What the Pope Sees (and Doesn't) in America

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's NOT tribalism he's attacking; it's JEWS he's attacking for being tribal.

Robert,

I repeat, rather than telling him what he meant, let's ask him.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

It's NOT tribalism he's attacking; it's JEWS he's attacking for being tribal.

Yes, he is attacking Jews for being tribal (I assume that if he met someone that was Jewish but not tribal, he would not apply the same criticism). He is not attacking Jews for being Jews.

[BaalChatzaf]

And to be honest, there certainly are elements of racialist collectivist tribalism within Jewish culture. However, this does not imply that all Jews are racialist, collectivist or tribalist, since one's beliefs are not transmitted genetically.

Jews avoid laying their Trip on the Goyim. Why? Two thousand years of having the shit kicked out of the Tribe has rendered Jews lovable and humble. Jews got out of the conversion business over 2000 years ago. It is a Jewish teaching that God loves the righteous of ALL the nations. That is straight out of Perke Avot, the sixth book of the Mishnah (oral tradition finally written down and the core of the Talmud). Compare this to orthodox Christian teaching: there is no salvation except through Christ or what the fervent Muslims do and teach. Jews do not have a dhimi tax on Gentiles, even in Israel where they govern. Jews and Gentiles pay the same tax in Israel. Some racism that is.

And Jews have not always kept their seed within the Tribe either. Intermarriage has occurred with Jews since the days of Ezra and Nehemia, about 2500 years ago. Look at Solomon (a Jewish king!) and the Queen of Sheebah who was as black as the ace of spades. Some racism that is.

The problem for (not with Jews) is that Jews are expected to be good Christians even to their own detriment. That fact is that Jews in order to remain Jewish have to look to their traditions, ethos and their solidarity. How clanish! The world has seen to that. If the world were a just place and people were left to be themselves, Judaism would disappear in three generations. But if the world were a just place, then the teaching mission of the Jews would have been fulfilled and there would be no longer any need for a special or "chosen" people. If the world were predominantly a righteous place there would be no need for religions. Every day honestly and uprightly lived is a sufficient sanctification of God's Name. Every land would be a Holy Land. Every city, village and town would be Jerusalem.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 15, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If the world were a just place and people were left to be themselves, Judaism would disappear in three generations.

Bob,

Thank you for that thought. This "just place" and people "left to be themselves" you mentioned are precisely what we are trying to achieve with Objectivism. The hope, of course, is for all groups that favor the tribe over the individual to disappear, or at least have their teeth pulled.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Jews avoid laying their Trip on the Goyim. Why? Two thousand years of having the shit kicked out of the Tribe has rendered Jews lovable and humble. Jews got out of the conversion business over 2000 years ago. It is a Jewish teaching that God loves the righteous of ALL the nations. That is straight out of Perke Avot, the sixth book of the Mishnah (oral tradition finally written down and the core of the Talmud). Compare this to orthodox Christian teaching: there is no salvation except through Christ or what the fervent Muslims do and teach. Jews do not have a dhimi tax on Gentiles, even in Israel where they govern. Jews and Gentiles pay the same tax in Israel. Some racism that is.

Im not sure if I made this point in my initial post enough, but I never said that all Jews were collectivist or supremacist, and I never said all kinds of Judaism were. After all, Judaism is no monolith, there are many differring and competing interpretations. Im simply saying that within Judaism, you will find (in certain elements, strains etc) some undesirable elements. This does not imply any other religion is better, of course.

Indeed, I would rather live next to a Jew than an Evangelical, since the former wouldnt be constantly screaming at me to adopt their religion (of course, sometimes I like a philosophical argument, so at times an Evangelical neighbour would be fun, but thats a different point).

And Jews have not always kept their seed within the Tribe either. Intermarriage has occurred with Jews since the days of Ezra and Nehemia, about 2500 years ago. Look at Solomon (a Jewish king!) and the Queen of Sheebah who was as black as the ace of spades. Some racism that is.

Again, I never attempted to attack all Jews. As I stated, I dont believe culture is transmitted genetically.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I want to be fair so you understand where I am coming from. (The following is one minor example, so please do not think I will only do this in the future. I have many other plans and activities that are in the beginning phase.) The guy who did maintenance work on my computer is a Muslim of Indian origin. He was a great guy and extremely competent, surprisingly so to be honest. He gave me a discount and also some extremely practical unrelated telephone support for free.

We discussed Islam and the values of freedom (very lightly, since this was a first discussion and the reason for me being there was commercial). We will probably discuss more as time goes along. A discussion like that entails both listening and speaking, otherwise, there is no hearing on the other side. I mentioned Ayn Rand and he mentioned the person whose teachings he most liked, Zakir Naik. But as a start, we mostly discussed paths of self discovery and things like that.

It has been a while since we have spoken, but there is nothing in my relationship with him that I think would justify becoming aggressive about terrorists and trying to make him fear me. I can keep an eye open, I suppose, but in my heart, I feel this man is a good person. This extends to the part of his staff that was his family, therefore Muslim, too. If I had to sum up the behavior I observed in one word, the adjective would be "gentle."

Can you give me a good reason to not discuss love of mankind with him to establish common ground? Does this really make me look weak to him or a singer of Kumbaya? I know I am asking you to channel, but I am making concrete efforts one-on-one at persuasion and I am trying to share this perspective with you.

In our present discussion here on OL, you are witnessing how I stick to principles I believe in regardless of the rhetoric. Is there any reason to think I am different when I talk to Muslims?

I am not talking to a "them." I am talking to an individual man. And I want him to consider individual rights and separation of church and state along with his religion. I want him to open his mind to at least hear and analyze the message, so whatever works for that is a good thing. I can only worry about how it looks and all the rest later.

Michael

[magnummaid]

Robert,

I want to be fair so you understand where I am coming from. (The following is one minor example, so please do not think I will only do this in the future. I have many other plans and activities that are in the beginning phase.) The guy who did maintenance work on my computer is a Muslim of Indian origin. He was a great guy and extremely competent, surprisingly so to be honest. He gave me a discount and also some extremely practical unrelated telephone support for free.

We discussed Islam and the values of freedom (very lightly, since this was a first discussion and the reason for me being there was commercial). We will probably discuss more as time goes along. A discussion like that entails both listening and speaking, otherwise, there is no hearing on the other side. I mentioned Ayn Rand and he mentioned the person whose teachings he most liked, Zakir Naik. But as a start, we mostly discussed paths of self discovery and things like that.

It has been a while since we have spoken, but there is nothing in my relationship with him that I think would justify becoming aggressive about terrorists and trying to make him fear me. I can keep an eye open, I suppose, but in my heart, I feel this man is a good person. This extends to the part of his staff that was his family, therefore Muslim, too. If I had to sum up the behavior I observed in one word, the adjective would be "gentle."

Can you give me a good reason to not discuss love of mankind with him to establish common ground? Does this really make me look weak to him or a singer of Kumbaya? I know I am asking you to channel, but I am making concrete efforts one-on-one at persuasion and I am trying to share this perspective with you.

In our present discussion here on OL, you are witnessing how I stick to principles I believe in regardless of the rhetoric. Is there any reason to think I am different when I talk to Muslims?

I am not talking to a "them." I am talking to an individual man. And I want him to consider individual rights and separation of church and state along with his religion. I want him to open his mind to at least hear and analyze the message, so whatever works for that is a good thing. I can only worry about how it looks and all the rest later.

Michael

Michael, Perfectly reasonable (darn ,no sanction ability) ! As to the Pope and what he reads, that he has read a worthy opponent to mysticism such as Rand is gratifying, for there is much more than the inquisition that prove the Roman Catholic church guilty of deception.

