Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[blackhorse]

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.

Edited July 20, 2010 by blackhorse

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, I am beholden to no Objectivist camp. I am simply trying to be objective.

blackhorse,

That's a very good thing.

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.

Fair enough. So when do you want to go to some mosques? From what I am told, you will hear plenty of "measurable outrage" and "numbers against Islamist fanatics" in oodles of them.

Why not go see for yourself?

As to Ellison, I have not followed his career since he was sworn in amid controversy about using the Qu'ran as the holy book for his ceremony. I do believe it is a good idea to keep a close eye on him, though.

Adonis is 1 out of 1 billion, unfortunately.

That's interesting. How do you know that? Where are you getting your statistics from?

I agree that the west should promote the ideas of reason and liberty to the college aged kids and younger, esp those in Iran.

Do you mean the "college aged kids and younger" ones you want to bomb? How are they going to appreciate the "ideas of reason and liberty" if they are dead?

And their families who survive, especially those of college age and younger? Would you want to promote ideas to them?

EDIT: I urge you to educate yourself on Islam and Muslims if this issue is important to you. And I mean by reading and viewing things other than Jihad Watch or Peikoff. You will find some excellent articles, discussions and resources here in the Mideast section. Even the Jewish Virtual Library, which is an excellent resource.

Then, after educating yourself, if you still feel as strongly as you do, you will be able to present your ideas from an informed position, not just point to some really biased people and try to claim their distortions as your own. Think for yourself, don't let others think for you. That's my suggestion to you. The only way to do that is first to look at facts, especially facts from non-biased sources. Nothing can replace that.

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Objectivists have argued, properly, that if our government was bad, in the sense of being an aggressor in war, then we should be prepared to suffer the consequences when another country acts in self-defense.

Really? I don't recall any objectivist associated with ARI or TAS ever arguing such a thing. The argument always used by objectivists is that people living in other countries ruled by tyrannical governments are fair game as collateral damage should their governments be considered by the US government to pose a threat to us.

Martin,

When the Rewrite Squad returns to prime time, you'll be able to see how Ayn Rand occasionally qualified her "war guilt" answers by saying that Americans would be collectively guilty if the US government ever launched an aggressive war against another country.

Robert,

I'm surprised to hear that, given Rand's love of America as the closest ideal ever achieved to libertarian/objectivist principles. I would be interested in seeing her exact quote about this, which I think it's fair to say will never appear in any ARI publication. Perhaps Rand realized the inconsistency of arguing in favor of "war guilt" for non-Americans but not applying this same standard to Americans. In any case, one would think that any concept of collective guilt would be completely rejected out of hand by a philosophy based on individualism. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way.

But she qualified this by applying it only to other countries that were freer than the US (which in the 1970s would have been a very short list, from her standpoint). She regularly maintained that "slave pens" were fair game and could be invaded by the forces of any non "slave pen" country.

That of course is the great escape clause. The US launched aggressive wars against Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Vietnam. But all of those countries were less free than the US. Iraq under Hussein was arguably a "slave pen". So the US thereby received an objectivist moral blank check in all of these wars and was absolved of all responsibility for any of the people killed. Rand condemned the Vietnam war as an act of senseless altruism not serving America's interest, but she never even suggested that there was anything the slightest bit immoral about US participation, which killed millions of Vietnamese. North Vietnam was, after all, a "slave pen".

And she always presented the possibility as a hypothetical. She gave no instances of actual aggressive wars waged by the USA. I doubt she thought there had been any.

Agreed. I think that her love of America and its founding ideals were such that she was blinded to much of the actual history of the United States, including its various wars of aggression and imperialistic conquest, such as the Spanish American war. Anyway, should the US ever become a real "slave pen", something which I hate to say is a real possibility (and which I prey never happens), I don't expect to see the ARIans lining up to argue that Americans are collectively guilty for what has happened to their country and may be justifiably sacrificed as collateral damage.

Robert, I think you've done a great job documenting the changes made to Rand's spoken words by ARI. These guys are real "second handers". And the way they've closed the archives to all but their favored people is really reminiscent of a cult, not a scholarly philosophical organization. It reminds me of the Church of Scientology.

Martin

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Coarse Minds and the "Snark Pack"

> I find the personal attacks against people here rather rude. I have personally offended no one and yet I seem to be the focus of 5th grade name calling and rudeness. [blackhorse]

Yes, I've experienced that as well. And 5th grade level is about right.

What you will find here is that people who are outraged or in extremely strong disagreement with your view don't know how to simply respond logically and factually, trying to refute the argument. Or, more precisely, they know how but they don't -want- to. They want a chance to vent their emotions and when they do that in real life, no one will listen to them or will walk away. They have not been effective generally at spreading Objectivism in personal life or conversation or being taken seriously in that regard. So for that sort of loner-intellectual, the web is a perfect place to "spew" with redoubled vigor.

They will resort to insult or ad hominem, question your sanity or intelligence or ethics, post little cartoons about you, make inside jokes with their stupid friends or allies. And other similar pet tricks. Sometimes they will alternate this kind of gutter post with perfectly calm, intelligent, reasoned posts.

Then: back to the gutter.

(I haven't read all of your exchanges here and suspect I'd disagree with some of your views. Nor do I know if you have resorted to personal invective or expressions of contempt yourself.)

It's not simply at this site, but a general tendency for unmoderated sites to go downhill and attract immature, visceral, insulting, snarky people. Which tends to drive away some people who don't like to respond in kind. Or prefer to be treated with respect even if their ideas are attacked.

The sign of a less than orderly, focused mind is that he uses ridicule and personal attack where a cool, careful, logical refutation would have been perfectly adequate. And highly effective.

But more importantly it cheapens Objectivism, drags it into the muck and makes it look ridiculous. Makes it seem that the loudest voices are all a bunch of coarse, belligerent rednecks.

I guarantee you that the people who are the worst posters here don't care in the slightest about that. I can guarantee you that no matter what you say about civility, there is not the slightest chance you will receive it here. Maybe the snark pack will stop for a few posts, but as soon as you piss them off, they will resume again.

People who have spent their whole lives behaving in a certain way with other people in intellectual discussions are simply not about to reexamine it and overhaul it. Being intelligent, they have all sorts of neurotic defenses to prevent that - claims that its just humor or having fun [it goes much deeper than that, it's an attempt to inflict a wound], claims that 'you started it', denial that it actually happened, turning it into an attack on the person who points it out, etc.

While affecting a patina of being intellectuals, these are usually people not that dissimilar to the kinds of people you meet in the bar who shout very loudly over the tv their opinions about the sports team or the news event. Often coarse and emotionalist minds. You meet these people throughout life, in an academic setting, at a sci-fi convention, in comments sections on popular websites. All you can do about it is what I have done: try to develop a thick skin, bearing in mind that you are dealing with what Rand called intellectual ballast.

Try to only answer the posts that seem sincere and carefully thought out and detailed on the topic. Not the one liners or zingers. And try to look for better minds and better, more benevolent human beings to interact with.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Jonathan]

Subject: Coarse Minds and the "Snark Pack"

> I find the personal attacks against people here rather rude. I have personally offended no one and yet I seem to be the focus of 5th grade name calling and rudeness. [blackhorse]

Yes, I've experienced that as well. And 5th grade level is about right.

I, too, have seen 5th grade level name calling here. And worse, I've seen 4th grade level name calling. Like calling people a "Snark Pack," for example.

But more importantly it cheapens Objectivism, drags it into the muck and makes it look ridiculous.

So, when a nutjob Objectivist is advocating holocaust, or is smearing historical figures because he ignorantly believes Ayn Rand's appraisals of them, it's the person identifying the nutjob as a nutjob who cheapens Objectivism and makes it look ridiculous?

People who have spent their whole lives behaving in a certain way with other people in intellectual discussions are simply not about to reexamine it and overhaul it.

I agree. An Eggheaded Schoolmarm will probably always be an Eggheaded Schoolmarm. She'll never examine and overhaul her behavior, no matter how much harm it does to her cause.

J

Edited July 20, 2010 by Jonathan

[blackhorse]

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

[Brant Gaede]

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.

You are posing as some kind of military-war expert. I don't see that at all.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's not simply at this site, but a general tendency for unmoderated sites to go downhill and attract immature, visceral, insulting, snarky people...

. . .

But more importantly it cheapens Objectivism, drags it into the muck and makes it look ridiculous.

. . .

I can guarantee you that no matter what you say about civility, there is not the slightest chance you will receive it here.

I have noticed something in this latest... er... contribution by Phil. And it is an awareness that has been growing in me.

I believe that some people with a martyr complex are drawn to Objectivism. Regardless of what happens to them or how often they are wrong on their end, they keep doing the same thing over and over and over (usually pointing the finger at others) about a situation they know will never be resolved by their comments. And they are totally blind to the fact that they constantly do what they complain about.

This is an interesting mindset.

"If only everyone would stop acting like [fill in the blank], then [Objectivism, the world, or fill in the blank with something else] would have a chance. Until then, I will continue being a martyr for the good fight. Poor me, but what can I do? It's everybody else's fault!..."

I think it is better to grow up or go to a therapist and resolve the neurosis or whatever.

But O-Land is populated by several of these quite vocal bogus martyrs.

(Oops... here I go...)

And I don't see an end in sight. I mean, if only these martyr wannabees would stop acting like busybody hypocrites. But they won't. The problem is they just won't, no matter how many times I tell them to stop.

They cheapen Objectivism with their constant whining. But what can you do? At least I am better than they are. And I'll just keep keep on hammering at them until they do stop one day, even if I have to do it until my dying breath. But I know they won't stop. God, it's such a hard battle. Why is it that the world will only be won by heroes like myself?

Ohhhhh, the bastards! The dirty rotten bastards!

I'll try not to let them get me down. No I won't...

(sniff, sniff...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Phil pretty much smears everyone here, but in a calm, rational manner. Yeah, right.

--Brant

am I one of the worse or the worst?

[9thdoctor]

I find the personal attacks against people here rather rude. I have personally offended no one and yet I seem to be the focus of 5th grade name calling and rudeness.

What personal attacks? What names have you been called?

(I haven't read all of your exchanges here and suspect I'd disagree with some of your views. Nor do I know if you have resorted to personal invective or expressions of contempt yourself.)

You took the time to write this lengthy post, but not to check whether his complaint had any merit? He’s been called one name, Joel referred to him with “you Roids”, thus calling him a Randroid. Hardly a pattern of behavior. Now point out where anyone has used ad hominem against him, do some work before mouthing off.

Here you’ll find the same individual being called a “Rand-Thumping Gay Hater”, why don’t you go give them one of your lectures? At least it will be new to them. Please. Pretty Please. I'd like to see how the OO crowd tells you off.

[blackhorse]

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.

[jriggenbach]

What you will find here is that people who are outraged or in extremely strong disagreement with your view don't know how to simply respond logically and factually, trying to refute the argument.

Or, more commonly, you'll find people who have been confronted with an "argument" so obtuse it could only have been offered as a joke - or, perhaps, by someone so intellectually unequipped for such a thing as a philosophical discussion board like this one that it is probably better that they be discouraged from further participation. In the face of such an "argument," one does not pretend that it is a coherent and rational argument that might be made by someone sufficiently educated to participate on such a board as this one. Instead, one identifies it for what it is.

Or, more precisely, they know how but they don't -want- to. They want a chance to vent their emotions . . . .

More commonly they want to call a spade a spade.

They have not been effective generally at spreading Objectivism in personal life or conversation or being taken seriously in that regard. So for that sort of loner-intellectual, the web is a perfect place to "spew" with redoubled vigor.

This statement would probably be incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know that Phil believes everyone here longs to spread Objectivism and to be invited to speak at an Objectivist conference. Those who, like me, have neither of these motivations are merely defined out of existence.

They will resort to insult or ad hominem . . .

Until recently, Phil would have simply written, "They will resort to ad hominem." You see, he thought that "ad hominem" and "insult" were synonyms. This is part of the downside to relying on Cliff's Notes and Classics Illustrated comic books for all your knowledge of everything because you're too busy studying Chinese culture and lecturing Objectivists on how everything ought to be done to read anything in full.

. . . question your sanity or intelligence or ethics, post little cartoons about you, make inside jokes with their stupid friends or allies. And other similar pet tricks. Sometimes they will alternate this kind of gutter post . . .

All I see in the gutters around here is muddy rainwater. Where Phil lives, I guess you find insulting posts in the gutters.

. . . with perfectly calm, intelligent, reasoned posts.

These latter are, of course, written, in response to posters who don't offer "arguments" so obtuse they could only have been offered as a joke - or, perhaps, by someone intellectually unequipped for such a thing as a philosophical discussion board like this one. (See above.)

Try to only answer the posts that seem sincere and carefully thought out and detailed on the topic. Not the one liners or zingers.

Yes, by all means be sure to pretend that "one liners" and "zingers" never make a legitimate point. Try your best to convince yourself of that.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

You can tell JR is trying to see if he can do what Dan can do. Not bad, JR. Not bad at all.

--Brant

snarky shark

[Rich Engle]

I'm still trying to figure out why blackhorsie asked me what my solution to Nazi Germany might have been.

Uh, reality created its own solution, horsie-doover. And at great cost, peril, death. My dad is still around from that one and it is a miracle. He got there when he was 17, so I really don't want to hear about armchair quarterback nonsense. That was then, this is now. Straw man. And a stinky one, at that. I'm just waiting for the history-doomed-to-repeat-it reply, again.

Warmongering, killing, is always bad. Sorry trying other solutions before that one isn't, er, "pragmatic" enough for you.

To answer you as expected would sicken me. I really wonder whether or not you know what real violence feels like on a human body. I really wonder if you believe that there is an inner-connected web of human life. Typing is one thing, living it is another, and as far as I can tell, you reek of the nastiness.

On the other hand, as to, God Forbid<tm> the thread topic:

I thought on this a great deal, and my answer is simply "no." Even if there were good Muslim folks behind the idea, it is bad form, and it is salt-in-the-wound. It will do no good.

I'm gonna ask my minister what she thinks about it, but I'm pretty sure she won't give me an equivocal answer, though maybe a regretful one.

Blackhorse: As soon as you act like one, you BECOME one. Know that.

As far as Phil goes, he is being pretty decent about the job as foil. But, I do think we might run out of material. At least, someday.

Meanwhile, here's a bit of reality check. Ask these audience folks if one should be built.

rde

Edited July 21, 2010 by Rich Engle

[anthony]

JR : "...someone so intellectually unequipped for such a thing as a philosophical discussion board like this one that it is probably better that they be discouraged from further participation."

JR,

Speaking as one of these 'lowbrows', this statement smacks of intellectual elitism, to me.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

JR : "...someone so intellectually unequipped for such a thing as a philosophical discussion board like this one that it is probably better that they be discouraged from further participation."

JR,

Speaking as one of these 'lowbrows', this statement smacks of intellectual elitism, to me.

Tony, JR was referring to blackhorse whom Phil used as a diving board into his collectivist smear of people who post here with less gentility than Phil feels is appropriate. Blackhorse is gentile by Phil's standards. Never mind what he's been saying; it's the form that's important. This is what a teacher wants in his classroom. I have no idea why you think you're a 'lowbrow.' All one needs to do on OL is know what one is talking about. Sometimes I don't and have to retreat, but it's not ignorance and stupidity I retreat into just the realization I was wrong in order to make it right.

--Brant

[anthony]

JR : "...someone so intellectually unequipped for such a thing as a philosophical discussion board like this one that it is probably better that they be discouraged from further participation."

JR,

Speaking as one of these 'lowbrows', this statement smacks of intellectual elitism, to me.

Tony, JR was referring to blackhorse whom Phil used as a diving board into his collectivist smear of people who post here with less gentility than Phil feels is appropriate. Blackhorse is gentile by Phil's standards. Never mind what he's been saying; it's the form that's important. This is what a teacher wants in his classroom. I have no idea why you think you're a 'lowbrow.' All one needs to do on OL is know what one is talking about. Sometimes I don't and have to retreat, but it's not ignorance and stupidity I retreat into just the realization I was wrong in order to make it right.

--Brant

Brant,

I confess to getting a bit jumpy there. I suppose it was the being "discouraged from participation" that set me off. At times these forums can be discouraging all on their own, without anybody actively going about it.

I've a very clear understanding that there are many superior minds with deeper funds of knowledge on this forum, and, well, ultimately, I would like to trade back some value for what I've learned from them.

My contributions are at their very best middle-brow, I know, but thankfully there is a place for all in Objectivism, even (and especially) for the lesser academic ranks where I am.

Someone by the name of Gregory Wharton wrote on the Atlantis forum - I believe - that "Judge and be judged does not require that we condemn and be condemned, or sanction, and be sanctioned. Rather it requires that we know, and be known." (Sounds quite Branden-ish, too.)

I guess that says it best for me.

I appreciate your explanatory - and "gentile" - reply;

and, JR, may I retract my impulsive remark?

