The Left & Morality

[marcinmoka]

Ah, I love the smell of false dilemmas in the spring.

Funny, I see the Canadian government doing one thing, and I see protesters who oppose this action (with or without realizing what will happen should the government action be terminated).

I mean, they definitely were not protesting against bank fees or what have you.

So what is this esoteric "real" dilemma?

[marcinmoka]

Did you write this ?

"So since communists are pretty much extinct, by default and perhaps without careful cotemplation, the only major and vocal group with whom they can show solidarity , which sadly in our day, are ISLAMFASCISTS"

If so, what does Islamofascists mean?

Yes I did.

Islamofascism is a term for the small, but very radical or often vocal minority within the greater Muslim population.

But should it help:

Islamofascism is a controversial neologism suggesting an association of the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Organizations that have been labeled "Islamofascist" include Al-Qaeda (and its supporters such as the Salafi Group for Preaching and Combat, JI in Indonesia, etc.), the current Iranian government,[1][2] the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is an offensive and inaccurate political epithet. The word is recognized by the New Oxford American Dictionary, defining it as "a controversial term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century".

[Black Dog]

Funny, I see the Canadian government doing one thing, and I see protesters who oppose this action (with or without realizing what will happen should the government action be terminated).

That the Taliban taking over again is your assumption. Hell, if it's such a dead certainty, what have we been doing these past 4 years?

I mean, they definitely were not protesting against bank fees or what have you.

So what is this esoteric "real" dilemma?

Protesting the Canadian prescence in Afghanistan is not the same as supporting the Taliban. Duh.

[guyser]

Yes I did.

Islamofascism is a term for the small, but very radical or often vocal minority within the greater Muslim population.

But should it help:

Islamofascism is a controversial neologism suggesting an association of the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Organizations that have been labeled "Islamofascist" include Al-Qaeda (and its supporters such as the Salafi Group for Preaching and Combat, JI in Indonesia, etc.), the current Iranian government,[1][2] the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is an offensive and inaccurate political epithet. The word is recognized by the New Oxford American Dictionary, defining it as "a controversial term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century".

So with the above quote, how do you reconcile what you answered earlier?

I said..."You made the connection to terrorists not me."

And you replied "Where? Funny, I don't re-call using that term"

[marcinmoka]

So with the above quote, how do you reconcile what you answered earlier?

No sir. I am yet to link the two, note my reply:

But you do seem to be implying that all Islamofascists are terrorists, no? There is a considerable amount of people subscribing to such an ideological stream (though still a minority), but most are devoid of any will to act in an illegal manner. Some use elections, others the court of law in an attempt to bring forth their desire. (Though I do find great irony in the use of democratic institutions to impose non democratic principles)

All Islamic terrorist groups can be labelled Islamofascists, but MOST Islamofascists are NOT terrorists. You can support the implementation of a very strict Shari'a, and express radical views towards Jews and Westerners, yet without bombing civilians.

While I strongly disagree even with the peaceful Islamofascists, this is a democracy and they are not (at least I hope not) hurting anyone. Freedom of expression is a core value which I do not want to see tampered with.

The difference between the two is how they express their desire for change.

Anyhow, that's not the point of the post. My post was a remark of how two very radically different (if not completely oppoosing) groups and ideas are making the strangest bedfellows.

[marcinmoka]

That the Taliban taking over again is your assumption

And that of the current Afghani population and government.

Protesting the Canadian prescence in Afghanistan is not the same as supporting the Taliban.

The majority of placards stated: Canada: Out of Afghanistan.

Q. Idealism aside, besides NATO, who is the most powerful group in Afghanistan?

A. T_____n

Q. Since Afghanistan is not yet functioning under the rule of law, and their Government and security is relatively weak, who would be the most likely to fill the power vacuum left by NATO.

A. T_____n

Black Dog, perhaps you can fill me in on this third way that no one else knows of. I am VERY curious.

How can we protect the Afghani population from Talliban all the while bringing our troops home?

[ft.niagara]

Anyhow, that's not the point of the post. My post was a remark of how two very radically different (if not completely oppoosing) groups and ideas are making the strangest bedfellows.

I think you have done a very good job supporting your position. To be anti for anti sake is an intellectually empty tank, but it is a life style. It is a lifestyle with alot of built in activities such as parades, love fests, and who knows what else. The idea of burka clad women with aging hippies makes me gag though.

Canada, perhaps more than other western nations has embrassed diversity. Hopefully, it will not come back to haunt.

[jbg]

Marching in unison, there were Burka clad women and leftist feminists, secular peacenicks walking alongside members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WHAT THE ???

Not only was I puzzled, I was laughing a bit too. Lefty's generally preached from their Ivory Towers how they always have the "Moral High Ground". Bullocks. Here they were, protesting a war which one of it's stated goals.

*snip*

The strangest image I saw at the Toronto rally, a placard stating "BOOKS NOT BOMBS"

Right, because if the Taliban came back into power, they would permit books by the millions.

Don't you understand? These people that are protesting, having had the luxury of comfortable lives, being taken care of, and freedom, without having had to earn it are not the least bit grateful for it. If these people had to lift a finger for themselves growing up, they'd feel differently.

They should understand how, when their ancestors landed on these shores (whether north or south of 49), they likely kissed the ground, to be finally free of centuries-old fetters and the persecutions, racial, religious or otherwise that were a constant feature of European or even Asian life. This ingratitude, and willingness to embrace anyone that hates the United States, makes me positively ill.

[Figleaf]

Don't you understand? These people that are protesting, having had the luxury of comfortable lives, being taken care of, and freedom, without having had to earn it are not the least bit grateful for it

Their view would be they are standing up for it.

And why do right wing complainers always assume people who don't agree with them must automatically be feckless or unemployable?? It's an odd, incorrect, and rather facile chauvinism.

[Liam]

Lefty's generally preached from their Ivory Towers how they always have the "Moral High Ground". Bullocks.

Funny, but I'm a moderate who knows a few on each side of the political spectrum and the only people I've known who claim the moral high ground are right wingers who claim to know that the Baby Jesus sheds tears of love for them.

[marcinmoka]

Funny, but I'm a moderate who knows a few on each side of the political spectrum and the only people I've known who claim the moral high ground are right wingers who claim to know that the Baby Jesus sheds tears of love for them.

Poverty activists, women's rights, equality, etc.

Tell you the truth, I can't say, I can't comment. I haven't any experience with the religious right, just traditional "fiscal" conservatives.

[jbg]

And why do right wing complainers always assume people who don't agree with them must automatically be feckless or unemployable?? It's an odd, incorrect, and rather facile chauvinism.

I'm a left-winger, and I never said that.

[Liam]

Funny, but I'm a moderate who knows a few on each side of the political spectrum and the only people I've known who claim the moral high ground are right wingers who claim to know that the Baby Jesus sheds tears of love for them.

Poverty activists, women's rights, equality, etc.

Tell you the truth, I can't say, I can't comment. I haven't any experience with the religious right, just traditional "fiscal" conservatives.

Then you haven't lived, my friend. You haven't lived.

[ft.niagara]

Funny, but I'm a moderate who knows a few on each side of the political spectrum and the only people I've known who claim the moral high ground are right wingers who claim to know that the Baby Jesus sheds tears of love for them.

If you have listened to RLimbaugh, his definition of the left is those who know what is best for everyone else and want to control government so they can exercise their moral authority, whereas the right wants to limit government so that people are tasked with the responsibility of themselves. Largely, I believe he is right.

[ft.niagara]

Tell you the truth, I can't say, I can't comment. I haven't any experience with the religious right, just traditional "fiscal" conservatives.

Then you haven't lived, my friend. You haven't lived.

There are many flavors of conservativism: fiscal (which is just common sense budgeting), moral (antiabortion, antigay, traditional marriage), and religious (traditional service, church going, missionary). One of the tenents of the Christian Religion is to spread the news. Conservative Christians who are spreading the word are probably also fiscally and morally conservative, but then they are also just doing what the Bible has instructed.

[Liam]

If you have listened to RLimbaugh, his definition of the left is those who know what is best for everyone else and want to control government so they can exercise their moral authority, whereas the right wants to limit government so that people are tasked with the responsibility of themselves. Largely, I believe he is right.

Lush is paid to be abbrasive, to annoy, to heckle, to color the facts and, sadly, to entertain his audience. He's hardly a reliable source of honesty. Of course he's going to paint his own allies and his own audience as being honorable and responsible while the "opposition" is invasive, lazy, immoral, tawdry, socialist, misguided, anti-american...

As a gay man out in the real world, I can tell you that the only people who have ever held a position of moral superiority to me and the only people who have made it known to me that they're better than I am are social conservatives and "Christian" types. I have never been insulted by more liberal people or gotten attitude from them.

[ft.niagara]

As a gay man out in the real world, I can tell you that the only people who have ever held a position of moral superiority to me and the only people who have made it known to me that they're better than I am are social conservatives and "Christian" types. I have never been insulted by more liberal people or gotten attitude from them.

Then we are talking about different things. The conservative Christian types think you are wrong in your lifestyle. If you thought someone was doing something bad, human nature would propel you to try and stop them, setting a trash fire next to a building for example. You, in fact might be defined as conservative in every way but your lifestyle.

[Liam]

There are many flavors of conservativism: fiscal (which is just common sense budgeting), moral (antiabortion, antigay, traditional marriage), and religious (traditional service, church going, missionary). One of the tenents of the Christian Religion is to spread the news. Conservative Christians who are spreading the word are probably also fiscally and morally conservative, but then they are also just doing what the Bible has instructed.

I think your conclusion is off the mark a little, but that's just my opinion. I don't think one needs look further than the conservative Christians in the Bush administration to see that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Fiscal conservatives I have no problems with. I am fairly conservative when it comes to economic matters, myself. I've found that fiscal conservatives, particular the wealthier ones, can often carry around with them somewhat socially liberal personal views (what we in the US call "Rockefeller Republicans").

Moral/religious conservatives don't bother me till they start using their personal beliefs as the basis of legislation. And I disagree that many are just doing what the Bible instructed. The Bible says man is the steward of the Earth, yet you'd be very hard-pressed to find a group of moral/religious conservatives who push for environmental protection. Very few render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Very few put alleviating the burdens of the poor or protecting the victims of war as their top priorities.

[Liam]

Then we are talking about different things. The conservative Christian types think you are wrong in your lifestyle. If you thought someone was doing something bad, human nature would propel you to try and stop them, setting a trash fire next to a building for example. You, in fact might be defined as conservative in every way but your lifestyle.

Setting a trash fire? Are you calling me a flamer?? *LOL (I am not at all, by the way.) On a more serious note, my existence is the equivalent of a destructive and life threatening act? I think there's a kernel of truth and honesty in your analogy, because that is how these religious types view people who are not like them: as fires that need to be extinguished. That's why they exhibit their moral "superiority". Very few of them are humble, peaceful people you'd expect them to be if they truly followed the teachings of Jesus. the image of the peaceful Christian quietly praying for the sins of himself and of others is a rare breed. Most of the holy roller types use their faith as a sword.

You also said: "If you have listened to RLimbaugh, his definition of the left is those who know what is best for everyone else and want to control government so they can exercise their moral authority..."

That is the very definition of religious conservatism in today's world. Whether the issue is stem cell research, teaching of science in the school system, which books should be on the library shelves, what the laws should be, whether people can buy alcohol or whether shops can be open on Sundays, whether people should be able to get divorced or marry, whether mature adults should be allowed to see certain movies, whether local governments should be pressed to follow religious laws, whether I should be allowed to buy condoms... these are the acts of people who wish to harness the power of government to push on us all what they *know* to be in our best interests.

[ft.niagara]

That is the very definition of religious conservatism in today's world. Whether the issue is stem cell research, teaching of science in the school system, which books should be on the library shelves, what the laws should be, whether people can buy alcohol or whether shops can be open on Sundays, whether people should be able to get divorced or marry, whether mature adults should be allowed to see certain movies, whether local governments should be pressed to follow religious laws, whether I should be allowed to buy condoms... these are the acts of people who wish to harness the power of government to push on us all what they *know* to be in our best interests.

In many ways GWB is not a conservative, and he sure has gotten into trouble with his base. On fiscal responsability, he is terrible.

Let me address at least some of your points. On stem cell research, one of the tenents of Christianity is do not kill the unborn. In fact, the unborn are the most helpless of what some consider to be a living being. Stem cell research is not illegal in the US, and is being done by corporations. When all contribute to the national tax base, and public money for this research could be considered a donation, it is certainly in every taxpayer's right to have a say in who gets that donation. Especially since this research could be considered promoting murder, it is certainly understandable that such research not be within the federal research donation pool. A similar parallel might be the pledge. If everyone does not believe in God, then the Under God statement should not be in the pledge. This arguement is a liberal arguement, same root.

As far as intelligent design or Darwinism, one thing that Darwinism does not address is where did life come from. If it was a primordial soup, why can it not be recreated in a lab. Also, there seems to still be major holes in the fossil trail. Of course, some will say that some places are not prime for producing fossils, but still given the fact that there are holes leads to some other possibilities, including flying saucers, God, angles, whatever.

Part of the problem might be that both sides " wish to harness the power of government to push on us all what they *know* to be in our best interests." The liberals just know what is right because they just know, and the conservatives know because of old teachings.

[Catchme]

That is the very definition of religious conservatism in today's world. Whether the issue is stem cell research, teaching of science in the school system, which books should be on the library shelves, what the laws should be, whether people can buy alcohol or whether shops can be open on Sundays, whether people should be able to get divorced or marry, whether mature adults should be allowed to see certain movies, whether local governments should be pressed to follow religious laws, whether I should be allowed to buy condoms... these are the acts of people who wish to harness the power of government to push on us all what they *know* to be in our best interests.

The liberals just know what is right because they just know, and the conservatives know because of old teachings.

The conservatives do not know because of old teachings, they have selected SOME old writings on which to premise their position.

Other non- conservatives also have access to those same old writings, plus a plethora more old writings than what the conservatives have selected for their use, plus a whole bunch more pre-modern and modern information, and facts to base their knowledge upon.

That the fundamentalist Christian conservatives fail to educate themselves is not our problem.

[ft.niagara]

The conservatives do not know because of old teachings, they have selected SOME old writings on which to premise their position.

Other non- conservatives also have access to those same old writings, plus a plethora more old writings than what the conservatives have selected for their use, plus a whole bunch more pre-modern and modern information, and facts to base their knowledge upon.

That the fundamentalist Christian conservatives fail to educate themselves is not our problem.

Huh? Educate themselves in what? The only thing the religious conservatives are interested in obtaining a moral compass from is the Bible. The liberals have educated themselves in the school of what feels good. As long as it feels good both physically and mentally, it must be right. Who knows, maybe they are right (not likely), but they surely did not come to their conclusion from study. In fact, on the issue of homosexuality, the Greeks used homosexuality, but did not embrass it as a lifestyle. I can not think of any old society which embrassed it. Greeks, Romans, American Indian, Soulth American Indian, Chinese, Persian. Name one where it is mainstream. And that is just the issue of homosexuality.

[Canadian Blue]

No, pedophilia was the big trend in ancient Greece. I believe that Ancient Rome was a very sexual society, apparently even having sex with animals was tolerated.

As for the homosexual lifestyle, I don't see it destroying western society anytime soon. I'd say what will destroy western society will be corporatism, stupidity, and poverty.

[BubberMiley]

I'd say what will destroy western society will be corporatism, stupidity, and poverty.

I think the christian fascists would like to have a go at destroying it, but fortunately they've sort of peaked in popularity and are regressing at the moment.

[ft.niagara]

As for the homosexual lifestyle, I don't see it destroying western society anytime soon. I'd say what will destroy western society will be corporatism, stupidity, and poverty.

If 'corporatism' is set to destroy western society, how is it all the developing societies are anxious to get onto the band wagon. 'Stupidity' is relative, one man's stupid, is another man's smart. Poverty is Poverty. What has changed is asian workers are now directly competing with N/S American and European workers, which is eventually exporting their poverty here.