The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[Tehon]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I agree, they are ready to pounce if a white Christian is a gun man. His faith is a key point, however like the Ft. Hood shooter, it was workplace violence, it had nothing to do with terrorism and his Muslim faith. Crazy how the left thinks.

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't designated workplace violence by the left, it was designated so by the DoD.

 

[Mac1958]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious.

Okay, just for the record: A couple of posts earlier, I said this:

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

Are you saying that doesn't happen, that my statement is untrue? Is that your point?

 

[Tehon]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious.

Okay, just for the record: A couple of posts earlier, I said this:

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

Are you saying that doesn't happen, that my statement is untrue? Is that your point?

Back in post 13 I asked you to dispense of the hasty generalizations and talk specifics. I assume you are ready to do that now.

 

[Mac1958]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious.

Okay, just for the record: A couple of posts earlier, I said this:

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

Are you saying that doesn't happen, that my statement is untrue? Is that your point?

Back in post 13 I asked you to dispense of the hasty generalizations and talk specifics. I assume you are ready to do that now.

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm not trying to "win" any "debate". I'm just curious: Is the statement I provided true or untrue?
.

 

[ChrisL]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious.

Okay, just for the record: A couple of posts earlier, I said this:

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

Are you saying that doesn't happen, that my statement is untrue? Is that your point?

I would tend to agree with that assessment generally but not true for everyone. The same could be said of the right when it comes to some things.

 

[Mac1958]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious.

Okay, just for the record: A couple of posts earlier, I said this:

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

Are you saying that doesn't happen, that my statement is untrue? Is that your point?

I would tend to agree with that assessment generally but not true for everyone. The same could be said of the right when it comes to some things.

Sure, the behaviors of hardcore partisan ideologues are very similar on both "ends", no doubt about it.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I propose that you and your ilk , be sent to ISIS controlled territory for trial:




.

Goodness. That is an outrageous thing to say, even for a forum like this where moderation is sympathetic to Islamism.

I can't imagine one poster wanting to send another to their death would fly in any other situation than this.

 

[MACAULAY]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

________________________________

You have decided to argue a point which I did not even think was an issue.

Of course, Muslims already in America must be accorded every right available under the Constitution.

But, the "Middle Easterners" who are not here...many---possibly a majority of whom hate America...they should stay where they are....based in large part on the failed experiment in Europe in taking in too many of a culture that not only will not assimilate...they mean to affirmatively change our culture...because we are Infidels. They seem to be real firm on that point.

That's the debate as I see it.

No more Middle Easterners for a while...we have enough for now, thank you.

______________________________

 

[Coyote]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

Regressive is a spot on term describing you guys.

You can't treat racists the same as normal non-racist people. You can't treat non-diverse groups as if they were diverse. NO! You treat people like they treat you. This is just a so basic moral principle that I don't even understand how so many regressed people seem to have missed it.

Case in point, this mayor is a complete racist:

Sadiq Khan: There are too many white men on Transport for London

If he values racism, and is voted in by racist Muslims, whites should absolutely do the same and NOT treat him like a other white guy (generally not racist). Otherwise this is not going to end well for non-muslims.

This guy got it right:

You seem to be assuming a lot of people are racist because they voted in a Muslim mayor?

From your quote:

London's transport authority is far too dominated by white men, Labour's mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan said today.


There are currently 13 white men on the Transport for London board and just three women. Khan said he would ensure the board better reflected the "diversity" of Londoners if he becomes mayor.​

What's wrong with trying to alter the status quo to include a more diverse work place as long as they are qualified? Perhaps the question should be - why aren't there more qualified non-white men and more women on the board?

Somehow, that is racist?

 

[Tehon]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious.

Okay, just for the record: A couple of posts earlier, I said this:

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

Are you saying that doesn't happen, that my statement is untrue? Is that your point?

Back in post 13 I asked you to dispense of the hasty generalizations and talk specifics. I assume you are ready to do that now.

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm not trying to "win" any "debate". I'm just curious: Is the statement I provided true or untrue?
.

I can't bring myself to agree. Sure you may find isolated cases, but you are going to have to do a better job of defining "them".

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I would use the term "actual" liberals to describe them, myself, as they operate according to liberal principles whereas all the apologists wouldn't know liberal political theory if it smacked them along side their idiotic little heads.

As to the inevitability of the comparisons to Christianity, it works like this:

Useful Idiot in question predetermines they absolutely must defend Islam at all costs. In order to defend and support Islam, they shift the attack to Christianty, instead, in order to distract away from Islam as well as to create intentionally false equivalences. These false equivalences offered by the Islamist defenders rely on three basic ruses.

The first of these ruses involves degree of support. If large percentages of Muslims hold certain objectionable beliefs, they compare to Christianity, even if very small percentages of Christians hold similar.

The second ruse involves heinousness of action or belief. If Muslims support killing apostates, they might point to Christians shunning them (which is also less prevalent) or if Muslims support killing gay people, they will point to Christians objecting to gay marriage.

