Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 3:19pmSanction this postReply
Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend?
I recently read David Kelly’s address at the March against Terror which was sponsored by Free Muslims Against Terror. I was following right along with him till the fifth paragraph when he states “I salute Kamal Nawash for the absolute, unqualified stand he has taken, and for his courage and commitment in speaking out. I salute the Free Muslims Against Terrorism for sponsoring this rally. I urge everyone to support them and make common cause with them.”
Wow! As a rational, egoistic capitalist with an objectivist outlook on life, why would I sanction such a subjectivist group that stands against all of that. Sure, they are against the Islamists, but so too are the Catholics, Jews and many other whim-worshiping groups. Should I join with them too?
There are many other points I find problematic in this statement, but this one really struck me as being way out of bounds.

Post 1

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 4:27pmSanction this postReply
Excellent point.  Around here I've seen Kelley, TOC, et. al. referred to as 'ecumenical', and this goes hand-in-hand with that summation.

Post 2

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
I agree with you Jason (and Jody).  If anything I think you've under-estimated the problem with that article. I think the following should be mentioned:

- The false distinction between Islam/Islamism.  
Islamism is an interpretation of Islam that has it's roots in Islam - and can be logically defended by - appealing to Islam.

-  A subjectivist interpretation of Ideologies.
 Hey, according to David Kelley,  it's not up to him, a philosopher, to tell  Muslims what Islam is about. Really? What the hell is he talking about? He has too. He's a philosopher. What about Communism, or any other ideology? I just finished reading George Walsh's
 " The Role of Religion in History". How is that book possible - or any other interpretation - if you can't objectively know unless you're apart of the movement? How about Robert Bidinotto's brilliant analysis of Environmentalism? How is that possible? Both Bidinotto and Walsh are promoted by Kelley's organization. The intellectual dishonesty of his position is beyond contempt.

- He's also an altruist.
Think about a lapsed Muslim who has doubts about his religion - and all religion .  After the talk, would he have considered Objectivism ?  No way.  Instead of selling Objectivism, David Kelley told these Muslims to consider changing Islam. Huh? It's not like TOC (and Objectivism) has  conquered the intellectual landscape. Unless you're an altruist, why help promote - in any way - your competitors product when you're in a  great position to promote your own?

Post 3

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 10:34pmSanction this postReply
Maybe this has more to do with his belief in benevolence and tolerance as virtues. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, at least fundamentally, that Dr. Kelley is much softer than he should be.

So, what's worse, TOCs approach of toleration, or ARIs approach of isolationism?

We stand on the edge of two extremes.

Personally, if I had my druthers, I would shoot every man, woman and child that who spread their altruistic/socialistic filth in the world whether they knew it was wrong or not. But since they have control and their laws prevent me from stopping that particular disease, I break them down one at a time. Maybe it seems like I'm imposing my will, and I am, but given the chance, they would try it themselves.

Post to this thread

User ID Password or create a free account.