Progressives and Islam

[Guest]

Nothing is EXACTLY what we should. First of all ISIL is a puny military power surrounded by much bigger fish. They are contained.

But secondly its exactly that mindset that created ISIL in the first place. "Something just HAS to be done about Saddam Hussein" blurted out right wing politicians and their hapless followers. So we got hundreds of thousands of people killed and created ISIL.

And the exact same thing will happen again. Interestingly enough the Kurds Canada have been training have not been giving up territory they have taken as they beat ISIL back. And they are well known to be seeking independence. So we are basically training and equipping the NEXT terrorist army, and the next civil war will be the Kurds we are training and the central Iraqi government we are backing now.

And once AGAIN, dullards will be howling "We gotta do something!!!!!".

Mark my words. The terrorist army we are training and equipping will be at war with the Iraqi government within 18 months.

No, a fundamental disagreement here. I would not stand by and watch.

[Bonam]

And the exact same thing will happen again. Interestingly enough the Kurds Canada have been training have not been giving up territory they have taken as they beat ISIL back. And they are well known to be seeking independence. So we are basically training and equipping the NEXT terrorist army, and the next civil war will be the Kurds we are training and the central Iraqi government we are backing now.

The Kurds have as much right to their own state as much as any other people. I'm not gonna shed any tears over Iraq's, Syria's, or even Turkey's territorial integrity.

[Argus]

I believe you quoted 90% as being some belief held by some group as determined by some poll. Yes, if that's the case, I have loathing, contempt and disgust for all of the 90%. Who wouldn't?

Uhm, damned few progressives. How often do we hear the state of misogyny in the Muslim world criticized by western progressives?

Especially as compared to oh, let's say progressive criticism and denunciation of Israel.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

That those punishments still exist in Middle Eastern culture isn't because of Islam, it's because it's a cultural practice originating prior to both Islam and Christianity, from the Old Testament and possibly prior to that.

I see, so you're saying the people of Pakistan, or Malaysia or Indonesia are much more peaceable and don't believe in these harsh and barbaric punishments?

[DogOnPorch]

From what I understand, they do all come from the same religious source, since all Abrahamic religions descended from polytheism in that region. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and it is considered to be the same God that Jesus worshipped, and that the Jews worship. Muslims believe that the Torah/Old Testament is the word of God/Allah, and that all the prophets from the bible are also prophets of God, aka Allah. Some of the punishments that people decry as coming from Islam actually came from the Old Testament; they do not appear in the Qu'ran and in fact, Muhammed specified different punishments. That those punishments still exist in Middle Eastern culture isn't because of Islam, it's because it's a cultural practice originating prior to both Islam and Christianity, from the Old Testament and possibly prior to that.

Jews were first...'inventing' monotheism. Their proto-deity was Yaweh. Thousands of years before Islam was created in the Arabian desert. Islam, like Christianity, engaged in cultural appropriation and iconoclasm...making the Jew's Yaweh into Allah....claiming them to be one and the same.

Jesus's role in Islam is to slay the non-believers of Islam...that would include Christians...on Judgement Day. The Imams never mention that bit at interfaith meetings, I bet...heh.

[Guest]

Uhm, damned few progressives. How often do we hear the state of misogyny in the Muslim world criticized by western progressives?

Especially as compared to oh, let's say progressive criticism and denunciation of Israel.

I don't believe that. I think they might question your numbers, but I can't believe there is anyone at all on this site who would not be completely disgusted by, and filled with both loathing and contempt for anyone at all who would advocate my arrest or physical assault for saying:

"But as we know, there was no Allah. So the whole thing is bullshit"

I really think everyone on here would support me, in that case.

[dre]

Uhm, damned few progressives. How often do we hear the state of misogyny in the Muslim world criticized by western progressives?

Especially as compared to oh, let's say progressive criticism and denunciation of Israel.

For about the fifth time you should read a bit of progressives. The things you are accusing them of are libertarian traits... not progressive.

As for the "how often do we hear" nonsense, you hear it all the time. Real progressivism has probably been the most effective firewall against religious extremism in history. They are almost always secular minded, and reject the nonsense espoused by christians, jews, muslims etc.

Its conservative muslims that are pushing extremism, and it conservatives on both sides that are ratcheting up the rhetoric and pining for a fight. I couldn't care less if you ALL killed each other. Id enjoy watching the spectacle.

Edited August 31, 2016 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Progressives believe in the superiority of Western Civilization and in the ability of cultures to rise above barbarism to be more like the West they are to emulate. At least that's the old way of looking at progressivism.

Neo-Progressives seem to think quite the opposite. The West is the barbarous one while everybody else is a victim of said Western Culture. Upside-down world.

Edited August 31, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Bonam]

For about the fifth time you should read a bit of progressives. The things you are accusing them of are libertarian traits... not progressive.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true.

[DogOnPorch]

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true.

Indeed. Progressivism is one of those double-edged isms...

The Residential School System was the result of state progressivism...for example. But so are countless good things.

Today, I think the term is misused.

[Argus]

For about the fifth time you should read a bit of progressives. The things you are accusing them of are libertarian traits... not progressive.

Nonsense. The descriptions I'm using are ones observed over many, many years from progressives. And continue on this very topic, very obviously, including from yourself.

As for the "how often do we hear" nonsense, you hear it all the time. Real progressivism has probably been the most effective firewall against religious extremism in history.

Except against Islam and its social laws, which progressives refuse to criticize and refuse to allow criticism of.

Its conservative muslims that are pushing extremism, and it conservatives on both sides that are ratcheting up the rhetoric and pining for a fight. I couldn't care less if you ALL killed each other. Id enjoy watching the spectacle.

And a part of me wants to watch the progressives as Islam grows in numbers and political power in Canada and begins to roll back all the cherished progressive ideals. At which point will they realize their crawling, cringing, boot licking support for Islam has screwed them and their kids.

[?Impact]

ISIL = 100,000 people, less than half of them actual fighters

Islam = 1,500,000,000 people

So why does Argus insist that that 0.07% of a population is the standard? You realize that almost twice that amount of Canadians are incarcerated, and no doubt you are arguing that there should be more.

[dre]

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true.

It is objectively true. Progressivism has nothing to do with race or immigrants, or any of that stuff. Those traits come from classic liberalism, and libertarianism both of which tend to recognize people as a whole bunch of individuals responsible only for their own actions, instead of generalizing them as groups.

Progressivism is about the nexus between politics, technology, and science and the impact of those things on the human condition, and the idea that empirical knowledge should be the foundation of society.

People like to play fast and loose with these terms on here, but they don't even understand what they mean.

There are five pillars to progressive thinking...

"value of the past; nobility of Western civilization; worth of economic/technological growth; scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason over faith; the intrinsic importance and worth of life on Earth"

You can read as much as you want about the movement, which started along with the industrial revolution, and you aren't going to find anything at all about being tolerant of extreme religions beliefs. In fact the exact opposite is true.

[dre]

Except against Islam and its social laws, which progressives refuse to criticize and refuse to allow criticism of.

For about the sixth time you should read a bit about progressives. The things you are accusing them of are libertarian traits... not progressive.

[Bonam]

It is objectively true. Progressivism has nothing to do with race or immigrants, or any of that stuff. Those traits come from classic liberalism, and libertarianism both of which tend to recognize people as a whole bunch of individuals responsible only for their own actions, instead of generalizing them as groups.

Progressivism is about the nexus between politics, technology, and science and the impact of those things on the human condition, and the idea that empirical knowledge should be the foundation of society.

You are correct regarding libertarianism, it is about individual liberty and responsibility and the rule of law, and detests thinking of people as collectives rather than as individuals. This has nothing to do with bending over backwards to every cult that comes along, though. You'll find few libertarians that think it is a virtue to modify laws to accommodate religious ideas, to allow discrimination (segregation, etc) on the basis of religious sensitivities, to excuse or diminish crimes or misbehaviors by people based on their religion or otherwise show leniency as a result of their cultural heritage. For that matter, you'll find many libertarians opposed to bringing in immigrants at all, as the libertarian ideal of a nation being comprised of a bunch of minimally regulated libertarian freeholds where upstanding citizens exercise their own personal liberty and responsibility to uphold order and prosperity does not mesh well with the need to integrate masses of newcomers and the government apparatus that goes along with that.

As for progressivism, you are right that the term is used loosely. It is often thrown around with the intent of being synonymous with "lefty", "liberal", or "social justice activist", and you are correct that these all have different meanings. What Argus and others are talking about here is the faction within the modern left wing movement that can be frequently seen condemning Western civilization for its various faults, contemplating "white privilege", complaining about the "patriarchy", calling anyone who is skeptical of mass immigration "racist", and frequently excusing the misbehaviors of people from other cultures. You know the faction we're talking about, it is well represented here. What term would you prefer be used for this faction?

[dre]

You are correct regarding libertarianism, it is about individual liberty and responsibility and the rule of law, and detests thinking of people as collectives rather than as individuals. This has nothing to do with bending over backwards to every cult that comes along, though. You'll find few libertarians that think it is a virtue to modify laws to accommodate religious ideas, to allow discrimination (segregation, etc) on the basis of religious sensitivities, to excuse or diminish crimes or misbehaviors by people based on their religion or otherwise show leniency as a result of their cultural heritage. For that matter, you'll find many libertarians opposed to bringing in immigrants at all, as the libertarian ideal of a nation being comprised of a bunch of minimally regulated libertarian freeholds where upstanding citizens exercise their own personal liberty and responsibility to uphold order and prosperity does not mesh well with the need to integrate masses of newcomers and the government apparatus that goes along with that.

As for progressivism, you are right that the term is used loosely. It is often thrown around with the intent of being synonymous with "lefty", "liberal", or "social justice activist", and you are correct that these all have different meanings. What Argus and others are talking about here is the faction within the modern left wing movement that can be frequently seen condemning Western civilization for its various faults, contemplating "white privilege", complaining about the "patriarchy", calling anyone who is skeptical of mass immigration "racist", and frequently excusing the misbehaviors of people from other cultures. You know the faction we're talking about, it is well represented here. What term would you prefer be used for this faction?

Like I said the best term for that is libertarian, and its not really a left or right wing thing. For example, libertarians in the west are vehemently opposed to much of western foreign policy... both liberals and conservatives alike. Ron Paul campaigned to conservatives on the idea that interventionalist foreign policy was creating and worsening problems over there. He campaigned on the idea that we should disengage.

For a third party candidate he got whopping support. Millions and millions of conservatives support the idea that Western policy has a negative fact both for us, and for them. George Bush II Campaigned on non-interventionist foreign policy and he won the election.

In an August Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters across the political spectrum asking if they would vote for Paul or Barack Obama, the response narrowly favored Obama (39%) over Paul (38%), but by a smaller margin than the same question asked a month ago (41% – 37%).^[44] Paul finished 3rd in a late-August poll of likely Republican primary voters, trailing Rick Perry andMitt Romney and ahead of Michele Bachmann,^[45] climbing from 4th position which, according to another poll, he occupied only a few days earlier.^[46]

In a September Harris Poll, respondents chose Paul (51%) over Obama (49%).^[47]

In the Illinois Republican Straw Poll held in the beginning of November, Paul took 52% of the votes of those polled with Herman Cain coming in second with 18%.^[48]

In a November 10–12 Bloomberg News poll of Iowans likely to participate in the January 3, 2012 Republican caucuses, Paul was in a four-way tie at 19 percent with Cain, Romney and Gingrich at 20, 18 and 17 percent respectively.^[49]

A Bloomberg News poll released on November 16, 2011 showed Paul at 17% in New Hampshire, in second place to Romney's 40%.^[50]

A Public Policy Polling poll released on December 13, 2011 put Paul in a statistical tie for first in Iowa with Newt Gingrich, polling 21% and 22%, respectively.^[51] The RealClearPolitics.com average shows Paul in second place in New Hampshire at 18.3% on December 28, 2011.^[52] Public Policy Polling results from December 18 show that Paul is now leading in Iowa with 23%, followed by Romney at 20% and Gingrich at 14%.^[53]

A January 2012 Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters across the political spectrum found that in a hypothetical two-candidate race between Paul and Barack Obama, respondents preferred Obama (43%) over Paul (37%).^[54] The RealClearPolitics.com average of polls also found Obama (47%) favored over Paul (42%), in a two-candidate race.^[55]

My own views on this are another good example...

I don't think any of this stuff works... and I don't think I should be forced to pay for any of it. There's nothing left wing about that, and I have read posts where you basically said the same thing.

Throwing around general terms like "progressives" in the pejorative is just something simple minded hacks like Argus do. Some people are trying to make that into a bad word, but the irony is without progressives on both the right and left they would be tapping their posts into a telegraph machine, or writing them down and tying them to carrier pigeons.

[Bonam]

Like I said the best term for that is libertarian,

I think you're either misunderstanding the term libertarian or the faction of people being discussed here. There is nothing libertarian whatsoever about social justice activists and all those others who think about people entirely in terms of group identity politics rather than as individuals.

[dre]

And specifically on Islam...

Ron Paul: The credibility of all American politicians now requires acknowledging that America is engaged in a great war for survival – “the war against Islam.” Fear of “radical Islamic terrorists” requires our undivided attention. We’re to believe that the ugly and vicious violence of a very small percentage of the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world, without an army, navy, or air force, is on the verge of engulfing America and Western civilization. The claim is that the Western concept of Christianity, liberty, and free markets is threatened. If this is so, it speaks more about the weak support for these values than for the strength of a small group claiming to speak for all of Islam. It may not make much sense, but it provokes the fear required for war-mongering.

The popular belief that a gigantic clash of civilizations explains today’s conditions fits well into the propaganda efforts of the neocon inspired American Empire. One cannot deny that a group exists that associates itself with Islam and preaches violence in combination with extreme religious beliefs. Al Qaeda and ISIS do exist. Claiming that they alone are responsible for the great “clash” is purposely misleading. That misunderstanding is required by Western propagandists to gain public support for their wars in the Middle East, and for a continuation of the American Empire. Unfortunately, so far it has worked pretty well.

If I posted that the dullards on here would be howling about how I'm blaming the west, and how I'm an anti western "progressive" bastard. But those words were spoken by a conservative libertarian that some polls suggested might have beaten Obama.

This is NOT a left wing view point. Its a libertarian view point.

[dialamah]

And specifically on Islam...

If I posted that the dullards on here would be howling about how I'm blaming the west, and how I'm an anti western "progressive" bastard. But those words were spoken by a conservative libertarian that some polls suggested might have beaten Obama.

This is NOT a left wing view point. Its a libertarian view point.

Interesting. Perhaps I will have to investigate libertarianism as my political philosophy. But I do believe it is up to the citizens, through the state, to help less fortunate and I think that clashes with libertarianism?

[dre]

I think you're either misunderstanding the term libertarian or the faction of people being discussed here. There is nothing libertarian whatsoever about social justice activists and all those others who think about people entirely in terms of group identity politics rather than as individuals.

No I understand both perfectly.

[Guest]

As for progressivism, you are right that the term is used loosely. It is often thrown around with the intent of being synonymous with "lefty", "liberal", or "social justice activist", and you are correct that these all have different meanings. What Argus and others are talking about here is the faction within the modern left wing movement that can be frequently seen condemning Western civilization for its various faults, contemplating "white privilege", complaining about the "patriarchy", calling anyone who is skeptical of mass immigration "racist", and frequently excusing the misbehaviors of people from other cultures. You know the faction we're talking about, it is well represented here. What term would you prefer be used for this faction?

It looks like you're trying to lump some additional personal beefs, like white privilege and patriarchy in with this topic. However, if sticking to this thread and the faction that excuses the misbehaviours of people from other cultures, I like the term "regressive left."

Often in response to pure racist attacks on other cultures or religions some go too far and defend ugly practices they would otherwise condemn. It's a problem that reformist Muslims wish wouldn't happen. These are the Muslims battling sick, antiquated and unethical, male created practices within their culture, often cemented in place by dictators. Having Western relativists excuse away the evil cultural aspects they are trying to reform, rather than joining the fight, is not at all helpful.

Here is a recent article where Muslim reformist Rahell Raza scolds liberal commentator Sally Kohn for doing just that.

Muslim Woman Activist to Sally Kohn: We Fight for You, While You Fight Against Us

Unfortunately, while some on the left excuse evils within other cultures, some on the right paint entire religions with the same brush, while excusing the evils within their own. Let's not turn a blind eye to the actions of say the GOP in the name of Christianity while skewering an entire religion for the culture of certain countries. This issue ceases to be a problem if we simply drop the name of the religion from the offense and consistently call it out. For example misogyny is still misogyny whether perpetrated by Christians or Muslims or Sikhs. Extremism is Extremism, Homophobia is Homophobia.

[Bonam]

It looks like you're trying to lump some additional personal beefs, like white privilege and patriarchy in with this topic. However, if sticking to this thread and the faction that excuses the misbehaviours of people from other cultures, I like the term "regressive left."

I was trying to more specifically identify the set of political beliefs being discussed. This set of beliefs is almost always held together and forms a very distinct political ideology/faction. I don't know if the term "regressive left" fits well or is commonly used/understood, but sure, we can go with that if you like. It's at least less obviously wrong a term than libertarian, which dre seems to be confused about since it is literally the complete opposite in almost every possible way.

Unfortunately, while some on the left excuse evils within other cultures, some on the right paint entire religions with the same brush, while excusing the evils within their own. Let's not turn a blind eye to the actions of say the GOP in the name of Christianity while skewering an entire religion for the culture of certain countries. This issue ceases to be a problem if we simply drop the name of the religion from the offense and consistently call it out. For example misogyny is still misogyny whether perpetrated by Christians or Muslims or Sikhs. Extremism is Extremism, Homophobia is Homophobia.

"Left" and "right" are two sides of the same coin. There are partisans, and then there are people with a bit of sense. GOP attempts at implementing Christian theocracy are repugnant and idiotic. Their only saving grace is that they rarely resort to terrorist tactics, which unfortunately cannot be said for those that want to implement Islamic theocracy.

[Guest]

I was trying to more specifically identify the set of political beliefs being discussed. This set of beliefs is almost always held together and forms a very distinct political ideology/faction. I don't know if the term "regressive left" fits well or is commonly used/understood, but sure, we can go with that if you like. It's at least less obviously wrong a term than libertarian, which dre seems to be confused about since it is literally the complete opposite in almost every possible way.

I borrowed the term from Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer and former extremist, who is fighting the racist right, the regressive left and to moderate and modernize cultures in Muslim majority nations.

[Argus]

ISIL = 100,000 people, less than half of them actual fighters

Islam = 1,500,000,000 people

So why does Argus insist that that 0.07% of a population is the standard? You realize that almost twice that amount of Canadians are incarcerated, and no doubt you are arguing that there should be more.

Maybe if he'd ever even suggested they were the standard he'd have an answer for you. But since you're basically creating a straw man I suggest you go answer it yourself.

[overthere]

Ron Paul misses entirely here:

One cannot deny that a group exists that associates itself with Islam and preaches violence in combination with extreme religious beliefs.

Nobody cares if a small group preaches anything, or a large group for that matter. But when that small group actually commits violence and savagery against persons for the reason that they are not fundamentalist Sunni Muslims- I think it is reasonable to not just talk but to act to protect ourselves. I don't need to single out anybody, they are intent on doing that for themselves and take extraordinary pride in their faith and their actions.