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 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Thursday, November 9 - 6:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

Most religions have complicated enough scriptures or sayings and a large enough group of adherents that they have different versions.  Such versions vary in the extent to which they are formally organized. 

 

We are dealing with a version of Islam, not with the entire religion 

 

Just as not all Christians are responsible for attempts to drop or seriously compromise the teaching of evolution in schools or to have the state interfere with abortion, gambling, or alcoholic beverages, so not all Muslims are responsible for violence.  This is true even though we can find things in the Christian Bible that can be interpreted as calling for these actions.

 

The version of Communism that came to power in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was responsible for tens of millions being slaughtered.  If someone identified themselves as being communist, but of a different version that disapproved of the slaughter, I wouldn't blame them personally for the slaughter and, if I wanted to argue with them, would find other ways to argue.  If they advocated the takeover of businesses by laborers and/or the government, a key point would be property rights and, more specifically, the rights of those who found business establishments and keep them going.

 

I am not saying Islam is of value.  It is a religion, which means it commits the very serious fundamental error of taking fundamental ideas arbitrarily on faith.  Like any religion I'm aware of, it upholds the anti-life altruist morality.  Like Christianity, Judaism, and Eckankar, it has at its center the grossly illogical concept of "God".  But this does not mean that everything about Islam is negative or that we should not distinguish among different versions of Islam.   



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Thursday, November 9 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug, you wrote:

 

We are dealing with a version of Islam, not with the entire religion 

 

If followers of "peaceful" versions of Islam are financially funding the violent versions, and if they are acting as moral enablers, and if it turns out that is not possible to extinguish the violent versions without high levels of active participation by the other versions... then I'd say we are dealing with the entire religion. 
----------

 

If someone identified themselves as being communist, but of a different version that disapproved of the slaughter, I wouldn't blame them personally for the slaughter...

 

Doug, it is like you ignored the points I made in my last post.  I would blame the ideas of communism for the horrors committed in its name.  I would only blame the person you mention for holding bad ideas, not for the slaughter (the actions).  And you have to know a person to understand their psychology.

 

I understand that Islam has different versions.  Just as Marxism has different versions.  But we get to judge a set of ideas on their fundamentals.  I would say that the fundamentalists in Islam hold a version that is closer to that religion's ideals than any of the versions that are followed peacefully.  Just because far more Muslims are peaceful, doesn't mean they have the more accurate understanding of the ideas.  Ideas are understood objectively - not based upon a count of the number of followers.  



Post 42

Thursday, November 9 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug, you wrote:

 

Most religions have complicated enough scriptures or sayings and a large enough group of adherents that they have different versions.  Such versions vary in the extent to which they are formally organized. 

 

Yes, but in your last post you had no problem making very clear judgments of all religions: "It [Islam] is a religion, which means it commits the very serious fundamental error of taking fundamental ideas arbitrarily on faith.  Like any religion I'm aware of, it upholds the anti-life altruist morality.  Like Christianity, Judaism, and Eckankar, it has at its center the grossly illogical concept of 'God'. "

 

Please note that you were able to make clear-headed, objective judgments despite having to generalize from a hodge-podge of different, 'complicated scriptures or sayings'.  There is no reason to treat Islam as exempt from judgment - read its 'complicated scriptures'.  Remember that the Koran is shared by every version of Islam - the same fundamentals.  Whose version is the more accurate interpretation?



Post 43

Thursday, November 9 - 1:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

You've talked about needing legislation or a declaration of war to let us do what we need to do about terrorism.  Can you be more specific about what, exactly, you have in mind?



Post 44

Thursday, November 9 - 2:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug, 

 

The founding fathers did not want the executive branch to be able to declare war or to engage in war without a declaration of war.  They specified that the declaration was to be done by the elected officials that were more closely controlled by the citizens - the House of Representatives.

 

The principle, beyond the declaration of war being closer to the voters, was that the government defend our nation against foriegn aggression.  

 

In the past, a declaration of war was always against a nation-state.  Even when Jefferson finally sent our brand new navy against the Barbary pirates - middle-eastern nations were the declared enemy.  ("...from 1530 to 1780 as many as 1,250,000 people were enslaved [by the Barbary pirates], they were being directed by leaders of Islamic nations." - Wikipedia) 

 

"Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli 'and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.'"  - Wikipedia.

 

The nations involved were Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis and the Sultanate of Morocco - but, collectively, they were the Ottoman Empire and usually acted as a single nation. 

 

"In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed 'An act for the protection of commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers', authorizing the President to '…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.' The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli -, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port." - Wikipedia

 

The Barbary States had been taking Americans as slaves, extorting the United States government to avoid attacks on American shipping, and taking merchant ships flying the American flag.

-------------

 

The two principles at stake were followed:  Congress authorized the war and it was to defend against attacks on Americans by foriegn actors.

--------------

 

The legislation we need today would declare war against those organizations engaged in acts of terrorism against the United States (ISIS, Al Queda, etc.)  That each such organization would be named explicitly (obviously, it could not be left to the discretion of the administration).  When new terrorist organizations spring up, Congress would amend the declaration of war to include them.  And the legislation would state that any person or organization providing material aid or support to such organizations could be convicted for aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war.



Post 45

Thursday, November 9 - 8:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In many respects, the way politically correct, multicultural, inclusive, egalitarian, democratic, peaceful, tolerant, accepting, loving, etc. Westerners and Americans "reason" about Muslims and Islam today is hilarious and perfect.

Only a tiny number of Muslims in the world, West, and America perpetrate terrorism. Only a tiny number of Muslims in the world, West, and America support terrorism. Most Muslims are good people. If you condemn most Muslims you're an Islamaphobe and racist. It's very unfair to blame all or most Muslims for the acts of a tiny minority. They're hijackers and perverters of Islam -- not real Islamics. We shouldn't be always calling upon our Muslim friends to denounce every act of Muslim horror -- this is unfair, bigoted, insensitive, etc. Muslims are the greatest victims of all these atrocities. Muslims are our best friends in stopping terrorism. If you condemn most Muslims or Islam you're just goading them to join the radicals. If you condemn most Muslims or Islam you're just justifying all their horrors. If you condemn most Muslims or Islam you legitimize their violence. If you condemn most Muslims or Islam you are the guilty party and are responsible for all of their atrocities. Only radical, extremist, fundamentalist, militant, political, salufist, Islamist Muslims are evil -- not normal ones. Muslims have suffered terribly at the hand of the West and America thru history. Muslims are suffering terribly today at the hands of anti-Islamic bigotry. We need to study their history. We need to learn their beliefs. We need to speak their language. We need to stop using the word "jihad". We need to realize Islam means "peace" -- and all their other definitions. We need to give them sharia courts and no-go neighborhoods. Our evil towards Islam and Muslims is virtually infinite. Theirs toward us is virtually negligible. Anyway, it isn't right to mention or study it. And it's counterproductive. No-one's perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Is America and the West so great? Why play the blame game? You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. We need to better learn to convert enemies to friends. We need to learn to love our Muslim friends and allies far more. Westerners and Americans are mostly to blame for all the misunderstandings and animosity. Ultimately, our enemy isn't them but ourselves.  

This type of "logic" never ends. If you follow it, then all truth, reason, and morality dies. All humans too -- and good riddance!  

 

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 11/09, 8:28pm)



Post 46

Friday, November 10 - 5:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Kyrel, you took the opposite side of the false coin when you asked "why aren't the vast majority of Muslims in America arrested, jailed, executed, or deported?".



Post 47

Sunday, November 12 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

If all of our evils stem from the Frankfurt School of sociology ensconced at Columbia, then why not kill them all?

 

We deal with Kyrel and Steve as if they are positing a real problem and suggesting rational solutions. They are not.

 

At the very top Kyrel asks rhetorically why we do not imprison, deport, and kill Muslims. Steve does not distance himself from that, but joins in.

 

This has gone on long enough. 



Post 48

Sunday, November 12 - 7:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael -- Your comments on this discussion thread aren't serious or fair. You're not accurately representing my questions or views. You need to learn to read.

At the top of the discussion, I asked why America and the Western states don't deport those folks in-country who support jihad and sharia. I'm still asking. I asked why America and the Western states don't jail those who significantly finance jihad and sharia. I'm still asking. I asked why America and the Western states don't execute the jihadis and shariaists, i.e. kill the killers and mass-enslavers. I'm still asking.

 

People have the absolute right to subscribe to any philosophy they wish, including embracing communism, Nazism, Satanism, and Islam. But intellectual enemies and traitors to Western liberalism of such severity don't merit the privilege of living in America, in my judgment. They're an objective threat. And once members of these four groups, and the like, start to practice their evil beliefs, and begin to coerce others accordingly, they're committing a crime. I especially think those who fund jihad and sharia at some fairly large level -- say $1,000 per year to The Holyland Foundation (as in the standard Muslim charity donation of 2 1/2% based on a standard American income of $40,000/year) -- are guilty of a serious crime and need to be jailed.

As Steve and others note, America and the West currently seem to have a stunningly irrational and foolish immigration policy: one based upon self-hatred and self-destruction.



Post 49

Sunday, November 12 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug -- So what do you think should be America's policy toward would-be immigrants who passionately hate America's philosophy and politics, and seek to destroy both? Especially what should be America's immigration policy towards dangerous, anti-American Third Worlders and Muslims? As best I can tell, I think morality, wisdom, and Objectivism dictate that these genuine enemies and objective traitors be kept and kicked out.  



Post 50

Sunday, November 12 - 9:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Marotta's comments aren't rational.  They strike me as a product of bitter anger.  Instead of answering any of the questions raised in this thread, they display the favorite tactic of the progressives: demonize your opponents.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Monday, November 13 - 5:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Kyrel,

 

Nobody should be kicked or kept out unless convicted of an actual felony.

 

(Any citizen, resident, immigrant, or visitor who is suspected of intending to commit a felony should be subject to whatever additional investigation and surveillance is appropriate and constitutional, with the twofold aim of preventing any felony if possible, and of at least having more evidence if the person actually commits a felony.)

 

(Edited by Doug Morris on 11/13, 5:44am)



Post 52

Monday, November 13 - 5:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Kyrel,

 

At the top of the discussion you implied that the vast majority of Muslims support physical aggression.  Michael and I disagree.

 

How many of those who contributed to the Holy Land Foundation knew that it was supporting terrorism?

 

If an organization says it is funding the spread of Objectivist ideas and legitimate Objectivism-based projects, and is actually doing a little of that, and I believe them and contribute, whether stingily or generously, and it then turns out that they are helping people who blow up government office buildings, mosques, churches, and synagogues and/or murder policemen, Muslims, alt rightists, and Anti-Fa aggressors, am I guilty of a crime?



Post 53

Monday, November 13 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In post #52 Doug asks:

"If an organization says it is funding the spread of Objectivist ideas and legitimate Objectivism-based projects, and is actually doing a little of that, and I believe them and contribute, whether stingily or generously, and it then turns out that they are helping people who blow up government office buildings, mosques, churches, and synagogues and/or murder policemen, Muslims, alt rightists, and Anti-Fa aggressors, am I guilty of a crime?"

Yes. You're morally and legally responsible for your own acts. If you fund enslavement and murder -- and innocents get enslaved and murdered because of you -- you bear a lot of responsibility for the horrors committed. If you're honestly ignorant, then that's a mitigating factor, and your moral and legal guilt is less. It's like you getting drunk and accidentally killing a family with your car. 

But Muslims rarely fool other Muslims. They mostly fool non-Muslims, especially Westerners. People like you. Westerners today are so brainwashed about Islam and Muslims -- and so terrified of being called an "Islamophobe" and "racist" -- that it's child's play to fool a Westerner. People need to study. They need to reject the false and evil social ideals of post-modernist philosophy which results in political correctness, multi-culturalism, diversity, inclusion, egalitarianism, democracy, peace, etc. They need to learn the true nature of Islam and the Islamics, historically and currently. Despite what virtually everyone thinks today, it's actually very simple to do so.

In my ultra-quick view, the essence of the philosophy of Islam is four concepts or social ideals: 1) jihad or aggressive warfare against the planet; 2) sharia or the enslavement of the planet; 3) shahada or martyrdom to do the first two; 4) takiya or lying to Westerners about the first three.

Yes, there's a lot more to learn. But I think the above four philosophical ideals are fair and accurate, and a good place to start. Check out www.jihadwatch.org!



Post 54

Monday, November 13 - 2:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi Doug,

 

You were replying to Kyrel, and you wrote:

 

Nobody should be kicked or kept out unless convicted of an actual felony.

 

Actually, if the person is not here legally, or is here legally, but only on a visa, they don't have any right to remain.  They can be deported without a felony conviction.  Also, anyone who has neither a green card nor citizenship has no legal right to enter the country. They can be kept out.  Gaining citizenship or a green card represents the granting of certain civil rights (being able to enter the country, being able to vote, etc.)

 

Creating the laws that govern both immigration and visas is up to the Congress - who speaks, in theory, for the citizens who are the owners-in-common of all public spaces and public property.  Execution of the laws, (and determinations that are required for national security - when there is a nation threat) is up to the Executive branch.



Post 55

Monday, November 13 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ultimately, my immigration policy for America and any free nation is this: Recruit, and let in, anyone who is a good person who enhances the culture and quality of life of the country. Keep out, and deport, anyone who is a bad person who degrades the culture and quality of life of the country.

I think fascists, communists, and Muslims -- who are relatively sincere and activist in their evil philosophies -- are bad people who degrade the culture and quality of life. 





Post 56

Monday, November 13 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

Congress has passed all sorts of laws, among them the antitrust laws, assorted subsidies, and laws criminalizing marijuana use.  Many of these laws are wrong, should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.

 

Laws restricting people's freedom of movement (as long as they aren't trespassing on private property) or their ability to remain in a country are wrong, should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.  Some exceptions for convicted felons might be OK, but not for anyone else. 



Post 57

Monday, November 13 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Kyrel,

 

According to Wikipedia you are conflating shahada, shahid, and istishhad.

 

Martyrdom can be either aggressive or defensive.

 

If you want to get at the essence of Islam, why not mention theism, belief in scriptures, or the five pillars?

 

I have already posted about jihad, sharia, and taqiya, and see no reason to repeat myself. 



Post 58

Monday, November 13 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug, you wrote:

 

Congress has passed all sorts of laws, among them the antitrust laws, assorted subsidies, and laws criminalizing marijuana use.  Many of these laws are wrong, should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.

 

That is very true.  We agree completely on that.  There are a huge number of bad laws.

 

But it doesn't mean that laws which define acts that violate individual rights, such as laws regarding murder, robbery, extortion, and fraud should be repealed. Would I be wrong to assume you agree with that?

----------------

 

Laws restricting people's freedom of movement (as long as they aren't trespassing on private property) or their ability to remain in a country are wrong, should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.  Some exceptions for convicted felons might be OK, but not for anyone else. 

 

There are serious problems with that statement.  First, since you are saying that people should be able to enter the country - and should not be restricted, you are talking about human rights... not rights granted by law (such as a right to vote, or a right to run for president, etc.)  But if people, born outside the country, residing outside the country, and having no American citizenship or a green card have an individual right to enter our country, then where does the government get off saying they have to stop everyone at the border to check that they are not convicted felons?  We don't allow stops on the streets to verify non-felony status.  And do we treat the list of felonies of foriegn nations as identical to ours?  Look... if every human being has the right to enter our country, then we have no borders.  You have to go all the way, or not at all.  

---------------

 

I've explained, in great detail, in other threads, why the citizens of our country are the owners (owners-in-common) of all public spaces and public buildings and the political and legal structures.  Just as the stockholders in a corportation are the owners of that corporation.  Their ownership rights are limited and the same is true regarding what a citizen can do.  The corporation is run for the stockholders by the board and its selected top officers.  The public property we citizens own is managed by government which we have limited control over (voting).  That concept of property rights - in the nation, by its citizens - is a key part of the foundation of representative government - of a republic.  We have a border for the same reason that all property is limited.  What is owned is finite and specific.  When someone steps over the border (legally) they come under an entire set of laws shaped by a unique history.  That set of laws, that history, for a given nation can make it a very desirable place to be or a place people would pay money and risk death to get out of.  That huge difference between value and disvalue is also a kind of property.  No one has the legal or moral right to come into my house without my permission.  No one has the moral or legal right to enter our country without requesting permission (e.g., a visa).

-----------------

 

Some libertarians and most anarchists believe that no one - including the government - has a right to stop someone from entering our country: open borders.  They are wrong.  They talk about freedom of movement.  But freedom is freedom from force.  That is a condition that requires the machinery of  good government operations under to good laws to create that freedom.  Freedom doesn't grow on trees.  It is the outcome of that good government taking the initiation of force out of the marketplace.  You can choose to do whatever you want, as long as it does not include the initiation of force.  Trespass is a form of initiated force.  It is a violation of property rights.  It applies to a person's house, to a corporations property, and to all of the properties managed by our government.  It certainly applies to the border.  



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Monday, November 13 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The more war is waged against Islam or the Muslim religion the more powerful the jihadists will become.

 

Wage war against fascism instead. Jihadists are fascists.

 

--Brant



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.