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 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Friday, August 19, 2005 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sarah,

Do check into hadith.

You wanted links, try these

http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton051805.html

 

Arab-Turned Zionist Vividly Explains the Violent World of Islam (mp3 file)

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14159

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18595

 







Post 21

Friday, August 19, 2005 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sarah,

How can one be a Muslim and NOT endorse Islam?  The only possible answer:  they're inventing their own religion and just calling themselves Muslims.  You're a sell-out because you betray integrity in favor of pandering to people who choose to hide behind a label and then turn around and huff and puff because they are being labeled.  And you're also a sell-out because you choose to scapegoat those people whose backs are to the wall and choose to hold those who call themselves Muslims accountable for naming themselves as such. 

If you've correctly labeled yourself an objectivist, then objectivism has nothing to do with objectivity... or integrity for that matter.

(Edited by Celeste Norcross on 8/19, 1:31pm)




Post 22

Friday, August 19, 2005 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Jason,

I've been informed by someone I trust that you do, in fact, distinguish between the dangers of Islam and Muslims.  I'd like to issue a preliminary apology while I review your blog.

I'm sorry.

Sarah


Ah, I see now.  So you rely upon other people to do your thinking for you.  Do you ever hold an opinion that hasn't been spoon-fed to you by some collective first?

You're apparently incapable of actually reading Jason's posts and evaluating them for yourself.  Talk about cronyism.

(Edited by Celeste Norcross on 8/19, 1:37pm)




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Friday, August 19, 2005 - 2:09pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Celeste,

If you'd actually read my posts, as you claimed, you'd realize that I don't label myself an objectivist.  I do not defend people hiding behind labels, I defend people attacked by others who've labeled those they attack.  I'm not saying that Muslims don't endorse Islam, but that Muslims can interpret Islam and should be associated with terrorists as much as Objectivists should be associated with Randroids.

As for the apology, if you'd read that post you'd see that I was making a preliminary apology because I trust the source and will review Jason's blog before a full apology.  If I find the material lacking, the preliminary apology can be withdrawn.  I was attempting to pause my discussion with Jason while I read more material, which I was unaware existed, on his position.  His post, however, gave every indication to me that he was of the opinion that Muslim and Islam should not be considered separately

If you're going to continue to post with this level of hostility I'll be ignoring you.  At least when I get hostile I try to keep an argument somewhere in the post.

Sarah




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Friday, August 19, 2005 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sex and the single-minded Muslim

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1739644,00.html




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Friday, August 19, 2005 - 3:50pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Marty,

It is good to see you here on SOLO after meeting you in Schenectady.  Thanks for this thread.

I am one who believes that any Muslim who really takes the religion seriously and agrees with its tenets will not be a candidate to contribute to an Islamic Renaissance or Enlightenment and will eventually only prove, in the present struggle, to be our enemy.

The one powerful cultural force that I am aware of  in world today that promises to help spread a moderate version of Islamic thought and practice is Hindi-language cinema.  Amazon is currently in the process of shipping me a copy of the recently published book Talking Songs: Javed Akhtar in Conversation With Nasreen Munni Kabir And Sixty Selected Songs.  I intend to read it pretty thoroughly for insight into the mind of a genius poet and Bollywood lyricist whom I believe is a Muslim.  Javed Akhtar's lyrics are heard all around the world, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Arab lands, West Africa, Central Asia, and the South Asian immigrant communities of the West.  He is probably the leading lyricist in India today, having written the lyrics for such recent blockbusters as Kal Ho Naa Ho, Veer-Zaara (the most popular Indian film of 2004 and the one I showed at the TOC Conference in Schenectady,) Kisna: the Warrior Poet, and many others.

For popular song lyrics, his words contain an enormous amount of implicit and sometimes even explicit philosophy. And the philosophy is that of a proper modern world, with young people expressing exuberant joy in living along with supreme self-confidence and self-assertion.

-Bill




Post 26

Friday, August 19, 2005 - 11:50pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Marcus,

That article was brilliant!  I agree with it completely... their code of sexual conduct is one major determinant of their lives being sheer hell.

William,

Thank you this:
I am one who believes that any Muslim who really takes the religion seriously and agrees with its tenets will not be a candidate to contribute to an Islamic Renaissance or Enlightenment and will eventually only prove, in the present struggle, to be our enemy.
Sarah,

Please, put me on ignore.  I've had more than a bellyful of your insane dishonesty and manufacturing of reality.  Your liabilities exceed your assets... it's time to declare you bankrupt.




Post 27

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:15amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Celeste Norcross,
"insane dishonesty and manufacturing of reality"

I haven't noticed Sarah being dishonest. Could you please point me to the post you are speaking of? You are fuming in hatred toward her, but what of it does she deserve?

You argue that any Muslim supports militant Islam to some degree. She argues that most Muslims are not militant. You gave the impression that all Muslims are hiding their desire to kill us behind a friendly mask. Sarah pointed out that a few cases does not imply that imply all Muslims want to kill us.

What is the truth?



Post 28

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 10:48amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Marcus,

Am skeptical about this militant feminist and playright.  Why see calls herself a psychotherapist is a mystery, and clearly Cherry Potter is not her real name.

The particular article you cited was largely anecdotal and we've been around on that on this thread.




Post 29

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 10:54amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dean,

What is electronic hobbying?  Playing video games?




Post 30

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dean,

The truth is that real Islam is the horrible kind... what the terrorists are doing.  And the "moderates" know this. 

Therefore, by still clinging to the name "Muslim" to describe themselves, they are willfully associating themselves with Islam, and have only themselves to blame when they are treated with no exceptions.

It doesn't get any clearer than this.  Now that I've said it to you personally, your still not seeing my point is no longer accidental, it's intentional.




Post 31

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Robert,

Ha! Ok, let's bring in video games out of left field.  What, then, is reading a novel (which I do more often than play video games, thank you)?

Sarah




Post 32

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Celeste Norcross,

I understand and agree with your point that anyone who claims to be Muslim in some way supports Islam, but I do not agree with your conclusions. I don't think its best to treat all Muslims the same. I would rather only punish those that attack or plan to attack, instead of punishing everyone. Punishing everyone is a good way to make enemies...



Post 33

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dean: Your posts are always polite, reasonable and constructive. I agree very much that we should distinguish between Fundamentalists and moderates. I just hope that perceived moderates are truly moderate. An interesting movie, "Not Without My Children," tells of a moderate Iranian-American docter who returns to Iran with his American wife. Under the influence of his family and culture, he morphs into a beast. At the end of this excellent film, have a tissues on hand.

Marcus: Your site was interesting and relevant. Whether or not the story went down exactly as described, it reminds me of thousands (millions?) of similar incidents. Muslim society is a hunting ground for feminists looking for a just cause.   

William: It was a pleasure meeting you in Schenectady. The influence of cinema indeed gives us some hope, as does the internet. Many Muslim students are sick and tired of the religious police who make life miserable for anyone seeking 'forbidden' pleasures, such as alcohol. These students might be reachable. After all, many Objectivists (myself included) were religious teenagers.

Nevertherless, Islam has built-in components that are antithetical to reason, individualism, freedom, etc. The question remains: Is there a realistic chance that moderate, peaceful, courageous Muslims will prevail, given their dangerous surroundings for dissent? I forgot who said, "It is dangerous to be right when the governement is wrong. 




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:52pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Nevertherless, Islam has built-in components that are antithetical to reason, individualism, freedom, etc.

All religions are like this. Targeting Islam specifically is futile; you're just cutting off one head of the Hyrda.

Sarah



Post 35

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
"polite, reasonable and constructive" Hurray! Those are some of my highest values. Thank you very much. 'See ya around, 'hope you have a nice day : ).



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
"All religions are like this. Targeting Islam specifically is futile; you're just cutting off one head of the Hyrda"

Sarah,
True, but there are degrees and some have more more amenable principles and practioners.

Jeff
P.S. By the way, I have never been anything but an atheist.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 9:52pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sarah,

I just read through this thread and would like to compliment you on your commitment to keeping the religion/reason focus, even in the face of hostility. Bravo, girl.

There are too many in the world already who fall off into the collectivism of scapegoating Islamic people because of the present situation and preaching hatred of an entire culture. (As if eliminating those people would make everybody else in the world better. It won't, even if this were possible.) We don't need philosophy preaching this. Besides, ARI is already busy trying to discredit themselves in this regard.

The real problem is reason versus faith. Until that is fully accepted, even in today's context, today's hatred of Islam will turn into hatred of a new group tomorrow. The essential problem will never go away.

As far as anecdotes go, my very Muslim former father-in-law used to rip out pages of the Bible and wipe his ass with them when he got drunk. He also bragged about it. He also loved John Wayne movies.

Do you know what that proves?

I lived with it and still don't.

Michael



Post 38

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:53amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
caq.jpg



Post 39

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:54amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The discussion of Islam vs. any other "FAITH" is like this.  Someone gives you this option:

"Ok you can have dinner tonight with anyone from history living or dead. So who will it be Hitler, Jackson Pollack or Ted Bundy?"
"What about everyone else, Einstein, Shakespeare, Aristotle,...?"
"Oh they're options too but which one Hilter, Jackson, Pollack, or Ted Bundy?"
"Do I have to choose any of those four?"
"Of course not Silly. But which one?"

Some may be obviously better than others, but why would you want to purposely involve yourself with any of them instead of avoiding all of
them entirely.

Sarah and Michael I loved your intelectual approach to the problem, but I think mine was necessary. 

---Landon




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