Islam and the progressive left?

AnGaelach

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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?

Well, yes, in a way. With "sui iuris" you have groups like the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Church that are autonomous but in union with Rome. You also have different ecclesiastical communities which, since Vatican 2, have been recognised as Churches whilst not being in union with Rome such as the Syriac Church.

This is likely becoming more technical than I'd wager you actually have any interest in.

As such, I'll just finish on this - there's more Christians than there are Muslims, so saying the Left is treating both religions equally whilst quite clearly not, is simply dishonest. You've excused criticism of Islam down to it having multiple sects with a billion adherents, but then you purport to criticise Catholicism which has essentially the same attributes.

Widdershins

roddy15 wrote: »

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.

Yes I understand a generalisation and this was a case of focusing on one element within the left, I don't think it needs to be pointed out ad nauseum that not all leftists are implicated and I don't think we need to soften every criticism with a reminder of the non-lunatics among the left. Yes extremists will pin things on the whole group be they Left or Right but I thought most comments here weren't doing that, and that you seemed like you could tell the difference yourself, obviously I was wrong.

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.

Still a global community of Muslims, in some sense, and still a very political religion with an inbuilt legal system. It's not the disparate religion of vastly differing sects you make it out to be. As religions go it's quite close to being an institution of itself. Sad to see my actual point was overlooked again.

BalcombeSt4

What about the relationship between the Catholic Church and Goth Rock?

Or what about the relationship between UK Acid House & German Hard Trance?

Kenny 'Jammin' Jason & Fast Eddie Smith - Can U Dance? (1987) was one of the first Acid House tunes I ever remember hearing, it's still amazing even today. Good times.

Hector Savage

roddy15 wrote: »

You lost me as soon as Paul Joseph Watson appeared. Using an Infowars "journalist" piece would be like me posting a TYT clip.

Doesn't mean that Gad Saad doesn't make valid points !

Just because infowars claim lizards rule the world doesn't mean they can't have the occasional guest on that talks some sense!

People tend to just dismiss certain media outlets - all their stories as bs, so the Daily Mail reported on the London tower fire - it didn't happen so.

topper75

Widdershins wrote: »

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

Oh I'm not confused about that! :P

To people who would like to think for themselves, you'd imagine such naked agenda pushing would be like fingernails going down a chalkboard.

topper75

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

I have the same hopes as you but I fear a much longer timeline and I don't think life in the west is the catalyst for them.

Mass movement to this part of the world only leans towards islamification of our lands rather than integration of them into our culture. The picture of the girl playing our game in that backwards clothing means as much to me as a picture of me tucking into a ham sandwich and creamy pint after a day of ramadan fasting would to a lad in Saudi Arabia. That is to say - a well-meaning but ultimately mocking and misplaced attempt at integration.

Yes there are remnants of other religions here to be dealt with before we import more middle eastern psychosis.

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

Still a global community of Muslims, in some sense, and still a very political religion with an inbuilt legal system. It's not the disparate religion of vastly differing sects you make it out to be. As religions go it's quite close to being an institution of itself. Sad to see my actual point was overlooked again.

To be fair, the exact same can be said about Christianity. The point of being a christian is that they are supposed to be christian first and a citizen second. There's also massive legal systems. Catholicism has it all codified in canon law. And catholics are even told to ignore certain parts of the law. So for example for catholics and marriage there are two different sets of rules about marriage.

tiger55

How will the Lefties explain the Extremist Islamic terrorist attack in Mogadishu at the min?

You cant blame US/UK foreign policy for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFZA9FF9R14

tiger55

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

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.

Maybe Antifa and Choudary and Tommy Robinson work the Mi5...

Order out of chaos...

Widdershins

About the ''Progressive'' Left..https://news.vice.com/story/extremism-experts-are-starting-to-worry-about-the-left

ScumLord

Widdershins wrote: »

About the ''Progressive'' Left..https://news.vice.com/story/extremism-experts-are-starting-to-worry-about-the-left

All extremeists are idiotic people that use events as excuses for violence.

Widdershins

ScumLord wrote: »

All extremeists are idiotic people that use events as excuses for violence.

In a sense they are, but not all extremists have the same motivations or goals.

The point of this article is to highlight a growing cohort of dangerous people hijacking what should be a moderate group of people and posing a threat to peace, freedom and public safety.

If the Left want to succeed they need to pay attention to the reasons why traditionally Left voters are abandoning the Left and distancing themselves from the label altogether.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Widdershins wrote: »

In a sense they are, but not all extremists have the same motivations or goals.

The point of this article is to highlight a growing cohort of dangerous people hijacking what should be a moderate group of people and posing a threat to peace, freedom and public safety.

If the Left want to succeed they need to pay attention to the reasons why traditionally Left voters are abandoning the Left and distancing themselves from the label altogether.

Look at the likes of political talk host Dave Rubin (ex TYT) for instance, a classical Liberal who says that in the current climate he has more in common with conservatives than the 'regressive left' as he terms them. He has been eviscerated online and received all manner of threats and abuse. People he's known for years won't talk to him anymore.

The Classical Liberals have to stand up and wrench back control of the mainstream left from the loopers. Use science, facts , reason to defeat their emotional arguments.

Junkyard Tom

Stop yammering on about 'the left' as it it was some sort of monolith with a central command.

ScumLord

Widdershins wrote: »

In a sense they are, but not all extremists have the same motivations or goals.

Well yeah, otherwise they'd be on the same side.

The point of this article is to highlight a growing cohort of dangerous people hijacking what should be a moderate group of people and posing a threat to peace, freedom and public safety.

