Leftists have, can, and should oppose Islam

[Republic of the Cristo]

Killing people is not Christianity. These are people in direct opposition to Christianity. You have read the bible right? Even if your an atheist, it is usually common knowledge that Jesus was so against violence he said you should welcome a beating.

Yes, I've read the Bible multiple times but groups like the Army of God and whoever else don't care. Extremists are extremists, they might have different beliefs but at the end of the day it all boils down to the same nonsense.

Army of God is about as Christian as the OP. Kony just uses religion as way of control. Take a look at my nation, it is what I envision.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yes, I've read the Bible multiple times but groups like the Army of God and whoever else don't care. Extremists are extremists, they might have different beliefs but at the end of the day it all boils down to the same nonsense.

Army of God is about as Christian as the OP. Kony just uses religion as way of control. Take a look at my nation, it is what I envision.

I see an orthodox cross on your flag and capitalism and that's all I need to dismiss it.

[Norstal]

That's not extremist Christianity. Not by a long shot.

What's your idea of a Christian?

What you just said. So an extreme Christian would not be that. We use adjectives as a modifier of a noun. Adding adjectives to nouns are supposed change the meaning of the term slightly. Extreme Christians are the ones who use violence and coercion to spread Christianity. Or in other words, they're not the Christians that Jesus wants.

[Shrillland]

Ahh. So you have a problem with democracy when the majority dont agree with your opinion....alright.

I have a problem with democracy when the majority of the people are so backwards that they would kill any man or woman just for leaving Islam, or having sex with someone who is not their spouse. Before any liberal blindly spouts off on the inherent greatness of democracy, I suggest they look at the following statistics:






As you can see, there are quite a few Islamic countries where the substantial majority of people believe that Islamic Sharia should be the law of the land, apostates (people who leave Islam) should be killed, women who commit adultery should be killed, and wives must always obey their husbands at all times. In a pure democracy, what kinds of laws do you think will be made in such countries? Why do secular countries with substantial devout Muslim populations, like Turkey, need the constant supervision of the civilian government by the military? Why did the Egyptian military have to overthrow the Islamist leader Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood? Morsi won the majority of the Egyptian vote, after all, and the majority of the Egyptian populace supports Islamist policies.

Also, I have no problem with religious people expressing their opinion in public. I only have a problem with them affecting public policy, like banning the teaching of evolution in school, implementing blasphemy laws that prevent any criticism of the religion, advocating harsh punishments (even death) for homosexuals, apostates, and atheists, etc. I support the freedom of speech for all people, even people with the vilest ideologies like Nazis and Islamists.

That's not really fair to say that about Egypt. In the first round, the two secular liberals got more votes than Morsi or his Mubarak-esque opponent. The only reason so many voted for the Muslim Brotherhood was that the secular people who were responsible for the revolt tore themselves asunder. As for Turkey, the army has been effectively muzzled by Erdogan and the AKP. As for all those other countries....well, it's their business what they do. It's our business to condemn them wherever possible, but as long as we're so dependent on their oil....there won't be a lot of noise trying to change Islam in these nations.

And make no mistake, I believe Islam can be changed. Christianity has changed. Judaism has changed. Even Shintoism has changed to an extent in the last century. But as long as the minority(in those parts of the world) is afraid to speak up a Luther and Wesley and so many others did, we won't see too much in the field of radical change. As for Muslims in the west, I think most of them just want to practice their faith in peace. Sure, many would like to see more Islamic values in their societies, but it's more along the lines of what many Christians are calling for.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It is dependent upon the society. She may be isolated for wearing it or she may be isolated for not wearing it. We need to promote a society where her choice to wear it or not where it is equally respected.

That I have no problem. If she chooses to wear it for herself and not "guided" by family and friends to wear it.

If you're talking about the hijab, I agree. If it's a personal choice, feel free. But your husband, family, or government should under no circumstances be allowed to impose it on you.

[Neo Telangana]

Let's say that I'm leftist as an ideology, which is your best case scenario. This is to say that I'm attached to the idea of being a leftist and therefore am adjusting my beliefs and actions to match the ideas of the left in an effort to be as left as I can. A purist. Even if I grant that, I still wouldn't be beholden to a traditional outlook. As an ideology it's not about preserving practices. You haven't provided (maybe you have subsequently, which okay, my bad) a reason to adhere to these out of context examples other than there were other people who can be loosely defined as 'left' opposing entrenched religious organizations and their cultural influence or variations thereof. This doesn't dictate why I, identifying as a leftist, should 'oppose' Islam...brings up another problem I'll get to eventually...

My definition of the "left-wing" is derived from the original definition of the term, which originates from the French Revolution. The French Revolutionaries advocated, among other things, republicanism, equality, and anti-clericalism. The last element is the most important for this particular thread. Later movements which identified as "leftist" or "liberal" to varying degrees also opposed organized religion just as the original leftists of the French Revolution, and I have listed several examples. The purpose of listing these examples was to demonstrate that left-wing movements throughout history have been opposed to organized religion on a fairly consistent basis, and to question if modern leftists are or are not living up to this ideological tradition. As for the reasons why the left-wing opposed organized religion, these should be obvious: almost everywhere in the world, to quote Jawaharlal Nehru (who I don't particularly like, but I think was spot-on in this regard), organized religion has stood for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests. It is an obstacle in the leftist mission of elevating the human race and furthering the progress of human society.

Never mind the issue with the poorly defined 'opposing Islam.' What does that even mean? Supporting wars against Islamic nations? Supporting the curtailing of religious freedoms of Islamic people? How many other 'leftist' ideals are supposed to be sold out to hold to this loosely assembled 'historic' leftist opposition to Islam? Maybe I missed it in the OP, but what you've suggested as the left not opposing Islam enough or whatever is that the right wing says so. They're saying so because they're not getting carte blanche to invade Islamic countries or to treat Muslims as enemies. That's horseshit. I don't let people who are nominally on my side to define my beliefs and I don't let people who are nominally opposed to me define my beliefs. You shouldn't either.

Opposing Islam means exactly what it means: opposing, via criticism in speech, print, and other media, of the fundamental teachings and tenets of the Islamic religion. I also believe that leftists should support the overthrow of theocracies and absolute monarchies like Iran and Saudi Arabia (not necessarily through foreign intervention), which we have been doing fairly well since 1789.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I oppose extremism in any religion, at least insofar as it has a negative impact on the lives of others.

Honestly, what we frequently perceive as "extremism" in much of religion is just fundamentalism + force.

[Luziyca]

Personally, I feel that we ought to live and let live. You practice your religion in peace if I can practice mine in peace. You don't impose your view on me, and I shall not impose my view on you.

[Republic of the Cristo]

What's your idea of a Christian?

What you just said. So an extreme Christian would not be that. We use adjectives as a modifier of a noun. Adding adjectives to nouns are supposed change the meaning of the term slightly. Extreme Christians are the ones who use violence and coercion to spread Christianity. Or in other words, they're not the Christians that Jesus wants.

A Christian is someone whom tries to live in a way pleasing and according to what God told them. Violence is talked down upon. So, not really Christian. My, and indeed most or my brothers and sisters, idea of a good Christian is some one whom does not judge others, gives freely and generously, never looks towards violence, and respects those around him.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Army of God is about as Christian as the OP. Kony just uses religion as way of control. Take a look at my nation, it is what I envision.

I see an orthodox cross on your flag and capitalism and that's all I need to dismiss it.

I am actually a Quaker, this just looked like a good flag. And our nation is based in former Russia.

[Czervenika]

Personally, I feel that we ought to live and let live. You practice your religion in peace if I can practice mine in peace. You don't impose your view on me, and I shall not impose my view on you.

Exactly.

(Also, good to see another Titoist sympathizer around here.)

[AquilaJordyn]

Not really. Jesus never said to kill anyone. Pacifism.

And? There are still extremist Christians who kill people over what they view as sin and whatnot.

Your missing the point. You cannot be an extremist christian and kill. Such extremism is not because of faith, its lack thereof. An extreme christian gives everyone hugs and pours you a drink. *gives internet hug* the westboro baptist church for example...extremely bad Christians....mother theresa, people who work at soup kitchens...true extremists.
do not judge the church by those who barely live by its principles, but those who live closest to it- Fulton j sheen.

[Republic of the Cristo]

And? There are still extremist Christians who kill people over what they view as sin and whatnot.

Your missing the point. You cannot be an extremist christian and kill. Such extremism is not because of faith, its lack thereof. An extreme christian gives everyone hugs and pours you a drink. *gives internet hug* the westboro baptist church for example...extremely bad Christians....mother theresa, people who work at soup kitchens...true extremists.
do not judge the church by those who barely live by its principles, but those who live closest to it- Fulton j sheen.

[Cannot think of a name]

Let's say that I'm leftist as an ideology, which is your best case scenario. This is to say that I'm attached to the idea of being a leftist and therefore am adjusting my beliefs and actions to match the ideas of the left in an effort to be as left as I can. A purist. Even if I grant that, I still wouldn't be beholden to a traditional outlook. As an ideology it's not about preserving practices. You haven't provided (maybe you have subsequently, which okay, my bad) a reason to adhere to these out of context examples other than there were other people who can be loosely defined as 'left' opposing entrenched religious organizations and their cultural influence or variations thereof. This doesn't dictate why I, identifying as a leftist, should 'oppose' Islam...brings up another problem I'll get to eventually...

My definition of the "left-wing" is derived from the original definition of the term, which originates from the French Revolution. The French Revolutionaries advocated, among other things, republicanism, equality, and anti-clericalism. The last element is the most important for this particular thread. Later movements which identified as "leftist" or "liberal" to varying degrees also opposed organized religion just as the original leftists of the French Revolution, and I have listed several examples. The purpose of listing these examples was to demonstrate that left-wing movements throughout history have been opposed to organized religion on a fairly consistent basis, and to question if modern leftists are or are not living up to this ideological tradition.

Where you derived your particular ideological wank is of little to no consequence and you will not be receiving extra credit for it. At best you are making sure that we know you're from the People's Liberation Front and not the Liberated People Front, who of course are a bunch of splitters. What flavor of 'left-wing' you've chosen doesn't make an argument for me to do squat, leaving your historical examples in the same problem. Why do I care if people who've fit the definition of leftism you've hitched your wagon to did some things that if put in the right context seemed to 'oppose Islam'? If you want me to subscribe to your newsletter you'll have to do a better job.

As for the reasons why the left-wing opposed organized religion, these should be obvious: almost everywhere in the world, to quote Jawaharlal Nehru (who I don't particularly like, but I think was spot-on in this regard), organized religion has stood for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests. It is an obstacle in the leftist mission of elevating the human race and furthering the progress of human society.

Now you're talking about organized religion in general and not specifically Islam. But this dovetails into your other thing so I'll wait.

Never mind the issue with the poorly defined 'opposing Islam.' What does that even mean? Supporting wars against Islamic nations? Supporting the curtailing of religious freedoms of Islamic people? How many other 'leftist' ideals are supposed to be sold out to hold to this loosely assembled 'historic' leftist opposition to Islam? Maybe I missed it in the OP, but what you've suggested as the left not opposing Islam enough or whatever is that the right wing says so. They're saying so because they're not getting carte blanche to invade Islamic countries or to treat Muslims as enemies. That's horseshit. I don't let people who are nominally on my side to define my beliefs and I don't let people who are nominally opposed to me define my beliefs. You shouldn't either.

Opposing Islam means exactly what it means: opposing, via criticism in speech, print, and other media, of the fundamental teachings and tenets of the Islamic religion. I also believe that leftists should support the overthrow of theocracies and absolute monarchies like Iran and Saudi Arabia (not necessarily through foreign intervention), which we have been doing fairly well since 1789.

So...did the 'leftists' not sufficiently support the Arab Spring? This is all still a little too vague, I'm afraid. I mean, I guess if you weren't getting your 'what the leftists have been up to' from the right you'd have noticed a lot of criticism about the individual human rights issues that has come from 'the left' etc.

At best right wing fervor against Islam has all but sucked all the oxygen out of the room. I can oppose the suppression of women or theocratic governments, but that doesn't mean I'm going to slam the entire Muslim population or burn Korans or whatever or support invasions.

So we're at the same impasse. I don't care what definition of left wing you're using nor does your definition dictate how I should go about or prioritize my own beliefs nor has your prescription to action really been that clearly laid out especially in light of things that people already do. "More" isn't really a good answer.

I won't be subscribing to your newsletter, but good luck in your endeavors, I guess.

[Neo Telangana]

Where you derived your particular ideological wank is of little to no consequence and you will not be receiving extra credit for it. At best you are making sure that we know you're from the People's Liberation Front and not the Liberated People Front, who of course are a bunch of splitters. What flavor of 'left-wing' you've chosen doesn't make an argument for me to do squat, leaving your historical examples in the same problem. Why do I care if people who've fit the definition of leftism you've hitched your wagon to did some things that if put in the right context seemed to 'oppose Islam'? If you want me to subscribe to your newsletter you'll have to do a better job.

Without an objective definition of the "left-wing", the term becomes quite meaningless. I have attempted to introduce an objective definition of the left-wing, based on history, to minimize the ambiguity of classifying certain movements and ideologies.

If you consider yourself a leftist, on what basis do you do so?

Now you're talking about organized religion in general and not specifically Islam. But this dovetails into your other thing so I'll wait.

I am of course opposed to organized religion in general. This should have been clear from the OP itself. I have chosen to specifically highlight Islam in this thread because I have gotten the impression that a sizable portion of modern "leftists" are surprisingly apologetic when it comes to criticism of Islam as an ideology. This same level of apologia does not exist for Christianity, for example, which is quite happily criticized by the left-wing (from my impression). I have made this thread to explore this apologia in some more depth, and highlight its inherent absurdity when seen against the historical backdrop of past leftist movements and activism.

So...did the 'leftists' not sufficiently support the Arab Spring? This is all still a little too vague, I'm afraid. I mean, I guess if you weren't getting your 'what the leftists have been up to' from the right you'd have noticed a lot of criticism about the individual human rights issues that has come from 'the left' etc.

At best right wing fervor against Islam has all but sucked all the oxygen out of the room. I can oppose the suppression of women or theocratic governments, but that doesn't mean I'm going to slam the entire Muslim population or burn Korans or whatever or support invasions

I do not support the so-called Arab Spring, because I do not support the institution of democracy in countries where the majority of people are heavily religious and believe that Islamic Sharia should be the law of the land, women should be killed for adultery, apostates should be killed for leaving Islam, and no one can criticize Islam, the Quran, or the Prophet Muhammad (on pain of death). I support secular, socialist dictatorships in these regions, not democracies. I merely said that I support the overthrow of absolute monarchies and theocracies, not their immediate replacement with democracy.

[Meryuma]

Sam Harris isn't a conservative. He's rather liberal. Wanting to legalise marriage for homosexuals, raise taxes on the wealthy, etc.
Maher holds some more rightist or libertarian views, but broadly speaking he's centre-leftish.
Hitchens was a Marxist and continued to look favourably upon Lenin, Trotsky, the October Revolution, etc. Hell apparently his last words were "Capitalism, downfall"
Dawkins has supported the Lib Dems and Labour. Hardly the den of right wingers.

Shh! Facts don't matter to those who recite typical baseless anti-New Atheist talking points.

"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it" - Sam Harris.

Also, these revolutions did indeed take down the old monarchies. And whom did they set up in there place? Supreme dictators with arguably even more power than the kings, all with their own cult of personality.

Leftists invented anarchism.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You would not allow for people to freely and peacefully express themselves in the public? That is very intolerant.

Also, these revolutions did indeed take down the old monarchies. And whom did they set up in there place? Supreme dictators with arguably even more power than the kings, all with their own cult of personality.

Proselytizing a dangerous falsehood is different, in the opinion of many.

Also: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anarchism+history

[Prussia-Steinbach]

A Christian is someone whom tries to live in a way pleasing and according to what God told them.

Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1. of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
informal
having or showing qualities associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness.
noun
noun: Christian; plural noun: Christians
1. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Also, that can't be true because God isn't real.

[The Liberated Territories]

Don't oppose Islam, oppose Islamists.

[Neo Telangana]

Don't oppose Islam, oppose Islamists.

Why shouldn't we oppose Islam itself? The Quran is disgusting and immoral, the Hadiths are disgusting and immoral, and the life of Muhammad himself was disgusting and immoral. Indeed, if Muhammad were alive today, I would advocate his arrest on charges of rape, murder, and terrorism.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Don't oppose Islam, oppose Islamists.

Why shouldn't we oppose Islam itself? The Quran is disgusting and immoral, the Hadiths are disgusting and immoral, and the life of Muhammad himself was disgusting and immoral. Indeed, if Muhammad were alive today, I would advocate his arrest on charges of rape, murder, and terrorism.

Largely agreed.

Same for the Bible.

[Czervenika]

Don't oppose Islam, oppose Islamists.

Why shouldn't we oppose Islam itself? The Quran is disgusting and immoral, the Hadiths are disgusting and immoral, and the life of Muhammad himself was disgusting and immoral. Indeed, if Muhammad were alive today, I would advocate his arrest on charges of rape, murder, and terrorism.

The thing about Islam is that it's doing the same thing now that Christianity was doing about 600 years ago. Islam is also about 600 years newer than Christianity.

[Cannot think of a name]

Where you derived your particular ideological wank is of little to no consequence and you will not be receiving extra credit for it. At best you are making sure that we know you're from the People's Liberation Front and not the Liberated People Front, who of course are a bunch of splitters. What flavor of 'left-wing' you've chosen doesn't make an argument for me to do squat, leaving your historical examples in the same problem. Why do I care if people who've fit the definition of leftism you've hitched your wagon to did some things that if put in the right context seemed to 'oppose Islam'? If you want me to subscribe to your newsletter you'll have to do a better job.

Without an objective definition of the "left-wing", the term becomes quite meaningless. I have attempted to introduce an objective definition of the left-wing, based on history, to minimize the ambiguity of classifying certain movements and ideologies.

If you consider yourself a leftist, on what basis do you do so?

I don't. I'm not picking a sports team to root for, I'm having a loosely organized set of policy questions being slotted into an arbitrary binary of political thought in order to reduce several complex ideas into a versus narrative. I'm 'left' because more of the choices on this scale come down on what has currently been determined as 'left' than right. As to whose jersey that puts me in I have little to no interest as I am not going to base other decisions on what the 'team' does, past or present.

Now you're talking about organized religion in general and not specifically Islam. But this dovetails into your other thing so I'll wait.

I am of course opposed to organized religion in general. This should have been clear from the OP itself. I have chosen to specifically highlight Islam in this thread because I have gotten the impression that a sizable portion of modern "leftists" are surprisingly apologetic when it comes to criticism of Islam as an ideology. This same level of apologia does not exist for Christianity, for example, which is quite happily criticized by the left-wing (from my impression). I have made this thread to explore this apologia in some more depth, and highlight its inherent absurdity when seen against the historical backdrop of past leftist movements and activism.

Again, you should not get your impressions of the left you say you belong to from the characterizations on right wing AM radio. Because this is rhetoric. You're shaming into action based on a definition of the people you're arguing against so that they have to answer that instead of actually proposing an idea. It's unbecoming. Don't do it.

So...did the 'leftists' not sufficiently support the Arab Spring? This is all still a little too vague, I'm afraid. I mean, I guess if you weren't getting your 'what the leftists have been up to' from the right you'd have noticed a lot of criticism about the individual human rights issues that has come from 'the left' etc.

At best right wing fervor against Islam has all but sucked all the oxygen out of the room. I can oppose the suppression of women or theocratic governments, but that doesn't mean I'm going to slam the entire Muslim population or burn Korans or whatever or support invasions

I do not support the so-called Arab Spring, because I do not support the institution of democracy in countries where the majority of people are heavily religious and believe that Islamic Sharia should be the law of the land, women should be killed for adultery, apostates should be killed for leaving Islam, and no one can criticize Islam, the Quran, or the Prophet Muhammad (on pain of death). I support secular, socialist dictatorships in these regions, not democracies. I merely said that I support the overthrow of absolute monarchies and theocracies, not their immediate replacement with democracy.

And this I suppose is why you're doing it. Because this is basically the right's policy stance, that them there Muslims can't handle democracy. But if you said that you wouldn't get to be part of the 'left' to say that. At least in American terms, this is the the side of the issue that the conservative right has staked out. So, you figure, if you can make it seem like a 'left' idea then we'll all go, "Wait, I'm on the left...I should believe this too then."

But that's fucking stupid. This has been the central premise of my complaint and hasn't been addressed yet. I don't make decisions based on whose jersey people are wearing.

I still will not be subscribing to your newsletter.

[Wallenburg]

Only the most extreme Marxists want to actively destroy religion. The average liberal opposes its overreach into government and law. Also, why do you specify Islam? Why not Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, or Saddleback Churchianism?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Only the most extreme Marxists want to actively destroy religion. The average liberal opposes its overreach into government and law. Also, why do you specify Islam? Why not Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, or Saddleback Churchianism?

Because Islamic terrorism is kind of in the news nowadays, don't ya know.