The third ruse involves time. If Islamic actions are committed in the here and now, they point to Christian actions from the distant past, as if two world somehow existed on two completely different time frames.

Now, when people do this, they really aren't thinking up these ruses on their own, as they are too stupid for this sort of deviousness. They are simply imitating the specious arguments of the other sheep they see doing the same thing. It doesn't make any difference how their idiotic comparisons fail on any conceivable level, as the fact they are all making them creates the impression they are actually valid.

It is so utterly predictable and vapid, and has become a regular part of the arsenal of these profoundly illiberal morons.

 

[Mac1958]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious.

Okay, just for the record: A couple of posts earlier, I said this:

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

Are you saying that doesn't happen, that my statement is untrue? Is that your point?

Back in post 13 I asked you to dispense of the hasty generalizations and talk specifics. I assume you are ready to do that now.

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm not trying to "win" any "debate". I'm just curious: Is the statement I provided true or untrue?
.

I can't bring myself to agree. Sure you may find isolated cases, but you are going to have to do a better job of defining "them".

That's okay. As I said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

This is just a fascinating study for me, I don't have a need for much else.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I would use the term "actual" liberals to describe them, myself, as they operate according to liberal principles whereas all the apologists wouldn't know liberal political theory if it smacked them along side their idiotic little heads.

As to the inevitability of the comparisons to Christianity, it works like this:

Useful Idiot in question predetermines they absolutely must defend Islam at all costs. In order to defend and support Islam, they shift the attack to Christianty, instead, in order to distract away from Islam as well as to create intentionally false equivalences. These false equivalences offered by the Islamist defenders rely on three basic ruses.

The first of these ruses involves degree of support. If large percentages of Muslims hold certain objectionable beliefs, they compare to Christianity, even if very small percentages of Christians hold similar.

The second ruse involves heinousness of action or belief. If Muslims support killing apostates, they might point to Christians shunning them (which is also less prevalent) or if Muslims support killing gay people, they will point to Christians objecting to gay marriage.

The third ruse involves time. If Islamic actions are committed in the here and now, they point to Christian actions from the distant past, as if two world somehow existed on two completely different time frames.

Now, when people do this, they really aren't thinking up these ruses on their own, as they are too stupid for this sort of deviousness. They are simply imitating the specious arguments of the other sheep they see doing the same thing. It doesn't make any difference how their idiotic comparisons fail on any conceivable level, as the fact they are all making them creates the impression they are actually valid.

It is so utterly predictable and vapid, and has become a regular part of the arsenal of these profoundly illiberal morons.

I couldn't agree more on the use of the "illiberal", it's one that proud Democrat Kirsten Powers uses. Plus she's a hottie, so there's that too. I think I've heard Maher use it as well. He's another one I think of as an honest, traditional liberal.

To me, Regressive Leftists are not traditional liberals. They're distortions, mutations, perversions - not unlike what is happening on the other end of the spectrum, ironically.

And yes, part of this equation has to include your notion of defending Islam at all costs. They constantly try to equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity, but what is happening all over the world right now exposes that for the absurdity it is.

As I always say, it's a fascinating amateur psychological / sociological / anthropological study for me.
.

 

[Ravi]

The guy voted in support of gay rights. The OP is knee jerking hack.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

And yes, part of this equation has to include your notion of defending Islam at all costs. They constantly try to equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity, but what is happening all over the world right now exposes that for the absurdity it is.


.

See? Once again you blame the whole religion, including the innocent, while you lie and claim you never do it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The left are anti-Christs. Islam is anti-Christ. Therefore, the left defends and enables everything islam.

Rather simple. Also, 100% true.

What about the Jews? They don't believe Christ is the messiah.

 

[Mac1958]

And yes, part of this equation has to include your notion of defending Islam at all costs. They constantly try to equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity, but what is happening all over the world right now exposes that for the absurdity it is..

See? Once again you blame the whole religion, including the innocent, while you lie and claim you never do it.

A perfect example of my point, again, right on cue.

The Regressive Left literally can't help itself.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no such thing as a Regressive Left and the proof of that is that the OP can't name anyone here IN the so-called regressive left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And yes, part of this equation has to include your notion of defending Islam at all costs. They constantly try to equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity, but what is happening all over the world right now exposes that for the absurdity it is..

See? Once again you blame the whole religion, including the innocent, while you lie and claim you never do it.

A perfect example of my point, again, right on cue.

The Regressive Left literally can't help itself.
.

You can deny it all you want but it's right there in black and white.

 

[Mac1958]

And yes, part of this equation has to include your notion of defending Islam at all costs. They constantly try to equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity, but what is happening all over the world right now exposes that for the absurdity it is..

See? Once again you blame the whole religion, including the innocent, while you lie and claim you never do it.

A perfect example of my point, again, right on cue.

The Regressive Left literally can't help itself.
.

You can deny it all you want but it's right there in black and white.

I love how defensive you've been in this thread, I really do.
.