Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'm not a Libertarian (or a political scientist).

You wouldn't have to be if you had read the next paragraph.

For example, if 'A' has a negative right to life against 'B', then 'B' is required to refrain from killing 'A'; while if 'A' has a positive right to life against 'B', then 'B' is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of 'A'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, replacing my quote with a different text and calling me pedantic doesn't clear up anything.

That is a very serious charge, please check it. I have changed nothing about your post, not its wording, its location or to what it was replying, nor have I mischaracterized it. If you think I have, you'll have to demonstrate how.

He uses the pronoun "they" to refer to all Muslims. He backs up his charge that all Muslims are at war with the US with reification (their religion is waging war against the US, so they must be waging war too).

That's not the way I read it. Here is what he said:

There is only one ideology that I know of that is currently waging physical war against us. Fundamentalist Islam. And there is currently only one mosque that is being built at the site of their initial attack and victory against us. The Cordoba House.

Why did I emphasize that they're waging a physical war against us, when it's the ideology we must defeat? Because rights can only be violated by the initiation of force. There are a plethora of ideologies that are opposed to our way of life, but you can be opposed to something without violating someone's rights over it. Islam is the one whose most serious adherents are now trying their hardest to violate our rights. [emphasis added]

I'm not going to speak for Amaroq but I agree with him and you disagree -- and apparently you and I read him differently. So I will speak for myself and tell you how I read his words and if he disagrees with my interpretation, then he is free to speak for himself.

As you can see, the emphasized pronoun "they" refers to those that are "waging physical war against us" and he names them as the ones holding a "Fundamentalist Islam" ideology. You have apparently named the movement "Islamic terrorism" (which, if we're being consistent, isn't people either, the people would be called "terrorists", so if Amaroq is reifying, then so are you). (Additionally, I think there are other problems with identifying our enemies as terrorists, however I do know what you are talking about). I have called the movement "totalitarian Islam" (which is the nomenclature promulgated by ARI), to which you replied:

Islam is totalitarian. There is no difference between Islam and totalitarian Islam. And the plan to eradicate it would be to start removing Muslims from the face of the Earth, until they either all renounce their religion or they're all dead. Then continue on with Catholicism, which is also a totalitarian religion [...]

I have no desire to eradicate either, because most of their followers are peaceful.

You and I use the word "totalitarian" in different ways. "Totalitarian" usually refers to political goals. So while Catholicism is dogmatic it really doesn't encourage a totalitarian state (and if the Pope does then none of his followers takes him seriously). "Totalitarian Islam" is an ideology and a movement and I use the name so as to distinguish it from "Islam". Also, the comparison of Catholicism to Islam is an equivocation. There are stark differences, one has been reformed the other has not. To not notice the differences is to ignore reality. If you want to compare 13th Century Catholicism with current Islam, then that is OK.

The cool thing about ideas is that they are held by human beings, who have free will, and so can change their minds at any time. This is how you can "eradicate" an ideology: by people choosing not to follow it. Just as there are no serious Japanese Imperialists or Nazis anymore. So WWII is an object lesson on how to "eradicate" an ideology.

If you wish to ask about a plan to win the war on Islamic terrorism instead, you should start a different thread. I'll answer it if I can think of anything constructive to say. But this thread is about a group of Muslims building a religious facility in New York, not about terrorism. I have seen no evidence that they are guilty of being terrorists or conspiring with any terrorists (not denying they could be, I heard rumors about the Imam's ties to various groups, but seen no evidence).

You are living in a different reality than me. Do you honestly maintain that there is no connection between Muslims and terrorists? Even if I grant that some specific Muslim is not involved in terrorist activities, you still see no connection? This is absurd and you acknowledge such in your last parenthetical statement: "not denying they could be ..." There is no argument if there is no connection.

That is my position and I do also agree with the way you phrased it: "We have no right to wage war against people who are not using force against us."

What specifically is wrong with it? Where would the right to wage war against someone not using force against you come from?

That is your position, I didn't say it was mine. My position is that we have the right to retaliate against those who threaten us and those people who provide support to an enemy who is actively killing us are a threat.

I don't think you've addressed the actual argument and have instead argued against things no one has proposed. Let us agree that wars are fought by people, that the roots of war are ideological in nature and what you call "Islamic terrorism" I call "totalitarian Islam" and Amaroq calls "fundamentalist Islam". Is this going to be hard for you to do? I see that even though Amaroq has stated this explicitly that you still insist that that is not what he is saying. I don't see how you can have a conversation this way.

