Osama bin Laden Killed

[Rich Engle]

BTW, when you say "we", do you say that as an American, or as a muslim?

Isn't it better to say things just as a human being? All life is an interconnected web.

And I guess not being aware of that fact is where a lot of the trouble starts for all of us.

rde

[9thdoctor]

Would they advocate, for example, the freedom to build Christian churches and even atheist centers in Mecca?

That’s like asking why there are no Mosques in Vatican City. OTOH, anyone can visit the Vatican (I have), but not Mecca or Medina.

I have read Lewis on Islam. The most important point he makes, in my mind, is that Islam did not experience something comparable to the Protestant Reformation.

How could they have a Protestant Reformation when they never had a Pope? There have been divisions and conflicts from the beginning, and not just Shia vs. Sunni; it goes on today (I read that Iran is currently working to outlaw Sufism).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not sure how to reply to this. because when you say that you "don't see the fundamental source as religious," I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you mean the bigotry that some Americans display towards any and all Muslims, then, okay, I might agree with you. But the "fanaticism" which I mentioned in an earlier post referred to the attitude of some Muslims to "infidels." This, I submit, is based almost entirely on religion.

George,

I'm looking deeper at the hostility and fanaticism than just religion.

But on that score, do you honestly see religion as a fundamental difference between the hatred of racist fanatics and the hatred of Islamist fanatics?

One of the best things I got from Ayn Rand was that she put all this under "collectivism."

That's what I thought we were discussing.

And I have a specific focus on this that I have been pursuing for some time. There are human nature components that are easily seduced and rationalized by collectivism. (I've often called this bullying.)

For example, there's a video around here somewhere of a Dawkins-sponsored talk where some fascinating archeological data was shown. The speaker (I can't remember his name right now, but I can find it if need be) produced an exhibit of human bones from the earliest times of human history. They showed clearly that the people were killed by man-made weapons. In other words, an attack by other humans. The talk went on about "young male group raids" or some expression very similar to that, and the speaker showed how these raids have been with us all throughout human history.

Does that mean that this is part of human nature? The evidence suggests so.

There's another aspect of human nature I have learned from studying marketing (and this has been corroborated with experiments). People generally attribute the cause of their unhappiness or pain to an outside source, except for when they specifically focus on containing this tendency. If their mind drifts a bit, back they go to blaming outside elements.

For marketers, this makes it easy. They manufacture a magic bullet to kill the the "outside thing," say this will resolve the pain or unhappiness and sell up a storm. The fact that this rarely solves the inner problem is not taken into account except by the most ethical marketers. (These last give a magic bullet, but use this as an attention-seeking device that earns them the right in the customer's mind to present deeper solutions to their problems, but that is for another time.)

How does this tie in to the present discussion:? Easy. A person points his finger at a religion and says, "There is the entire problem. If we could get rid of that religion (or even all religion), we will get rid of the irrationalism that goes with it. People are irrational because of religion."

In other words, the inner problem, to these folks, has an outside source. If we can kill the outside source (that religion) with a magic bullet, we will solve the inner problem.

I submit this has never worked and never will.

One set of ideas to justify bigotry and war (like a specific religion) will always get a replacement (like "manifest destiny" of yesteryear, or communism of last century). This always happens when the bigotry and savage attacks within one framework of ideas are brushed aside as not having deep fundamental human-nature causes.

When people single out a specific body of ideas and point to it saying, "That is the whole problem behind the current bigotry and savage attacks" and manage to abate it somewhat, another body of ideas takes its place, but the bigotry and savage attacks always seem to find a nest in the new ideas. Note that specific spokespeople always crop up championing these abuses. This is a pattern.

Sometimes we even get Objectivist "leaders" speaking in bigoted terms, saying--with all moral propriety--we can kill innocents among the enemy at will if we are attacked, and clamoring for violent attacks. (I keep seeing the faces of several Objectivist speakers when they have used the term, "Crush the enemy." Frankly, it's creepy.)

Religion (just like philosophy) is a great smokescreen for bigotry and savage attacks, and it is a great unifier and intensifier of them, but it is not the cause.

If we go to the cause and solve the inner problem, we will automatically solve the nasty parts of religion--and maybe even move religion into a different level of intellectual pursuit (something akin to what Ken Wilber does).

There are other human nature elements, too. Modern cognitive science is uncovering a vast amount of information about human herding, human development from infancy, automatic brain processes, etc., that explain a lot about why we always make such a mess out of human relationships. (I could go on all day about the stuff I have been uncovering. This is turning into a full-fledged passion for me.)

As a historian and libertarian intellectual, you are aware that freedom only became socially viable when people started accepting the individual as the sole owner (or at least sole custodian for the religious) of his fundamental rights instead of a ruler appointed by God or some other esoteric means. And this is a very recent development in human history--i.e., man can devise a system to govern himself, he does not need such a ruler.

I contend that this realization identifies and gives a method for dealing with one of the less savory parts of our inheritance in terms of human nature. We all want control to some degree and we will get it one way or another. When we become aware that we own something no one else can have (starting with our right to life), we no longer have a deep inner reason to seek it from another by force--like people have to do in tribal structures. This strikes at a deep urge.

Back to Islam. Within this context, let's look at the idea once more of a huge number of people who hold that they are appointed by God to convert the entire world to their belief.

Is that belief the entire problem or is it deeper? In other words, if you can defeat that specific set of beliefs, have you solved the problem?

I say no. I say it's deeper.

Here's just one solution (of many--so I should say partial solution). Change the leaders and you automatically change the direction of that "divine" appointment.

I'll argue this by analogy, since it is very familiar to most everyone. I'm reminded of the typical lynch mob versus sheriff scene in Western movies. A mob convenes on a jailhouse and people want to string up the prisoner. They are blood-thirsty and there's macho talk galore. People are egging each other on.

There is only one sheriff standing in their way.

Does he start lecturing them on the evil of lynching? Does he mock their belief that the prisoner is guilty and needs to be killed--instead of tried in a court of law? Does he tell them that they are evading and are intrincisists and subjectivists and emotionalists and that their problem is irrationality?

Hell no.

He points a shotgun at the leader and says, "If you take one more step, I will shoot you dead."

Once the leader backs down, the crowd eventually disperses.

That, I submit, is human nature. That is what we have to concentrate on when dealing with the influence of fanatics on a culture. We have to get the leaders to back down in front of their crowd (either by force or by persuasion).

After the crowd backs down, then we can go after the bad ideas and offer better ones.

Not before.

People reason when there is peace. They do not reason so well in a lathered up mob--neither, in the present case, the Islamists nor the Islam-haters.

That is one of the reasons I dislike preaching so much.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You need tribal groupings for sheer survival. That's the rational default but big brains are not needed. Men hunt and defend and aggress. Is it necessarily irrational for one group to steal from another? This is the primitive foundation of human existence. Upon this we try to build civilization, but it can crash down rather easily.

--Brant

Edited May 12, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Richard Wiig]

BTW, when you say "we", do you say that as an American, or as a muslim?

Isn't it better to say things just as a human being? All life is an interconnected web.

And I guess not being aware of that fact is where a lot of the trouble starts for all of us.

rde

We are all human beings, of that there is little doubt (well, except for some) but each of us follows a philosophy of one kind or another. Islam imparts a philosophy which shapes the person, as does Objectivism. Islam teaches that an adherents first loyalty should be to the Ummah, which transcends geographical and political boundaries. Islam has its own politics, a politics that is contrary to the principles of the United States. It is a valid question, especially seeing as I saw LM's post as being nothing but more of his moral equivalence.

[9thdoctor]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/

Ron Paul argues that we should have let the Pakistanis arrest bin Laden. He makes good points, but this isn’t going to improve his popularity.

[George H. Smith]

I'm not sure how to reply to this. because when you say that you "don't see the fundamental source as religious," I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you mean the bigotry that some Americans display towards any and all Muslims, then, okay, I might agree with you. But the "fanaticism" which I mentioned in an earlier post referred to the attitude of some Muslims to "infidels." This, I submit, is based almost entirely on religion.

George,

I'm looking deeper at the hostility and fanaticism than just religion.

But on that score, do you honestly see religion as a fundamental difference between the hatred of racist fanatics and the hatred of Islamist fanatics?

One of the best things I got from Ayn Rand was that she put all this under "collectivism."

That's what I thought we were discussing.

No offense, Michael, but you have lost me. If Ayn Rand put all this under "collectivism" (which I don't think she did), then she was dead wrong. To judge people on the basis of their beliefs, whether religious or secular, is not a form of "collectivism." The fact that I hate all Nazis does not make me a collectivist.

The only point I originally wanted to make pertained to religious fanaticism. This has been a pernicious and destructive influence throughout history, and it was a primary target of those freethinkers and libertarians who spearheaded the enlightenment. Rand's notion of "collectivism" explains none of this.

How does this tie in to the present discussion:? Easy. A person points his finger at a religion and says, "There is the entire problem. If we could get rid of that religion (or even all religion), we will get rid of the irrationalism that goes with it. People are irrational because of religion."

In other words, the inner problem, to these folks, has an outside source. If we can kill the outside source (that religion) with a magic bullet, we will solve the inner problem.

I don't know anyone who actually argues this way. In any case, it would certainly help -- and help a great deal -- if modern Islam experienced an "enlightenment" similar to what Christianity experienced during the 17th and 18th centuries. This period resulted in a fundamentally different way of viewing things.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't know anyone who actually argues this way. In any case, it would certainly help -- and help a great deal -- if modern Islam experienced an "enlightenment" similar to what Christianity experienced during the 17th and 18th centuries. This period resulted in a fundamentally different way of viewing things.

Dream on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know anyone who actually argues this way. In any case, it would certainly help -- and help a great deal -- if modern Islam experienced an "enlightenment" similar to what Christianity experienced during the 17th and 18th centuries. This period resulted in a fundamentally different way of viewing things.

Dream on.

This is the second time you've posted this worthless crap. Everybody is entitled to do this once; I do it once all the time, but I don't keep repeating myself as if I were addressing morons.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

The desire for freedom for oneself is not unusual, and it doesn't mean zilch. What counts is the conviction that others, regardless of their beliefs, should enjoy equal freedom.

Agreed, I believe that is the case.

The struggle for religious freedom was the foundation for the emergence of libertarian ideals in the west. So how widespread is the advocacy of complete religious freedom among your Muslim friends? Would they advocate, for example, the freedom to build Christian churches and even atheist centers in Mecca? Would you?

Ghs

In terms of building Christian Churches or Jewish Synagogues, I don't see it as too much of an issue at all. The Kaaba was made as a destination for religious pilgrimage for all monotheistic religions as it was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael, peace be upon them.

In terms of Atheist centers? I'm not sure you'd find it popular there at all.. I have never met an atheist in the Middle East, from the Gulf to Syria or Lebanon I didn't find one at all. I found a few people who were against the religious teachings of their parents both from Christian and Muslim backgrounds, some who didn't know what the right religion was yet still believed in God.. Some who left their religion such as Islam or Christianity because they disagreed with not the religion itself, but how the cultural practices introduced certain things into it which were oppressive to them.

I'm sure you could give it a go if you wanted, but it would leave the Arabs scratching their heads..

Their response would probably be something like "You mean you want to build a building here, devoted to having the belief that there is nothing to believe in? Why not leave it vacant then?"

[George H. Smith]

In terms of Atheist centers? I'm not sure you'd find it popular there at all.. I have never met an atheist in the Middle East, from the Gulf to Syria or Lebanon I didn't find one at all. I found a few people who were against the religious teachings of their parents both from Christian and Muslim backgrounds, some who didn't know what the right religion was yet still believed in God.. Some who left their religion such as Islam or Christianity because they disagreed with not the religion itself, but how the cultural practices introduced certain things into it which were oppressive to them.

I'm sure you could give it a go if you wanted, but it would leave the Arabs scratching their heads.

Their response would probably be something like "You mean you want to build a building here, devoted to having the belief that there is nothing to believe in? Why not leave it vacant then?"

Did it ever occur to you that Milddle Eastern atheists are smart enough to keep their disbelief to themselves? (There are in fact atheists in the Middle East; I've had personal contact with a number of them over the years.)

As for your hypothetical response to atheist centers: I refuse to believe that all Muslims are as ignorant and childish as you make them out to be.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

In terms of building Christian Churches or Jewish Synagogues, I don't see it as too much of an issue at all. The Kaaba was made as a destination for religious pilgrimage for all monotheistic religions as it was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael, peace be upon them.

And yet not only can’t they build, they can’t even visit. There are special highway bypasses and non-Muslims are subject to prosecution if they lie in order to visit Mecca or Medina.

I’d be interested to visit, just to see everything. I’ve been to many of the famous Christian churches in Europe, anyone can go. There’s a bit of security to get into St. Peters in Rome, and the one in Bologna, which has a Renaissance fresco of Muhammad being tortured in hell had notably tight security when I went, otherwise these buildings are wide open.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No offense, Michael, but you have lost me. If Ayn Rand put all this under "collectivism" (which I don't think she did), then she was dead wrong. To judge people on the basis of their beliefs, whether religious or secular, is not a form of "collectivism." The fact that I hate all Nazis does not make me a collectivist.

George,

If you're lost, let's find you.

It's good we are discussing this because this is important and I believe it demands clarity. So if I was not clear to you, I am certainly not clear to others. Let's see if I can do a better job this go around.

(Please, though, don't forget that the characteristic of forum discussions is hashing out ideas and speaking off the top of your head. I consider my comments all within this frame.)

I was not talking about a person hating collectivists. I was talking about the collectivists themselves. People who hold to an "us against them" default mentality for judging all of humanity. You say you hate Nazis and that doesn't make you a collectivist. Agreed. But you don't see mankind divided up into (1) People who hate Nazis, and (2) The evil everyone else.

However, the hardline Nazis saw the world that way ("us against the evil everybody else"). They were collectivists.

According to this form of thinking, Islamists are collectivists when it comes to judging the rest of humanity. Racists ditto when it comes to the race they despise. (Note that the distance between a run-of-the-mill white racist who hates blacks and a white supremacist who hates all races but white is but a hop, skip and a jump. There's the "us against them" thing hiding in the wings.) Rand even called racism the lowest form of collectivism. See this quote from the beginning of her article, "Racism," in The Virtue of Selfishness:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

You can easily modify this quote to suit any form of bigotry, replacing "genetic lineage" with other non-volitional elements that are shared by a group.

Another more traditional way of saying this, albeit emphasizing the negative side and not the full universal meaning, is to take the most unsavory moral, social or political acts of a few individuals within a group and ascribe the entire group with them.

This is a form of moral collectivism.

Is Rand "dead wrong"? Or am I? By your standard, I don't know. I understand her to mean what I said and I don't believe she is wrong on her own terms using her own definitions.

In the case of Islamic countries, a person in one of those countries cannot change the culture he grows up around. He can change it later as an adult and can travel on his own, but not while he is growing up. Most adults rarely change their culture. That's just the way humans are. (Having been one who did change my culture for over 3 decades, I know the sacrifice involved. It's not easy.)

Anyone at all who has ever visited an Islamic country knows that there are good parts and bad, just like in any other place. There are ultra-modern parts and there are destitute parts. And that people are people, going about their everyday affairs the best they can. It's fun (in an exotic manner) and colorful to point to camels and poor half-naked kids with bad teeth running behind caravans and so forth, but that's not the way it is in most places over there. Would anyone say that inner-city ghettos are the main characteristic of the entire USA culture? That's just not reality.

When I see people take just one aspect of that culture, the religion, and take isolated sections of the religion (admittedly bad sections) that most Muslims don't even take seriously--at least not in a literal manner (albeit the fanatics do), and use them to instill widespread hatred in the West of the entire Muslim culture, I just don't believe that person when he says he is talking solely about those ideas.

Here's why. From the people I have read, such a person will constantly use broad generalities to repeat over and over his negative views (like Islam is evil, etc.), and rarely have anything positive to say about the Muslim culture. And on those rare occasions when he does, the comment is usually ultra-specific to an individual within a very limited time-frame and qualified to death. (The opposite is true, too. Don't get me started on things like CAIR, Hamas, etc. and the widespread antisemitism that I see all over the place, including here in the USA.)

That, to me, is collectivist thinking in action. I don't play the conceptual.game of hiding an agenda behind semantic technicalities. I look at what a person says and what he does. If they don't align, I go with what he does as a more accurate indication of his meaning and intention.

If you don't want to use the term collectivism for this form that haters have of grouping people--according to non-volitional characteristics--into moral collectives that they can despise, fine.

Invent another term.

I'm open.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is the second time you've posted this worthless crap. Everybody is entitled to do this once; I do it once all the time, but I don't keep repeating myself as if I were addressing morons.

Brant,

I agree.

I call this one-liner kind of repetition heckling, not discussing.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Did it ever occur to you that Milddle Eastern atheists are smart enough to keep their disbelief to themselves? (There are in fact atheists in the Middle East; I've had personal contact with a number of them over the years.)

As for your hypothetical response to atheist centers: I refuse to believe that all Muslims are as ignorant and childish as you make them out to be.

Ghs

Afraid of what George? I was in super secular countries like Syria and Lebanon. There's no apostasy rulings there and anyone guilty of harming someone for their beliefs get punished very severely in the courts.

Have you ever been to the Middle East as a civilian? If so, where?

Also, it's not ignorance or being childish at all.. From my experience and what I've seen they just don't seem to understand why people wouldn't believe in God.

And yet not only can’t they build, they can’t even visit. There are special highway bypasses and non-Muslims are subject to prosecution if they lie in order to visit Mecca or Medina.

I’d be interested to visit, just to see everything. I’ve been to many of the famous Christian churches in Europe, anyone can go. There’s a bit of security to get into St. Peters in Rome, and the one in Bologna, which has a Renaissance fresco of Muhammad being tortured in hell had notably tight security when I went, otherwise these buildings are wide open.

I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to visit. I have never read anything in the Qur'an nor in any authentic hadiths that would indicate that non Muslims can't visit Mecca..

Those are the policies of the government, not of Islam.. They even used to ban non Wahhabis from visiting Mecca.

[Richard Wiig]

LM said:Those are the policies of the government, not of Islam..

Sura 9:28 O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

[Libertarian Muslim]

LM said:Those are the policies of the government, not of Islam..

Sura 9:28 O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

We don't see Christians or Jews as idol worshippers like the pagan Arabs were. So I don't see the justification for not allowing Christians or Jews or other monotheist religions there.

[anthony]

I'm sure you could give it a go if you wanted, but it would leave the Arabs scratching their heads..

Their response would probably be something like "You mean you want to build a building here, devoted to having the belief that there is nothing to believe in? Why not leave it vacant then?"

LM,

Nice one - just my kind of humour.

A Christian, an atheist, and a Jew, on Egyptian holiday, find themselves on the wrong side of the tracks in Cairo, and are surrounded by a bunch of 'Slim 'Bro's who don't appreciate that they've entered their 'Hood'.

