"You're missing the point."
My comment was just a quote directly from the linked article.

... and because their politics and political philosophy were not based on religion.

You're missing the point. If you're going to establish a new ideology, you need to found it, just like the original was founded. Only then can you create a system that's consistent. If you attempt to impose an alien ideology on a structure hostile to the new ideas, you'll get nothing but a mess. Just look at homosexuality and Christianity (or Judaism). The original documents abhor homosexuality, so the attempt to impose that lifestyle on top of a structure hostile to it is bound to fail. If the gay community wants to have a religion, they must create one of their own. Only then can they have a structure that's compatible with their lifestyle. So, it's not "consistency" that's the issue, but what was once called heresy. "Consistency" refers to the fundamentals. Heresy pulls new ideas out of thin air. At least, that's the way it seems to the average guy, the "ballast."

The only way to deal with reality is with volition (free will). Without it, Man would have to bow to the demands of reality instead of molding it to his benefit. It's what differentiates us from all other animals.

Making room for free will isn't the problem. Making room for reality is.

They never had that Ah HA moment, no reformation nor have they achieved consciousness.
They still live in their brain and not the mind. Only two parts in a 3 part equation.
In short, they never grew up...much like those in the worlds governments.

since the majority of Muslim people seem to be reasonable
people, isn't Islam's problem that the majority can't handle
the violently negative minority? -- j
.

Fundementalism is the eventual downfall of every religion and philosophy. Strict adherence to any set of rules without making room for free will is going to fail eventually. If it doesn't fail, it must become worse, turning mankind into an ant hill.

A theocracy led by a Seventh Day Adventist?
I don't think so.

actions speak louder than words, as that is what he is trying to accomplish.

Read this article by my son-in-law.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/willia...

One of the tenets of multiculturalism is doing away with colonialist "suppression" of native cultures. What is sadly being demonstrated is that the roots of primitive, savage tribalism run very deep. As the effects and institutions of European colonial rule have decayed, nearly every territory on the planet has reverted to primitive concepts of rule and rights. Ironically, while the Western philosopher kings and queens promote the need to have an even-handed value of other cultures, those cultures busy themselves in the slaughter of the "lesser" and the "different" around them. Xenophobia hides behind the excuse of any popular belief system at hand, using it as justification for unspeakable actions.

No more than I have a paranoid fear socialism and other irrationalism running our country. The US was great in part because our founders were very careful to separate religion from politics.

And Obama never said he wanted to create a socialist paradise.

um, as his wife, I can assure you he fears little. He did arrange his life in such a way that he works against all evil. :)

Donway, from FB:
" I wrote this in reply to some comments on the article that appeared on the "Savvy Street" site. Sorry it is so long...Naturally, Ayn Rand's claim that in any sustained debate between two groups that espouse the same basic principles, the group espousing them most consistently will win, has a context. And she provided it in another statement. At any given time, only perhaps 10 percent of people are potential intellectual leaders, who actively grapple with philosophy and its implications--and, especially, the role of ideas in the world, in life. The rest, she said, are "ballast," shifting according to the intellectual climate created by the 10 percent. This would imply that the great majority of believers in any creed, religion, will more of less passively accept what they were taught or have absorbed from their parents and the culture, what their "church" taught. They are not the ones who actively challenge beliefs and so are respond to the consistency of competing viewpoints; they are the ballast. So, in discussing Ayn Rand's principle of "who will win" in a sustained disagreement, we are talking about competition for the 10 percent. Win the majority of them to your viewpoint and the ballast eventually will shift. That, of course, is why she put all her hopes for success of Objectivism on eventual change in the colleges and universities, where the young "shop" for their philosophical worldview, then go on cruise control for the rest of their lives. It is why she appealed over and over again to the "intellectuals," because only the 10 percent count in the direction of the world. Any active advocate of Objectivism knows, or learns soon, that the majority of people he meets in life are seemingly deaf to the whole world of abstract ideas. Indeed, I have known people who like novels to read "Atlas Shrugged," finish it, and say, "Wow, that was an exciting story. Really love Francisco and Dagny." "Oh, great...and um...?" No response to the ideas. No agreement or disagreement. Deaf. And thus we read that the leaders of ISIS are intensely obsessed with doctrine and the purity of Islam by the measure of the Koran--rejecting any scholarship, reform, or interpretation that followed in centuries since. They are violently shaking awake the mass of Muslims from their sleep of passive acceptance of modern practice and summoning them to ideological purity, the true way, the path of righteousness. They are the Bolsheviks in the sea of moderate "democratic" socialists--and when the Bolsheviks won, they eliminated the socialists first--the competition. It goes without saying that 100 percent of recruits to ISIS, including from Europe, are young, in their early 20's, the age of shopping around, the age at which many of us discovered Objectivism and made it a lifelong commitment. When Hitler came to power, all the Nazi leaders were in their 30's; Hitler was the old man in his early 40's. It is notable that those who become committed to an extreme, fundamental worldview--like Objectivism, Bolshevism, the Wahabism of ISIS--are willing to follow it wherever it leads--to destinations the mass of men either reject in horror or view as just unrealistic idealism. And that is true of Objectivism as the Salafist doctrines of ISIS. The CONTENT of extremist ideas counts a LOT--indeed, in the end, shapes the direction of the world."

if all of the attention that has been paid to islam for the past 30 or so years had not happened I doubt that the subject of religion in general would be as prolific as it is today.When i grew up in NYC in the 40/50/60's people went to the church of their choice and that was that. I still maintain the desert should be glass.

DB has a paranoid fear of religion, so he does tend to go overboard in his imaginings. I usually ignore it, because most of what he has to say is stimulating and interesting.

Rush Limbaugh has often said that he is still waiting to see a book entitled "Great Moderates of History".

Ben Carson is not my choice but don't see him trying to turn us into a christian theocracy. Do you have anything that you can share to support your thoughts?

The author started to lose me when he began talking about fundamentalism as a "problem". Because what is odd is that he then goes on to utter the following:

"I submit to you that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism each embody “basic principles,” but, in each case, the modern version, today’s version, represents a compromise, an adaptation, a toning down vis-à-vis that religion’s fundamental historical principles. Does this position need to be argued? We all know that the Christian, Jew, or Muslim practicing his religion today—perhaps once a week, perhaps only on religious holidays—typically has shed many of commandments, duties, and beliefs that defined the religion when it was closer to its origins."

So what he's really saying here is that what most people think of in terms of these three religions are the compromised versions of each: the versions which have departed from their original principles and values. I agree with this notion. He goes on:

"And that is one explanation—an epistemological explanation, rooted in the nature of knowledge and its demand for consistency, elimination of contradictions—for the powerful appeal of fundamentalism. By definition, “fundamentalism” goes back to the fundamentals, the core principles of a religion. And, in any sustained confrontation or debate with the modern “liberal,” “moderate,” “adapted” versions of the religion, the fundamentalist are most consistent. And, of over the long term, as the ideas and debates sort themselves out, the fundamentalists win."

Two observations:

First, principles are key to any ideology. Rand correctly points this out. It is in the identification of the principles of human behavior which align with the principles of the universe that we find ultimate consistency and harmony. We will never find it by compromise. Those religions and philosophies which choose the route of compromise fail (as Rand notes) because they never really believe in the principles in the first place as being unchangeable standards of truth, i.e. reality.

Second, examination and identification of real principles is the only way to properly identify reality and our place within it.

"This makes fundamentalism a problem inherent in religion, religion as such. As long as we adhere to a religion, which, as a belief system, is defined by its fundamentals, we put ourselves in the position of competing with the fundamental version of what we may profess and practice in a highly liberalized form. And in that competition, we are fated to lose the argument to the fundamentalists. The only alternative is to give up the religion entirely and argue against the fundamentalism on other grounds—say, reason and science."

Actually, I think the author is reversing on his own words here. He first contends that compromise is indicative of fatal departure from principles, but in this paragraph he does a 180 and contends that fundamentalism is the cause of the failure. I can't reconcile this conclusion with his prior arguments. One can not simultaneously argue that fundamentals are the only method of maintaining consistency AND that adherence to fundamentals is the "problem" with religion - or any ideology. One can argue that adherence to incorrect principles would inherently lead to incorrect practice, but that is not what the author here is arguing.

"Consider that both Christianity and Judaism passed through a historical period Enlightenment ..."

Actually, the author is ignorant of the history of the matter. What happened to challenge Christianity in those centuries was that fundamentalism i.e. a strict reading of the Bible made available by translation and mass publication via Gutenberg challenged the compromised religion that existed. The whole rise of the Protestant movement was a rejection of the compromises to Christianity made by the Catholic Church. If one examines the persecution of science, they will find that it was largely under the purview of the Catholic Church and its compromises.

As for Judaism, one can argue that it has never really been the same since the dissolution of the twelve tribes after Solomon's two sons Jereboam and Reheboam split the kingdom. Within a few centuries Israel ceased to operate as a sovereign nation, and it took well over 2 millenia for them to again do so. I would also point out that a return to strict fundamental Hebrew religion can not take place until the Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem. That structure and its rituals are the most fundamental parts of that religion.


My two cents: the author really needs to revisit his analysis about fundamentalism. He seems to present conflicting viewpoints on it. Unless I read those Rand quotes (which which I agree), fundamentalism, i.e. strict adherence to principles, is the only way to remain consistent, yet the author contends that this very adherence to principles is the problem with religion. I simply can't reconcile this position statement.

This says it all very succinctly, at least says what I believe.

you are wrong; islam does not have a problem, the REST OF THE WORLD does and they have the problem with islam. The rest of the world is refusing to deal with the problem logically; that is to cut off the head and that means end all incoming funds. I would bet that there are thousands who are being paid to NOT do what must be done.

I'm having a couple of problems with Ben Carson, but I don't recall him saying anything to indicate that he wants to turn the US into a Christian theocracy.
And I've listened to him a lot, Carson being my #1 choice at first.
Furthermore, a Christian theocracy scares the heck out of little Christian dino me.
I've seen how Southern Baptists can dominate the politics of Alabama rural counties.

Islam is just a stupid religion. What can I say. Political corectness should be abolished in favor of saying what one thinks. Doesnt mean we string up all muslims, but I certainly dont have to like someone who believes in the nonsense of islam.