It's not really a growing number. 20 years ago you could say the same thing about the IRA, in other countries you have other political groups trying to subvert the established regime and it's been going on for as long as established regimes have been around. It seems like there will always be people capable of convincing young people to give their lives for a cause.

I think we need to start teaching young people how critically question information, they're like fish in a barrel at the moment, completely at the mercy of people that understand human behaviour.

If the Left want to succeed they need to pay attention to the reasons why traditionally Left voters are abandoning the Left and distancing themselves from the label altogether.

Everyone with a bit of sense is trying to distance themselves from that idiotic label. It doesn't mean they're moving to the right, which is another idiotic label. There is no left and right, they are media labels designed to polarise debate.

Widdershins

ScumLord wrote: »

Well yeah, otherwise they'd be on the same side.

It's not really a growing number. 20 years ago you could say the same thing about the IRA, in other countries you have other political groups trying to subvert the established regime and it's been going on for as long as established regimes have been around. It seems like there will always be people capable of convincing young people to give their lives for a cause.

I think we need to start teaching young people how critically question information, they're like fish in a barrel at the moment, completely at the mercy of people that understand human behaviour.

Everyone with a bit of sense is trying to distance themselves from that idiotic label. It doesn't mean they're moving to the right, which is another idiotic label. There is no left and right, they are media labels designed to polarise debate.

In your opinion it's not a growing number.

I didn't say those disenchanted with the Left are moving to the right. Is that all that matters? The fact is they're not being represented by the politicians and activists who have diverged from the essence of the Left. This should concern people, not just whether they swell the numbers in support of the opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War#Demographic_tensions

During the 1960s Lebanon was relatively calm, but this would soon change. Fatah and other Palestinian Liberation Organization factions had long been active among the 400,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanese camps. Throughout the 1960s, the center for armed Palestinian activities had been in Jordan, but they were forced to relocate after being evicted by King Hussein during the Black September in Jordan. Fatah and other Palestinians groups had attempted to mount a coup in Jordan by incentivizing a split in the Jordanian army, something that the ANM had attempted to do a decade earlier by Nasser's bidding. Jordan, however, responded and expelled the forces into Lebanon. When they arrived they created "a State within the State". This action wasn't welcomed by the Lebanese government and this shook Lebanon's fragile sectarian climate.

Solidarity to the Palestinians was expressed through the Lebanese Sunni Muslims but with the aim to change the political system from one of consensus amongst different sects, towards one where their power share would increase. Certain groups in the Lebanese National Movement wished to bring about a more secular and democratic order, but as this group increasingly included Islamist groups, encouraged to join by the PLO, the more progressive demands of the initial agenda was dropped by January 1976. Islamists did not support a secular order in Lebanon and wished to bring about rule by Muslim clerics. Yezid Sayigh documents these events, especially the role of Fatah and the Tripoli Islamist movement known as Tawhid, in changing the agenda being pursued by many groups, including Communists. This ragtag coalition has often been referred to as left-wing, but many participants were actually very conservative religious elements that did not share any broader ideological agenda; rather, they were brought together by the short-term goal of overthrowing the established political order, each motivated by their own grievances.

This could be Europe in x number of years, x being a variable based on how many refugees, genuine or otherwise, we allow in.

AnGaelach

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Stop yammering on about 'the left' as it it was some sort of monolith with a central command.

Rather than moaning in every thread and reminding everyone how you dislike the term "the left" (multiple times in each thread, mind), you could simply stop going in to them?

Hank Scorpio

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/738462/Slovakia-law-Islam-ban-registered-religion-Eu-migrant-quota-Muslim-sentiment

Slovakia passes law to BAN Islam from being registered as a religion

Junkyard Tom

AnGaelach wrote: »

Rather than moaning in every thread and reminding everyone how you dislike the term "the left" (multiple times in each thread, mind), you could simply stop going in to them?

Every thread? No. Multiple times in each thread? No. I will continue to point out that the term is essentially meaningless, if you don't like it put me on ignore. Run along now.

imme

This is the best expression of a title in search of a thread that I've seen on boards

Probably ever

old_aussie

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

muslims haven't experienced any evolutionary cultural growth for 1400 years.

So what makes you think muslims will suddenly experience this growth?

If anything I think they are regressing back to whew islam began.

Zebra3

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair, the exact same can be said about Christianity. The point of being a christian is that they are supposed to be christian first and a citizen second. There's also massive legal systems. Catholicism has it all codified in canon law. And catholics are even told to ignore certain parts of the law. So for example for catholics and marriage there are two different sets of rules about marriage.

And let us remember that if a criminal goes to confession and tells a RC priest that he raped and murdered some young child, the RC priest will defy the law of the land and not pass that information onto the relevant authorities.

The RC Church has sets in its laws that it will defy the law of the land.

But it's happy enough to take advantage of the tax dodging around christenings and weddings. :rolleyes:

bnt

I find that "cultural relativism" tends to afflct those who have little or no direct experience of other cultures, only exposure to the documentary versions on TV or to selective contact with a culture's chosen representatives. Dealing with Muslims in the West is like visiting North Korea as a tourist: you see what they let you see, your experience is what they want it to be. There are certain things you're not supposed to know about, like FGM. Personally, I spent many years in Africa, so I've had the chance to compare what I saw there with how Africa tries to present itself to the world, and that was the cure for "cultural relativism" for me.

mart_in

old_aussie wrote: »

muslims haven't experienced any evolutionary cultural growth for 1400 years.

So what makes you think muslims will suddenly experience this growth?

If anything I think they are regressing back to whew islam began.

What do you mean no cultural growth in 1400 years? Don't you thing it's really unfair generalisation?