As you may recall, over the past two weeks we have sent out several emails exposing AIG’s promotion of Shariah-compliant insurance products. Many of you have contacted AIG to express your disapproval, and one of our members received an email response from AIG, which we distributed late last week.
Today we are excited to report (see press release below) that our respected friends David Yerushalmi and the Thomas More Law Center have filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve Board to stop bailout funds from going to AIG. The lawsuit charges that tax dollars that are being used to bail out AIG are in fact being used in violation of the Constitution and are “promoting and financing the destruction of America.”
This is an explosive new development that is sure to raise government, media and public awareness of the danger inherent in U.S. businesses entangling themselves in Shariah-compliant finance. As we noted last week, “Shariah-compliant” finance means just that – compliance with Shariah law, which, among other things, oppresses women and calls for Jihad against infidels.
is the press release the Thomas More Law Center issued yesterday. There will likely be much more information to pass along to you in the days and weeks to come. ACT for America P.O. Box 6884 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.
We are Americans opposed to the “stealth jihad” being waged in this country by those who promote Shariah - authoritative Islam’s theo-political-religious program for establishing a global theocracy. As such, Shariah and its espousal of violent and stealthy jihad constitute sedition. We are determined to resist efforts now underway to create “parallel” Muslim societies and otherwise to insinuate Shariah into this country via its mosques, prisons, campuses, media, government and financial institutions.
Of particular concern is the progress being made to establish Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF) within Western, and most recently, U.S. banks and other institutions that trade securities. Islamic finance’s leading Shariah authorities have made plain that they consider SCF to be “jihad with money,” “financial jihad” and a means of promoting their objective of destroying the West’s economic system and replacing it with an Islamic one.
Incredibly, in recent days, the U.S. Treasury Department has begun embracing Shariah-Compliant Finance. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt has professed an interest in “studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis.” According to a press report out of Saudi Arabia, he has declared that “experts in the Treasury Department are currently learning the important features of Islamic banking.”
To this end, the Treasury Department hosted in its headquarters building on Thursday, November 6th a “seminar for the policy community” entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” This event was co-sponsored - and, it would appear, orchestrated - to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance by one of America’s leading promoters of the industry: the Islamic Finance Project at Harvard Law School. Harvard has benefitted from the infusion of millions of dollars from a Wahhabi Saudi prince and his government. Such funds are evidently translating into its fealty to the Islamist agenda and the promotion of Shariah and SCF by Harvard professors such as Frank Vogel (who will preside at the Treasury seminar).
It is especially alarming that the Treasury Department is now in a position to impose its submission to Shariah on the various financial institutions which it has bought in recent weeks or otherwise controls. With the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, its purchase of - at last count - 17 banks and the enormous leverage associated with its $700 billion slush-fund, Treasury can be an irresistible force should it actively promote Shariah-Compliant Finance. The fact that Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari, the official charged with administering that slush fund, is the host of “Islamic Finance 101″ certainly looks like active promotion of Shariah-Compliant Finance.
The Coalition to Stop Shariah
called on the Treasury Department to cancel this indoctrination session, to cease its efforts to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance and to recognize Shariah for what it is - sedition - and treat it accordingly by banning its use in U.S. financial institutions and products. Individual speaker statements here.
Speakers included Robert Spencer, renowned author and expert on Shariah law, Jihadwatch.org project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center; Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy; Dan Pollak for Morton Klein, Zionist Organization of America; Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition, and others.
Members of the Coalition
include Concerned Women for America, ACT for America, Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, the Zionist Organization of America, Traditional Values Coalition, Center for Security Policy, Endowment for Middle East Truth, Unity Coalition for Israel, Let Freedom Ring, Christian Solidarity International, Tradition Family & Property Inc., Women United, Jewish Action Alliance, Florida Security Council, Society of Americans for National Existence and the Center for Security Policy- see the full updated list here.
Al Qaeda’s great moment for propaganda has arrived, just as I predicted AlQaeda’sgreat moment for propaganda has arrived, just as I predicted it would when I wrote about this in June. The Guantanamo trials will provide leading figures in the 9/11 massacre their “moment” to deliver a blow to America’s psyche, image and legal system.
As predicted, almost to the letter in my analysis in June, the men charged with plotting the September 11 attacks have declared their readiness to make confessions. According to the Associated Press the military judge assigned to their war crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay read aloud a letter in which the five co-defendants said they request an immediate hearing session “to announce our confessions.” The AP report added that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (aka KSM) has already told interrogators he was the mastermind of the attacks. “Now he’s telling the judge that he and the others want to make confessions at the trial.” The judge at the pre-trial hearing, Army Col. Stephen Henley, is asking each defendant if they are prepared to enter a plea. Three have agreed to do so.
So, is there an Al Qaeda plan being put into motion on the inside? Most likely there is as our knowledge of Al Qaeda training instructions has shown. –Both the government and media of the United States are ill-prepared for this type of jihadi propaganda warfare. Seven years after the beginning of the so-called “War on Terror,” the enemy’s ideology, strategies and methods still haven’t been officially identified. It is like using a Word War I mind set to fight World War II terror strategies.
Here is what the jihadists, both on the inside and the outside of the Guantanamo detention center are planning for:
First, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his comrades will use the so-called confessions deal to build a psychological environment for a martyrdom case: “istishaad.” They aren’t interested in saving their lives (at first, although they think they could) but in providing a maximum damage to their enemy through the tribunal proceedings. They will claim the court is not legitimate, the entire Guantanamo process as illegal and that they are ready to die as Jihadis in the path to Allah. Their first target is to grant themselves, in the eyes of millions of militants around the world the status of “Shuhada,” martyrs, even though they could survive it.
The “confessions” turned declaration of victory will be picked up by Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups and transformed into vital material for propaganda: videos, audio and texts. The “show” inside court will be used for indoctrination purpose around the world. A myth will be set in motion and emotional reactions to the “story” will be mutated into future revenge operations.
From there on, leave it to the architects of jihadi propaganda: statements made by the defendants will be used by operatives online, in the chat rooms but also on Al Jazeera (by callers and guests), and in other medium to widen the radicalization of youth in the Arab and Muslim world and within the West as well. An Al Qaeda “control room” will use the feed from the Guantanamo trials to produce a victory in their war of ideas against democracies. The fate of the 9/11 detainees isn’t the issue to Al Qaeda. By pledging loyalty to the “mission” through the so-called “confessions” or statements they have already sacrificed themselves ideologically. What KSM and his comrades are offering to their “brothers” around the world is an unbeatable series of images, footage and audio — pure gold for Al Qaeda propagandists and ideologues.
Ironically, during this time of transition between the two administrations in both the Bush and Obama teams may find they overlook the direct goals of Al Qaeda’s plan. As national security teams meet and wrestle over future options in the War on Terror (will some possibly end up just calling it a “war”?) the other side is waging its own war methodically, relentlessly and unstoppably. Every inch of room to maneuver is used to the maximum to weaken the enemy, even from within the walls of the detention centers. And that is only at Guantanamo that the defendants are openly admitting their responsibilities in spreading terror. Wait until the processing of jihadists hits our U.S. courts here on the mainland. What we see now is just the beginning.
Dr. Walid Phares is Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC. The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
The lawyer, who recently praised the Mumbai terror attacks, urged all Muslims to reject traditional Christmas celebrations, claiming that they are forbidden by Allah. The 41-year-old shocked Christians and even those of his own faith by branding yuletide festivities as "the pathway to hellfire".
Choudary, who is chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, ruled out all celebrations, including having a Christmas tree, decorating the house or eating turkey.
In the sermon posted on an Islamic website, he said: "In the world today many Muslims, especially those residing in western countries, are exposed to the evil celebration Christmas.
"Many take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners. "Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah. "Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus. "How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring? "The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam. "Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. Protect your Paradise from being taken away – protect yourself and your family from Christmas."
Choudary is Principal Lecturer at the London School of Shari'ah and a follower of the Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed.
Earlier this year, he led a meeting at the heart of the area where the liquid bombers lived, which warned of a British September 11. [emphasis added]
As you know, we have encouraged our members to contact AIG to express our disapproval with AIG’s decision to market a shariah-compliant insurance product. One of our members received an email response from AIG, which we have copied below. Beneath the AIG response is our response.
“We received your email expressing your concern over our announcement that we would begin marketing Takaful insurance products in the United States. AIG operates around the world and endeavors to provide products that meet the diverse needs of its 74 million customers living in 130 countries and jurisdictions. Marketing to specific ethnic constituencies is not new or unique to AIG. For instance, AIG businesses have tailored programs for a range of religious organizations, including Methodist churches and synagogues. The concept of Takaful is similar the concept of reciprocal exchange, or mutual insurance. What makes the structure somewhat different is that premiums are held in non-interest-bearing accounts, and any excess profit is distributed back to the policyholders or given to charity. While the Takaful structure is desirable to those whose religious convictions preclude them from engaging in traditional interest-bearing structures, Takaful is also increasingly popular among non-Muslims who feel that the excess charitable aspect is a socially responsible mechanism for the purchase of insurance. In the United States, AIG plans to direct excess profits to U.S. based charitable organizations. These policies are standard homeowners’ policies and are guided by U.S. law. The funds for these policies are held in Shariah-compliant, non-interest bearing accounts at HSBC. We hope this addresses your concerns.” The AIG response is a fairly typical one companies provide when asked about shariah-compliant products. They usually compare shariah-compliant products to special products offered to other religious groups, and they almost always characterize the shariah-compliant product as “socially responsible.” Note AIG’s comparison to “Methodist churches and synagogues” and the phrase “socially responsible mechanism.”
There are at least three problems with AIG’s response.
The comparison to “Methodist churches and synagogues” is faulty. Methodist churches and synagogues do not require financial products that advance religious law that oppresses women and has at its core the call to jihad, as shariah-compliant products do. “Shariah-compliant” is just that – in compliance with Shariah law. The tenets of Shariah Islamic law include permission for forced child marriages, the beating of disobedient women, death sentences for Muslims who chose to convert away from Shariah Islam, and the obligation to wage offensive military Jihad against non-Muslims. By offering shariah-compliant products AIG, whether knowingly or unwittingly, is legitimizing and, by extension, endorsing shariah law. Think of it this way. Would AIG offer a product that was “apartheid compliant”? Of course not, because AIG would know that doing so would legitimize apartheid. To argue that a company can offer a product that is “compliant” with shariah law, but is not legitimizing shariah law, is disingenuous. So we repeat, AIG is either knowingly or unwittingly legitimizing a religious law system that oppresses women and is animated by jihad.
The advisory board for AIG’s Shariah-compliant insurance includes Muhammed Imran Usmani, the son and disciple of Muhammed Taki Usmani. The elder Usmani is a “who’s who” in the Islamist world and an outspoken proponent of aggressive jihad. For example, he has issued numerous fatwas (religious rulings) that provide material support for terrorism. What “socially responsible mechanism” does AIG provide to “Methodist churches and synagogues” that has an advisory board which includes the disciple of an internationally-known advocate for terrorism? Let’s use the apartheid example again. Would AIG offer a product that had an advisory board which included the son and disciple of an internationally-known advocate for apartheid? Of course not.
Note this statement in AIG’s response: “In the United States, AIG plans to direct excess profits to U.S. based charitable organizations.” Shariah-compliant finance requires such charitable giving to go to Muslim charities. Who directs where the money goes? The Shariah-compliant advisory board, which in this case includes the son and disciple of an internationally-renowned advocate of terrorism.
But that’s only one problem. Currently over two dozen Muslim charities have been identified by the U.S. government as having links to terrorist organizations. How many other Muslim charities have links to terrorist organizations and have not yet been identified? The recent convictions in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial illustrate the complex web that some Muslim charities have created to funnel charitable contributions to terrorist organizations. What AIG is thus doing is offering a financial instrument that may very well wind up as a conduit for funds to terrorist organizations. Even if that never occurred, why would a company want to put itself in such a position? Why would a company want to entangle itself with the son and disciple of an advocate for terrorism? Why would a company even take the chance that a financial product it offers could end up serving as a conduit for funds to terrorist organizations? How is this “socially responsible”? What’s more, doesn’t AIG recognize that, if funds from its shariah-compliant product did end up going to terrorist organizations, it could be facing, at best, a public relations nightmare, and at worst, lawsuits alleging negligence, and even criminal investigations? This is no mere hypothesis. David Yerushalmi, a legal expert on the issue of shariah law, has written a lengthy legal article spelling out the potential civil and criminal liabilities for companies that engage in shariah-compliant finance. (To read the article click here). We will continue to press for more information and for the opportunity to educate AIG as to the dangers of what it has ventured into. We’ll keep you posted. Please forward this email to everyone you know so they will become aware of this issue – and encourage them to sign up for our email alerts! This is how we get the word out!
"Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. "
"The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through county courts or the country’s High Court, a part of its Supreme Court system. Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims." The New York Times http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/anarchy-in-the-uk/?ref=opinionRevealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
Britons Will Have A Religious War At Their Front Doors--Commentary by CEC
Britain is a separate nation from all other nations, including the United States. This needs to be said, because the rights of other nations are sovereign laws unto those nations, where such sovereignty does not violate basic human rights. Even then, in places like Ghana, China, North Korea, Iran, and others, violations are often brutal and inhuman and must be stopped by the international community when it can do so.
Sometimes even here in the U.S., laws are often anti-individualistic, and we have a system of rule-by-law that can be checked, by the independence of the third branch of our government, the courts, when anti-libertarian laws are passed and an attempt is made to enforce those anti-individualistic laws.
(This is the case, notwithstanding the truth that the laws of the U.S. are no longer based on the sovereignty of the individual to be protected by the government, to whom the individual grants away certain of his rights to the common sovereignty. "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm
(Since the inception of the "citizen of the United States" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, individual sovereignty has been virtually wiped out, to be replaced by creeping nationalism of the sort fought against by the Federalists. And as many libertarian thinkers have elaborated upon, the American public has come to see this nationalism as natural and as what the Founders had planned all along. This public has gotten the idea of "common sovereignty" whereby the government rules from the consent of the governed, mixed up with modern social liberalism whereby the governments' sole purposes are to literally provide for the common good.)
But in very-liberal Britain's attempt at being "multiculturalists [seeking] the hegemony of the West" [see "20th Century" article above] the mis-guided allowance of sharia law courts to be held and upheld under English law is a breach of the idea of "common sovereignty" given to us by Locke, Hobbes, and others. It is a breach of the abstraction made by America's Founders from that concept of "common" into "individual" sovereignty.
"Lawyers have issued grave warnings about the dangers of a dual legal system," states one of the articles on sharia law, above. It was not intentional that England allow this dual system. A sheik found a hole in English law big enough to drive his truck full of society-destroying ideas, and Parliament has yet to fill the hole and destroy sharia courts within the jurisdiction of the English Common Constitution.
Not to mention that if this is allowed to continue, radical (and I don't mean terroristic) Muslims in the United States will someday attempt the same; but it means the destruction of the secularity of America's closest political ally. What will become of that alliance if such dualism is allowed to continue? Will the U.S. be able to count on England if it comes time to go to war against another terrorist nation that happens to be Muslim?
It cannot be said for certain that such a day will never come in the life of American jurisprudence. Liberals here are more radically bent on multiculturalism because they are thwarted at their efforts of introducing it lawfully. They are, however, very capable of introducing it into the minds of Americans through the liberal educational process, where individualism is not politically correct unless the purpose of allowing it is to allow multiculturalism to destroy the authority of the political body that is trying to allow individualism (to whatever degree it sees fit or is able to appropriately manage.)
School boards all across the nation are bombarded by suits brought by individuals and organizations, suits which are intended only to prove that the "rights" of the student are violated when he/she cannot wear a shirt that says "God Is Dead" as a response to a shirt worn earlier by someone else that said "God Rules!" Or, rightfully, when a school board prevents the association on compas of a gay organization when other organizations including religious-based groups are allowed.
Secular tolerance demands that both shirts, or neither, are to be allowed into the school, that no extra-curricular groups are allowed, or all groups are allowed that fit within the context of civil associations. But multiculturalism's claims that "diversity" demands one side be allowed to speak without being argued with by the other side is contrary to civil association and speech, and therfore to individual sovereignty. Besides, there is no "rule of multiculturalism" ensconced in the history of our laws in the way that such things as "the wall of separation of church and state" are ensconsed. School boards are allowed to make policy that says all students must dress alike to prevent taking attention from education where attention is allowed, so it is not focused instead on the poorly dressed v. the richly dressed; the hippie from the preppie; the religious students from the atheists; the skin heads from the Jewish students; and to cell phone or iPod use--just to name a few examples.
Dualism in American regulations are un-American, which has the proud distinction of meaning "anti-individualistic." We don't allow it where we find it; we could not allow it in our own court system.
England must take action to deny the dualism of having two separate-but-equal systems of jurisprudence within its jurisdiction, before the secular Muslim community there is unjustly involved; before this dualism rallies the radical Muslims into an unstoppable cohesion; and before that unstoppable cohesion becomes an anti-social force against the secular common sovereignty of the British people who are themselves being unfairly blind-sided by a Euro-multiculturalism that will eventually bring a religious war right their literal doorsteps and in their streets.
Determinism: the doctrine that all the facts in the physical universe, and hence also in human history, are absolutely dependent upon and conditioned by their causes. In psychology: the doctrine that the will is not free but determined by psychical or physical conditions.Also called scientific naturalism.
"Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. [ ] Seeing that we are fully caused creatures - not self-caused - we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do. [ ] We don’t have free will in the sense of being able to choose or decide without being fully caused in our choices or decisions. Instead, as individuals we are part of the natural unfolding of the universe in all its amazing complexity.
"Man’s survival qua man” means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice." Ayn Rand; “The Objectivist Ethics” The Virtue of Selfishness, 24
The Constitution brought into existence the most unusual government in history. It was a government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the document itself. If the power wasn’t enumerated, the government could not exercise it. Fearful that the newly formed government might try to break free of that enumerated-powers straitjacket, the American people, through their duly authorized representatives, enacted the Bill of Rights.
The first eight amendments to the Constitution expressly prohibit the federal government from denying people fundamental rights and important procedural protections. To ensure that federal officials would not later claim that the list of such rights was exclusive, the Ninth Amendment was enacted.
Then, to ensure that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government could still be exercised by the states, the Tenth Amendment was enacted. It reads as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
2) "Description: American judges and legal scholars have long misunderstood the intended meaning of the Ninth Amendment and its relationship to the Tenth. Because of misinterpretation, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have not been used to fulfill their original purposes. The limited and unlimited powers of the federal government have been shaped greatly by that error. In this book the authors clarify the actual meaning of the Ninth Amendment and its connection to the Tenth Amendment in order to provide a clear understanding of the full potential of the two amendments. Historical and contemporary details are included to provide an appreciation of the intended purpose of the amendments.
"Issues regarding the misinterpretation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are clearly outlined and explained in depth, including such topics as: *The drafting of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments *Enumerated, necessary and proper, and reserved powers of the state governments and *Substantive due process. The book also includes a bibliographical essay with information on alternative sources for grasping the intended meaning of the amendments." [emphasis added]
An update on this story, which played out essentially as predicted although that earlier post referred to the controversy at a different plant. The principles in play are the same. "Minnesota Plant That Fired Muslims for Taking Prayer Breaks Will Pay $365,000," from AP, November 11 (thanks to Islam In Action):
MINNEAPOLIS — Under a settlement to a federal lawsuit, up to 100 Somali Muslims who are current or former workers at Gold'n Plump Inc. will receive a total of $365,000.
The settlement was filed in Minneapolis on Friday. It sprang from allegations of religious discrimination at the company's chicken processing plants in Cold Spring and Arcadia, Wis.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed lawsuits against St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump and the Work Connection Inc., an employment agency in St. Paul, which handled some hiring for the plant.
Under the settlement, Gold'n Plump agreed to pay $215,000 to workers who were terminated for taking prayer breaks.
The Work Connection will pay $150,000 to workers who were asked to sign a form acknowledging that they might be required to handle pork, which many Muslims consider unclean....
So the proposition that Muslims have special privileges in American society, to which others are not privy, is now enshrined in precedent.
ACT for America P.O. Box 6884 Virginia Beach, VA 23456
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC. The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
To repeat from Identifying the Soul, Part 2: There is clearly a difference between voluntary and involuntary volition. So we cannot say at the present point in this discussion that the soul did or did not animate the newborn of any species. Catholics, who believe human life is endowed at conception with a soul would say it does animate the newborn. The antithetic argument is that human volition begins with the first syllogism.
These antithetic arguments will be the basis for making the identification of the entity we call the soul. But it must be stated at the beginning that there is a school of thought that says what is self-evidential to the senses as the thing called the soul is no more than the physiological workings of the brain and body. This thinking does not deny that something is self-evidential to the senses; instead, it denies the metaphysical importance of that which is self-evidential, and uses language other than the word soul to identify what it admits is self-evidential.
As was stated in the first part of this discussion, ontology is a branch of metaphysics. "Zygote," "embryo," "fetus," "chimp," "bonobo", "consciousness" and "soul" are all metaphysical classifications, made by identifying characteristics, differences between them and similar entities, differences based on scientific descriptions where science has made them, but identities and differentiations of ontology represent metaphysical values. Why? Because ontology itself would not exist without metaphysics, and is a branch of it.
"The term 'mind' usually denotes this principle [called 'soul', by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated,] as the subject of our conscious states, while 'soul' denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well." Catholic Encyclopedia (CE)
Thereby volition--will--is either 1) a quality of the conscious mind; and/or 2) an entity not of the conscious mind. Objectively this is correct, because the body does have the ability to remain alive even while the mind is comatose.
By this definition, a person in a vegetative state of coma has a soul. Practically speaking, this "source of our vegetative activies" makes our stomachs digest food, causes our lungs to breathe, and our noses to sneeze. Should we call this "source" by the name soul?
One of the difficulties of nailing down a classification, either of genus or of species, is where to draw the line. What line of demarcation, either scientifically or metaphysically, is there between the volition of the conscious will, and the volition of the body apart from the conscious mind?
As an object of ontological identity, the CE says "our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, [and] is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body, [and] is the doctrine of spirituality. If there be a life after death, clearly the agent or subject of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body. The belief in an animating principle in some sense distinct from the body is an almost inevitable inference from the observed facts of life."
Ok, what does all that mean? It begins--and ends--with the "thesis of substantiality." The CE does not list "substantiality" as an entry, but of the thesis of "substance" it says this: "A genus supremum, cannot strictly be defined by an analysis into genus and specific difference; yet a survey of the universe at large will enable us to form without difficulty an accurate idea of substance."
So it gets back to taxonomy, i.e., genus and specie. Calling it a "genus supremum", followed by the explicit lack of specie and the anti-definition given means the soul is not definable in human terms, i.e., "genus and specific difference."
There is a reason for this. Onlologically the Catholic Church cannot allow itself to be pinned down on a definition, because it believes the soul to be "genus supremum," ergo, supernatural.
Oddly (or not, as you prefer,) the CE does not have a definition for supernatural. The only two "supernatural" entities in its pages are these:
"Supernatural Gift - Something conferred on nature that is above all the powers (vires) of created nature
"Supernatural Order - The ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny"
This can only lead us to conclude that the most powerful and ancient Christian Church cannot define "genus supremum." As a matter of fact, that definition is another entry missing from its pages. The Church obviously prefers not to ontologically identify the entity soul, while at the same time describing its qualites as those which "animate" the human being. No wonder it defines the soul as a "principle."
Qualities described will necessarily lead one to an ontological ID of the entity that possess those qualities, unless the qualities are themselves not concretely identified. The definition given by the CE of soul is not concrete.
Tomorrow: The Secular Identity of the Entity Called "Soul"
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC. The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC. The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
I once had a revealing conversation with an A-list news reporter, when I was trying to convince him to cover the scientific distortions of Focus on the Family's James Dobson. He declined to do so because he felt that Dobson lies so frequently that it wasn't news.
This lack of accountability has allowed Dobson, and others of his ilk, to portray themselves as spokespersons for morality, even though they are regularly engaged in glaring examples of moral turpitude. Occasionally, they are even honored for their sinister "success" and showered with undeserved adulation. more atWayne Besen - Daily Commentary
Truth Wins Out (TWO) launched a new website today, DumpDobson.com, that calls on the Museum of Broadcast Communications to reverse its decision to honor Focus on the Family’s James Dobson in its Radio Hall of Fame. Unless the museum withdraws its pledge to induct Dobson, TWO will join Equality Illinois and the Gay Liberation Network to protest the awards ceremony, Saturday, Nov. 8, (5:30 PM – 7:30 PM), at the Renaissance Chicago Hotel .
To fight back against this offensive decision, DumpDobson.com is asking fair-minded people to take four actions.
E-Mail Radio Hall of Fame CEO Bruce Dumont, brucedumont@museum.tv, and urge him to withdraw Dobson’s honor.
Sign our letter to the Radio Hall of Fame urging them to reverse their foolhardy decision to celebrate Dobson’s shameful and ignoble career.
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC. The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
But my answer in the string was much shorter. Here it is in its entirety:
"QUOTE 'You don't *experience* any of those things as a conscious awareness of neurons firing in a specific location in your brain. The *thought* is conceptually distinct from the neurons just as the mind is conceptually distinct from the brain." by Dragon Lady
"The distinction Dragon Lady makes is the difference between Objectivism and scientific naturalism. The website Center for Naturalism states, 'More and more, biology and neuroscience show that the brain and body do everything that the soul was supposed to do. [ ] Your thoughts, experiences, feelings, decisions, and behavior are all things your brain and body does. [ ] Naturalism says we are completely physical, material creatures, a complex, highly organized collection of atoms, molecules, cells, neurons, muscles, bone, etc., produced by evolution.'
"The owner of the Center for Naturalism is Tom Clark, who is opposed to Ayn Rand and had debated her with myself via email, and with Tibor Machan and others on the web. [See "Round Four"]
"To further the statements made by Clark in my second paragraph above, in 'Round Five' he begins a sentence by saying, 'In a world in which all behavior is understood to be fully caused...' This is the kind of language that scientific naturalists use to indicate that behavior is caused by environment, biology and brain physiology, 'memes,' and anything but free will, which they they dismiss, not suprisingly, as a myth.
"Clark's 'advisors' who are named on his website are Susan Blackmore, Paul Bloom, Paul Broks, Daniel Dennett, Sheldon Drobny, Owen Flanagan, Ursula Goodenough, Joseph Hilb, Nicholas Humphrey, Brian Leiter, Thomas Metzinger, Tamler Sommers, and John Symons. Then he has another longer list of 'allies' and another list of 'contributors.' They are all of the same school in one way or another--they are anti-Objectivists, anti-capitalists, anti-free-will philosophers.
"Many of them have good contributions to make here and there, but overall they are subjectivists. But the overall similarity between them is that they maintain we are not 'self-made' creatures, that we are 'fully caused,' and they invent the most metaphysically horrid things like 'memes' to describe why we act the way we act.
"In other words, they 'spatially position' who and what we are in the firing of neruons and the resultant "reactions" we call emotions. Clark's sister website Naturalism.Org has all the technical ideas explained in great detail. Check it out. You won't like what you read." END QUOTE
Clark and his cohorts turn it all into biology and neurology. However, to be fair, Clark sometimes writes in the phrases of apologetics:
"Some might conclude from this [from scientific naturalism] that naturalism reduces human beings to mere mechanisms, mere automatons, but this doesn’t follow. What follows is that the physical universe has produced, in us, marvelously complex and adaptive organisms, with the capacity for self-reflection, wonder, suffering, and joy. Far from mechanizing humanity, naturalism re-enchants the physical world by showing how consciousness and choice don’t involve supernatural processes."
I don't believe him for a minute, and I don't think you should either. That is because his scientism also leads him to say things like this:
"Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. [ ] Our bodies and minds are shaped in their entirety by conditions that precede us and surround us. [ ] Seeing that we are fully caused creatures - not self-caused - we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do. [ ] ...the homeless person in front of us, the convict, or the addict, [have] been given their genetic and environmental lot in life. [ ] Instead of supposing people can simply will themselves to be otherwise... [ ] We don’t have free will...in our choices or decisions. [ ] People don't create themselves, so responsibility for their character and behavior isn't ultimately theirs, but is distributed over the many factors that created them." [italics added]
Need I go on? Clark speak from both sides of his mouth and hopes you, his readers, don't see all the contradictions, and the determinism (his word), and the subjectivity involved in everything he believes.
I would not be surprised to find some of Clark's "advisors" and "allies" and "contributors" on the list of Barak Obama's advisors. Some may even wind up in the White House or in other government agencies--seriously. His advisors are well respected authors and they say that same social slogans Obama says. Obama is well-read, erudite, a Constitutional scholar, lawer, and professor who, we all know by now, leans well to the left.
Clark's advisors are left-leaning in their own liberal/academic spheres. Obama has been quoted as saying many of the same things about jurisprudence that Clark's website says, things like: "This leads to an ethics of compassion and understanding, both toward ourselves and others. We see that there but for circumstances go I."[and] "Naturalism focuses our attention on what works, increasing self-efficacy and encouraging science-based, progressive social policies in areas such as criminal justice, social inequality, behavioral health, and the environment."
Be afraid, very afraid, because many policy wonks who think in these same terms are already in positions of power, and you can see, if you look far enough into the future, where this nation is headed, because we are already half way there.
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC. The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
Brian Leiter of Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog could not be expected to be a fan of Ayn Rand, because of his contribution to the determinism of scientific naturalism. So it is not surprising that he "finds amusing" http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/the-end-of-libe.html an article in "Slate" http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/ that describes libertarianism as "ideology [that] makes no sense," and says, "Utopians of the right, libertarians are just as convinced that their ideas have yet to be tried, and that they would work beautifully if we could only just have a do-over of human history."
The problem lies not only with the "Slate" article, but with Leiter's agreement with it that "The worst thing you can say about libertarians is that they are intellectually immature, frozen in the worldview many of them absorbed from reading Ayn Rand novels in high school."*
It was Rand who wrote: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice." “What Is Capitalism?”; "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"; http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html
And in defining "justice" as "the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature," Rand would be the first to point out that no justice was accomplished by the shameless, wasteful and reckless extravagance shown by so called "capitalists" who are backed by government funds and act like the immoral, dog-eat-dog money grubbers in "Atlas Shrugged," rather than like "Hank Reardon" or "Francisco D'Anconia," or even like philosophy professor "Hugh Akston" serving hamburgers in a diner.
Anyone who cannot see the difference between the "good businessmen" in AS, and the "bad businessmen" in Fannie, Freddie, and in the giant banks and investments firms has no business claiming Rand's "heroic view of capitalism makes it difficult for [her fans] to accept that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention constitute a recipe for disaster. [Her fans] are bankrupt, and this time, there will be no bailout."
Rand's fans, like myself, may have our head in the clouds hoping for the day when the world recognizes it defines the world irrationally; but at least we have our feet planted firmly on the ground, ready to run for "Galt's Gulch."
Will Leiter and the others like him see their own bankruptcy, then?
*A version of this article also appears in this week's issue of Newsweek.
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC. The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
Posts
