Here is a piece from my old blog:
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/75-atheist-25-catholic-100-paul-ryan/

75 % Atheist + 25 % Catholic = 100 % Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan is one of the most seriously deranged and dangerous individuals in contemporary government, and the very idea of his being one dressage accident away from the Presidency fills Mr. Blunt and Cranky with dread. Ryan’s personal ideology is hugely wacked-out, but hidden behind an earnest exterior and Eddie Munster hairdo, so most Americans are not aware of just how great a threat he poses to us as citizens, and to the future of our nation as a whole.

“Conservative” Catholics (and like-minded Christians of other varieties) tend to cherry-pick biblical verses that align with their prejudices and make life easier for themselves: take one part Jesus, two parts Paul, add a dash of Leviticus, mix vigorously and voila! Custom-made theological comfort food. That is, b y the way, a pretty fair representation of the formula used by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Southern Baptists and others who oppose choice, and support the destruction of the safety net and the abolition of the separation of Church and State. By trolling the Bible and selecting which bits and bobs suit their existing natures, they can come up with a way to call themselves Christians without having to work too hard at all that difficult loving, non-judging, forgiving stuff.

Paul Ryan adds a scary new dimension to this paradigm. To the selflessness of Jesus, and the sternness of Paul and the Old Testament, he adds the selfishness and Atheism of Ayn Rand. This allows him to think himself a Christian while allowing the poor to starve, women to be abused, minorities oppressed and so on. He can apply Atheistic Darwinian Ayn Rand thinking to anyone he doesn’t like or want to deal with, and the Christian bits to those that he does like. If you think about it, this is a very succinct and cogent analysis of Paul Ryan and his growing legion of adherents. It also explains how someone who claims to be a Catholic can take the seemingly heartless and anti-Christian (indeed, sometimes inhumane) positions that Ryan espouses.

Yes, we know, he claims to embrace Ayn Rand’s egocentric and socially Darwinian philosophy while rejecting her Atheism. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do this. Don’t believe it? Read her books. Then read the Gospels. They are fundamentally incompatible. What Ryan is doing is intellectually, morally, spiritually and constitutionally inconsistent, and the fact that he is able to think in such a manner indicates that he has some pretty serious mental competency issues.

The reason this is dangerous? Americans come with values and belief systems aplenty, but you would be hard-pressed to find, say, a Hasidic pagan. Or a Moslem running a pork barbecue. Such self-contradictory attitudes are clearly ridiculous, and would be laugh-lines in a comedy sketch at best; but never a seriously considered moral code. Ryan’s contradiction goes beyond even those crazy examples: he simultaneously acts on a belief in God and the absence of God, and further seems quite comfortable with that. The man is a lunatic, plain and simple: too, Ryan intends to impose his insane “moral” views upon the rest of us, whether we like it or not.

Abortion? He picks Paul over Ayn. Feeding the poor? He picks Ayn over Jesus. The Constitutional guarantees of equality? Ayn over the Bible and the law of the land. And so on. Whatever is easier, more comfortable, or enhances his wealth or that of his family and friends, that is what he considers moral at any given time.

No one, be they Atheist or religious, can count on Paul Ryan. He will flip-flop and switch sides as it suits him and his paymasters. Whatever he wants to do at any moment, he can find a source within one of his contradictory value sources to justify his greedy, egotistical, self-centered mood du jour. Beyond one single constant (“What’s good for Paul is good for the nation”), he cannot be predicted, and thus he cannot be trusted.

An Atheistic Christian for President? If you are not scared s***less by that prospect, you are not paying attention.

Ryan and others like him picking and choosing from contradictory value sets to arrive at policy decisions.

Using whatever tools he can find to support whatever position he takes.

While I celebrate the defeat of Cantor, I shudder at the thought that this guy is now in the race. We can only hope that Cantor was defeated by crossover voting and that this man is soundly defeated.

C'mon Virginia, you can do it!

They consider the northern VA counties as an extension of solidly (D) Washington, DC. Big mistrust of DC, Arlington, Fairfax, etc. Who knows? Hopefully Brat is off kilter enough to give Independents and whatever moderate Republicans there are in the district second thoughts. (The primary only garnered a 12% turnout among Repubs).

And hopefully the Dems GOTV!

So, based on what you are saying, this guy may actually have a chance of winning.

Part of me is very alarmed by that, but part of me likes the idea of these really extremist people winning so that people can see them for what they really are.

We'll see. Yet, there's this tidbit -

The 2011 piece in Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology is one of the most sophomoric dash-offs I've ever seen:

.... The concept of usury is charged and loaded with many potential interpretations. As a seminary graduate and as a practicing economist, I find the concept so loaded with possible interpretations and misinterpretations that it is difficult to begin a project with so wide a scope. I have my own view on usury ... Now, while I realize that even reason itself is out of fashion in many philosophy departments across the nation, I have to believe that most of my seminary colleagues, pastors, and students have not fallen so far astray. I assume that we are not post-human. I am assuming that reason is with us, and that we share quite a common moral language when all is said and done. With those preliminary remarks as guideposts, let us get to usury ... We often weigh our social worth by looking to market wages, salaries, and consumption patterns. We spend much more time on market activity than God activity. Thus, Calvinism. I will make one more preliminary remark so as to try to keep my readers' attention for the remainder of this piece. How about this claim? Capitalist markets and their expansion in China and India have provided more for the common good, more "social welfare," than any other policy in the past ten years ... Over two billion people now have food to eat and some minimal goods to go along. So, as a seminary student concerned with human welfare, I naturally wanted to learn about these free markets. In the aggregate, free markets work. But when it comes to particular issues like usury, a lot of theological types want to revert to systems of planning and control. But freely determined prices are the backbone of free markets. We do not get these great outcomes if we restrict prices at every turn. I will cut to the chase and describe usury as it is practiced by businesspersons today and as it is interpreted by theologians, pastors, and other academics at present I think the most glaring error made by the interpreter class (academics and clergy) at present concerns one colossal category. Let us start with the obvious story and then get deeper and more complex as needed ...

It's one of those "I stayed up all night before the deadline to write this paper and was too tired to revise it" efforts. The references include Economics for Dummies

shows how easy it is for simpleton idealouges to be seen as "intellectual heavyweights" for the right. Reminds me a bit of Paul Ryan.

The parts of his paper he wrote that I read would've gotten an F in my school. The writing was terrible and often times not even cited properly. And beyond that, even as just opinion, it used terrible reasoning.

It's like combining the worse presuppositions inherent in libertarianism with the worse presuppositions inherent in Christianity.