15

Yes, Conservatives, Islam Is a Religion

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
331 comments | Share | Flag

I've noticed on the site lately, more and more comments by our more conservative and religious members speaking about the evil of Islam. I've wanted to reply to many of those commenters and posters about the topic of this article, and after reading this article, I'm glad I waited. I couldn't have said it any better. It's not Islam that's the problem--it's religion.



"If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must accurately identify Islam for what it is. It’s a religion.

Why does it matter whether we call this religion a religion? It matters (among other reasons) because recognizing Islam as a religion is the first step in dealing with the problem of jihad—a problem that is much broader than the tenets of Islam calling for the submission or murder of infidels. As I show in “Islamic Jihad and Western Faith,” the fundamental problem is not the specific tenets of Islam, but the idea that faith is a means of knowledge.

'If people can know by means of faith that God exists, what He wills to be true, that His will is the moral law, and what He commands people to do, then they can know literally anything to be true. If a person’s “spiritual sense” tells him that God says he should love his neighbor, then he knows he should love his neighbor. If it tells him that God says he should love his enemies, then he knows he should love them. If it tells him that God says he should turn the other cheek if someone strikes him, then he knows what to do when that happens. If it tells him that God says to kill his son, then he knows he must do so. If it later tells him that God says not to kill his son, then he knows he should not. If it tells him that God says he should convert or kill unbelievers, then he knows he should convert or kill unbelievers. If it tells him that God says the Koran is the word of God and that if he fails to believe and obey every word of it he will burn in hell, then he knows that to be true. . . .

Either faith is a means of knowledge, or it is not. If it is a means of knowledge, then it is a means of knowledge. If faith is a means of divining truth, then whatever anyone divines by means of faith is by that fact true. If faith is a means of knowledge, then the tenets of Islam—which are “known” by means of faith—are true, in which case Muslims should convert or kill infidels. By what standard can an advocate of faith say otherwise? . . .

To lend credence to the notion that faith is a means of knowledge is to support and encourage Islamic regimes and jihadist groups at the most fundamental level possible: the epistemological level. It is to say to them, in effect: “Whatever our disagreements, your method of arriving at truth and knowledge is correct.” Well, if their method is correct, how can the content they “know” by means of it be incorrect?'

If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must be willing to recognize—and to openly acknowledge—the fundamental and relevant truths of the matter. Those truths include the fact that Islam is a religion, and the fact that faith is not a means of knowledge.

Conservatives are uncomfortable with these facts because they are religious themselves, and they want religion and faith to be good things. But discomfort with facts doesn’t alter them. And wanting things to be good doesn’t make them so.

The solution to discomfort arising from the fact that Islam is a religion is not to pretend that Islam is not a religion, but to recognize and accept the fact that religion as such is inherently irrational and potentially murderous because it posits a non-rational means of knowledge."



Let's see what others think of this approach to solving the problems of conflicts with ISLAM.

Is Islam any more wrong in that origin of knowledge, than Christianity or Judaism or any other source of supernatural knowledge?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 10.
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    nope. I appreciate the people and the philosophy. I see no conflict in objectivism and my constitutional conservatism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Have you forgotten how large parts of productive sector have socialist expropriated? Look at dictionary definitions. Socialism purports that all means of production should be owned by the society. That is how their name came up. Because the humanity slowly is beginning to understand that such an ideology is misguided, they use misleading names for concepts and hide their ultimate goal. In short, they are dishonest.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was always partial to the Mongol Method myself.We should not forget in the Crusades the Christians of Europe killed more Christians than Muslims in the Middle East. While economics is always the cause of war religion is more often than not the excuse. That only started changing about a hundred years or so ago and full blown changing after WWII. When the religions started banding together to fight the neo-secularists - a handy word as all of them by WWII
    wee socialists in their many forms and disguises)

    Somewhere someone wrote something about mankind joining together to fight a common foe - from outer space no doubt - and the end point was only when one part of mankind made a deal with the aliens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To me, "life" encompasses all living things, an all encompassing phenomenon of life. Notice that I said that it has a fundamental goodness. The variations from an individual to another individual living organisms are quite wide. Among the humans, the most complex living things we know, the variations from one extreme to the other is the widest. That makes sense to me. I am not willing to accept that all humans are criminals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You just wrote: "... until those religions rejected islam." So, at least in you unguarded subconscious, islam is one of the religions.

    I am beginning to wonder whether you are truly sincere with us here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joy1inchrist 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand appeared on Phil Donohue Show after her husband, Frank O'Connor passed away. She said that If she could believe in an afterlife, she would want to be there to plead for Frank, to tell St. Peter what a good person Frank was. I saw this interview on You Tube a few times and thought her comment was very telling ...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are a lot of non-conformist Christians that just don't advertise like the evangelicals. My father believed that evolution was simply the details involved in creation, and that we had no business telling God how long one of His days were. While I became a Deist, I respected his beliefs, I always enjoyed how he introduced me to spiritual concepts. He always enjoyed telling the story of the conversation between Einstein and Neils Bohr, where Einstein, rejecting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, said "God doesn't shoot craps, Neils!" to which Bohr responded "Albert, stop trying to tell God how to run the universe!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A belief system that espouses violence as a means of conversion is wrong, regardless if it's based on ideology or religious beliefs. Socialism is a non-violent ideology, while Communism is a violent one. A socialist doesn't care if you support the system, while a Communist says you must. A Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist may care about the form of your spiritual belief, but he isn't going to demand you convert or die. Roughly 10% of the Ummah (Muslim faithful) believe in conversion by force, and another 30% think that violent conversion is one acceptable way to bring people to Allah. I don't care how many believe that way, it isn't any less wrong, whether only a hundred believe, or 100 million.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If many had there way, it would be again. Quite a few of those laws are still on the books.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But all of those extrinsic guidelines, rules, and controls are anti-individual, whatever their source. They are all Thou shalls and Thou shall nots, not self formed I wills or I will nots. They are all authority/compliance based 'handing over rule' of you to someone/something other than your own reason. Invariably, in such a situation, the value of your individual life will be measured against someone or something else and probably come up short. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's", etc. Where is your life, your property, your betterment of life at in any of that? It's not there. It's either determined by who makes the rules or who interprets what some god says the rules are.

    It's slavery, if not of your body, your mind. It's anti-life.

    And in the context of the post it's My boss/god's bigger than yours

    Yes he is.--No, he's not.--Is so--Is not--The fight's on.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This varies from one Christian to the next, but it certainly became much less of a problem around the time of the French Revolution, when both most Christian churches and civil authorities stopped engaging in witch hunts and heresy trials. (Though Britain kept its law against witchcraft until 1964, and still has a blasphemy law.)

    I agree with you that the law needs to purge itself of the rest of that influence. But Islam does it much worse, and even "moderate" Muslims in the West will protect the perpetrators of "honor killings", FGM, and other crimes such as the Rotherham rape scandal. Which in my view is sufficient probable cause to profile Muslims up to a point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you had asked me I would take it to mean you were anti First Amendment just for asking. If you had asked what was my draft number I would consider you sexist just the same as asking my dress size. however if you had asked if I was Democrat or Republican i would have answered "There's a difference?"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course, so was Christianity at one time and even more so was the Catholic version and still is, same for Judaism, same for many religions So all Theocracy's are not religions? You are including the USA in that list I hope?

    Two easy ways out of the dilemma. Crisis Of Islam by Bernard Lewis. Second. If you truly supported the Constitution you would never dream of asking "What religion are you - or aren't you." If it is isn't on the t-shirt it's none of your business.I just threw that in for educational development. It is a political and cultural system completely controlled by religion.but it is a religion.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo