The Objective Standard Blog
The Objective Standard Blog
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Towering Contradiction
The beginning of the new year and decade bore witness to the opening of the world's newest tallest building: the Burj Dubai in the UAE. Like many other commentators, Landon Thomas of the New York Times noted the dire economic situation Dubai faces as it celebrates this moment of triumph:All the same, the tower’s success by no means signals a recovery in Dubai's beaten-down real estate market, where prices have collapsed by as much as 50 percent and many developers are having trouble finding occupants for their buildings.Unlike other commentary, Thomas goes further in noting paradoxes surrounding the spectacle of the opening:
With its mix of nightclubs, mosques, luxury suites and boardrooms, the Burj is an almost perfect representation of Dubai’s own complexities and contradictions. It will have the world’s first Armani hotel; the world’s highest swimming pool, on the 76th floor; the highest observation deck, on the 124th floor; and the highest mosque, on the 158th floor.When humanity achieves the technical feat of erecting a 2,717-foot skyscraper in the desert and places a mosque on one of its highest floors, one is tempted to reflect on the builders’ hierarchy of values, in this case as expressed by the literal, physical hierarchy of the superstructure. Of greater importance than worldly pursuits to these builders are certain values of the spirit.
But what pursuits of the spirit do a mosque, or a church, or a synagogue represent and encourage? Religious buildings—whether cathedrals or minarets—often feature architecture that reaches for the sky. But everyone knows that the heavens are cold and lifeless. And "reaching for new heights" would be a fitting metaphor to describe religious devotion were it not for the fact that so many religions encourage us to grovel, to submit, to lay down our spirits for the service of a higher power.
What is the human spirit, in the end? Our spirit, if it is anything, is our "glassy essence," what distinguishes us from all other living beings: our rational mind. But the reasoning mind is precisely what religious faith bids us to ignore or abandon. There are still those religious thinkers (mostly obscure figures in the West) who think that God's existence might be proved rationally. But this is not the attitude that motivates the masses or their religious leaders to build monuments to an all-powerful, unseen deity, to which all of their worldly pursuits must be subordinate.
Many have noted the disparity between mankind’s technological and moral progress. Often the example is the invention of advanced weaponry which is subsequently used to slaughter masses of people. But if morality pertains to human flourishing on Earth, and if human reasoning is what enables that flourishing, then war is not the only example of this disparity. The contradictions of the Burj Dubai illustrate it, as well.
Labels: Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
The Winter Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Winter issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning December 20. For promotional purposes, we are making Robert Mayhew’s review of Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Winter issue are:
ARTICLES
Pharmacide: The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Self-Destructive Effort to Loot America
by Cassandra ClarkAntitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration’s Anti-Business Cudgel
by Eric DanielsWhat the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” HR 3962, Actually Says
by John David LewisThe California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Governmental Assault on Property Rights
by Paul BeardThe Barbary Wars and Their Lesson for Combating Piracy Today
by Doug AltnerObjective Moral Values
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns
Reviewed by Robert MayhewHeaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer
Reviewed by Gus Van HornRed Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner
Reviewed by Daniel WahlIslamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh
Reviewed by Andrew LewisThe Israel Test by George Gilder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
Due to popular demand, we have extended our 60% off sale through January 1. Online subscriptions—including gift subscriptions—are only $19. If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the perfect time to give it a try. And if you are looking for the perfect gift for an active-minded friend or relative, what could be better than a steady stream of clearly written, easy-to-read articles addressing current events and cultural issues from a rational, principled perspective? You can purchase gift subscriptions online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Enjoy your holidays!
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Don't Say Grace, Say Justice
The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.
Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?
Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.
Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?
Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?
Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.
To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.
Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.
Labels: Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Praying Won't Make It So
I'm a second-year student in the Objectivist Academic Center, and the class is currently working through the difference between the metaphysically given (such as the law of gravity) and the man-made (such as traffic laws). The man-made is the result of choice, and as such is subject to praise or criticism. The metaphysically given simply is what it is, and all the whining, crying, and pleading we do will not change it. Neither will praying.
What's this got to do with health? According to the Los Angeles Times, religious Congressmen have slipped into the healthcare "reform" proposal a provision that insurers be required to pay for "religious and spiritual healthcare," including "prayer treatments" offered by Christian Scientists.
If an individual believes he can deny the metaphysically given, that by praying or paying someone else to pray for him, he can kill the cancer cells growing in his body, or heal a broken bone, that is his problem. He should be left to his own devices. He can go ahead and waste his money on "treatments" that do nothing—that can do nothing. As long as he spends his own money or money given to him voluntarily, he violates no one else's rights, and he will be the only victim of his own poor decision.
But this law would force insurers to act against their own judgment, so that some individuals can indulge their fantasies that their own wishes and prayers can change nature. Any insurer willing to examine the facts of reality—and it had better examine them, if it wants to stay in business— would eliminate coverage of such "treatments," knowing that they would never produce any value in return for the money paid for them. The "religious and spiritual healthcare" provision would force insurers to act against their rational judgment and pay for these services, and it would force those of us who know the difference between the metaphysically given and the man-made to pay for them, since insurers would have to distribute the cost of "prayer treatments" across all customers.
It doesn't seem like a big issue—after all, "prayer treatments" cost an awful lot less than MRIs. But it's an illustrative one. There is no benefit—not "prayer treatments," not in vitro fertilization, not autism therapy, not even heart transplants—that justifies the violation of the rights of insurers to offer coverage on whatever terms they choose, nor the violation of the rights of consumers to purchase the coverage that best suits their personal needs. And that's why a mandate is so evil—it turns decision-making about insurance from a voluntary exchange between insurer and insured into a dictate from bureaucrats and whatever special interest of the month is calling. That insurance mandates are evil is something all the prayer in the world won't change.
