blackhorse

Greybird, your libertarianism is moral anarchy. One can preach tolerance and "live and let live" mantra's all day long, but pontificating about "islam is not the problem" from the safety of the USA is a cowardly act. Want to know what a world dominated by islam will look like - then look to the middle east - the persecutions of Christians, Jews, and Hindu's - the disrespect of women - the laws that call for stoning and beheadings - the arrest of reason to Allah - fatwa's, honor killings, ad nauseum. Even Thomas Jefferson understood the danger. If a man wishes to be a muslim then that is his business, but I entertain no illusions about the anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-man philosophy that permeates islam the world over. Sure there are muslims who appreciate the liberty of the USA, but when it comes down to brass tacks which idea - reason or mysticism - will they ultimately embrace? It is the hypocritical muslims - those who embrace some reason and the liberty in the US Constitution - which posters on this forum defend, but they my friends are a tiny minority of the islamic world at large. Maybe you can see yourselves living in an islamic dominated world.-if so, good luck with that.

Michael, maybe you can name a muslim dominated nation that respects freedom of religion and thought (and rights of women). To what degree will you defend islamic irrationality?

I await Adonis' rebuttal.

Ed Cline nails it again. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/war-peace/islamic-jihad/6057-The-NYC-911-Mosque-Victory-for-Islamic-Jihad.html

Adonis, your defense of islam astounds me - as does your seeming disgust for the USA. Who is the real tyrant here? The West? How? What has the west done that has jeopardized the freedom of the Iranian's or any country in the middle east? You ought to place blame where blame belongs: It is the intimidating anti-life force of islam that has created the tyranny that infests the middles east - and yet you have the audacity to lay blame on the US and Israel. Why isn't there the type of thuggery practiced in islamic nations in countries like Norway, Holland, or Switzerland? It's because they do not embrace the anti-man anti-life mantras that make islam such a danger to peace and freedom in the world. When Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities it will be long overdue. It will be a victory for liberty across the globe. One cannot allow a fear mongering theocractic bully ad infinitum. The USA and our allies of the west need to support the burgeoning opposition to the mullahs and their cronies. We need to lend as much support to the protesting college students and opposition factions in any way we can. There is no right to enslave. The problem with libertarian thinking is that it thinks only in terms of "as little intervention as possible". That is a moral black hole. Libertarian pacifism would lead to tyrant nations like USSR, Iran, and North Korea to come into power.

I thought 'Inception' was a fantastic movie, too. It really spoke to the idea that A is A. I highly recommend this movie. I real fun thinking mans thriller.

Adonis, have you read the constitutions of these islamic nations and their laws? Islam IS the law.-some nations may choose to cherry pick some Koranic and islamc mandates over others. I have yet to see the islamic teachings that embrace reason and liberty even to a minimal degree. Maybe you could cite them for me. If Islam in it's original form is so beholden to the general idea's of liberty and reason I certainly haven't heard or read about in either its history or historical figures. Islam has never embraced reason to a degree that it as allowed for critical thinking to supersede its mysticism. You speak of an islam that does not and cannot exist. Maybe it is an islam that you wish would exist, but it is nothing more than that. A liberty loving muslim who embraces reason is an oxymoron - it's beliefs will not allow it.

Adonis, where are the islamic nations that defend individual rights and liberty and embrace reason? Where liberty is - islam isn't.

Beware the religion that can espouse this ideaology; http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/taqiyya-about-taqiyya.html http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Taqiyya-Deception-Islam.htm

What's Mr. Bidinotto been up to lately? Is he still involved with TAS? An excellent thinker, I miss his articles and posts.

This kind of stuff happens all too often (here in the U.S.A.!) http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/campus-apostate-former-uc-irvine-muslim-student-union-member-%E2%80%94-and-former-muslim-%E2%80%94-speaks-out/#comments We are at war with islam both militarily and ideologically.-anyone who may dispute this is free to live in any islamic nation and extol its virtues.

I've always wanted to see 'Anthem' on the silver screen.

This is great news. AT first I had my doubts about this films ability to convey Objectivist philosophy via Atlas Shrugged due to interviews I listened to from the director and producers.-I was a bit skeptical at first, but knowing that David Kelley has been involved in the project as the Objectivist advisor to the film has dispelled some of my concerns. It may be a good flick after all. Hopefully this film will open the doors to a massive influx of individuals to rational thinking in general and Objectivist philosophy in particular. *cross fingers*

That is true Phil. However, I have my suspicions. I guess we will all see when it is released. Then there is this exchange, too (hat tip; Ed Thompson has it posted at RoR, too) GM: To return to the themes of the novel. Do you think the characters are beyond good and evil, beyond morality in a Nietzschean sense? PJ: I really believe that. I really believe that. GM: That they’re these Promethean, Titanic figures who are above such things? PJ: I really believe that. Rand uses a lot of things like good and evil in her text but I don’t think she really believed those ideas. It’s like what Oscar Wilde said … I don’t know the exact quote – he said that a book can either be poorly written or well written, but it can’t be evil. GM: But the novel has that Nietzschean overtone to it. PJ: Absolutely.

Michael, in my research I have yet to find the islamic teaching and/or scripture that defends personal liberty either within Koranic doctrine and/or other islamic rules and laws.-maybe you could give me some sources. Ideaologies require individuals to live them. Islam is not an entity - it needs men to bring it to life. Even the "moderate" muslim subjects the laws of liberty to the Koran.-if he doesn't he is not a muslim in the true sense, he is but a nit-picking minority within the religion.-an apostate or in this case "infidel" of sorts. I'll re-iterate; islam supersedes natural/objective law, therefore it must needs always be at odds with freedom, because freedom will not submit. One can't shoot himself in the foot when both eyes are open and the safety is on.

Islam has a legion of 'don'ts' and rules that they must all live by (some stricter than others, but many shared). I'm still trying to figure out how these can be reconciled with liberty...Remember to muslims the laws and mandates of islam supersede any "man-made" laws or as our Founders would say "inalienable rights". Posters here may grant muslims their freedom to worship and live as they will, but the reverse is not true. I am at war with the immoral idea's that is islam - that which would take away my liberty is my enemy.

Joss Whedon would have been my choice to direct. The problem with making 'Atlas Shrugged' with a guy who doesn't even give credence to the capitalistic system is that you can end up with a movie that is not in keeping with what the book is actually about and what message it is portraying. So, even though there may be artistic merit, if the philosophy of the movie, as Ayn Rand wrote it, is not there and is not grasped by the producer/director then the whole thing can actually end up doing more harm than good in actually explaining the idea's and "spirit" of Objectivism.

I have my suspicions about this movie. In the interview the director said ,"And the laissez faire capitalism she was preaching doesn’t really work either, to be honest with you. People say it does, but that relies on Rousseau’s natural man theory - or Adam Smith – that everyone’s going to be working with pure intentions, and that’s not true either."

John Locke vs the Catholic church (or reason vs. mysticism) IS a good parallel.

Islam and liberty cannot co-exist. It hasn't happened yet, there is no reason to think that it ever will. It is a cult that is an affront to personal liberty and reason (and a very dangerous one at that if one simply examines islam's current history alone) - even Thomas Jefferson knew this. I find the apologetics for islam and its unchecked spread through the world and into government - on an Objectivist forum - bizarre and somewhat disheartening. Instead identifying the real and present danger in islam I am hearing more about how I need to prove islams non-threat! Freedom of religion is one thing, but allowing a religion that would submit rule of law and liberty to the teachings of the Koran is quite another.

ND, it is true that at OO they can hash out pretty harsh attacks. I try not to become privy to that sort of garbage. I am passionate about idea's and I try to give my reasons for them, but to some they take anything not in line with their thinking as a personal insult, thus they feel they need to degrade and insult. I have seen too many Oist forums where the initial subject ends up getting boiled down to accusations and character smearing. I try to keep my behavior in line with the subject debate and not make it a personal critique. If someone has a disagreement, fine, but at least a quasi-effort at manners is nice.

Jonathan, no one here is advocating a holocaust - that is context dropping, sir.

Michael, I am beholden to no Objectivist camp. I am simply trying to be objective. I can appreciate what you are saying, though I may disagree. If and when I see muslims around the world actually take a stand with some measureable outrage or numbers against islamist fanatics and the darker sides of their doctrine, then I must continue with my judgment that the barbarity will continue that is islam, unabated. If one of our very own congressman: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=114435 & http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41980 & http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/unethical-congressman-keith-ellisons-pilgrimage-to-mecca-paid-for-by-islamic-nonprofit-claims-didnt-.html & http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557447/Bush-like-Hitler-says-first-Muslim-in-Congress.html -thinks and behaves this way, what makes anyone think that islam can embrace liberty?Adonis is 1 out of 1 billion, unfortunately. I agree that the west should promote the ideas of reason and liberty to the college aged kids and younger, esp those in Iran.

Ok Rich, what would have been your solution to Nazi Germany? Brant, if my posts offend you then so be it, what I find disturbing is when adults choose to respond like smart ass teenagers instead of addressing one another with at least a modicum of decorum. I don't have all the answers - I am trying to explain the very real danger of an islamist world. The libertarian mantra of live and let live can only be of practical value if both sides can respect mans right to live his own life. Where are the muslims reaching out for individualism and reason? 1% is not enough. I have never advocated killing all muslims - I have advocated dropping MOPS on islamist hot spots and sending in elite military sniper units to despose of fanatic islamists who make fatwa's and organize murder. I have stated that islam and liberty are at odds and must forever be. Context matters. I am trying to be objective about what I perceive is a very real and dangerous threat.

I find the apologetics posted here for islam very confusing.