The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

01-06-2006, 1:40 PM jasong Joined on 01-06-2006 Posts 1 Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? 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.    Report

01-07-2006, 12:58 AM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? 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.'    Report

01-09-2006, 3:17 AM Francois Tremblay Joined on 12-19-2005 Posts 18 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend?  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 ?    Report

01-13-2006, 5:42 AM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? 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).    Report

01-13-2006, 7:00 AM Francois Tremblay Joined on 12-19-2005 Posts 18 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? But, as you surely know, Christianity prohibits suicide. Worshippers are not useful to the propagation of the meme complex if they're dead.    Report

01-18-2006, 1:27 AM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? 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.      Report

01-24-2006, 6:32 AM Francois Tremblay Joined on 12-19-2005 Posts 18 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? I'm not saying I have any position on the whole Objectivist dispute, although I do hate Randroids for how they completely corrupted the word "Objectivist" and made my life a lot harder when I was one, but I'm not sure that sanctioning monotheistic religion is good in any way. Being associated with Islam in any way really lowers a person's credibility in my book. Since I consider David Kelley to be a moral authority, however, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm probably wrong on that one.    Report

02-12-2006, 11:50 PM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? But the whole point in the issue is whether or not Dr Kelley's speech consists of a moral sanction of Islam. Obviously, it doesn't.    Report

02-15-2006, 1:03 AM tsummerlee Joined on 02-15-2006 Posts 1 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? 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?       Report

02-15-2006, 2:53 AM Francois Tremblay Joined on 12-19-2005 Posts 18 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? "The Critic" ? Whom is this a roundabout way of referring to ?    Report

03-01-2006, 6:48 PM BridgetB Joined on 03-02-2006 Posts 2 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? If an Islamic person chooses to fight for freedom or some just cause or acts rationally at all this is despite his religion.  Its a testament to the power of freedom and a free mind that any Muslim can act rationally.  This goes for all religions and mysticisms and other similar systems not based on an objective reality, in the very least. A contradictory system of rules cannot ever lead to legitimate actions, in the long run. Aye folks?    Report

03-09-2006, 9:49 PM Montaigne Joined on 03-10-2006 Posts 1 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? I think this chain clearly reveals the specific logical difficulty to which many readers of Rand fall prey. Saluting an action by a human being, and then admiring that human being for that specific action, is in itself a logical (and admirable) action. It is not made illogical, or "wrong" by anything the person calls himself, believes in, or does beyond that action, or even his intent. Beauty is beauty whether painted by Rembrandt or Mussolini. If "objectivism" is to mean anything, it should ask the judge to remain objective in his judgment of another's actions irrespective of what the judge may think of their religion, their party, or whatever else the actor may say or do. We do well to remember that the intellectual gift we received from the Enlightenment was, above all else, a continually open mind for the truth, and a tolerance for the diversity of individuals involved in that search.    Report

04-02-2006, 5:36 PM tqk Joined on 04-01-2006 Calgary, AB, Canada Posts 5 Re: Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend?  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 ? Lots of things in Islam are just and noble.  You do an injustice to a large portion of mankind by ignoring them.  Examples include Islamic architecture, Islamic art, and Islamic quisine. Even with respect to the religion itself, there are both good and bad aspects.  "Eid al Adha", or The Feast of Sacrifice, commemorates Abraham's exchange with an angel, the angel staying Abraham's hand from sacrificing his son to God.  You and I might agree it's perhaps a perversely twisted message, but it ends with condemning human sacrifice. Islam is a lot of things, as are all world views.  It's lead to abominations like Mohammad Attah (WTC 9/11 ringleader) and the Taliban, at the same time the religion espouses this: "If anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) of spreading mischief in the land -- it would be as if he killed all mankind. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." and this: "A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person illegally." By the way, Islam defines that "illegally" by saying women, children, and the aged are off limits.  It even says a soldier, once disarmed, is off limits. I would have expected these passages to be strong admonitions to NOT engage in atrocities like 9/11, however Osama bin Laden and friends don't see it that way.  That's the real question we have to ask with respect to Islam.  How is it that Islamic terrorists are able to twist their thinking so badly that the above admonitions are considered to not apply?  How is it that SOME Muslims are capable of cheering the actions of 9/11, despite the above admonitions? Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) - -    Report

04-04-2006, 11:18 AM Ed Hudgins Joined on 12-08-2005 Posts 18 The Full Context  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    Report

04-04-2006, 11:18 AM Ed Hudgins Joined on 12-08-2005 Posts 18 . .    Report

Page 1 of 2 (16 items) 1 2 >

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: The Full Context

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU