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

[JakeStarkey]

Mac1958 has covered dozens of pages trying to show he is correct.

He absolutely wasted his time.

 

[Kondor3]

No Matter HOW many times it is pointed out to these lunkheads that Islam represents the very antithesis of liberalism...

The same as all religion.

And here, the Christians are the problem, not the Muslims. That's over there and honestly none of our business.

Typical Leftist bullshit (the Christians are the problem, not the Muslims).

It is delusional reasoning (so-called) such as this, that is responsible, in part, for Attila the Hun doing so well in the GOP primaries.

Dangerous delusion.

Time to spank the LibTards at the polls and give them a wake-up call that they can contemplate for 4 or 8 years, until their next turn at-bat.

And, as to it being "over there"...

Newsflash...

In this age of instantaneous communications and inexpensive high-speed transport...

"Over there" - the idea that oceans on both sides of the continent insulate us, adequately - isn't what it used to be...

 

[Coyote]

There is a difference between having a beef with extremism and its state sponsors and hating all Islam and its followers.

Some people are intelligent enough to recognize that, and advocate for strategies that do not demonize an entire group of innocent people such as is being done by many here. Who are the real regressive? Because I'm not so sure it's not those throwing the label around.

It IS true tho that Left doesn't confront the problem as it actually exists. As in the refusal to call it "radical Islamic terrorism".. And only by recognizing and studying HOW it generates are you ever gonna separate the threat from the religion. Making excuses for the daily global bloodshed by comparing this to an American Christian problem is just dumb.. NOTHING gets resolved that way. And we end up not being able to discriminate between the perverse actions of the radicals and the Westernized populations of Islam that dont pose any threat.

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses, it's also pointing out that the average Muslim is not that different than the average Christian despite the almost maniacal attempts of the right to make them inhuman and their faith into something akin to Nazi ideology. What purpose does that serve or solve?

There are no "average" advocates of any religion really. Christians in the Mid East are fighting for their very existence right now because there are an abundance of active radical groups that wish to commit genocide on them. Certainly -- their view of religion versus "authority and power" is a lot different than fat and lazy Western Christians.

IF you practice Islam in most Arab countries (or less than free countries like Indonesia) you are infused with the belief that power and authority FLOWS from Islam. Indeed the govt laws ACCOMMODATE Islam. So you are conditioned to not even THINK about things like liberty and tolerance that Muslims in Western settings are immersed into. There is a HUGE native cultural difference depending on WHERE you practice that religion..

Culture does make a huge difference.

What's going with the mass Muslim migration into Europe and all the backlash is probably more CULTURAL than it is religious. It's a matter of getting thru to the immigrants the very basic concept that their right to not to be offended by Western ways has been revoked. And that the mayor of Cologne (or whereever this happened) shouldn't be admonishing German woman to not dress provocatively. That's a leftist "solution" that is counter-productive to what "culture re-adjustment" needs to happen...

And I sympathize with the immigrants. Who must ponder now how to practice and live their religious convictions in a place that WILL NOT protect them from being offended. Leftist leaders trying to ACCOMMODATE these adjustments are just making it worse. It needs to be handled by the EXISTING Muslim community and by culture immersion. Perhaps at some point -- they give up and go back to the safety of tyranny and theocracy. But the danger is --- they might be subject to radicalization if they ABHOR western culture and don't adjust.

It IS a threat.

I think that is an over-simplified explanation. I talked about this in the thread I started in CDZ on Muslim Americans.

Muslim immigrant assimilation is little different from other immigrant assimilation - it depends on the culture of the country they are coming from and the culture of the country they are going to - not just the culture, but the culture of integration that country has. Why are countries like the US and Canada so successful at integrating immigrants and why do immigrants flourish here and end up not in other places? That is a question that Righwingers refuse to address because it is more satisfying to attack the alien religion than it is to examine complex problems. Instead they focus on religion as the only barrier, claim that therefore the SAME things will happen in the US as in ohter countries, and completely ignore culture. Like Leftwingers - it's ignoring huge pieces of information. How can there be a solution when you only have part of the data?

Integration is a two-way street dependent on the immigrant and on the host country - when either end fails, there is room for radicalization.

I posted this before but I think it's relevent in this discussion also: Why Do American Muslims Fare Better Than Their French Counterparts?

Some 5 million Muslims live in France -- about 7.5 percent of the country’s population -- one of the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe. After the horror of the coordinated terrorist attacks on six sites in Paris last Friday, a climate of suspicion once again engulfs Muslims living in the Western world -- and French citizens and politicians alike are grappling with how to respond to homegrown threats. But experts say that the conditions of Muslims in some European countries can create fertile breeding grounds for extremism, whereas societies with more-integrated Muslim populations like the United States are less susceptible.

“In a very broad sense, you have the same communities in Europe and America. Both are Muslims living in the West. But in fact, there are huge sociological differences between the two groups. Most importantly, the relationship between Europe and its Muslims is one rooted in colonialism, whereas the U.S. has no previous history with its Muslim populations. So [in Europe] there is some of the residue of racial and cultural prejudices of the colonial era,” says Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University’s School of International Service and the author of several renowned field projects on Muslims, including “Journey Into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Empire.”

The result is two very different communities: One in America that is hopeful, affluent and better assimilated, versus one in Europe, particularly in countries like France, that exists on the periphery of society, both economically and socially. It’s that marginalization of European Muslim communities that can leave certain members vulnerable to recruitment attempts from groups like ISIS.

One of the main differences stems from the makeup of Muslim groups in European countries compared with those in the United States. Estimates vary, but Muslims in the United States account for 1 to 2 percent of the total population -- yet there is no one ethnic group that dominates: Muslims hail from 77 different countries in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Europe. That’s a stark contrast from Europe, where the Muslim populations are more homogenous and typically made up of residents of former colonies. For example, the Muslim community in the U.K. is dominated by Muslims of South Asian descent, while three-quarters of French Muslims are mostly of Morocco, Algeria or other North African origin, according to the Brookings Institution.

“In Europe, pockets of Muslims are isolated by country of origin, which hampers integration. That keeps Islamic identity tied to a home country and so the community is more insular. The umbilical cord is still there,” says Shahed Amanullah, who has worked as a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of State on issues surrounding Muslim youth around the world. “In America, no one group that dominates. It’s not an affinity-based community but a value-based community.”

This article makes strong points outlining the differences between America/Canada and Europe in terms of assimilation, how they are integrated into society, and affluence and prospects for the future - all of this plays into the potential for radicalization far more than simple religion or a matter of "abhoring western culture" - if they feel economically marginalized by western culture, if they feel they have few prospects for improvement AND if they are surrounded by like minded individuals and that view is consistently affirmed by the dominant culture then they are ripe for radical exploitation.

If the Right were truly looking for ways to reduce radicalization, they would be examining this data and asking - why does it work in some places and not in others ? Some models hamper assimilation and integration, other ones inhance it and again, it only works when it's a two-way street with immigrants seeking to assimilate and culture that helps them to assimilate by providing avenues for successful integration.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

[
Absolutely fascinating.
.

What I find especially interesting is this:

Every week I get together with 5 of my friends to play trivia at a local pub. They are all fairly close in age as the youngest is 55 and the oldest 64. They are all liberal. They all well educated, support women's rights, gay rights, progressive taxation, and strong environmental regulations -- just like me. Not a ONE of them sounds anything close to these numb nuts when it comes to Islam, however. They recognize it for what it is as well, and are just as aghast at the misogyny, the lack of regard for freedom of speech and the way it opposes every liberal principle as I am.

Why is it that when I get on the internet in discussion groups such as this, there is such a large contingent of authoritarians such as these, here, who defend Islam in concert, who call people names if they do not support Islam and who act as a group to harass anybody sticking up for liberal principles?

Are these teenagers, and people in their teens, 20s and 30s who simply never learned what liberalism actually entails? Is it that sites like this select for zealots, and so there are just very few liberals voicing their opinion compared to these authoritarians?

I live in one of those places in this country known for its liberal politics, and while there are always the whackadoodle anarchist idiots and the fire-breathing zealots, most people here are......gasp....LIBERAL. They most certainly DON'T sound like all these extremely illiberal leftists.

Do websites simply end up with a certain culture where the most intolerant posters operating with one mind are destined to hold sway? It seems like most forums are filled with hard right, anti-gay, anti-women rednecks or flaring at the nostrils antisemitic, pro-Islamic leftists.

Where are all the moderate people?


......and I might add that the very WORST of these pro-Islamic authoritarians like to use the "funny" option in order to harass and troll those they target.

 

[ptbw forever]

Islam is a totalitarian political ideology with a veneer of religiosity, while calling for its adherents to wage perpetual war against all that is not Islam until only Islam remains. It comes with it's own political system that treats women as second-class citizens by very design of law, does not allow for freedom of belief, persecutes gay people and does not allow for a separation of religion and politic. The new Mayor of London called any Muslims who do not share these designs "Uncle Toms" so as to make it clear what he was all about.

In this thread, we are seeing exactly what Mac predicted -- low functioning leftists defending what hey do not know simply because they have been trained to do so. Rejecting totalitarianism is not a "phobia" despite the trained parrots insisting it is.

"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?"

Please cite examples of someone here being against Christianity but for Islam.

You cannot.

The entire "gay rights" movement....

3rd wave feminism....

 

[Ravi]

Hippies were non-conformist? LMAO

 

[Coyote]

Before anyone claims there is no tendency for the left to bow to accommodations in the Muslim case and be hypocritical when the same issue crops up with the Christian case. Compare these 2 stories.

Accommodating Muslims in public school: where to draw the line? | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

That’s why Muslim students in public schools are often reluctant to ask school officials for accommodation for required prayers or other religious needs. Who can blame them for keeping silent and hoping that the surge in Islam-bashing will eventually recede?

But some things can’t wait. When required daily prayers fall within the school day, for example, Muslim students need a place to pray. And when Muslim girls wearing head scarves arrive at a school with a “no head coverings” policy, they need an exemption on grounds of conscience.
Some school officials take a hard line — as when the Muskogee, Okla., school district suspended a Muslim girl last year for refusing to remove her scarf. Fortunately, most educators instinctively do the right thing and accommodate these requests. Even when they may not have to do so, they want to find some way to allow students to follow the requirements of their faith.

It’s true that students in a public school are free to pray — alone or in groups — as long as they aren’t disruptive and don’t interfere with others’ rights. If students want to pray between classes or at lunch in informal settings such as hallways or the cafeteria, they are free to do so. And there’s no problem with allowing students to use a section of the library or a free classroom for brief prayers, as long as safety and discipline are maintained — and students don’t miss much class.
But if schools get involved in releasing students from classes to attend a prayer service in the school building, that looks like a First Amendment violation to me. Under the establishment clause, administrators may not organize, sponsor, or otherwise entangle themselves in religious activities during the school day.

Michigan High School Bans Football Team From Praying On Field

There will be no more post-game praying for this Michigan high school football team.

After receiving a letter of complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union, Lahser High School has banned football players from engaging in prayer on the field. The team had previously made a ritual of kneeling in prayer after big games, according to local outlet WDIV-TV.

While the original complaint from the ACLU alleged that the team’s coach, Dan Loria, had led the team in prayer, the school determined after an investigation that Loria had merely been present for the prayer. Still, when he received word that the practice was in violation of the Establishment Clause and Religious Freedom Clause of the First Amendment, the coach took responsibility for the occurrence, reports The Oakland Press.

And sports events for school are not even subject to worries about missing class time, providing a special place and dont even occur during regular school hours.

Seems like all that vigorous defense of "separation" that you think is in the Constitution needs a little consistency on Team Leftist. Either you need to ease up on your blood vendetta against ALL people of faith in this country or you ARE gonna get accused of bending over to accommodate religious/cultural differences selectively..

Might be a serving of crow in your future as regards "the war on religion" that is specific to the left.

But, then again, look at this list of 2015 cases from the ACLU (typically regarded as leftist)...

The ACLU of New Hampshire (2015) filed suit on behalf of a prisoner’s mother and three-year-old son against a prison policy that prohibits Christmas cards, prayer cards, and drawings sent through the mail.

The ACLU of Hawai’i (2015) secured the rights of a pastor and his wife to hand out religious literature on a public sidewalk.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2015) interceded on behalf of a Christian inmate seeking to have a communal prayer during the Christmas holiday.

The ACLU of Northern California (2015) represented a Native American public high school student who wanted to wear a ceremonial feather in his graduation cap.

The ACLU and ACLU of Florida (2015) successfully persuaded Walt Disney World to accommodate a Sikh mail carrier who wanted to perform his regular job duties with his religiously mandated beard and turban intact, regardless of the company’s “Look Policy.”

The ACLU and the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital (2015) won a lawsuit allowing a Sikh student to enroll in ROTC while still wearing his articles of faith.

The ACLU of Nebraska (2015) supported a man’s right to hand out the gospel of Jesus Christ outside an arena.

The ACLU of Indiana (2015) challenged a state law preventing sex offenders from attending religious worship services.

The ACLU of Virginia (2015) defended students’ right to wear rosary beads in a public high school.

The ACLU of Michigan (2015) backed Christian evangelists’ right to protest at a street festival.​

As a leftist, I have no problem with students being allowed to pray on their own time or, taking a prayer break, or gathering as a student-only group to pray together at lunch time. If it's required as part of their religious observences, then reasonable accommodation MUST be allowed. That is a bit different than a an official - a teacher or coach - LEADING students in prayer or, even being present as the article stated. It's a fine line when a person of authority is involved with students in a specific religious activity on school time or a school sponsored event. If a Muslim teacher was present with a team praying, I'd say the same thing - the line is getting fuzzy there.

 

[ptbw forever]

It IS true tho that Left doesn't confront the problem as it actually exists. As in the refusal to call it "radical Islamic terrorism".. And only by recognizing and studying HOW it generates are you ever gonna separate the threat from the religion. Making excuses for the daily global bloodshed by comparing this to an American Christian problem is just dumb.. NOTHING gets resolved that way. And we end up not being able to discriminate between the perverse actions of the radicals and the Westernized populations of Islam that dont pose any threat.

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses, it's also pointing out that the average Muslim is not that different than the average Christian despite the almost maniacal attempts of the right to make them inhuman and their faith into something akin to Nazi ideology. What purpose does that serve or solve?

There are no "average" advocates of any religion really. Christians in the Mid East are fighting for their very existence right now because there are an abundance of active radical groups that wish to commit genocide on them. Certainly -- their view of religion versus "authority and power" is a lot different than fat and lazy Western Christians.

IF you practice Islam in most Arab countries (or less than free countries like Indonesia) you are infused with the belief that power and authority FLOWS from Islam. Indeed the govt laws ACCOMMODATE Islam. So you are conditioned to not even THINK about things like liberty and tolerance that Muslims in Western settings are immersed into. There is a HUGE native cultural difference depending on WHERE you practice that religion..

Culture does make a huge difference.

What's going with the mass Muslim migration into Europe and all the backlash is probably more CULTURAL than it is religious. It's a matter of getting thru to the immigrants the very basic concept that their right to not to be offended by Western ways has been revoked. And that the mayor of Cologne (or whereever this happened) shouldn't be admonishing German woman to not dress provocatively. That's a leftist "solution" that is counter-productive to what "culture re-adjustment" needs to happen...

And I sympathize with the immigrants. Who must ponder now how to practice and live their religious convictions in a place that WILL NOT protect them from being offended. Leftist leaders trying to ACCOMMODATE these adjustments are just making it worse. It needs to be handled by the EXISTING Muslim community and by culture immersion. Perhaps at some point -- they give up and go back to the safety of tyranny and theocracy. But the danger is --- they might be subject to radicalization if they ABHOR western culture and don't adjust.

It IS a threat.

I think that is an over-simplified explanation. I talked about this in the thread I started in CDZ on Muslim Americans.

Muslim immigrant assimilation is little different from other immigrant assimilation - it depends on the culture of the country they are coming from and the culture of the country they are going to - not just the culture, but the culture of integration that country has. Why are countries like the US and Canada so successful at integrating immigrants and why do immigrants flourish here and end up not in other places? That is a question that Righwingers refuse to address because it is more satisfying to attack the alien religion than it is to examine complex problems. Instead they focus on religion as the only barrier, claim that therefore the SAME things will happen in the US as in ohter countries, and completely ignore culture. Like Leftwingers - it's ignoring huge pieces of information. How can there be a solution when you only have part of the data?

Integration is a two-way street dependent on the immigrant and on the host country - when either end fails, there is room for radicalization.

I posted this before but I think it's relevent in this discussion also: Why Do American Muslims Fare Better Than Their French Counterparts?

Some 5 million Muslims live in France -- about 7.5 percent of the country’s population -- one of the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe. After the horror of the coordinated terrorist attacks on six sites in Paris last Friday, a climate of suspicion once again engulfs Muslims living in the Western world -- and French citizens and politicians alike are grappling with how to respond to homegrown threats. But experts say that the conditions of Muslims in some European countries can create fertile breeding grounds for extremism, whereas societies with more-integrated Muslim populations like the United States are less susceptible.

“In a very broad sense, you have the same communities in Europe and America. Both are Muslims living in the West. But in fact, there are huge sociological differences between the two groups. Most importantly, the relationship between Europe and its Muslims is one rooted in colonialism, whereas the U.S. has no previous history with its Muslim populations. So [in Europe] there is some of the residue of racial and cultural prejudices of the colonial era,” says Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University’s School of International Service and the author of several renowned field projects on Muslims, including “Journey Into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Empire.”

The result is two very different communities: One in America that is hopeful, affluent and better assimilated, versus one in Europe, particularly in countries like France, that exists on the periphery of society, both economically and socially. It’s that marginalization of European Muslim communities that can leave certain members vulnerable to recruitment attempts from groups like ISIS.

One of the main differences stems from the makeup of Muslim groups in European countries compared with those in the United States. Estimates vary, but Muslims in the United States account for 1 to 2 percent of the total population -- yet there is no one ethnic group that dominates: Muslims hail from 77 different countries in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Europe. That’s a stark contrast from Europe, where the Muslim populations are more homogenous and typically made up of residents of former colonies. For example, the Muslim community in the U.K. is dominated by Muslims of South Asian descent, while three-quarters of French Muslims are mostly of Morocco, Algeria or other North African origin, according to the Brookings Institution.

“In Europe, pockets of Muslims are isolated by country of origin, which hampers integration. That keeps Islamic identity tied to a home country and so the community is more insular. The umbilical cord is still there,” says Shahed Amanullah, who has worked as a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of State on issues surrounding Muslim youth around the world. “In America, no one group that dominates. It’s not an affinity-based community but a value-based community.”

This article makes strong points outlining the differences between America/Canada and Europe in terms of assimilation, how they are integrated into society, and affluence and prospects for the future - all of this plays into the potential for radicalization far more than simple religion or a matter of "abhoring western culture" - if they feel economically marginalized by western culture, if they feel they have few prospects for improvement AND if they are surrounded by like minded individuals and that view is consistently affirmed by the dominant culture then they are ripe for radical exploitation.

If the Right were truly looking for ways to reduce radicalization, they would be examining this data and asking - why does it work in some places and not in others ? Some models hamper assimilation and integration, other ones inhance it and again, it only works when it's a two-way street with immigrants seeking to assimilate and culture that helps them to assimilate by providing avenues for successful integration.

Except in Europe the "colonialism" goes back BOTH ways.

An inconvenient fact that the so called "left" refuses to acknowledge.

 

[Coyote]

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses, it's also pointing out that the average Muslim is not that different than the average Christian despite the almost maniacal attempts of the right to make them inhuman and their faith into something akin to Nazi ideology. What purpose does that serve or solve?

There are no "average" advocates of any religion really. Christians in the Mid East are fighting for their very existence right now because there are an abundance of active radical groups that wish to commit genocide on them. Certainly -- their view of religion versus "authority and power" is a lot different than fat and lazy Western Christians.

IF you practice Islam in most Arab countries (or less than free countries like Indonesia) you are infused with the belief that power and authority FLOWS from Islam. Indeed the govt laws ACCOMMODATE Islam. So you are conditioned to not even THINK about things like liberty and tolerance that Muslims in Western settings are immersed into. There is a HUGE native cultural difference depending on WHERE you practice that religion..

Culture does make a huge difference.

What's going with the mass Muslim migration into Europe and all the backlash is probably more CULTURAL than it is religious. It's a matter of getting thru to the immigrants the very basic concept that their right to not to be offended by Western ways has been revoked. And that the mayor of Cologne (or whereever this happened) shouldn't be admonishing German woman to not dress provocatively. That's a leftist "solution" that is counter-productive to what "culture re-adjustment" needs to happen...

And I sympathize with the immigrants. Who must ponder now how to practice and live their religious convictions in a place that WILL NOT protect them from being offended. Leftist leaders trying to ACCOMMODATE these adjustments are just making it worse. It needs to be handled by the EXISTING Muslim community and by culture immersion. Perhaps at some point -- they give up and go back to the safety of tyranny and theocracy. But the danger is --- they might be subject to radicalization if they ABHOR western culture and don't adjust.

It IS a threat.

I think that is an over-simplified explanation. I talked about this in the thread I started in CDZ on Muslim Americans.

Muslim immigrant assimilation is little different from other immigrant assimilation - it depends on the culture of the country they are coming from and the culture of the country they are going to - not just the culture, but the culture of integration that country has. Why are countries like the US and Canada so successful at integrating immigrants and why do immigrants flourish here and end up not in other places? That is a question that Righwingers refuse to address because it is more satisfying to attack the alien religion than it is to examine complex problems. Instead they focus on religion as the only barrier, claim that therefore the SAME things will happen in the US as in ohter countries, and completely ignore culture. Like Leftwingers - it's ignoring huge pieces of information. How can there be a solution when you only have part of the data?

Integration is a two-way street dependent on the immigrant and on the host country - when either end fails, there is room for radicalization.

I posted this before but I think it's relevent in this discussion also: Why Do American Muslims Fare Better Than Their French Counterparts?

Some 5 million Muslims live in France -- about 7.5 percent of the country’s population -- one of the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe. After the horror of the coordinated terrorist attacks on six sites in Paris last Friday, a climate of suspicion once again engulfs Muslims living in the Western world -- and French citizens and politicians alike are grappling with how to respond to homegrown threats. But experts say that the conditions of Muslims in some European countries can create fertile breeding grounds for extremism, whereas societies with more-integrated Muslim populations like the United States are less susceptible.

“In a very broad sense, you have the same communities in Europe and America. Both are Muslims living in the West. But in fact, there are huge sociological differences between the two groups. Most importantly, the relationship between Europe and its Muslims is one rooted in colonialism, whereas the U.S. has no previous history with its Muslim populations. So [in Europe] there is some of the residue of racial and cultural prejudices of the colonial era,” says Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University’s School of International Service and the author of several renowned field projects on Muslims, including “Journey Into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Empire.”

The result is two very different communities: One in America that is hopeful, affluent and better assimilated, versus one in Europe, particularly in countries like France, that exists on the periphery of society, both economically and socially. It’s that marginalization of European Muslim communities that can leave certain members vulnerable to recruitment attempts from groups like ISIS.

One of the main differences stems from the makeup of Muslim groups in European countries compared with those in the United States. Estimates vary, but Muslims in the United States account for 1 to 2 percent of the total population -- yet there is no one ethnic group that dominates: Muslims hail from 77 different countries in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Europe. That’s a stark contrast from Europe, where the Muslim populations are more homogenous and typically made up of residents of former colonies. For example, the Muslim community in the U.K. is dominated by Muslims of South Asian descent, while three-quarters of French Muslims are mostly of Morocco, Algeria or other North African origin, according to the Brookings Institution.

“In Europe, pockets of Muslims are isolated by country of origin, which hampers integration. That keeps Islamic identity tied to a home country and so the community is more insular. The umbilical cord is still there,” says Shahed Amanullah, who has worked as a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of State on issues surrounding Muslim youth around the world. “In America, no one group that dominates. It’s not an affinity-based community but a value-based community.”

This article makes strong points outlining the differences between America/Canada and Europe in terms of assimilation, how they are integrated into society, and affluence and prospects for the future - all of this plays into the potential for radicalization far more than simple religion or a matter of "abhoring western culture" - if they feel economically marginalized by western culture, if they feel they have few prospects for improvement AND if they are surrounded by like minded individuals and that view is consistently affirmed by the dominant culture then they are ripe for radical exploitation.

If the Right were truly looking for ways to reduce radicalization, they would be examining this data and asking - why does it work in some places and not in others ? Some models hamper assimilation and integration, other ones inhance it and again, it only works when it's a two-way street with immigrants seeking to assimilate and culture that helps them to assimilate by providing avenues for successful integration.

Except in Europe the "colonialism" goes back BOTH ways.

An inconvenient fact that the so called "left" refuses to acknowledge.

Which "inconvenient fact"? When Christians overran Europe? When Muslims overran part of Europe? Crusades? Ancient history? Colonization really only applies to a specific period in time, that lead to specific attitudes and also the division of much of the undeveloped world into the awkward countries that exist today.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Oh, and for those of you who are going to claim that you don't know what the Regressive Left is, or that I'm making it up, here are some honest liberals to explain it to you:

Does Mac agree with Bill Maher on every issue?

I don't think so.

So, why does Mac believe that liberals should agree with Bill Maher 100% of the time? We don't all share the same brain, but Mac can't seem to get that through his head.

I don't know of any liberal who supports forcing a woman to wear a burka (straw-man argument). And I don't know a single liberal who supports (FGM) female genital mutilation. (another issue Bill Maher got wrong, and another straw-man argument)

Bill Maher needs to get his facts straight.

Fact-checking Reza Aslan on Bill Maher's 'not very sophisticated' rant on Islam


"It's a central African problem," Aslan said. "Eritrea has almost 90 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Ethiopia has 75 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue."

Aslan later tweeted an infographic showing a swath of African countries where female genital mutilation is concentrated.

The fact that it is also practiced by Christians and other groups with ancient beliefs makes it hard to say the practice is particularly Muslim, she said.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, and for those of you who are going to claim that you don't know what the Regressive Left is, or that I'm making it up, here are some honest liberals to explain it to you:

Does Mac agree with Bill Maher on every issue?

I don't think so.

So, why does Mac believe that liberals should agree with Bill Maher 100% of the time? We don't all share the same brain, but Mac can't seem to get that through his head.

I don't know of any liberal who supports forcing a woman to wear a burka (straw-man argument). And I don't know a single liberal who supports (FGM) female genital mutilation. (another issue Bill Maher got wrong, and another straw-man argument)

Bill Maher needs to get his facts straight.

Fact-checking Reza Aslan on Bill Maher's 'not very sophisticated' rant on Islam

Mack suffers under the weight of confirmation bias.

 

[Kondor3]

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses, it's also pointing out that the average Muslim is not that different than the average Christian despite the almost maniacal attempts of the right to make them inhuman and their faith into something akin to Nazi ideology. What purpose does that serve or solve?

There are no "average" advocates of any religion really. Christians in the Mid East are fighting for their very existence right now because there are an abundance of active radical groups that wish to commit genocide on them. Certainly -- their view of religion versus "authority and power" is a lot different than fat and lazy Western Christians.

IF you practice Islam in most Arab countries (or less than free countries like Indonesia) you are infused with the belief that power and authority FLOWS from Islam. Indeed the govt laws ACCOMMODATE Islam. So you are conditioned to not even THINK about things like liberty and tolerance that Muslims in Western settings are immersed into. There is a HUGE native cultural difference depending on WHERE you practice that religion..

Culture does make a huge difference.

What's going with the mass Muslim migration into Europe and all the backlash is probably more CULTURAL than it is religious. It's a matter of getting thru to the immigrants the very basic concept that their right to not to be offended by Western ways has been revoked. And that the mayor of Cologne (or whereever this happened) shouldn't be admonishing German woman to not dress provocatively. That's a leftist "solution" that is counter-productive to what "culture re-adjustment" needs to happen...

And I sympathize with the immigrants. Who must ponder now how to practice and live their religious convictions in a place that WILL NOT protect them from being offended. Leftist leaders trying to ACCOMMODATE these adjustments are just making it worse. It needs to be handled by the EXISTING Muslim community and by culture immersion. Perhaps at some point -- they give up and go back to the safety of tyranny and theocracy. But the danger is --- they might be subject to radicalization if they ABHOR western culture and don't adjust.

It IS a threat.

I think that is an over-simplified explanation. I talked about this in the thread I started in CDZ on Muslim Americans.

Muslim immigrant assimilation is little different from other immigrant assimilation - it depends on the culture of the country they are coming from and the culture of the country they are going to - not just the culture, but the culture of integration that country has. Why are countries like the US and Canada so successful at integrating immigrants and why do immigrants flourish here and end up not in other places? That is a question that Righwingers refuse to address because it is more satisfying to attack the alien religion than it is to examine complex problems. Instead they focus on religion as the only barrier, claim that therefore the SAME things will happen in the US as in ohter countries, and completely ignore culture. Like Leftwingers - it's ignoring huge pieces of information. How can there be a solution when you only have part of the data?

Integration is a two-way street dependent on the immigrant and on the host country - when either end fails, there is room for radicalization.

I posted this before but I think it's relevent in this discussion also: Why Do American Muslims Fare Better Than Their French Counterparts?

Some 5 million Muslims live in France -- about 7.5 percent of the country’s population -- one of the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe. After the horror of the coordinated terrorist attacks on six sites in Paris last Friday, a climate of suspicion once again engulfs Muslims living in the Western world -- and French citizens and politicians alike are grappling with how to respond to homegrown threats. But experts say that the conditions of Muslims in some European countries can create fertile breeding grounds for extremism, whereas societies with more-integrated Muslim populations like the United States are less susceptible.

“In a very broad sense, you have the same communities in Europe and America. Both are Muslims living in the West. But in fact, there are huge sociological differences between the two groups. Most importantly, the relationship between Europe and its Muslims is one rooted in colonialism, whereas the U.S. has no previous history with its Muslim populations. So [in Europe] there is some of the residue of racial and cultural prejudices of the colonial era,” says Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University’s School of International Service and the author of several renowned field projects on Muslims, including “Journey Into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Empire.”

The result is two very different communities: One in America that is hopeful, affluent and better assimilated, versus one in Europe, particularly in countries like France, that exists on the periphery of society, both economically and socially. It’s that marginalization of European Muslim communities that can leave certain members vulnerable to recruitment attempts from groups like ISIS.

One of the main differences stems from the makeup of Muslim groups in European countries compared with those in the United States. Estimates vary, but Muslims in the United States account for 1 to 2 percent of the total population -- yet there is no one ethnic group that dominates: Muslims hail from 77 different countries in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Europe. That’s a stark contrast from Europe, where the Muslim populations are more homogenous and typically made up of residents of former colonies. For example, the Muslim community in the U.K. is dominated by Muslims of South Asian descent, while three-quarters of French Muslims are mostly of Morocco, Algeria or other North African origin, according to the Brookings Institution.

“In Europe, pockets of Muslims are isolated by country of origin, which hampers integration. That keeps Islamic identity tied to a home country and so the community is more insular. The umbilical cord is still there,” says Shahed Amanullah, who has worked as a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of State on issues surrounding Muslim youth around the world. “In America, no one group that dominates. It’s not an affinity-based community but a value-based community.”

This article makes strong points outlining the differences between America/Canada and Europe in terms of assimilation, how they are integrated into society, and affluence and prospects for the future - all of this plays into the potential for radicalization far more than simple religion or a matter of "abhoring western culture" - if they feel economically marginalized by western culture, if they feel they have few prospects for improvement AND if they are surrounded by like minded individuals and that view is consistently affirmed by the dominant culture then they are ripe for radical exploitation.

If the Right were truly looking for ways to reduce radicalization, they would be examining this data and asking - why does it work in some places and not in others ? Some models hamper assimilation and integration, other ones inhance it and again, it only works when it's a two-way street with immigrants seeking to assimilate and culture that helps them to assimilate by providing avenues for successful integration.

Except in Europe the "colonialism" goes back BOTH ways.

An inconvenient fact that the so called "left" refuses to acknowledge.

Europe has pretty much 'had it'... it is, by now, so pervasively undermined that it may be too far gone to recover its culture and identity.

Oh, well... at least our dumb-ass Euro-cousins can emigrate to New Europe (Canada, the US and Australia), when the pressure from Islam grows too great, as it will.

They're at grave risk of losing their cohesion and identity; having bled themselves white, twice, in the previous century, losing their empires, and exhausting themselves.

 

[ptbw forever]

[
Absolutely fascinating.
.

What I find especially interesting is this:

Every week I get together with 5 of my friends to play trivia at a local pub. They are all fairly close in age as the youngest is 55 and the oldest 64. They are all liberal. They all well educated, support women's rights, gay rights, progressive taxation, and strong environmental regulations -- just like me. Not a ONE of them sounds anything close to these numb nuts when it comes to Islam, however. They recognize it for what it is as well, and are just as aghast at the misogyny, the lack of regard for freedom of speech and the way it opposes every liberal principle as I am.

Why is it that when I get on the internet in discussion groups such as this, there is such a large contingent of authoritarians such as these, here, who defend Islam in concert, who call people names if they do not support Islam and who act as a group to harass anybody sticking up for liberal principles?

Are these teenagers, and people in their teens, 20s and 30s who simply never learned what liberalism actually entails? Is it that sites like this select for zealots, and so there are just very few liberals voicing their opinion compared to these authoritarians?

I live in one of those places in this country known for its liberal politics, and while there are always the whackadoodle anarchist idiots and the fire-breathing zealots, most people here are......gasp....LIBERAL. They most certainly DON'T sound like all these extremely illiberal leftists.

Do websites simply end up with a certain culture where the most intolerant posters operating with one mind are destined to hold sway? It seems like most forums are filled with hard right, anti-gay, anti-women rednecks or flaring at the nostrils antisemitic, pro-Islamic leftists.

Where are all the moderate people?

There are hardly any rednecks even on the Internet.

The majority of the "hard right, anti-gay, anti-women rednecks" on here are actually educated suburbanites who are at odds with most of their community when it comes to politics.

 

[ptbw forever]

There are no "average" advocates of any religion really. Christians in the Mid East are fighting for their very existence right now because there are an abundance of active radical groups that wish to commit genocide on them. Certainly -- their view of religion versus "authority and power" is a lot different than fat and lazy Western Christians.

IF you practice Islam in most Arab countries (or less than free countries like Indonesia) you are infused with the belief that power and authority FLOWS from Islam. Indeed the govt laws ACCOMMODATE Islam. So you are conditioned to not even THINK about things like liberty and tolerance that Muslims in Western settings are immersed into. There is a HUGE native cultural difference depending on WHERE you practice that religion..

Culture does make a huge difference.

What's going with the mass Muslim migration into Europe and all the backlash is probably more CULTURAL than it is religious. It's a matter of getting thru to the immigrants the very basic concept that their right to not to be offended by Western ways has been revoked. And that the mayor of Cologne (or whereever this happened) shouldn't be admonishing German woman to not dress provocatively. That's a leftist "solution" that is counter-productive to what "culture re-adjustment" needs to happen...

And I sympathize with the immigrants. Who must ponder now how to practice and live their religious convictions in a place that WILL NOT protect them from being offended. Leftist leaders trying to ACCOMMODATE these adjustments are just making it worse. It needs to be handled by the EXISTING Muslim community and by culture immersion. Perhaps at some point -- they give up and go back to the safety of tyranny and theocracy. But the danger is --- they might be subject to radicalization if they ABHOR western culture and don't adjust.

It IS a threat.

I think that is an over-simplified explanation. I talked about this in the thread I started in CDZ on Muslim Americans.

Muslim immigrant assimilation is little different from other immigrant assimilation - it depends on the culture of the country they are coming from and the culture of the country they are going to - not just the culture, but the culture of integration that country has. Why are countries like the US and Canada so successful at integrating immigrants and why do immigrants flourish here and end up not in other places? That is a question that Righwingers refuse to address because it is more satisfying to attack the alien religion than it is to examine complex problems. Instead they focus on religion as the only barrier, claim that therefore the SAME things will happen in the US as in ohter countries, and completely ignore culture. Like Leftwingers - it's ignoring huge pieces of information. How can there be a solution when you only have part of the data?

Integration is a two-way street dependent on the immigrant and on the host country - when either end fails, there is room for radicalization.

I posted this before but I think it's relevent in this discussion also: Why Do American Muslims Fare Better Than Their French Counterparts?

Some 5 million Muslims live in France -- about 7.5 percent of the country’s population -- one of the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe. After the horror of the coordinated terrorist attacks on six sites in Paris last Friday, a climate of suspicion once again engulfs Muslims living in the Western world -- and French citizens and politicians alike are grappling with how to respond to homegrown threats. But experts say that the conditions of Muslims in some European countries can create fertile breeding grounds for extremism, whereas societies with more-integrated Muslim populations like the United States are less susceptible.

“In a very broad sense, you have the same communities in Europe and America. Both are Muslims living in the West. But in fact, there are huge sociological differences between the two groups. Most importantly, the relationship between Europe and its Muslims is one rooted in colonialism, whereas the U.S. has no previous history with its Muslim populations. So [in Europe] there is some of the residue of racial and cultural prejudices of the colonial era,” says Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University’s School of International Service and the author of several renowned field projects on Muslims, including “Journey Into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Empire.”

The result is two very different communities: One in America that is hopeful, affluent and better assimilated, versus one in Europe, particularly in countries like France, that exists on the periphery of society, both economically and socially. It’s that marginalization of European Muslim communities that can leave certain members vulnerable to recruitment attempts from groups like ISIS.

One of the main differences stems from the makeup of Muslim groups in European countries compared with those in the United States. Estimates vary, but Muslims in the United States account for 1 to 2 percent of the total population -- yet there is no one ethnic group that dominates: Muslims hail from 77 different countries in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Europe. That’s a stark contrast from Europe, where the Muslim populations are more homogenous and typically made up of residents of former colonies. For example, the Muslim community in the U.K. is dominated by Muslims of South Asian descent, while three-quarters of French Muslims are mostly of Morocco, Algeria or other North African origin, according to the Brookings Institution.

“In Europe, pockets of Muslims are isolated by country of origin, which hampers integration. That keeps Islamic identity tied to a home country and so the community is more insular. The umbilical cord is still there,” says Shahed Amanullah, who has worked as a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of State on issues surrounding Muslim youth around the world. “In America, no one group that dominates. It’s not an affinity-based community but a value-based community.”

This article makes strong points outlining the differences between America/Canada and Europe in terms of assimilation, how they are integrated into society, and affluence and prospects for the future - all of this plays into the potential for radicalization far more than simple religion or a matter of "abhoring western culture" - if they feel economically marginalized by western culture, if they feel they have few prospects for improvement AND if they are surrounded by like minded individuals and that view is consistently affirmed by the dominant culture then they are ripe for radical exploitation.

