Progressives and Islam

[Guest]

In this short video Maajid Nawaz describes how the 'regressive left' can be as dangerous as the neocons and their racist attitudes towards Islam. He discusses the difference between being critical of Islam, Islamism, Extremism and Muslims. His talk here encapsulates exactly how I feel about this issue.

"No idea is above scrutiny and no people are beneath dignity."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvysq5LvVU

Edited September 1, 2016 by Guest

[Scott Mayers]

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

I asked this too and why I came to the "Nationalistic" thing I speak of in a broader interpretation I have elsewhere on this site. The reason that this occurs is because the conservative cultural interests relating to one's belief in requiring laws to favor (or disfavor) their ethnicity exist in ALL political parties who utilize whichever side represents them best, not the actual philosophy of the party per se. These represent THEE major backing forces in all political persuasions simply because they believe strongly in their in-group cohesion versus outsiders (Various Individuals dissociated as a 'group' making them less powerful).

Technically, this makes them more favorable to a Nationalism of the right but to their own particular preferred culture, ethnicity, etc. But where they are NOT in the general majority is some area, they utilize a negotiated agreement among relatively similar 'minorities' (actually large plural majorities in contrast to variable individuals) who just lack the power at present to impose their ideals at large. So those on the left often get their largest financial support from those groups regardless of their actual 'liberal' ideals intrinsic in that philosophy.

It is like if you had one large gang who embraces the right-wing parties BECAUSE they happen to BE in the relative majority but to all those other similar gangs who also value the same 'kind' of views borrow the politics of the left for the sake of the power it grants them by creating a collective group of weaker gangs who simply agree NOT to harm each other for their similar interests to find a means to compete better. They risk losing their culture to the majority if they don't find some means to at least preserve (conserve) in LAW some right of cultural/ethnic identity unique to their own in-groups. As such, you get those sets of Nationalists within the left-wing parties who 'ride' on the philosophy of those who argue for liberal ideals by extending the intent of the individual ideals this, as it means for liberalism, to the GROUP as a minimal standard. That is, they treat their in-groups AS an individual similar to how a corporation, as a 'person' in law, utilizes this to benefit themselves where 'rights' to persons are concerned.

P.S. This is why some have adopted, "libertarianism" instead. [see Penn from "Penn and Teller's" take on this, for instance.] But in that group, there is also a division of right/left identity making it a bit confusing since they can't focus on their particular philosophy but act only as a reflective group of dissatisfied people who are just fed up with the cultural factors that exist in the other parties.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[eyeball]

Conservative indifference and denial of Western complicity in terms of modern 20th century root causes far and away outweigh any fault of progressives.

If any thing progressives should be faulted for not getting directly in the face of conservatives and give them the swift kick in the nuts they deserve.

[dre]

Conservative indifference and denial of Western complicity in terms of modern 20th century root causes far and away outweigh any fault of progressives.

If any thing progressives should be faulted for not getting directly in the face of conservatives and give them the swift kick in the nuts they deserve.

The funny thing is hard line conservatives on both sides are doing the same thing. While the conservatives in the west are using things like terrorism and misogynism to spread anti muslim sentiment, conservatives in the Islamic world are using the huge slaughter of muslims by western armies and our support for dictators to spread anti-western sentiment.

Its conservatives in the west that most strongly support military intervention in muslim countries, and its conservatives in the east that most strongly support attacking the west.

That's why as I said before I would really just like to see our conservatives and their conservatives fight it out... Throw them all in a huge arena, full of knives, swords, axes, etc. We could televise the spectacle and market it. Imagine the beer and hot dogs you could sell, and the potential for pay per view revenue? CONSERVADOME: Tonight on Fox!

You CANNOT LOSE with this one. Take the hatred and angry that exists between eastern and western conservatives, and marry that up with a UFC styled business model. Joe Rogan can host it!

I'm taking this to Dragons Den.

[Bonam]

The funny thing is hard line conservatives on both sides are doing the same thing. While the conservatives in the west are using things like terrorism and misogynism to spread anti muslim sentiment, conservatives in the Islamic world are using the huge slaughter of muslims by western armies and our support for dictators to spread anti-western sentiment.

I dunno, I think western conservatives are pretty evenly divided between those that wanna go on foreign adventures to try to "impose democracy" (whatever that means) and those that just want to shut the doors in isolation and let people on the other side of the world do what they want. Meanwhile, the position that makes even less sense is found among those on the left who just want to import as many Muslims into the western world as possible, consequences be damned.

[eyeball]

The position of this lefty is that the west slam the door on any more conservatives coming into North America. Everyone else is welcome.

[dre]

I dunno, I think western conservatives are pretty evenly divided between those that wanna go on foreign adventures to try to "impose democracy" (whatever that means) and those that just want to shut the doors in isolation and let people on the other side of the world do what they want. Meanwhile, the position that makes even less sense is found among those on the left who just want to import as many Muslims into the western world as possible, consequences be damned.

its true that's why I used the word "hard line" conservatives. BTW, I dont know ANYONE on the left that "wants to import as many muslims as possible".

I'm personally just agnostic about it. We should assess people as individuals, and try to bring in good people, regardless of race or religion.

[?Impact]

I think western conservatives are pretty evenly divided

Not when oil (gold, diamonds, etc.) is involved.

[Bonam]

Not when oil (gold, diamonds, etc.) is involved.

The whole oil thing is so 90s. No one cares anymore. The biggest geopolitical impact that oil has had recently was that there was too much of it and not enough demand. Canada produces more than enough energy for its own needs. So does the US.

[Argus]

The funny thing is hard line conservatives on both sides are doing the same thing. While the conservatives in the west are using things like terrorism and misogynism to spread anti muslim sentiment, conservatives in the Islamic world are using the huge slaughter of muslims by western armies and our support for dictators to spread anti-western sentiment.

Its conservatives in the west that most strongly support military intervention in muslim countries, and its conservatives in the east that most strongly support attacking the west.

What a heaping load of crap. Western armies slaughtering Muslims? No western army since the crusades has slaughtered Muslims. Muslims, however, have no problem slaughtering each other and do so regularly. Apparently that doesn't bother anyone. And all conservatives in the West are doing is pushing back against Muslim terrorist violence being directed against our citizens, and against accepting the backward, violently misogynistic and homophobic aspects of Islamic culture in our countries. And no, that nasty backward culture is not something only a few rare 'Muslim conservatives' hold to, but most of the Muslim world. Do you want me to post the Pew Research polls again?

You're like a guy who keeps getting slapped in the face and spat on who just smiles feebly hoping you'll be left alone. And then when some other member of your group pushes back you look at him in horror thinking he'll just draw more attention from the bad people. Well, guess what, the bad people have been targeting us for decades. And it's not getting worse because we're pushing back, it's getting worse because countries like Saudi Arabia are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into pushing an extremist version of Islam across the Muslim world and in the West.

[?Impact]

No western army since the crusades has slaughtered Muslims.

What do you call the several hundred thousand (estimates are close to a million) Iraqi that have died as a direct result of George Bush's ego?

[DogOnPorch]

How many were actually 'slaughtered' by US and/or Allied forces?

My impression of the Iraq War is that of Muslim on Muslim violence accounting for the the majority of deaths.

Perhaps you have statistics...

[?Impact]

How many were actually 'slaughtered' by US and/or Allied forces?

My impression of the Iraq War is that of Muslim on Muslim violence accounting for the the majority of deaths.

Perhaps you have statistics...

Yes, a lot of them were probably killed by their own countrymen. The blame for the situation however lies firmly at the feet of George Bush. Some people are better off than if Bush never invaded, but far more people are worse off and dead because he did. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio is 1:1000 or more (better off compared to worse off or dead).

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, a lot of them were probably killed by their own countrymen. The blame for the situation however lies firmly at the feet of George Bush. Some people are better off than if Bush never invaded, but far more people are worse off and dead because he did. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio is 1:1000 or more (better off compared to worse off or dead).

Immaterial: the accusation is that we lined Muslim folks up and slaughtered them...as it were.

Did they die in combat? Bomb blasts? US soldiers committing continuous mass murder? When were they lined-up and slaughtered by US/Allied troops? Post surrender? So many questions re: such a claim.

[Argus]

What do you call the several hundred thousand (estimates are close to a million) Iraqi that have died as a direct result of George Bush's ego?

Most of them were killed by each other not by any western army.

[GostHacked]

Most of them were killed by each other not by any western army.

So removal of Saddam was a good thing, Removal of Qaddafi was a good thing. Removal of Assad is a good thing.

They might be killing each other, but we helped facilitate that scenario. Shame on us, this only creates more angst against the west. I am surprised this notion still needs to be put forth for certain members.

[DogOnPorch]

This is pretty much Progressivism as it exists today.

It's all our fault. Not Saddam's...heavens no. He was peacefully gassing his own citizens and invading his neighbours when we stuck our Imperialist noses into the scenario.

When Bush landed on that carrier...everybody *could have* put down their weapons. But...alas. That's not what happened. Now it will take some REAL effort to sort things out.

[GostHacked]

How IS Iraq these days? Getting any better? Why not?

[DogOnPorch]

It's all our fault....correct?

[Guest]

In the end, it's Lucy's fault.

[DogOnPorch]

In the end, it's Lucy's fault.

Heh...yeah. If we're talking football.

Islam will have to be dealt with. How it is dealt with is up for grabs. The Quran is Mein Kampf enough to lay it all out as to the victory conditions in this Great Game. Are we playing yet?

Will we?

[Guest]

Heh...yeah. If we're talking football.

Islam will have to be dealt with. How it is dealt with is up for grabs. The Quran is Mein Kampf enough to lay it all out as to the victory conditions in this Great Game. Are we playing yet?

Will we?

We probably are, we just don't know it. Nobody tells me anything.

[DogOnPorch]

We probably are, we just don't know it. Nobody tells me anything.

It really doesn't matter if we are playing. They are...

Reality is a James Bond movie...once unthinkable. Super villains with acronyms, super plots to match...da werks.

Shaken or stirred, Mr Sapper?

[GostHacked]

It's all our fault....correct?

Not all our fault, but we share the blame indeed. You included by default.

[eyeball]

Immaterial: the accusation is that we lined Muslim folks up and slaughtered them...as it were.

Whatever else you want to call it we helped light and pour gasoline on the conflagration that's consuming the region and resulting in hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives lost. I think we've probably even triggered WW3 myself.

Edited September 2, 2016 by eyeball