Is leftism pro-Islam?

[patrick1]

What it means is that my country doesn't trump my support for human rights, for example it means I still think Pinochet is scum (dazzleman once said I was anti-American for hating him).  dazzleman also said he considers the Saudi Royals better than Hugo Chavez and judges them ONLY on how well they get along with the US, while I say Chavez is far better because he doesn't run a theocratic police state.

From the full text of the post  it appeared that you support Chavez more than the United States because he matches your idealogy more closely.  If that is the case you should whistle the Internationale down to Caracas.  You gave every right to criticize the US but I feel your country should come before your idealogy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The problem is you are comparing a government to a nation.

Do I support Venezuela more than the US? No.

Do I support Chavez's government of Venezuela more than the current government of the US? Yes. Why should I not? It's a hell of a lot closer to my ideology, and I'm not going to follow an asswipe like Bush. And like I said, I don't consider Chavez anti-American, just pissed at Bush, with valid reason considering Bush backed a coup against him.

I would agree that someone who is truly anti-American like opebo (who can't seem to say anything good about it) should leave (which he does for half the year and would very well do permamently if it was simple), but conservatives like to twist opposition to the current government into being anti-American.

There's a family in my hometown who are hardly anti-American. They had a very patriotic tradition, even to the point where one of their sons joined the Army. Well then he was killed in Iraq. His parents turned rabidly against Bush. Ever since that they have put up a huge banner on their house "BUSH SENT OUR SON HOME IN A BODY BAG". My parents tell me they are now the most rabidly anti-Bush people they've ever talked to, even moreso than me. Does that mean they hate America?

I also find it pretty hilarious to claim that I'm anti-American when during the Olympics I was hoping that the American athletes win every single event I saw simply on that basis alone and never rooted for anyone else! Wouldn't an American-hater want to see them fail?

[Nation]

To be fair Dazzle, you DID say most leftists, and while I agree that the far left has too big of an influence on the party, that doesn't necessary correlate to what the majority of Democrats believe.

I think the problem here is that we have several rather extreme members on this board, from both sides of the political spectrum, and they are -- how should I put this --- rather VOCAL about what they believe, while some of the less extreme, more standard Democrats like myself, don't usually pipe up that much.

Most leftists don't hate America, and the ones that you claim DO --- will hate America in an indirect way. They will say things and believe in causes that aren't really beneficial to OUR country in any way -- that's their right to do so, and it's what they see as what is best for the USA -- no matter how wrong they may be.

Doesn't mean they hate America, though.  They certainly don't realize how !@#$damn lucky we have it here, but a lot of Americans seem to have that problem. Sticking an  American flag on your car or attending a pro-choice rally also doesn't do sh**t.

[Nation]

Also BRTD, in regards to Opebo -- it IS simple. He's a lazy piece of s.h.i.t. He can't leave for the rest of the year so he can get more of his trust fund money to piss off on Thai whores.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Probably right, he prefers living here half the year to actually having to work in another country. Oh well, his choice.

And look at this way patrick, using this logic one could argue that you're anti-American for supporting the IRA over Britain, a US ally. But I won't make this ridiculous claim because I realize the situation at hand has virtually nothing to do with relations with the US.

[dazzleman]

To be fair Dazzle, you DID say most leftists, and while I agree that the far left has too big of an influence on the party, that doesn't necessary correlate to what the majority of Democrats believe.

I think the problem here is that we have several rather extreme members on this board, from both sides of the political spectrum, and they are -- how should I put this --- rather VOCAL about what they believe, while some of the less extreme, more standard Democrats like myself, don't usually pipe up that much.

Most leftists don't hate America, and the ones that you claim DO --- will hate America in an indirect way. They will say things and believe in causes that aren't really beneficial to OUR country in any way -- that's their right to do so, and it's what they see as what is best for the USA -- no matter how wrong they may be.

Doesn't mean they hate America, though.  They certainly don't realize how !@#$damn lucky we have it here, but a lot of Americans seem to have that problem. Sticking an  American flag on your car or attending a pro-choice rally also doesn't do sh**t.

Nation, I don't think most regular Democrats are leftists in the sense that I describe them here.   However, I do think that leftists have a stranglehold over the Democratic Party because they are so vocal, contribute a large portion of the money the party needs, and get a free pass effectively from certain segments of the party.  This gives them much more influence than would be indicated by their numbers.

I have to disagree with you about most leftists not at least disliking America.  I believe that anti-Americanism is a central component of the leftist ideology, and there is a knee-jerk tendency among leftists to take the anti-American position on almost any issue.

There are different degrees of leftism.  There is Michael Moore, who is an America-hater who wishes us ill, on one extreme.  Less extreme is someone like Nancy Pelosi, who doesn't hate America, but who doesn't support some of the measures necessary to keep us secure.  There's some difference between these two types, but unfortunately, they sometimes produce the same results.

I don't base my opinions on any of this on people from this forum, though the leftists on this forum (and there really are only a handful) generally confirm the opinions that I hold about their philosophy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Re: Incitement to Religious Hatred, there's been a lot of misreporting about that. It doesn't ban critisicm of religion or religions, it doesn't effect just Muslims, it's not another blasphemy law, it won't effect religious jokes, the burden of proof will be very high... etc etc etc

It's likely that there will only be one or two prosecutions a year (the Attorney General will have to approve any prosecution) and it should be pointed out that since Inciting Racial Hatred was made a crime only 67 people have been put on trial for it and only 44 of those have been convicted.

This is a note published alongside with the bill:

"the offences will not encompass material that just stirs up ridicule or prejudice or causes offence. Further, what must be stirred up is hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs and not hatred of the religion itself."

[migrendel]

While I'm sure the Home Office has the admirable intention of trying to stop the BNP from burning down Keighley, Bradford, Oldham, etc., the possibility for misconstrual in future years is far too great. I think Evan Harris's proposed alternative is a great improvement, but even that could have a chilling effect on free speech. Ultimately, Britain would be wise to abrogate the common law offense of blasphemy, because it can rear its ugly head again, just as it was revived in 1977, and commit itself to protecting the discourse on the topic of religion.

[migrendel]

In response to your query, dazzleman, I daresay that I understand, but once again, you've found a sinister motive behind the most benign desire to respect religious freedom. I respect Muslims for their unflinching commitment to what they believe, just as I respect evangelical Christians for the intensity of their faith, but in this country with its tradition of legal secularism,  I would oppose any attempt by either group to codify their beliefs in a way that would restrict the freedoms of others. I think that's simple and guileless enough for you to understand.

[dazzleman]

In response to your query, dazzleman, I daresay that I understand, but once again, you've found a sinister motive behind the most benign desire to respect religious freedom. I respect Muslims for their unflinching commitment to what they believe, just as I respect evangelical Christians for the intensity of their faith, but in this country with its tradition of legal secularism,  I would oppose any attempt by either group to codify their beliefs in a way that would restrict the freedoms of others. I think that's simple and guileless enough for you to understand.

You obviously didn't understand my point, or have chosen to ignore it.  I will give you a simple example that you can understand.  After Sept. 11, schools in New York City bent over backwards to make sure that Muslim students were allowed to pray in school during Ramadan.  Would Christians have been afforded this courtesy for a Christian holiday?  I trust you can figure out the answer to that question.

[phk]

In response to your query, dazzleman, I daresay that I understand, but once again, you've found a sinister motive behind the most benign desire to respect religious freedom. I respect Muslims for their unflinching commitment to what they believe, just as I respect evangelical Christians for the intensity of their faith, but in this country with its tradition of legal secularism,  I would oppose any attempt by either group to codify their beliefs in a way that would restrict the freedoms of others. I think that's simple and guileless enough for you to understand.

You obviously didn't understand my point, or have chosen to ignore it.  I will give you a simple example that you can understand.  After Sept. 11, schools in New York City bent over backwards to make sure that Muslim students were allowed to pray in school during Ramadan.  Would Christians have been afforded this courtesy for a Christian holiday?  I trust you can figure out the answer to that question.

Both religions should be banned in schools.\


Religion and education are opposing values.

[Jake]

What it means is that my country doesn't trump my support for human rights, for example it means I still think Pinochet is scum (dazzleman once said I was anti-American for hating him).  dazzleman also said he considers the Saudi Royals better than Hugo Chavez and judges them ONLY on how well they get along with the US, while I say Chavez is far better because he doesn't run a theocratic police state.

The only way to judge a nation outside our borders is on how the support the US. I see no reason to whine and cry about people in Saudi Arabia as long as the oil continues to pump. Now, if the oil doesn't continue to pump out of Venezuela, we have a responsibility to shoot Chavez and replace him with someone pro-American.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So you'd have no problem with a nation that was undertaking a genocidal ethnic cleansing as long as they didn't bash the US and would consider them better than France?

BTW, this also makes you a hypocrite for supporting the IRA and Sinn Fein, since they oppose Britain, a US ally.

[A18]

Obviously statism/leftism is basically the exact same thing as Islam.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously statism/leftism is basically the exact same thing as Islam.

By the obvious theorem

[A18]

Both ideologies want to reduce you to a mere part of them.

[Jake]

The IRA does not oppose any significant US interest. Fighting to break away from an ally impacts us not at all.

Depends on whether they were infringing on any specific US interest. Hypothetically, lets say we're talking about an Iraqi government of the late 1980s. Let's say their relations with the US are amicable. If Hussein continued to oppress his people, we would have no immediate reason to go to war, unless a critical interest, oil, support against the Soviets (or terrorism if the situation was current), etc were threatened.

To put it in a way that will penetrate your thick head, the US has a responsibility to protect our interests overseas. For now they include, but aren't limited to, oil, basis to fight terrorism, support for Israel and Taiwan, overseeing Korea's defense, keeping dangerous states from developing nuclear weapons. Certainly there are others. If we fail to protect those interests, we have failed in our responsibilities.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Would Christians have been afforded this courtesy for a Christian holiday?

Probably not. Which is a shame.

[dazzleman]

I still think Pinochet is scum (dazzleman once said I was anti-American for hating him). 

No, I said you were anti-American because even if he had the exact same policies, you would not have hated him if he had been an enemy, rather than a friend, of the US.

[Michael Z]

No.  There are very few things that must come in the package of "being from the left", and one's opinion of Islam is not one of them.  Debate would be a lot more productive if we stopped telling other people what they believe and instead discussed what they actually believe.

tell that to dazzleman.

I have repeatedly done so in the past, actually.

Ditto. You might as well talk to a wall.

[minionofmidas]

(Though his opinions are nowhere as extreme,) he sometimes reminds me a lot of Migrendel actually.

[dazzleman]

No.  There are very few things that must come in the package of "being from the left", and one's opinion of Islam is not one of them.  Debate would be a lot more productive if we stopped telling other people what they believe and instead discussed what they actually believe.

You're right.  Not all leftists are apologists for fundamentalist Islam.  But there is an element on the left that considers fundamentalist Islam at the very least a lesser evil than the US.

I have never said that ALL leftists are pro-Islam, but I have said that there is some tendency on the left to overlook some of the hideous aspects of fundamentalist Islam because of its anti-Americanism.  Some people have taken that to mean that I believe every person to the left of Ronald Reagan thinks that way.  I do not believe that, but apparently have not communicated it very well.

What I can't do is deny a behavior that has been somewhat prevalent on the left since the 1960s - to look sympathetically at that which is hostile to the US.  While I don't say every leftist does this, I cannot honestly deny that this tendency exists.  If this means that talking to me is like talking to a wall, so be it.  Facts are stubborn things, as my hero Josef Stalin once said.

[angus]

Religion and education are opposing values.

  ?!?!

[Everett]

Religion and education are opposing values.

  ?!?!

Uh yeah. I think he's going crazy with his alternate personalities again...

[opebo]

Religion and education are opposing values.

  ?!?!

Uh yeah. I think he's going crazy with his alternate personalities again...

No, Pnkrocket  is exactly correct here.  What he is saying, I believe, is that religion is all about ignorance and closing ones mind - essentially an intellectual lobotomy.  Education is about continually searching for more, not giving up and limiting oneself.