So what explains the current Christian Right fawning over her the way some silly academic souls fawn over Wikipedia as a pretended reliable resource? Cynthia Tucker attempts an explanation, during which she correctly notes:
In the 1950s, serious Christians kept their distance from Rand. So did mainstream Republicans. The father of the modern conservative movement, William F. Buckley, was contemptuous of her, and the pages of his magazine, National Review, were anything but kind to her views.
But Rand has since been elevated to a central figure in conservatism. Business moguls have embraced her because of her frank worship of wealth. “Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue,” she said. And her contempt for government, with its regulations and taxation, was just what America’s reckless and self-centered class of business executives wanted to hear.
It’s harder to figure out how Rand came to be embraced by conservative Christians, however. Last year, the late Charles Colson made a video denouncing Rand and warning his fellow Republicans against elevating her philosophy. “It’s hard to imagine a world view more antithetical to Christianity,” he said.
That’s correct- the Rand-ian worldview is absolutely unacceptable and inappropriate for a Christian. Face it. It’s either Rand or Christianity. It’s either/ or, certainly not both/ and.