Sounds like a joke, but no. I've wondered what the best chance of survival was if I were caught by fundamentalist Muslims: - honestly tell them I'm atheist. (Not too clever.) Say I was born Jewish. (Oops.)

Or also born Christian. (Officially true, and most acceptable I gather.)

In your estimation, what's the 'pecking order' for Muslims' acceptance or rejection of other faith and ideology: is worshipping some God better than no god?

Tony

[Richard Wiig]

LM said:Those are the policies of the government, not of Islam..

Sura 9:28 O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

We don't see Christians or Jews as idol worshippers like the pagan Arabs were. So I don't see the justification for not allowing Christians or Jews or other monotheist religions there.

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews..." -- Qur'an 5:82

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an 5:51

[Rich Engle]

BTW, when you say "we", do you say that as an American, or as a muslim?

Isn't it better to say things just as a human being? All life is an interconnected web.

And I guess not being aware of that fact is where a lot of the trouble starts for all of us.

rde

We are all human beings, of that there is little doubt (well, except for some) but each of us follows a philosophy of one kind or another. Islam imparts a philosophy which shapes the person, as does Objectivism. Islam teaches that an adherents first loyalty should be to the Ummah, which transcends geographical and political boundaries. Islam has its own politics, a politics that is contrary to the principles of the United States. It is a valid question, especially seeing as I saw LM's post as being nothing but more of his moral equivalence.

Pretty much all sacred writings, scriptures, have junk to be found in them somewhere. Spiritual practice is subject to evolution, just like everything else. And even those things within sacred texts that represent ecumenical truths are, like most things (Objectivism, say) subject to abuse and misuse, be it done consciously or otherwise. But when you are looking at the bad things, the really bad things, they are most often linked to the actions within the ecclesiastical part of religions (men, organizations, institutions). There are certain things that no true religion will condone--even if within its scriptures there is night language to be found here and there (older, usually) to the contrary. Religion evolves, fortunately--it does because all things must. The process, however, would seem incremental. After all, it took the Universe about 13.7 billion years to develop humans with higher brain functions--ones that are, in essence, allowing the Universe to look at itself.

rde

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews..." -- Qur'an 5:82

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an 5:51

This is called heckling with scripture.

I don't see any attempt here to communicate anything or debate anything except heckling.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews..." -- Qur'an 5:82

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an 5:51

This is called heckling with scripture.

I don't see any attempt here to communicate anything or debate anything except heckling.

Michael

I will keep that in mind the next time I hear about Muslims blowing up a synagogue or killing a Jew. Do you remember what happened to Daniel Perle? I do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will keep that in mind the next time I hear about Muslims blowing up a synagogue or killing a Jew. Do you remember what happened to Daniel Perle? I do.

Bob,

Of course I remember the bombings and killings of Jews and Daniel Perle.

What does that have to do with bigotry against those who did not do that and do not condone it?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I will keep that in mind the next time I hear about Muslims blowing up a synagogue or killing a Jew. Do you remember what happened to Daniel Perle? I do.

Bob,

Of course I remember the bombings and killings of Jews and Daniel Perle.

What does that have to do with bigotry against those who did not do that and do not condone it?

Michael

The acts that some commit are impelled by the same bloody, vicious, evil, wicked set of religious memes that all or most share. Which divides the Muslim community into two (unequally sized segments). Those who are actively doing evil impelled by their religion and those not yet actively doing evil impelled by their religion.

It is their damned religion that is at the bottom of the violence.

It may be there are some who are so indifferent to the religion bestowed on them by their parents that they are safe to have around in a human society. I would not count on these harmless folks being in the majority.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

We are all human beings, of that there is little doubt (well, except for some) but each of us follows a philosophy of one kind or another. Islam imparts a philosophy which shapes the person, as does Objectivism. Islam teaches that an adherents first loyalty should be to the Ummah, which transcends geographical and political boundaries. Islam has its own politics, a politics that is contrary to the principles of the United States. It is a valid question, especially seeing as I saw LM's post as being nothing but more of his moral equivalence.

But when you are looking at the bad things, the really bad things, they are most often linked to the actions within the ecclesiastical part of religions (men, organizations, institutions). There are certain things that no true religion will condone--even if within its scriptures there is night language to be found here and there (older, usually) to the contrary.

I like Richard Wiig's stab at philosophy of religion. He makes an important distinction, or several important distinctions. Replacing his Islam/Muslim with 'Christian' shows how important those distinctions are to his way of thinking:

We are all human beings (except some aren't) but each of us follows a philosophy of one kind or another. Christianity imparts a philosophy which shapes the person, as does Buddhism. Christianity teaches that an adherent's first loyalty should be to the Christian Commune, which transcends geographical and political boundaries. Christianity has its own politics, a politics that is contrary to the principles of the United States. It is a valid question, especially seeing as I saw Richard's post as being nothing but more of his moral equivalence.

-- first distinction: Islam is best understood as a simply bad, simple thing at root.

-- second distinction: sweeping general terms are the best kinds of things

-- third distinction: I/We/Everyone is better off thinking like me, 'cause I know best

-- fourth distinction: Looking at individuals is wrong, because Islam is a bad thing. You cannot, in general terms, distinguish between different kinds of Islam, because, um, Islam is bad at its root, and, um, Islam is bad, and um, making distinctions between bad Islamic people and good Islamic people/schools of thought is useless because I say so, and I am good.

-- fifth distinction: only I can tell what propaganda is. My 'opponents' are stupid or dishonest or blind or something, because they don't see what I see. Why don't they see things my way. Islam is bad in its heart. Get it?

-- sixth distinction: rather that say, "yes, I see your point, but . . ." it is best to say or imply "But you are so blind and stupid and dishonest and anti-freedom and doomed and Western Civilization and Evul and blah blah blah

-- seventh distinction: "Listen, stupid anti-liberty fuckhead, I KNOW ISLAM! I read Jihadwatch and ignore all the commentary that says 'kill the mooslimes, all of them' because I make distinctions between fanatic nutcases on the side of truth and fanatic nutcases on the side of ugly fanatic religion of Evul that wants to destroy us and you are stupid and dishonest and fuck off.

-- eight distinction: making comparisons is dishonest and stupid and fucked; I am not interested in the points you makes because Islam is the enemy. I hate Islam, okay, fuckhead?

-- ninth distinction: can you not get it into your head that I know things and that you are blind. I hear you yapping, but I already know what I need to know and Islam is BAD and EVUL and you are too stupid and fucked in the head to understand me and we are DOOMED.

-- tenth distinction: If you aren't with me you are against Western Civilization, and whatever you say is not important, not the point. I make points, you make excuses for terrorism and the death of Western Values. That's not the point. I make the points. You refuse to see my points. My point is important, yours, not so much, they are beside the point. That isn't important. What is important is my point. My point. You have no good points. My point. You are fucked. You refuse to discuss my point. My point is my point, fuckhead.

But when you are looking at the bad things, the really bad things, they are most often linked to the actions within the ecclesiastical part of religions (men, organizations, institutions). There are certain things that no true religion will condone--even if within its scriptures there is night language to be found here and there (older, usually) to the contrary.

-- the nicest thing I can say about this is "waffly bullshit." Glittering generalities. Ecumenical low-fat porridge. Wishful thinking.

Me, I fear and loathe fanatics of all kinds. Them that think they know One Way To Think. Them that deny the humanity of The Other. Them that are lumpers. Them who are chained to the house of their group and think of themselves as guard dogs. Them who seethe with a hateful agression.

So, on the important points, I stand with Richard against THEM. On the important distinctions, fuck yeah.