14

SUBMISSION

Posted by Herb7734 2 months, 1 week ago to Philosophy
164 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Fifteen years ago, I was introduced to a young man who had escaped from Paris. Paris? Yes, Paris. He was the oldest son of a father who was an orthodox Muslim. They were quite well off. He was not too sure of his father's business. He was 20, had excellent grades and was a top athlete. After he graduated, his father informed him it was now time for him to go back to his town of origin and study to become an Imam. However, he was raised as a Parisian, speaking perfect French as well as Arabic. He studied the Koran but as he grew up he contrasted his world of Christian sophistication with his duties and attitudes of a Muslim cleric. No comparison, Unknown to his father, he took increments of "spending" money from the ATM card his father gave him and instead of living expenses he had saved the money until when he was to return to his Arabic roots, he traded in his plane ticket for one to London. I won't detail how he changed his identity and wound up in NYC, and eventually the heartland. Here is his view of Islam:
(I have edied it for brevity). "Islam is based on virtue; the very word means 'submission.'' It is truly not a religion, nor is it merely a set of beliefs but it is an entire way of life. The Koran doesn't simply govern everyone's conduct it is extended to all aspects of society. It regulates law, war, peace, education, economics, sexual conduct, trade and family. Sharia governs everything. It mitigates what it considers the rot of all other beliefs."

Between the Koran and Sharia, if one is to believe, there is no possible way that any Muslim true believer can ever be at peace with any other philosophy or way of life. All of those seeking peace will inevitably be frustrated because they are dealing with shadows. A charade being put on by Muslims for the benefit, eventually of themselves. All those Western peacemakers know that, yet they continue to participate in a game where the rules all favor their opponents. Everyone, Obama, Trump, Bush, Clinton, knows this, yet they continue to go through the motions -- and my question is, why on earth do they continue to do it.?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by jimjamesjames 2 months, 1 week ago
    The issue is: an individual versus a collective. Islam (similar to radical cults) is the very definition of a collective and any anyone with a sense of individuality should be wary of a cult that demands submission, i.e., the Manson gang, Branch Davidians, et al.

    As Eric Hoffer (The True Believer) proffers, those that join mass movements do so to find a substitute identity to cover for their own shortcomings.

    Like many religions, though, most of Islam is born into it and that is very difficult to overcome within the individual and within the cult.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      After reading Rand's mega-novels, one could be in a euphoric haze from the influence of these brilliant works. But unlike other inspiring tomes, when they are questioned, answers are not usually forthcoming. However, unlike those works, when the questions are asked, there's an entire philosophy underneath and behind the novels. Inquiring minds want to know, and with fairly minimal effort, they get to know.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago
    "why on earth do they continue to do it.?"
    Because it serves to increase their power and wealth. They are traitors and looters.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
      The people of this nation are more secular, even compartmentalizing their belief and accepting the validity of other peoples beliefs. Our politicians hold this same view AND are driven by power and greed. I'd wager that wealthy islamic nations pay nicely for accepting their people, some radials/deadly zealots included.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
        AJA:
        Except their punishments are much more extreme. I'd be willing to bet sums I don't own that the Muslims a far more willing to die for what they see as the rightness of their cause.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 2 months, 1 week ago
      the wealth you refer too is from the Saudis and other muslim countries combined. YES they are as you say traitors but they are not alone; how many of the elected congress people are also on the take.
      IF our elected (representatives, a farce to even say) were to do the right thing it would be to turn the desert to glass. that will not happen regardless of the number of attacks that the world experiences, so to also play in the usa. the rebel flag will fly again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      FFA:
      Correct and to the point. But who are you referring to? The Muslims or the West?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago
        The west. I haven't any direct experience with Muslim leaders.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
          Yes. Of course. I think your comment could be applied to both, but I wanted to be clear, because that was also my intent.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            How does obsequiousness to Islam bring them power and wealth? There may be specific instances of someone getting that, but overall they do it out of moral intimidation and multiculturalism, with the Bush types thinking in their Pragmatism that it doesn't matter.

            His statement "Islam is based on virtue; the very word means 'submission''' brings up the doctrine of "dhimmitude". Multiculturalism in the west is leading to being dominated by the militant Islamic dhimmitude.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  autumnleaves 2 months, 1 week ago
    I AM a Racist and have been for some time. You should see the way the CAIR are dictating to the San Diego City Schools!!! Anyone who believes the Muslims are not out to destroy our American way of life has their head in the sand. Just listening to them talk is enlightening.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      Racism is irrational and unjust. Rejecting CAIR is not racism. You properly reject and denounce them for what they are and what they are doing, not race. They call you a "racist" to try to undermine your judgment of them. Don't let them get away with it, let alone help them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 2 months, 1 week ago
    There are over 2 billion Muslims in the world. They are as described by your young acquaintance and by their ideology, an enemy to all infidels. Those that pose in a peaceful manner form a cover for those that do not. There is nothing similar to unite the non-Muslim world, therefore they are an irresistible tide that are about 28% of the world's population and are growing at a faster rate. Western societies belief in tolerance, equality under the law and individual liberty is easily infiltrated and exploited and there is currently, no solution without the most fundamental changes to our world or theirs. Our leaders in the West have no solution other than to try to stave off the fall in their lifetime, so that is what they are going to do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      I know that what I'm about to type is going to sound racist, but truth is truth. Eventually, it has to come down to Islam or everyone else. If the "everyone else " wants to survive, they will have to treat adherents like persons with an incurable plague. Since the western cultures will never get to that point until they are the verge of annihilation, things don't look cheery for the eventual future..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by coaldigger 2 months, 1 week ago
        Thanks. I think that was what I meant to say. The "turn the other cheek" lambs are going to become veal. The are, however, barbarians in every culture, or at least those that will treat the enemy as an enemy. If you ever get a chance visit mid-continent America.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
          I come from Michigan originally. Pretty mid-America. I spent a summer lugging a 40 lb tape recorder, (pre-transistor) around the coal mines of Kentucky recording folk songs of the area.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by coaldigger 2 months, 1 week ago
            That is so funny. I had a reel-to-reel tape of a commercial for a product that I dragged across the USA when most people had never heard of video tape (they would ask what channel I was having broadcasting my ad). My unit was an RCA state of the art portable. Ha. Ha. One of my arms is still longer than the other.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
        Modern day Crusades, no? History repeats, this time its passive migration instead of enslaving hordes on horseback.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by coaldigger 2 months, 1 week ago
          The perseverance of the life of mankind can sometimes be very ugly. Sometimes one is faced with a pestilence that is so threatening that there is no solution too extreme.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
          Keep in mind that the Crusades were military responses to invasions by Islam into the holdings of European nations - which included the Holy Land. Many mistakenly think the Crusades were offensive in nature. This was not the case.

          Ultimately, whether the invasion is military or passive through immigration, ultimately it is all about ideology anyway.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            It was a continuation of an ongoing battle for power among competing groups, kings and religious factions for a very long time. It was primitive power against primitive power, not good versus evil.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
              My point was that they were defensive measures initiated after the Muslim invasions of those lands. Good and evil apply to principles, so if one wants to evaluate the principles of the underlying combatants one can rudimentally assign "morality" to one side or the other, but to me that's pretty crude.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                The medieval wars were crude and evil across the board for a very long time. 'Good' does not suddenly appear by picking a particular moment when one side happens to be attacking the other.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
          It is likely that as we look at Islam as an incurable disease, so would aliens of a far advanced civilization look at us. Perhaps that's why the universe is so vast. As for cyclical history some Russian made a pretty good case for it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by brkssb 2 months, 1 week ago
    Between the Koran and Sharia and the BIBLE, if one is to believe, lies the kingdom of SUBMISSION to the anointed one (king, imam, or cleric). There is no possible way that Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Pagans or Buddhists or religionists can ever be at peace with any other philosophy of life. That’s why “they” continue to do it. Religion is the incurable disease of the power mongers. Submission is the greatest symptom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      The need to be the universal religion will forever cause, at the very least, constant negotiation. One religion alone, Islam, brooks no negotiation which means that the only alternative is war. If science was able to answer all the basic questions of who, what, when, It might assuage the conflicts to some extent, but, if nothing else, collectivism has proven that religion can take many forms like global warming or cooling, or the state itself, or a charismatic prophet. It is Mel Brooks' explanation of how patriotism got started. "Hooray for Cave Number 47, and to hell with everyone else!"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by brkssb 2 months, 1 week ago
        All religions hold the tenet of intolerance for other deities and religions, not limited to Islam. Each requires the abandonment of science and reason in place of dictatorship. Assuage conflicts? Religions thrive on conflicts and feed on evil.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
          Generalize much?

          What about Mormons? Hindi?

          Abandonment of science and reason? I'd wager there have been quite a few scientists with a belief (faith or religion) that made significant contributions.

          Nicholas Copernicus
          Johannes Kepler
          Galileo Galilei
          Blaise Pascal
          Isaac Newton
          Michael Faraday

