About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Give examples of so-called financing, then we can talk again.

What example did the Inquisition set as an example?
What the crusades?

Yes, the Islam had an agressive past, but so had Christianity. On the otherside Musselmen have been present in Europe for years without unleashing a terrorist act or a war. And despite the alleged hostility, they were.
Muhammad, who was prophet and founder of Islamism, had been persecuted like the Christian minorities in Rome. Of course, unlike the Christian minorities, Muhammad chose the path of war to get his empire.

There were centuries in which Islam was rather peaceful to its neighbours and trade flourished. Even the Sharia was more lax in those times than it is nowadays.
Although the traditional and reactionary Islam has kept many countries in poverty and stagnation, Islamismis capable of transition and it will change, but certainly not in countries who are economical disasters. The original scriptures have certain militaristic parts in it, but so has the old testament.

For example:

The early (classic) Qu'ran scripture included limited tolerance of unbelievers (Jews, Christians). In those days of the writings, they were allowed to live and practice their religion in Arabic cities and countries as long as they paid a special tax. However, if we keep it in temporal context, then Islamic conclaves have been much more tolerant than Christian states of the time, who enforced strict obedience to the state religion.
It is just sad that this belief couldn't develop beyond this Golden Age and experience something like the enlightenment of the Renaissance.

(Edited by Max on 8/16, 10:45am)


Post 21

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for a great article Max.

It should also be noted that Dubai is the only Middle Eastern Arabic country where alcohol can be consumed. The opening hours for bars and night clubs are very liberal too.

I don't know why some are arguing that you have made a case for Islam here.

What you have really shown quite well is that when a Government allows free markets and personal liberty, the economy and people living there will flourish.


Post 22

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Celeste,

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're looking for from those of us you deem 'Islamic apologists' (I presume you would include me in that category because I believe that a viable secular community can emerge in the Islamic world under the right circumstances).  Here are some questions for you:

Do you believe that all Muslims are evil and not to be trusted? 
 
Are you trying to get us to support more aggressive military action against Islamists?  
 
What is your prescription for positive cultural change in the Islamic world?  (Do you even believe it's possible?)
 
What specific policies should Western governments pursue with respect to ending the Islamic threat that are not currently being pursued?


Post 23

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Believe whatever delusions you will, to their natural consequences.  I'm through discussing this.

Post 24

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It seems not to be on debate, Pete. As I see it, he doesn't want to discuss it, but seeks confirmation...

If the cause of freedom in Islam societies is doomed from the start, we would have a serious problem, because they make 22% of the world population (trend still increasing with high fertility rates in the Middle East). What else than a cultural change could help us face this problem?


Post 25

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,

You say that nothing excuses the Salem Witch Trials.  I will agree with you there.

However, I have a feeling that the Inquisition was directly related to the same hostile forces which actually caused the Crusades... Islam.

If there were Islamic saboteurs hiding out in Spain (which there were), then under sufficient conditions of duress it seems understandable that they could have decided that drastic measures to ferret out those infiltrators were necessary. 

Of course, if the Inquisition turned into a purely sadistic pasttime (like the Salem Witch Trials), then no, it is truly not excusable. 

But then again, we are coming to find out that so much of we've been told about history was written by those who enviously hate western civilization and have seen fit to entrench their campaign of lies within history books.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

I agree with your points, but you fail to understand that, even though religion is inferior to secularism, all religions are not equally inferior.  Some religions are more superior with regard to others, within the overall realm of inferiority.

Even though I consider Christianity to be inferior to objectivism, I still consider Islam to be inferior to Christianity... after having truly done my research on Islam, that is.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry Celeste - but the Inquisition was to ferret out those variants of Christianity which defied the papal views,and which had hung around after the times of Constantine and the Councils that met over the course of that time, establishing the 'official, canonical writings'...eg. the Bible. These others, of course, held to different writings and interpretations - including some which had incorporated the pagan 'earth-knowledge' of what were then considered witches.
(Edited by robert malcom on 8/16, 5:27pm)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 6:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max,

Nice article. Thank you for adding a voice of sanity in the middle of an emotional time when the "Nuke Islam" crowd is trying to gain supporters.

Intellectuals - Objectivist intellectuals - need to remember that scapegoating an entire people is not the same thing as implanting an ideology. That is the same mistake all fanatics make.

(It is not even the same thing as eliminating a hostile dictator and his military capacity.)

I am vehemently against those who slaughter innocents, whether they are misguided young suicidal fanatics, or whether they are military fanatics who like to play with nuclear weapons.

btw - Many Arabian people (in the general sense) are wonderful people. Dubai is an excellent example of that. Just as there are wonderful people the world over under other kinds of oppressive and/or irrational regimes.

Michael

Post 29

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Celeste Norcross writes: "I have a feeling that the Inquisition was directly related to the same hostile forces which actually caused the Crusades... Islam. If there were Islamic saboteurs hiding out in Spain (which there were), then under sufficient conditions of duress it seems understandable that they could have decided that drastic measures to ferret out those infiltrators were necessary."

Ahem. Please don't feed the troll.

Post 30

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Then I guess only time will reveal the truth.  Of course by then, I suspect that many of you will retroactively change your stance on things if you are proven wrong. 

Post 31

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mysticism is mysticism... no point in playing favorites.

Obsessing over any potential threat group to the degree that you're burning any bridge that could potentially be built between any moderates within the group and secularists before they're even built is just counterproductive to the establishment of a better world. 

The extremists in any group like this are representative of what the group should be if it strictly follows it's own ideas. This goes for the Islamic terrorists, Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics, murderous communist revolutionaries, lone wolf white supremacist murderers and anyone who isn't phased at the portion of their chosen philosophy/religion that excuses murder in certain contexts.
But since most people adopt a religion or a philosophy as a means to finding a guide to living their life and making themselves better people, many learn to reject the more harmful elements of their chosen ideals in order to better reach their original goal.  These people are worth reaching regardless of any philosophical missteps they may have made.

As to the inquisition, it was mainly carried out by one of the most ruthless religious states in history (overtaking most of Europe).  It's primary targets were persisting Pagans, variant Christians, and Jews.  As a means of converting individuals torture was common... there were probably many sadists who thoroughly enjoyed this but there were also probably many who just believed the ideal and saw the torture as a necessary evil.  Since this was an act by an effective "State" of the Papacy and the Catholic Church against an unarmed and defenseless populace (this was operated as an act of a form of a Court System) and the acts of Muslims function as acts of war against a potentially armed enemy I think the score is more even than many care to admit.

---Landon


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is one thing I rarely see mentioned when Islamic terrorism is brought up. The Oklahoma bombing was done in the name of Libertarian ideology more than anything else. That did not make it morally superior.

Most (not all) anti-Islamists I have seen posting recently end up having a pro-Jewish and not pro-reason agenda when they are drawn out.

Terrorism is the result of irrational and fanatical devotion to an ideology - any ideology. Reason is the only real permanent cure for that.

Our job is to get the right ideas to the right places. The rest will follow.

When we denounce, it is anti-reason that is to be denounced (including the anti-reason components of whatever ideology is being discussed). Anything less is just playing the same old irrational game that is running rampant in the world.

Claiming that one brand of mysticism is superior to another is like saying that horseshit is better than cow-shit. It's all shit and they both stink.

Michael

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 9:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When we denounce, it is anti-reason that is to be denounced (including the anti-reason components of whatever ideology is being discussed). Anything less is just playing the same old irrational game that is running rampant in the world.
If you think I wasn't doing that, I either didn't make it clear or you didn't read it clearly.  But I am definitely pro-reason and my objection to Islam is that it is the very most anti-reason philosophy going today.

What's more, I agree with you vehemently that this war needs to be about injecting reason into the muslim cultures... but where are the pro-reason pamphlets being dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Where are they in Africa and Indonesia, and all over Europe?  Or worset yet for that matter, why aren't they being dropped here in AMERICA?

Yes, spreading the philosophy and way of life of reason is our number one task here, but apparently it's not being done at all.  I wish this would move from being something that intellectuals merely talk about, to an actual military strategy in the muslim nations, particularly Iraq. 

I tend to believe, however, that GW Bush enjoys crushing his chosen enemy through brute force, rather than showing them respect by addressing their heads through real and thorough logic.  That's why I think there's no education campaign going on.



Post 34

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 12:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Celeste - I am very curious why you won't answer Pete's four questions? They seem sensible and genuine and I can see no reason to side step them. Please reconsider answering them.

Do you believe that all Muslims are evil and not to be trusted? 
 
Are you trying to get us to support more aggressive military action against Islamists?  
 
What is your prescription for positive cultural change in the Islamic world?  (Do you even believe it's possible?)
 
What specific policies should Western governments pursue with respect to ending the Islamic threat that are not currently being pursued?


Post 35

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 2:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel,

Would my answers to these questions, no matter how argumentatively accurate or compelling, possibly cause you to change your mind even one iota?  Or do you already have a consortium of opinion such that these questions only serve to ferret out all those who disagree with your party line?

There are always questions to be answered, before answering any set of questions.  You answer mine first, and your answer will determine if I judge you and these questions worthy of my answers afterward.

This is why I didn't answer them to begin with.



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Celeste-

1) Would my answers to these questions, no matter how argumentatively accurate or compelling, possibly cause you to change your mind even one iota? 

Yes. My mind is open. Change is as constant as the tides. I accept that.

2) Or do you already have a consortium of opinion such that these questions only serve to ferret out all those who disagree with your party line?

No. No consortium of opinion. And no party. Only Dan.

3) There are always questions to be answered, before answering any set of questions.  You answer mine first, and your answer will determine if I judge you and these questions worthy of my answers afterward.

In my humble opinion you appear to be cagey and unwilling to put yourself on the line and state/ define your beliefs/ thoughts. I've seen this in several of your posts. It seems, rightly or wrongly, that you feel each/ any inquiry is an attack on your good self. Well, I am not attacking. Nor am I ferreting you, or anyone else, out. What's the point? I am merely trying to have a dialogue. I thought that the questions asked were fair and balanced. Am I worthy of an answer? Kick it in the dirt or praise it. So to speak...



Post 37

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Two points:

1) apparently somebody agrees with my posts, cuz my inbox says that I'm getting three-point sanctions all the time for my posts.

2) I will continue this matter in private, if you like.


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Celeste,

This is old but I figured it warranted response to post 33.

It does seem like under your fiery rhetoric you do have a good head on your shoulders.  This may be the only time I say this but Leonard Peikoff had it right, he was saying for years that Iran should've been our primary target because it is and has been the epicenter of radical Islam and all it's dangerous side effects.  I tend to think Iraq has been a misstep from day one (with the possible exception of the initial gulf war but everything before that applies).

My personal reactions to your posts has been you seem to share some of the ideas that made the Iraq we're dealing with today possible.  Arming them to take on Iran by proxy under the "enemy of my enemy" idea until they became something that may or may not have been a legitimate threat to the US on it's own shores, but regardless due to poor military planning it's become just another Islamic cesspool of a breeding ground for the next batch of terrorists.

It becomes tempting at times to pragmatically attack a symptom of a problem when the root seems too hard to defeat but we can never loose sight of this.

As to spreading a philosophy of reason, what do you think most of us are here for.  Many of us are in positions to get Objectivist views exposed to wider audiences or are trying to reach that point (I fall into the latter).  But most of us at least do it on the grass roots level, exposing ideas to whomever we can whenever we can, vote according to our ideas in elections, and we make sure any receptive person we encounter becomes aware of the issues that need to be known.

It's a slow process, it can be a hard process, but it is ultimately worth it. 

The simplest thing about this is that there is so much that needs to penetrate the culture before change is made.  I'm quoting (paraphrasing) Peikoff in a positive light twice in one post I think there's something wrong with me but he made a good point when he said "Politics is the end result of the sum of all other branches of philosophy" attempts to change results without first facing and dealing with the cause are doomed to failure.

This is meant in good faith and I hope you understand my position.

---Landon


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.