It's the dumbing-down of conservatism. You can thank Rush and Sean Hannity and George W. Bush for it.

As I've said, Chambers was a very religious man, and he recognized (as some, apparently, do not) the danger in Rand's so-called "philosophy." The review of "Atlas Shrugged" says it all. However, I don't think he "hated" Rand, or anybody else. He didn't even hate Alger Hiss, who was his greatest enemy on earth, and who tried to destroy him.

Von Mises and Rand had that European thing going; they both came from the "Old World." And Von Mises was not an outspokenly religious man, if he was religious at all, so Rand tolerated him.

As for the other things I said, about her adultery, and her literally tyrannical control of her followers, I refer you to several books, written by those followers: "My Years with Ayn Rand," by her "lover" and second-in-command, Nathaniel Branden; and "The Passion of Ayn Rand," by Barbara Branden (who was the betrayed spouse). Barbara Branden also maintains her own website. The Wikipedia entry on Rand is obviously written by a disciple, but it acknowledges the facts about the Rand-Branden affair. This is very sordid stuff, and speaks volumes about Rand's personal character. If you want to understand the "fruits" of Ayn Rand's life, consider this: during the adulterous affair, both of the wronged spouses were not only aware, but expected to approve, of what was going on. For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Lu. 6:43). Ayn Rand wrote novels that are very exciting and provocative to uninformed, pseudo-intellectual adolescents who want an excuse to reject God. That is a pretty good description of me, when I discovered her books as a teenager. She made absolutely no contribution to the study of economics; she merely took the tenets of capitalism to a hysterical and irrational extreme. If she was a serious economist, then Steven King is another Shakespeare. (And please don't tell me that some serious economists, like Rothbard and Alan Greenspan, were early followers of hers; I'm already aware of it. But they eventually outgrew her, as most people do.) I don't usually make such sweeping statements, but I will this time: any Bible-believing Christian who reads Rand is wasting God's time and his own.

http://www.amazon.com/Years-Ayn-Rand.../dp/0787945137
http://www.amazon.com/Passion-Ayn-Ra.../dp/038524388X

You needn't be so defensive on this subject. I never said or implied that you were a follower of Rand; I was referring to the members of her cult. They're all over the Internet; they're not hard to find. And, make no mistake, the Objectivist movement is a cult, albeit an atheistic cult.

I've read Marx, too, as well as Engels and Veblen and all the rest; but I don't waste time, in a Christian forum, telling people how valuable their insights were.

I was quoting one of Buckley's own reminiscences of the incident, in one of his columns. It's possible that he said both things. Don't be such a grouch.

I wasn't planning to mention this, and I'd prefer to do it in a PM, but that is not an option. I met Buckley at a convention of Young Americans for Freedom in 1967; I was one of the State Chairmen. We corresponded a few times, before and after my conversion. My post-conversion letter to him is reproduced, in part, in his book "Cruising Speed." I agree with you that Buckley is probably in Hell, and it truly grieves me; he was very kind, and very encouraging, to me when I was a callow youth, and he had nothing to gain from the act. In any case, I'm sorry that my remarks about Rand triggered your ire, but I do not apologize for the remarks themselves. I could have said much worse.

I agree with you that everything, especially popular culture and personal morality, is influenced by "philosophy," broadly defined. There's as much "philosophy" in a television sitcom, like "The Simpsons," as there is in a Philosophy 101 class; it's just expressed differently. That's why I consider Francis Schaeffer, for all his Calvinism, to be so helpful: he addressed precisely those issues.

As for your general remarks about the formal study of philosophy, I simply disagree. It can, conceivably, sharpen the mind; but it also dulls the spirit and creates more doubts about God than it resolves. If you are pleased or edified by the study of secular philosophers, have at it; I've been there, done that, and can personally attest to the truth of Col. 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Ruckman's degree is a PhD, which stands for "Doctor of Philosophy." But that wasn't the subject of his dissertation. His degree is in Practical Theology: he traced the history of soul-winning preachers through history, and made the point that no scholar who isn't personally involved in soul-winning is a fraud. You can see why BJU was so glad to get rid of him!