[Selene]

Bob; Do you have any evidence for that charge?

No. It was a cheap shot. Mea Culpa! Sometimes I just cannot help myself. When they announced Habemus Pappam with Benny 16, I responded with Seig Heil! I guess the fact that Benny 16 was a Hitler Youth sticks in my craw. I am not generally anti-Catholic even though I had the shit beaten out of me by Catholic bullies (when I was a kid). You see, I personally killed Christ, or so they said. Even so, I should not keep holding a grudge.

Shame on me double. I should have more self control.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Should an individual keep holding a grudge?" Now that is an interesting question. The first N. Branden book I read was "Breaking Free". If holding a grudge, e.g., "Never forgive, never forget" makes you a "better" individual it makes good sense to me. However, if holding a grudge forever and a day impedes your ability to develope into the best "Ba'al", then it would seem to be self-destructive.

In terms of how people "treat" you based on where they categorize you by race, religion, ethnicity or the size of your nose, my personal experience may be of value. As a teenager "dating" Jewish girls was always amusing to me because I would have to change my last name into Adam Kaplan just to get into the parent's Brooklyn apartment of the girl to be able to get her out for a date to begin the eternal campaign to get into other aspects of her total personality - like her pants.

I was the same entitity, but if the observer thought that I was Jewish I was treated differently. Many times not to well by bigots. Conversely, too many Jewish people that knew me as "Jewish" would say, in confidence, some of the most hateful predjudices that I have ever heard. Why not, I was a lansman.

I just flat refuse to pre-judge another individual, never have, never will.

[BaalChatzaf]

I was the same entitity, but if the observer thought that I was Jewish I was treated differently. Many times not to well by bigots. Conversely, too many Jewish people that knew me as "Jewish" would say, in confidence, some of the most hateful predjudices that I have ever heard. Why not, I was a lansman.

I just flat refuse to pre-judge another individual, never have, never will.

You will find bigotry in every clan, kith, kin, tribe, family and ethnic group. It is a common human failing. Ethnic or familial solidarity even with its hostile manifestations may be a vestigial modality for protecting the clan. Us against the Them. In a hostile and less civilized world this might have conduced to survival. In a rather broad based culture or society it is in impediment. I had my epiphany in connection with a Chabad study group. The Rabbi taught that Jews have an additional soul which non-Jews do not possess. I got steamed. I quoted (in Hebrew) from the sixth book of the Mishna Torah that the Righteous of ALL the nations shall have a portion in the world to come. ALL the nations, not just Jews. I could not abide such racist tripe coming from the mouth of one of my people. I would rather spend my time with a righteous gentile than with a Jewish bigot. I turns out I have a daughter in law and a son in law who are first class non Jewish folks. Their families are also the salt of the earth. Quality is transmitted from parent to child very often. My Jewish daughter (of the flesh) has decided to raise her two kids, my grandchildren as b'nai Noah, righteous people. I concur and approve. I am accidentally Jewish, but consciously righteous. That is my choice. The righteous of ALL the Nations shall have a portion in the World to Come.

Now if we can only convinced the fervent and very ultra Muslims the truth of this, the world would be a happier place. You will notice the racism and bigotry that was manifested by Muslims in the recent riots in France and Australia, places they do not even own. Of course the liberals and the goo goo-s made excuses (so what else is new?). Maybe if the Muslims had the shit beaten out of them for two thousand years or more like the Jews, they too will become humble and lovable. That is how tough meat is tenderized. Beat it repeatedly by a hammer with spikes. Eventually it will become tender and tasty. God works in mysterious, but effective, ways whether or not He exists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 15, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

I was the same entitity, but if the observer thought that I was Jewish I was treated differently. Many times not to well by bigots. Conversely, too many Jewish people that knew me as "Jewish" would say, in confidence, some of the most hateful predjudices that I have ever heard. Why not, I was a lansman.

I just flat refuse to pre-judge another individual, never have, never will.

You will find bigotry in every clan, kith, kin, tribe, family and ethnic group. It is a common human failing. Ethnic or familial solidarity even with its hostile manifestations may be a vestigial modality for protecting the clan. Us against the Them. In a hostile and less civilized world this might have conduced to survival. In a rather broad based culture or society it is in impediment. I had my epiphany in connection with a Chabad study group. The Rabbi taught that Jews have an additional soul which non-Jews do not possess. I got steamed. I quoted (in Hebrew) from the sixth book of the Mishna Torah that the Righteous of ALL the nations shall have a portion in the world to come. ALL the nations, not just Jews. I could not abide such racist tripe coming from the mouth of one of my people. I would rather spend my time with a righteous gentile than with a Jewish bigot. I turns out I have a daughter in law and a son in law who are first class non Jewish folks. Their families are also the salt of the earth. Quality is transmitted from parent to child very often. My Jewish daughter (of the flesh) has decided to raise her two kids, my grandchildren as b'nai Noah, righteous people. I concur and approve. I am accidentally Jewish, but consciously righteous. That is my choice. The righteous of ALL the Nations shall have a portion in the World to Come.

Now if we can only convinced the fervent and very ultra Muslims the truth of this, the world would be a happier place. You will notice the racism and bigotry that was manifested by Muslims in the recent riots in France and Australia, places they do not even own. Of course the liberals and the goo goo-s made excuses (so what else is new?). Maybe if the Muslims had the shit beaten out of them for two thousand years or more like the Jews, they too will become humble and lovable. That is how tough meat is tenderized. Beat it repeatedly by a hammer with spikes. Eventually it will become tender and tasty. God works in mysterious, but effective, ways whether or not He exists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"I am accidentally Jewish, but consciously righteous. That is my choice. The righteous of ALL the Nations shall have a portion in the World to Come."

Agreed. It is the "consciously righteous" that involves choice. It is self-evident that all human "groups', "teams" "philosophical movements" [like Objectivism] develope a "group identity", or in the military or a football team develope a "group integrity"[see our stategic daylight bombing campaign on Germany WWII or watch Twelve O'Clock High with Peck where group integrity demanded that the individual sublimate his, and now today her, emotions, e.g. fear to the total survivability of the group.

However, you still have to consciously place a delay in your hard wiring and think. For example when I was in the 7th grade in a "special progress class", how politically incorrect would that be today, my Jewish math teacher was walking down the rows and she stoped at my desk and said, "Ahh Adam, you're in the accellerated math class, so your mother must be Jewish." Luckily for her health, I had already read Atlas, and I replied coldly and calmly, Mrs. _____, I believe that my father is going to make an appointment to speak with you in your office. He did, she walked on egg shells for the rest of the interminable year of her horrendous inability to teach math in a conceptual manner.

Personally, being Italian, there was a thread in our family's "mythology" of oral history that said, "remember the Irish threw rocks at your grandmother!" My response was and your point is that I am now supposed to go out and throw rocks at Mike's grandmother down the block for something that may have happened 50 years ago that he and she have no knowledge of? I would then say, Aunt ______ that seems pretty irrattional to me so I am not going to do that.

I am merely arguing, in fact pleading, for that consciously righteous stance from all of us.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just flat refuse to pre-judge another individual, never have, never will.

Personally, being Italian, there was a thread in our family's "mythology" of oral history that said, "remember the Irish threw rocks at your grandmother!" My response was and your point is that I am now supposed to go out and throw rocks at Mike's grandmother down the block for something that may have happened 50 years ago that he and she have no knowledge of? I would then say, Aunt ______ that seems pretty irrattional to me so I am not going to do that.

I am merely arguing, in fact pleading, for that consciously righteous stance from all of us.

Selene,

I like you.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ Generally, re this subject, I gotta agree with Baal...with a caveat that seems not to have been discussed re 'religion': fundamentalism.

~ 1st off, most religions (as most philosophies) are NOT 'live-and-let-live' ones. Very few have inherently no need for 'political' power to decide how to use force in treating non-believers. Objectivism is one philosophy, and I believe Buddhism (originally) is one religion; Amish, maybe also; there may be some others I'm not up on, but, they certainly must be rare given what I've read across their breadth.

~ 2nd, of these 'most', religions are ignorable until the fundamentalists get...aggressive; politically, 'within a system', evangelistically (TV), or merely activistly...such as Al-Quaida (or, the KKK?) --- Scratch the 'fundamentalistic' evangelizing, and there's nothing to worry about.

~ Re the Muslim religion...where is there NOT 'fundamentalistic' evangelizing about it to it's followers?

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

~ Re the Muslim religion...where is there NOT 'fundamentalistic' evangelizing about it to it's followers?

John,

Sufi, for starters. You should really read up on it. Followers of Wahhabi, Qutb and some others (with a strong dose of Nazism) are the bad guys. All the others are essentially not subjected to "'fundamentalistic' evangelizing." This means the vast majority. If you are really interested, I suggest the works of Professor Bernard Lewis. There are some others I am beginning to read, but his view is the sanest I have found.

Ironically, you will find more "'fundamentalistic' evangelizing" on anti-Muslim Internet sites than in a standard mosque. Weird, but true.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Here is an inside look of a typical Imam sermon on You Tube:

(I find it kinda like a TV Christian preacher's sermon.)

About Nazism and Islamism, see here: Tell the Children the Truth.

Michael

[John Dailey]

ADDENDUM:

~ Sure, like Baal implies, there're non-'fundamentalistic' Muslims. They're called 'moderates', right? But, apart from apologists on talk-shows arguing how non-Muslims should view 'Muslims' generally, ("We're not ALL 'crazies'"), where are the 'teachers', the imams, etc, evangelizing in their mosques 'moderation' and condemning fundamentalistic views?

~ The 'moderates' are watered-down 'Muslims' (like non-Orthodox/non-Hassidic Jews, and 'Catholics' who have no prob with abortion in the 1st-Trimester and are conflicted with a Pope's changing policies)...and are not imams. They're the followers, not the 'teachers.' They learned the worth of avoiding their version of 'fire-and-brimstone' teachings...and moved away from the mid-East...and are irrelevent to the whole problem of dealing with the source (or preparing for its consequence) of *our* next hate-filled massacre.

LLAP

J:D

[Selene]

I just flat refuse to pre-judge another individual, never have, never will.

Personally, being Italian, there was a thread in our family's "mythology" of oral history that said, "remember the Irish threw rocks at your grandmother!" My response was and your point is that I am now supposed to go out and throw rocks at Mike's grandmother down the block for something that may have happened 50 years ago that he and she have no knowledge of? I would then say, Aunt ______ that seems pretty irrattional to me so I am not going to do that.

I am merely arguing, in fact pleading, for that consciously righteous stance from all of us.

Selene,

I like you.

Michael

Thank you. The feeling is mutual. Granted, as you pointed out to me regarding general semanticist[aghh I have not read him in years] this is a "rant" area. I did not realize that at first. However, your original point that started this journey to the "dark side" in a number of posts, mine included, is worth exploring. Folks tend to selectively distort and selectively retain information as they process the information.

It is a question of personal discipline to be "objective". It is not an easy path and yes we get yelled at a lot. So be it.

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ I'll check them out, but...when you say 'standard', what locale are you referring to? Global? 'Mid-East'? British? American-Canadian? Or...'YouTube' findings (which I think not many Mid-Easterners have access to) only?

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 17, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Moderate teaching doesn't work by commission, it works by omission. Look at Christianity. You will be hard put to find a Christian preacher telling the congregation, "We have to avoid the bloodthirsty craziness in the Bible and water it down in order to live right." What they do is ignore it and focus on lessons for being good. Even so, Christianity still has its crazies and lethal crimes are committed much more than reported because "God told me to."

We need to focus on injecting individual rights and separation of church and state into the thinking of the moderates. It will be hard to convince them that their religion is defective. Let them do the reforms. (This, incidentally, is happening. See the appropriate links in the Mideast section here on OL. There are many.)

Michael

[Selene]

However, they will succeed if the West greases the skids by, say, blasting the hell out of Iran's nuke facilities and staging a coup to topple Ahmadinejad from power. I think Iran will benefit much more from a power vacuum than Iraq did. Yes, agreed that Iran has quite a student movement, whereas nothing of the sort exited under Sadam Hussein.

That said, without some ass-kicking, I don't see it happening. There is an acceptance of fate in Islam that is simply frightening. A direct result from a religion called "Submission." We've got to make them fear Uncle Sam more than they fear Allah.

Robert,

I have no problem denying Iran nuclear power (even by means of war) given the "second-coming" (14th Imam) bent of Ahmadinejad and the ruling clergy. That's a very dangerous kind of mentality to be in charge of massive means of blowing things up. But even if Ahmadinejad were toppled from power with our involvement (and that is the wrong guy to topple in Iran, anyway), I seriously doubt the repercussion in the Sunni world would be very great. It wasn't when the the Shah was installed, it wasn't when the Shah was toppled (Iraq even went to war with them) and I don't think it would be with Ahmadinejad. The Muslim world is just too big and divided for an oversimplified "shock and awe" approach.

I have no problem with teaching fear to those who need it (and on a personal level, I have done a bit of this myself in the past), but it is a tragic mistake to miss out on teaching Muslims to love individual rights and other forms of love where this can be done. I would expect you, as a Christian, to have at least some sympathy for the approach of teaching love for human beings.

The solution to this whole issue is a package of many measures and there is no one size fits all. There are simply too many Muslims, too many denominations and too many countries involved for that to be realistic.

Michael

Well, we can argue details, but the main thrust of my argument was rhetorical. Yes, i know some Ayatollah jerkoff really runs things in Iran, and his word is law. My main challenge was the *equivocation* between Christians, Jews and Moslems. I do not see it, and cannot see it. I can make out a laundry list of atrocities commited in the name of Islam that are not commited in the name of Christianity and Judaism.

Nor was I saying that a one-fell-swoop attack on Iran would answer everything. I was giving a single *example,* namely to address the point above. "Shock and Awe" worked only inasmuch as it toppled Saddam from power, but afterwards we didn't exactly calculate what would happen in the power vacuum. However, I am glad that the United States has established two bases of operations (Iraq and Afghanistan) with Iran in the middle. What I am NOT happy about is precisely the point you raised about the Sunni Moslem world: Saudi Arabia is behind all this Jihad shite, and we didn't attack them because we are whores for oil.

I have sympathy for your approach in trying to foster relations with reasonable Moslems. I have in fact left numeous postings on these boards praising Irshad Manji, and others, who seek to revive the Islamic tradition of Ijtihad. However, that's the carrot. And, without the stick at the backs of the radicals and their sympathizers (more people than you think), there'd be little impetus to change their way of thinking. Yeah, I'm with Daniel Pipes and Wafa Sultan on building bridges (I don't know who Yaron Brook is, though). It ought to go without saying that we oughn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this, which would only end up alienating decent Moslems, who certainly don't deserve to suffer from the excesses of their extremist brothers.

However, so many decent Moslems are silenced from speaking their true thoughts on these matters. Yes, half of it is from fear. But, the other half is from shame of not following their own religion as rabidly as the terrorists. Until decent Moslems admit that perhaps Mohammed was a murderous Schweinehund, they will be permanently cowed by the more devout of their faith. I have no problem saying, "hey, St. Paul was probably wrong about this or that," and I am not stoned for it. A Moslem most likely would be if he even suggested that Mohammed was not always a swell fella.

As a Christian, though, here's where I stand on the subject of the kind of agape love you are describing.

If I turn the other cheek once, shame on you.

If I turn the other cheek twice, shame on me.

The West has turned the other cheek to the Moslem jihadists *thousands* of times. Time to slap back, I say!

"However, I am glad that the United States has established two bases of operations (Iraq and Afghanistan) with Iran in the middle."

Damn, sounds like a real good RISK game. Anyone out there ever played Avalon Hill games like Gettysburg or Tactics II[<<Robert you would like this one].

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Ahmed Deedat is a bit of a character. Here is another cute little video:

.

(He even mentioned at the end of this talk to a young English woman about how women are treated in ads in the West, "This is your pleasure, your privilege. We have no right to force you." Of course he thinks there will be a price Allah will charge later.)

There is a lot about his ideas that are not good and the anti-Muslim critics call him a fundamentalist, but compared with Qutb, from what I have heard so far, he is a piker. I don't find what I have seen and heard any worse or better than a normal Christian TV preacher's sermon. He is entertaining, but that suits his calling as a preacher.

Michael

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ Our probs are primarily with the 'fundamentalists' who evangelize killing non-fundies (especially us heretics). I see little reason to focus on any 'moderates'; they affect no fundamentalist teachers (they certainly won't affect the fundamentalist followers) but do affect 'us.'

~ I see no reason to be that 'tolerant' of a belief system where its 'moderates' wish me to pay more attention to their complaints about our 'intolerance' of their beliefs (since their beliefs are supposedly 'misrepresented' by anomolous hijackers) than to their rabid brethren. As long as the moderates complain about intolerant non-Muslims, they merely distract us from our need to pay attention to their brothered StormTrooper kamikaze-directors...and the quotings used supporting them.

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 17, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ You say "Moderate teachings...work by omission."

~ I'm aware of the 'omission's (including the little heard from Sufis). I'm not aware of the 'work'ing of it.

~ Your analogy re Christian-teaching evolution has its place; but, how long (and how many dead) did that take...before such popular acceptance of non-fundamentalism therein finally came about? W-a-y too long, I'd say; now we must do such waiting re the Muslim community also? What militant religion is next after that which we (or our kids, or their kids) need 'wait' for?

~ I say we should learn from history and stop doing the same thing (waiting) expecting consequences to be different. --- Waiting for such is waiting...for Godot. We're talking about waiting to die.

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 17, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

You asked about "where is there NOT 'fundamentalistic' evangelizing about it to it's followers." I merely showed you.

About the violent fundamentalists, my own approach is to correctly identify them (and that seems to be a real problem in the Objectivist community), stress the Nazi element—especially because it is true and shocking, and let the military and government forces do the job they have been doing so brilliantly on containing terrorism against Americans.

By ignoring the moderate Muslims and keeping intellectual focus on the radical part, I have two questions:

1. Who do you want to communicate with?

2. What actual change to you think can occur by you personally doing so?

I also have another question. Do you think that getting moderate Muslims (or any who will listen) to consider and adopt individual rights and separation of church and state a bad thing or a waste of time?

Michael

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ Good questions. Get back to you...in this thread...on that.

~ However, my neurons on this are 'bout used up tonight.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ You ask a few questions for me to respond to. Herewith...

By ignoring the moderate Muslims and keeping intellectual focus on the radical part, I have two questions:

1. Who do you want to communicate with?

2. What actual change [d]o you think can occur by you personally doing so?

1. The problem-makers...in their chosen/decided ways of 'communicating' with me, 'personally', or with my ilk (aka, 'heretics', like T-T occupants, Salman Rushdie, etc.)

2. None, until said group (can we say 'radical fundies'?) affect me...'personally.' THEN, I'll not wait for 'authorized' protectors to take care of my...'personal'...relationship therein; a 'change' with said group would thence occur, one way or another.

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 26, 2007 by John Dailey