          Albert Einstein - not necessarily of faith or religion BUT he did comment on the impossibility of a non-created universe
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            Scientists with some religious belief made their contributions in spite of religion not because of it. Reason and faith are opposites.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
              That is true. In some imstances, come religions are inching closer to agreement with science as science notes certain ideas of religion confound scientists in the same way. As the king of Siam is said to have said "'Tis a puzzlement."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                Religions sometimes adjust their dogmas when the conflict with science becomes too embarrassing. Science doesn't become closer to religious faith, it wouldn't be science, but there are scientists who have gone astray, abandoning scientific method and becoming mystics (like the "Tao of Physics"). You might find the biography of David Bohm to be interesting.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                  No problemo. However, we are still at a point that would be like explaining Quadratic equations to a dark ages merchant. As Neils Bohr said when trying to explain the atom, (Not quoting accurately) "it's something, we don't know what, somewhere, we don't, know where, doing something, we don't know what."
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                    "Still at what point"? What "it"? You could say the same "it's something, we don't know what,..." about countless discoveries in science. There is always more to discover, and new knowledge can always make the past seem limited in comparison, but it's not a big religious-like mystery "confounding scientists", just the normal progress of discovering and learning more, always with difficult and puzzling problems to solve and new ideas to develop, but nothing like woozy confounding mystical ideas.

                    If you want a good example of a major breakthrough and how it was done, a very readable account without complex mathematics is Forbes and Mahon, Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field. Faraday's evidence in the mid 19th century for a field associated with electrical and magnetic effects, as something real but not understood was at the time a perfect example of your "it's something, we don't know what,..." -- followed by a rational explanation achieved over years of work.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                      Yeah.
                      I love those guys work. What would we have done without Faraday? Well, I'm sure someone brighter than 25 watts would have come up with a Faraday cage
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                        This essence was his recognition of the field as something real, which explained the relations between electricity and magnetism that had been discovered and helped Faraday to discover more. Without Faraday's experiments and his conceptual descriptions of them, Maxwell would have had no base from which to develop his mathematical theory. That theoretical discovery of Maxwell's made him, as the title of one of his biography's put it "the man who changed everything" -- all based on Faraday's persistence in decades of experiments and the basic concepts he developed. They were amazing individuals (and the diametric opposite of submission to Islam).
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                          Hurray!!! We agree 100%!
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                            There is a lot available now to read on that development and others in science that I wish I had had when I was first learning it. They delve into different aspects of the conceptual development. You would really like the Forbes & Mahon book even though you are already familiar with some of the history.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by brkssb 2 months, 1 week ago
            Are you defending the outcasting of nonbelievers from the Mormon Temple and the Ganges? The impossibility of a non-created universe lacks merit in spite of the attribution to Einstein - it merely calls for having faith that there “must” be…a specious argument. Generalization? No, commonality across religions of sanction of the victim.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
              While math leads science to conclusions that promise new horizons, it also leads science to dead ends. But the dead ends only means we aren't there yet. Hence, we have the universe springing into existence from nothing and other hard to accept premises. However, that doesn't mean we can posit equally unproven premises willy-nilly. As we exchange ideas, there is Rather Bright sitting out there about to be hit with an apple or a thought experiment. Perhaps he or she has yet to be born or is about to cash it in. Ve shall see.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                Math is a science of method. It doesn't itself lead to theories or dead ends about the universe -- the thinkers do that themselves as they use math together with their hypotheses and premises. Their math can be and is used in rationalized houses of cards as well as to find legitimate conclusions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Of course I'm not talking about math as being an entity. Scientists trying to prove an idea use math as a tool in order to prove that theory, and see if it can be shown to manifest itself in reality, which is why Einstein's theories were finally accepted. However, weirdly enough, in various forms of quantum physics, predicted actions prove a theory, but the math doesn't work. And in some cases, the math is beautiful but the proof in reality has yet to be shown, hence the giant Swiss Collider..
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                    I didn't say you thought of math as an entity.

                    There may be false premises, or an incomplete theory, or something too difficult to solve, but where do you think "math doesn't work"?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                      Trying to illustrate the true nature of gravity, trying to find the elusive overcoming of the speed of light, the true nature of the Universe, i:e: string theory, chaos theory, etc. To date, we have not made substantial progress past Einstein.Dark Matter, Dark Energy, still to be discovered and no math has led the way to a coherent demonstration. I'm not saying that eventually it won't be discovered, perhaps via an explosive new look in another direction, such as an electromagnetic universe.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                        "True" in contrast with what, falsehood? There is no theory of a "true" nature of gravity, the "true" universe, or a "true" anything else other than what we know to be true. Truth is a relation between facts and statements about them, not something intrinsic in reality that is found. We discover, conceptualize, and explain additional facts, expanding our knowledge, we do not search for something called "true nature" in contrast to the object of our current knowledge deemed to be not true, i.e., false. There is always more to learn, but it's not the "real truth" as opposed to what we know. It's just more.

                        Not knowing more than we do is not "math not working". Math doesn't "lead" us to truth, letting us down and not working when it doesn't. People have to think and make discoveries using it. I don't know what it means to say "predicted actions prove a theory, but the math doesn't work".
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                          You're eating this stuff up, aren't you?
                          Your definition of truth needs honing. Until you can prove the reality of a thing you cannot determine whether it is true or not. If I can prove that the moon has shoe factories on it's dark side, and I send a camera in orbit around it and sure enough, elves are hard at work making shoes. I theorized this through a series of equations which led me to believe the hypothesis. That's reality proving truth. Also, I have now revealed, to my deep regret, how my twisted brain often works.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
              Any group decides who is included or not included and conducts themselves accordingly, This doesn't necessarily require faith or religion, just common cause and passion.

              The "impossibility of a non-created universe" simply conveys that he had faith that something or someone he couldn't see, touch, taste, or hear created the universe, no?

              Yes generalization ("All religions" "Each (religion) requires...", "Religions thrive..."). There are plenty of non-religious groups that do those things as well and, I'm sure, there are those religious group who do not.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 1 week ago
    Here is me a mean ole' dino's point of view.
    The USA with its constitutional freedoms is not compatible with the Koran's religious demand for a worldwide caliphate and a whole bunch of other Muslim crap, such as murderous "martyrdom," "honor" killings, requiring four male bystanders to witness a rape to name a few.
    The solution? We stay over here and we make them stay over there.
    Europe should do the same if they want to preserve what's left of the crumbling cultures that (once upon a time?) made each of their specific countries unique.
    I don't care if my point of view makes me an Islamophobia who ain't into no di-VERsiTEEE as I once heard a libtard sing it as his mantra.
    A mantra libs dearly cling to as being more important than little girls stuck with knives by people who say, "This is for Allah."
    Fear is why I bought guns up until the "I dream of open borders" Evil Hag lost the election. I still buy ammo just in case.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by roneida 2 months, 1 week ago
      You said it all MISTER. there is/are no points of agreement, co operation, understanding, harmony or existing with insane fools that will kill you because of your thoughts or belief. A live hater of death or martyrdom is worth so much more than a dead nut case. We who do not accept the islam code must face the inevitable outcome that we WILL have to stand, fight and kill to defend our lives. CLOSE THE Borders now before more of them are here. Political correct ness will not give one a pass to Heaven..just the first trip. Americans better wake up and toughen up before it is too late. Our permanent enemy has one point of honor...They let us know what they want and what they will do.. Better than our political parties.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      Islam, whether radicalized or not will never be compatible with western thought. Your solution will work until Islam feels strong enough to go after the "Great Satan." When that happens, even the libs will feel the need to keep a good head on their shoulders.It is not inevitable, but it is likely. When that likelihood happens, there will be no surrender only death to one side or the other, since I cannot see Islam going for an armistice or a total surrender.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 1 week ago
        I admit that my solution is a temporary fix. What you predict as likely I think is inevitable.
        Iran will eventually will have nukes (if not already) and will be in a sharing mood whenever the day comes when it's inclusively surrounded by a regional caliphate commanded by the written word of Allah's prophet to take over the world.
        "This is for Allah."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 1 week ago
    Stupidity or Complicity is my guess...or, if I read between your lines...there is no way to deal with them on any level but the world of the conscious would have nightmares about wiping them off the face of the earth.
    Maybe, that's why they force immigrate them, hoping against all hope that the muslims will ascend into at least a rudimentary state of awareness...
    On second thought, Naw!...scratch that one...they've never been that smart nor human for that matter.
    My concussion?...Complicity to the extreme.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
    Hi Herb,
    You have been busy with this post. Here is my
    2 cents worth." Why on earth do they continue to do. It?" Your title is the one word answer Submission.
    The presidents that you named (besides the first Bush, he is the part of the deep state )were all controlled by the deep state except maybe Trump.
    The DS wants to have chaos they don't care about death , destruction or families. Their motto is "out of chaos comes control". They make huge amounts of money from war and conflict. They also take away our liberty and freedom in the name of security. The connections between the "bad guys" and the intelligence groups are mind blowing. Both sides sacrifice individuals for their own purpose. Like Freedomforall said they are first and foremost traitors and looters. The real enemy has infiltrated and has destroyed the checks and balances of our constitutional republic.
    Warm regards,
    DOB
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      Much to my regret, you've pretty much nailed it. The attitude seems to be that what's good for "us" is good for the nation, and if some get hurt along the way, well then -- it's just collateral damage.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 2 months, 1 week ago
    Human behavior, being rooted in animal evolutionary survival mechanisms, follows a simple algorithm: What are the rules? What must I do to live?

    A newborn lacks most physical skills but is hardwired to learn, to connect causes and effects, to mimic others' learned behaviors. If I were the programmer of this lifeform, I would work on the assumption that the existing order and behavior patterns are the successful ones, since the current mature practitioners are alive and presumably thriving, and so their behaviors, like a template, should be replicated. From the earliest physical actions of feeding, sleeping, moving, finding protection, safety, comfort, hygiene, reproduction, a young human acquires and integrates data at a prodigious rate. Moment by moment both the data base and the rules become more complex of what must or must not, may or may not be done.

