Free Muslims Coalition noticed?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Once in a while something good happens in bad environments. Solo Passion is a website devoted to anti-Islam hatred. The people there habitually write bombastic hate messages against all Muslims, not just Islamist fundamentalists. So when I saw the following posted by Duncan Bayne, it jumped out at me:

Free Muslims Coalition

This post deserves applause. I normally don't encourage inter-forum posting because it tends to degrade into inter-forum food-fights. But this post was so short and to the point and so in line with what I believe that I am giving it whole:

Those in the west who appreciate Western values have been vocally demanding that moderate Muslims stand up and speak out against the Islamofascists ... well, how about this list of principles, courtesy the Free Muslims Coalition:

• We believe in the re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
  
• We believe in the separation of religion and state.
  
• We believe that democracy is the best form of government.
  
• We believe in the promotion of secularism in all forms of political activity.
  
• We believe that equality for women is an inalienable right.
  
• We believe that religion is a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God and is not to be forced on anyone.
  

That's one hell of an improvement. It leaves only two questions: can we help them achieve their aims, & if so, how?

Of course, as of this posting, Bayne's questions have not been answered in that environment. I'm not holding my breath, either. One can't expect miracles. Just seeing this message over there was miracle enough.

I am glad to see when someone in a place like that recognizes that we have an intellectual job to do. I hope this realization spreads. I don't expect it to be more than a small gesture, however. Bayne promotes an "Infidel" boutique and I am pretty sure that any intellectual exchange between him and friendly moderate Muslims will be undermined by that.

Still, it's a start.

Michael

[Guest Damage Inc.]

I suggest everyone go to the Free Muslim Coalition website. And look in vain for a Qur'anic defense of their beautiful - but vacuous - rhetoric. But, you gotta love that rhetoric.

Also, instructive is their clever solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. I would be inclined to agree, if only for one problem. Hamas "Islamic Resistance Movement", is in a coalition government with Hezbollah. (The Motto of Hamas just so happens to be virtually identical to that of the Muslim Brotherhood.) A "United States" solution would work if the Palestinians weren't currently in the grip of Islamofascists. There's lots of blame to go around (religious fanatics in Israel included), but, surprisingly, these so-called defenders of Western values turn a blind eye to the huge elephants in the room, e.g. the Muslim/Arab Nations and the current Palestinian leadership.

"This solution will basically take Israelis and Palestinians back to the time before the first intifada (uprising) began in 1987 with the only difference being that the Palestinians will have rights and equality that they never had under the occupation. As proof that this solution can work is the fact that Israel has one million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship and they are not demonstrating, throwing rocks or blowing themselves up. Why is this? The only difference between Palestinians who are citizens of Israel and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is that one group has freedom, political and civil rights while the other has nothing. Israel did not recognize the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza as citizens. They were put under military rule, and they were segregated in every way."

This is an equivocation. The context governing the Palestinians were completely different because the Palestinians in the "occupied" territories (should rightly be Israeli land now) were under the rule of Arafat and his henchmen. But, they blithely ignore the obvious - that Israel was (and is) in a state of war. This was a perfect opportunity to point to the fanaticism within Islam. Do you notice they make no mention of it?

http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/israel-palestine.php

They do make mention of the threat here: http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php

Odd, don't you think? The article on the Israel/Palestinian conflict and the Terrorism article appear under "Our Positions". Why would they write an article that ignores a context the article above somewhat provides?

I see empty rhetoric in support of liberty. Where are the Qur'anic verses that back their position on Terrorism, Sharia Law, Jihad, and individual rights?

Michael Stuart Kelly, perhaps you're sincere in spreading Objectivism. If you are, can you explain to me the method to your, (what appears to me) madness? I want the works of Ibn Warraq, for example, read by Muslims, not this Pollyanna garbage. It's not in the spirit of Ayn Rand that's for sure.

Wayne Simmons

Once in a while something good happens in bad environments. Solo Passion is a website devoted to anti-Islam hatred. The people there habitually write bombastic hate messages against all Muslims, not just Islamist fundamentalists. So when I saw the following posted by Duncan Bayne, it jumped out at me:

Free Muslims Coalition

This post deserves applause. I normally don't encourage inter-forum posting because it tends to degrade into inter-forum food-fights. But this post was so short and to the point and so in line with what I believe that I am giving it whole:

Those in the west who appreciate Western values have been vocally demanding that moderate Muslims stand up and speak out against the Islamofascists ... well, how about this list of principles, courtesy the Free Muslims Coalition:

• We believe in the re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
  
• We believe in the separation of religion and state.
  
• We believe that democracy is the best form of government.
  
• We believe in the promotion of secularism in all forms of political activity.
  
• We believe that equality for women is an inalienable right.
  
• We believe that religion is a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God and is not to be forced on anyone.
  

That's one hell of an improvement. It leaves only two questions: can we help them achieve their aims, & if so, how?

Of course, as of this posting, Bayne's questions have not been answered in that environment. I'm not holding my breath, either. One can't expect miracles. Just seeing this message over there was miracle enough.

I am glad to see when someone in a place like that recognizes that we have an intellectual job to do. I hope this realization spreads. I don't expect it to be more than a small gesture, however. Bayne promotes an "Infidel" boutique and I am pretty sure that any intellectual exchange between him and friendly moderate Muslims will be undermined by that.

Still, it's a start.

Michael

Edited December 25, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[Victor Pross]

Hmmm, I find myself in agreement with Wayne’s points here.

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Hmmm, I find myself in agreement with Wayne’s points here.

Thanks, Victor.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't waste time trying to reason with bigots.

I submit that there are people who know nothing about Islam and Islamic culture, nor are they interested in learning beyond finding phrases that support their bigotry. Racists still find phrases for racism in the Bible (sons of Ham and all that).

About a billion peaceful Muslims is not very much evidence for a mentality like that. There is nothing really for them to learn among these people.

There is a very good book I am reading right now (and I highly recommend it) called The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam that provides a wealth of information on Islamic culture for inquiring minds. Of course the editor of series The Complete Idiot's Guide, Alpha Books, will probably be considered part of some Islamo-fascist conspiracy by providing facts and not bigotry.

It's a value choice in how to use your mind.

Wayne, if you want the works of this person or that (Ibn Warraq for example) read by an audience (Muslims for example), I suggest you develop the competence and structure for making it happen and then do something about it. I will not do your work for you. I am doing my own. That's the way the world works, even in Randland.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Do you really think Wayne is a bigot? Is it not ideas that he’s focusing on, not skin tone or nationality? Hell, I have been called a 'bigot' because of being critical of the catholic religion.

Victor

Edited December 25, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Great deflection, Michael!

"I don't waste time trying to reason with bigots."

I love your evasive move. It's brilliant. You turn the discussion around so that you don't have to answer my obvious question: Where are the Qur'anic verses that back their arguments for Freedom, etc? What they're saying, in effect, is: We can turn Islam into anything we want. They can't. A is A. That's even granting they're being honest (which is far from certain). But, I guess I can look forward to you, Michael, backing the S.F.M.C. (that's the "Socialist Free Market Coalition") some time soon.

I'm an ex-Christian (United Church) turned Atheist writing posts on a supposedly Objectivist website, I'd think that you as the host, Michael, would understand why I'd want - and you'd want - to promote ex-Muslims and not so-called moderates.

Objectivism teaches us to look at the fundamentals of an idea. It's the essential ideas that all Muslims share that we need to investigate and morally judge. This is why Ayn Rand saw altruism, or the wealthfare state, for example, as essentially evil. Ibn Warraq, does exactly that for Islam. Rand didn't beat around the bush, she told it like it is. You were convinced by that style, if it was good enough for you to become an Objectvist (that's assuming for the moment you are an Objectivist), why is it not good enough to promote the self-same hard hitting style of Ibn Warraq? Instead, you promote, a pro-Islam website by linking to it from the home page: http://www.whyislam.org/877/

Odd behaviour for an Objectivist.

Victor, will recall that we recently had an ex-Muslim as the president of the UOFT Objectivist club. Remember, Fawaz, Victor?

So, Michael, you keep promoting the enemy by linking to a pro-Muslim website while real change happens all around you by us "bigots".

Wayne Simmons

I don't waste time trying to reason with bigots.

I submit that there are people who know nothing about Islam and Islamic culture, nor are they interested in learning beyond finding phrases that support their bigotry. Racists still find phrases for racism in the Bible (sons of Ham and all that).

About a billion peaceful Muslims is not very much evidence for a mentality like that. There is nothing really for them to learn among these people.

There is a very good book I am reading right now (and I highly recommend it) called The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam that provides a wealth of information on Islamic culture for inquiring minds. Of course the editor of series The Complete Idiot's Guide, Alpha Books, will probably be considered part of some Islamo-fascist conspiracy by providing facts and not bigotry.

It's a value choice in how to use your mind.

Wayne, if you want the works of this person or that (Ibn Warraq for example) read by an audience (Muslims for example), I suggest you develop the competence and structure for making it happen and then do something about it. I will not do your work for you. I am doing my own. That's the way the world works, even in Randland.

Michael

Edited December 25, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[Victor Pross]

Wayne, yes, of course I remember Fawaz. If there ever was an “inside man” who stepped out of his past—his religious past—it is Fawaz. There is a man with a giant amount of intellectual independence. I commend him for it. He strikes me as a man who just escaped a horror chambers to see the sunlight of a bright and warm sunny day. That’s how I remember him.

I have to laugh a little--Wayne and Michael at logger heads: What we have here is a fairly sharp paper cut-out divide in the Objectivist camp: Orthodox versus Liberal Objectivist. [in any event, I imagine that’s how the two gents would sum the other up]. However, I can see past the caricatures [can you imagine that?] and see two distinct people. There are a lot of qualities that I admire in MSK. I can say that same thing for you, too, Wayne.

A word of clarification now that I have contributed to this thread: I hate religion—the ideas of the supernatural. I hate it in all of it variances and manifestations—Eastern or Western, the whole rotting polytheism. I hate it to the bottom of my soul. I see it as nothing but a plague on the human race. I hate it from A to Z—from the persecution of Galileo to a fucking plane crashing into the side of a building. Theism is a dreamform, without substance or coherence, it is nothing more than a mixture of delusion and fraud.

But I don’t support what Biddle is advocating. Wayne, if you can see how this is not a contradiction, you will have a better understanding of me.

I am one who believes that people have need of the best regulated brains they can master, if they are to tackle the enormous task of putting right a world that is out of joint, and a man who is either hazy or orthodox on these religious matters is so far ill-prepared to think rightly on this or any other subject.

No, I DON’T regret the Biddle caricature. I don’t regret or revoke what that rendering stands for—which is to denounce a wild-eye fanaticism calling for the wholesale death of innocent people. I denounce Biddle’s own version of a “final solution.” So you see, even though I hate religion, I’m not happy that Hitler murdered those “Jewish hordes” as they prayed to their new testament God.

I’ll just leave this post with a quote by Robert Ingersoll: “If people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish—if a little more enlightened, religion would perish.”

-Victor

Edited December 25, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not going to bicker about this and I will not tolerate disrespect. Let's just say that I loathe bigotry in all forms, including Objectivist forms.

Victor,

Bigotry means the following:

bigotry

noun

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice. See like/dislike.

Or from the Wikipedia entry at the same link:

bigotry

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

A note on the links that appear on the front page of OL. We are part of an ad exchange program with Google, so we have no control over the advertisers who pop up, just as we are advertised on Islamic (and other) sites should Objectivism, Rand or whatnot be discussed. I looked at the particular link objected to and found it to be informative, if nothing else. Objectivist bigotry would prefer to not let people become informed, preferring instead to hate (they call it "refute"). However, I do not endorse that site except to the extent that it participates in the Google ad exchange program.

It's a capitalist thing...

About the orientation of OL, this is not a site for preaching Objectivism, but living life utilizing Objectivist principles as understood by independent minds instead. I leave the preachers to other sites.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

About the orientation of OL, this is not a site for preaching Objectivism, but living life utilizing Objectivist principles as understood by independent minds instead. I leave the preachers to other sites.

And this is why I'm here...and not the 'other' sites.

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Me thinks you're full of.... cranberry sauce, lol.

I have no irrational suspicion or (irrational) hatred of Muslims. Where's the evidence for your assertion, Michael? I can't prove a negative. It's up to you to provide the evidence. If you don't have the evidence you should (if you're moral) withdrawn your charge.

If, on the other hand, you read the definition (I think incorrectly) to mean merely an informed intolerance and an informed intense dislike of Islam, and many of its practices, I stand accused.

I'm not going to go on the defensive, Michael. Take a look at the subject header you created. Take a REAL GOOD LOOK. Now, you should stop this childish evading and answer the question I've put fourth. I take it that you have no answer.

As for the websites linked by OL. I stand corrected (although I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds that somewhat suspect).

With regard to that website you call my reaction bigoted. You call the website informative? Can you define what you mean in this context? You don't condone the website but, in a mealy mouthed fashion, you do

just exactly that by calling it "informative". You do so by defending it against fantom bigots.

Here's a sample of their "useful" information:

"Islam has established some universal fundamental rights for humanity as a whole, which are to be observed in all circumstances. To uphold these rights, Islam has provided not only legal safeguards, but also a very effective moral system. Thus, whatever leads to the welfare of the individual or the society is morally good in Islam, and whatever is harmful is morally bad. "

I can imagine hearing, Penn, of Penn & Teller, giving a sarcastic sales pitch for the above. He'd say the following, in a sanguine voice:

"Yes, in Saudi Arabia, the birth place of Islam, we have a very effective moral system that leads to the welfare of the individual. Just look at the universal respect for the Homosexual (changes his voice to sound like Sam Kinison): as we STONE THE GAY TO DEATH!"

So utilizing Objectivist principles, to Michael, means appeasement, evasion, and compromising of our principles. Interesting.

Again: where is your evidence, Michael?

Wayne Simmons

I'm not going to bicker about this and I will not tolerate disrespect. Let's just say that I loathe bigotry in all forms, including Objectivist forms.

Victor,

Bigotry means the following:

bigotry

noun

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice. See like/dislike.

Or from the Wikipedia entry at the same link:

bigotry

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

A note on the links that appear on the front page of OL. We are part of an ad exchange program with Google, so we have no control over the advertisers who pop up, just as we are advertised on Islamic (and other) sites should Objectivism, Rand or whatnot be discussed. I looked at the particular link objected to and found it to be informative, if nothing else. Objectivist bigotry would prefer to not let people become informed, preferring instead to hate (they call it "refute"). However, I do not endorse that site except to the extent that it participates in the Google ad exchange program.

It's a capitalist thing...

About the orientation of OL, this is not a site for preaching Objectivism, but living life utilizing Objectivist principles as understood by independent minds instead. I leave the preachers to other sites.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

You are misunderstanding something. I have no interest in your opinions.

For the others reading this, the intellectual battle I have delineated has nothing to do with preaching Objectivism to Muslims. Here is the main problem: there are people who wish to impose their system of religion and/or philosophy on others by force. These people can be Muslims or Objectivists or any other system of thought or belief. These people are evil and dangerous and they must be combated.

I set a goal of understanding Islam because I actually am interested in preaching some things to moderate Muslims:

1. The adoption of individual rights, separation of church and state, equality before the law, in short, the values of the USA Founding Fathers as a part of their social philosophy. (To my delight, I am discovering pockets of Muslims who actually do this.)

2. The need for them to denounce the fundamentalist and violent faction of Islam and distance themselves from it. (Ditto to my comment above.)

Note that--initially--I do not care whether Muslims convert to Objectivism or not, I do not care whether they abandon Islam or not, nor do I care whether they cease their missionary activities. That is the individual choice of each person. (I do care enough to offer Rand's works, and those of a few others, but that is not my main goal at this stage.) If Objectivism cannot stand on its own merits and convince people in the marketplace of ideas, then it needs to go the way of all other failed ventures. That is pure capitalism.

The idea of spreading Objectivism by guns and bombs causes me to feel extreme revulsion. Objectivists who preach that are wrong and they preach pure evil.

By ignoring the existence of moderate Muslims, by not learning about this culture (but preaching the bombing of it) and by completely misunderstanding the nature of intellectual warfare, orthodox Objectivism is losing against Islam. Losing badly. Scratch that. It is not even fighting. It is a fringe distraction yapping like a stray dog at a parade and nothing more. With the steady growth of this religion throughout the world, I doubt that most Muslims even notice Objectivism.

I don't write these words with pleasure, either. I am sorely embarrassed by the behavior of fundamentalists who call themselves Objectivists. They hinder the spread of Objectivism by tarnishing the name as a bigoted movement that preaches hatred and whose members mostly bicker with each other.

Michael

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Michael, you've successfully hijacked your own thread. I kept asking you to remain on topic and you've made this about fantom bigots (us, so-called "orthodox" Objectivists) relating to "moderate" Muslims.

First, let me point out a contradiction in what you've written.

You wrote:

"For the others reading this, the intellectual battle I have delineated has nothing to do with preaching Objectivism to Muslims." Then in your next paragraph, you wrote: "I actually am interested in preaching some things to moderate Muslims... I do care enough to offer Rand's works, and those of a few others.." Why this talk about, preaching? I thought you had this preaching vs living false dichotomy going on. I'm so disappointed.

I too am interested in persuading "Muslims", that is nominal Muslims, not so-called moderates. Our differences have to do with the right path to take in this intellectual battle. Unlike you I'm not going to make unsubstantiated claims.

With regard to your position on relating to Muslims, your intentions may be good. But, unfortunately, your emotional attachment to your method blinds you to your errors.

What does it mean to be a moderate of an ideology, let alone, to be a moderate Muslim? Someone practicing moderation is someone who steers clear of the extreme of their belief and remains within reasonable limits. On the surface this sounds good. This becomes problematic, however, when we apply this concept of moderation to a fundamentally irrational, and immoral, belief system. Where are the reasonable limits? Were the 9-11 hijackers practicing moderation when they drank alcohol and went to a strip joint the night before implementing their holy jihad against the West the very next day? If you mean moderates where reason is their standard of judgment, why would moderation apply at all? The person would quickly evolve from Muslim, to "Muslim", to unbeliever. Their so-called moderate status would be temporary once you turned their attention to rational arguments. That was the true danger of the Mu'tazilah movement (despite their other faults) that emerged within Islam. Their movement was an attempt to inject Greek rational methods of analysis. The influential, Al Ghazali, saw the dangers to Islam and fought against this trend and was eventually victorious.

So today, where does this leave us? We need to discriminate amoung competing organizations. What should guide us in our decision is a resolved commitment to our core Objectivist values. Of course, I too believe there are people who grew up Muslim, and, because of free will, aren't forever locked into an irrational ideology. That is why I'd approach those who are ready for the transition. Ex-Muslims are, by far, the best antidote. Michael, you're wrong to support an allegedly benign (staunchly moderate) version of unreason - there is no compromise between reason and faith.

Intellectual warfare is more important than you realize, Michael. Endorsement of moderate Muslims - over ex-Muslims, such as, Ibn Warraq - is testament to the fact that you really don't get it. They need to abandon their prophet Muhammad and the Koran (the recitation) for reason, not stay put. FMC says:"... the Koran only provides general principals of governance which leaves the faithful with substantial flexibility to modernize popular Muslim practices and beliefs."

General principles of governance for a theocracy, yes - otherwise, what on earth are they talking about? For Freedom? Perhaps we also ought to mine "Das Kapital" for support of Capitalism, what do you think? Also remember that, Islam, sees no distinction between mosque and state. It's a totalizing, imperialist, religion.

I emphatically oppose forcing atheism on anyone. Of course, even in an ideal world people would be free to believe all kinds of irrational things so long as didn't act to force it on us, e.g. implement a universal umma on the rest of us living in Dar Al Harb. And therein lies the special dilemma. World peace for Islam is Sharia law. From Muhammad, to Saladin, to Bin Laden. A is A. Even, Michael Stuart Kelly, can't re-write reality.

Wayne Simmons

Edited December 27, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

You need to study the difference between tactic and strategy.

Otherwise, if you feel strongly about an issue like Islam, you will spend all your time trying to get some kind of complaint across (usually with forced and incomplete reasoning handed down from ARI folks) on boards like OL (and others) instead of actually doing something about what you believe in out in the world.

Even on Solo Passion, I see Duncan Bayne doing something positive (which I cannot applaud enough). And I see you on the same thread over there complaining about some poster or the other.

That is not intellectual warfare. That will get you no closer to any kind of a solution. That is a complete waste of time.

