“…the most ideologically committed collectivist-altruist-statist president in US history…”

I would first like to make clear that I do not like (that is an understatement) President Obama; however, don’t you think that FDR was worse than Obama (this is not an attempt by me to make Obama seem better, this is merely my attempt to get a better account of history)?

“our God-given rights”

…while those seeking to stand up for freedom emphasize the rights:

“our god-given Rights”.

The former know and emphasize that what God giveth, he can taketh away; the latter don’t want to think about that right now.

That depends on the context. I see that sort of thing invoked just as readily in an effort to place individual rights on a firmament that is beyond the ability of government or society to revoke. It’s still an error, and an example of how conservatism still entraps those who are seeking freedom, but this particular usage — most often seen in the context of the gun control debate — is not made from a desire to submit, but to fight.

I find that bit interesting, as I remember him speaking directly to Objectivists at one point a few years ago, saying “I know that you [Objectivists] don’t like sacrifice, but — get over it.”

If this is a trend, with Limbaugh moving towards Objectivism, I have to wonder what will happen when he finally hits the irresolvable contradictions between Objectivism and conservatism.

I’m more inclined to think that this is another symptom of the rapprochement that naturally happens between fundamentally disparate movements when their superficially common enemy is in power.

I’ll take the publicity either way.

lol

” You have individual rights, as granted by God, who created you, and our founding documents enshrine them:”

…is which ones? We’re offered different revelations, and due to the nature of faith we cannot distinguish what is claimed to exist from imagination.

He then tried to clarify it by saying “higher power” or something like that. And that to me is the real issue here. When people talk about rights and the like coming from a higher power, it’s really an expressed desire to submit. It’s a desire to be led and told what to do and how to live. That’s a fundamental problem. And it’s probably the reason why someone like Limbaugh appears so conflicted. He’s trying to advocate two opposing positions at once.

Sure — if there were evidence of the existence and the nature of this “God” entity.

No such evidence has ever been offered though, despite multi-thousands of years of opportunity…. and if such evidence did exist and were validated, that would not alter the fact of the immorality that faith serves to license.

In other words, objective proof of the existence of a God would, in the long run, be much more traumatic to religions than it would be to Objectivists, I wager.

It is certainly correct that there are plenty of people who believe in god who enthusiastically agree with SOME of Ayn Rand’s principles and are big fans of her writing. But it would NOT be correct for such people to consider themselves to be Objectivists. To properly consider one’s self an Objectivist, one would need to be knowledgeable about and in agreement with Ayn Rand’s PHILOSOPHY, of which the lack of the supernatural is a very fundamental element. To label one’s self as an “Objectivist” in light of such a fundamental disagreement is actually a disservice not only to Ayn Rand but also a disservice to one’s disagreements with her.

“If an objectivist comes to believe in God through reason, even Rand would approve of it.”

This much is true: Ayn Rand would much rather have someone strongly disagree with her based on the best efforts of his own rational judgment rather than accepting something as true merely based on her say-so. In that sense, she would “approve of it.” But she would STILL say that such a person is WRONG and, in that sense, NOT approve of it. It is not enough to merely arrive at one’s conclusions through a rational methodology – one’s conclusions must also be TRUE, i.e, be consistent with reality.

The step from being an enthusiastic Ayn Rand fan to considering one’s self to be an Objectivist is a big one and and should not be taken lightly. It is not uncommon for her fans to, as a result of their enthusiasm, jump the gun and consider themselves Objectivists before they fully understand the philosophy – and, as a result, buy into certain ideas before they fully understand them or have considered them critically. Again, to do so is a disservice both to Rand and, more importantly, to one’s self.

As for religious people on the political Right, Harry Binswanger in his most recent HBL posting talked of a distinction between a religious conservative and a conservative who happens to be religious. I think it is an important distinction. Many people in that latter category are potentially open to a lot of what Rand had to say not just on politics but also, as Rush demonstrates, on ethics and individualism vs altruism as well. Most of these people will not likely become Objectivists. But some can potentially become effective and articulate fellow travelers in a number of very crucial battles that are going to have to be fought in the short run to preserve our freedom to speak and dissent and be prosperous enough to have the time to do so, all of which is under an unprecedented full frontal assault right now.

What is the referent of “it”?

If the referent is “reason,” then of course Ayn Rand approved of it. (For anyone new to Ayn Rand’s philosophy — Objectivism, not “objectivism” — see “Reason” in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.)

If the referent of “it” is the fantasy notion of a god existing, then the burden of proof rests on the claimant to prove she would have approved of the notion.

I would propose that no process of reasoning could lead to the conclusion “God exists.”

Rush would define “god” as a divine consciousness responsible for creating existence. On what information can one extrapolate the claim that existence must have been created? Virtually all the physical complexities of the universe that baffle theists and deists into forming the argument from teleology can be explained through secular cosmology, philosophy, and biology.

If an objectivist comes to believe in God through reason, even Rand would approve of it.

It’s great to have Rush advertise Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand to his huge audience.

The election of the most ideologically committed collectivist-altruist-statist president in US history has, most unexpectedly, made Ayn Rand more prominent in our culture than any time since the early ’60s at least, and perhaps more than even then. It’s stunning, really. The worst political news has brought forth the best news. Such a paradox is like watching a Victor Hugo novel unfold before our eyes in reality.