Question - does acting like Muslims include following the commonly accepted, in the Islamic world, Quran teaching of honor killings and female circumcision? How about the establishment of Sharia law for Muslims who view that as the only proper legal system? Wide swaths of Islamic belief and tradition are fundamentally incompatible with a free society, and demanding that those who wish to live in a free society abandon those beliefs and traditions is absolutely necessary.

No one said anyone had the right to violate the rights of others. To answer your questions specifically though, yes and no. Some Muslims believe in that, some don't. All Muslims should not be punished for the acts of individuals. Those that do act to violate the individual rights of others should obviously be held accountable for their crimes.

I realize it's sometimes difficult to refrain from stereotyping people, but the rational man who respects rights must do so. The essay Racism in The Virtue of Selfishness ( http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Signet-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261632471&sr=1-1 ) challenged my way of thinking and helped me become more principled in my judgement of others. I highly recommend everyone read it. You can find an excerpt here http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html

Actually, I'm not stereotyping anyone, and work to always judge people on their individual actions and beliefs. It's usually not that difficult to do so either. My comment completely lacked any type of stereotyping.

Your quotation made reference to "Behaving like Muslims", thus forcing us to consider what "Muslim Behavior" is. Obviously, various individuals claiming the Muslim banner have wide ranges of behavior, and thus my comments shouldn't be seen as any type of condemnation of all who call themselves Muslim. However, when we talk about Muslim Behavior, how do we define it? The only logical way to define it, to me, is behavior that arises, or would arise, directly from a strict interpretation of the Quran and the other foundational texts of Islam. In other words, how would you act if you believed every single word of it was true?

Every single example I cited arises directly from those sources. All are examples of behavior that would arise directly from a literal interpretation of the Quran. Thus when we talk about Muslim Behavior, I think those are legitimate examples of such. Thankfully most Muslims in the US don't really take the Quran that seriously, so we don't have too many of the problems that you see in the Arab and Asian worlds (and increasingly the European world). However, it remains Muslim Behavior.

As I said, in a more brief form in my original comment, the problem with the compatibility between the Free World and the religion of Islam isn't the intolerance of the West. The problem arises from the behaviors demanded of Muslims as written in their holiest of texts.

Just so I'm not misunderstood again, this isn't a condemnation of everyone who's muslim, or anyone, specifically, who's muslim. It's a condemnation of the behavior specified by Islamic texts, and those who regularly violate the rights of others while practicing said behavior.

The person quoted is using the term "Muslim behavior" because there are those who seek to ban all of it, whether it violates anyone's rights or not. Your response indicated, whether you meant to or not, that you somehow disagreed with the sentiment of the quote. That's what I was responding to, and trying to do so in a polite way.

Frankly, all religion, including Christianity, is incompatible with capitalism and freedom, and I like the quote.

But a consistent Moslem in the UK would be one who wants to replace England's democratic and generally secular government with a non-democratic Islamic theocracy. Obviously society can tolerate some of these people, but to allow them to become a significant percentage of the population would be a mistake.

Consider Israel, with a population of (I think) 7 million Jews. If it accepted the immigration policy of this blog (as I understand it) it is obligated to have almost unrestricted immigration. It would within a decade probably be voted out of existence. When I've mentioned this to Objectivists they say that Israel is at war, so it can restrict immigration. But Israel isn't at war with Egypt (population 80 million).

The Christian Right in this country wants to implement their brand of religious "capitalism" on the rest of us. That doesn't mean they deserve to be kicked out of the country.

I'll say it again, if/when someone violates the individual rights of others, you can take action against them. Until then, they're just like the annoying Nazis we still have in this country. Sure they are awful, hateful people we wish we never had to even look at, much less deal with, but if they're minding their own business and not violating the rights of others, and if we want our rights respected, we can't do anything about it.

I'm an atheist and a capitalist. I'm sure the majority of people in this country who would love to outlaw me and my ideas. Lucky for me, we still have some semblance of rights in this country and the majority cannot have its way with me. I cannot expect to have my right to my ideas and to share those ideas protected, while denying someone else the same.

And as an aside, if governments would get out of the business of violating individual rights, they'd have more time and resources to go after those who truly violate rights, thus making these religious idiots (no matter what religion they belong to) less of a problem for all of us.

I forgot to respond to your comment about Israel. This blog has never advocated just letting everyone in. We advocate letting in those without criminal backgrounds and contagious diseases. If someone is a known terrorist, that's obviously someone with a criminal background and they should be kept out.

It's the proper function of government to protect the rights of individuals. They have an obligation to us to not let such persons into the country.

Sorry, my pregnancy brain is setting in. I thought of something else.

Neil, you bring up an excellent point, "It would within a decade probably be voted out of existence." This is exactly why democracies are not the great thing that most people think they are. Democracies are mob rule, and as you know, mobs rarely know anything about protecting individual rights. Mob rule is what's allowed this country to stumble down a statist path, and it should be stopped. Democracy is not the answer to any nation's problems.

Rand talks about the problems of democracy in this letter http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/taifc.html and here from the Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html

Kelly,

Let's assume Israel adopts your position. In the next two decades 12 million Arabs apply to enter. 11 million are found to be without contagious diseases, criminal records and have no known ties to terrorist organizations. Is Israel obligated to let them in?

What right do you or anyone else have to stop them?

As part of its general right of self defense I believe that a nation is entitled to maintain its cultural and political identity by restricting immigration.

Israel is entitled to maintain its character as a non-Moslem nation and prevent itself from being voted out of existence.

You realize Israel has freedom of religion, right? There are already protestants, Catholics, Muslims and likely people of several other religions living there.

And frankly, all religions are incompatible with capitalism and liberty. Healthy nations and moral governments are born of good philosophy. America and Israel would not find themselves in the messes they're in had their people lived by a good philosophy.

I believe in a truly capitalist society, you wouldn't be having the issues the two countries have with foreign policy, and it'd be much easier to spot those who wish to harm us. (And we wouldn't be too PC to go after them with all we've got!)

I do believe a nation has a right to protect itself from foreign invaders, but I do not think it's government's job to preserve any particular culture (whose culture?) or political identity (beyond that of protecting individual rights.)

Individuals or groups that threaten the rights of others ought to be dealt with accordingly. That does not mean that all Muslims (or all Mexicans or call Canadians) ought to be kept out of a particular geographical area.

Kelly,

I realize that Israel respects freedom of religion. Is that the point?

I don't know why you don't answer the question: "If Israel adopts the policy concerning immigration advocated by you and allows a tremendous influx of Arabs and Moslems such that they vote into place a pro-Islamic government, do you think that's the price the Jews in Israel should pay for respecting property rights?"

With all due respect, I think you are being very obtuse here.

-Neil Parille

"Israel is entitled to maintain its character as a non-Moslem nation and prevent itself from being voted out of existence." That's why I made the comment about Israel having freedom of religion. It's not a "non-Moslem nation."

Furthermore, if Israel doesn't want its government voted out of existence, it shouldn't allow mob rule (or democracy.) Which is the answer to your question and I did already answer it.

Your problem (as you've presented it to me) is with democracy, not immigration.

Kelly,

If Muslims outnumber Jews in Israel three to one, I'd like you to tell me the Constitutional scheme that will prevent a Muslim takeover.

Get rid of the democratic government. Implement a capitalist, moral government. Nothing makes for peaceful borders quicker than capitalism. Money and incentives work!

Neil, after reading your comments on a few posts, reading your profile and speaking with another Objectivist blogger, I have decided that there is no point engaging you so your comments will no longer be posted to MoE.

If people are honest, friendly, open to new ideas and interested in finding solutions to problems without violating other people's individual rights, they are welcome to post comments on this blog.