Ah, okay, I haven't read Ayn Rand's actual work, to be fair.
FWIW, I've never managed to get through an Ayn Rand book. My hat is off to anyone who can tolerate the atrocious writing.
I read the fountainhead in high school, and atlas shrugged freshman year of college. And then I reread atlas shrugged recently and found I had to skip entire sections because I found them grating. As for the bad writing...well...I've read most of the twilight books twice and my MIL provides me a steady stream of 2nd hand bodice rippers, so I'm clearly not picky.
ETA: TTT - me too. Except I was 18. Embarassing. It took my brother pointing out to me that I only liked her ideas because I was a smarty pants snob to snap the hell out of it.
FWIW, I've never managed to get through an Ayn Rand book. My hat is off to anyone who can tolerate the atrocious writing.
My liberal confession is that I thought she was brilliant when I was an angsty misunderstood 15 year old.
I had a friend who thought Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were the greatest books ever. It wasn't a political thing for her so much as she decided the books gave her a pass to focus on her own fabulousness at all times. She frequently dropped statements such as, "I'm the best there is at what I do!" It was very new age-y affirmative. It was also annoying as fuck.
Except I don't think you can discriminate based on religion in employment (can you?). So a Catholic school can prefer a Catholic candidate, but they can't NOT hire someone who is qualified just because that person isn't Catholic.
So, basically, they're SOL. The government says that unless religion is integral to the position (like hiring a priest), you can't discriminate. But then if you hire people who are of a different faith, you no longer qualify for the exemption under ACA.
And while Catholic Charities and Catholic Universities hire and serve lots of people who aren't Catholic, both charity and education are integral to the Catholic faith - as is not discriminating against those is need. So again, SOL.
You can't discriminate in employment based on religion (and, actually religion holds a higher status than many protected classes, inasmuch as employers are required to accommodate people's religious beliefs). So, if an employee is Muslim and is required to pray to Mecca during their work shift, an employer is required to let them do it, even if they wouldn't ordinarily allow an employee a break at that time. Ditto wearing a Yarmulke even if it's outside a uniform policy. Etc.
Now, that can get tetchy sometimes, because courts end up having to analyze religious doctrine as part of their analysis, which can be problematic under the First Amendment. I was slightly involved in a case involving whether Catholic employees could be required to work on Christmas day, and the court beat us up good for investigating the religious underpinnings of the claim that Catholics shouldn't work on Christmas...
Now... we go to the other end of it. SOME religious organizations, in SOME positions are exempt from some or all civil rights laws. This is something that's very different from state to state, and can be kind of a mess. So... in some places, certain kinds of religious organizations are completely exempt - they can refuse to hire people based on religion, race, gender, what have you.
More common are exemptions that are more narrow - that allow religions to tailor their workforce based (most often) on religion and gender. So... you can't sue the local Jewish temple for not hiring you as a Rabbi because you're Catholic.
Things get tetchier when you move out from the simple issues. Like teaching at religious schools - is a math teacher at a Catholic high school in a fundamentally different place than a religion teacher at the same school? Most states would say "yes."
...then you have lots of problems interpreting the law around things like Catholic schools that terminate unmarried pregnant employees. Religious doctrine? Gender discrimination?
...and I actually, somewhere, own a first edition of the Fountainhead.
which I should sell to some Rand lover and go on vacation or something.
Or buy a Honda.
Nah. Ebay shows the same edition (blue) without dust jacket for about $200. In VG+ condition, which mine probably isn't.
I got it at a library book sale (not from the library, it was donated to the sale, I'm sure... no stamps or anything in it) for like a buck. Because I wanted to read the book.
When I got it home I was all "oooh, look, a first edition!"
Thanks Momi, I was hoping you would chime in about protected classes.
And in retrospect, I probably haven't read Ayn Rand because the excerpts I've seen are just awful writing. Let alone the ideas that are completely contrary to my own.
The best part of this entire thread is AW's apparent hateboner for the Amish's exemptions. I just imagine her constantly getting mistaken for an Amish person and being all "No I am NOT Amish, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE TO PAY SOCIAL SECURITY."
Lol, I was going to say something about that. Gee, AW, never realized you had it in for the Amish!
The best part of this entire thread is AW's apparent hateboner for the Amish's exemptions. I just imagine her constantly getting mistaken for an Amish person and being all "No I am NOT Amish, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE TO PAY SOCIAL SECURITY."
It's so funny you said that. Just this past Saturday I was at the movie store renting The Lorax for my kids. The guy who works there is always really nice and this time during our conversation he said, "I've been meaning to ask you what culture you are?" and he pointed to my headcovering. I said that I am a Christian and he answered, "Oh, you're Amish!" I was holding my car keys in one hand and the movie in the other. Does it look like I'm Amish? lol So I explained that I wasn't Amish, but I wear the covering for the same reasons and he said, "Oh, so you're Mennonite." I gave up.