Tony

[Philip Coates]

I just started a new thread because this issue is far wider than concrete issues like the NYC mosque or Biddle's 'nuking' idea and Peikoff's from earlier this decade.

It includes bombing Tehran, attacking madrassas and a number of other things Peikoff, Amy P, Craig Biddle, Ed Cline and others have advocated.

(Also this thread has been hijacked and gone in many different directions...and I plead guilty to being a part of that.)

Here's the thread title and my philosophical demolition of the 'war with Islam' oversimplification (and equivocation):

"Are we At War with Islam? Check Your Premises!" -- http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8958

[Brant Gaede]

JR : "...someone so intellectually unequipped for such a thing as a philosophical discussion board like this one that it is probably better that they be discouraged from further participation."

JR,

Speaking as one of these 'lowbrows', this statement smacks of intellectual elitism, to me.

Tony, JR was referring to blackhorse whom Phil used as a diving board into his collectivist smear of people who post here with less gentility than Phil feels is appropriate. Blackhorse is gentile by Phil's standards. Never mind what he's been saying; it's the form that's important. This is what a teacher wants in his classroom. I have no idea why you think you're a 'lowbrow.' All one needs to do on OL is know what one is talking about. Sometimes I don't and have to retreat, but it's not ignorance and stupidity I retreat into just the realization I was wrong in order to make it right.

--Brant

Brant,

I confess to getting a bit jumpy there. I suppose it was the being "discouraged from participation" that set me off. At times these forums can be discouraging all on their own, without anybody actively going about it.

I've a very clear understanding that there are many superior minds with deeper funds of knowledge on this forum, and, well, ultimately, I would like to trade back some value for what I've learned from them.

My contributions are at their very best middle-brow, I know, but thankfully there is a place for all in Objectivism, even (and especially) for the lesser academic ranks where I am.

Someone by the name of Gregory Wharton wrote on the Atlantis forum - I believe - that "Judge and be judged does not require that we condemn and be condemned, or sanction, and be sanctioned. Rather it requires that we know, and be known." (Sounds quite Branden-ish, too.)

I guess that says it best for me.

I appreciate your explanatory - and "gentile" - reply;

and, JR, may I retract my impulsive remark?

"Middle-brow," Tony? I see you are on the "up" elevator. Don't get off yet.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

While trying to revive myself from the mind-numbing boredom of reading Phil's boring post, I began searching for amazing facts about my state, and in doing so I came across this StarTrib article, Standing for Islam, from 2006.

A few highlights:

"Muslims in America have been forced to become spokespeople for our faith," she said. "One of the criticisms we heard after 9/11 is that our leaders didn't come forward to say what happened was wrong. It was unimaginable with something so horrific that someone had to articulate that."

Her faith teaches that she is not accountable for the sins of others, she said. But since 9/11, she has realized that "American culture demands vocalization of the obvious."

The war in Iraq has brought more attention to the Islamic Center, and to Mahmud. People ask her unanswerable questions, such as "How does a suicide bomber think?"

"I turn that back on them," she said. "If they're male, I say, 'You're a male; tell me how a rapist feels or thinks.' "

She worries about the erosion of civil liberties in the United States -- not just for Muslims, but for everyone.

"What distinguishes us as a country is the rights afforded to our citizens," she said. "If those are being eroded to fight the so-called war on terrorism, then we will become no better than those we are fighting."

Mahmud's calm, rational statements are a quite a contrast to the Peikoffs' lunacy.

J

[Robert Campbell]

I am not here to attack anyone. I am merely stating the very real and present danger of islam.

blackhorse,

How do you propose to assess the dangers conceivably posed by Islam if you can't even identify the most militant passages in the Qur'an?

You still haven't said what other options besides conversion or death sura 9 holds out for non-Muslims.

All you have to do is pick up a Qur'an in English (such as the Dawood translation sold in paperback by Penguin) and read sura 9.

You can also find translations of the Qur'an online.

Really, how hard could this be?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can also find translations of the Qur'an online.

Really, how hard could this be?

Robert,

You don't even have to leave OL.

Here's an old thread: Links to English translations of the Qur'an.

I just checked the links. One became broken over time, so I added the new one.

Michael

[blackhorse]

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.

[9thdoctor]

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.

I'd like to invite you to substitute Catholic for Islam, and John Locke for Thomas Jefferson in your post. We've already learned the lessons of the 17th century, I refudiate.

[blackhorse]

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