If the Right were truly looking for ways to reduce radicalization, they would be examining this data and asking - why does it work in some places and not in others ? Some models hamper assimilation and integration, other ones inhance it and again, it only works when it's a two-way street with immigrants seeking to assimilate and culture that helps them to assimilate by providing avenues for successful integration.

Except in Europe the "colonialism" goes back BOTH ways.

An inconvenient fact that the so called "left" refuses to acknowledge.

Europe has pretty much 'had it'... it is, by now, so pervasively undermined that it may be too far gone to recover its culture and identity.

Oh, well... at least our dumb-ass Euro-cousins can emigrate to New Europe (Canada, the US and Australia), when the pressure from Islam grows too great, as it will.

They're at grave risk of losing their cohesion and identity; having bled themselves white, twice, in the previous century, losing their empires, and exhausting themselves.

If they fail they will likely flee to East Asia.

America and Canada are too far gone to do anything but follow them there.

 

[Mac1958]

I grew up in the 60s, when the left was liberal and non conformist. Today's left is neither, as the demands for absolute lock-step conformity have resulted in this strange new world where a leftist has to defend Islam or else. What a simple-minded binary world these uber-conformists live in.

Precisely, and that's why (for example) the honest liberal in my sig calls them "illiberal". They've become the same nasty, closed-minded, intolerant, hateful people liberals used to fight.

I'll bet you they know it, at least at some level.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Absolutely fascinating.
.

What I find especially interesting is this:

Every week I get together with 5 of my friends to play trivia at a local pub. They are all fairly close in age as the youngest is 55 and the oldest 64. They are all liberal. They all well educated, support women's rights, gay rights, progressive taxation, and strong environmental regulations -- just like me. Not a ONE of them sounds anything close to these numb nuts when it comes to Islam, however. They recognize it for what it is as well, and are just as aghast at the misogyny, the lack of regard for freedom of speech and the way it opposes every liberal principle as I am.

Why is it that when I get on the internet in discussion groups such as this, there is such a large contingent of authoritarians such as these, here, who defend Islam in concert, who call people names if they do not support Islam and who act as a group to harass anybody sticking up for liberal principles?

Are these teenagers, and people in their teens, 20s and 30s who simply never learned what liberalism actually entails? Is it that sites like this select for zealots, and so there are just very few liberals voicing their opinion compared to these authoritarians?

I live in one of those places in this country known for its liberal politics, and while there are always the whackadoodle anarchist idiots and the fire-breathing zealots, most people here are......gasp....LIBERAL. They most certainly DON'T sound like all these extremely illiberal leftists.

Do websites simply end up with a certain culture where the most intolerant posters operating with one mind are destined to hold sway? It seems like most forums are filled with hard right, anti-gay, anti-women rednecks or flaring at the nostrils antisemitic, pro-Islamic leftists.

Where are all the moderate people?


......and I might add that the very WORST of these pro-Islamic authoritarians like to use the "funny" option in order to harass and troll those they target.

If the Regressive Left only controlled websites, that would be one thing. Now they're controlling an entire side of the political spectrum.

I'm in the same boat - I lean left too, but holy crap, what happened? I would never want to be associated with these toxic narcissists.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Hippies were non-conformist? LMAO

How old are you?

18? 20.maybe?

I grew up in the 60s, when the left was liberal and non conformist. Today's left is neither, as the demands for absolute lock-step conformity have resulted in this strange new world where a leftist has to defend Islam or else. What a simple-minded binary world these uber-conformists live in.

Precisely, and that's why (for example) the honest liberal in my sig calls them "illiberal". They've become the same nasty, closed-minded, intolerant, hateful people liberals used to fight.

I'll bet you they know it, at least at some level.
.

Just watching the puerile antics they engage in by using the "funny" option the way they do, I would say we are dealing with cases of arrested development, too.

They never outgrew that acting-out stage of their life. That is one of the reasons they support Islam the way they do, as they are forever stuck in that adolescent, oppositional stage.

 

[Mac1958]

They never outgrew that acting-out stage of their life. That is one of the reasons they support Islam the way they do, as they are forever stuck in that adolescent, oppositional stage.

Y'know, that may be the best short answer to the thread yet.
.

 

[Tilly]

The attitude of regressive islamopologists is an example of PC paternalism at its most insulting, IMHO. It is not only incredibly bigotted (albeit potentially unwittingly in many), it is also anti progressive in that it compounds issues related to successful integration in the West, as well as being damaging to the attempts of liberal Muslims, female Muslims, gay Muslims etc etc to promote a more tolerant, less fundamentalist version of Islam. In a way, the regressive islamopologists with their 'racism of low expectations' (not sure racism is the correct word, but according to Nawaz, below it is) add fuel to the fire of angry young Muslims in the West, albeit, again, probably unwittingly. The islamopologists really need to review how much damage their double standards are causing, and how their double standards are useful to fundie Muslims, but insulting and bigotted against the rest.

Maajid Nawaz hits the nail on the head, IMHO.

"Author and anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz explains how certain members of the "regressive left" threaten progress within minority communities, in particular liberal Muslims.
Members of the left too often champion a brand of racism of low expectations, through which they lower their standards when looking at other cultures if those cultures happen to express a level of misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism, and yet hold other white people to universal liberal standards. This misguided prioritization of cultural tolerance over the progress and the advancement of liberal values handicaps the evolution of minority communities and harms the weakest members of those groups. Nawaz' argument is simple: If we claim to support human rights and classical liberalism, why do we pull punches when it comes to criticizing minority communities and cultures that don't live up to those standards?..."

http://bigthink.com/videos/maajid-nawaz-on-islamic-reform

 

[AceRothstein]

I dislike religion in general but see that Islam is the most dangerous of all of them.