Islam and the progressive left?

Grayson

topper75 wrote: »

So that Norwegian Breivik is not a warning about right wing extremism, because he is only one person?

Am I doing your logic right?

No. Yours mixing up the boundaries of the sets your using.

Islamic terrorist is not reflective of Islam.

However Norwegian righting terrorist can be indicative of right wing extremism. It's not however reflective of right wing politics. That would be like saying that Leo Varadkar is related to right wing terrorism because he's right wing.

SkepticQuark

snow_jon wrote: »

the left like to rebel against the establishment and status quo , christianity is viewed as being part of that establishment , islam is viewed as not and quite exotic , so gets a pass

lefties are extremely predictable and sheep like in how they think

This is what I find most frustrating with posters like you. One minute it's "the left", next it's "progressive left", next it's "lefties", next it's "libtards", next it's "liberals"...

Which one is it and what does your choice label mean? Is it anyone who doesn't agree with you? If so that's as bad as many on the fringes of the left who call anyone who disagrees with them anti-Islamic racists etc.

People on the conservative side of the compass or people who call themselves "alt-right" are rightly allowed to point out that there is a hugely diverse range of opinions on every issue so it's wrong to lump everyone together when talking about specific issues. But when people want to criticize "the left" they can use catch-all phrases and get away with it while the rest of their buddies join in on the circle jerk about how those damn libtards are ruining the west.

As someone on "the left" as you like to call it I disagree with others on many issues, I fundamentally disagree with people who say Islam has absolutely nothing to do with radical Islamic terrorism but I also fundamentally disagree with people who then say things like we should throw them all out or straight up ban the entire religion. People like you and people on the fringes of the left seem to have forgotten that people don't fall into neat boxes that you can just randomly slander.

Il Fascista

Grayson wrote: »

Islamic terrorist is not reflective of Islam.

The irony of you saying that in this thread.

Tayschren

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What's going on there?

Is it two fingers to the big bogey white man or just the turkeys voting for Christmas?

2010 want its thread back,

fake news, fake victims, fake education.

Grayson

Il Fascista wrote: »

The irony of you saying that in this thread.

You really didn't understand what I said.

You can't look at islamic terrorists and extend that to all of islam. Just like you can't look at a right wing terrorist and extend that to all of the right wing.

nozzferrahhtoo

roddy15 wrote: »

Which one is it and what does your choice label mean?

What is funny is that one time on this forum, and one time on another forum I am often on (city data) I have had people do the same crap. Label me with some word like "leftist".

But then later on another thread when I was arguing another topic with the same users entirely, they accused me of being some far right wing nut.

So keen are they to slap on a label to attack, rather than replying to the actual users own words, they do not even stop to check if they labeled you before.

So I am apparently some right wing left wing centre nut job

To be honest I can not identify consistently with either. I agree with about 40% of the US left and 40% of the US right in their claims, ideas and policies. The partisan divide means nothing to me. I am all over the spectrum depending on the topic at hand.

Zebra3

topper75 wrote: »

So that Norwegian Breivik is not a warning about right wing extremism, because he is only one person?

Am I doing your logic right?

No, you're not. Not even close to it.

topper75

Zebra3 wrote: »

No, you're not. Not even close to it.

So you can logic that way.

But I can't.

Aha! Yet another double standard. Should carry a health warning reading those posts.

topper75

Grayson wrote: »

No. Yours mixing up the boundaries of the sets your using.

Islamic terrorist is not reflective of Islam.

However Norwegian righting terrorist can be indicative of right wing extremism. It's not however reflective of right wing politics. That would be like saying that Leo Varadkar is related to right wing terrorism because he's right wing.

That poster was expressing disquiet at inductive reasoning about 'the Left'.

I applied it the other way. Lead balloon!

DEFTLEFTHAND

AllForIt wrote: »

Now if you said Islamists and the progressive left then I think there would be a problem.

I think Muslims have every right be Muslims and hopefully they will experience an evolutionary cultural growth like Catholics did in this country in the last 20 or so years.

How patronising.

Typical arrogant western attitude tbh.

AnGaelach

dav3 wrote: »

'Progressive' is a pejorative term now? It can be difficult to keep up with the 12 year old american edgelords, every day a new definition of a word. Whatever will they think of next.

I know, right? Like how they tried to rewrite the word gender from being synonymous with sex to having its own distinct amorphous meaning. Or like how they tried to rewrite racism to meaning you have to have power. Or like how they've tried to come up with all sense of nonsensical mumbo jumbo like xim/xer or polybiquadrisexualgenderedophile.

The reason progressive has become a pejorative is because you on the Left have made an absolute mockery of yourselves. What better way to return the favour than to mock you for what you purport to be? "Progressives".

AnGaelach

Grayson wrote: »

Islamic terrorist is not reflective of Islam.

The hint is in the name.

circadian

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Us libtards won't be laughing when Europe is Islamified eh?


Or some such bollocks

Stop virtue signalling.


Am I doing this right? I still have no idea what SJW, virtue signalling and all those other buzzwords really mean.

Zebra3

topper75 wrote: »

So you can logic that way.

But I can't.

Aha! Yet another double standard. Should carry a health warning reading those posts.

:D:D:D

Oh, dear.

You can logic anyway you want.

All I said was that you weren't close to what I was talking about.

Relax there.

take everything

A good example of how the Left stupid people (I think I'm gonna retire ”libtard” but it does adequately express left stupidity) is invoking nature or nurture as it suits.

Homosexuality/sexual orientation: completely nature (genetic) and not nurture (environment). Of course I agree this a reasonable account of orientation (not that it really matters as an argument as to how ethical orientation and its reflected behaviour is- ie completely ethical once consensual). But a dogma and sclerosis builds around leftie thought and even wondering whether environment/experience can influence orientation becomes heresy.

Contrast this with Left dogma about something like IQ having a strong genetic basis. It's too touchy a topic so it's either not broached or talked about in an obtuse way.

There's an endless number of these contradictory narratives that would madden any rationalist.

ScumLord

More of this left right nonsense. The left is full of all sorts of groups like socialists, communists, labour, libertarians, anarchists amongst many more, the right side is as diverse and all of these people, even if they're too the left disagree with each other on many different topics.

Many people in the left would be very lapse when it comes to religion, including being full blown atheists. So there's no love for Islam, there's an expected level of tolerance, the same shown to Christians and buddhists, and all sorts of religions. All people to the left are doing is being consistent and fair when it comes to the diversity of religion.


The extreme right seems to think that being tolerant should also include being tolerant of racism, xenophobia and stuck in a culture that became redundant decades ago and downright obstructive in the modern age. They aren't promoting culture, they're promoting a male macho dominated world where successful men should be in charge and everyone should just listen to them regardless of whether they're right or wrong, or what the fact and evidense may say.

When I hear people going on about lefty liberals, or conservative right I just assume they're an simpleton who can't deal with the real world and would rather live in a fantasy land of good guys and bad guys, good vs evil, us against them, and use the actions of tiny groups of people to condemn wide ranges of people whether those people are in any way related to what they're talking about seems to be completely irrelevant.

AnGaelach

ScumLord wrote: »

When I hear people going on about lefty liberals, or conservative right I just assume they're an simpleton

Now that's what I call irony.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The trans movement would be another eg to 'Take Everything' post. It's impossible to argue that gender is a social construct and support the existence of transgenderism.

Il Fascista

ScumLord wrote: »

All people to the left are doing is being consistent and fair when it comes to the diversity of religion.

Come on, this part is nonsense. If what you said was true then words like Islamophobia wouldn't exist.

The Backwards Man

circadian wrote: »

Stop virtue signalling.


Am I doing this right? I still have no idea what SJW, virtue signalling and all those other buzzwords really mean.

They​ all mean the same thing;

That the person you are taking to is a bit of an arsehole.

take everything

I am going to get flak for this but he front of today's independent has a photo of students playing hurling with one of the students wearing some sort of dress (presumably mandated by Islam) while playing hurling.

Frankly, to me, it looks ridiculous. It is completely restrictive to their movement in the game of hurling. What purpose does it serve on a young girl playing hurling.

If that photo is meant to depict progressive multiculturalism it has failed in its depiction for me.

Ulysses Gaze

circadian wrote: »

Stop virtue signalling.


Am I doing this right? I still have no idea what SJW, virtue signalling and all those other buzzwords really mean.

It means you're a Cuck

ScumLord

Il Fascista wrote: »

Come on, this part is nonsense. If what you said was true then words like Islamophobia wouldn't exist.

I don't get what you're trying to say. That attempting to treat all religions equally leads to islamophobia?

Widdershins

take everything wrote: »

I am going to get flak for this but he front of today's independent has a photo of students playing hurling with one of the students wearing some sort of dress (presumably mandated by Islam) while playing hurling.

Frankly, to me, it looks ridiculous. It is completely restrictive to their movement in the game of hurling. What purpose does it serve on a young girl playing hurling.

If that photo is meant to depict progressive multiculturalism it has failed in its depiction for me.

Why is it on the front page in the first place? Is there a story to it?

end of the road

red ears wrote: »

You will be gone its your grandchildren who will deal with the results of this liberal naivety.

what "liberal naivity"

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The one thing that leftism doesn't and has never acounted for is that there are bad people in the world.

It works brilliantly on paper but there will always be somebody to abuse the system. Whether it be corruption for more wealth/power, or socially where the meanist kid rules the play ground because he doesn't play by the rules.

This will always occur, its human nature for an alpha male to take control.

At the moment Sunni Islam is the alpha male. It doesn't play by conventional rules and if you upset it, it will end brutally.

wrong. leftism is very clear that there are bad people in the world. very clear. unlike rightism however, they recognise that bad people exist in many forms, come from many countries and cultures, unlike rightism, which think only bad people come from cultures that aren't theirs.

biko wrote: »

Islam and the progressive left?

Maybe it is that they both hate Jews

nope. they do not hate the jews.
the far right on the other hand just use the jews for their muslim hating agenda.

circadian wrote: »

Stop virtue signalling.


Am I doing this right? I still have no idea what SJW, virtue signalling and all those other buzzwords really mean.

they mean nothing. they are a bunch of nonsensical drivel used to try and dismiss one's point and shut people down. thankfully they fail every time, but it doesn't stop the kids from using these terms.

pickarooney

Beyondgone wrote: »

Turkeys voting for Christmas, pretty much.

Christians voting for Turkey would be stranger.

AnGaelach

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't get what you're trying to say. That attempting to treat all religions equally leads to islamophobia?

There isn't any such attempt to treat all religions equally. A vast majority of the left seems to be quite hostile to anything to do with Catholicism and ignoring any of the problems Islam brings.

You can't even bring up Catholicism without people calling you a pedophile enabler, or that you hate women and want to put dead kids in sewerage systems.

And yet, if you mention Islam's relationship with terrorism or its treatment of women/minorities, the knives come out to try to paint you as being an Islamaphobic racist.

SkepticQuark

AnGaelach wrote: »

The reason progressive has become a pejorative is because you on the Left have made an absolute mockery of yourselves. What better way to return the favour than to mock you for what you purport to be? "Progressives".

take everything wrote: »

A good example of how the Left stupid people (I think I'm gonna retire ”libtard” but it does adequately express left stupidity) is invoking nature or nurture as it suits.

Homosexuality/sexual orientation: completely nature (genetic) and not nurture (environment). Of course I agree this a reasonable account of orientation (not that it really matters as an argument as to how ethical orientation and its reflected behaviour is- ie completely ethical once consensual). But a dogma and sclerosis builds around leftie thought and even wondering whether environment/experience can influence orientation becomes heresy.

Contrast this with Left dogma about something like IQ having a strong genetic basis. It's too touchy a topic so it's either not broached or talked about in an obtuse way.

Are people still seriously at this? So I can I start ranting about "the right" now. Oh the right love their conspiracy theories, I mean look at Infowars and Breitbart. The right dogma brainwashes you to become a neo-nazi that believes the deep state is out to get them. The white nationalists looking for the cleansing of the country! The right teaches you that only white people should exist, gay marriage should be outlawed and we should have only Christians in our nations.

That's stupid right, good we agree. So stop doing it yourselves but with the other side of the compass.

It is downright stupid to talk about a whole half a political compass in that way because you throw in millions of people who don't even agree on the things you claim they agree on.

Sadly I think I'm going to have to keep repeating myself here because this is the second post now on this exact problem. Pick what and who you are disagreeing with specifically, none of this "the left" ****. I'll happily disagree with what I'd call the regressive left or the far left (we can pick a name) who don't agree with free speech, who don't allow open discussions on immigration reform that are reasonable to have etc. And yes they are a subset of "the left" but as I'm sure you've learnt in maths subsets don't necessarily represent the entire set.

circadian

AnGaelach wrote: »

There isn't any such attempt to treat all religions equally. A vast majority of the left seems to be quite hostile to anything to do with Catholicism and ignoring any of the problems Islam brings.

You can't even bring up Catholicism without people calling you a pedophile enabler, or that you hate women and want to put dead kids in sewerage systems.

And yet, if you mention Islam's relationship with terrorism or its treatment of women/minorities, the knives come out to try to paint you as being an Islamaphobic racist.

Really? You honestly believe that?

I rarely see people going into a rabid overdrive of spewing hate towards the church when it comes into conversation.

Also, I'm pretty sure many of what you consider "the left" are in uproar about the arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the country from which Wahabbism, an extremely conservative Islamic branch comes from.

dr.fuzzenstein

snow_jon wrote: »

agree strongly how the left will mercilessly slate the catholic church and happily associate mistreatment of single mothers with catholicism yet whenever a terrorist attack occurs which IS claim is in honour of the prophet , they are first out of the blocks to declare it has nothing to do with islam

Well, I would never associate the average Irish catholic with either trying to bugger me or trying to blow me up.
It's the same with Muslims. I have Turkish, Tunisian and Moroccan friends. You would be amazed at the amount of times they don't want to behead me with a rusty bread knife or kill me in some other gruesome fashion.
For example I am German, but you may be amazed to hear that I am not a Nazi. My Dutch friends do not smoke weed, I could go on.
People don't always behave like their lazy stereotype.
Terrorists are just arseholes who rejoice in killing people. It would be wrong to condemn an entire group of people because of a few psycho murderous cnuts.

Religion is not the problem. The problem is that human beings have a certain percentage of murderous arseholes that just want to kill and will use any excuse to do so.
How have people not realised this very simple, basic concept that a 6 year old would understand.
Some people are just cnuts.

ScumLord

AnGaelach wrote: »

There isn't any such attempt to treat all religions equally. A vast majority of the left seems to be quite hostile to anything to do with Catholicism and ignoring any of the problems Islam brings.

You can't even bring up Catholicism without people calling you a pedophile enabler, or that you hate women and want to put dead kids in sewerage systems.

And yet, if you mention Islam's relationship with terrorism or its treatment of women/minorities, the knives come out to try to paint you as being an Islamaphobic racist.

Come on now, that's all nonsense. The catholic church has a direct effect on the Irish people, they caused great harm to Irish people that's why people have strong emotions about the church, it's a separate issue to Islamic extremists, but because they're both religions comparisons are made.

There are extreme views from people about the church, but that doesn't mean everyone who dislikes the church thinks that catholics are peadophile enablers, that's taking extreme minority views and applying them to everyone who disagrees with you.

The problem when it comes to Islamic terrorists suffers the same effect. Some extremists are using Islam as a justification for their own power lust and we're saying that those people represent normal Muslims and start picking apart their religious texts to prove that assumption, then someone else points out the Christian religious texts have a lot of similar stuff and it goes on and on.

All religion is bunkum, but if I have to tolerate Christian bunkum on a daily basis , then Christians have to tolerate Muslim bunkum too. I'm all for restricting the more anarchic practices of the Muslim faith, just like the catholics had to go through. But ultimately this is a secular democracy, we should be able to think what we like as long as it doesn't affect other people.

jackofalltrades

ScumLord wrote: »

Many people in the left would be very lapse when it comes to religion, including being full blown atheists.
So there's no love for Islam, there's an expected level of tolerance, the same shown to Christians and buddhists, and all sorts of religions.
All people to the left are doing is being consistent and fair when it comes to the diversity of religion.

The idea that the left are being "consistent and fair" with different religions is laughable.
They're at pains to make excuses for Islam and at the same time have no restraint when it comes to criticising Catholicism.
They'll happy endorse violence against so called fascists on the one hand and defend Islamists(religious fascists) on the other.
Ardent feminists suddenly resort to cultural relativism when it comes segregation between men and women in Islamic society.
Just look at the vastly different ways the two religions are treated on this site.

SkepticQuark

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The idea that the left are being "consistent and fair" with different religions is laughable.
They're at pains to make excuses for Islam and at the same time have no restraint when it comes to criticising Catholicism.
They'll happy endorse violence against so called fascists on the one hand and defend Islamists(religious fascists) on the other.
Ardent feminists suddenly resort to cultural relativism when it comes segregation between men and women in Islamic society.
Just look at the vastly different ways the two religions are treated on this site.

I'm on "the left" and I think Islam has some backwards beliefs and teachings. There you go point one done.

I condemn violence against anyone who doesn't agree with you politically. I condemn the actions of "antifa" which come across as very childish and immature. They do not support in many cases the bedrock of a free and open society.

I also do not defend or agree with Islamists who take the worst parts of the Qur'an and use that to then go out and commit acts of terror against anyone who does not support their cause. There that's point two done.

I'm not an "ardent feminist" but I also disagree with how women are treated by much of the Islamic world and hope places like Saudi Arabia etc. can actually adopt equal rights for men and women.

This again is the problem I raised in my last post but nobody is listening. You can't lump people in your neat boxes and expect the people you've thrown into just be like "okay cool I now adopt the stereotypes you state as fact that represent the side of the political compass I'm on."

I don't have to suddenly become a "classical liberal" like Sargon or Rubin to criticise my side, I'll happily criticise groups that are part of the left but you'll get nowhere with me if you keep going on about "the left" as a nice catch-all to represent anyone to the left of you politically.

pickarooney

take everything wrote: »

I am going to get flak for this but he front of today's independent has a photo of students playing hurling with one of the students wearing some sort of dress (presumably mandated by Islam) while playing hurling.

Frankly, to me, it looks ridiculous. It is completely restrictive to their movement in the game of hurling. What purpose does it serve on a young girl playing hurling.

If that photo is meant to depict progressive multiculturalism it has failed in its depiction for me.

Girls aren't even allowed to play hurling in Ireland

Call Me Jimmy

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think it's some kind of neurosis by the Left to categorise everybody as helpless hapless creatures that need their protection. Certain elements of the Left have gone so far into their delusions that they seem to believe minorities to be, essentially, children needing their hand and their care.

Whilst some on the Left no doubt see it as merely an electoral ploy to get votes, I believe a great many of them are quite fanatical in their belief. Fanatical to the point of double-think.

For example, in Sweden the SD (a right-wing party) was demonised for trying to organise a gay pride march because it went through a Muslim area... Think about that for a second. The Left denounced a gay pride rally because it went through a Muslim area.

Yup, you can only defy logic so much before it eats you

eyerer

end of the road;103806702

wrong. leftism is very clear that there are bad people in the world. very clear. unlike rightism however, they recognise that bad people exist in many forms, come from many countries and cultures, unlike rightism, which think only bad people come from cultures that aren't theirs.

Really, the extreme leftists (is SJW still used?) attack anyone that doesn't agree with their beliefs. Sometimes with venomous yelling, sometimes with violence. You can't say only the right dislikes outsiders.

In general, I used to think liberal meant you could accept peoples' differences, but I must have got that wrong..

Grayson

AnGaelach wrote: »

The hint is in the name.

So you're saying I'm wrong? Islam is the same as islamic terrorism? And you're basing this on the fact that they have the same sounding name.

Well done. You have reached the level of rationality of a 5 year old.

take everything

pickarooney wrote: »

Girls aren't even allowed to play hurling in Ireland

Hurling, camogie, whatever the game they were playing.

Why is the distinction important.
As I say, I cannot understand why a young girl playing camogie is dressed so differently to the other players.

Grueller

pickarooney wrote: »

Girls aren't even allowed to play hurling in Ireland

Up to 14 they can and do

Junkyard Tom

jackofalltrades wrote: »

'The Left' are at pains to make excuses for Islam and at the same time have no restraint when it comes to criticising Catholicism.

First I reject the term 'The Left' because it's become fucking meaningless but let's park that for the moment.

Let us compare the two religions in the Irish context. Islam has done nothing to the Irish people. The RCC has a history of institutional abuse against the Irish people, from industrial schools to the de-facto slavery of the laundries.

Nobody but nobody makes excuses for Islamists attacking innocent people.

Okay?

Widdershins

roddy15 wrote: »

I'm on "the left" and I think Islam has some backwards beliefs and teachings. There you go point one done.

I condemn violence against anyone who doesn't agree with you politically. I condemn the actions of "antifa" which come across as very childish and immature. They do not support in many cases the bedrock of a free and open society.

I also do not defend or agree with Islamists who take the worst parts of the Qur'an and use that to then go out and commit acts of terror against anyone who does not support their cause. There that's point two done.

I'm not an "ardent feminist" but I also disagree with how women are treated by much of the Islamic world and hope places like Saudi Arabia etc. can actually adopt equal rights for men and women.

This again is the problem I raised in my last post but nobody is listening. You can't lump people in your neat boxes and expect the people you've thrown into just be like "okay cool I now adopt the stereotypes you state as fact that represent the side of the political compass I'm on."

I don't have to suddenly become a "classical liberal" like Sargon or Rubin to criticise my side, I'll happily criticise groups that are part of the left but you'll get nowhere with me if you keep going on about "the left" as a nice catch-all to represent anyone to the left of you politically.

I think the thread title doesn't apply to you then. I'd hold similar views and if forced to I'd say I'm somewhere on the Left, but I'm well aware that there are people on the Left who hold regressive anti-libertarian views and I'm not comfortable with being in any way associated with that. It's no different to acknowledging and starting a Boards thread about the hardline element to the Right. I don't understand the objections to this.

Widdershins

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

First I reject the term 'The Left' because it's become fucking meaningless but let's park that for the moment.

Let us compare the two religions in the Irish context. Islam has done nothing to the Irish people. The RCC has a history of institutional abuse against the Irish people, from industrial schools to the de-facto slavery of the laundries.

Nobody but nobody makes excuses for Islamists attacking innocent people.

Okay?

As if it's only relevant if the victims of anything negative Islam have done are Irish.

People the world over are aware and critical of the Catholic church scandals without ever having lived in Ireland or having been affected by them. There is no requirement to have direct experience to justify an objection. And at any rate many Irish are connected to people abroad who have been affected by Islam. And since ISIS have placed the country on their list, it's relevant enough.

Junkyard Tom

Widdershins wrote: »

As if it's only relevant if the victims of anything negative Islam have done are Irish..

I wrote of the RCC as an institution, you're writing about a religion with a number of sects and over one billion followers. There's a difference.

SkepticQuark

Widdershins wrote: »

I think the thread title doesn't apply to you then. I'd hold similar views and if forced to I'd say I'm somewhere on the Left, but I'm well aware that there are people on the Left who hold regressive anti-libertarian views and I'm not comfortable with being in any way associated with that. It's no different to acknowledging and starting a Boards thread about the hardline element to the Right. I don't understand the objections to this.

You don't understand the objection to vast generalisations? Seriously? The title says "progressive left" (whatever that means) but so far I haven't seen any poster here actually make any distinctions between the regressive elements of the left and the people on the left who don't agree with that. All you is get is these vague ****ing terms like "the left" and "liberals." It's the equivalent of saying "the Muslims are evil." What does it even mean? To any normal person, it means all of them not selected groups. I've also boldened my objection to this, we can talk about the regressive left but making your argument about "the left" and "the left dogma" is extremely simplistic for a political discussion. If people made a thread about "the alt-right" and in it people started saying "this is what the right teaches people", "the right's stupidity", "the right's racism" people would be all for telling people about how not all the right are neo-nazis. They'll say that then turn around and whine about "the left" then the next minute.

The Legend Of Kira

jackofalltrades wrote: »

ScumLord wrote: »

Many people in the left would be very lapse when it comes to religion, including being full blown atheists.
So there's no love for Islam, there's an expected level of tolerance, the same shown to Christians and buddhists, and all sorts of religions.
All people to the left are doing is being consistent and fair when it comes to the diversity of religion.

The idea that the left are being "consistent and fair" with different religions is laughable.
They're at pains to make excuses for Islam and at the same time have no restraint when it comes to criticising Catholicism.
They'll happy endorse violence against so called fascists on the one hand and defend Islamists(religious fascists) on the other.
Ardent feminists suddenly resort to cultural relativism when it comes segregation between men and women in Islamic society.
Just look at the vastly different ways the two religions are treated on this site.

I would concur with your post about elements of the left being selective when it comes to criticism of Islam, this past weekend in the United states there was various " March against Sharia " demos & elements of the left + self appointed Antifa turned up to counter protest & confront the " March against Sharia " protesters in comparison when some people protest against say Scientology Antifa & other left elements don,t care or take notice to opposition to Scientology but they react to any anti Islam type protest, another example of this would be some people from a facebook page organised a protest outside a Dublin mosque after the Charlie Hebdo shootings at that time, Antifa turned up to oppose them, but some people also protest outside Scientology centres here also & no one from the left cares or notices, + notice in the past any time Anjem Choundary organised protests or rallies Antifa never counter protested him.

AllForIt

topper75 wrote: »

Walk us through that please. How does it happen?

And in your answer treat of the Asian muslims who have lived in Britain for many decades now. They have experienced growth alright but certainly not the 'evolutionary cultural growth' you referred to. Rather than mellow out in any fashion, they have proceeded to produce a crop of 2nd gen terrorists.

The self-styled progressive left must declare what they are 'progressing' to. Is it some kind of international communism? If so check out what was going in over in Afghanistan in the 80's and have another think about the strategy that sees refugees from muslim lands as the oppressed.

I get your point but at the same time I don't agree with it.

It is not for me to describe how Muslims will pull themselves out of the last century into this one. I only suggested they might do, sooner or later. Just being optimistic.

I have enough problems living within a Catholic culture without anyone asking me how I'm going to sort out a Muslim Culture. Give me a break.

jackofalltrades

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

First I reject the term 'The Left' because it's become fucking meaningless but let's park that for the moment.

I'm using the term because the poster in the post I replied to did.
Funny how you didn't address his post as well.
Usually I don't use it, but this time I did for the sake of convenience.

Let us compare the two religions in the Irish context. Islam has done nothing to the Irish people.
The RCC has a history of institutional abuse against the Irish people, from industrial schools to the de-facto slavery of the laundries.

You seem to be comparing a religion with an institution.
I'm comparing two religions and not limiting it to a specific context either.

Nobody but nobody makes excuses for Islamists attacking innocent people.

Okay?

Incorrect, look at any thread on an Islamist attack and you'll see it.

AnGaelach

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I wrote of the RCC as an institution, you're writing about a religion with a number of sects and over one billion followers. There's a difference.

So you can't speak on Islam because it has multiple sub-sets and over a billion followers, but you can speak on the Roman Catholic Church, which has multiple subsets and over a billion followers?

Junkyard Tom

AnGaelach wrote: »

So you can't speak on Islam because it has multiple sub-sets and over a billion followers

Sects I wrote, yes.

but you can speak on the Roman Catholic Church, which has multiple subsets and over a billion followers?

The RCC has multiple sects? (sects is the word I used for various versions of Islam). Well that's news to me, I thought the RCC was one institution with the Pope as its chief. I can only speak to the Irish experience of the RCC seeing as I have witnessed its fall from grace in Ireland as a person born into Catholicism who has lived here all his life. Aren't Quakers Christians who are anti-war/violence?

What point are you trying to make?

spoonerhead

What I always find throughout a discussion about Islam is the problems are always deflected away from the topic. If a negative point is made, rather than address the issue the 'progressive left' bring in arguments like what about Christianity?

Main issue I have with this is they are two separate discussions. Both their flaws need to be discussed separately!