|
I've been thinking about this topic for a while now, and with the recent events in Belgium, today seems as good a day as any to post about it. My topic is this: why does the political left, while normally so skeptical of rampant ideology and grand narratives, suddenly collapse into a puddle of equivocation when discussing the grandest narrative there is? How is it that those who normally speak with such passionate clarity on issues of inclusiveness and toleration find themselves playing apologist for bodies of belief which are inherently (and quite by design) exclusionary and intolerant? How is it those allied with progressive forces suddenly find themselves morally paralysed when staring into the face of the most regressive force on the planet today? Why, in short, is the political left unable to bring itself to criticise religion? Let me start with my own background on this issue, in the hope that it might pre-empt some of the more vacuous instantiations of moral posturing. I'm part of the political left. I'm not a closet conservative, and can't think of any beliefs I have that would place me on that side of politics. I'm attacking religion here from a leftist perspective, and won't bother responding to anyone who tries to muddy the waters by arguing otherwise. I similarly have a broad interest in religion and theology (I've posted several threads here about Biblical scholarship, for instance) so I don't believe I'm posting from a position of ignorance about religion or how it works. I also believe, however, that religion - even in its more seemingly irenic or unobtrusive guises - is ultimately an obstacle to social progress. That's what I'm going to try to explain here, in the hope that it will - at the very least - stimulate a bit of discussion about the place of religion in left-wing politics. While reading through the D&D thread on the Belgian bombings, I noticed very quickly that posters were very quick to try to dissociate the bombers from mainstream Muslims. Given the current political climate of simply baseless and ill-informed Islamophobia (which, as a resident of central Europe, I encounter daily) this is absolutely necessary, and to be stressed at every turn: Muslims are no more or less moral, or to be feared, than members of any other social group. They deserve our protection from the mobs of right-wing thugs amassing at their doorsteps, and attacks like this should not dissuade us from stressing the ethical duty we have to protect and accommodate asylum-seekers currently entering Europe from the Islamic world. I shouldn't even need to point this out, but it bears repeating under the circumstances. On the other hand, there was also a peculiar side-argument in which some posters seemed eager to dissociate the bombers from Islam tout court, as though there could be no connection (given the overwhelming peacefulness of Muslims generally) between Islam and the acts we've just witnessed. I believe this error is well-intentioned, but it's an error nonetheless. When talking about the motivation people have for committing one act or another, one-dimensional answers will obviously not do: even explaining something as simple as why I chose to drink a glass of milk before going to bed last night will need to incorporate a whole host of social, cultural, psychological and biological factors. Saying "religion causes terrorism" is a ridiculous over-simplification, I agree. Nonetheless, religion is at best plainly unable to curb violent impulses among its adherents, and at worst a factor in creating or exacerbating them. Religion, similarly, is not something that pre-exists culture or consciousness, and cannot merely be invoked as a kind of deus ex machina whenever we're in need of quick, easy-to-digest narrative. Religion involves a range of practices and beliefs that cannot be reduced to a laundry list of metaphysical claims or dogmas, and any attempt to understand religion on those terms is doomed to failure. On the other hand, it simply won't do to dismiss the importance of articulate religious ideas on the minds of believers, nor to dismiss the salience of these beliefs in the motivations of its practitioners. The specific content of religious beliefs, contrary to what we secular folk on the left might think, actually makes a difference to people. Religion is not merely a claim to a certain identity or a set of metaphysical commitments, it's a totalising ideology which imposes itself with great efficacy on the whole psychology of a person. If it weren't capable of doing that so successfully, it wouldn't exist. This "totalising" aspect of religion is something we shouldn't overlook: the demands of adhering to a religion inevitably supersede all other concerns. Some people are better at compartmentalising religious (vis a vis secular) concerns than others, but religion is still invariably presented (by moderate and radical alike) as the most important, elemental and non-negotiable part of one's personhood. Once one renders a particular belief sacred, that belief is in danger of being rendered immutable, and of placing itself completely beyond the possibility of reproach. Given that the left believes in progress - which necessarily involves the alteration of what presently exists - such immutable beliefs immediately represent an obstacle to what we would like to achieve. Remember: wherever there has been social progress, the last vestiges of stubborn, procrustean resistance have always been found among religious congregations. That's not to say that secular people cannot equally on occasion be reactionary fuckwits, nor that religious people cannot be progressive, merely that the persistence of immutable ideas - which form the bedrock of religious traditions - are, all other things being equal, an impediment to progress. There is no justification for the presence of such sacred cows in public discourse, and no-one should be playing apologist for them: good ideas will stand on their own merits, bad ones we are better for leaving by the wayside. We should be challenging all ideas, not merely the low-hanging fruit that white, middle-aged conservatives deign to dangle before us from time to time. Where religious beliefs (or any beliefs, for that matter) go unchallenged, they start to be taken for granted. Propositions which any thinking person would rightly denounce were they to ever be fully articulated, and forced through the conscious mind, instead lie festering in the wider, social unconscious. Here, pernicious ideas continue peddle their influence on otherwise good, decent individuals, not necessarily against their will, but certainly without their conscious assent. When we on the left talk of "super-structures", this is part of what we mean. Sexism and racism are two good historical examples of just this process. Otherwise decent people, who never harmed anyone in their lives, were completely passive in the face of the violence done to women and people of colour. Until later movements of "consciousness raising", there was simply no way of adequately coming to terms with sexism or racism because no-one (with a few brave exceptions) had successfully pointed out and challenged these ideas. The ideologies of patriarchy and imperialism created and supported human misery, quite independently of the presumptive moral propriety of great swaths of the people. Only by challenging the ideologies themselves could people become conscious of their moral blindspots, and to take a conscious moral position on previously unarticulated (but still effective) norms. Religious beliefs inspire similar harm where its more egregious conceits are not brought out into the open and challenged. For example, that the overwhelming majority of Christians would never openly denigrate a homosexual, and may even step into condemn it when they witness it happening, is not to say that Christianity is not - for all that - an incredibly efficient vehicle for homophobia on the whole. Where norms of sexual propriety are so readily invoked within the faith, disparagement of homosexuality (among many other forms of sexuality) becomes a cheap and easy signal of righteousness. Unspoken assumptions about the propriety of particular forms of sexuality therefore motivate and lend a veneer of credibility to regressive ethics.The only way to undermine this is to openly challenge the religious basis which gives these norms their spurious authority. In Islam, the wearing of the hijab, segregated prayer and a male monopoly on the clergy reinforce gender essentialism. Even if we dismiss the more scurrilous claims made about gender equality within Islam made by the political right, and presume that none of these things are a matter of significant concern or difficulty for the overwhelming majority of Muslim women, these arbitrary cultural expressions can only serve to reinforce regressive attitudes towards gender difference. The (male) leaders of a particular community may preach nothing but the most progressive of attitudes with regards to gender equality, but the message is immediately undermined by the ubiquitous presence of only male voices within positions of genuine religious authority. There is absolutely no reason not to call these norms into question even where no overt harm or oppression towards women is observed. It's also worth giving a thought to how it is that religious moralities are formed and preserved. Immutable, totalising ideas are great for social cohesion, but only so long as they can be preserved from the polluting influence of the ideas of other groups. Religion, as an unconscious form of self-defence, creates a tribalistic distinction between the beloved "in group" and the conterminously inferior "out groups". Religious beliefs, which are hard to fake and costly (in terms of time at least) to ritually express, become tokens of social commitment and thereby become enmeshed in - and inseparable from - one’s social identity. Even a relatively incidental perceived slight against a given religious belief may therefore readily be construed in the believer’s mind into an attack against both her and her kin. Normal discourse, banal moral negotiations, are raised to the level of existential threat: there’s nothing a religious person enjoys more than a good persecution complex. The sad parade of violent religious chauvinism visible around the world bears this out: it is always performed in “self-defence”. Jews persecuting Palestinians in Gaza; Hindus persecuting Muslims in northern India; Buddhists persecuting Muslims in Myanmar; Islamic terrorism; the imperialistic adventurism of the Christian right: each of these, in every case, justified in terms of self-defence. That the majority of religious people are not violent, that they would denounce such violence and / or that there are other factors involved beyond religion in these conflicts is beside the point. The main point here is that religion offers an extremely vivid, non-negotiable set of social markers that are regarded (by moderate and radical alike) as more serious than life and death themselves. This, at the very least, offers fecund ground for violence. That I wear these clothes, or pray to this God, or eat this food is, of course, an entirely arbitrary consequence of the march of history. Yet, to believers, one’s commitment to at least a part of these cultural markers is the single most important commitment that one can make in one’s life. Moderates and radicals alike therefore offer the same message, present in all religions: life without religion is meaningless, God is greater than humanity, Heaven is greater than the Earth. With these kind of claims circulating, violence can be spurred at the drop of the hat, even where the majority of a given community have hitherto lived peacefully. With God on one’s side, anything is possible. I submit the Balkans as an example. We should therefore not be surprised when religious collapses into mindless tribalism: tribalism is religion’s raison d’etre. We should not be surprised where religion motivates fervid chauvinism and disregard for human life: all religions place the dignity of gods and heavens above the dignity of people. If you think I‘m being unfair, or that I’m lumping the moderates in with the radicals, then find me a theologian who is prepared to say openly that the dignity of God is not worth a single human life. One. Where the claims of religion erode appreciation for the suffering of human beings - by trivialising it as a mere transient step on the path towards a perfect, eschatological justice - they work against the possibility of social progress. That there are other sources of inhumanity, is not to say that we shouldn’t slay this one. So let’s stop equivocating: God matters less than people. We shouldn’t be shy in making this idea heard. Blurred fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Mar 25, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Blurred posted:find me a theologian who is prepared to say openly that the dignity of God is not worth a single human life. One. What is your standard for theologian?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Blurred posted:why does the political left, while normally so skeptical of rampant ideology and grand narratives The political left is no more free of ideology, narrative, or magical thinking than anyone else. Go dig a few of the fringier leftists up some time and see how many versions of "Stalinism/Anarchism/Primitivism can totally work because..." you can get that are basically just "Step 1: Everyone is ideologically pure. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Utopia!" Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:What is your standard for theologian? I'm flexible, show me what you've got. Rent-A-Cop posted:Your confusion stems from you starting with this fundamentally false assertion. I agree, but that only makes leftist apologetics for religious ideology even more confusing. Why lend support to the competition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
So, uh, bit of mouthful here, let's break it down. So I agree with a lot of your points, I suspect not a lot of others in D&D will, they may or may not respond. There's something I still want to challenge you on. I agree in the abstract that religion by necessity creates unnecessary tribalisms - an example here would be the persecution of gnostics, practically whether 'gnosticism' is true or not doesn't effect your daily lives, yet people did kill each other over these sorts of things. But these things wouldn't exist or continue to propagate if they didn't serve some kind of social function. They'd be supplanted by something else fairly quickly. So when you say "well god is not worth a single person", well what is god here? That's not a rhetorical question, or a simple one. If we take it to be the most explicit, 'the assumption of an extra-dimensional creator' or whatever, then your statement is fine, but that perspective doesn't explain its social function. If faith is simply an intellectual assumption, then why is it publicly broadcasted with fervor? Religion is public, not private, so as with anything else in the public domain, we have to ask 'what is being communicated'. Not just directly, but indirectly, perhaps subconsciously. In the case of religion, we have a set of assumptions not just bound up with metaphysics, but morality. It's also impossible to ignore the historical position of religion when related to ethics, to even simple things like swearing on a bible. So to proclaim religiosity is not to express your belief, but to communicate to anyone who will listen, that you are a good person. And that's something people want, they want others to know they are good people, because they know if others don't think that, they may not like them. And no one wants to be alone. Thing is, this extends beyond religion. Essentially anything can be used to express this, even something like dress. If you dress like a member of a biker gang, and you meet another gang member, you're going to feel like you have something in common beyond that dress, with things like behavior, values and so on. But logically, those two things are unrelated, there's nothing magical about leather that increases aggression, integrity and stubbornness. Yet so long as that charade continues, you may trust each other, without basis, because you both feel you may have some in common. All because you're wearing dead cow skins studded cosmetically and impractically. So when people kill 'for god', they're doing it for what god symbolizes, not for the thing itself (I mean they've never personally met it, on account of it not existing, and killing for a stranger is normally unusual). It could be the values, but more often than not it's for the community that accepted them. The ideas aren't 'immutable' because of anything to do with them personally, but that they community they come from has reached a consensus on that. It's immutable for them because to convince that community by themselves is something beyond their control. So when you ask 'well why aren't we really looking at religion', well it turns out it's more complicated than that. I think, and I've said this in the Belgium thread, that there are particular problems within contemporary islamic communities that are equivocated away, I feel unfairly, probably for a fear that that would generate more prejudice against muslims. But the issue isn't really religion or religiosity, that's just one expression of the same set of problems - how can you be inclusive without being exploited, how can you encourage convergence without oppression, how do you trust without being betrayed? I'm not sure I have the answer. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
So basically you want Obama to say the words 'radical Islamic terrorism'? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
To expand on icantfindaname's question: what do you think is to be done? Are you advocating a shift in rhetoric? In attitude? In foreign or domestic policy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
I would argue that Christianity is, at its core, grounded in a theology of radical equality and revolutionary liberation and provides a firm ground with which to challenge exploitative systems. quote:I have spoken of orthodoxy coming in like a sword; here I confess it came in like a battle-axe. For really (when I came to think of it) Christianity is the only thing left that has any real right to question the power of the well-nurtured or the well-bred. I have listened often enough to Socialists, or even to democrats, saying that the physical conditions of the poor must of necessity make them mentally and morally degraded. I have listened to scientific men (and there are still scientific men not opposed to democracy) saying that if we give the poor healthier conditions vice and wrong will disappear. I have listened to them with a horrible attention, with a hideous fascination. For it was like watching a man energetically sawing from the tree the branch he is sitting on. quote:We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. But this which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and terrible sense true of all human things. An almost unnatural vigilance is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity with which human institutions grow old. It is the custom in passing romance and journalism to talk of men suffering under old tyrannies. quote:Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world. For the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption, not that the rich are necessary (which is tenable), but that the rich are trustworthy, which (for a Christian) is not tenable. You will hear everlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he hasbeen bribed already. That is why he is a rich man. The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt. There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck. It is not demonstrably un-Christian to kill the rich as violators of definable justice. It is not demonstrably un-Christian to crown the rich as convenient rulers of society. It is not certainly un-Christian to rebel against the rich or to submit to the rich. But it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor. quote:But if the divinity is true it is certainly terribly revolutionary. That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point--and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologise in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay, (the matter grows too difficult for human speech,) but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
I don't think any reasonable godless heathens defend any given religion except as a " there's nothing unique to ______ faith to single them out". Generally speaking there is a known issue with young people being radicalised and this causing civil unrest, people want to blame this problem on the "other" religions not being correct enough so obviously this is why THEY do their horrible things. But this is an issue of human disenfranchisement, people are discontent with the world order and it's only religion that offers any solutions. The Western world is still coping with this ineffectively because it is an out of context problem. Collectively there isn't the ability to analyze the situation outside of my religion versus theirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
The left is inherently critical of religion, atleast where I'm from. But it takes care to separate the people who follow it from the religion itself, and this is key. This is why the criticism is more of religiosity than the religions themselves, atleast in Sweden. But then again maybe its more common with religion in the US "left wing". Not to mention american leftism is coloured by the rampant fanaticism in US society at large. A politician saying "God told me to run for president" or anything of the sort like Marco Rubio did, is unelectable in Sweden. Even on the far right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
The left defends Muslims (which is what you're really referring to) because socially Muslims have been painted as a separate and inferior race compared to White (sometimes Christian) people. I mean it's already standard that Muslim is a dogwhistle for "Arab", eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QhJJBfwJME computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
1. The left, as a whole, is founded upon meta-narratives. The scepticism you're alluding to is mostly a post 1968 phenomenon confined to academia and it's offshoots. Most leftists I know continue to rely upon broadly based historical or economic narratives and frameworks for interpreting and understanding the world. In fact, even most so called post-structuralists, the people who theoretically distrust meta-narratives, are wildly inconsistent in practice. Further, I would point out that your post is a great example of a grand meta-narrative in action. 2. Building on this, you really need to define the terms that you are using. What, for the purpose of this discussion, is your definition of "the left" and, relaxedly, what is your definition of "religion". You refer to both of them as though they are unchanging and eternal categories with stable, consistent and easily recognized definitions. So when you refer to religion do you really mean all belief in the supernatural, or are you referring specifically to organized communities of belief? When you refer to 'the left' are you including the liberal centre or only the radical fringe? etc. 3. You seem to be singling out religion but it's not really clear to me how your criticism of religion would not apply with equal force to nationalism or various forms of racism or ethnic chauvinism that I don't believe can simply be reduced to religious differences. While this doesn't automatically negate your criticisms of religion it does raise the question of why you're so focused on religion as a root of tribalism when it seems like it's just one vector among many. Do you have a case to make that religion (and again, it's not clear that you can meaningfully speak about religion in such broad terms) is worse than other forms of ideology or identity? 4. Aren't you overlooking the possible benefits of partnerships between religion and the left? Christianity played a significant role in opposition to the slave trade in the 19th century. Perhaps the only explicitly socialist political party to win government in any state or province of North American, the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation), had fairly significant Christian involvement. Jewish intellectuals and activists played an enormous role, disproportionate to their relatively small population, in advancing lefty causes in the first half of the 20th century, etc. None of these points mean that religion isn't often a very ugly force for evil. I also broadly agree that the contemporary western left has become too reflexively defensive of Islam. I'm not sure how much is gained by writing in such a grand and sweeping manner though. I think you're somewhat exaggerating the power or significance of religion and underplaying other, more secular, influences that can be equally bad. Also, like other posters, I find it hard to determine what you want to change. Merely declaring opposition to religion or supernaturalism is cheap and means very little on its own. Socialist and fascist countries with little or no public role for religion have demonstrated just as much of a penchant for repression and ideological posturing as any religion. For that matter, evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are easily co-opted and used as apologists for western military adventurism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:4. Aren't you overlooking the possible benefits of partnerships between religion and the left? Christianity played a significant role in opposition to the slave trade in the 19th century. Perhaps the only explicitly socialist political party to win government in any state or province of North American, the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation), had fairly significant Christian involvement. Jewish intellectuals and activists played an enormous role, disproportionate to their relatively small population, in advancing lefty causes in the first half of the 20th century, etc. More than that, the Protestant churches in Canada provided the foundation of the nation's social welfare state, the Quebec Catholic church provided the organization and institutional support for the province's Quiet Revolution that is credited for modernizing and de-sanctifying its welfare and public education programs, and that's not even considering the whole matter of Liberation Theology in Latin America being a driving for force social equality and economic justice. In the United States, liberal theologians like Reinhold Niebuhr helped define the "vital centre" liberalism that defined the foreign policy of the United States for at least a decade and has been cited as one of the biggest influences on the current President of the United States, while liberal Protestantism was dominant in American life and politics in the early-to-mid 20th century. Moderate Muslim reformers were integral to the post-colonial Middle Eastern attempts at modernization, many which were not successful for a variety of both external and internal reasons. Even today the National Council of Canadian Muslims is engaged in ecumenical work with the Canadian Council of Churches to combat racism and xenophobia from any point of origin towards anyone of faith, creed, or colour. So I don't see what the issue is here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
The fact that there are secular Muslims, and mosques that participate in the Interfaith Alliance, invalidates the notion that Islam is unique among religions, especially Abrahamic religions, in being inextricable from the vestigial ideas in its texts to do with conquering the world and oppression. Also, churches have held a role as one of a few centers for community organization in the political sphere. In Dreams From My Father, I think Obama makes a good case for the valuable role black churches have played in social justice movements. I prefer to view religion as a loose power structure, a vehicle for ideas that may be good or bad. Ultimately my picture of a perfect society involves religion being replaced by something less fictional, but on the whole I think most people who affiliate with a religion in America carry a very abstract notion of what "god" means, and that stories of a person named God are simply conveniences for the human brain. Those who have a more literal view, on the other hand, show it by trying to deny gay people legitimacy and so forth. Christianity can be used to teach unconditional love for all human beings, and it can be used to teach a Ted Cruz style apocalyptic narrative involving wars explicitly between religious factions, as can Islam. What matters is the people and social movements occupying the garb. Generally speaking, when a religion is attacked or criticized for being a religion, that has the social impact of pushing authoritarian believers even more strongly together against the Other. Having grown up in the Unitarian Universalist church, I've witnessed firsthand how separate the religious social structure can be from dogmatic and archaic religious beliefs. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:The fact that there are secular Muslims, and mosques that participate in the Interfaith Alliance, invalidates the notion that Islam is unique among religions, especially Abrahamic religions, in being inextricable from the vestigial ideas in its texts to do with conquering the world and oppressing others. I agree with the poorly written sentence. Islam isn't much different from Christianity or Judaism. Conversations about Islam always fail because no one is willing to take the extra step we take with other faiths and break down further the religious divides and ethnic divisions within the Muslim world. Ethipoian Christians are not Chinese Christians are not Chilean Christians and trying to lump together Protestants and Catholics, Mormons and Anglicans together creates a discussion at the level of Atheism 101 where All Religion Is Bad and wipes away the historical context that makes these groups different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Conversations about Islam fail because nobody knows the first loving thing about Islam. For example, you ask why the Prophet Muhammad is forbidden from being drawn to most people and they would either say they don't know, or "they'll kill you". When the actual reason is that all images of living things are, in very strict interpretations, forbidden, because there is fear that such things will be turned into false idols. Muhammad is no exception, and one could argue, if you knew the reason for this prohibition, that it is entirely counter-productive since while Muhammad is considered a very holy person, he is not a God, just God's Messenger, so to treat him with such reverence beyond all others is to elevate him beyond the mortal trappings he was born and died with. Infact, the restriction is almost entirely modern in practice, since some of the most beautiful Islamic art ever made clearly depicts the Prophet and other creatures too. This can open up some interesting debate where both parties may learn something. "I hear all Muslims cut off genitals" is not that, but it is the default most people go to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The left defends Muslims (which is what you're really referring to) because socially Muslims have been painted as a separate and inferior race compared to White (sometimes Christian) people. The ersatz modern left fetishizes Muslims, because to them the only principle worth standing up for is opposition to 19th-century colonialism by Christians from Europe. Never mind the fact that Islam has been the greatest force of colonialism that the world has ever seen, and the most right-wing force extant in the world today. The Class of '68 hijacked the left, ShitBoomers that they are, and have completely corrupted it. It staggers the imagination that it's controversial among progressives to dislike the retrograde influence of Islam in the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I agree with the poorly written sentence. Islam isn't much different from Christianity or Judaism. Islam is much different from either. Christianity's political influence was neutered in the American and French Revolutions, which is why what was once Christendom is far, far more advanced than the Islamic World. Judaism is not an evangelical religion - it's actually quite difficult to become a Jew if you weren't born one. Evangelical religion is, by definition, imperialism. The West cut off the balls of Christianity, I'm thankful to say. The Islamic world hasn't figured that out yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The ersatz modern left fetishizes Muslims, because to them the only principle worth standing up for is opposition to 19th-century colonialism by Christians from Europe. Never mind the fact that Islam has been the greatest force of colonialism that the world has ever seen, and the most right-wing force extant in the world today. The Class of '68 hijacked the left, ShitBoomers that they are, and have completely corrupted it. It staggers the imagination that it's controversial among progressives to dislike the retrograde influence of Islam in the world. What is the purpose of this post?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:What is the purpose of this post? It was to express my complete and uncomprehending bafflement about why Dudes in Che Guevara t-shirts run interference for backward and misogynistic religion. It's the very self-same snotnosed kids named loving Tarquin or Jens who hate on AmeriKKKa because, like, homophobia who'll shriek RACISM RACISM RACIST at you for criticizing a Muslim for killing a homosexual. What in the loving gently caress was the purpose of your post?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It was to express my complete and uncomprehending bafflement about why Dudes in Che Guevara t-shirts run interference for backward and misogynistic religion. It's the very self-same snotnosed kids named loving Tarquin or Jens who hate on AmeriKKKa because, like, homophobia who'll shriek RACISM RACISM RACIST at you for criticizing a Muslim for killing a homosexual. Oh, well, I wanted to know if there was anything there other than vitriol. Sounds like not? I'm sorry if I've upset you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Islam is much different from either. Christianity's political influence was neutered in the American and French Revolutions, which is why what was once Christendom is far, far more advanced than the Islamic World. Judaism is not an evangelical religion - it's actually quite difficult to become a Jew if you weren't born one. Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Islam is much different from either. Christianity's political influence was neutered in the American and French Revolutions, which is why what was once Christendom is far, far more advanced than the Islamic World. Judaism is not an evangelical religion - it's actually quite difficult to become a Jew if you weren't born one. I don't entirely disagree with this analysis but the reality is slightly complicated. Christianity is growing rapidly in Africa and there's even some talk of whether the future of Christendom is going to be in Africa and Asia rather than Europe and North America. Plenty of Christians in Africa have beliefs that are every bit as reactionary and anti-modern as the worst Muslims. So the problem has less to do with Islam itself and more to do with the general backwardness and poverty of these countries. Also... You overlook the extent to which the rise of fundamentalist Islam is connected with the Cold War. The United States and its European partners were, for the most part, perfectly help to either look the other way or actively support the spread of fundamentalist Islam because it was understood to be an effective hedge against socialism, communism and Pan-Arab nationalism. In particular, the US was happy to help arm the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and they stood by and did nothing with the Saudis and the Pakistanis (in particular the ISI in Afghanistan) seeded large swathes of the middle east (and also Europe, as it turns out) with the most disgusting and radical kinds of fundamentalist Islamism. Part of why Muslim countries have struggled to overcome these backward religious institutions is that the US and Europe have either ignored or tacitly encouraged fundamentalist Islam for almost fifty years. When you shovel money at the most horrible religious ideology possible and then you repeatedly bomb and invade that region it's hardly surprising that secular government and liberal tolerance are in short supply. Obviously the west isn't responsible for all, or even the majority, of the problems in the Middle East. But I think the point is that radical Islam is just like any other global ideology -- you can't explain it based purely on local cultural factors, any more than you could explain the rise of communism in Russia without talking about World War I. Radical Islam is part of the global history of the 21st century, and it responds to the same large historical patterns and trends that we all do. It isn't something that you can explain by just shrugging and saying "oh those Muslims are a couple centuries behind the west on the inevitable path of progress, they just need to cut the balls off their religious institutions and grow up and become secular like the rest of us already have."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It's the very self-same snotnosed kids named loving Tarquin or Jens who hate on AmeriKKKa because, like, homophobia Could you list acceptable reasons to hate AmeriKKKa? Is the invasion of Iraq one of them, like, if you for instance are an Iraqi Muslim?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The ersatz modern left fetishizes Muslims, because to them the only principle worth standing up for is opposition to 19th-century colonialism by Christians from Europe. Never mind the fact that Islam has been the greatest force of colonialism that the world has ever seen, and the most right-wing force extant in the world today. The Class of '68 hijacked the left, ShitBoomers that they are, and have completely corrupted it. It staggers the imagination that it's controversial among progressives to dislike the retrograde influence of Islam in the world. We still have dudes doing arson to mosques in America, and we had a right wing authoritarian leader justify an absolute gently caress-up of a war (which helped create ISIS) primarly on an undercurrent of racial animus, and now a presidential frontrunner calling for all Muslims to be barred from entering the country indefinitely, so I think some overcompensation on the part of liberals to call for acceptance and protection of Muslims is acceptable. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:We still have dudes doing arson to mosques in America, and a presidential frontrunner calling for all Muslims to be barred from entering the country indefinitely, so I think some overcompensation on the part of liberals to call for acceptance and protection of Muslims is acceptable Because right-wing wanker criticizes wankers even further to the right, the progressive thing to do is embrace the most right-wing antagonist? I think you are confused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Because right-wing wanker criticizes wankers even further to the right, the progressive thing to do is embrace the most right-wing antagonist? TheImmigrants posts make a lot more sense if you keep in mind that he doesn't think Muslims are actually humans, but part of some alien hive-intelligence such that each and every Muslim thinks and believes exactly the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:TheImmigrants posts make a lot more sense if you keep in mind that he doesn't think Muslims are actually humans, but part of some alien hive-intelligence such that each and every Muslim thinks and believes exactly the same. TheImmigrant studied Arabic for many years, and has read the Qur'an in the original language. He was once very interested in the religion, and now has a healthy disdain for it as an imperializing, backward, right-wing set of superstitions. It's the same principles that cause him to despise the Christian Right in Amerika. Individual Muslims are just like any other people though. Some good, some bad. I take them as I find them. Just stop being such a coward, say what you really mean, and scream "racism." You know you want to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:TheImmigrant studied Arabic for many years, and has read the Qur'an in the original language. Sure you have. quote:Just stop being such a coward, say what you really mean, and scream "racism." You know you want to. What would be the point? Your response would just be "Islam is a religion, not a race.  " and pat yourself on the back as if you'd said anything even remotely resembling intelligent or insightful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sure you have. Do you have any position on this thread, or are you just here to enforce orthodoxy? My position is that there is a significant number of self-identifying leftists, amply represented here, who correctly demonize political Christianity while fetishizing what is contemporarily a much-worse phenomenon of political Islam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Well, immigrant, there's the reactionaries who are actually capable of attaining power in the West, and then there's the ones that aren't. You're literally saying the left should align with the right to go fight Islam when this arrangement has absolutely no advantage for the left. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, immigrant, there's the reactionaries who are actually capable of attaining power in the West, and then there's the ones that aren't. Which would those be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Do you have any position on this thread, or are you just here to enforce orthodoxy? My point is that it's possible to oppose the parts of religion that are politicized and oppressive while still defending the practitioners who are themselves being oppressed without being a threat to anybody. But perhaps looking at people as individuals instead of a faceless whole is beyond you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Which would those be? Well, let's see. One's power-base is in weaker middle eastern countries and a few immigrant communities while one dominates the political landscape of the most developed countries. Gee whiz, I wonder why the leftists aren't going all out to go to bat for the reactionaries in their own countries that actually matter. You're a fraudulent leftist. You seek alliances with capital and the fascist christian clergy because you see some Islamic bogeyman that might conceivably in the future be bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:
This is staggering in its denial, mere days after a gang of retarded Muslims kill a few dozen Bruxellois because of Islam. Love the 'fraudulent' bit, ffft fft fft. Orthodoxy matters to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Do you have any position on this thread, or are you just here to enforce orthodoxy? Using nuance, understanding historical context, and speaking out against what is mostly nothing more than racism against arabs isn't 'fetishizing' political islam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This is staggering in its denial, mere days after a gang of retarded Muslims kill a few dozen Bruxellois because of Islam. I don't know how i'm denying anything. Do I really need to tell you the structural violence inherent in capitalism and the comparison of deaths blah blah blah or is that too left for you? Just admit it. You're a reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
The fact that Islam is often violet and reactionary isn't a particularly deep insight. The better question would be why political Islam found such a fertile recruiting ground, and that answer leads us away from sermons on the unique danger of the Muslim hordes and back to fairly pedestrian geopolitical concerns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't know how i'm denying anything. Do I really need to tell you the structural violence inherent in capitalism and the comparison of deaths blah blah blah or is that too left for you? Just admit it. You're a reactionary. Cool, sistah. I'd be taken aback if you thought I was on your team. We're not talking about kaputalism. We're talking about religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:We're not talking about kaputalism. We're talking about religion. But I'm still not clear on what's being said about religion. Like, hypothetically, say you got everyone to agree that Islam is bad. What follows from that? What do you think should be done about it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:07
|
|