In his speech "The Ideas That Promote Terrorism" David Kelly states "I salute the Free Muslims Against Terrorism for sponsoring this rally. I urge everyone to support them and make common cause with them." Yes, this group is against terrorism, but they are still a religious/faith/mystic/subjectivist group. Is this not contrary to my interests as a person of reason? By this logic, I’d be better off support the scientologists since not only are they against terrorism, but the they are all about the “study of truth” (at least according to their website). Why not support groups that actively promote values such as The Ayn Rand Institute instead of giving sanction to those who are anti-reason and therefore anti-life; even if they just so happen to be against doing it with bombs.
You are misconstruing Dr. Kelley's point. He stated, specifically, "I salute the Free Muslims Against Terrorism for sponsoring this rally." Note the last four words. Kelley did NOT say "I grant moral sanction to absolutely everything that every Muslim in FMAT believes." Dr. Kelley was not judging the doctrine of Islam in his comment, he was judging the actions of some Muslims. The fact is that Islam, like all religions, is based on false premises, and that the consistent implementation of these premises would be an act of gross evil. This does not mean that Muslims are unable of performing a noble action.
"You have performed a moral action" is in no way the same as "everything you do and think is moral."
As for ARI, I seriously doubt that "subordination of one's own individual judgement to the whim of Pope Lenny the First" can be considered a 'value.'
Andy_X69 wrote: This does not mean that Muslims are unable of performing a noble action.
I dont see anything in Islam that is, but the fact is that subscribing to a religion doesnt always result in absolutely consistent implementation of that religion (if it did, all Christians would be dead).
Thats true, but like all religions, Christianity contradicts itself so many times, its impossible to be a consistent Christian. Although worshippers, if they die in a dramatic and televised way, can be very useful to the meme complex.
Either way, my point still stands, Dr Kelley is in no way a hypocrite or apostate for recognizing the moral value of the actions of a non-Objectivist group, and no Randroid fundamentalist posing an Objectivist can rationally declare Dr. Kelley an enemy of Objectivism.
I'm confused here...is the Critic in this thread saying that the objectively good acts visited upon anyone, or group, with whom we don't usually agree, should still be condemned, or at the very least, not recognized?
Francois Tremblay wrote: Andy_X69 wrote: This does not mean that Muslims are unable of performing a noble action. As individuals, no doubt... but as Islamists ? What in Islam is just or noble ?
Thanks everyone for raising these important questions and for the good responses on this thread. I'll add a few more.
To begin with, for over three decades I've seen a major problem with Objectivists (but not Objectivism) concerning this "sanction" issue. For some Objectivists it's meant they don't function well in the world because they're always trying to decide whether they should associate with or denounce this or that person because of their beliefs. (95 percent of Americans believe in some sort of god so does that mean we give everyone with whom we might deal a religious test and deal only with non-believers?) Dealing with the world doesn't mean accepting the majority beliefs of society. But you need to ask how does this practice advance your own rational self-interest and what, exactly is the purpose of your actions?
Some Objectivists are just plain obnoxious and unpleasant, in the name of never sanctioning evil. They mistake being nasty with standing up for principles. (See a lot of the discussions on some other website.)
And in any case, if one's goal is to help create a freer, more rational society and culture that facilitates their own happiness, this kind of behavior is counter-productive. Isn't it better to praise someone who gets something right -- this Muslim, anti-terrorist group -- rather than simply damning them for what they get wrong?
A second point is you need to do your homework and establish the full context of an issue rather than simply resorting to rationalist fallacy to which many Objectivists are prone -- in this case saying "they're Muslim therefore they're irrational, mystic, subjectivists, etc. etc. who by accident said some right things but on balance must be promoting evil ideas and thus should be shunned."
Let's establishing that context:
At the rally Kelley said explicitly that he was not a Muslim and not religious at all. So there was no implicit endorsement of Islam.
He referred to the Aristotelian parts of the Islamic tradition, which are similar to the Thomist traditions in Catholicism; indeed, the Catholics recovered Aristotle through the Muslims in Spain. Rand had no problem saying she was an admirer of Aquinas, though obviously not of his Christianity.
If you look at the Free Muslims Against Terrorism website you find them saying something that I've never seen or heard from any other Muslim group, not even strongly free market ones: they have a section called "Don't blame the Jews."
http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/dont-blame-jews.php These guys are clearly different from hate-filled Islamists.
You also see on the website a defense of a secular society, not rants about the need to spread the words of the Prophet. You also find a defense of rights for women -- in this context against the regression found in most Muslim countries.
Further, Kamal Nawash, the founder of the group, is an articulate spokesman for these beliefs and is often criticized and ignored by pro-Republican Party or pro-free market Muslims because they think he goes too far with his secularism.
Clearly, Nawash is addressing Muslims and individuals from that culture and promoting for the most part the right ideas among them.
In this context, we should applaud this group when it stands against terrorism. David Kelley certainly was not sanctioning irrational Islamists at this rally.
Finally, this discussion raises the issue of how Objectivists view social change. Do we expect that in the future millions of Muslims will read Rand, become Objectivists, reject their religion as well as the irrational aspects of their culture and the will lead to a better world? I do want more Muslims -- and everybody else -- to read Rand and change their ideas.
But changes in ideas and culture are a complex process. The process involves introducing ideas into public debates, popular culture, university classrooms, the media, etc. Over time, if promoted well, these ideas can catch on and provide the basis for promoting more good ideas. So if more people understand Rand's notion of the sanction of the victim and thus, for example, more business folks stop accepting unearned guilt for creating the richest country on earth, that's a good basis for promotion other Objective ideas on which this understanding is based.
And this approach means that if you find Muslims who are generally promoting the right ideas but not all of the right ideas, you help them if possible and reinforce the positive.
Ed Hudgins
.