Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Creeping Christianity in the U.S. Military

Posted by ARI Media at 9:50 AM

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: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Turkey's Turn Back to the Book

Posted by John David Lewis at 3:06 PM

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: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

The Threat of Totalitarian Islam: A panel discussion at Harvard University

Posted by ARI Media at 7:47 AM

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: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Expelled Gets an F

Posted by ARI Media at 10:15 AM

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: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right

Posted by ARI Media at 11:16 PM

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: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, April 14, 2008

Defender of Civilization: Andrew Bostom

Posted by John David Lewis at 12:58 AM

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: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Religion vs. Morality

Posted by ARI Media at 10:22 AM

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: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right

Posted by ARI Media at 1:44 PM

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: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Sunday, March 23, 2008

An Islamist 'Declaration Against Terrorism'

Posted by John David Lewis at 4:11 PM

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: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, March 21, 2008

The Easter Masqueradeby Keith Lockitch

Posted by ARI Media at 12:08 AM

In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII established our modern calendar and fixed the rules determining the date of Easter. This year Easter falls on March 23, but from year to year it can shift by as much as a month on the Gregorian calendar.

Finding Easter's date for a given year requires a surprising degree of scientific acumen. The last things one might expect to see in, say, the Book of Common Prayer are tables of numbers and rules for mathematical calculations—but there they are, nevertheless.

At first glance, this seems to exemplify a kind of harmony between religion and science, a peaceful concord between faith and reason. Indeed, a variety of public figures—from prominent scientists to the Pope—have promoted the view that science and religion are not adversaries but complementary and mutually supporting fields. "Truth cannot contradict truth," they declare, implying that the truths discovered by reasoning from sensory evidence cannot clash with the "truths" of religious dogma.

A closer look, however, reveals the long history of the hostility of faith towards reason—which continues to this day. Violent clashes between the two are not only possible but unavoidable, and the notion that religion can coexist on friendly terms with science and reason is false.

For reasons both biblical and astronomical, Easter is defined as the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox (the first day of spring). To get his calendar rules right, Pope Gregory had to rely on some of the best astronomers and mathematicians of his day. Ironically, one of these was Nicolas Copernicus, whose sun-centered astronomy engendered one of history's most famous clashes between science and religion.

A faithful canon of the Catholic Church, Copernicus supported the calendar project happily. His scientific work was partly motivated by the goal of predicting more accurately the first day of spring and the subsequent full moon. He modestly expressed the hope that by facilitating the calculation of Easter his labors would "contribute somewhat even to the Commonwealth of the Church."

At first Copernicus's work was warmly accepted by Church officials—but only because they didn't take it seriously. Sixteenth century common sense held that the Sun orbits the Earth, which is motionless at the center of the universe. More important, Church scholars held that the true structure of the world is established not by science but by official interpretation of Scripture. Hence, they regarded the motion of the Earth as nothing more than a convenient mathematical assumption—an idea justified solely by its utility in making astronomical predictions. Thinking they could evade a clash between reason and revelation, they denied the reality of the Earth's motion but used the Copernican theory nonetheless.

This contradiction became inescapable decades after the Gregorian reform when Galileo removed the objections from common sense by explaining the physics of the moving Earth. But the objections from faith proved more intractable. Galileo's outspoken defense of the Earth's motion as a serious physical idea forced Church leaders to take a stand—and when they got off the fence, they came down firmly against science. That the Church persecuted Galileo for defending Copernican theory is well-known. Less frequently acknowledged is the utter hypocrisy of that act: the Church persecuted Galileo for defending the very ideas on which its Easter reform depended.

In 1992 Pope John Paul II grudgingly admitted—350 years too late—that his predecessors had been wrong. He called the Church's persecution of Galileo a "sad misunderstanding" that "now belongs to the past."

But does it?

Although few would now declare the Earth the motionless center of the universe, it is not difficult to find those who claim it to be 6,000 years old and deny the long, slow evolution of its species. More alarming is that the same Dark Ages mentality that dragged Galileo before the Inquisition now seeks to prohibit entire fields of scientific research, such as therapeutic cloning. The war of religion against science has merely shifted to new battlegrounds, but it still rages on.

Religion's alleged harmony with science is a fraudulent masquerade, extending only insofar as religious dogmas are not called into question. True defenders of science must be committed to reason as an absolute principle—following facts wherever they lead and bowing to no authorities but logic and reality. And they must understand that the servile obedience demanded by faith is wholly incompatible with science—and with the rational thinking on which all human progress and prosperity depends.

Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Memoirs of a 'Criminal Mind': Georgia Tech, March 13, 2008

Posted by John David Lewis at 7:39 PM

On March 13, I gave my talk “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” to an audience of about forty at Georgia Institute of Technology. In the talk, based on my article in The Objective Standard, I rejected all forms of theocracy, but emphasized the danger posed by the Islamic state and argued for the destruction of its most obvious manifestation, the regime in Iran. I was prepared for opposition to the idea of war with Iran, and I acknowledged up front that those who recognize that religious law is wrong might disagree with my conclusion that a war against the Iranian state is necessary. But I was not prepared for the strident defense of Islamic law and jihad—and for the condemnation of me for even raising the issue of Islamic jihad—that was to come.

The onslaught began with the first “question,” actually a monologue that lasted nearly fifteen minutes. The monologist claimed that: (1) there is a long history of separation of church and state in Islam; (2) Islamic law is good; (3) whenever imposed, Islamic law has brought peace; (4) jihad is a “wonderful idea” and does not mean war; (5) Islamic Totalitarianism poses no threat, since 500 million Muslims reject terrorism; (6) the tax leveled against subjugated peoples is just, because they are protected by Muslims in return; (7) I am “ignorant of history” if I do not acknowledge the “truth” of these claims.

I listened to him without interrupting—and even asked a legitimately annoyed member of the audience to allow him to finish—so that he could fully reveal himself. In answer, I re-read a series of quotes in which Islamic leaders—as well as a young girl on Lebanese television—call for jihad, war, and death; and I pointed out to the monologist that he must be quite angry at these Muslims for their incorrect view of jihad. But instead of being angry at those who give his presumably peaceful religion a bad name, he condemned me for reading their quotes. This is evasion par excellence—to condemn those who raise Islam’s violent past and present rather than have to face the fact that the vision of idyllic peace that one associates with one’s religion has no basis in reality.

(I at least got a good laugh out of this exchange when I concretized the meaning of the tax on subjugated peoples. Suppose a Mafia thug came to your door, I said, and he offered to protect you for, say, $100 a month. You would ask the thug, “From whom do I need protection?” to which he would reply: “Us.”)

Following this was more of the same: combinations of Islamic apologizing and ad hominem attacks. I was told, for instance, that I could not possibly understand Iran if I had never been there myself. By this standard, history as such is impossible; no one today can know what it was like a decade, a century, or a millennium prior to his birth. But the apologists have no problem suspending this standard for themselves when it serves their purposes, in this case to glorify Mohammad (“a peaceful man”) and 7th-century Arabia.

But one “questioner” in particular stands out: After reading a sentence from my article Notes on the Near Eastern Roots of Islam, with no context or explanation for the audience to even understand what it meant, he attacked me by saying that I should remember “logic” and the fact that I was at a “scientific” school before making statements such as those that I had made. But rather than explain to me what was illogical or unscientific about my views—let alone ask a question in the question period—he continued his ad hominem attack by stating that my views were so obviously wrong that only a “criminal mind” (a phrase he repeated) could have come up with them. Again, he never stated what was wrong with my quote, never established any reasons for his conclusion, and never asked me to clarify my reasoning—he took his assertion of the “criminality” of my mind as a self-evident fact.

On the face of it, the “scientific logic” he employed was nothing more than arbitrary name-calling—obviously a cherished technique by his “method.” But what motivated his calling me a “criminal mind”—twice?

The topic of my talk was theocracy and Islamic law. Islamic governments, as ideological states founded on claims to divine revelation, must jail—or worse—those who speak out against the clerics. This was the thug’s ideal: In lieu of rationally demonstrating the “truth” of his beliefs, he would criminalize me, or jail me, or perhaps kill me, to stop the spread of ideas contrary to his. In Iran, this ideal has already been achieved; there I would have been arrested, condemned, and thrown into solitary confinement. But in America, the thug’s ideal is frustrated; without the power of the law to silence me he was reduced to name-calling.

What deeper attack on civilization, freedom, the mind, and human life could be possible than to propose the establishment of thought crimes in an American university? His was the voice of a dark-age Nazi brownshirt longing for the day when he can destroy those who vocalize ideas that make it difficult for him to evade the irrational nature of his whims. Who is it that should be empowered to peruse articles and determine which ones constitute crimes? The thug made that very clear. Unfortunately, with but one exception, the Muslims in the audience did not say anything against him.

For a taste of what develops when people like the ones I faced have their way, read this article about a university lecturer in Iran who was sentenced to death in Iran for the “crime” of polling Iranians about their attitudes towards America. This is the real meaning of Islamic law: the destruction of the mind, and death to those who use their minds.

The content of my article is irrelevant in the face of such attacks on the mind. But, for the record, the passage that the thug read was this: “There is a need for an external enemy, as a point of focus for the rage which would otherwise turn into civil war.” And here are the next two sentences: “The Arabic tribes were in constant warfare, until Islam pointed their energies outwards, into conquest. To this day, the civil wars return to such areas whenever there is no external enemy, or no dictator to keep order by force.” I wrote this because it is true. Dictatorship or anarchy is largely the rule in the Middle East today—as it was under Mohammed in Arabia, which he conquered internally and then turned outward to foreign conquest.

On display the night of my talk were the theory and practice of Islamic totalitarianism—the soul and the fist—in the evasions about Islamic history and its practices today, and in the open wish to criminalize those stating these truths.

There were, however, two bright spots to the evening. The first was a man who described himself as a thirty-year emigré from Turkey. He noted with pride that his homeland had a thoroughly secular government and he praised Kemal Ataturk for bringing Turkey into the modern age, for instance, by banning the headscarf. But today Turkey’s secular government is being undercut—by Americans who describe its government as “moderate Islamic” and thereby blur the line between theocracy and secularism. This opens the door to the establishment of Islamic law. The man’s message was this: There can be no compromise between theocracy and secular government; it is either–or. To accept “moderate Islam” into government is, in principle, to establish theocracy. I wonder if he realized that, by the standards of the brownshirt in my audience, he was a criminal for holding such a view.

The second bright spot of the evening was a young woman who asked me excitedly about Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness. As the young woman struggled to understand Rand’s challenging ideas, our conversation continued into the hall and outside. She apologized for the actions of the audience; I told her not to be concerned with them, only herself. I am certainly glad that, for now at least, she lives in a society where she can remain focused on her own intellectual development—and safely ignore those who would stifle or slaughter her “criminal mind” before the wings of her intellect have a chance to grow.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Religion vs. Morality

Posted by ARI Media at 10:33 PM

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: Rice University, Sewall Hall, Room 309, Houston, TX

When: Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 7:30 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

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Menahem Milson on the Meaning of Jihad

Pos