Daniel Burke in a recent articlefor UMNS detailed some criticism of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (Rep) for saying that he is a fan of Ayn Rand.
The atheist philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand published more than a dozen books before she died in 1982. Now, liberal Christians say another work belongs in Rand’s controversial canon: the 2012 Republican budget.
House Republicans passed their budget along party lines in April, saying its drastic cuts to federal programs are necessary to prevent a deficit crisis.
But in a petition drive, video, ads and websites, liberal Christians counter that Rand’s dog-eat-dog philosophy is the real inspiration for the GOP budget and its author, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
While I don't endorse Rand's anti-religion, atheistic views to equate them with the U.S. budget is a mighty long stretch.
Toward the end of the article Burke quotes Rand's biographer Anne Heller:
“Certainly you can believe that the state can’t do everything for everybody, but if you are a practicing Christian, you also believe that it is our duty to take care of the least among us. And we know perfectly well from history that churches and individuals can’t do that job alone.”
Heller is absolutely correct that it is our duty as Christians to care for the least among us. But implying that churches and individuals can't do it without governmental help is purely conjecture. At no time in history have churches and individual faithfully fulfilled their duties to the poor. Until that happens, no one can say that it can't be done without involving a secular government.
While Heller's conclusions are speculative, it is true that because churches and individuals haven't been obedient to the commands of God that millions of people suffer. But rather than passing the buck and saying that it's the government who must take care of the least of these, Christian should start taking personal responsibility and doing their part. Until that happens Christians have no right to criticize a politician or a political party for not doing what they themselves have failed to do.
Comments