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

[Mac1958]

In your mind, Mac, yes, just as the regressive right does with Christianity.

Yet another beautiful example of the point of my thread, thanks.

The question remains, why you folks do this. But there have been a few interesting ideas on that.

Post 39 is my favorite one so far.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One cannot talk of the left and Islam without including the right and Christianity, as well as the religious history of the faith groups.

The discussion has to must be in context and balanced.

But of course, that's not the point of the thread, at all.

The point of the thread is that the Regressive Left specifically and routinely DEFLECTS AWAY from Islam, particularly after an attack, to AVOID talking about Islam, the attack or other misdeed.

Kind of like what you just tried to do there, appropriately.

And no, there is no rule that says you must discuss multiple religions when discussing one. If a jihadist slaughters a group of schoolchildren, there is no intellectual obligation to discuss Christianity.

Unless, of course, you want to deflect.
.

If you want to be a partisan out of context home, you are doing well.

 

[Mac1958]

So, to deflect (it's their schtick), the Regressive Left is trying to minimize this topic by making it about me (see above post, among many others). So I'll go outside our little bubble and examine the thoughts, theories and opinions of others who see the same thing I am.

Here's another interesting theory regarding my question, looking at it historically and pointing out that anti-Christianity is at the core: The reason that liberals hate Christianity, but ignore Islam

=====

Liberalism is an essentially secular movement that began within Christian culture. (In Worshipping the State, I trace it all the way back to Machiavelli in the early 1500s.) Note the two italicized aspects: secular and within.

As secular, liberalism understood itself as embracing this world as the highest good, advocating a self-conscious return to ancient pagan this-worldliness. But this embrace took place within a Christianized culture. Consequently liberalism tended to define itself directly against that which it was (in its own particular historical context) rejecting.

Modern liberalism thereby developed with a deep antagonism toward Christianity, rather than religion in general. It was culturally powerful Christianity that stood in the way of liberal secular progress in the West—not Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Druidism, etc.

And so, radical Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire rallied his fellow secular soldiers with what would become the battle cry of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment: écrasez l’infâme, “destroy the infamous thing.” It was a cry directed, not against religion in general, but (as historian Peter Gay rightly notes) “against Christianity itself, against Christian dogma in all its forms, Christian institutions, Christian ethics, and the Christian view of man.”

Liberals therefore tended to approve of anything but Christianity. Deism was fine, or even pantheism. The eminent liberal Rousseau praised Islam and declared Christianity incompatible with good government. Hinduism and Buddhism were exotic and tantalizing among the edge-cutting intelligentsia of the 19th century. Christianity, by contrast, was the religion against which actual liberal progress had to be made.

So, other religions were whitewashed even while Christianity was continually tarred. The tarring was part of the liberal strategy aimed at unseating Christianity from its privileged cultural-legal-moral position in the West. The whitewashing of other religions was part of the strategy too, since elevating them helped deflate the privileged status of Christianity.

And so, for liberalism, nothing could be as bad as Christianity. If something goes wrong, blame Christianity first and all of Western culture that is based upon it.

=====

 

[Mac1958]

Here a progressive admits my point, and also wonders why - he compares the Left's behavior to that of the Right, which I always find delicious: Many Liberals Defend Islam the Way Conservatives Defend Guns

=====

But it’s the same type of argument gun fanatics use to defend guns. It’s never the gun, or the gun culture, it’s just the “crazy extremists.” No matter how many statistics you show linking guns to violence, they’ll ignore the stats or dismiss them as biased or inaccurate. It’s never the gun, it’s always the “bad guys.” It’s the same way many liberals react when confronted with stats about Islam. That’s ironic considering when it comes to guns, many liberals blame the guns just as much as the psychopaths using them. Yet that’s not the case when it comes to frequent bouts of violence driven by Islamic fanaticism.

This is what I call the world of “reactionary politics.” If liberals are for it, conservatives are against it and visa versa. It makes absolutely no sense, based upon normal political ideologies, why liberals would defend Islam. If I write something mocking Mormonism, Catholics, Baptists or Scientology, I’ll rarely see a single complaint from liberals. Yet on an article such as this, I’ll get slammed relentlessly and called a bigot and a racist for pointing out facts. For the record, Islam is not a race – it’s a religion. It never ceases to make me laugh when I’m told by liberals that I’m intolerant of Islam, therefore a bigot, whenever I use the same arguments against Islam that I do Christianity. The hypocrisy is palpable.

=====

 

[Mac1958]

Of course, Bill Maher nails it, and posits that it may be about protecting a minority: MAHER: Liberals 'so tolerant' of Islam 'they were tolerating intolerance' - The American Mirror

=====

Maher explained why he regularly criticizes Muslims, and liberals who have routinely ignored or excused their oppressive practices.

“They (liberals) used to boo me because I’m the one standing up for equal rights for women and free speech and respect for minorities, free and fair elections. It’s not my fault that these are qualities that are more lacking in the Muslim world than any other culture,” Maher said.

“But liberals saw this for years as an attack on a minority. But the irony is that they were so tolerant, they were tolerating intolerance.”

“That’s so interesting, that double helix,” Seinfeld responded, seeming to be enlightened by the observation. “So tolerant, you’re tolerating prejudice.”

“Gutsy is to tell your adoring fans what they don’t want to hear, because it’s the truth,” Maher also said.

=====

 

[Mac1958]

Here, a British liberal Muslim admits feeling insulted by all this: The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism

By the way, please note his use of the term "Regressive Left", joining Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as liberals who have had enough:

=====

Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose any version of Islam over society. When expressed through violence, I call it jihadism. It is obvious to an American liberal that Christian fundamentalism must be made to respect personal choice. Likewise, it is as plain as the light of day to me—a Pakistani-British liberal Muslim—that any desire to impose any version of Islam over anyone anywhere, ever, is a fundamental violation of our basic civil liberties. But Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslims sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Army reserves. In a case that has come to symbolize the extent of the problem, an entire family of 12 recently migrated to the Islamic State. By any reasonable assessment, something has gone badly wrong in Britain.

But for those who I have come to call Europe’s regressive-left how could Islamist tyranny—such as burying women neck deep in the ground and stoning them to death—possibly be anything other than an authentic expression of Muslim rage at Western colonial hegemony? For don’t you know Muslims are angry? So angry, in fact, that they wish to enslave indigenous Yazidi women for sex, throw Syrian gays off tall buildings and burn people alive? All because… Israel. For Europe’s regressive-left—which is fast penetrating U.S. circles too—Muslims are not expected to be civilized (note: Reminds me of the "soft bigotry of reduced expectations" the Regressive Left imposes on another group). And Muslim upstarts who dare to challenge this theocratic fascism are nothing but an inconvenience to an uncannily Weimar-like populism that screams simplistically: It is all the West’s fault.

It is my fellow Muslims who suffer most from this patronizing, self-pity inspiring mollycoddling. And just as American Muslims, with some reason, fear becoming targeted by right-wing anti-Muslim prejudice, British Muslims are being spoon-fed regressive-left sedatives, encouraging a perpetual state of victimhood in order to score their petty ideological points against “the West.” In the name of cultural diversity, aspiration is being stifled, expectations have been tempered and because Muslims have their own culture don't you know,self-segregation and ghettoization have thrived.

=====

 

[Mac1958]

Here a progressive admits I'm Simply Running Out of Ways to Defend Islam

=====

I’ve always stood against prejudice, bigotry and intolerance. But with the increasing violence in the Middle East (at the hands of Islamic radicals), Boko Haram slaughtering innocents seemingly every day all across Africa and the increasing number of “lone wolf” attacks we’re seeing carried out throughout the world – how can I honestly sit here, as someone who believes in facts over emotion, and continue to say Islam has nothing to do with it? The world is filled with various religions, and some people do in fact carry out horrific acts in the name of religions other than Islam.

But it’s undeniable that the vast majority of terrorist attacks – for decades – have been linked to Islam.

And I really just don’t know what to say anymore.

=====

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now Mac is filibustering with pages and pages of things that he thinks PROVES his claim. He's loading us with opinion that agrees with him.

The only reason that it appears to him that American liberals tolerate religions other than Christianity more than they do Christianity....is that Christianity is the religion that is threatening liberty HERE. It's a proximity thing. We have certified nutbag Christian members of congress who want to deny rights to gay people and outlaw abortion IN THIS NATION based on their perception of what their God commands.

All religions threaten liberty. And I oppose them all for the same reason....they lack reason.

This thread is dead, Mac. You have not proved your claim.

And may Allah become famous for being the first deity ever to have his entire body shoved up an elephant's ass.

 

[Mac1958]

All religions threaten liberty.

Another great example.

Thank you!
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

All religions threaten liberty.

Another great example.

Thank you!
.

Well done! You just cannot lose with this strategy! You ARE awesome. You SHOULD get your own autograph.

How does my saying that support your claim in any way? It doesn't.

Now....why not comment on the meat of my post?

 

[Mac1958]

All religions threaten liberty.

Another great example.

Thank you!
.

Well done! You just cannot lose with this strategy! You ARE awesome. You SHOULD get your own autograph.

How does my saying that support your claim in any way? It doesn't.

Now....why not comment on the meat of my post?

I'm flattered by the effort you're putting into this, it shows me I'm right on the money.

Otherwise, your opinion is of no value to me, and I have no interest in burning time on trying to communicate with you.

Bitch all you want. Tough shit.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

All religions threaten liberty.

Another great example.

Thank you!
.

Well done! You just cannot lose with this strategy! You ARE awesome. You SHOULD get your own autograph.

How does my saying that support your claim in any way? It doesn't.

Now....why not comment on the meat of my post?

I'm flattered by the effort you're putting into this, it shows me I'm right on the money.

Otherwise, your opinion is of no value to me, and I have no interest in burning time on trying to communicate with you.

Bitch all you want. Tough shit.


.

Great job. You are now avoiding discussion in your own thread. That's never a good look.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[LoneLaugher]

Have you ever heard Maher speak on Christianity? Seen his movie?

He,like me, doesn't go for any religion. He's got an entire body of work to look at.

 

[Seawytch]

One cannot talk of the left and Islam without including the right and Christianity, as well as the religious history of the faith groups.

The discussion has to must be in context and balanced.

But of course, that's not the point of the thread, at all.

The point of the thread is that the Regressive Left specifically and routinely DEFLECTS AWAY from Islam, particularly after an attack, to AVOID talking about Islam, the attack or other misdeed.

Kind of like what you just tried to do there, appropriately.

And no, there is no rule that says you must discuss multiple religions when discussing one. If a jihadist slaughters a group of schoolchildren, there is no intellectual obligation to discuss Christianity.

Unless, of course, you want to deflect.
.

Yeah....but that doesn't happen as you see it. What happens.....is that RW islamophobes descend on any thread that involves a misdeed by Mulsims and "assails" the entire religion....and every single member of it....including American Muslims.

So...liberals defend the religion and the innocent members of it. Without defending the extremists. In doing so....some liberals remind the RW islamophobes that what they are doing is the equivalent of "assailing" every Christian for the misdeeds of one of a few Chrsitians....something that THE LEFT DOES NOT DO.

You see......it's called making a case with the only possible example. That's why you see it so often.

Now....may Allah fall headfirst into a vat of boiling semen. Try harder.

^^^ That ^^^

(except I'm totally grossed out by the thought of a vat of semen, boiling or otherwise)

 

[LoneLaugher]

One cannot talk of the left and Islam without including the right and Christianity, as well as the religious history of the faith groups.

The discussion has to must be in context and balanced.

But of course, that's not the point of the thread, at all.

The point of the thread is that the Regressive Left specifically and routinely DEFLECTS AWAY from Islam, particularly after an attack, to AVOID talking about Islam, the attack or other misdeed.

Kind of like what you just tried to do there, appropriately.

And no, there is no rule that says you must discuss multiple religions when discussing one. If a jihadist slaughters a group of schoolchildren, there is no intellectual obligation to discuss Christianity.

Unless, of course, you want to deflect.
.

Yeah....but that doesn't happen as you see it. What happens.....is that RW islamophobes descend on any thread that involves a misdeed by Mulsims and "assails" the entire religion....and every single member of it....including American Muslims.

So...liberals defend the religion and the innocent members of it. Without defending the extremists. In doing so....some liberals remind the RW islamophobes that what they are doing is the equivalent of "assailing" every Christian for the misdeeds of one of a few Chrsitians....something that THE LEFT DOES NOT DO.

You see......it's called making a case with the only possible example. That's why you see it so often.

Now....may Allah fall headfirst into a vat of boiling semen. Try harder.

^^^ That ^^^

(except I'm totally grossed out by the thought of a vat of semen, boiling or otherwise)

I wonder why Mac didn't respond to that post? It sure seems to address his primary behavioral concern. You don't think he's avoiding that one on purpose, do ya?

 

[Mac1958]

While Regressive Lefties dishonestly try to deny the behavior (of course), there are many who not only admit it, but try to explain it.

Here's another honest liberal trying to explain this behavior. He posits that liberals (I assume he means normal liberals, not the narcissistic zealots who have taken over) are acting on good instincts but are just wrong in this case: The left has Islam all wrong: Bill Maher, Pamela Geller and the reality progressives must face

What is it about Islam that simultaneously both motivates jihadis to kill and so many progressives to exculpate the religion, even when the killers leave no doubt about why they act? The second part of the question is easier to dispense with than the first. Progressives by nature seek common ground and believe people to be mostly rational actors – hence the desire to blame crime on social ills. Unfamiliarity with Islam’s tenets also plays a role, plus, I believe, the frightening future we would seem to be facing as more and more Muslims immigrate to the West, and the world becomes increasingly integrated. Best just to talk of poverty and the like, or a few “bad apples.”

But to respond to the question’s first part, we need to put aside our p.c. reading glasses and examine Islam’s basic elements from a rationalist’s perspective. Islam as a faith would not concern progressives, except that some of its adherents choose to act as parts of its dogma ordain, which, to put it mildly, violates the social contract underpinning the lives of the rest of us.
.

 

[Mac1958]

One cannot talk of the left and Islam without including the right and Christianity, as well as the religious history of the faith groups.

The discussion has to must be in context and balanced.

But of course, that's not the point of the thread, at all.

The point of the thread is that the Regressive Left specifically and routinely DEFLECTS AWAY from Islam, particularly after an attack, to AVOID talking about Islam, the attack or other misdeed.

Kind of like what you just tried to do there, appropriately.

And no, there is no rule that says you must discuss multiple religions when discussing one. If a jihadist slaughters a group of schoolchildren, there is no intellectual obligation to discuss Christianity.

Unless, of course, you want to deflect.
.

Yeah....but that doesn't happen as you see it. What happens.....is that RW islamophobes descend on any thread that involves a misdeed by Mulsims and "assails" the entire religion....and every single member of it....including American Muslims.

So...liberals defend the religion and the innocent members of it. Without defending the extremists. In doing so....some liberals remind the RW islamophobes that what they are doing is the equivalent of "assailing" every Christian for the misdeeds of one of a few Chrsitians....something that THE LEFT DOES NOT DO.

You see......it's called making a case with the only possible example. That's why you see it so often.

Now....may Allah fall headfirst into a vat of boiling semen. Try harder.

^^^ That ^^^

(except I'm totally grossed out by the thought of a vat of semen, boiling or otherwise)

I wonder why Mac didn't respond to that post? It sure seems to address his primary behavioral concern. You don't think he's avoiding that one on purpose, do ya?

I'll save this post for future reference, because I know you'll dishonestly ask this a thousand times in the future.

Ready?

You are a liar, you play games constantly, and I have no interest in communicating with you.

You could agree with me 100% on something, and I still won't want to communicate with you.

So now you can't say you don't know, but I know you will. Because you're a liar.
.

 

[Ravi]

Now Mac is filibustering with pages and pages of things that he thinks PROVES his claim. He's loading us with opinion that agrees with him.

The only reason that it appears to him that American liberals tolerate religions other than Christianity more than they do Christianity....is that Christianity is the religion that is threatening liberty HERE. It's a proximity thing. We have certified nutbag Christian members of congress who want to deny rights to gay people and outlaw abortion IN THIS NATION based on their perception of what their God commands.

All religions threaten liberty. And I oppose them all for the same reason....they lack reason.

This thread is dead, Mac. You have not proved your claim.

And may Allah become famous for being the first deity ever to have his entire body shoved up an elephant's ass.

Yep. I was laughing that he forgot that liberalism originated in Greece, which was not a Christian country and throwing his entire rant down the toilet before it even began.

 

[Mac1958]

Reported!