Here is the argument simplified if you wish to address it:

1. You can't do whatever you want with your property (for instance you can't threaten other's rights on your property).

2. We are at war (whether it is declared or undeclared doesn't change the fact that we are at war).

3. The existence of Mosques provides support to the people we are at war with.

4. While we are at war, no one has the right to threaten us by supporting our enemies.

I would be happy to elaborate on any of the points above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the tacticts involved with in defeating Islam as an ideology would have to be from a similar playbook as the one used to defeat imperialist Japan. Unfortunately, Im sure thats not going to happen. Waging a war from the inside out against the priciples that this country was founded on isnt the pragmatic solution though.

OK, this is good, at least we have some common ground. Tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you agree that:

- we are at war

- It is a form of Islam we are at war with

- it is possible to defeat an ideology as we defeated Imperialist Japan

- individual rights should be protected

Below is the simplified argument I provided to Jake Ellison, tell me which of the points you disagree with or which you would like more elaboration on.

1. You can't do whatever you want with your property (for instance you can't threaten other's rights on your property).

2. We are at war (whether it is declared or undeclared doesn't change the fact that we are at war).

3. The existence of Mosques provides support to the people we are at war with.

4. While we are at war, no one has the right to threaten us by supporting our enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the comparison of Catholicism to Islam is an equivocation.

What comparison??? Quote me.

The cool thing about ideas is that they are held by human beings, who have free will, and so can change their minds at any time. This is how you can "eradicate" an ideology: by people choosing not to follow it. Just as there are no serious Japanese Imperialists or Nazis anymore. So WWII is an object lesson on how to "eradicate" an ideology.

There are Nazis who are at least as serious about Nazi ideology as this Imam is about his ideology. You don't have the right to initiate force against either.

3. The existence of Mosques provides support to the people we are at war with.

Elaborate on this one, by formulating a wider principle than one referring only to Islam and our current war against Islamists (people who seek to impose Islam on others by force).

In the widest possible context (that of a generic state of war against an enemy), what beliefs and statements on the part of citizens of the defending country constitute support of the enemy? And, relying on Objectivist principles that guide the use of force, how do you justify the use of force against people who hold such beliefs or make such statements?

It is a form of Islam we are at war with

I'm not at war with any form of Islam, or any other kind of an ideology. I oppose Islam, but am not at war with it. In fact, in such a war I would choose to uphold the First Amendment, and fight against the people seeking to wage war against Islam, or any form of it.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What comparison??? Quote me.

I already did but I'll do it again:

Islam is totalitarian. There is no difference between Islam and totalitarian Islam. And the plan to eradicate it would be to start removing Muslims from the face of the Earth, until they either all renounce their religion or they're all dead. Then continue on with Catholicism, which is also a totalitarian religion (I can back that up with very recent comments from the Pope, urging political leaders to enforce his religion on their people).

And here is what I said about the comparison:

Also, the comparison of Catholicism to Islam is an equivocation. There are stark differences, one has been reformed the other has not. To not notice the differences is to ignore reality. If you want to compare 13th Century Catholicism with current Islam, then that is OK.

Now you've accused me twice of some form of intellectual dishonesty and since you are unable to demonstrate that such is the case, then I think in all justice you owe me an apology.

There are Nazis who are at least as serious about Nazi ideology as this Imam is about his ideology. You don't have the right to initiate force against either.

That doesn't speak very well for the Imam does it but I don't propose to initiate force at all. Instead I propose that we retaliate against those who threaten us.

3. The existence of Mosques provides support to the people we are at war with.

This is a statement of fact not a principle, do you doubt that it is true? To give a couple examples of similar facts: building a Nazi temple or Imperial Japanese temple during WWII would have provided support to our enemies at the time.

In the widest possible context (that of a generic state of war against an enemy), what beliefs and statements on the part of citizens of the defending country constitute support of the enemy? And, relying on Objectivist principles that guide the use of force, how do you justify the use of force against people who hold such beliefs or make such statements?

Beliefs, most certainly, are not assailable by the government. Speech, like property, if it objectively threatens the basis of Rights, life, is a violation of Rights. So yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater is not allowed and nor would credible threats backed-up by the use of force be allowed -- and this would be true even if we weren't at war.

But no need to get so academic since we aren't talking about beliefs or statements, we are talking about building a building that supports an enemy who is killing us right now.

I'm not at war with any form of Islam, or any other kind of an ideology. I oppose Islam, but am not at war with it. In fact, in such a war I would choose to uphold the First Amendment, and fight against the people seeking to wage war against Islam, or any form of it.

It is clear from my posts that I advocate killing the people who are attacking us and that if the only thing our enemies are hurling at us are ideas, then we can not retaliate with force. However, your insistence on belaboring this line of attack in which we must tolerate the ideas of those who are actually attacking us is self-sacrificial. Do you not understand that ideas cause action and that the roots of war are ideological in nature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the argument simplified if you wish to address it:

1. You can't do whatever you want with your property (for instance you can't threaten other's rights on your property).

2. We are at war (whether it is declared or undeclared doesn't change the fact that we are at war).

3. The existence of Mosques provides support to the people we are at war with.

4. While we are at war, no one has the right to threaten us by supporting our enemies.

THANK YOU! I was seriously considering double posting in order to present it point-by-point like this. This is more or less a simplified point by point presentation of the argument I gave. I think if I pulled the premises and conclusion out of my original post, I could make it a bit more rigorous. But thank you for bringing this conversation back to the actual point.

When I said I don't give a damn about the imam's intentions, I meant it, and I had a reason for it. His intentions aren't the point. Just like if you build a nuclear bomb in your back yard, your intentions for it aren't important. In both situations, whatever your intentions are, you're creating a threat to other Americans' lives, and the government is justified in stopping you.

Rather than address this argument, people started pulling out fallacies and arguing on technicalities. (I believe CS actually tried to address it. He's the only one who has.)

I'll also elaborate on what I said about us being at war with fundamentalist Islam. Yes, we are at physical war with the people who hold these ideas. But you cannot simply fight the people who hold the idea. You have to fight the idea itself. Islam is the source of the radical Muslims' actions, and if you only defeat them physically, they'll act on their ideas again. In order to win, we must defeat Islam. Not just the people, but the idea as well.

You know what? I will provide a point by point argument of my own. (Conclusions in bold. Premises that were conclusions in previous sub-arguments will also be bold.)

Premises:

-Rights are limited and contextual. You do not have a right to violate other peoples' rights.

-Initiation of force always violates rights.

-If you help someone initiate force, you are initiating force too.

-If you undermine a victim's attempts to protect themselves from the initiation of force, you are helping the initiator initiate force.

__________________________________________________

Therefore, you do not have the right to help someone initiate force, and you do not have the right to undermine a victim's attempts to protect themselves from the initiation of force.

Premises:

-Seeing your values symbolized in concrete form can give you emotional fuel and support.

-Seeing a concrete symbol representing the destruction of your values can drain or wound you emotionally.

-It is possible for a person to create a concrete object that symbolizes certain values.

__________________________________________________

Therefore, it is possible for a person to spiritually (that which pertains to the mind) support/refuel or drain/wound another person by symbolizing certain values in concrete form.

Every premise I've stated so far should be well established, and the conclusions follow from the premises. I don't think any Objectivist should have any disagreements with me so far. Let's continue, taking the conclusions above as premises.

Premises:

-Spiritually supporting an initiator of force helps him initiate force.

-Spiritually draining a victim who is defending himself against the initiation of force undermines his attempts to defend himself from the initiation of force.

-It is possible for a person to spiritually support or drain another person by symbolizing certain values in concrete form.

-You do not have the right to help someone initiate force, nor do you have the right to undermine a victim's attempts to defend themselves from the initiation of force.

__________________________________________________

Therefore, you do not have the right to symbolize, in concrete form, values that emotionally support an initiator of force or that drain a victim emotionally who is defending himself from the initiation of force.

Premises:

-When two groups of people are at war, they are fighting for a value or values antithetical to each others' values.

-For each side, victory means the success of their values.

-For each side, defeat means the destruction of their values.

-America is at war with fundamentalist Muslims. (Whether we identify it or not.)

__________________________________________________

Therefore, America and fundamentalist Muslims are fighting each other for antithetical values.

Victory for America means the success of our values and the destruction of fundamentalist Muslim values.

Defeat for America means the destruction of our values and the success of fundamentalist Muslim values.

Premises:

-At the site of a battle or attack, if a concrete symbol of one side's values is placed there, the context of its placement makes it a symbol of victory for the side whose values are symbolized by it.

-Ground Zero was the site of an attack by fundamentalist Muslims against America.

