Do Randians Hate Muslims More than they Support Private Property?


dobropet's picture

This is the exact same arguement I have put forth, in numerous blogs, in an attempt to rationalize what others skip in regards to Islam. Many of those sites miss the entire religious implications of such a mosque. And others, still, refuse to go further than private property rights. This is the best arguement yet.

Until the ideology of Islam is confronted, noone can recognize the dangers of allowing this project to continue.

B.R. Merrick's picture


"This argument requires one to understand the essential nature of Islam, its role in the world now and in the immediate future." Allow me to rewrite that sentece: "This argument requires one to understand the essential nature of Mormonism / Catholicism / Democrats / N*ggers / socialism / Commies / homosexuality, its role in the world now and in the immediate future." It's the same. It's bigotry.

"As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — Islam — " Who's "we," Kemosabe? "...that declares war on us (the nonbelievers) and our way of life." That must be why I am petrified to walk out my front door everyday, and why every time I have found myself anywhere near a faggot -- I mean, Muslim -- I have broken out in a cold sweat. "Finally, it seems that the majority of Islam’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers." Which also means that the majority of Islam's adherents are not terrorists, are not engaged in any "culture war," are peaceful, do not need to apologize for the actions of others, and ought to be left alone.

"Nonetheless, it has been argued that, because our government has not explicitly declared war, then any of the potential ways that our government might stop the mosque from being built, within the context of our current legal system, would negate property rights." This is not the argument as I understand it. My argument is that no individual or group has any business initiating coercion, and that the government's very existence is death-oriented, far more death-oriented than the most fanatical of Muslims.

"So long as one believes in the existence of a predominantly peaceful Islam, with only some fringe elements (call them what you want) being responsible for terrorist attacks on the U.S..." I can think of three foiled terrorist attacks by idiot Muslims, and one successful one by God-knows-who, in the last ten years. I am far more concerned with what we have been told about the successful one, and who was actually involved. Even so, as I pointed out in one of my articles, if what the government says about that attack is true, they are responsible for the blowback by the terrorists, and in a critical span of two hours, they did nothing successful to save, help, or protect anyone.

"However, here our government is not the aggressor, it’s the appeaser." What goddamned rock has this author been living under??!!

"[O]ne has to recognize that the distinguishing characteristic of Islam as a religion is its doctrine of Jihad, which is, in effect, an incitement to violence, even though many individual Muslims aren’t violent and never will be." Well, then, Islam is rife with poor adherents. Perhaps the leaders of Islam ought to incite a Jihad against the millions of slackers.

"Some have doubted whether Islam can be distinguished in this way, and have told me that the holy books of other religions have similarly violent passages. I am not an expert on religion..." So shut up, then.

The rest is worth even less of a response. Quote Ayn Rand, a terrific novelist with some neat ideas, and you'll know just what to do. Christians walk around with WWJD bracelets, and apparently Objectivists are wandering around with WWAD bracelets.

This article is absolute garbage. However, it has been helpful in reminding me of how foolish I was to ever swallow similar bilge from the Religious Right. There isn't a trash can big enough to dump these people into.

dobropet's picture


You know, you'd think I was religious if I had taken anything seriously you've attempted to establish.

B.R. Merrick's picture

So was it the intention of the alleged terrorists to bring down a Greek Orthodox church? You want to read an article that rocks? Try this quote first:

"Imagine being the family of Salman Hamdani. The 23-year-old New York City police cadet was a part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student, and devout Muslim. When he disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials came to his family, seeking him for questioning in relation to the terrorist attacks. They allegedly believed he was somehow involved. His whereabouts were undetermined for over six months, until his remains were finally identified. He was found near the North Tower, with his EMT medical bag beside him, presumably doing everything he could to help those in need."

Kindly take your bigotry elsewhere.

And if anyone familiar with my articles and comments finds my vitriol out-of-character, please understand I have read very few things online that made me angrier than the ridiculous article that started this thread.

dobropet's picture

That's too bad, you'd do well to watch you character, as your countenance seems to imply more of your hatred of dissenting opinion than outright conformity.

dobropet's picture

As for those instances of persecution, regardless of heritage, our society is mixed culture, is it not? Then suffice to say that ALL have suffered at the hands of this ideology(Islam). Would it have been any different had those attacks been carried out in Islamic lands at the hands of American Christians, Baptists, Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals, Mormons?

The refusal to allow ANY dissenting opinion the benefit of discussion only incites further scrutiny for those who'd liken the evidence to heresy.

B.R. Merrick's picture

I haven't "suffered at the hands of this ideology(Islam)." Not in the least. I have indeed suffered, and so has the Middle East, from endless intrusion at the hands of the United States government. Now innocent American Muslims, who number in the millions, are suffering at the hands of bigoted Americans, including a few "Objectivists," who cling to their favored system of coercion.

The idea that I refuse "to allow ANY dissenting opinion" is completely unfounded. I simply give no place for bigoted conclusions. Feel free to spout this nonsense if you wish. Just don't expect me to take it seriously. And do prepare yourself in the future to be contradicted by other commenters at this site if you continue to paint entire groups of people, who are categorized by your subjective thoughts alone, with such a broad brush.

Read into my "countenance" whatever you wish. It concerns me not at all.

dobropet's picture

So in other words you were not affected by the events of 9/11

The intrusion into the Middle East is the fault of government interventionism, not some ideological religious crusade as you seem to want to imply. Whatever amount of Muslims you seem to attribute to this "suffering" looks to be more of sensationalism than truth. If such is the truth where are the numbers and relative data that points to such atrocities? If the answer is in the Middle Eastern war then that is there, not here.

People have a right to decide what's best for their interests regardless of their discriminatory actions. So whatever you deem by painting "entire groups of people" as singular is not what this article emphasizes(and to your dismay I'm no artist).

"facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence...." -John Adams

Contradictions, in response to your comments, is simply defending my opinions on the matter and nothing more. Nobody claimed to be infallible here, I'm only addressing what I think should be addressed(paint it what you will, bigotry seems to roll off your keyboard quite effortlessly, or whatever ). And, I never expected anyone to take my opinions without question, as you so eloquently stated(attempting to paint me into a single "subjective" group).

B.R. Merrick's picture

"The intrusion into the Middle East is the fault of government interventionism, not some ideological religious crusade as you seem to want to imply. Whatever amount of Muslims you seem to attribute to this 'suffering' looks to be more of sensationalism than truth."

Based on this incomprehensible part of your reply, I'd say the debate is pretty much over. I have absolutely no idea what you're saying now. You can have the last word, and I can assure you, it will be ignored.

Anybody else (other than you) that can explain it to me, feel free to PM me.

tzo's picture

Yeah, you could have pretty much stopped after the first word of your first post. : >

dobropet's picture

"There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They–the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism–will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." Hans-Hermann Hoppe