    Fast forward to the accumulation of enormous concept webs within which an individual must choose and find courses of action that are acceptable to the group within which it needs to function. Whether cultural taboos within families and clans, or the millions of pages of laws and regulations that a nation has built up, there is a massive pressure to conform. Any deviation sends an alarm, and the system will seek to eliminate the defective elements, the disobedient units, whether by gentle persuasion or severe punishment or terminal removal. This has a micro parallel in the body's immune system that attacks any alien substance at the cellular level. It may even attack its own natural system, as in lupus, destroying itself from within. Likewise a society can fall into a self-destructive mode, formulating ever more restrictive rules until a totalitarian rigor mortis is reached.

    In today's world, the belief systems that move towards total control will command their members to total obedience, submission and surrender, at the opposite end of a healthy system where enlightened cooperation does not require any destruction of fellow humans and, in fact, requires their participation for one's own wellbeing and survival. But destructive belief systems are not a reasoning entity, only a defective piece of software, and they embed themselves through humans' emotional (diagnostic) apparatus. This apparatus, that evolved as a guardian feature for survival in a simpler environment, can, in an overwhelmingly complex matrix of perceptions and concept formation, break down into self-contradictions. And the one thing it will not do is to admit any error. All the highly evolved brain's creative powers and defensive resources rise to deny error and to fake reality.

    Should we, then, accept as unavoidable that humans will continue to persist in delusion, self-delusion, and mutual murdering? How can we free them from the compulsion to fight against self-correction and repair; how to persuade them that it is more valuable to be right than merely to appear to be right? To go against a lifetime of conditioning, of praying to a non-existent deity, of faithfully following rules rooted in centuries or millennia of cultural indoctrination? Why is it so much more difficult to wean people from believing in invisible rulers than to get over believing in Santa Claus? Where is their free will?

    Submission started as a survival necessity. It has become cancerous. How to teach that Reason is the antidote, and that misplaced hatred of otherness is an unintended mutation? Check your own reaction to this analysis. Feel your hackles rise?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      The thing that differs between man and all other life is volition. That is why only Man understands the difference between good and evil - because it can only apply to Man. It's his glory and his curse..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 2 months, 1 week ago
        Humans are in various stages of evolutionary advance. Volition = free will. Conceptual thinking is a higher stage of development. Abstract thinking is even higher. Not every human practices these. Most are still driven by their emotions and their accepted indoctrinations. So they can shift and even invert the meanings of good and evil.

        Without objectively checking their premises, most people willingly accept definitions of the good (what God, their parents and teachers and culture tell them) and evil (whatever does not agree with their conditioning). So some cultures consider honor killings honorable and murder of designated foes as noble. Peace-makers are written off as traitors and cowards. Those who are not for me are against me. Those who refuse to be expropriated are condemned as greedy. Etc.

        In most people's lives good and evil are subjective and situational. They clamor for what pleases them and will sacrifice others sanctimoniously when their authorities assure them it's right to do so. Yes, they understand that there is a difference between the polar opposites of good and evil, but without an objectively defined set of values, there is no way to know which is which, and anything goes.

        By the way, every living thing has an instinctive sense of what is good for it and what is bad, and will evolve features to aid its survival, or perish. Mankind has the potential to know those conditions conceptually and has created a technological world to support its survival, mixed in with the remnants of murderous aberrations.

        Are those the two extreme products of the mind you would call their glory and their curse? Those sound rather mystical. I would like to see us evolve to a point where Galt’s Oath (a more explicit restatement of the golden rule) is the premise of human relationships. The highest good embraced by highly evolved minds, freely chosen and not simply submitted to.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months ago
          All true.
          But all good and evil are not subjective. For humans, there exists objective good and evil. Animals are not either good or evil unless they are trained to be one or the other and for them it it is obedience = reward.Only a high degree of volition allows for making decisions. As to good & evil being subjective and situational I'll bet you or I could name 50 or a hundred actions that are objectively evil. Some of them so horrible that we feel dirty just thinking of them. But, frankly, I don't care whether Muslims are raised in such a way that they don't understand the difference. Their religion, what they are taught, if it is a danger to me and mine, I'm not going to try to teach them right from wrong when while they are attacking me. They are adherents to an evil philosophy, which our leaders are afraid to articulate. As to instinct, it is strictly a self protective mechanism. It allows for no volition, it exists only to protect the mechanism. As to "glory and curse" I was waxing poetic. Good writers do that now and then, (except Hemingway).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          Man the "rational animal" means he capacity and requirement to be rational to live. It doesn't mean that everyone uses his full capability or uses it properly.

          Abstraction isn't a higher level of development than concepts, concepts require abstraction -- abstraction means selective focus, which is required in identifying essentials to form concepts. But there is a hierarchy of concepts that are abstractions from abstractions, and the ability to do that is more advanced than first level concepts based on direct perception. That is part of being rational, too. Many people treat concepts as if they were percepts and are very poor at dealing with higher level concepts. But every human has the capacity.