-A mosque is a concrete symbol of Muslim values. (Fundamentalist or otherwise.)

__________________________________________________

Therefore, a Mosque on Ground Zero would be a symbol of victory for fundamentalist Muslims, and a symbol of defeat for Americans.

Now then, let's pull down some more of these conclusions and use them as premises.

Premises:

-Fundamentalist Muslims are initiators of force against America, who (qua country) is a victim defending itself against this initiation of force..

-You do not have the right to symbolize, in concrete form, values that emotionally support an initiator of force or that drain a victim emotionally who is defending himself from the initiation of force.

-America and fundamentalist Muslims are fighting each other for antithetical values. Victory for America means the success of our values and the destruction of fundamentalist Muslim values. Defeat for America means the destruction of our values and the success of fundamentalist Muslim values.

-A Mosque on Ground Zero would be a symbol of victory for fundamentalist Muslims, and a symbol of defeat for Americans.

__________________________________________________

Therefore, the Imam does not have the right to build a mosque on Ground Zero.

I don't think it's even possible to make this any clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.facebook....456171 (it's facebook but available to non-facepalm users.)

Tore Boeckmann points out in the above that Ayn Rand did NOT believe someone, during the Vietnam war, had a right to wave a Viet Cong flag around in public, even if the flag, and everything else involved, was that individual's property.

I am watching this thread unsure which side is correct; both make what seem to me to be pretty strong arguments.

But I see here an Objectivist (Ayn Rand herself) making an argument that would appear to support the position of those who would ban the mosque. I am assuming here that everyone believes their position to be consistent with Objectivism, so now I have to see if I can reconcile the "don't ban the mosque" position with AR's words here.

A) Does anyone who is anti-ban-the-mosque wish to make the statement that AR misapplied Objectivism with respect to the VC flag? Or similarly that it falls into a similar "bucket" as her statements on homosexuality, where the statement is wrong but it being so doesn't invalidate Objectivism?

B ) If not, then the only way to show that anti-ban-the-mosque is not necessarily inconsistent with Objectivism would be to somehow show that there is a fundamental difference between the two situations. What is that difference?

Edit: stupidass sunglass emoticon!

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you've accused me twice of some form of intellectual dishonesty and since you are unable to demonstrate that such is the case, then I think in all justice you owe me an apology.

I accused you of being wrong. And I believe I factually proved you wrong, on both issues. In fact, now I'm accusing you of being wrong a third time, since you're also not gonna find any speculation about why you're wrong, in my posts.

But no need to get so academic since we aren't talking about beliefs or statements, we are talking about building a building that supports an enemy who is killing us right now.

An office building in NY supports the killing of Americans? How? It's an inanimate object.

Do you not understand that ideas cause action and that the roots of war are ideological in nature?

I understand what you are saying just fine. I just don't agree with it. Ideas don't cause actions, that suggestion contradicts free will.

And just because there is some meaning to the metaphor "the roots of war are ideological in nature", it doesn't follow that you have the right to use force against people for their beliefs. Not even if others who have held those same beliefs chose to wage war.

In fact, you should avoid using metaphors to justify the use of force against a person altogether. Initiation of force is a concrete act committed by individuals. Unless you can show that the Imam himself has acted to initiate force, your use of force against him is unjustified. No matter what abstract principles he subscribes to, and what building he builds to preach them in.

http://www.facebook....456171 (it's facebook but available to non-facepalm users.)

Tore Boeckmann points out in the above that Ayn Rand did NOT believe someone, during the Vietnam war, had a right to wave a Viet Cong flag around in public, even if the flag, and everything else involved, was that individual's property.

I am watching this thread unsure which side is correct; both make what seem to me to be pretty strong arguments.

But I see here an Objectivist (Ayn Rand herself) making an argument that would appear to support the position of those who would ban the mosque. I am assuming here that everyone believes their position to be consistent with Objectivism, so now I have to see if I can reconcile the "don't ban the mosque" position with AR's words here.

A) Does anyone who is anti-ban-the-mosque wish to make the statement that AR misapplied Objectivism with respect to the VC flag? Or similarly that it falls into a similar "bucket" as her statements on homosexuality, where the statement is wrong but it being so doesn't invalidate Objectivism?

B ) If not, then the only way to show that anti-ban-the-mosque is not necessarily inconsistent with Objectivism would be to somehow show that there is a fundamental difference between the two situations. What is that difference?

Edit: stupidass sunglass emoticon!

Here's Tom Boeckmann's argument: "And can there be any doubt that the Ground Zero mosque, scheduled to open on 9/11, is a celebration of the enemy's biggest coup--and that it will be so perceived by Islamic totalitarians all over the world, as well as by their ever more demoralized opponents?"

Why yes there can be plenty of doubt. A mosque is not just the chosen symbol of the people who are attacking us. It is also the type of building many generations of Muslims, including a billion who are alive today, chose to pray in.

I can think of nothing more monstrous than having the US government pick and choose the symbolic meaning of things and imposing their subjective choice on the American people to the point where they can declare any Muslim establishment near the WTC site a "symbol of the enemy which attacked us".

A Mosque on Ground Zero would be a symbol of victory for fundamentalist Muslims, and a symbol of defeat for Americans.

Maybe to you. To me it isn't. To me an Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero (how it turned into a mosque at GZ, in your rhetoric, is beyond me) is a symbol of the presence of Muslims, and of their desire to gather and worship peacefully, in Manhattan. My evaluation of its symbolism can easily be backed up, by the countless similar establishments being used to convey that exact same meaning, everywhere there are Muslims (including in NYC).

Your guess at its symbolism is speculation at best, a malicious fabrication otherwise.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused as to why building a mosque is morally wrong.

I almost laughed out loud scrolling past Amaroq's extensive post and seeing this.

Robin, the post above yours outlined the argument for that side quite clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to hear your view on what other conclusions the following result might lead to:

Therefore, you do not have the right to symbolize, in concrete form, values that emotionally support an initiator of force or that drain a victim emotionally who is defending himself from the initiation of force.

You make this statement prior even to introducing the concept of war into the argument at all. Presumably, as you did not include anything about the context of war in the premises supporting the conclusion, war vs. peace is irrelevant to this particular conclusion. Am I wrong?

Alternatively, if I am right, how far would this conclusion extent? An Obama bumper sticker concretizes a large amount of values associated with what he stands for, many of which are rights-violationg and force-initiating as understood by Objectivists. This conclusion would seem to support the argument that people therefore do not have a right to concretize the values of the Obama presidential campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conclusion would seem to support the argument that people therefore do not have a right to concretize the values of the Obama presidential campaign.

To find out how far this conclusion extends, you have to use a method based on an arbitrary, subjective standard that serves as a unit for measuring the amount of feelings that are being hurt by a given group. It is apparently impossible to fight a ridiculous pseudo-war against completely irrelevant targets with your feelings hurt. I think thats the gist of it.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THANK YOU! I was seriously considering double posting in order to present it point-by-point like this. This is more or less a simplified point by point presentation of the argument I gave. I think if I pulled the premises and conclusion out of my original post, I could make it a bit more rigorous. But thank you for bringing this conversation back to the actual point.

....[LOTS OF GOOD STUFF HERE]

I don't think it's even possible to make this any clearer.

Very good, very good! Just to elaborate a little on the part about what war is. I will reformulate that part a little more completely for you. Though I focus largely on the one particular enemy, the logic applies far more generally than that:

"

-When two groups of people are at war, they are fighting for a value or values antithetical to each others' values.

- For each side victory the war ends when an enemy is no longer willing or able to fight or when they abandon the ideologies that lead them to war in the first place.

- In the former case the ideology that lead the losing side to oppose the victor most likely will not be abandoned. In this case the war will most likely rekindle years down the track and final victory will not have been achieved.

- In the latter case the victors impose a decision upon the enemy - to face utter destruction or to cease surrender with condition. This is his not enough however, as they root cause of the war has not been addressed and final victory will most likely not have been achieved.

- The root cause of the war must be addressed. This is the ideology that lead the opposing side to war in the first place. The enemy must be made to abandon their commitment to this ideology so that they do not use it to fuel further wars.

- In the case of America vs Totalitarian Islamic extremists - the latter Totalitarian Islamic ideologies are that which must be opposed. They must be made to see that such ideas are ideas of death and not life. And that to use such wars against America does not allow them to be exempt to the consequences of their own ideologies. Ie there ideologies must be connected in their minds to their consequences - to death.

- Hence the only feasible option is to commit to destroying all that would fight a war against you on such grounds until they see that to do so will only bring their destruction. And that it is those ideologies that is to blame. This must be made clear to them at every step.

- Once they are defeated , steps must be taken so that ideology is not allowed to rekindle another war. Be this via occupation , or some other means. The offending portion of enemy state must be made to realize that the offending ideologies are wrong and that supporting them will always => death. Given this stark choice, historical events such as the defeat and occupation of Japan, prove that these offending parties will overwhelmingly cease to support such ideologies and a war over them will not occur again ( at least for a very long time)..

-America is at war with fundamentalist Muslims. (Whether we identify it or not].

Therefore America must oppose the ideologies of their enemies. To support them in anyway or to allow them to gain significant moral support such as this is to undermine the efforts to connect in the the minds of the enemy that their ideologi8es are not rational and will only bring their destruction, which prolongs the war and costs more [ innocent in this regard] American lives.

To allow the mosque in this context sends them a message that it is not their ideology you oppose and that this is NOT what you seek to destroy. Given this premise, it is a huge opposition to your war effort, potentially a fatal one. If you want to consider this to be rational, then that is your right of course. But do not come crying to me when you find that those we are actually at war with do not cease to kill thousands of innocent Americans. And do not tell me that property rights give someone the right to lead invaluable support which prolongs the will of murderers so that they continue to kill. Because I will not hide my contempt.

You can reply to this all you want. However I do not intend to get sucked into this again, so I most likely shall not respond unless I consider there to be a pressing need. I am quite satisfied the facts are on my side after a lot of careful thought. So I shall not likely bother checking for replies. I only became involved at all due to Amaroq wishing my opinion on the post of his that I mentioned.

To those that given this due rational thought : Thank you stay classy and stay certain.

To those others : Check your premises as you are advocating that which would allow the support of mass murderers.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the post above mine, I cordially fail to make sense of it.

I agree with your initial premises Amaroq.

Therefore, America and fundamentalist Muslims are fighting each other for antithetical values.

Victory for America means the success of our values and the destruction of fundamentalist Muslim values.

Defeat for America means the destruction of our values and the success of fundamentalist Muslim values.

At this point I disagree. First of all you divide America (Set A) and Fundamentalist Muslims (Set B ) as two distinct sets when anyone will agree these two collude.

Secondly “America” as a set is to large to have a specific goal. To many elements with far to many needs and wants and ways of obtaining them. And you cannot agree that Fundamentalist Muslim Americans want the destruction of Fundamentalist Muslim values. And neither does the US Military. Their goal as I see it is compromise whenever possible, and protection from terrorist attacks at all times. Which may or may not be a correct plan of action. Nevertheless.

Premises:

-At the site of a battle or attack, if a concrete symbol of one side's values is placed there, the context of its placement makes it a symbol of victory for the side whose values are symbolized by it.

-Ground Zero was the site of an attack by fundamentalist Muslims against America.

-A mosque is a concrete symbol of Muslim values. (Fundamentalist or otherwise.)

Again I agree with your premises but disagree with your sets. The attackers of our forces have many times demonstrated that they have no difficulty destroying the purported symbols of their own faith. A Mosque is quite often a target of their aggression. A Mosque near ground zero is a symbol of Muslim values but not a symbol of our aggressors’ victory. More then less it is a symbol of our ability to coexist.

Does the building of a Roman Catholic church signify agreement with all of its vast and sometimes antagonistic values? Must you agree that the sexual deviance of certain priests is proper before building one? Must every Protestant Christian praise the bombing of abortion centers before building a church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I disagree. First of all you divide America (Set A) and Fundamentalist Muslims (Set B ) as two distinct sets when anyone will agree these two collude.

....

Secondly “America” as a set is to large to have a specific goal. To many elements with far to many needs and wants and ways of obtaining them. And you cannot agree that Fundamentalist Muslim Americans want the destruction of Fundamentalist Muslim values. And neither does the US Military. Their goal as I see it is compromise whenever possible, and protection from terrorist attacks at all times. Which may or may not be a correct plan of action. Nevertheless.

....

Again I agree with your premises but disagree with your sets. The attackers of our forces have many times demonstrated that they have no difficulty destroying the purported symbols of their own faith. A Mosque is quite often a target of their aggression. A Mosque near ground zero is a symbol of Muslim values but not a symbol of our aggressors’ victory. More then less it is a symbol of our ability to coexist.

The fact that some members of both parties collude does not really change things. The fact is that both parties are widely, and largely diamaterically opposed on many issues. Which would be OK, if one side was not trying to murder members of the other party

The fact is that every Fundamentalist Muslim that wishes to destroy America is the enemy. What it takes is to make the vast majority (whom are mostly overseas) see that their ideologies are in fact going to be fatal to them. The ones in America will hopefully take this to heart and behave as well. If not, well that is a matter for local law enforcement to deal with.

It is true that the military forces might not really have the objective to crush these values in mind. But that does not change the fact that this is their only PROPER goal, ultimately.

As for the matter of whether it will be seen as a sign of victory : I think this case has already been made. The fact is that the Islams have a long history of building mosques AS signs of victory, and I doubt the ones alive are totally ignorant of this or will choose not to consider it as one.

The fact that they might also be willing to destroy it just proves that they are inconsistent and dedicated to their desire to kill, even at the expense of destroying things of value to them ( irrational people often are willing to destroy their own values to commit irrational acts if they see the need).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to hear your view on what other conclusions the following result might lead to:

You make this statement prior even to introducing the concept of war into the argument at all. Presumably, as you did not include anything about the context of war in the premises supporting the conclusion, war vs. peace is irrelevant to this particular conclusion. Am I wrong?

Alternatively, if I am right, how far would this conclusion extent? An Obama bumper sticker concretizes a large amount of values associated with what he stands for, many of which are rights-violationg and force-initiating as understood by Objectivists. This conclusion would seem to support the argument that people therefore do not have a right to concretize the values of the Obama presidential campaign.

Well that is a pretty different context I would imagine. In this case the Mosque gives moral support to an enemy which seeks to physically murder its enemies RIGHT NOW if possible, and the more the better. ie, we are talking about a war for the survivual of potentially many, many lives, ie a case of Metaphysical Emergency which applies to potentially untold thousands of Americans.

While Obamas ideologies do intend pose a threat to the happiness of many people and cause untold suffering, the facts are that Obama bumper stickers do not lead moral support to those that we are at war with. Sure many Americans oppose Obama, however the fact is that there is not a state of war against him intended to eradicate his ideology. Such a bumper sticker would not embolden anyone to continue a war and hence continue to take innocent lives.

War is a specific course of action which pertains to states, or large portions of the population of a State which chooses to oppose the government of their own country and have the desire and the means to initiate force against such a government and to remove them from power. It should not be used to denote the fact that many people within a country might oppose certain things within it. There is no state of war against Obama, his bumper stickers do not lead him embolden him to commit warlike actions. So the above logic just does not apply to these bumper stickers.

Trying to apply the logic which makes it improper to not build this Mosque and apply it to situations that do not involve war , are pretty much doomed to failure as the contexts are probably going to be pretty different.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to defend yourself against the symbolic support of our enemies you are willing to deny non-violent citizens of America their rights?

I am willing to do whatever is OBJECTIVELY required in order to defeat the enemy in this war. If that requires preventing someone from building a Mosque then I will do that, even if they are non-violent. The fact that a citizen is non-violent does not justify me allowing them to do whatever they want, even if that would enable an enemy that America is at war with to continue its killing. In fact it would be immoral to allow this fact to stop me taking whatever actions are OBJECTIVELY required to end the war as soon as possible , with minimum American ( or allied forces) causalities.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prometheus, I agree that war changes the context completely, which is why I centered in on the fact that Axiomatic's claim about "concretizing values not being a right" came prior to any mention of war. In his formulation above, any concrete emotional support for an initiator of force would seem to be improper, regardless of war vs. peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am willing to do whatever is OBJECTIVELY required in order to defeat the enemy in this war. If that requires preventing someone from building a Mosque then I will do that, even if they are non-violent.

I don't believe you mean that. But just in case, can you provide some evidence of the seriousness of your intentions to deny the rights of a non-violent American citizen? What exactly are you planning on doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe you mean that. But just in case, can you provide some evidence of the seriousness of your intentions to deny the rights of a non-violent American citizen? What exactly are you planning on doing?

No, I meant exactly what I said quite explicitly. For all the reasons already mentioned (and other reasons possibly). I do not intend to rehash all the arguments already given however. I will point to Amaroqs posts and my own for the primary reasons.

However I should clarify that when I say "a Mosque" I mean that particular Mosque, not ANY given Mosque. Any other Mosque I can think of is OK, and I do not see how it that destroying it would serve the purpose I mentioned. I repeat : THAT ONE MOSQUE, NOT THE OTHERS.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk of not "allowing" people to build a mosque suggests that you, you personally, think that you have some say in whether or not this thing goes forward. I think thats what Jake means. What exactly are those of you against the mosque planning on doing other than typing about it as if your opinions alone will bring the whole building crashing down? Not to mention, the section of the planned cultural center designated for prayer has been in use now for for almost 2 years if Im not mistaken. What tactics have you used, unsuccessfully, up to this point to put an end to it? Hopefully no one is planning on going all Roarky on us.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accused you of being wrong. And I believe I factually proved you wrong, on both issues.

This is the most dishonest thing I've encountered on this forum. You're lucky I'm not a Moderator as this is a banable offense in my opinion. Here you accused me of changing the text of a quote I attributed to you:

No, replacing my quote with a different text and calling me pedantic doesn't clear up anything.

I replied that you were wrong and you never addressed the issue again. Here you imply that I either mischaracterized what you said or I made it up altogether:

What comparison??? Quote me.

I replied that you were wrong and you never addressed the issue again.

So now not only do you have no argument, but your credibility, integrity and honesty are shot.

An office building in NY supports the killing of Americans? How? It's an inanimate object.

As art does -- it is a symbol. Read "The Romantic Manifesto" by Ayn Rand.

I understand what you are saying just fine. I just don't agree with it. Ideas don't cause actions, that suggestion contradicts free will.

No it doesn't, ideas are the result of free will also. Read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand.

And just because there is some meaning to the metaphor "the roots of war are ideological in nature", it doesn't follow that you have the right to use force against people for their beliefs. Not even if others who have held those same beliefs chose to wage war.

Well, if they choose war, then I can kill them. So certainly I do have the right to use force in retaliation. Read The Roots of War in "CUI", and "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand.

Unless you can show that the Imam himself has acted to initiate force, your use of force against him is unjustified.

He is acting to encourage the people who are actively killing us, he has no right to do that. There is no secret about this, the Imam himself has said it is the case that not building the Mosque would cause violence amongst those killers.

Listen to Global Balkanization by Ayn Rand.

Why yes there can be plenty of doubt. A mosque is not just the chosen symbol of the people who are attacking us. It is also the type of building many generations of Muslims, including a billion who are alive today, chose to pray in.

At least you admit that it is a symbol of the people who are attacking us. I guess it's impossible to be completely irrational.

I can think of nothing more monstrous than having the US government pick and choose the symbolic meaning of things and imposing their subjective choice on the American people to the point where they can declare any Muslim establishment near the WTC site a "symbol of the enemy which attacked us".

I can think of something more monstrous: the self sacrificial impulse of those who think rights are a suicide pact; the self loathing of those who would tolerate a cheerleader espousing his right to cheerlead on his property the principles of a killer while the killer has got a knife at the throat of a loved one.

Maybe to you. To me it isn't. To me an Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero (how it turned into a mosque at GZ, in your rhetoric, is beyond me) is a symbol of the presence of Muslims, and of their desire to gather and worship peacefully, in Manhattan. My evaluation of its symbolism can easily be backed up, by the countless similar establishments being used to convey that exact same meaning, everywhere there are Muslims (including in NYC).

What it actually is is a place of worship, you don't know if it is peaceful or not and you have allowed for this possibility previously in this thread. As to its symbolism: is there anything unique about its location at Ground Zero that might provide spiritual support to those engaged in killing us right now? Blank out.

Your guess at its symbolism is speculation at best, a malicious fabrication otherwise.

You correctly identified its symbolism three paragraphs above this sentence Mr. Contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the most dishonest thing I've encountered on this forum. You're lucky I'm not a Moderator as this is a banable offense in my opinion. Here you accused me of changing the text of a quote I attributed to you

You should pay more attention. I accused you of changing my quote, not my posts. Which you did. I quoted Amaroq's reification, and you replaced that quote with another one, and then called me pedantic for saying it's a reification.

In the mean time, Grames also posted, proving that I was right, and wikipedia in fact uses the exact thing Amaroq said as an example of reification.

I replied that you were wrong and you never addressed the issue again.

So now not only do you have no argument, but your credibility, integrity and honesty are shot.

My post doesn't contain a comparison between Islam and Catholicism. You alleged it did, I asked you to quote it, you didn't. So I left it alone. But fine, here's my response: I'm ending the conversation because you're being an irrational bully.

This is the most dishonest thing I've encountered on this forum. You're lucky I'm not a Moderator as this is a banable offense in my opinion.

Thanks, I do consider myself lucky to not have to be subject to this nonsense in any way. I respect some of your contributions to the forum, but you really are being a ridiculous ass.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...