But I'm loling at hateboner. Really though, it's not hate, just frustration. The special treatment doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to pay Social Security either and it has a lot to do with my faith.
FWIW, I've never managed to get through an Ayn Rand book. My hat is off to anyone who can tolerate the atrocious writing.
My liberal confession is that I thought she was brilliant when I was an angsty misunderstood 15 year old.
I think a lot of us did. Mine lasted until about age 21. I recently reconnected with a high school friend who had been president of campus republicans and always had a Rand book. He's now a staunch liberal
It was twofold for me. It was nice to have someone tell me I shouldn't feel bad about being superior to everyone else (and what teen doesn't think that?) and that religion kind of sucks.
I especially liked the religion part when I was in college because I was around so many conservative Christians, and I was trying to figure my own religious path (not a proclaimed atheist at that point), so I'd hear their religious services telling me I'm nothing because god is everything, and Rand said the opposite. Rand's view made more sense to me.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 15, 2012 16:27:36 GMT -5
aw, I'll agree with you that the special exemptions for Amish are bullshit. But I think we'll disagree on why. I think they should be removed (everyone get educated, vaccinated, pay taxes, etc) while I'm guessing you hope they'd be extended to more religions. Is that the case?
Also, you mentioned being near a mennonite college. Unless there are many in that area, my roommate (and her boyfriend who als lived with us for a bit) went there. Neither was mennonite. One was culturally half jewish but just kinda "spiritual" (ie dirty hippie) and the other was an atheist.
aw, I'll agree with you that the special exemptions for Amish are bullshit. But I think we'll disagree on why. I think they should be removed (everyone get educated, vaccinated, pay taxes, etc) while I'm guessing you hope they'd be extended to more religions. Is that the case?
Also, you mentioned being near a mennonite college. Unless there are many in that area, my roommate (and her boyfriend who als lived with us for a bit) went there. Neither was mennonite. One was culturally half jewish but just kinda "spiritual" (ie dirty hippie) and the other was an atheist.
Yes, I think the religious exemptions should be extended. I realize that the Amish have demonstrated that they will not rely on services like welfare and Medicare, so it makes sense that they shouldn't have to pay, but there are plenty of other denominations that feel the same way.
Was it Bluffton? DH went there too and we are not Mennonite (although apparently close enough to be mistaken for it all the time). Most of the devout Christians from my area went to Bluffton because it's kind of a tradition in their families to go there and the campus and surrounding town is very conservative. There are pockets of hippies and some obviously liberal professors, but the vision and mission of the school is Mennonite.
Can you tell me more about this? I have never heard of social security being an issue to someone because of their faith.
1) I don't think that the concept of retirement is Biblical at all. 2) I don't think it is Biblical for anyone to steal from one person to pay for another. I feel that the government is stealing from me right now because there is no way the money they are borrowing from me is ever going to be paid back to me. 3) I think that programs like social security have contributed to the breakdown of the family unit (extended family). I believe Christ would want each of us to take care of our own families (first, and then give to others anything extra we have) and not rely on the government and the taxpayers of this country to do it for us.
I have a lot of reasons. I respect that other Christians feel differently, this is just how I feel.
There are other Christians who actually feel that the social security number and the systems connected with it are the mark of the beast talked about in the Bible. That's why you'll find Christians that won't allow their children to be given a number. I'm not going that far, but just wanted to give you another example of how some people think these things violate their faith.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 15, 2012 17:30:54 GMT -5
Shoot, I meant quaker. Sorry, brain fart. This friend had a mennonite best friend, so the wires of my memory had gotten crossed I guess. And my brain misremembered it as being on the OH side of the border, probably b/c that's where the roommate was from.
Can you tell me more about this? I have never heard of social security being an issue to someone because of their faith.
1) I don't think that the concept of retirement is Biblical at all. 2) I don't think it is Biblical for anyone to steal from one person to pay for another. I feel that the government is stealing from me right now because there is no way the money they are borrowing from me is ever going to be paid back to me. 3) I think that programs like social security have contributed to the breakdown of the family unit (extended family). I believe Christ would want each of us to take care of our own families (first, and then give to others anything extra we have) and not rely on the government and the taxpayers of this country to do it for us.
I have a lot of reasons. I respect that other Christians feel differently, this is just how I feel.
There are other Christians who actually feel that the social security number and the systems connected with it are the mark of the beast talked about in the Bible. That's why you'll find Christians that won't allow their children to be given a number. I'm not going that far, but just wanted to give you another example of how some people think these things violate their faith.
Minus the SS# deal, I can understand that line of thinking. HOwever, I honestly don't know how many of us could financially take care of our families without SS. I know we're already helping how we can. I just don't know what would happen if my IL's didn't also get SS.
Can you tell me more about this? I have never heard of social security being an issue to someone because of their faith.
1) I don't think that the concept of retirement is Biblical at all. 2) I don't think it is Biblical for anyone to steal from one person to pay for another. I feel that the government is stealing from me right now because there is no way the money they are borrowing from me is ever going to be paid back to me. 3) I think that programs like social security have contributed to the breakdown of the family unit (extended family). I believe Christ would want each of us to take care of our own families (first, and then give to others anything extra we have) and not rely on the government and the taxpayers of this country to do it for us.
I have a lot of reasons. I respect that other Christians feel differently, this is just how I feel.
There are other Christians who actually feel that the social security number and the systems connected with it are the mark of the beast talked about in the Bible. That's why you'll find Christians that won't allow their children to be given a number. I'm not going that far, but just wanted to give you another example of how some people think these things violate their faith.
You had me agreeing with you on a number of things till this post
1) I don't think that the concept of retirement is Biblical at all. 2) I don't think it is Biblical for anyone to steal from one person to pay for another. I feel that the government is stealing from me right now because there is no way the money they are borrowing from me is ever going to be paid back to me. 3) I think that programs like social security have contributed to the breakdown of the family unit (extended family). I believe Christ would want each of us to take care of our own families (first, and then give to others anything extra we have) and not rely on the government and the taxpayers of this country to do it for us.
I have a lot of reasons. I respect that other Christians feel differently, this is just how I feel.
There are other Christians who actually feel that the social security number and the systems connected with it are the mark of the beast talked about in the Bible. That's why you'll find Christians that won't allow their children to be given a number. I'm not going that far, but just wanted to give you another example of how some people think these things violate their faith.
Minus the SS# deal, I can understand that line of thinking. HOwever, I honestly don't know how many of us could financially take care of our families without SS. I know we're already helping how we can. I just don't know what would happen if my IL's didn't also get SS.
I think back in the day the families just moved in with the sibling that was able to swing it. But people also didn't have the insane healthcare costs (which is an entirely different can of worms if we want to talk about faith and healthcare).
And there would always be people not willing to take care of their families, but I think that's where it is the church and community's job to step in, not the government. Our problem is that we have lost the concept of community in our culture. One reason the Amish can pull it off is because of their tight communities.
AW, I think a big difference, then, between libs and cons, is that the libs see "government" as just part of the community. The government is in charge of society. It seems like the best way to get people to comply, to distribute resources to those in need, etc. And in a republic, we can influence our own government and get them to behave in ways we, as a whole, deem beneficial. So I see the government as almost paternal in a way. It's like society is a BIG family, and the government helps it run smoothly. We're all in it together, and we're all here for each other. Think about it - failing schools affect more than just the kids not being taught. Pollution affects us all. Crime affects us all (not just victimization, but falling property values, failing schools...). So I don't necessarily see why we need to break it down further. Not to mention, your small community also has a government. We don't just need to talk about the feds, here.
I'm sure there are more social conservatives on here but they don't speak up because of the mean girl pile ons and pummelling that will happen. It's gotten to the point that I think many conservatives won't comment on a post. This saddens me. I think this board is full of great, intelligent women who can be so incredibly supportive of each other. But just don't say something too conservative or something that goes against the flow, or the gloves are off.
druidp: If you defiine yourself as personally pro-life but legally pro-choice, you'd better define yourself only as pro-choice on these boards. Trust me.
I guess I've just reached a point where I realized that it isn't the government's job to legislate what the Bible teaches.
AW, I think a big difference, then, between libs and cons, is that the libs see "government" as just part of the community. The government is in charge of society. It seems like the best way to get people to comply, to distribute resources to those in need, etc. And in a republic, we can influence our own government and get them to behave in ways we, as a whole, deem beneficial. So I see the government as almost paternal in a way. It's like society is a BIG family, and the government helps it run smoothly. We're all in it together, and we're all here for each other. Think about it - failing schools affect more than just the kids not being taught. Pollution affects us all. Crime affects us all (not just victimization, but falling property values, failing schools...). So I don't necessarily see why we need to break it down further. Not to mention, your small community also has a government. We don't just need to talk about the feds, here.
And this is where I think both the libs and the conservs aren't consistent. Sometimes it's okay to get the government involved, but other times it's not. What those times are depends on whether you're a lib or a con.
AW, I think a big difference, then, between libs and cons, is that the libs see "government" as just part of the community. The government is in charge of society. It seems like the best way to get people to comply, to distribute resources to those in need, etc. And in a republic, we can influence our own government and get them to behave in ways we, as a whole, deem beneficial. So I see the government as almost paternal in a way. It's like society is a BIG family, and the government helps it run smoothly. We're all in it together, and we're all here for each other. Think about it - failing schools affect more than just the kids not being taught. Pollution affects us all. Crime affects us all (not just victimization, but falling property values, failing schools...). So I don't necessarily see why we need to break it down further. Not to mention, your small community also has a government. We don't just need to talk about the feds, here.
And this is where I think both the libs and the conservs aren't consistent. Sometimes it's okay to get the government involved, but other times it's not. What those times are depends on whether you're a lib or a con.
I don't think that's necessarily inconsistent, tho. I think it's a different way of looking at rights. And where the government should get involved with them. Certainly there are both cons and libs that are Inconsistent on this, but not across the board.
AW, I think a big difference, then, between libs and cons, is that the libs see "government" as just part of the community. The government is in charge of society. It seems like the best way to get people to comply, to distribute resources to those in need, etc. And in a republic, we can influence our own government and get them to behave in ways we, as a whole, deem beneficial. So I see the government as almost paternal in a way. It's like society is a BIG family, and the government helps it run smoothly. We're all in it together, and we're all here for each other. Think about it - failing schools affect more than just the kids not being taught. Pollution affects us all. Crime affects us all (not just victimization, but falling property values, failing schools...). So I don't necessarily see why we need to break it down further. Not to mention, your small community also has a government. We don't just need to talk about the feds, here.
My perspective on this is that there isn't room for two fathers. Christians view God as their Father and thus the entity responsible for taking care of us and telling us how to behave. When I talk about community, I'm not talking about the government at all (except for the firemen and police officers that keep us safe). In my perfect world, none of the rest of this would exist.
I use the Bible as my guide for what God wants from us. Jesus spoke of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's. He recognized that there were governments outside of God's community that exist and will expect things from us. So, we give them what they expect, but we don't really concern ourselves with them. We don't rely on them for our morality or our care, we rely on our Christian brethren for that. Whenever we see the Bible talking about taking care of those that are in need, it talks about this giving happening through the Church (big C - the body of believers), not through a man-made institution that has nothing to do with Him.
I'm not arguing with you. I respect what you are saying. I think we both want the same things - for people in need to be taken care of and for communities to rally together to get it done. We just have different definitions of community and expectations for the government.
I didn't even know who Ayn Rand was until I was 24. That was the first time I'd heard about Atlas Shrugged. I thought it was an action movie coming out.
:-(
Especially since it's a 1000 page book where about five actual things happen.
Why do you consider the idea of retirement as un-biblical?
I can't find anything remotely like retirement mentioned anywhere in the Bible. I believe the Bible shows us that God wants us to work and to contribute to our communities for as long as we are physically able. There isn't a magical age that you suddenly get to just relax and hang out (you could argue that this would be laziness, a concept which there are plenty of verses condemning). A man is supposed to provide for his family for as long as he can. That is the task given to him by God.
The closest idea to retirement I can find in the Bible is the Sabbath rest. God worked for six days and rested on the seventh. Or the Sabbatical year. Some Christians argue that even God enjoyed a season of rest at the end of his working days. But I believe that our rest comes after we die, in heaven, not at a magical age determined by the government.
Actually, the idea of saving for retirement is something I struggle with. I had to ask my pastor to help me work through this topic. The idea of hoarding money away now so that I can use it later doesn't seem very Biblical, especially when I constantly see people who could use that money today. If I save for retirement I sometimes feel like I am not trusting in God to provide for me when I am no longer able to work.
I didn't even know who Ayn Rand was until I was 24. That was the first time I'd heard about Atlas Shrugged. I thought it was an action movie coming out.
Especially since it's a 1000 page book where about five actual things happen.
I was given the sage advice the first time I read it to just skip that 70 page speech at the end. So I was able to keep going with what little plot there was.
My concern is for the people who are not Christian. What happens to them? Do they have to convert or start attending a church in order to be considered worthy of assistance from the Christian community? How do you deal with other religions? Is it everyone takes care of their own?
I guess I am thinking that most communities would take care of their own. And if you are a part of a community that doesn't take care of their own, to me that is a red flag that there is something wrong with the community and you should find a new place to live where people actually care about one another.
As far as whether or not Christians should take care of nonbelievers - yes, I believe they should. The Bible says that we should take care of anyone in need. So, if the family next to me is struggling, I should do anything in my power to help them, regardless of whether or not they are Christians.
And just to clarify, when I say that the assistance from a community should come from the Church, I'm not saying that it should necessarily be coming from a physical church building. When I say Church (capital C), I mean the body of believers. A believer sees a need and takes care of it. If they don't have the means to help, they go to their fellow believers and rally some support and take care of their neighbor. The church doesn't even necessarily have to be involved.