          Thinking objectively versus following emotions is related, but is about the choice of how to use and apply concepts.

          Every human has the capacity to think like a rational human being, so it's not a matter of a state of evolutionary biological development, but is a matter of philosophical evolution, which is what you are describing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dutchmanii 2 months, 1 week ago
    The easy way to clear all the Islam/Muslim thing is to go to www.wwmd-tv.com There you will find some videos of 3 episodes of "What Would Mohammad Do", or Islamic Terrorism Explained. If you don't check this out, then it is your fault and responsibility not mine as I've passed it on. So set aside some time and watch. Each episode is about 25 minutes long. I bought the 4 DVD set and gave to my kids and I've a couple to pass around my neighbors. This is the only way to get this info because the lame stream media isn't going to pass it on.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
    Islam is a very fu&*ed up religion to be sure. I dont want anything to do with it, and I do think that muslims who adhere to islam are really potentially evil people. All it takes to "radicalize" them is to point out to them that they are not living like true muslims in the west- and then we are off to the races with "islamic terror". Why 2 billion people would go along with islam is really disturbing to me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
    Islam has been ideologically at war with everyone else since it was founded. It began simply by enslaving and destroying the rival warlords of Persia but it relies on constant military agitation and fomentation to control its people. Despite claims that it is a "religion of peace", it has constantly been at war (militarily no less) either with its neighbors or itself for more than a millennium. That it has been beaten into submission from time to time has only staved off the inevitable conflicts with other nations. China battles with Islam in its most Western provinces. India and Pakistan have been at it since WW II. Russia has certainly seen its share of Islamic issues with Afghanistan and Chechnya (among other places). The US had to deal with the Barbary Pirates during Jefferson's Presidency, and again today.

    Why do Progressives team up with Islam when ultimately it will destroy them? Progressivism itself is a self-destructive philosophy in the end: trying to understand it will only lead to contradiction because of the misguided belief of elitism and "it can't happen to me" that forms the basis for Progressivism. They are so steeped in self-delusion that what is actually an unleashed rabid wolfhound they see as a cute, little chihuahua.

    Why do politicians try to pretend that they can solve an ideological conflict with diplomacy? Because they do not fundamentally understand their opponent/enemy and they underestimate it. Badly. Few in the Western world really comprehend how religion to many is much more than a one-day-a-week thing, but rather an entire way of life.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      Progressivism is a form of statism resulting from Pragmatism and centuries of altruism and collectivism, not "misguided elitism" and "it can't happen to me". Understanding does not lead to contradictions, it only exposes them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
        One has to be careful. Check out what is being said on both sides of an argument. Take the words to extremes in order to see whether they lead toward life or toward death. You might be surprised.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          He said that trying to "Understand [Progressivism] will only lead to contradiction because of the misguided belief of elitism". There is nothing to take to an extreme in that, in or out of context. Understanding a bad philosophy exposes contradictions, it doesn't create them. Understanding what it is so you know what your're dealing with is good, not impossible or contradictory.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
            Nonsense.
            Progressivism, collectivism, socialism, etc., etc.all eventually lead to misery, starvation, demoralization and death. Even contrasting it with a mixed economy, like ours, that contains only 50% capitalism, easily shows its superiority. The thing that capitalism realizes that collectivism can't comprehend is that all men are not created equal and as a result some will succeed more than others and some will fail more than others. But treating everyone the same regardless of ability, ambition and application is the road to eventual poverty of wealth and spirit.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Understanding the enemy is not nonsense. He said that understanding it leads to contradiction. You can understand a contradiction without embracing it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
                Actually, what I said was that trying to understand it will lead to contradiction, ie the contradictory and self-defeating principles upon which it (Progressivism) is based. That's why it is useless to try to "understand" Progressivism: one can't "understand" or comprehend contradiction. One can understand the misguided motives and fundamentally unsound principles, but one can not "understand" Progressivism.

                "Understanding a bad philosophy exposes contradictions, it doesn't create them." Precisely.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  You said "trying to understand it will only lead to contradiction because of the misguided belief of elitism and "it can't happen to me" that forms the basis for Progressivism."

