It's one thing to oppose the Iraq war but quite another for Prince Chuck to see his task as pleading the case for Muslims, whatever the hell that means, to Pres. Bush. It's such sucking up that invites terrorism. No wonder we kicked the inbred royals off of America's shores and established a republic.
...(Read more...)
Even more insulting, Prince Chuckles tours Ground Zero before coming here to D.C. to lecture Bush on tolerance of Muslims who, unless they've been caught planning terrorist attacks, freely live and practice their religion here in the U.S.: -------------
Prince Charles and Camilla Head to D.C.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Associated Press
NEW YORK — Prince Charles (search) and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (search), spent their first evening in the United States mingling with celebrities at a glitzy New York reception — but it was a tour of ground zero that seemed to affect them most deeply. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174244,00.html ----------------------
Rick: "There's a case for Islam? Not on this site. On this site there's only a casket."
WHY would a pro-Objectivist site care to make a case for Islam or any religious creed when the phillosophy purports to challenge 2000 years of christianity?
WHY would a pro-Objectivist site care to make a case for Islam or any religious creed when the phillosophy purports to challenge 2000 years of christianity?
Fighting the cultural tradition of two thousand five hundred years, mate. Objectivism is not an anti-Christian movement nor an anti-Islam movement. A central tenant of your philosophy is 'religious tolerance'. It's not a matter of making a case for Islam but of making a case for freedom of worship. Rather be "defender of faiths" than "defender of the faith" sounds good to me, and it is not the role of the state to encourage anti-Islam propaganda. If the Prince takes that message to the White House then as an Objectivist you should be full of approval.
You want a case for Islam? Make it yourself.
Oh phooey. I was counting on you to do that for us.
Rick: "Fighting the cultural tradition of two thousand five hundred years, mate. Objectivism is not an anti-Christian movement nor an anti-Islam movement."
True, Objectivism does not define itself by what it is against, rather by what it stands for. Doesn't mean it doesn't stand in opposition to enemy philosophies.
Rick: "A central tenant of your philosophy is 'religious tolerance'.Ê"
You say "my" philosophy; does this mean you don't consider Objectivism your philosophy?( I apologize if it's stated elsewhere and simply missed it, though I am beginning to assume from your posts that you an opponent of Objectivism...?).
BTW, here's a good time to remind you it was the Islamic leaders calling for the DEATH of Salmon Rushdie for criticizing Islam...it is not Objectivists who need to learn tolerance.
Rick: "It's not a matter of making a case for Islam but of making a case for freedom of worship. Rather be "defender of faiths" than "defender of the faith" sounds good to me..."
Well, that distinction is lost in your hyperbole, since you wrote literally "There's a case for Islam? Not on this site. On this site there's only a casket." With my Asperger's, I just assumed you meant it literally you meant a pro-Islamic argument was needed. But even still, an Objectivist would support a person's right to be "faithful" only as long as that faith does not justify an initiation of force on the part of the faithful.
Rick:..."and it is not the role of the state to encourage anti-Islam propaganda."
It IS the role of the government, acting as a protector of individuals from the initiation of force, to encourage anti-Islam propaganda when said propaganda calls for extermination of infidels and death to Americans.
Rick: "If the Prince takes that message to the White House then as an Objectivist you should be full of approval."
Uh, no.
Rick: " 'You want a case for Islam? Make it yourself.' Oh phooey. I was counting on you to do that for us."
Damn Joe- You've been kicking ass and to hell with names. We might let you in the hetero club after all(when and if we ever get it going). Sanctions to many of your posts.
Politically, Objectivists stand for freedom of conscience, meaning you can believe what you want, no matter how silly, as long as you don't initiate force against others.
Most Objectivists understand that many religious believers, who certainly have mixed premises, can have valid as well as invalid insights -- Rand admired Aquinas -- though I'd say their valid insights come from philosophical thought rather than religious faith.
But Objectivists aren't first and foremost anti-religion but, rather, pro-reason. We promote an approach to life that best guarantees our happiness and flourishing, a reason and reality-based philosophy. This means, by implication, a rejection of an approach to life or a code of values based on unproved, unprovable or irrational notions.
And it means that we promote a rational culture because that's the kind of culture in which we want to live, one with individuals who live by a rational code. It's in our rational self-interest to have such individuals with which to trade, to be friends with, whose achievements we can admire and whose achievements can entertain, educate, enlighten and inspire us.
As benevolent individuals we try to encourage religious individuals accept our premises even if they don't go all the way to rational beliefs; it's better to have a society of individuals inspired by Aquinas than by Augustine. And since over 90% of Americans believe in god, I would argue that while we should take on, in no uncertain terms, those who most virulently spread religious-based repression or anti-reason beliefs, it's probably a good tactic to approach others with our positive vision.
