Progressives and Islam

[Argus]

It's always been a strange puzzle to those of us who tend to think clearly, how desperately supportive liberals and progressives are of Islam. It almost seems that nothing is more important to a liberal than the spread of Islam - which is a political philosophy, as well as a religion, which despises every single thing liberalism and progressivism is supposed to be about.

How can anyone who is zealous in support of gay and gender rights, of the non-judgement of sexual, social and physical differences, throw themselves unhesitatingly behind a social/political system which is literally translated into "submission", which means you must surrender yourself to the will of God in all things, and live your life entirely according to a rigid social code.

That social code does not allow for equality between genders. In fact, it explicitly prohibits it. It requires homosexuals of any sort be killed. It does not permit argument or disagreement, and any attempt at rebelling against its laws brings death.

Perhaps the answer is in the following. It supports what I've noticed myself, how progressives make a fetish of never judging other races/cultures/religions - although of course, they have no issue judging Christianity or conservatives...

They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. That the only way to be moral is to not discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because your act of discrimination – discriminating between these things might just be a reflection of your personal discrimination, your bigotries.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/06/18/why-liberals-support-muslims-who-hate-everything-they-stand-for-n2180270

[dialamah]

It's always been a strange puzzle to those of us who tend to think clearly, how desperately supportive liberals and progressives are of Islam. It almost seems that nothing is more important to a liberal than the spread of Islam - which is a political philosophy, as well as a religion, which despises every single thing liberalism and progressivism is supposed to be about.

How can anyone who is zealous in support of gay and gender rights, of the non-judgement of sexual, social and physical differences, throw themselves unhesitatingly behind a social/political system which is literally translated into "submission", which means you must surrender yourself to the will of God in all things, and live your life entirely according to a rigid social code.

That social code does not allow for equality between genders. In fact, it explicitly prohibits it. It requires homosexuals of any sort be killed. It does not permit argument or disagreement, and any attempt at rebelling against its laws brings death.

Perhaps the answer is in the following. It supports what I've noticed myself, how progressives make a fetish of never judging other races/cultures/religions - although of course, they have no issue judging Christianity or conservatives...

They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. That the only way to be moral is to not discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because your act of discrimination – discriminating between these things might just be a reflection of your personal discrimination, your bigotries.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/06/18/why-liberals-support-muslims-who-hate-everything-they-stand-for-n2180270

Because we progressives aren't close-minded and unable to see anything except from our own point-of-view, about which we are convinced we are right, regardless of what the evidence says.

Hope that helped clarify things for you.

[cybercoma]

Cool strawmen, broh.

To put it simply, your premises are incorrect and that's why your argument fails. You keep telling people what Islam is but your understanding of Islam is fabricated out of your ethnocentric paranoia.

There are people who use religion as a tool to oppress people. This has happened for centuries. This is happening today in the US. If people like Betsy had their way, 10 year old girls who are raped by their fathers would be forced to give birth. Gay people were imprisoned not that long ago.

So yeah, there's Muslim tyrants with political power and it's entirely about controlling people. It's entirely about politics and the religion is their tool.

You don't get conquistadors in a potentially deadly voyage to the new world and convince them to butcher other human beings without convincing them that this is what God wants of them.

And so it goes with Islam, as a tool of oppression in other nations.

You want to call Islam, the religion itself, the problem because it's a simplistic answer that's easy to understand by simple-minded people who are either unwilling or incapable of understanding the complexities of societies where politics and religion are intertwined. You will ignore the millions of peaceful Muslims around the world, the Muslims who fight against tyranny, and the Muslims who gave their lives to invoke change in their societies because it's easier for you just to point the finger at Islam.

The problem with your arguments is stunning ignorance and a need for things to be explained in simplified dichotomies, rather than trying to understand that these issues are more complicated than, "*grunt* Islam Bad! Christianity Good!"

Edited August 16, 2016 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Because we progressives aren't close-minded and unable to see anything except from our own point-of-view, about which we are convinced we are right, regardless of what the evidence says.

Hope that helped clarify things for you.

In fact, that is precisely the behaviour most often exhibited by progressives, a shrill outrage at anyone who disagrees with them and an utter refusal to consider alternatives to their preferred ideological imperatives.

And you made a perfect example of the author's statement about progressives belief that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. in the subject we just discussed in the religion topic, where you cannot bring yourself to say we are "better" in our treatment of women here than in Egypt, where women are gang raped on the streets. You, like others progressives, shy away from saying anything which can be construed as criticizing an Islamic country and its treatment of women.

[Argus]

Progressives, understanding that the human being is compliant and malleable, seek to address this by the concept of “white privilege” The idea being that once white people come to understand that their white privilege is centuries old and deeply implanted in the white worldview, they will assume a more just, fair, inclusive and loving understanding of their crimes against humanity.

The question is will Islam be subject to the same ideological and most likely legal sanctions? Or will Progressives make the argument that only White Americans are the perpetrators of privilege? It is self-evident that Islamic values are the antithetical to Progressive values. Islamic culture and values have been particularly resistant to the Progressive nuanced understanding of human action.

So far, the answer is "NO".

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/02/the-conundrum-progressivism-and-islam/

[Moonlight Graham]

Perhaps the answer is in the following. It supports what I've noticed myself, how progressives make a fetish of never judging other races/cultures/religions - although of course, they have no issue judging Christianity or conservatives...

Ya that's pretty much it. Progressives like to be inclusive, tolerant, and non-discriminatory. But they can also realize there's a difference between their moderate Muslim friends and radicals.

[cybercoma]

The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, amiright? Huehuehue /s

[dialamah]

Progressives, understanding that the human being is compliant and malleable, seek to address this by the concept of “white privilege” The idea being that once white people come to understand that their white privilege is centuries old and deeply implanted in the white worldview, they will assume a more just, fair, inclusive and loving understanding of their crimes against humanity.

The question is will Islam be subject to the same ideological and most likely legal sanctions? Or will Progressives make the argument that only White Americans are the perpetrators of privilege? It is self-evident that Islamic values are the antithetical to Progressive values. Islamic culture and values have been particularly resistant to the Progressive nuanced understanding of human action.

So far, the answer is "NO".

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/02/the-conundrum-progressivism-and-islam/

I would think that in countries where the ruling class is brown and Muslim, than that would be the "privileged" class. In our country, it's white Christians, although we are much less religious than Muslim countries over all so it's probably safe to say "Whites" and leave out the Christian part.

And I don't know how accurate that article is. Yes, Islamic countries have some work to do to meet the definition of "freedom" as practiced in the West - but some of them are at least tackling it. I know Sisi gets pretty short shrift amongst many in the West, but from my sister and brother-in-laws POV, he's done a lot towards pursuing a more "Westernized" society. My brother-in-law considers Trudeau and Sisi alike in a lot of ways, so perhaps that gives you an idea of how 'progressive' Sisi is perceived to be.

[dialamah]

In fact, that is precisely the behaviour most often exhibited by progressives, a shrill outrage at anyone who disagrees with them and an utter refusal to consider alternatives to their preferred ideological imperatives.

And you made a perfect example of the author's statement about progressives belief that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. in the subject we just discussed in the religion topic, where you cannot bring yourself to say we are "better" in our treatment of women here than in Egypt, where women are gang raped on the streets. You, like others progressives, shy away from saying anything which can be construed as criticizing an Islamic country and its treatment of women.

Really? Here we are, suggesting you consider the thoughts, feelings and desires of people who actually live in these countries you claim are so backward, and you cannot do it.

I am aware of the problems in these countries, and perhaps if I ran across someone who was reasonable in their discussion, you'd hear some of that from me. But really, when someone simply insists an entire group of people are backward savages and refuses to even consider that there are a variety of people, beliefs and practices within that group - well, there is no chance of reasonsed discussion.

Btw, women are raped and gang-raped in Canada on a regular basis as well. Maybe you need to start ranting about men who rape, and not just Muslims.

[BubberMiley]

In fact, that is precisely the behaviour most often exhibited by progressives, a shrill outrage at anyone who disagrees with them and an utter refusal to consider alternatives to their preferred ideological imperatives.

And that differs from your behaviour how?

[?Impact]

It almost seems that nothing is more important to a liberal than the spread of Islam

Those of us who tend to think clearly know that what is important to a liberal is liberty and equality. Those who can't think clearly see the support of equality as the loss of their self assumed natural superiority.

[cybercoma]

And that differs from your behaviour how?

Well, he's smart and they're stupid. /s

[Argus]

Ya that's pretty much it. Progressives like to be inclusive, tolerant, and non-discriminatory. But they can also realize there's a difference between their moderate Muslim friends and radicals.

I'm not talking about radicals. Radicals are people who are outside the mainstream. Islam certainly has those. But even mainstream Islam's beliefs are, by our standards, pretty damned extreme in terms of its treatment of women and others.

Like, progressives will be filled with anger at some social conservative who doesn't believe in gay marriage, but then they'll smile and nod tolerantly at some Muslim who says gays should all be executed. It's pretty strange.

[Argus]

And I don't know how accurate that article is. Yes, Islamic countries have some work to do to meet the definition of "freedom" as practiced in the West - but some of them are at least tackling it. I know Sisi gets pretty short shrift amongst many in the West, but from my sister and brother-in-laws POV, he's done a lot towards pursuing a more "Westernized" society. My brother-in-law considers Trudeau and Sisi alike in a lot of ways, so perhaps that gives you an idea of how 'progressive' Sisi is perceived to be.

Doesn't Sisi's government order hundreds of people executed at a time?

[Bonam]

It's always been a strange puzzle to those of us who tend to think clearly, how desperately supportive liberals and progressives are of Islam. It almost seems that nothing is more important to a liberal than the spread of Islam - which is a political philosophy, as well as a religion, which despises every single thing liberalism and progressivism is supposed to be about.

How can anyone who is zealous in support of gay and gender rights, of the non-judgement of sexual, social and physical differences, throw themselves unhesitatingly behind a social/political system which is literally translated into "submission", which means you must surrender yourself to the will of God in all things, and live your life entirely according to a rigid social code

You don't understand progressivism. It starts from the premise that all systemic problems in Western society are a result of the actions and attitudes of white males. Because all other groups can only be considered as victims and are not considered to have agency or to be able to have any impact on society, it is not possible that one such group (such as devoutly religious Muslims) could cause problems for another group (such as homosexuals). If any problems do arise, it can always be assumed to be a result of the patriarchal racist framework imposed by white males, without which all of these disparate groups could get along in perfect harmony.

Starting from this premise, it is entirely logically consistent to both claim to support gay rights and women's rights while also arguing for the mass immigration of millions of people from a culture where these rights are disregarded. All of these are "minorities" and "victims" and by virtue of not being white males, bring more diversity and help to achieve the goal of making white males an ever smaller minority, which is the only method by which the patriarchy and racism of white male culture can ultimately be overturned and utopia be achieved.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Bonam

[Argus]

Really? Here we are, suggesting you consider the thoughts, feelings and desires of people who actually live in these countries you claim are so backward, and you cannot do it.

I'm not sure what it is with progressives that makes them think they are the only people in the world who realize not everyone fits the mold.

I'm quite sure there are lots of Muslims I would like, who do not believe in the more retrograde aspects of Islam, who aren't even good Muslims, who are more secular in their thinking. Who wouldn't understand that? Why is it necessary to say so every time you discuss a group? Isn't it assumed? Do you think every time a group is discussed you have to put an axterix in there and an explanation in the bottom that you understand not every single member of the group is entirely in line with the given behaviour?

But we're talking about a GROUP, and of the behaviour which is THE NORM among that group, which is the mainstream of a culture, which is the mainstream of a religion and how it is preached and practiced.

I'm sure there are Muslims in the world okay with homosexuals but you will see no gay pride parades or gay bars or anyone going around being open about being gay in a Muslim country because the violent hostility towards gays in among the overall Muslim group or culture is overwhelming.

Btw, women are raped and gang-raped in Canada on a regular basis as well. Maybe you need to start ranting about men who rape, and not just Muslims.

And there it is again, that need to make an apology on behalf of the misogyny in Muslim society, that need to say things are as bad here, that need to deny there is any kind of problem there or that we should have the right to say anything about it.

[Argus]

And that differs from your behaviour how?

I normally discuss things rationally rather than hurl insults or engage in snide drive-by one-liners.

[Argus]

Those of us who tend to think clearly know that what is important to a liberal is liberty and equality. Those who can't think clearly see the support of equality as the loss of their self assumed natural superiority.

I don't think it's thinking clearly to insist the unequal are equal. I think it's insane, actually. It's also patronizing.

I've said before, that when Muslims come to Canada and drag their backward social and cultural mores with them it is conservatives who convince them, eventually, to tone that down, or get them thinking their old cultural beliefs are best dropped. Meanwhile progressives are there telling them how much we respect their culture and values and how there's no need for them to change, because their beliefs are every bit as good as ours.

[dialamah]

Doesn't Sisi's government order hundreds of people executed at a time?

Lots, anyways. Especially if they are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Not saying I approve of him, but for some reason my brother-in-law truly thinks Sisi is leading Egypt into democracy, a freer and richer society with more stability. There seems to be a lot who agree with him.

[Argus]

Lots, anyways. Especially if they are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Not saying I approve of him, but for some reason my brother-in-law truly thinks Sisi is leading Egypt into democracy, a freer and richer society with more stability. There seems to be a lot who agree with him.

And Putin would probably win a fair election if they had any fair elections in Russia. It doesn't make him any less of a murdering dictator.

And it doesn't say anything good about the intelligence of the Russian voter.

[Argus]

You don't understand progressivism. It starts from the premise that all systemic problems in Western society are a result of the actions and attitudes of white males.

Not just western society, all societies. If a Muslim blows up a Muslim in Indonesia or Iraq it's the fault of the West somehow. If corrupt African governments steal all the money foreign mines pay them that's the fault of foreign mines and the countries they are headquartered in. Wherever there is instability or poverty it's the fault of the West. The locals have no responsibility for any of the decision making, corruption, violence or bad choices.

[dialamah]

And Putin would probably win a fair election if they had any fair elections in Russia. It doesn't make him any less of a murdering dictator.

And it doesn't say anything good about the intelligence of the Russian voter.

And same could be said of Trump supporters. Sisi has done some things to support my brother-in-laws view of him, but I think he's misled. I know my sister was very worried when Morsi was in power briefly, since she did not want to be subject to a more invasive form of Sharia law and she was certain that Morsi intended that. So Sisi's coup and more moderate (believe it or not!) social policy was a relief.

[Hal 9000]

I know people who are so afraid of discriminating, that they can't...or won't make the simplest decisions.

[Moonlight Graham]

You don't understand progressivism. It starts from the premise that all systemic problems in Western society are a result of the actions and attitudes of white males. Because all other groups can only be considered as victims and are not considered to have agency or to be able to have any impact on society, it is not possible that one such group (such as devoutly religious Muslims) could cause problems for another group (such as homosexuals). If any problems do arise, it can always be assumed to be a result of the patriarchal racist framework imposed by white males, without which all of these disparate groups could get along in perfect harmony.

Starting from this premise, it is entirely logically consistent to both claim to support gay rights and women's rights while also arguing for the mass immigration of millions of people from a culture where these rights are disregarded. All of these are "minorities" and "victims" and by virtue of not being white males, bring more diversity and help to achieve the goal of making white males an ever smaller minority, which is the only method by which the patriarchy and racism of white male culture can ultimately be overturned and utopia be achieved.

Progressives are all about social equality, making power-relations more equal to fight "injustice" as they see it. Social justice warriors. This can come from any systemic power imbalance, but since whites and males are the most powerful groups in modern history they're usually the target.

[Bonam]

Progressives are all about social equality, making power-relations more equal to fight "injustice" as they see it. Social justice warriors. This can come from any systemic power imbalance, but since whites and males are the most powerful groups in modern history they're usually the target.

What SJWs fail to understand is that power varies far far more from individual to individual than it does by race or gender or religion. Individuals hold power, not races or genders. The way to move forward is to empower those individuals who, for whatever reason, have been dealt a bad hand in life, not to dwell on guilt and so-called "privilege" and to create scapegoats. Unfortunately, the masses of society always like to latch onto a single thought or problem or enemy rather than considering the full complexity of a situation. Hence blaming all ills on a scapegoat, whether it be outsiders and immigrants as we see with Trump, or as in the case of the social justice movement, on white males. The movements are two sides of the same coin: find someone to blame and stop thinking.