Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:Why the P.C. Establishment Is So Happy Over London’s New Muslim Mayor

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Repairman said:

I have a question regarding your plan for a collective global anti-Islamic coalition. Have you ever served in any branch of the military? Specifically, do you have any direct experience combating Jihadi militants? (In the spirit of fairness, I will state that I have never been in military service. But neither have I ever accused anyone of being a namby-pamby-Hanoi-Jane.)

 

Should Islamic countries refuse to implement deislamization peacefully, we cannot win the resulting war unless and until the home front is secure. That means a cadre of troops must muzzle the liberal media and quash the student riots that caused our defeat in Vietnam. That means temporary military government until the war is over. I would like to serve in the temporary military cadre that secures the home front while others fight abroad because I know how important the home front is. This was my dream since I was a little boy to serve in this capacity during the "next Vietnam War", to prevent a repeat of what happened during the "old Vietnam War". I will accept nothing less of an assignment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'd like to request that everyone tone down their rhetoric, if possible. Stick to discussing the ideas (odious though they may be) and refrain from trying to diagnose one another or insult. Thank

8 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

 

Should Islamic countries refuse to implement deislamization peacefully, we cannot win the resulting war unless and until the home front is secure. That means a cadre of troops must muzzle the liberal media and quash the student riots that caused our defeat in Vietnam. That means temporary military government until the war is over. I would like to serve in the temporary military cadre that secures the home front while others fight abroad because I know how important the home front is. This was my dream since I was a little boy to serve in this capacity during the "next Vietnam War", to prevent a repeat of what happened during the "old Vietnam War". I will accept nothing less of an assignment.

Dustin86,

What I find even more revealing about this quote is your sense of urgency for completely ending freedom of expression in the US. It seems to me you will have a fight on your hands every bit as prolonged and intense imposing your dictatorship on American citizens, as you would crusading against Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dustin86,

All religion, as all irrationality, is dangerous. Right now there are strains of Islam, and adherents, who are particularly so -- it is true. That must be recognized and dealt with, appropriately (i.e. using force against force).

But to treat all of Islam and every Muslim as equally dangerous would be a colossal error, and to violate our individual freedoms in the process (using force against those who have not) would be a "cure worse than the disease."

You accuse Objectivism (or similar ideologies) of unleashing evils by promoting individual rights? But look at those places and times where individual rights have been cast aside (usually in favor of some group identity), like Nazi Germany or Maoist China or Stalin's Russia, and tell me that you prefer them.

In the fight against evil, we must take care not to become evil ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don (or would you like me to call you Tyler?),

The thing is that the moderates empower the extremists, and in the vast majority of cases not even of their own will. The extremists are empowered by the fact that they are the world's second-largest religion (1.6 billion). This empowerment is secured by penalties up to and including execution in some cases that are meted out against people in many of these parts of the world for leaving Islam. So many, many of these people, indeed I believe a majority, don't even want this religion and they're forced to have it. They are forced to be the heavy spearshaft which provides weight and power to the extremist "speartip" that is stabbing the civilized world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dustin86,

There exists a perception among Muslims that they are victims of Western aggression. I think we can all agree that Islam is a religion that encourages violence against perceived infidels and apostates. This is an easily proven fact. What is also apparent is that the majority of Muslims are content to ignore those provocative passages of the Koran, avoid militant Jihad, and pursue more constructive lives. If the current state of violence in and coming from out of these Muslim states is to abate, it will not happen as a result of perceived Christian nations waging a modern-day Crusade. No single nation, not even a coalition of nations, could force 1.6 billion people to change their minds, especially when that religion proscribes defending that faith at the cost of the true-believer's life. Only they can willingly change their minds and perceptions. It will be a matter of their ever-changing perceptions as to how our freedom threatens them. I am not entirely thrilled by the election of a moderate, even liberal, Muslim as the new mayor of London. Either way, I wish the best for the people of London, and their new civic leader. However, I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that many Muslims in and outside of Great Britain will view this as a sign of change in Western attitudes, a change in perception. (That is to say that the destruction of Muslims is not a part of our general foreign policy.) I disagree with your assertion that moderates enable or empower extremists. The world is suffering from a shortage of moderate Islamic intellectuals. As Dr Hurd pointed out, this Mr Khan has had death threats, most likely from more extreme Muslims. It may require generations of moderate Islamic leadership, intellectual and political, before we will see an end to violence in the name of Islam. In the meantime, the West will need to keep up their guard, and protect the ideals of liberty we claim as the empowering force that drives our greatness. It will be a daunting theological challenge, and at its worst, a bloody internal struggle.

Western Civilization endured comparable events. I am referring to the Reformation/Counter Reformation, which resulted in atrocities and wars for nearly a century and a half between 1500 to 1650 throughout Christian Europe. In the end, the idea of freewill and individual liberty emerged. Yet, even today, freedom is a concept so new that few among us really know how to use it to its best results.

And I hope we can get past any sense of hostility evoked in earlier posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dustin said:

Quote

^This video is the real deal, guys. Now you have three choices. You can be part of our collective, or you can be part of their collective, or you can be trampled underfoot by their collective. Randian individualism is not going to be a choice in the future. I hope you make the right choice, guys. I really do.

Given the above statement and your stated desire to defend the homeland from "their collective" with no alternative but "our collective" you appear to be saying rather clearly that "if your not for "us" your against "us" ". 

It's interesting your point about "moderates" enabling extremists. Folk's like Hanoi Jane coddled the reprehensible evil that was the communist advocates of such great  immorality as the force wielding North.  

Leonard Peikoff admonished against the "Kissinger's of Philosophy" in the 1976 lectures. I recommend anyone here who values Objectivism to read "The Anatomy of Compromise" by Ayn Rand 

I consider you every bit as extreme as your "their collective" and that is not a "moderate" position. 

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

The thing is that the moderates empower the extremists, and in the vast majority of cases not even of their own will. The extremists are empowered by the fact that they are the world's second-largest religion (1.6 billion). This empowerment is secured by penalties up to and including execution in some cases that are meted out against people in many of these parts of the world for leaving Islam. So many, many of these people, indeed I believe a majority, don't even want this religion and they're forced to have it. They are forced to be the heavy spearshaft which provides weight and power to the extremist "speartip" that is stabbing the civilized world.

It's right to be anti-Islam in the sense of being anti-irrationality. It's right to lament the effect that such irrationality has in the world, especially when innocents suffer the effects, and to work to combat it by advocating for reason, and to defend one's self against force with force.

But stripping away individual rights will not serve to make the things you're concerned about better -- history demonstrates what happens to society when we do so, and it is nothing that we want. Your proposals, if enacted, would help to turn the United States into the next great example of hellish authoritarian states that so plagued the 20th Century.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

It's right to be anti-Islam in the sense of being anti-irrationality. It's right to lament the effect that such irrationality has in the world, especially when innocents suffer the effects, and to work to combat it by advocating for reason, and to defend one's self against force with force.

Some ex-Muslims, like Sarah Haider, encourage Muslims to leave Islam because it has no rational basis. In essence, they argue for atheism. Others, like Maajid Nawaz, still call themselves Muslim, but want to encourage the more rational interpretations of Islam. In essence, they want Islam to evolve the way Christianity did: by allowing rationality to change beliefs and practices, which then solidify over time. 

History seems to say that it is tough to draw too many people away from religion altogether. Religion plays a broad cultural role, not just a philosophical one. So, Maajid Nawaz's approach seems to be the one with the most hope, when measured in terms of headcount. 

Historically, there have been various approaches and interpretations within Islam. Most are far more rational than the ISIS-approach. So, there's hope already: within the history of Islam. 

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2016 at 5:52 PM, Dustin86 said:

This empowerment is secured by penalties up to and including execution in some cases that are meted out against people in many of these parts of the world for leaving Islam. So many, many of these people, indeed I believe a majority, don't even want this religion and they're forced to have it.

Such an out of touch thing to say. Stop reading far right blogs, go out into the world and look around you. Why don't you try to meet a Muslim or two? See if this really is true? See if it really is true that they'd love to leave their religion, but there's someone holding the threat of execution over their heads? You can, you know. Doesn't matter where you live, there are Muslims in every country in the world.

I've never met a Muslim like this "majority" you're describing, desperately wishing to leave his religion but too afraid to do it. All the ones I know are perfectly free to leave their religion. None of them want to, just as none of the Christians I know want to.

If you stopped reading far right blogs, and paid a little attention to reality, you would realize that the majority of Muslims don't live in ISIS controlled territories, or in Afghanistan/tribal Pakistan. Those blogs vilify Muslims, by pointing out the worst, and ignoring all the good. The picture they paint is not reality. The Muslim world isn't defined by ISIS and the Taliban. The execution of apostates isn't something most Muslims need to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I out of touch with, exactly? If you've had experience with these Muslim enclaves, if you've experienced seeing these "covered" women on a near daily basis, unless you're a completely brain-dead liberal, it doesn't take that long to hit you that these women are trapped in this religion, this cult. The penalties for leaving don't have to be governmentally enforced in order to exist.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2016 at 3:13 PM, softwareNerd said:

Some ex-Muslims, like Sarah Haider, encourage Muslims to leave Islam because it has no rational basis. In essence, they argue for atheism. Others, like Maajid Nawaz, still call themselves Muslim, but want to encourage the more rational interpretations of Islam. In essence, they want Islam to evolve the way Christianity did: by allowing rationality to change beliefs and practices, which then solidify over time.

I argue against Islam because I believe that Islam -- like other religion -- is incorrect; it is irrational. And I further believe that irrationality is destructive, both to the person who holds it and (invariably) others.

Given that I believe what I do about religion, Islam, and what irrationality is/means, I do not see how I could help but be "anti-Islam."

That said, would I regard it as a positive, if Islam were to evolve as you suggest -- and in the manner that Christianity has? Certainly. For moderate Islam to win out over extremist/fundamentalist Islam would be a great thing. For reason to win out over both of those would be even better.

On 5/18/2016 at 3:13 PM, softwareNerd said:

History seems to say that it is tough to draw too many people away from religion altogether. Religion plays a broad cultural role, not just a philosophical one. So, Maajid Nawaz's approach seems to be the one with the most hope, when measured in terms of headcount.

It cannot be contested that most people, both now and historically, have been religious. I don't think that I'm prepared to agree, however, that this means that religion will always have this sort of role, or that we cannot or should not work towards a secular future. I think we've already seen an extensive weakening of religious influence in (especially) the western world, and especially over the last several centuries, which probably would have been inconceivable, once upon a time.

And consider that what you say about religion would also seem to be true about political attitudes: both history and headcounts seem to suggest that it is tough to stop people from trying to wield state authority contra individual rights. Yet I would not be willing to compromise on such things and accept a "mixed economy," even if I can recognize that state of affairs as being vastly superior to totalitarianism. I support moderate reforms of governmental abuse even as I advocate the abolition of governmental abuse.

I cannot much comment on Maajid Nawaz and his individual circumstances, being ignorant of them. If he wishes to reform Islam, I sincerely wish him the best of luck in those efforts. But for myself, I must continue to advocate for reason, and all of its applications, as best as I can recognize them.

On 5/18/2016 at 3:13 PM, softwareNerd said:

Historically, there have been various approaches and interpretations within Islam. Most are far more rational than the ISIS-approach. So, there's hope already: within the history of Islam. 

Absolutely.

Link to post
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...