Well, that distinction is lost in your hyperbole, since you wrote literally "There's a case for Islam? Not on this site. On this site there's only a casket." With my Asperger's, I just assumed you meant it literally you meant a pro-Islamic argument was needed.
I was wondering about that. To me it was abvious he was being sarcastic. You thought he meant it?
Robert M -- Did you have any particular JARS articles in mind? I'll check them out. But I was referring to the Objectivist philosophy, not its creator.
Ultimately we can't simply define ourselves by what we aren't; we must emphasize what we are. There are a lot of anti-religious folks who are not Objectivists and irrational in their own ways -- Marxists, Leftist secular humanists. What makes Objectivism attractive -- and correct -- is that it is a rational, reality-based philosophy for this Earth. We win more converts with an attractive vision than by being perpetual nay-sayers.
Kurt, from his context, I thought he was saying that there was a case to be made for Islam, and that SOLO was too hawkish to listen. The obvious implication was that the Solo site does not have conscientious thinkers but gleeful killers,hence the casket remark. Obviously he was being sarcastic, but in favor of Islam at the expense of SOLO. (Edited by Joe Maurone on 11/03, 12:50pm)
It has been awhile since last read the book, but recall being surprised at the amount of very strong condemnation of religion and its affect on the wellbeing of humans - especially considering that in the Newsletters and such, the issue of religion was that they were pro-reason, not atheistic as such, and that religion was primitive philosophy... basically remember it as being her 'thinking to self' about how to counter those 'anti-life'isms of religion, how actually evil religion was... am not saying am disagreeing here, just making a noticing...
And yet - if you read the Journals of Ayn Rand, you find she was profoundly anti-religion...
Robert,
Can you provide any quotes?
This is an example of the kind of things she usually said in public:
DAY: You've written that the concept of God is morally evil. RAND: I didn't say it's morally evil -- not in those words. I said it is false. DAY: False. RAND: I said it's a fantasy. It doesn't exist. I would say that religion can be very dangerous psycho-epistemologically, in regard to the working of a man's mind. Faith is dangerous, because a man who permits himself to exempt some aspect of reality from reason, and to believe in a god even though he knows he has no reason to believe in a god -- there is no evidence in a god's existence -- that is the danger, psychologically. That man is not going to be rational, or will have a terrible conflict. It's wrong in that way. From the James Day interview with Ayn Rand on "Day at Night" (video)
Rick: Objectivism is not an anti-Christian movement nor an anti-Islam movement."
True
Good lad.
I am beginning to assume from your posts that you an opponent of Objectivism...?).
When you make an assumption you make an 'ass' out of me and 'umption'....no that's not how it goes...but y'know what I mean.
it was the Islamic leaders calling for the DEATH of Salmon Rushdie for criticizing Islam...it is not Objectivists who need to learn tolerance.
BTW, the standard of good virtue ('tolerance' is a virtue..) is an objective one and not determined second hand from the standards accepted by others. That the Ayatollah is passing out an impolite fatwa (or bringing Batman comics into a...like you last week...) does not count for a fig toward your own moral standards. BTW.
I just assumed you meant it literally you meant a pro-Islamic argument was needed.
I did mean it literally. And under the rules of literal interpretation I said that there's no case for Islam here. Was that too ambiguous?
It IS the role of the government, acting as a protector of individuals from the initiation of force, to encourage anti-Islam propaganda when said propaganda calls for extermination of infidels and death to Americans.
I know you edited this once already, but is this what you really mean?
Propaganda that calls for extermination of infidels and death to Americans should be encouraged by the state? By a state that acts to protect individuals from the initiation from force? This IS the role of the government?
It's a bad day for literal comprehension isn't it?
Rick:..."and it is not the role of the state to encourage anti-Islam propaganda." as an Objectivist you should be full of approval [for that message]."
Uh, no.
Soviet Russia had lots of fun-lovin' state propaganda too. Are you in favour of all government propaganda or just the anti-religious propaganda? Are you in favour of state propaganda in principle and only against it depending on what the message is?
You correct me if I'm wrong.
The obvious implication was that the Solo site does not have conscientious thinkers but gleeful killers,hence the casket remark
All I said was that this place has an open grave reserved for Islam. And that's the extent of the salutation isn't it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. If somebody else had made the same post, someone more hawkish, they'd no doubt have been sanctioned with approval. If somebody more passive had originated the post it could be read as a disapproving indictment on your small-minded intolerance.
Which side to I fall on? Who can say? I'm a puzzle. That's beside the point though and if you think it's not you are misunderstanding my King to be.
