotes from the debate above for consideration on this point.

As has been stated elsewhere, environmentalism has been around for ages and by different names. However, it has never created the scale of destruction that religion has, and cannot, because it is not a fundamental philosophy. Rooted in American culture are the ideas of our Founders, the ideas of Individualism and our inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Environmentalism has no answer to that, but religion does. Environmentalism does not pretend to be a guide for living, while religion does. Because of this, religion poses a much greater long-term threat than environmentalism. The question becomes only, is religion gaining power?

[JRoberts]

Would you consider a State built on Islamic law that did not sponsor some specific Mosque to be a secular government?

There are two issues here. First, the US was not built upon Christian law (thank the Founding Fathers). Second, Islam never went through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Do we discredit Locke because he was a Christian?

"Some kind of morality"? Carlos, I would not be so quick to prefer "some kind" of values to nihilism without understanding the nature of those values and where they would lead us.

Having been raised in a similar situation as Jordan, I think he fully well understands the values that the Christians hold. These values include such things as honesty, justice, patriotism, freedom, happiness, and life. Does that mean that they have the virtues necessary to fully reach these values? No. But this is not the Platonic World of Forms. Christians can obtain these values via their virtues in differing degrees (depending of course by how much they literally adopt the words of Christ...which most don't). Regardless, a child who is raised in your average Christian household is taught to be honest, to be just, to live freely and revere freedom, to respect others, to love America and the American way of life, to interact in life and live it to the fullest, and to defend these values against those (Islam) who want to destroy it. A child raised in your average liberal household (and once again, this is based upon countless personal observations) is taught that every culture is equal to the rest, that America is okay but has done many evil things, that Buddhism is just as right as science, that corporations are evil, that Che Guevara is a god, and that it is better to save the life of a tree being threatened by the evil capitalist than to seek vengeance lives of 3000 innocent Americans who were butchered by savage, barbaric "people with other viewpoints who are just as right as we are".

Nowhere do they teach these things in Church, and to credit the religious influence of the Republican Party for some perceived friendliness to Objectivism is wrong.

You don't have a preacher standing at a podium shouting loudly while rattling his bible, "Follow Reason! Abdicate Faith!". But you do have preachers who give sermons on why America is great, why we should defend Israel, why Islam is a threat, why freedom is good, why the West is the most superior civilization, and why it is good to be honest. So when the same Christians who in our current world are sitting entrenched, defending themselves not only against the Muslims on the outside but the vile nihilistic environmentalist on the inside, see a small but loud group of people shouting out, "Defend America, defeat Islam, the West is the Best!", they see in the dim fog of this war a much-needed ally.