                  That a philosophy has some contradictions does not mean that one cannot understand what it is, including the nature of the contradictions.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
                    In my mind, there are two facets: comprehending the moral arguments and then actually practicing the morality. Both comprise and are elements to complete understanding. I comprehend the moral arguments of Islam and have spent hours talking with Muslims frankly about their faith and the results of it as well as reading the Qu'ran (in English - recognizing that many claim the true poetry and brilliance can only be revealed if read in the original Arabic) but I do not wish to live that lifestyle (and neither does my wife) so as to fully understand it. I can say the same for Wiccans and several flavors of Christianity while I have had passing conversations (regarding philosophy) with Buddhists, Sikhs, and a few others. I do not pretend to have the same understanding of those ideologies I have of my own, because understanding what one believes is only the first step. True discipleship only comes when one is willing to walk the path of the master. We each have to choose which master to follow and no one can serve two at the same time.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                      Or,.....No master at all.
                      Relying on the truth of the philosophy, based on the evidence of sense input.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                        As to following two "Masters" certain sects of certain religions manage it quite successfully. The reason? There is no reason. In Judaism, the rabbis proclaim that it is OK to no understand. Repeat the prayers and song and dances. Just keep it up. You'll get it eventually/ If you don't, you will be elucidated by God, personally. Time, after all, means nothing to God. He can spend hours with you without any time passing t all.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months ago
                        Everyone has to choose what path they will follow in life. And whatever path you go down, you become a disciple of that path to the exclusion of others. How you choose that path and what moral values the path holds are yours to decide - as is the decision not to continue to follow a path. Life continues to move forward regardless of one's indecision.

                        Lewis Carroll's Classic "Alice in Wonderland" has probably one of the most compelling arguments to this I know of. Alice comes to a fork in the road and while she sits pondering the Cheshire Cat appears. She asks it which way she should go. His response is to ask where she is trying to get. She answers that she doesn't know. And his response is then that it doesn't matter.

                        If you spend your life wandering the road without an end goal - you'll get exactly where you intended to go: nowhere in particular. It is only those who have a goal in mind that get somewhere at all.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                          The necessity to make choices in life is not an excuse for religious mysticism. Fundamental choices require reason, which is not possible with a mentality of submission to an alleged "true poetry and brilliance" of the Koran or any other intellectual "master". The choice is not which master to subjectively cling to and follow.

                          A rational individual rejects "following a path" in the footsteps of a mystic Pied Piper. Rejection of dogmatic mysticism is not "spending your life wandering the road without an end goal". We each make our own "path" for our own lives. Blarman's following a "master" and submitting to "discipleship" is the opposite of having one's own goals and the opposite of a rational morality based on the nature of man and his requirement to live. We do not "each have to choose which master to follow" or submit to "true discipleship walking the path of the master". That is disgusting.

                          Blarman's repetitive, obnoxiously dogmatic and subjectivist promotion of obsequious religion is the diametric opposite of the reason and individualism illustrated and explained in Atlas Shrugged. It does not belong on an Ayn Rand forum. Neither do his demands that his subjectivism be taken seriously and neither do his repetitive personal insults towards those who reject it.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 2 months ago
                            EWV:
                            I'm neither defending nor attacking the content of blarman. However, by saying his opinion doesn't belong in the Gulch is censorship. If every idea and opinion in this forum is the same, then there's no need for the forum, not to mention the boredum factor. It is my opinion that anyone exhibiting a well expressed opinion has a right to express it. Those persons who run the Gulch have the ability to censor if they wish, and they do so, but very rarely. They seem to be against the personally offensive posts more than those with mystical or non-rational opinions.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                              No, saying it doesn't belong here is not censorship. He can believe whatever he wants to and there are a appropriate places for him to do it. It is contrary to the purpose of this private forum. It's not well-expressed opinion, it's stock religious dogma substituting for rational discussion and demanding to be taken seriously.

                              There is nothing boring about rational discussion without dogmatic mysticism. Rational does not mean "the same". His "beauty" and "poetry" of the Koran and insistence on submitting to "discipleship" and that "We each have to choose which master to follow" ought to be offensive and inappropriate to everyone here, especially since it has been explained to him many times. He ought to have enough sense on his own to realize that. Like the obnoxious Jehova's Witnesses he does not. His posts also often contain false personal attacks, insults, and outrageous misrepresentations in his hostility and arbitrariness. Rejecting this is not censorship.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 2 months ago
                                Whoo!
                                Having been an atheist most of my life, I guess that I'm naive when it comes to religious dogma. I think I'll track down more info.
                                However, I did see a movie called Dogma which should be a must for every atheist who enjoys religious comedy.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 127billh 2 months, 1 week ago
    The whole Muslim thing began back with Ishmael the son of the union of Abraham and Sarah's maid. The prophet finally wrote the Quran some 600 years after Christ. Hence the battle between Islam and the rest of the world has been going on for almost 4000 years. It will be the end times battle at Armageddon. I say, Bring it on!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Abaco 2 months, 1 week ago
    Why did the police, and others in the role of protection in Paris lie down when Hitler rolled in? Probably the same reason(s).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
    The why question assumes the four US presidents you mentioned a) believe Enlightenment values are tied to religion and b) they participate in game of some sort related to this. They probably don't accept those two premises.

    The man with the overbearing father appears to be stating, probably unwittingly, the view of the Islamists extremists. If he convinces people of that lie, he's probably doing more to help the cause of Islamists than if he picked up a gun to fight for them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      How so?
      I'm trying to understand your comment, but I'm drawing a blank. Could you elucidate more clearly?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
        "Could you elucidate "
        The man from Paris contrasts the open/free society of Paris with his father's Saudi Arabian style religious fundamentalism. He calls the Paris way "Christian." In his mind, there's something about being Christian that makes you sophisticated and not take religion literally and something about Islam that demands you must take it literally. I know this is completely false. I am around people of all faith backgrounds who are not fundamentalist.

        I claim most people want to live in an open pluralistic society and to enjoy the prosperity that comes with it. Extremists can't win on the battlefield, and they can't win comparing the quality of life that results from using reason rather than religion. Many of us have religious books like the Bible that our grandmother gave us, and we have fond memories of going to some religious event. The only way extremists get power is by convincing people that everyone who got a different religious book from their grandmother is bad in some way. It's an uphill battle for them, though, because a free pluralistic society is so much nicer than theocracy. They're only hope is get people to identify as groups rather than individuals based on which book and religious holiday they got during childhood. I think that's pure evil.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
          It is worse than you imagine. The letter I quoted was actually several pages long and went into greater detail. Hatred of the west was instilled at a very early age. It started as soon as language was used with ease. Then there are the illiterates who comprise at least half of the Muslim population. They are made to memorize the Koran even though they cannot read a word. Shariah is whatever the Imams tell them what it says.The concept of life bears no resemblance to what we consider to be life. There is no way that Islam will ever be able to exist along side any other religion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
            Your message talks about how illiterate people can be easily manipulated to become very evil. That's true. Then you make a logical leap in the last sentence that says it's all about which religion. This is absurd to me on its face. It wouldn't make a lick of difference if they were made to memorize some other ancient text, say Leviticus, without being able to read, without knowing history, without math and other tools to understand the world; you'd get poor and manipulated people just the same. The problem is lack of reason.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 2 months, 1 week ago
              Your comment about how "poor, illiterate people" are manipulated into extremism is severely off target. OBL was a highly educated engineer from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia, and his successor is a surgeon. All of the 9/11 extremists were educated upper middle class.

              Eric Hoffer, author of "The True Believer," described the peculiarity of mass movements as a product of misguided, unhappy middle and upper class people comfortable enough to have the time to be troublemakers. The poor and uneducated who have to scratch to survive, he pointed out, have no time for political or theological struggle, usually ending up as cannon fodder for leaders from the upper classes.

              What drives educated people in these mass movements is fear. They fear the loss of identity, of belonging, of power. The cultural gap between the West, with its focus on individual freedom (especially America, influenced by Native American culture - see "Indian Givers" by Weatherford), and Islam, in which the identity of the individual is subsumed into the umma is a nearly unbridgeable chasm.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
                I agree with this. I'm saying uneducated --> susceptible to extremism. It does not follow that susceptible to extremism --> uneducated.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Yes, but "extremism" is the wrong word -- it only indicates a degree. You could also be extremely pro-individualist, etc. The "extremists" you mean are savages despite the economic circumstances they come from, a less "extreme" version is still horrid.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                I am aware of all that.
                However, there are over two billion Muslims in the world. Billion with a great big B. You don't come close to that number by only using elites. Many of those illiterates are tribal leaders using what they know of the religion to both enlist and cow others like themselves.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Tribal leaders are consummate dealers in power and manipulation, whether Muslim or not, and fiercely protect their control over subordinates. Tribalism is not constrained to the uneducated. Here in the U.S. we are sliding into a form of tribalism devoid of facts or principles. Our universities are tribal, with individualism, opposition to authoritarian rule, and free expression punished. The extremes are becoming dominant, forcing people into widely separated mindless camps set on ever increasing intolerance and violence.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                    I agree, but I am speaking of specific tribal leaders. The Bedu and such. There are dozens, if not hundreds of desert tribes in the Middle East and the far east. When added up, they make a considerable population.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Religions have been at war with each other and with civilization for centuries. "Faith and Force".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
                I liked to think we reached a turning point a few hundred years ago where we started understanding the world through reason, and religion started moving from answering all questions to being something that shows where we came from.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  The Enlightenment sure was a turning point in emphasizing reason, but you give religion too much credit: It's arbitrary speculations can't show where we came from or anything else. Modern evolutionary biology has shown more in a few decades than religion did in thousands of years.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
                The entire history of man has been one ideological conflict turned military after another. The war of ideas shows no history of abating any time soon. What is key is to get down to the root principles of any given religion. Islam is particularly intolerant to anything not itself because it infuses the enforcement power of law with religious dictates where as in other religions, the enforcement power of law is typically secular.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                  That is one of its most important strengths. I all other religions, there must be a reliance on the loss of paradise or enforcement by the secular. In Islam, one gets a "twofer."
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo