Disillusionment and Disappointment

Mar 30, 2009 12:28

Recently I got into an online "argument" on Facebook with an old friend of mine from high school. And now it looks like I won't be able to see him in the same light again.

It all stemmed from a posting that a former English teacher (at the same school) put up about the Ayn Rand magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. She spoke of both the book and its ( Read more... )

politics

Leave a comment

Comments 17

ksleet March 30 2009, 18:18:36 UTC
Well, how does this sound: Welfare-style programs tend to create a passive culture of dependence, which eventually evolves into a violent culture of entitlement. While in the short term they put food in stomachs, in the long term they lead to worse consequences than no aid at all would have. In order to really reduce poverty without these negative side effects, it's necessary for people to get their own jobs and provide for themselves (on the micro scale) or for countries to develop their own private industry (on the macro scale). Therefore, poverty-reduction programs should focus on those goals instead of sending out checks. One might disagree with that argument, but it's not insane, yes?

That said, I don't think that's where Rand was going; rather than saying "these traditional programs don't help the poor, so let's do this other thing," as far as I'm aware she didn't care what happened to the poor at all, which doesn't line up especially well with traditional Christian views on the subject.

Reply

teflon_tim March 30 2009, 19:07:10 UTC
I've heard that argument about Welfare-style programs quite often, especially in the light of where I work. On the whole I disagree with it -- while readily allowing that there are individuals who it fits to a "T" -- but I can sort of understand where that line of reasoning comes from, and I don't think it insane.

However, that's not quite the problem here. I'm dealing with people who are touting the "I-worked-hard-and-don't-want-to-HAVE-to-help-others" line while claiming to be "good Catholics." Hence the cognative dissonance.

Look, at the end of the day all I ask for is consistency. If one wants to be a Christian, they have every right to be a Christian and live their life accordingly. Similarly, if one wants to be a selfish pr*ck, they have every right to be a selfish pr*ck and live their life accordingly. But as far as I remember from my theology classes, one can't really be both a Christian and a selfish pr*ck. To maintain consistency, you have to give up one to live the life of the other.

IMHO. YMMV. OMGWTFBBQ. :)

Reply

shinotenshi02 March 30 2009, 20:30:10 UTC
However, that's not quite the problem here. I'm dealing with people who are touting the "I-worked-hard-and-don't-want-to-HAVE-to-help-others" line while claiming to be "good Catholics." Hence the cognative dissonance.

They may also be doing a bit of the deserving victim thing. People who have tragedy strike, but who are 'good' (in the subject's terms) can deserve help. But OMG people who just are down on their luck/haven't had as many breaks/are going through a bad patch? Sucks for them, b/c they don't 'deserve' help.

This meme is often also common with the 'right kind' of rape-victim, as well as the 'deserving poor'.

Humans have trouble with the idea that someone, somewhere, MIGHT get something for nothing, while "I" had to work for it.

*shrug* *throws in Tuppance*

Reply

ksleet March 31 2009, 00:00:26 UTC
So the executive summary would be: they want to be selfish but still think that they're "good."

In other words, people being people. They have a bad habit of that. :)

Reply


kagami101 March 30 2009, 18:18:37 UTC
You can't. They are cherry picking. They want it both ways.

Reply


amysvoice March 30 2009, 18:19:07 UTC
Oh, my dear, you and I must talk at length...

I was raised on it too, and if we had a dollar for every "set-in-stone-no-two-ways-about-it-do-this-and-you'll-burn" turned "wishy-washy-oops-we-better-start-making-more-popular-rules" thing about the Catholic church, you could forward our mail to Easy Street.

Deep breath. Allow these folks their much protected freedom. Agree to disagree. No two people are ever going to agree on everything - including you and me. It's not worth stressing over.

=^_^=

Reply

teflon_tim March 30 2009, 18:38:08 UTC
Yes, I think that's about where things are at this point. I have several highly conservative friends with whom I'm more than willing to "agree to disagree" for sake of friendship. I just didn't think this guy would have to be one of them.

C'est la vie...

Reply


sara_merry99 March 30 2009, 18:19:23 UTC
I honestly can't think of how one would reconcile Catholicism with Objectivism. Of course there are plenty of people in this universe, many of them intelligent and thoughtful people, who are quite content to hold mutually contradictory beliefs in neatly separate little compartments in their heads without ever questioning it, or even, apparently, noticing.

That might be what's going on here.

People *do*, in general, cherry-pick data points that support their opinions and ignore the rest, too. That's pretty well documented. :D

Reply


greene_man March 30 2009, 19:34:54 UTC
I'm a lapsed Presbyterian (and a former conservative), but it appear as self-evident to me that Objectivism is not compatible with traditional Roman Catholic teachings. Back in the day when there were few conservative voices, William F Buckley Jr had declared that Rand and her followers were not part of "the movement". WFB was also also Catholic.

Don't get me going on Jonah Goldberg and his "Liberal Fascism". He is trying to re-write history to make Fascism a "liberal" phenomenon. It works in right wing circles where many of the kool-aid drinkers are convinced that Obama is fascist. Seriously.

Reply

teflon_tim March 30 2009, 19:57:25 UTC
When my friend pointed to Liberal Fascism as a good source, I asked him how much history he had actually read. His response was in essence: "I was a Political Science and History major in college, so there!"

I decided to bite my tongue and not remind him that lawyers from Regent University (one of the worst law schools that still has accreditation) were technically Law majors, but that doesn't make them good lawyers. And of course, GWB himself majored in business (MBA from Yale) prior to running several businesses into the ground. And for that matter, I was an education major; if I was a better teacher I'd likely still be employed as one...

Courses of study and the credentials "earned" from their completion mean nothing without the critical thinking skills to use them properly. But I digress...

Reply


Leave a comment

Up