I admit it, I love what I've read of Ayn Rand. I read 'The Fountainhead' when I was maybe 13. I started 'Atlas Shrugged' but have never finished it. I read 'Anthem' at least once a year. But I'm not an Objectivist. I like altruism; I think the Gospel of Jesus Christ absolutely requires it. But the folly of the secular state that destroys the individual can no longer be avoided. The poignance of the critique at precisely that point isn't altered or blunted, no matter who else embraces Rand. Nor does an appreciation of Rand in some limited sense constitute an embrace of her amorality, either personally or philosophically. Mr. Carter needs to re-think this, and definitely apologize to Congressmen Paul and Ryan.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments