Labeled pejoratively as "regressives" by their peers (on the basis of endorsing moral regression as opposed to progression) this vocal group provides the fodder for the perception that the left has an Islam problem (For anyone who may not know, the perceived problem is that the left is unable to discuss Islam objectively due to bias, fear of being racist, etc...). — VagabondSpectre

This discourse of opposing a percieved and basically imagined foe, be it either the "left" or sometimes "the right". Hence you don't attack what the other side says, you attack what you percieve or imagine them to say. It is very typical of our times.

Similar is the idea of "Cultural Marxism", which has nothing to do with the Frankfurt school or Marxism, but is simple assorting the most outrageous claims or ideas into one evil conspiracy which wants to demolish everything conservative or traditional in the name of Cultural Marxism. It's a similar story this of a weak Europe being uncapable of doing anything "against Islam"... because of leftist.

Yet it's not only some right-wing fringe groups, a "very, very small slice of the public" as you say. What one should understand, and one shouldn't label this alarmist, is the fact that one Great Power is promoting this kind of discourse in Europe and America very actively. Not something that is unimportant or irrelevant.

(Y)

↪VagabondSpectre (Y) — Mongrel

(Y) (Y)

We know the kind of tomfoolery that results from having no compassion and also being close-minded, and also what results from the angelic inverse, but what do you get when someone is both close-minded and highly compassionate?...these are the sad roots of the portrayal of the left's Islam problem. — VagabondSpectre

Well said, but to complete the logical tetrad, who would the open-minded non-compassionate be?

Well said, but to complete the logical tetrad, who would the open-minded non-compassionate be? — Baden

I guess in a way that's what I attempted to be in this thread. Open minded and dispassionate (unbiased?).

To my far right I see a growing cloud of passion and anger that throws political positions on Islam far out of proportion and reality (this thread is primarily aimed at challenging that far out position). To my immediate left and right (I think) I see understanding tempered with reason, and to my far left I see nuance, accuracy, and correctness being shelved in the name of political correctness. One extreme maintains complete and total condemnation of Islam while the other maintains complete and total endorsement of it; two moral extremes, both of which are poorly founded and narrow-minded.

The condemn extreme is growing of late, hence the impetus for the thread, and given that this far right has already angrily driven compassion out of town, a dispassionate approach might be the only thing that can possibly diffuse it. Occasionally I deal with the far left when and where I find issue, but close-minded compassion is not only more rare than close-minded hatred, it's also much less a cause for worry.

I must say though that I'm surprised and impressed by most of the responses to this thread, it shows that these polar extremes aren't inhabited much at all around here, the regressive left least so.

The condemn extreme is growing of late, hence the impetus for the thread, and given that this far right has already angrily driven compassion out of town, a dispassionate approach might be the only thing that can possibly diffuse i — VagabondSpectre

It's not growing, and that's the problem. Too many apologists with double standards making excuses.

It's not growing, and that's the problem. — tom

If you look at prof. Saad's youtube metrics and those of other youtube pundits who are windy on the subject, you can actually see charted growth. But unfortunately, hobby grade you-tube political punditry comes with sloppy double standards too (not that all of prof. Saad's input is worthless, but applying evolutionary behaviorism to economics only gets you so far in a discussion and debate on theology and politics). In the case of this video, he accuses Islam of broadly disguising hate speech and threats of violence with religious freedom, and ends with doomsday talk to get us to "rise up" and "talk openly about how to solve the problem, in order to solve the problem"... Though he doesn't ever get around to actually defining the problem beyond: "Islam".

It's true that the examples he cited of abhorrent beliefs should be ridiculed and contested, but he incorrectly equates these extreme beliefs with the beliefs (and speech? and actions?) of the average Muslim. Anyone actually credibly calling for such violence, religious or no, can already be arrested on those grounds. He advocates for special anti-islamic speech laws (essentially); what could possibly go wrong? Christian doctrine can reasonably advocate genocide and child slavery too, so shouldn't we censor the offending bits of both religious texts?

He advocates for special anti-islamic speech laws (essentially); what could possibly go wrong? Christian doctrine can reasonably advocate genocide and child slavery too, so shouldn't we censor the offending bits of both religious texts? — VagabondSpectre

Answering repression with state-sponsored repression to make people free. Great plan!

#Stockholm

When you have nothing of value left to contribute, get a YouTube pundit to contribute it for you. When that fails, try a hashtag.

Yes, we know being religious shouldn't give you a free pass on doing bad stuff. Sign me up! But wrapping that platitude in vaguely apocalyptic warnings concerning Islam and capping it with some unintentionally ironic hot air about continuing to not solve the problem being only solved by talking openly about solving the problem...The End...doesn't exactly advance the debate here does it? (My favorite bit of silliness was "Buckle up for infinite strife!")

#Westminster

What's your end game Tom?

Amend the constitution and ban a religion? Close the mosques? Run the muzzies out of town? Send them to camps?

Who do we go to war with and what will be our goal in said war?

If none of the above, and all you're trying to do is persuade people that Islam is nothing but evil, then you've got to do a better job of it. Religion can be a catalyst for violence, yes, but answer me this:

Why doesn't every able bodied Muslim on the planet engage in terrorism if that's the inexorable directive of Islamic doctrine?

If you can answer that one, then please tell me why Islamic terrorism such as we're seeing today is a relatively new phenomenon in Islam's history rather than a mainstay throughout? What happened in the Islamic world in the 70's that caused Islamic terrorism to show up and proliferate?

You're showing no understanding of history Tom (of Islam and otherwise), and no acknowledgement whatsoever of how varied contemporary Islamic culture (and belief, doctrinal interpretation, behavior) actually is. Pointing to the farthest behavioral outliers (actual terrorists) as representing the whole only works on an emotional level, not a logical one. You say that the terrorists represent true Islam and non terrorists Muslims say "peace" represents true Islam. Who is correct here? You or them? (you're both wrong on a fundamental level because both versions exist as expressions of what Islam is/does, although they certainly have the numbers on their side).

I want to understand contemporary Islamic terrorism, and I'm more than willing to speak openly about it; no existential crisis/white guilt/cultural relativism gets in the way of my thoughts, that I promise you. But when you simply state that the entirety of what can be referred to as "Islam" is the one and only ingredient which produces and perpetuates Islamic terrorism, you're not actually explaining why; you're not talking openly about it. You feel like me resisting that idea might come from fear of being mean, but it actually comes from my desire for rigid accuracy in my understanding of human behavior, religions, and the world. When I was a young atheist I spent quite a bit of time condemning Christianity in all the same ways that you currently argue against it now, but overtime I realized that "Christianity" isn't actually a dragon that can be slain. It's a field of windmills. Some of these windmills do conceal monsters and are worth burning down (as is the case with radical Islam), and the surrounding windmills tend to agree, but not all of them actually contain harmful beasts. Once you run out of actual monsters to chase, all that's left are the benign windmills, what should we do to those? Should we burn them down even though they might actually believe and behave in peace? That would unfortunately make us the monsters.

Every-time I rebuke your position somehow you resist getting into specifics in favor of restating your position along with a new-old angle of approach. Nevertheless, here's that rebuke yet again: if "Islam" is the one and only ingredient that causes violence and terrorism, then all or at least the majority of Muslims would be violent terrorists. Given that this is clearly not the case, what causes variance in the behavior of Muslims? Can you be specific?

#SaintPetersburg

#WaggaWagga

#Berlin

#LittleWhinging

#Paris

#Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu

@NeverMind.com

#Nice

Go ahead and trivialize 86 dead and 434 injured.

#Atlantis

#Brussels

#Pompeii
10,000-25,000 dead

#Orlando

Please trivialize 49 dead and 53 injured, particularly if you are a homophobe.

Trivialisation is putting a hashtag in place of a rational argument.

#SanBernardino

#Vietnam
1,353,000 deaths. Many more injured.

#OhioState

#SandyHook

#LeeRigby