Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A dangerous naivete...
presenceofmind.net ^ | November 29, 2002 | Greg Swann

Posted on 11/29/2002 6:51:23 AM PST by Greg Swann

A dangerous naivete...

Jacob Sullum has been around for years. Libertarians will know his name from Reason magazine. In this column from TownHall.com he seems to me to highlight the worst aspects of squeamish libertarianism:

The answer to the question of why some Muslims consider it their religious duty to kill nonbelievers cannot lie in the Koran, the authority of which is accepted by all followers of Islam. That is the point President Bush was making when, soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, he declared that Islamist terrorists twist their religion into a justification for their vile crimes.

Robertson is not alone in arguing that Islam is especially prone to such twisting, but surely it is more productive to focus on the beliefs that distinguish peaceful Muslims from terrorists. Such an inquiry would highlight the principles that prevent religious differences from escalating into violence without tarring all Muslims as potential murderers.

First we have the obligatory quibbling equivalizing. Then we get to a fancied significant difference between peaceful and violent Muslims. No doubt there are many doctrinal and personal differences between Muslims who simply live, work and play and those other Muslims who slaughter non-Muslims as they live, work and play. Who could object to such a claim? The question is, what do non-Jihadi Muslims do about the slaughterers among them? Do they cheer them? Do they finance them? Do they silently support them? Do they silently oppose them? Do they actively oppose them? Or do they just turn away and declaim again and again that the Islam in evidence is not the true Islam, the Islam of contemplation, the Islam of devotion, the Islam of peace? (Where have we heard that one before?)

The Jihadi are not twisitng the Koran. They are quoting it chapter and verse. Muslims know the Koran like only fanatical Christians know the Bible--which should tell us something just by itself. A more reasonable explanation for Sullum's conundrum is this: Just as American leftists decried the not-the-true-Communism yet did nothing to stop its atrocities, so peaceful Muslims are doing nothing to stop the atrocities of the not-the-true-Islam. I think for the same reason: Because they share the root premises but for whatever reason are not willing to pursue them to their logical conclusions. Is it possible that "the beliefs that distinguish peaceful Muslims from terrorists" are really just a matter of inches and hours? If so, then we are safe from peaceful Muslims (and peaceful leftists) only as long as their more ferocious brethren seem unlikely to succeed...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: chritstianity; communism; islam; robertson; sullum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
VIST MY NEW WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/

gswann@primenet.com
http://www.presenceofmind.net/ (last updated 11/29/02)

Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.

1 posted on 11/29/2002 6:51:23 AM PST by Greg Swann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Greg Swann
Who the heck is Robertson?
2 posted on 11/29/2002 7:31:48 AM PST by Seeking the truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Swann
Glad to see you have a blog, Greg -- I read you for a couple of administrations on good old alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
3 posted on 11/29/2002 7:33:05 AM PST by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jodorowsky
HOT damn, a Billy Beck blog too.
4 posted on 11/29/2002 8:11:40 AM PST by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Greg Swann
Muslims know the Koran like only fanatical Christians know the Bible--which should tell us something just by itself.

Interesting thought...most "modern" Christians have progressed beyond the ideas espoused by, for example, "the Grand Inquisitors"...and not that those folks would exactly be considered "true Christians" either (?!) but, interesting point you make nevertheless!

5 posted on 11/29/2002 8:19:46 AM PST by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Swann
If so, then we are safe from peaceful Muslims (and peaceful leftists) only as long as their more ferocious brethren seem unlikely to succeed...

The question of the day.

6 posted on 11/29/2002 8:24:18 AM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
Is it possible that "the beliefs that distinguish peaceful Muslims from terrorists" are really just a matter of inches and hours? If so, then we are safe from peaceful Muslims (and peaceful leftists) only as long as their more ferocious brethren seem unlikely to succeed...

Ya THINK!?!?!!!

7 posted on 11/29/2002 8:25:44 AM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jodorowsky
Pull a single string and look at all the presents that tumble out!

No Treason

8 posted on 11/29/2002 8:33:11 AM PST by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Greg Swann
If so, then we are safe from peaceful Muslims (and peaceful leftists) only as long as their more ferocious brethren seem unlikely to succeed ...

'Twas ever thus. You don't root out any ideology, religious or otherwise, by main force. (Unlike the illusion behind what other conservative Catholics admire, but perhaps not Swann, the tactics of a Torquemada.) You keep your ammo dry, defend what needs to be defended, clarify the issues in any appropriate forum.

And you look to the rising generations to perceive more of the facts, and to create more of a rational take on the important matters of a civilization. Because in the final reckoning, no one really persuades people to become individualists. You nurture them that way from intellectual seedlings, or they don't become such at all.

I don't know what this latest installment of Swann's bloviating is accomplishing, but it's not, on its face, anything more than pious posturing. He apparently wants some sort of a Christian Jihad, like most of the kill-all-the-Muslim-scum types around here. Let him call clearly for it.

(Oh, by the way, Greg, fix your damn Blog link, it's been four-oh-four for weeks. And you've far overdrawn your quota for using the ellipsis as a substitute for rhetorical pauses.)

9 posted on 11/29/2002 8:42:36 AM PST by Greybird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Is it possible that "the beliefs that distinguish peaceful Muslims from terrorists" are really just a matter of inches and hours? If so...

Not sure what you're asking me, NAV (do I think what?!) but while the above quote from the article is true, in that theoretically it's possible there's little if any distinction in the beliefs of all Muslims, that's kind of like saying there's little or no distinction between the beliefs of the Pope and the beliefs of, say, James Jones, or the Heaven's Gate cult (who were at least peaceful, if I recall, but you get my point!)...

That said...I don't know!! Certainly I think all those peaceful Islamists out there had ought to be taking a bit more pro-active of a stance in denouncing all "fellow Muslims" who are murderous terrorists, and I'm not quite hearing that loud and clear, either...

10 posted on 11/29/2002 9:08:57 AM PST by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Or maybe you were asking me about the progress of Christians?! Hmmmm...

If so, seems there are much fewer murderous terrorist Christians, no matter how radical some's beliefs may be, than there are Islamists...but I could be wrong. ("the troubles" come to mind..)

11 posted on 11/29/2002 9:15:18 AM PST by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
Ooops, sorry, forgot to change the "to:" to yall. It was intended as a general post.

The regular peacefull moose limbs are pretty quiet...
12 posted on 11/29/2002 9:18:31 AM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Greg Swann
If so, then we are safe from peaceful Muslims (and peaceful leftists) only as long as their more ferocious brethren seem unlikely to succeed...

Yes, as long as we can keep the contest within the rule of law and the arena of ideas. To circumvent that force will be necessary.

13 posted on 11/29/2002 10:02:34 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
I don't know what this latest installment of Swann's bloviating is accomplishing, but it's not, on its face, anything more than pious posturing.

I liked Greg's essay on Condaleeza Rice but this and the other stuff of his I have read seem to fit your description. At times he seems to get tangled up in his own string.

14 posted on 11/29/2002 10:13:25 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
>conservative

I am a libertariam in the way the word is used here. More properly an anarcho-capitalist. Someone here called me an Objectivist, and, while that's not true, it's a much smaller error than this one.

>Catholics

I am an atheist. Have been since I was a teenager, but I think the oldest public mention of my atheism is 1988. If it's any consolation, I go to mass every week and I can hold my own in Latin.

>I don't know what this latest installment of Swann's bloviating is accomplishing

But you missed me yesterday. Readers here were deprived of the opportunity to see you misuse the colloquialism "bloviating" yet again.

>He apparently wants some sort of a Christian Jihad

To the contrary. My objective is cultural conquest.

>fix your damn Blog link

What is broken? Working for me.

>it's been four-oh-four for weeks

Brand new as of last Friday. But accuracy is not your strong suit.

>And you've far overdrawn your quota for using the ellipsis as a substitute for rhetorical pauses.

I understand the difference between oration (where bloviation is possible) and discursive prose (where it is not). But I also see discursive prose as a sort of musical notation of oration, and thus I think it is importamt to pace the reader as though he were hearing speech. Do you disagree...?

You might write to me privately. I'm interested to know who you are, but I'm only responding to you to correct misapprehensions others may get about my being Catholic or conservative.

Providing windless discursion for over 25 years,

Greg Swann

15 posted on 11/29/2002 10:21:58 AM PST by Greg Swann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jodorowsky
That alt.whitewater newsgroup predated FR and may have been FR's inspiration IMHO. Lotta history there.
16 posted on 11/29/2002 10:35:50 AM PST by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Greg Swann
I am an atheist. Have been since I was a teenager, but I think the oldest public mention of my atheism is 1988. ["Janio at a Point," I think]

Yeah, I followed a link earlier to THAT meandering piece. Not only do you use the ellipsis as a crutch for avoiding conversational prose, you seem to capitalize every noun -- and adjective, and nearly every conjunction and every preposition. Are you German in heritage? Even they don't go THAT far.

If it's any consolation, I go to mass every week and I can hold my own in Latin.

You go to Mass every week (no capital letter when you DO need one), yet you're an atheist. Hoo-kay. If you say so. I guess I wasn't seeing things when I looked you up on Google Groups, out of curiosity, having seen your name before. Apparently you even bring your son along. Does your wife provide a bit less confusion to him? I was nearly scarred for life figuring out what made my father tick.

"Bloviate" is a perfectly good verb, and it was popularized by Warren Gamaliel Harding, along with his neologism "normalcy." Your writing around here has been pretentious enough to ferment and give off rhetorical gases ever since, at least, some impeachment-era piece called "Roar," where you called for bypassing reason in favor of street theater. (This last makes it unlikely that you are to any degree an Objectivist, despite your newsgroup traffic.)

17 posted on 11/29/2002 12:14:41 PM PST by Greybird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
Oh. Of course. Should have guessed. Ever the coward...

--GSS

18 posted on 11/29/2002 12:50:47 PM PST by Greg Swann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
> I looked you up on Google Groups, out of curiosity, having seen your name before.

The lie exposed. You always [embarrass yourself] with a jade's trick. I knew you of old.

Your behavior is self-destructive...

--GSS

19 posted on 11/29/2002 1:13:31 PM PST by Greg Swann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

I discovered so many funny, insightful thinkers there, many of whom are represented in links from Swann's blog.

And the weasels... what a fantastic collection of characters it all was.

Having obsessively lurked a.c-e.c.w. through the Clinton years, I almost feel like someone who got to sit through meetings of the Continental Congress or something firsthand ;)

20 posted on 11/29/2002 2:56:34 PM PST by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson