In order to become such a fan of Atlas Shrugged, et al, I. of course, had to square it with my religious beliefs. But let me start with the indefensible. Adultery and fornication; restraining passions, etc.; yes, Ayn Rand takes leave of reason in those cases. And in the interest of brevity, 'nuff said.
Regarding religion and subordinating one's will to a higher power, three things: 1. I like the quote of Thomas Jefferson, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." I think it's okay to not just accept everything at face value and to actually search, ponder and pray to gain personal understanding of statements by church leaders and in the scriptures. 2. Ayn Rand never attended my organized religion. And having attended several others myself, I can understand her trepidation, her rebellion against what she referred to as mysticism. 3. Extreme altruism. There is a notion held by many, if not most church members, that he who gains the least and in fact hurts himself the most in his self-sacrifice in the service of others, wins. I've been taught this idea in some form, at varying levels of intensity, all my life. And I don't think it's correct doctrine. Sacrifice is the giving up of something good for something better, e.g. a portion of your income for heavenly blessings.
The pursuit of happiness or blessings or anything good for oneself has become evil. Well, I've a challenge for you. Go and try to engage in some form of service for which you'll never be compensated in any way. You can't do it. It's impossible. In service, there's always that immediate rush of well-being, that thrill of pure joy. Boom! You just got paid. Then there's the growth of character and spirit and the enhancement of capacity that comes from your obedience and righteousness. Boom! You got paid again. Then there are the treasures you're laying up in heaven. And I've failed to mention any other blessings that may come through 'carma' or whatever. But I think you get the picture. We're astoundingly overcompensated for whatever service we give. And I refuse to accept that service is somehow compromised if we happen to get a paycheck for it. I believe all of the above still applies, even if we get paid.
I actually think even the Savior gained from His ultimate sacrifice. I believe He inherited eternal life and was glorified; and He gained the possibility of a lot of company in what would've been a pretty lonely eternity. In addition, like the main characters in Atlas Shrugged, albeit at a much higher and nonfictional level, He enjoyed the expression of his full powers. He stood up to an impossible challenge, at the absolute limit of His strength, and He did it! He succeeded. You missed a major theme of the book if you think Hank Reardon invented his amazing metal just for the money. He and the others most enjoyed taming the earth, doing what no one could, sacrificing, giving years of blood, sweat and tears, failing repeatedly only to ultimately succeed. "I can do it." is Fransisco's axiom; again, the joy in the expression of one's full powers, talents, abilities. That was their "motive power."
You mention "liberty of the most extreme variety" as of that's a bad thing. I guess that's the crux of what separates you as a conservative from me as a classical liberal (read: libertarian.) I have all of the same feelings against the immorality to which you refer. I just don't think anyone should be forced, via law, to do what you and I think is right. We don't force anyone to attend our church. We don't force anyone to not drink or smoke. I've never heard of an elder's quorum raid on a house where we suspect adultery or fornication. Yet it's somehow okay for the govt to force people when it comes to drugs, prostitution, gambling, marriage, etc. Utah isn't exactly a bastion of "fiscal conservatism" and we're what, 70% Mormon? My whole premise is an absolute intolerance for the initiation of force. I'm not perfect. I'm a hypocrite in some ways. But force is for defense, only. If someone is doing something bad but which is hurting no one; no one's individual unalienable rights are being threatened or violated, I say, live and let live. Maybe try and persuade him to stop but not force him. Think of D & C 121. And remember who it was that wanted to destroy man's agency.
You make an excellent point about the freedom to which the atonement leads us. I just want the maximum freedom for all, now and always. I believe I address all of these things much more comprehensively elsewhere in this blog.
Again, as to "subjecting our minds to (our Father's) will," yes, you have a point. And she messes up here. She assigns the use of force where it's utterly absent. The Lord forces no one. But I view it the way I view sacrifice...the good for the better (best.) And remember, all of our dealings with the Lord are voluntary exchange. The weird thing is, He seemingly gets the short end of the stick since He gives so much more than He gets. Although He gets us; and to Him, that's the highest value. So...
Her morality is simply to give value for value in free exchange. No force or fraud; and need is not a valuable medium of exchange. But if you read "The Virtue of Selfishness" you see she's okay at least with the sacrifices of a parent for a child; the voluntary. She just takes the forced sacrifices of socialism to the extreme and comes off seeming to say that no one should charitably give to anyone. But her heroes in Atlas give to others charitably. She just disguises it by emphasizing what the giver feels he's getting out of it.
There may be a lot more to say and I've said most of it in this blog. To summarize, see my monkey post about the true virtue of selfishness. Truly, in service to others, we gain the most.
No comments:
Post a Comment