Why should anyone productive pay any attention to that (or your comments here, which amount to the same thing)?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I agree that Duncan Bayne is doing something that is actually productive and just might affect some positive outcome. It is much more effective, I believe, then pulling polemical punches at those who purportedly share the same philosophy already. The "out there" is where it is at--not the "in here" ravings.

Victor

Edited December 27, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Victor,

What is so positive and productive about Duncan Bayne praising FMC's website? (His Infidel gear is far more positive and productive). On FMC's website, there's nothing from what I've viewed that's scholarly in defense of their, staunchly moderate, position. And besides, your position in this post is an egregious hypocrisy against your own rantings here in this thread against Religion. This group is attempting to keep Muslims, Muslim, albeit, moderate Muslims (whatever that means). Why in the world would Objectivists want to promote that? We're pro-reason as an absolute, not moderates about faith.

As for the "Out there". Victor, you're preaching to the choir, I'm with the Freedom Party Of Ontario.

Ibn Warraq, (and his organization) have done far more positive/productive work on changing the hearts and minds of Muslims than FMC could ever hope to achieve. Because I know you gentlemen are both Objectivists, I'll thank you both in advance for praising me for promoting, Ibn Warraq.

http://www.challenging-islam.org/articles/...ate-muslims.htm

http://www.secularislam.org/

Wayne Simmons

Michael,

I agree that Duncan Bayne is doing something that is actually productive and just might affect some positive outcome. It is much more effective, I believe, then pulling polemical punches at those who purportedly share the same philosophy already. The "out there" is where it is at--not the "in here" ravings.

Victor

[studiodekadent]

The Free Muslims Coalition may not provide a Koranic defense for their position. So what? Why should a religion be consistent about what it believes? This kind of inconsistency with their religion (this 'hypocrisy') is precisely what we want to see! It happened with the Christians and look what happened. The church was neutered and politically disempowered (and only now are some elements of Christianity managing to come somewhat close to regaining a fraction of the power it had before).

Christians take many differring views from eachother. We can point out how most of them are significantly inconsistent with a religion that is inconsistent with itself (biblical contradictions), but it obviously shows that faith is losing hold on their minds and they are becoming more rational. So what if they bifurcate their mind? Any rationality is better than no rationality at all.

The Free Muslims Coalition is obviously not the 'perfect outcome' all Objectivists desire (everyone abandoning religion), but its a vast improvement and represents genuine potential.

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Studiodekadent,

Thanks for your reply.

You ask a straight forward question. Let me give you a thorough straight forward answer.

The seeds of my straight forward answer are provided by you. Christianity is still an incredibly powerful force in the world. You concede that by saying they're "regaining a fraction of the power it had before." We must give this religion its due: this 2,000 year old religion has such awesome power to passionately move people explicitly as well as implicitly. This after the reformation and the consequent countless Protestant denominations. Simply put: this (Christian) meme kicks fucking ass! Why do you suppose that is? One reason, amoung many, is that it's do to the fact that Atheists (including Objectivists) shut their pie hole and happily endorse - or sanction, explicitly or tacitly - liberal sects thinking that things will change,...eventually. They wait. And wait. And wait.

As we're waiting, liberal Protestant families are raising kids, some of which see the contradictions in their parents views and turn to a more consistent brand of their Religion. True, some, like me (or you?), become Atheists, but we are smaller in number. And, even those that become Atheists, turn to Socialism, Environmentalism, etc.

"Any rationality is better than no rationality at all." Not so when it comes to Religion. As Monique David's letter to the editor of Thursday's National Post (Canadian National Newspaper) put it: "Believers have the added value of counting on faith, a powerful light which elevates reason about the limited capacities of men."

If the Free Muslims Coalition rose up spontaneously - in Iran, for example - that would be promising, productive and positive indeed. It might be a great idea to support them provided they could be trusted and aren't a front organization. But, as I said, Objectivists here in the semi-free world need to choose amoung competing - and better - organizations. We're absolutists for reason. Michael, Duncan Bayne, (and oddly) Victor, think this organization is worthy of praise and think they're positive and productive. These people also praise, Ayn Rand. Rand changed their lives. Just like libertarians, (most became libertarians from reading Atlas Shrugged) they turn their collective backs on the ideas that convinced them and start championing the ideas of compromisers. They want to wait - perhaps in vain - for a more rational society. This indeed will stymie the chances of our success.

Wayne Simmons

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

As you can see, there is a vast difference between the way I think and people like Wayne think. I think for myself and encourage others to think for themselves--and I seek knowledge before judging anything. I also seek sharing that knowledge. (Keep an eye on the Mideast section, for instance.)

Wayne (and those like him) would like to think for you and would be more than happy if you agreed with him, especially if certain things were not to be questioned. I definitely find his reasoning defective and I do not believe in the effectiveness of his methods to change anything important in the world.

But the difference goes even deeper. I prefer a person who makes an honest attempt at understanding, even when it is wrong and/or the person strongly disagrees with me, than a person who aligns his thinking with dogma (such as "reason" as conceived by the fundamentalist Objectivists, i.e., jargon). You may notice several people who disagree with aspects of Objectivism (or with me) as regulars on OL. I consider them my friends. I hold I can trust the mind of an honest man, even in disagreement. I have not been disappointed.

Wayne and I will probably always have a communication problem unless one approaches the epistemological method of the other. I find dogma repugnant and I have always produced my own dreams, so I do not see me changing anytime soon. You see our posts. You see our achievements. You judge with your own mind. (I trust you to use it to the best of your ability, so to that extent, I trust your judgment and I know it will be productive and made in good will. btw - I really like what I have seen so far.)

Michael

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Michael,

you call that an argument?

Time and again you insult me, and yet you say, OL isn't a place for insults. Why can't you lead by example, Michael?

Ad hominem attacks and groundless assertions are your stock and trade. I follow the dogma of ARI, according to you. Really? What's the standard Objectivist view about involvement in Politics? I've been involved in Politics for several years. I've formed my own opinions about David Kelley, and even spoke out, years ago, in defense of Kelley. I informing John Ridpath that I saw nothing wrong with "True and Toleration". Currently, I've differences with Kelley's organization, and ARI, but, on average, I think ARI is better.

You think for yourself, implying that I don't. You seek knowledge, implying I don't . You call me a bigot. You call me a dogmatist. Blah. Blah. Blah. Empty vacuous smears. Where is your evidence? Where is the arguments for your position?

As for knowledge on Islam, I could tell you that I've read numerous books over the years by well informed authors, but you have a ready made prejudiced answer so it doesn't matter. I say: look at reality and do the research.

It's documented here for all to see, Michael. I haven't smeared you. I respected your right to disagree. All I've asked you to do is make a rational argument for your position. You've failed to do so. Instead you take the time to insult. Perhaps you'll have the integrity to see your errors.

Wayne Simmons

[studiodekadent]

Christianity is still an incredibly powerful force in the world. You concede that by saying they're "regaining a fraction of the power it had before." We must give this religion its due: this 2,000 year old religion has such awesome power to passionately move people explicitly as well as implicitly. This after the reformation and the consequent countless Protestant denominations.

I would like to add that "Christianity" is not a monolithic entity. The essential of Christianity is "Jesus Christ was divine." With regards to everything else, it is hard to find Christians agreeing! Hence, Christianity can be used to justify almost anything and hence can motivate people towards almost anything. Certainly, biblical literalism does motivate an understanding of Christianity that is absolutely opposed to Objectivist principles but not all Christians are biblically literalist. The current cult of christ that is devastating the USA is still a vocal minority with a stranglehold on the Republicans, and the latest election results seem to show that American theocracy has been rejected.

championing the ideas of compromisers. They want to wait - perhaps in vain - for a more rational society.

Defending religious liberals over religious extremists, indeed defending anything that is an improvement over the current situation, is not 'championing' their ideas. I do not consider an improvement the enemy of the good. Remember that in the battle of ideas, the timeframes are long and as such we are unlikely to change things very quickly. This indicates that trying to push slower changes in the right direction may be more productive.

In my experience, I have found that one need not try to 'convert' someone to Objectivism overnight. Indeed, you can get excellent results just by encouraging people to trust their own independent judgement. Just that little memetic virus, it rarely leads someone directly to Rand's doorstep but I find it is extremely effective at stimulating improvements.

You judge with your own mind. (I trust you to use it to the best of your ability, so to that extent, I trust your judgment and I know it will be productive and made in good will. btw - I really like what I have seen so far.)

Michael,

My sincere thanks!