jm323

What do you suppose is the point in demanding that a prospective member believe in a Supreme Being? (I think it is the commonly held view that personal morality is not possible without some super natural being watching over and holding the individual in awe with possible cosmic punishment.) While seeking "the approval of others" certainly contradicts Objectivism; charity does not, nor would, necessarily, entering into a voluntary arrangement of mutual assistance (which was the original purpose of these fraternal, benevolent or mutual-aid societies). These kind of organizations (freemasons, Odd Fellows, etc.) came into being at a time when commercial insurance providers did not have products for ordinary individuals. Until well into the nineteenth century, insurance was only obtainable by large enterprises (shipping concerns, etc.). But, now that you can get insurance services for things like life, health, home, travel, etc. for yourself and family, why would you feel a need to join one of these archaic and ridiculous organizations? Remember that old '50s television program, The Honeymooners? Are you going to be like Ralph Kramden and his pal, Norton, members of ...what were they? Royal Order of Raccoons, was it? The stupid, humiliating rituals (...they're secret because they're so embarrassing...) and the secret hand signs? Pretty silly, right?

Thanks, Hairnet, for TheBlaze link. It had a Youtube video clip shot apparently by an Arab American festival goer; and if you go to the youtube page of that video you can see, on the right, another youtube video, an hour-long one, posted by a 'buddyfisher1', an apparent insider of this Christian group ('Bible Believers'?). The pig's head, the incendiary language, the ranting over the megaphone is all confirmed. The relevant issue is not, of course, the incendiary language and gestures, but rather whose free speech rights were violated. The internet supporters of these Christian fanatics say that regardless of how incendiary the language and actions (the pig's head, etc.) of these activists, the Muslims had no right to be violent (to throw things and shove them around, etc.). Technically, they are correct. But, what they want people to not notice (or not consider) is the fact that the activists were engaged in an act of disrupting another group's event --that it was THEY who were violating the free speech and assembly rights of the festival organizers. The arab American Chamber of Commerce had obtained a permit to use this normally public space for a term of three days for their festival. It is my understanding that the organizers even permitted people to rent booths to sell things, and that the booth renters could even distribute religious literature. These Christian activists, who have shown up for several successive years now, are never interested in renting a booth. So, what is truly shocking to me, now, (or dismaying, anyway), is the fact that the police didn't arrest these goons during or immediately after their "protest" for 'disturbing the peace' or 'dis-orderly conduct' or 'trespassing'. They pussy-footed around. How are we supposed to assimilate immigrants from the Middle East who are accustomed to mob violence, weak civil states (even if those states have powerful capricious dictators) and tribal loyalties if our own civil authorities failed to uphold laws designed to protect everyones' rights (free speech rights, property rights)? Like many people, I am concerned about assimilating Muslims into American culture and the American way of thinking; but the community of Dearborn set a pretty poor example with their behavior in this incident. This is another example of how even smart people (...police officials, even...) don't have a firm grasp of free speech rights, because they don't understand how it involves property rights (one party in this dispute clearly had the right to use that area).

This event was organized by a local Arab American Chamber of Commerce (not muslim-American, Arab-American), who obtained a festival permit from local authorities. Considering that this is an ARAB festival and not a Muslim one, and especially if the taxpayers are contributing more than just the expense of police presence, I think the question to ask is: Did the organizers set rules allowing Muslims to distribute literature and promote their faith at this festival, or did they set rules prohibiting the distribution of religious and political literature by anyone? If this is a publicly-funded event, and especially one that was never intended to be a Muslim festival (after all, there are Christian Arabs), and if the organizers allowed others (i.e. Muslims) to distribute literature there, then I certainly think the Christian activists have a case to make. Otherwise, the police should have promptly arrested these activists after just one warning. (It's clear that the police should have done something right away --either arrest the Christian activists, if they were in the wrong, or if they had a right to be there, promptly order the festival shut down in order to prevent the Muslims from feeling that they can get away with intimidating people of other faiths.)