Reposted from ReasonPharm
Labels: Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Thursday, October 01, 2009
The Fall issue of TOS has been Posted and Mailed
The print edition of the Fall issue has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. (Due to production difficulties, the print edition was mailed a few days late. I apologize for the delay.) The contents of the Fall issue are:
ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David LewisAmerica’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein
An Unwinnable War?
by Elan JournoThe Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig BiddleThe Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael DahlenHow the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul HsiehHow Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein FedermanThe Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel WahlFred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott HolleranThe Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, there is no time like now. You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Rationally Selfish Radio with Dr. Diana Hsieh
I’d like to recommend a new podcast program called Rationally Selfish Radio, hosted by Dr. Diana Hsieh. Dr. Hsieh posts two podcasts per week, discussing a broad spectrum of topics—from how an introvert can meet people, to the conditions under which a person can morally accept an inheritance, to the essential factors in choosing a career, to the nature and status of cosmological arguments for the existence of God. She has also interviewed me (on the subject of sacrifice vs. liberty) and plans to interview other writers and intellectuals in the future.
In the nine episodes to date, Dr. Hsieh has consistently zeroed in on the principles pertaining to the subjects at hand; she has applied them with precision and with clarifying examples; and she has done so in an entertaining and easy-to-follow manner. (Don’t be thrown by her slow talking in episode #1; she picks it up in subsequent shows.) I highly recommend Rationally Selfish Radio to anyone interested in the application of sound philosophy to good living. Click on, tune in, live well!
Labels: Announcements, Philosophy, Religion
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Fall Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making both John David Lewis’s article “Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” and Paul Hsieh’s article “How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability” available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Fall issue are:
ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David LewisAmerica’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein
An Unwinnable War?
by Elan JournoThe Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig BiddleThe Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael DahlenHow the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul HsiehHow Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein FedermanThe Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel WahlFred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott HolleranThe Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not subscribe today? You can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Yaron Brook Interviewed by Larry Greenfield
Here is part one of a four-part interview with Yaron Brook, conducted by Larry Greenfield of The Claremont Institute.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Jewish Settlements and Israeli Law
We are hearing a lot now about Israel’s creation of “Jewish” settlements on “Palestinian land.” These settlements are created, we are often told, to extend the “apartheid state” of Israel by squeezing out the local populations and establishing a superior Jewish ruling class. Typical here is CBS News anchor Bob Simon, who in January of 2009 described Israel as an “apartheid state.”
To understand this, it is instructive to read an Israeli Supreme Court ruling, the Decision on Katzir, dated March 8, 2000, which applies directly to the issue of land, and to the rights of Arabs under Israeli law.
A Jewish group, the Katzir Cooperative, which accepts only Jewish members, had received land from the Israeli government for a settlement in 1982. The group later tried to prevent an Arab couple from building a home in this settlement. The Arab couple sued. In the ruling, the Supreme Court summarized the basis of the suit as follows: “The Petitioners claim that the policy constitutes discrimination on the basis of religion or nationality and that such discrimination is prohibited by law with regard to State land.”
The Court heard the case, and ruled against the cooperative. This section from the ruling is direct and clear about the applicable principle:
The Court examined the question of whether the refusal to allow the petitioners to build their home in Kaztir constituted impermissible discrimination. The Court's examination proceeded in two stages. First, the Court examined whether the State may allocate land directly to its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality. The answer is no. As a general rule, the principle of equality prohibits the State from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality. The principle also applies to the allocation of State land. This conclusion is derived both from the values of Israel as a Democratic state and from the values of Israel as a Jewish state. The Jewish character of the State does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens. In Israel, Jews and non-Jews are citizens with equal rights and responsibilities. The State engages in impermissible discrimination even it if is also willing to allocate State land for the purpose of establishing an exclusively Arab settlement, as long as it permits a group of Jews, without distinguishing characteristics to establish an exclusively Jewish settlement on State land ("separate is inherently unequal").
Next, the Court examined whether the State may allocate land to the Jewish Agency knowing that the Agency will only permit Jews to use the land. The answer is no. Where one may not discriminate directly, one may not discriminate indirectly. If the State, through its own actions, may not discriminate on the basis of religion or nationality, it may not facilitate such discrimination by a third party. It does not change matters that the third party is the Jewish Agency. Even if the Jewish Agency may distinguish between Jews and non-Jews, it may not do so in the allocation of State land.
On principle Israeli law is not religious; it is secular. Many of the settlements are Jewish, and we might assume that establishing Jewish enclaves in the Jewish state would be encouraged. But the law gives them no privileged status. The Jewish state is not akin to the Islamic state of Iran—in which clerics rule—or to that of Saudi Arabia, in which an ancient religious text is the law of the land. In Israel, all are equal in principle before the law. While under Israeli control, Jerusalem is an open city. People of all religions—and of no religion—can walk around freely, protected by Israeli law.
There is an important limitation here. Many of the areas that Israel was forced to take in self-defense, following the 1967 and 1973 attacks, are under military law, because Israel’s enemies have not ended the war, and because these areas have not been formally annexed. The source of this problem is the Arab leadership, who refused to accept an Arabic state next to Israel, as called for in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947, and rather declared war on Israel. Unremitting suicide attacks were the source of the later separation wall. But this is all the more reason to end the war, eliminate the ambiguity, and extend Israeli law—and its principle of non-religious discrimination—fully into those areas.
Palestinian opposition to Jewish towns—as well as the ruling of the Israeli court—demonstrate where the commitment to apartheid lies, and it is not in Israel. Palestinian leaders do not thank Israel for its instructive example in separating politics from religion, while pressing to instill such principles in their own society. They rather condemn Israel, and demand its withdrawal under threat of force.
(The author thanks Boaz Arad for his assistance.)
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Yaron Brook on Islamic Totalitarianism
In Yaron Brook’s latest interview on PJTV, he discusses Islamic Totalitarianism and its primary sponsor, Iran; how the U.S. has turned the other cheek every time Iran has (directly or indirectly) attacked Americans; what the U.S. (and Israel) should do about this Iranian-sponsored assault on the West; and the need of a moral revolution in America to enable Americans to defend themselves not only from foreign assaults but also from domestic corruption.
The interview is superb; don’t miss it.
Labels: Announcements, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Seals Have Done What 'God' Could Not
Those who are thanking an alleged “God” for the rescue of American cargo ship captain Richard Phillips are engaging in a grave injustice. Phillips was saved not by “God,” who does not exist, but by Navy Seals, who deserve full credit for this marvelous feat.
Paraphrasing one of the protagonists from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the brutes who believed they could defeat their betters by force have learned what happens when brute force encounters mind and force.
Cheers to the Seals!
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Don't Say Grace, Say Justice
The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.
Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?
Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.
Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?
Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?
Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.
To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.
Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.
Labels: Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Friday, October 31, 2008
Church and State: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven
Washington, D.C.—Californians will soon have the chance to vote on Proposition 8, which would define marriage in the state constitution as being only between a man and a woman, denying marriage to same-sex couples. The proposition is heavily supported by the religious community. Said one religious leader who supports the measure, “We believe it is a religious issue as well as a political issue. That’s where we feel the Church must have a word.”
According to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “Regardless of how one thinks ‘marriage’ should be defined, there’s a much graver issue at stake: this is a flagrant attempt to inject religion into politics.
“As our Founders understood, religion is properly a private matter—not a legitimate basis for government action. The government’s only role is to protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Under our secular political system, individuals are free to hold any religious views they wish, but they cannot impose their views on the rest of us. That is the meaning of freedom of religion.
“Once we accept the view that the ‘Church must have a word’ in the political sphere, we are accepting a principle completely opposed to freedom. If gay marriage can be barred because, as one supporter of Prop. 8 put it, ‘I don’t think God has ordained it,’ then why, for instance, can’t speech that similarly offends religionists also be banned? Indeed, this is the very principle that motivates the religious right’s crusade against broadcast ‘indecency’—and the brutal principle that recently led the Afghani government to sentence a journalism student to 20 years in prison for blasphemy.
“The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of liberty. It protects our right to live by our own judgment, free from the dictates of ministers and mullahs. To protect that right, we should oppose any attempt to bring religion into politics.”
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC, and C-SPAN.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213
media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Jail Time for Blasphemy Under Religious Constitution
Washington, D.C.—“The 20-year jail sentence for blasphemy handed down to Sayad Kambakhsh in Afghanistan this week is the kind of outrage to be expected under any constitution that enshrines Islam as the state religion and the Koran as the supreme law of the land,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
A council of mullahs acting under court authority had originally decreed capital punishment for Kambakhsh, a 24-year-old journalism student charged with possessing anti-Islamic books, starting un-Islamic debates in class, and downloading and distributing Internet articles saying that Muhammad ignored women’s rights. That death sentence, which was endorsed by Afghanistan’s upper house of parliament, has now been overturned on appeal.
“In 2006, mobs of clerics were clamoring for the death of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan whose ‘crime’ was converting to Christianity,” Bowden said. “And now, Sayad Kambakhsh faces two decades in jail unless an international outcry embarrasses Afghanistan’s government into lifting the sentence.
“Criminal punishment of blasphemy is fundamentally unjust and outrageous, and ad hoc protests offer no long-term solution. If Islam’s stranglehold on Afghanistan’s government is to end, that nation must adopt an American-style constitution protecting individual rights, including freedom of speech and religion. The strict separation of church and state erects an institutional barrier to religious persecution, as American history shows.
“But a nation that exalts mystical dogma and tribal allegiances cannot be expected to think in such terms. ‘The guy should be hanged,’ said an 18-year-old student at the American University in Kabul, at the time of Kambakhsh’s death sentence. Added a Muslim cleric: ‘He should be punished so that others can learn from him.’ For such people, freedom is an intolerable obstacle to the overriding goal of enforcing Islam.
“When the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan, its stated policy was to promote ‘democracy.’ That policy has now achieved its exact aim. The Afghan government reflects the democratic will of the people. The people want to punish blasphemers, and their constitution allows them to do so lawfully.
“Bush’s policy was based on his delusional belief that Afghans are as freedom-loving as Americans. But what they truly value is religion. Sayad Kambakhsh is living—at least for now--proof that religion injected into government is hostile to freedom.”
########
Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor, who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
Thomas Bowden is available for interviews on this topic.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@AynRandCenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Friday, October 17, 2008
Religion versus Morality
What: A talk followed by a Q&A
Who: Andrew Bernstein, professor of philosophy at Marist College
Where: Wilson Hall Room 301, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
When: October 22, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Admission is FREE and open to the public.
Description: Conventionally, most people believe that morality can only be based in religious faith—that in a world without God no principles of right and wrong could exist. Related to this, philosophers have long held that no objective, fact-based, rational code of values is possible. Regarding both points, this talk shows that the exact opposite is true. The purpose of morality is to guide human life on earth—and religion is utterly incapable of it. Flourishing life requires a code of secularism, rationality, egoism and freedom. Religious faith clashes with every principle of a proper moral code, and, as such, has led, and can only lead to, hell on earth.
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Philosophy, Religion
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Faith-based Politics costs Colorado Republicans by Ari Armstrong
Colorado is known for its Western values of independence and economic liberty. So why do Republicans, the supposed champions of those values, keep getting trounced?
Republicans can blame wealthy Democratic donors, but in large part Republicans have beaten themselves by pushing a faith-based agenda of banning abortion and stem-cell research, discriminating against homosexuals, and directing welfare dollars to religious groups. They have subverted the law to religious doctrine and weakened the wall between church and state.
Republicans also have alienated freedom-minded independents and Republicans. Polls released by Pew show most Americans, and half of conservatives, now oppose church involvement in politics. As Ryan Sager shows in his review of 2005 Pew data, the Interior West holds a "live and let live" philosophy, with 53 percent of residents saying homosexuality "should be accepted by society" and 59 percent saying "the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality."
Yet the GOP panders to its evangelical base at the expense of political victory.
This year, Republicans passed a resolution at their state convention calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Eighteen Republican candidates signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, saying they want to ban abortion as the will of God and outlaw stem-cell medical research.
The same candidates also endorsed Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. This would lay the ground to ban all abortion except perhaps to save the mother's life, ban the birth control pill and other forms of contraception that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, and ban most fertility treatments. Women would be forced to bring a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks.
True, some of these candidates, such as Congressman Doug Lamborn and congressional candidate Mike Coffman, live in safe districts for Republicans. But Libby Szabo, a candidate for state senate in District 19, does not. Her opponents have hammered her over her answers to the survey, making sure to link her views to the GOP.
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, the incumbent in a Republican district, has managed to fall behind challenger Betsy Markey in some polls. Musgrave wants to outlaw abortion, and she is most well known for sponsoring a constitutional gay marriage ban.
Republican Bob Schaffer is trailing Mark Udall in the polls in the U.S. Senate race in part because of Schaffer's faith-based politics. Udall has written, "I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country." He opposes bans on abortion and stem-cell research. Schaffer, evoking God's will, said abortion is "always wrong."
Republicans should have learned their lesson when they lost the governership to the Democrats in 2006, when Bob Beauprez touted his faith-based politics and selected a running mate of the same cloth, Janet Rowland. Like Beauprez, Rowland wanted to outlaw abortion and maintain faith-based welfare.
Yet the GOP continues to actively push its anti-abortion agenda. A recent flyer "Paid for by Colorado Republican Committee" urged recipients to vote for a presidential candidate who opposes abortion and who will appoint Supreme Court justices to outlaw it.
But some who are pro-choice across the board are fighting back. Diana Hsieh founded the Coalition for Secular Government, which issued a paper that she and I wrote titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Diana's husband Paul wrote to Dick Wadhams, head of the state GOP, "Although I'm pro-free market, pro-strong national defense, and pro- gun, the position that the CO GOP has taken against abortion is a clear breach of the principle of separation of church and state." Doug Krening wrote to Republican officials, "I have been a Republican for my entire voting life, but cannot endorse the GOP currently because of it's explicit endorsement of religion in government."
On September 11, Amanda Mountjoy, chair of the Colorado Republican Majority for Choice, hosted a banquet with 240 participants to oppose Amendment 48. Former Senator Hank Brown told the crowd, "At the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."
Colorado Republicans have two options. They can respect the separation of church and state and defend individual freedom and choice, or they can continue to lose and deserve to do so.
Ari Armstrong is a writer for the Coalition for Secular Government and the editor of FreeColorado.com.
Copyright © 2008 Coalition for Secular Government. All rights reserved.
Labels: Individual Rights and Law, Religion, Science and Technology
Totalitarian Islam and the Threat to Free Speech
What: A panel discussion on the nature of totalitarian Islam and its threat to free speech, followed by a Q&A
Who: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute; Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; and Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten
Where: Ward One, Auditorium One, American University, Washington, D.C.
When: Thursday, October 23, 2008, at 6 pm
Admission is FREE and open to the public.
Description: What is the nature of totalitarian Islam—is it limited to terrorism or is it a broader movement? Are non-Muslims its only victims? Who precisely is the enemy? Does the West bear responsibility for creating this movement? What policies can defeat it?
Defenders of Islam around the world have striven to silence critics with threats, protests and acts of violence. How should the West respond to demands for censorship, as in the Danish cartoon controversy?
Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bios:
Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle East issues. Dr. Brook has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including FOX News, CNN, and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. Abroad, he appears weekly in Israel’s Jerusalem Post, Italy’s l’Opinione, Spain’s La Razón and monthly in Canada’s Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is one of the most accessed Internet sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, The O’Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al-Jazeera.
Flemming Rose is a Danish journalist, author and the cultural editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In September 2005 Mr. Rose commissioned a series of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad. He was concerned about the tendency toward self-censorship in Europe and some Muslims’ insistence on special treatment of their religious sensitivities in the public domain, which he wanted to bring forward for debate. The backlash from Muslims around the world caused an international crisis and the Danish government experienced its worst foreign policy crisis since the Nazi occupation during WWII.
For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
CSG on Colorado's Amendment 48
Announcing the Coalition for Secular Government's new web site on Colorado's Amendment 48:
Amendment 48 is the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution. (Read the full text.) If passed and implemented, it would pose a grave threat to the life, liberty, health, and happiness of the women and men of Colorado.
- Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman's life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a "person," a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy—even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
- Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus—including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
- Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Amendment 48 would have severe legal consequences for Colorado. Men and women would be legally bound to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a zygote—even before it implants in the womb, even before it develops any recognizable human form, even before it has any capacity for awareness. The people of Colorado would be forced to sacrifice themselves based on the faith-based fiction that zygote is the equal of a born baby.
The common claim that "life begins at conception" cannot justify Amendment 48. The fact that something is human and alive does not make it a person.
Every cell in our body is both human and alive, yet we don't worry about giving blood for testing or scraping off a few skin cells in a fall. A fertilized egg is distinctive because, in addition to being alive and human, it might develop into a born baby given the right conditions. What supporters of Amendment 48 cannot show, however, is that a potential baby has the moral status of an actual baby. The difference between them is enormous.
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person. That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person—and individual. His life must be protected as a matter of right.
Consequently, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is exercising her own rights over her own body—likely in pursuit of her own health, well-being, and happiness. Amendment 48 would destroy those rights in Colorado.
For a detailed analysis of Amendment 48, download and read the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh:
"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person"
Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in Colorado. Please vote NO on 48!
For more information, visit: http://ColoradoVoteNo48.com
—Diana Hsieh
Coalition for Secular Government
The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—including freedom of religion and conscience—requires a strict separation of church and state.
Labels: Announcements, Individual Rights and Law, Religion, Science and Technology
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Islamic Totalitarianism’s Threat to Civilization
What: A panel discussion about the nature of Islamic totalitarianism and how to defeat it. A Q&A will follow.
Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam
Where: HIB (Humanities Instructional Building), Room 100, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697
When: Monday, October, 13, 2008, at 7 pm
This event is open to the public. Admission is FREE.
Description: From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency–it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an “age of terror” and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory . . . but is the conventional wisdom right?
Bios:
-
Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle East issues. Dr. Brook has served in the Israeli Army and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on numerous radio and TV programs, including FOX News, CNN and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.
-
Dr. Wafa Sultan is a secular Syrian-American writer and thinker, best known for her participation in Middle East political debates, widely circulated Arabic essays and television appearances on CNN, FOX News and Al-Jazeera. She named the Islamic threat to the West as “a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose.” Her outspokenness has brought her both threats and praise. Dr. Sultan is currently working on a book to be titled “The God that Hates.”
For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org
### ### ###
Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews now and after this event.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The Forthcoming Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Fall issue of The Objective Standard is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, “McBama vs. America” and “The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists” are available early and to all.
The contents of the Fall issue are:
ARTICLES
“McBama vs. America” by Craig Biddle“The Resurgence of Big Government” by Yaron Brook
“The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists” by Alan Germani
“Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America” by Paul Hsieh
“Deeper Than Kelo: The Roots of the Property Rights Crisis” by Eric Daniels
“The Menace of Pragmatism” by Tara Smith
“How the FDA Violates Rights and Hinders Health” by Stella Daily
BOOKS REVIEWED
Mugged by Reality: The Liberation of Iraq and the Failure of Good Intentions, by John Agresto (reviewed by Elan Journo)Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (reviewed by Eric Daniels)
The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, by Ronald Kessler (reviewed by Joe Kroeger)
The Tyranny of the Market: Why You Can’t Always Get What You Want, by Joel Waldfogel (reviewed by Eric Daniels)
First into Nagasaki: The Censored Eyewitness Dispatches on Post-Atomic Japan and Its Prisoners of War, by George Weller (reviewed by John David Lewis)
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, there is no time like now. You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151. Everyone concerned with the future should be reading this journal today.
Labels: Announcements, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion
Friday, August 29, 2008
Islamic Censorship by Default
Washington, DC—Random House has called off publication of a historical novel about the Prophet Muhammad's wife Aisha, after the company received advice the book could incite violence by Islamic radicals.
"Random House's decision is the tragic result of America's failure to defend free speech against totalitarian Islam," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.
"In 1989, when Ayatollah Khomeini called for the execution of Salman Rushdie and Islamists firebombed American bookstores, the United States did nothing. In 2006, when two major book chains refused to sell copies of Free Inquiry magazine featuring the Danish cartoons of Muhammad for fear of Muslim violence, the United States did nothing. Is it any surprise that some Americans are now afraid to publish material that could be deemed 'offensive' to Islam?
"If a publisher faces the prospect of violent reprisals, and knows that the U.S. government will do nothing to protect it, that is censorship—as much as if our own government had shut down Random House's printing presses.
"The American government exists to protect our rights, including our right to free speech. By defaulting on its responsibility, it has allowed theocratic thugs to dictate what Americans can say, write, and publish. It needs to send a message that it will no longer tolerate any threat against the right of Americans to speak freely about any subject, including Islam.
"How much longer will our government allow Islamic radicals to tell us what we can say?
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Creeping Christianity in the U.S. Military
Irvine, CA—An active-duty soldier has sued the Department of Defense, alleging discrimination by the U.S. Army on the basis of his atheism. Specialist Jeremy Hall claims that, for example, he was ostracized by Christian soldiers when he refused to hold hands around the table and join in a Christian prayer at Thanksgiving. His federal lawsuit asserts he was also kicked off the promotion track for lacking religious faith.
"This lawsuit highlights one aspect of the insidious process by which the religious right's 'faith-based' agenda is corrupting American institutions," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "In the faith-friendly atmosphere of the Bush administration, religionists are taking big swings at the wall of separation between church and state. The allegations in this suit are consistent with recent controversies over evangelical proselytizing at the Air Force Academy and mealtime prayers at the Naval Academy.
"The military is duty-bound to actively shield its soldiers from ostracism and persecution such as that alleged in Specialist Hall's suit. Servicemen, like all Americans, are legally and morally entitled to exercise freedom of thought, which includes the freedom to accept or reject religion according to their own best judgment.
"In their interactions, soldiers should be required to cooperate based on their common values—a patriotic commitment to America's self-defense and to carrying out the specific tasks that goal requires. Religious dogma only undermines such rational cooperation, as centuries of faith-based warfare and persecution demonstrate.
"The religious right must be put in its place before it irreparably damages the wall between church and state. Americans are entitled to expect that the military, the courts, and the President will unite in protecting the First Amendment rights of all citizens. That means opposing, not promoting, attempts to inject religion into American institutions such as the armed forces."
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Turkey's Turn Back to the Book
According to a recent article in the Jerusalem Post (“Is Turkey's Government Starting a Muslim Reformation?” Daniel Pipes, May 22, 2008), a government ministry in Turkey, the so-called “Presidency of Religious Affairs and the Religious Charitable Foundation,” has undertaken a three year project to study and condense thousands of pages of material associated with Islam. The problem, they claim, is that fourteen hundred years of “Hadiths,” reports about the sayings and deeds of Muhammad, have distorted the meaning of Islam as revealed in Islam’s central text, the Koran. The goal of the project is to weed-out all that is inconsistent with the Koran.
According to one of the eighty Islamic theologians involved, “The Koran is our basic guide. Anything that conflicts with that we are trying to eliminate.” According to Mehmet Görmez, a senior lecturer at Ankara University, “We want to bring out the positive side of Islam that promotes personal honor, human rights, justice, morality, women’s rights, respect for the other.” To promote the spread of Islam in the 21st century, the Turkish theologians want to redefine how Muslims must practice Islam.
The very fact that this project is being undertaken by the Turkish government signals the rise of Islamic rule in Turkey. Any government that purports to decide which religious interpretation is “correct” has established a theocracy. The first step in any genuine religious reform must be to sever the connections between political power and religion, and to affirm the rights of everyone to think and to speak as they wish.
The promoters of the project bill it as an attempt to define a way of following Islam that is appropriate for the modern world. Since the Koran is their central authority, the first question we must ask is: What does the Koran actually say about these matters? (All passages here are taken from the Muslim Students Association translation by Yusuf Ali.)
As regards women, the Koran is clear about their subordinate status, the basis of male superiority in physical strength, and the need for women to stay home, be taken care of by their husbands, and obey under pain of beating:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (Koran, 4.34)
The passage speaks for itself. To soften the text, the translator inserts “lightly” after “beat them,” as if wife-beating was proper if done in moderation. Who is to decide what constitutes the proper degree of beating? Male clerics, of course. But no amount of sophistry can hide the fact that this is non-negotiable advocacy of the physical abuse of women.
What of people who are not Muslims (the “other”)? The Koran is clear that they must submit to Islamic rule, accept an inferior position, and pay tribute to avoid destruction:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [the tax levied on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Koran 9.29)
The meaning of this demand for submission was defined by one of the most revered of the early Islamic philosophers, Al-Ghazali, a central figure in the allegedly non-violent Sufi wing of Islam:
[O]ne must go on jihad at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them . . . .
[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle . . . Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya . . . the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim's, no matter how low that is. . . . They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch . . . [dhimmis] must hold their tongue. (from “Sufi Jihad?” by Andrew Bostom, May 15, 2005)
This passage is directly relevant to the modern day. The height of buildings (e.g., the insulting scale of the World Trade Center), the injunctions against any criticism of Islam, the demand for a compliant, self-effacing attitude among non-Muslims, the payment of tribute (“foreign aid”), even the identifying patch demanded of Jews by the Nazis—concern with all of these issues may be found in the writings of Al-Ghazali, the most mystical of the “moderates” during Islam’s “Golden Age,” and a staunch proponent of jihad.
Those undertaking the Turkish project claim the authority to judge which texts are consistent with the Koran, and which are not. But what does the Koran say about our capacity to make such judgments? It denies them categorically and repeatedly—which is why many fundamentalist Muslims claim that the Koran is all they need. As regards fighting, for instance, the Koran says:
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (Koran 2.216)
Elsewhere the Quran claims that jihad must continue “until all dissension is ended.” (8.39) Abject universal agreement with the clerical elite is the goal. You are not capable of judging when and whom you must fight—and neither may you judge which aspects of the Koran to follow. Your mind is incapable of independent judgment. Your role in life is to obey the clerics.
Such passages are only a sample of what is found in the book that an agency of the Turkish government will use as its basic guide for the next century.
It should not be surprising that the positions taken by this same government ministry are avowedly opposed to thought, speech, and writing that is critical of Islam. Here, from a February 4, 2008 press release on its website, is its position toward the film “FITNA,” which was critical of Islam:
This film involves direct insult to Islam’s Holy book and the Islamic religion, which is another show of “hostility” today, provoking violence and hatred against it, though Islam has complemented the other religions with its message emphasizing equality, freedom of conscience and mutual respect among people. . . .
The Muslims strongly condemn all forms of hatred messages and the wrong perceptions fabricated against Islam. The Muslim world is aware of the provocations that aim to demonstrate Muslims as potential terrorists and gradually exclude them and hurt their feelings.
Note the appeal to “feelings” and the claim that “hurt feelings” are grounds for censorship—suppression of speech and writing by government force. Note that those who burn, bomb, and behead people while chanting “Allahu Akhbar” are not seen as insulting Islam—or hurting anyone’s feelings; reproach falls rather on those who identify the fact that the burners, bombers, and beheaders invoke Islam when they rampage.
This is not reform. It is a call for a new fundamentalism on the authority of a thirteen-hundred-year-old vicious fairytale, and for a ceaseless struggle against those who would criticize it. Indeed, the use of terror in fighting the enemies of Islam is directly sanctioned by the Koran:
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. . . . (8.60)
Genuine reform of Islam cannot occur without challenging the Koran itself. But this is the one thing that the Turkish theologians will not do. Indeed they have energetically denied western press reports that they are undertaking such reforms. The head of the ministry, Ali Bardakoğlu, stresses that "we are not reforming Islam; we are reforming ourselves, our own way of religiosity." And Dr. Mehmet Görmez, deputy director, said: "Our project is not aimed at effecting a radical renewal of the religion, as is claimed by the BBC.” A reporter, says Dr. Görmez, “distorted the facts” in making this claim.
We should take him at his word. Any “interpretation” of Islam that is consistent with the Koran as a revealed, unquestioned authority will end in a reversion to its brute, fundamental meaning: the subordination of women and non-Muslims to dictatorial rule by a clerical elite.
Labels: Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
The Threat of Totalitarian Islam: A panel discussion at Harvard University
What: A panel discussion on the nature and threat of totalitarian Islam, followed by a Q&A
Who: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute; Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; and Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch
Where: Harvard University, Emerson Hall, Room 105, Cambridge, MA
When: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, at 7:30 pm
Admission is FREE. However, the organizers of the panel have informed us today that non-students must now RSVP in order to attend this event. If you are interested in attending, please RSVP to events@aynrand.org by 5 pm Eastern time tomorrow May 6.
Description: What is the nature of totalitarian Islam--is it limited to terrorism or is it a broader movement? Are non-Muslims its only victims? Who precisely is the enemy? Does the West bear responsibility for creating this movement? What policies can defeat it?
Defenders of Islam around the world have striven to silence critics with threats, protests and acts of violence. How should the West respond to demands for censorship, as in the Danish cartoon controversy?
Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bios:
Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and is a contributing editor to The Objective Standard. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. He is frequently interviewed in the media and appears weekly on the new Fox Business Network to debate and discuss current economic and business news. His columns and opinion-editorials are published on forbes.com and in many major newspapers. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and a columnist for the New York Times Syndicate. Abroad, he appears weekly in Israel's Jerusalem Post, Italy's l'Opinione, Spain's La Razón, and monthly in Australia's and Canada's Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is the single most accessed Internet source of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Dr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al-Jazeera.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of seven books on Islam and jihad, including the New York Times bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine, and also writes a weekly Qur'an commentary for HotAir.com. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.
For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Events, Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Expelled Gets an F
Irvine, CA—Today Ben Stein's anti-evolution documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens in theaters. The film claims that advocates of "intelligent design"—the view that life is so complex it must be the product of a "higher intelligence"—are the persecuted victims of a "scientific establishment" dogmatically committed to evolution.
"The premise of Expelled is that proponents of 'intelligent design' have been shunned, denied tenure, and even fired because of a conspiracy to quash the scientific evidence supporting their theory," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the truth is: there is no evidence supporting their theory. Intelligent design is completely devoid of any positive scientific content, and consists of nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on evolution. To the extent intelligent design advocates are facing obstacles in academia it is because they are not doing real science: they haven't been 'expelled' they have flunked out of the scientific community, just as a faith healer would flunk out of medical school.
"Observe that intelligent design advocates have pumped millions into publicity-seeking, rather than appealing to scientists with facts and logical arguments. They have spent more time at Christian 'apologetics seminars' than scientific conferences, and have attempted to use the courts to force schools to teach their ideas. Now they are hoping to dupe the movie-going public with a film that misrepresents Darwin's theory and the array of facts that support it—just as the makers of Expelled misrepresented the nature of the film in order to bamboozle respected evolutionary scientists into participating in it.
"Intelligent design advocates will do anything to advance their views—except science.
"The reason for that is simple: doing science has never been their goal. Their goal is to make biblical creationism appear scientific in order to skirt the constitutional ban on religion in public schools. Contrary to the film's claims, the real dogmatists are not the defenders of Darwin, but the religiously motivated advocates of intelligent design."
### ### ###
Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). He writes and edits for ARI and is a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson: 800-365-6552 ext. 213 (office) 949-838-5137 (cell) larryb@aynrand.org
For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right
Who: Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
What: A Ford Hall Forum talk that will consider how the opposing forces of reason and emotionalism have manifested themselves in American culture in the four decades since Woodstock, with special focus on the rise of religion and environmentalism. A Q & A will follow.
Where: Old South Meeting House, 310 Washington Street, Boston, MA
When: Thursday, May 8, 2008, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
This event is open to the public. Admission is FREE.
Summary: At Ford Hall Forum in 1969, Ayn Rand examined the cultural significance of two high-profile, enormously well-attended but very different events: Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch.
In her lecture, “Apollo and Dionysus,” she showed how philosophical ideas play out in a culture: she showed why these two events, so opposite in nature, were a product of a long-standing philosophical dichotomy, reason versus emotion. She concluded her talk by noting that, against the bromide that man’s senses and reason confine him to the grubby, material world while his mystical emotions lift him to the stars, Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch “offered you a literal dramatization of the truth: it is man’s irrational emotions that bring him down to the mud; it is man’s reason that lifts him to the stars.”
In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, will consider how these two opposing forces, reason and emotionalism, have manifested themselves in American culture in the ensuing decades. He will examine the Apollonian elements which are lifting us to the stars. And he will examine the Dionysian elements—religion and environmentalism—which are dragging us back down into the mud, figuratively and literally.
For more information on this talk, please e-mail events@aynrand.org
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism, Events, Religion
Monday, April 14, 2008
Defender of Civilization: Andrew Bostom
Those interested in cutting to the truth about the Islamic Totalitarian threat that is descending upon—and arising among—all of us should pay special attention to the works of Andrew Bostom. His blog is a must-read, and his articles in The American Thinker are not to be missed.
Bostom’s major works are The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (Prometheus, 2008). The latter (to be released next week) promises the same profound expertise and virtuous commitment to the truth as found in the former. His works are required reading for anyone who wants to understand the nature of jihad and the hostile attitudes of Muslims toward Jews throughout history.
Dr. Bostom is not a scribbler. He is a scientist, and he approaches his subject with the meticulous loyalty to facts and evidence that define a man of reason. His works do not merely present his conclusions; they detail how his conclusions accurately reflect the relevant facts and available sources. In an article three years ago, for instance, he took on the widespread Muslim claim that “jihad” refers to some kind of “inner struggle” as against external war. In historical terms, “it is a complete crock” he wrote to me in an email—and his article “Sufi Jihad?” shows us why.
Bostom cites a series of Sufi thinkers—the ones who are supposed to favor the spiritual meaning of Islam rather than the violence of the creed—to show that these mystics were in fact dedicated to violence. To take the most important: Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), a towering figure in Islamic thought, a Sufi Muslim who followed the Shafi’I school of Islamic jurisprudence, and an allegedly non-violent man, wrote this of jihad:
[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them . . . [if one of them] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked. . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . on offering up the jizya [the tax levied on the dhimmis, the subjugated peoples], the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim's. . . . They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths . . . [dhimmis] must hold their tongue. . . . [cited in Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190–91; 199–200; 202–203. English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]
Some today claim that “jihad” means some kind of contemplative inner struggle, that non-Muslims under Muslim rule enjoy equal protection under the law, that there are no slaves in Islam, that non-Muslims need not wear an identifying patch to single them out, or that there is respect for civilians in Islamic thought. But to make this claim, one must disagree not merely with a modern commentator. One must repudiate the most authoritative Islamic mystic since the founding of Islam.
Such is the value of Dr. Bostom’s contribution. He has done the heavy lifting required to bring these kinds of sources to us and to show—not merely by the force of his own conclusions, but in the words of such Islamic authorities themselves—the intellectual origins of the war against the West today.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Religion vs. Morality
Who: Dr. Andrew Bernstein, professor of philosophy and speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute
What: A talk arguing for a secular, rational basis for morality. A Q&A will follow.
Where: University of Colorado, Boulder, Wolf Law Building, Room 207
When: Thursday, April 10, 2008, at 7 pm
Description: Conventionally, most people believe that morality can only be based in religious faith that in a world without God no principles of right and wrong could exist. Related to this, philosophers have long held that no objective, fact-based, rational code of values is possible.
Regarding both points, this talk shows that the exact opposite is true. The purpose of morality is to guide human life on earth and religion is utterly incapable of it. Flourishing life requires a code of secularism, rationality, egoism and freedom. Religious faith clashes with every principle of a proper moral code, and, as such, has led, and can only lead to, hell on earth.
Bio: Dr. Bernstein is a Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Marist College; he also teaches at SUNY Purchase. Dr. Bernstein lectures regularly at American universities and appears frequently on radio talk shows. His op-eds have been published in The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, and The Houston Chronicle. Dr. Bernstein is the author of three Ayn Rand titles for CliffsNotes: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. He also authored The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire.
For more information on this talk, please e-mail media@aynrand.org
### ### ###
Andrew Bernstein is available for interviews now and after his talk.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: larryb@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
Please Note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Events, Philosophy, Religion
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right
Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
What: A talk that will consider how the opposing forces of reason and emotionalism have manifested themselves in American culture in the four decades since Woodstock, with special focus on the rise of religion and environmentalism. A Q&A will follow.
Where: Hilton Costa Mesa, 3050 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
When: Thursday, May 1, 2008, at 7:30 PM
Admission is FREE.
Description: At Ford Hall Forum in 1969, Ayn Rand examined the cultural significance of two high-profile, enormously well-attended but very different events: Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch.
In her lecture, "Apollo and Dionysus," she showed how philosophical ideas play out in a culture: she showed why these two events, so opposite in nature, were a product of a long-standing philosophical dichotomy, reason versus emotion. She concluded her talk by noting that, against the bromide that man's senses and reason confine him to the grubby, material world while his mystical emotions lift him to the stars, reality "last summer . . . offered you a literal dramatization of the truth: it is man's irrational emotions that bring him down to the mud; it is man's reason that lifts him to the stars."
In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, will consider how these two opposing forces, reason and emotionalism, have manifested themselves in American culture in the ensuing decades. He will examine the Apollonian elements which are lifting us to the stars. And he will examine the Dionysian elements, which are dragging us back down into the mud, figuratively or literally: religion and environmentalism.
Bio: Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and is a contributing editor to The Objective Standard. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. He is frequently interviewed in the media and appears weekly on the new Fox Business Network to debate and discuss current economic and business news. His columns and opinion-editorials are published on forbes.com and in major newspapers. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
For more information on this talk, please e-mail events@aynrand.org.
### ### ###
Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews now and after his talk.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site at http://www.aynrand.org/. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism, Events, Religion
Sunday, March 23, 2008
An Islamist 'Declaration Against Terrorism'
In the "question" period of my recent talk at Georgia Tech, a student's fifteen-minute monologue included the claim that a recent Islamic conference in India had condemned terrorism—and that the western press had ignored this conference.
MEMRI covered the conference, which was attended by some ten thousand clerics, scholars and teachers. The "declaration against terrorism" issued by the conference included the following:
This All India Anti-Terrorism Conference, attended by the representatives of all Muslim schools of thought, organised by Rabta Madaris Islamiah Arabia (The Islamic Madrasas Association) Darul Uloom Deoband, condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms.
The declaration continues:
The Conference expresses its deep concern and agony [over] the alarming global and national conditions [presently prevailing in the world], in which most of the nations are adopting an attitude against their citizens—especially the Muslims—that cannot be justified in any way, in order to appease the tyrant and colonial master of the West.
This last means the United States. The conference was a typical anti-American gathering. Predictably, the declaration went on to decry the oppression of Muslims inside India:
Now the situation has worsened [to such an extent] that every Indian Muslim—especially those associated with madrasas, who are innocent with good record of character—are always gripped by the fear that they might be trapped by the administrative machinery anytime.
How should this "grip of fear" by Muslims be ended? The declaration demands that the Indian government shift the fear onto anyone criticizing Islam, by forcibly banning freedom of speech for critics of Islam:
This conference strongly demands that the Indian Government curb those maligning the madrasas and Muslims. The administrative machinery should be [required] to conduct impartial investigations into activities [of] disturbing public peace in the country, and to punish only those found guilty. . . . This All India Anti-Terrorism Conference [calls on] all intellectuals, writers and [journalists] to analyze the national and international affairs independently and honestly, and [to] avoid biased and partial attitudes.
"Disturbing the public peace" and displaying a "biased and partial attitude" includes saying and writing anything critical of ("maligning") the teachings of the Islamic schools. "They" (meaning "all intellectuals, writers and journalists") must "render full support to the Islamic madrasas . . . following the Islamic Shariah and teachings with full confidence."
The declaration is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a call to implement Islamic law over every aspect of human thought and action, and to prosecute anyone critical of Islam.
Is this is the best example that the critic in my audience could come up with for a condemnation of terrorism by Muslims?
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Blog Feed
Click the button below to subscribe to our blog's feed.
Get the Feed
Subscribe to the journal for people of reason.
Topics
- Announcements
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism
- Business and Economics
- Education
- Environmentalism
- Events
- Foreign Policy and War
- Healthcare
- History
- Individual Rights and Law
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Religion
- Science and Technology
- The Arts
Blog Archive
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
Advertisement
Advertisement
