… Modern Christianity, however, is a far different creature from modern Islam. Every religion is, to a greater or lesser extent, a balance between reason and faith in its teachings and day to day practices. The great fault of modern Islam is not its having missed the sexual or industrial revolutions, but having missed the epistemological revolution of the thirteenth century. The Islamic world seems medieval in its attitudes and outlook because it is medieval, or more accurately early medieval, in its thinking.
[…]
What separates the citizen of a liberal democracy and his medieval ancestor, and the Cario slum dweller, is how they go about solving the bigger problems of life. How do I decide something is true in ethics, politics or science? The dictum of the Thomists was “Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu.” (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses). Evidence and rational thought are the ideal of modern life, even of post modern life. It is an ideal we fall short of but the alternative is the life of the modern medievalists. The Islamists and so many of the actual “moderate” Muslims – moderate in the sense they occupy the intellectual middle ground between liberal democracy and theocracy – act upon faith. What that means in practice is not living according to the teachings of an ancient holy book, but the interpretations of the holy book.
If one’s interpretations are based on reason, on an attempt to rationally analyze the text and compare and contrast with the evidence of one’s senses, one admits that religious teachings are a matter of debate and even disagreement. If one’s interpretations are based solely on faith, not merely faith in accepting a certain set of assumptions as true, but faith in applying those principles as well, how does one debate with others? I say this is the truth. Why? Because it is. What are your reasons? There are not reasons, only faith. The only way to resolve the conflict is to follow or fight. For a modern Christian faith extends as far as accepting certain assumptions as true without evidence, their application and mitigation with empirical evidence is done – or at least striven to be done – by reason.
It’s sympatico.
It’s not by accident that so much of what is offered as debate by the modern left on the critical issues facing our times sounds less like reasoned argument than it does “Silence infidel!“
(I have more to say about this here)
‘The great fault of modern Islam is not its having missed the sexual or industrial revolutions, but having missed the epistemological revolution of the thirteenth century.’
Interesting. That would seem to suggest that, while Imperial islam was creating its ‘golden age,’ especially in Spain, the rest of Europe was forced to Advance, forced to Think.
While islam began to stagnate. Don’t forget, many of the thinkers / writers who came out of islam during that period, were used by islam, not islamic themselves. The ONLY reason they flourished was because the Caliphate wanted the best of everything for itself. Just imagine what would have happened to these people if they had tried to Leave Andalusia….
To lighten things up:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_new_iraqi_law
This may initially seem off-topic, but stick with me; it isn’t. Many of you probably read parts of Edith Hamilton’s mythology in school. I did. She wrote a few other books. One of them is The Greek Way. I checked it out of the library a couple of days ago, to read for the first time. She delineates the difference between our tradition, started by the Greeks, and the Levantine tradition, represented by, among other things, Islam, better than anybody else whom I’ve ever read. She published it in 1930, but it’s at least as relevant today. I highly recommend finding a copy and reading it.
As ET noted earlier, Chinchilla has self-silenced hisslef by quitting the National Post.
You never get the feeling this guy’s stands on anything are done based on principle. They seem to be more done with the thought “does this look right to the right people/will this get us more votes.”
When the Caliphate tried to invade the Franks, the Berbers attacked them in Al-Andalus. As the Franks went to the invade Al-Andalus, the Saxons attacked them in Germany. And so it went with Empires then…
I think the affinity between the neo-left and radical Islam is a matter of two civilly retarded orthodoxies finding common ground in their outmoded core belief systems.
Kind of like two abacus users railing at the computerized world…one out of fear the other out of envy.
Small Dead Animals said “The great fault of modern Islam is not its having missed the sexual or industrial revolutions, but having missed the epistemological revolution of the thirteenth century. The Islamic world seems medieval in its attitudes and outlook because it is medieval, or more accurately early medieval, in its thinking.”
I’m not sure what this subject has to do with the statement “The curious affinity of the left for Islamism”. Perhaps someone would clarify why this statement is at the top of the page. I am not aware of any evidence to support the statement and would be interested in knowing the reasoning.
Back to the topic stated by SDA (Small Dead Animals). While it does seem medieval in its thinking, it apparently has still managed to attract a lot of followers. As a christian and one who believes the Holy Bible is inspired by God, there are many biblical reasons for rejecting Islam. First of all the Holy Bible was begun to be written far earlier than the Koran. The first five books of the christian Bible were written by Moses long before Christ and the Old Testament was completed long before Christ walked on earth. The Koran was not written until Muhammed started Islam around 600 A.D.
However, the content of the Holy Bible gives overwhelming evidence as to it’s divine origin. The central claims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that God is a trinity (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit), that Jesus died on a cross to pay for sins, and that He was resurrected from the dead and seen by many eye witnesses, that He is the Savior and all who put their faith in Him will be pardoned and receive eternal life are claims either unknown or denied in the Koran. The Koran believes Jesus was a prophet but does not claim He was the Son of God (or diety) or that He rose from the dead. These are central to the christian faith. However, a student of the Bible will say the Bible itself gives the evidence that it is inspired by God and therefore we must reject the Koran, which contradicts the Bible, as not being of divine origin.
Essentially, I think, the “great fault of Islam” is that it is a foundationally violent ideology, based on its trilogy, including and especially because of its founder’s life example and sayings. To make matters worse, this politically violent ideology was institutionalized into law. It is not that it missed the ‘great awakening’ of the west, or any other such nonsense.
In comparison, the Christian ideology based on the NT and Christ’s life example is non-political and the exact opposite of the Islamic ideology. This is true, regardless of how unscrupulous men have used the banner in the past.
It is also true that the text of the Christian NT was not revised or changed in any way because of the enlightenment – it did not have to be. Neither did the OT, because whatever violence is found there is limited to a time and place. Not in perpetuity, ie. “until the whole world is for Allah,” as in the Islamic case.
Perhaps, if Muslims really want reform, all they would have to do is add two verses to their Quran: “Love thy (non-Islamic) neighbour as thyself.” And, “Do unto others…” Of course these last two verses must abrogate all previous verses. But then, they’re used to that concept.
Even easier, they could change all the times the texts say kill, to kiss, ie. “Kiss the infidel wherever you find them.”
But, alas, there isn’t much, if any logic in the Quran to begin with. For example, many people overlook that a large number of the Quranic verses start out with allah referring to himself as “we” which is a direct lift from the OT and Talmud, however, this defeats the “Allah is one God” theory. It also brings into question the worst sin in Islam – to enjoin Allah with others, such as the Christians do.
Interesting related article at Canada Free Press (excerpts):
For all intents and purposes, from our government to our media to our public entertainment and educational system; the first law of Islam has been implemented. The First Law of Islam is Thou Shalt Not Criticize Islam. The laws beyond that will follow. Since this special status of Islam leaves all other religions unprotected, Islam already has a superior status to other religions while other religions have an inferior status to Islam. With the first law in place, we are already living as Dhimmis.
Islam may be propagandized in schools while Judaism or Christianity may not. Muslims may pray in schools, members of other religions may not. Muslim holy books are treated as holy, while the holy books of other religions are treated as myth. The violence of other religions is condemned, while the violence of Islam is covered up. This leads us to Islam’s second law, Islam Is Superior To All Other Beliefs. By giving exclusive status to Islam, we have already implemented this as well.
By giving in to Islamic rage, we have already set the pattern of functioning as Dhimmis, of responding to Muslim tantrums with appeasement. The pattern continues from there with Muslims in public life enforcing their religious laws on everyone else. Muslim taxi drivers are already doing this by refusing to carry passengers who carry alcohol, seeing eye dogs for the blind and Muslim cashiers are refusing to handle pork.
There are Islamic laws that place restrictions on women. These won’t require government authority to legislate. Muslims simply implement them by making clear what happens to women who don’t. In parts of the world that has meant throwing acid into the faces of schoolgirls who don’t wear the Hijab as in Indonesia, preventing women from entering public areas if they are not dressed ‘modestly’ as is widespread in African countries where Islam is on the rise, treating any woman not dressed in the Islamic manner as a legitimate rape target as in Europe.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1776
irwin
either you are full of it, or the teachers at the “religious school I went to were liars
me thinks there is room for both of those options
You obviously don’t understand what Christ said. To divide households based on one following the new covenant, exemplified in Christ versus others following other forms of belief.
In fact, what action did Christ take in Gethsemane when Peter cut off the soldier’s ear with a sword?
However, your post brings up a more disturbing question – why do you insist on trumpeting your ignorance in public?
This Youtube vid by Pat Condell hits all the points concerning the brewha caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams latest comments about Sharia law in Britain.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww
He maybe a devout atheist but he will definitely not submit to the “Religion of Peace”.
GYM,
If you care to refute what I say, then by all means do so. As for your religious education, I suggest you use your own mind and arrive at your own conclusions. Learning shouldn’t be stunted and reason shouldn’t be abandoned to the past.
I agree that Islamic ideology did not go through a reformation process; it remains early medieval, ie, tribal and intellectually closed to change and adaptation.
I also maintain that it developed in the 7th century, as a nativist militant reaction by one economic mode, a pastoral economy, to the encroaching settlements of the Byzantine agriculturalism. Islam says very little about the religious or metaphysical; in fact, what it says is simply a repetition of the Judaic and Christian concepts in this area. It says a great deal about lifestyle, and this lifestyle is pastoral tribalism.
I reject the notion that it developed merely out of the ‘revelations’ of one person, Mohammed; one person’s ideas may activate a small cult; they won’t take root in a larger population over time and space unless there’s an economic requirement.
Islam is primarily a social and political system supporting a tribal pastoral mode of life; it is raised to dogma by defining it as a ‘revealed religion’. This moved the social and political ideas to ideals beyond dispute, and bonded the membership into a militant emotional defense of their lifestyle. Their lifestyle, as noted, is tribal. A tribe is focused around the well-being of the collective, not the individual.
The reason Islam didn’t go through the ‘awakening’ that the West did, in the 11th through 15th c. in Europe was, I suggest, due to the lack of population pressures. The West, with its rich biome, went through phases of rapid population growth which it did not have the technological capacity to support.
The result was phases of lowered nutrition, famines and plagues. These would lower the population base for a while, but it would increase again. Then, there would be wars, trying for more resources. This would also lower the population base. Eventually, the West had to do the most difficult task; change its ideology so that it could innovate and develop new technology, a technology that would enable it to support larger populations.
This is exactly what happened; individuals began to question, explore and innovate and the period saw a burst of innovations, new methods for accessing and using energy (wind power, sails, water power); universities were developed; museums to store the Old Ideas…and so on.
Islam didn’t go through this phase; it remained, spatially, stuck in the ME and Africa, areas with low quality biomes and therefore, without population pressures. It was only the WWI/II discovery of oil (which the Arabs were unable technologically to access themselves) that has moved them into an industrial lifestyle.
BUT – they may have cars from the West, but they haven’t changed their social, political and intellectual ideology. They are still stuck on tribalism and a rejection of individual powers to think and act.
Why does the Left have an affiliation with Islam? Because the left is also ‘tribal’; the left focuses on the denigration of the individual within the ‘greater good’ of the collective. The left also supports the notion of Big Government, or Philosopher-Kings, who are Wise Imams who tell the peasants what to do.
The left has a great deal in common with Islam.
Watch the left clam up when the subject of the millions who perished under the policies of Stalin, Lenin, Mao are raised, who steadfastly deny that Hitler’s party was that of national socialism. “Not my socialism!” is about the best they can muster.
Socialism is not a simple theory of alternate governance. It has been implemented. It is an observable fact. The left’s track record speaks for itself:
The Soviet Union. North Korea. China.
Zimbabwe.
Yellow Quill.
The fatal flaw of socialism is that it is based upon entitlement. Class based, gender based, race based – they take it as an article of truth that one’s station in life entitles them to seize the assets of others and distribute those assets to those who did not earn them.
The problem is that entitlement kills the recipient even faster than it does the captive donor. The donor, after all, has figured out how to generate wealth, so they continue to soldier on despite the burden.
The recipient is not nearly so lucky.
There is no such thing as benevolent entitlement as it applies to the human condition. It is a destructive force, whether it is inflicted on the offspring of multi-billionaires, or the Indian child living on reserve. Some survive the effects, some don’t. But all are damaged by it.
The left can’t face their own track record, so they deny the documentation. They redefine. They create new vocabularies.
Socialist becomes “liberal”, then “progressive”. (They’re attempting to hijack “justice”, in case none of you have noticed. Social “justice”. Climate “justice”.)
They believe they can cure a cancer by enhancing the malignancy – that the failure of social entitlement to deliver positive outcomes can be traced to mere insufficiency.
So, with each new failure of the left’s ideology, they distract, they shift the blame, and when that fails again – they silence.
They pretend that history doesn’t exist, and continue to maintain that their world view will deliver utopian results – “if only we get it right this time”.
Meanwhile, the bodies stack up like cordwood.
And that is why the left so readily identifies with Islam. Both face a common enemy – reason.
The left has a great deal in common with Islam.
They are both closed fascist states of mind that at core have very little regard for humanity. And, they both react in rage when confronted with their bad ideas and behavior. Show me a lefty that doesn’t devolve into Muslim Rage Boy when criticized. The parallels are pretty obvious. In the past thousand years there hasn’t been any new intellectual capital that Islam can draw upon, it’s the same for the left after decades of their worn out hack values being shredded by others. Neither group has the intellectual capacity for anything but rage.
It isnt a curious affinity. Its a reaction. Leftists are not pro-Islam. In fact they are probably the most anti-Islamic in that they do not want it, or any other religion, to interfere in their lives.
That said, leftists, being the bleeding heart types that they are, are more acutely aware of the need for some sort of moderation – perspective if you will. As human secularists or secular humanists or whatever jargon they use for themselves, they are primarily concerned with the individual REGARDLESS of faith (You will find that leftists are equally critical of all religions).
Leftists are reactionaries. They grew out of opposition to the conservative right. Some of you might argue that the right is a reaction to leftist thought, but frankly leftist thought only came about as a reaction to rightist thought – a la Marx.
They are no friends of Islam. Never have been. Some of you might recall that it was the conservative right which, in its battle with the left, aligned itself with the frankenstein we now call Islamism. Stalin/Khruschev/Brezhnev did not fund Al Qaeda’s coffers. It was politically expedient, but the right shared at least one conviction with al Qaeda – Defeat the godless left.
This same conservative right now wants to vent its fury at all muslims. The muslims cant really defend themselves- regardless of predictions of Eurabia, they are comprehensively outnumbered. They also lack representation in the political institutions of western countries.
The left has reacted to the right’s charge on muslims (whether muslims deserve it or not is a moot point). It has done it because it sees, rightly or wrongly, the tainting of an entire community because of the actions of some.
I will bet every cent I have that if the west aligns itself with Islam again, as it did in the Afghan Jihad, the left will swtich sides
They are reactionaries. It is what they do.
I would really love to see what the leading Leftists had to say about Reagan’s politically expedient alliance with the Jihadis. Something tells me there was no curious affinity there.
It seems a minor contribution to this generally intelligent dicussion(ad hominem attacks aside), but my simplist common denominator in the tolerance that the left shows for Islam is apparent in the ‘non-reactions’ by the left feminists WRT Islamic treatment of women.
Western feminists have attacked the Judeo-Christian family model, and cozy up with Islamic anti-Judeo-Christian theme.
“Watch the left clam up when the subject of the millions who perished under the policies of Stalin, Lenin, Mao are raised, who steadfastly deny that Hitler’s party was that of national socialism. “Not my socialism!” is about the best they can muster.”
Is Colonialism indicative of your conservatism? Or, indeed, the American Deep South?
Socialism is not just communism. Lenin, Stalin, Mao are all communists.
Think of the social democracies of Europe – they are socialist too. The German/Swedish state treats the German/Swedish citizen as well, if not better, than well, pure right wing countries.
They are representative of the left too. To try and narrow it down to a couple of communist nutcases is a bit, well, strange. Canada can be defined as a socialist country (Soviet Canuckistan) if you really want it to, but I think it would be a bit daft to say that the socialists are murdering everyone.
The Soviet Union. North Korea. China. – All communist countries. Not leftist countries. Communist countries.
Zimbabwe is an abberation – it is only leftist insofar as it is politically using anti-colonialism/imperialism. Am I to assume that rightists support Colonialism?
Penny says here that leftists and islamists are consumed by rage. Dare I say that Kate’s little anti-leftist, read anti-communist, rant is indicative of the same rage – the one that allows her to go around killing animals that cannot fight back?
nice “statement” Kate.
can I get this all on a T-shirt?
sput – I disagree with your outline.
The left are not anti-Islam; they support it as an ideology of a group and insist that it be allowed to exist as it wishes; the left are relativists about subsets in the nation; all are equal, which means, there are no universal values of morality and human rights.
You state that the left see it as a religion and are against religion. No, that is not relevant; they see it as a sociological set of beliefs and behaviour, and they support these beliefs and behaviour for that population. They support group ideologies because the left are relativists.
The left aren’t moderates; that would mean that they could support both individual and group rights. The left supports only the collectives and the individual is subsumed within the collective – whether it be an ideological or union collective.
The left are not primarily concerned with individuals; they reject individuals, just as they reject the primacy of reason (the domain of the individual) and promote the primacy of emotions (the domain of the collective).
The left are not a reaction to anything, much less the ‘conservative right’. Leftism, ie, collectivism, is as old as mankind, whether it be within hunting/gathering bands or Plato’s Republic – which is a textual example of leftism
Social democracy is not leftism. Your outline is filled with different types of sociopolitical modes, all of which you define as ‘left’, and most of which are not left. Social democracy is a sociopolitical mode that is moderate and balances the requirements of the community with the requirements FOR the individual. A robust society must have both modes of behaviour.
The affinity of liberalism and Islamism is plain to see and to hear, for those who are willing to see and to hear.It is mostly, as you intimate, a matter of personal vs corporate thinking.
Liberals don’t want us to think — we liberals exist, therefore you don’t.
Islamists don’t want their puppets to think or reason — Only Islam exists, the individual’s thought must be “ditto”, and nothing but “ditto” — pleas, pees be upon him and his ravages.
Global warming exists, therefore what you think, or observe, is superfluous.
Power and pride demand puppets because puppets are the only bolsterers of power and pride. The icons in their temples are merely mirrors.
Christianity and Judaism are the only religions where there is One God who allows — even created — op-eds in his own Image (Icon). The op-eds are ontologically distinct — reason and discussion and communion, therefore encouraged.
“Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Shema Yisrael Adonai eloheinu Adonai ehad) invites not only adoration and worship, it also invites reason because the whole body including the intellect is involved in the offering.
“Come let us reason together” and “the truth shall make you free” are the exact opposites to loony, left, liberalism and to Islam — and, BTW, to the global-warming swarming pandemic.
Noel
“I would really love to see what the leading Leftists had to say about Reagan’s politically expedient alliance with the Jihadis. Something tells me there was no curious affinity there.”
Obviously you haven’t read Charlie Wilson’s War.
I’d agree with Kate, both of these ideologies are reason challenged. The application of reason has created numerous apostates on both fronts.
However, there’s something more there. Both despise and denigrate everything ‘western.’ And both depend on anarchy, violence and wholesale destruction of our culture in order to fill the void with their own ideology, whether that be dar al Islam, or a Worker’s Utopia.
“A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree or certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world suffers.” Bertrand Russell – Philosopher Logician Mathematician!
ALL you need to understand!
Jesus’s comments as found in the Bible can be taken as truth because He validated his identity as God Incarnate through his death and resurrection. His death and resurrection are actual validated historical events. They are truth. Validated at a time when the Roman civil government placed exceptionally strict controls on his burial. No one could possibly have stolen the body. This is “my truth” or “your truth”. But historical truth. It really happened.
And because it did, this validates the “Fall” of mankind and it also validates the Biblical Creation account. Jesus, himself, refers to the Creation. So it cannot have just happened from nothing with no guiding intelligence behind it causing it to happen.
So, truth always requires the historical framework of the Creation, the Fall and the Redemption.
Anything else, not fitting into these three historical facts, cannot be truth. It’s as simple as that.
And what does God Incarnate tell us to do? Strap on explosives and blow ourselves up and kill as many others as possible when you do it? or rather “Love one another as I have loved you”
Right, Kate, Socialism is entitlement based.
The examples are all around us in the ideology of the politics of the Left, including the Liberals.
They’re entitled to their entitlements is a satisfactory answer to the perks THEY feel they’re entitled to. Just ask David Dingwall, he actually stated exactly that, “I’m entitled to my entitlements”.
They want to tax to death the engines that run our economy while demanding programs/dole for the unemployed, alms for the poor and employment for the whole slate of Social workers. It has become an industry unto itself.
It’s a tough nut to crack, especially in the Eastern part of the country.
ET
What is leftism?
Using fancy terms such as “sociopolitical modes” to obscure the meaning of leftism is a bit strange. Kate defines leftism as rabid communism (Stalin, Lenin et al). Communists were not pro-Islam.
You are also manipulating my words. You will note that I said that leftists are as anti-islam as they are anti-religion – they will not tolerate interference by the religion in their lives. By that same token, they do not see any point in interfering with what you call religious subsets. This is about as pro-Islam as they are. They simply defend it against from the attacks from the right – not on the basis that they are defending muslims, but on the basis that they are defending a community maligned on the basis of certain individuals within it. The religion of the group can be changed, but leftists will maintain a defence of it, regardless of whther the the group is hindu, sikh, buddhist, rasta. It is defending them not out of affinity to the religion within, but out of concern for the humans within.
The left arent concerned with what muslims think or dont think. What they are concerned, in this case I should specify, is the manner in which an entire community is being tarnished by, well, predominantly the rightists.
All this fancy talk of primacy of reason over emotion – you can continue harping on like a pseudo intellectual, which I suspect you are, given your apparent taste for obscuring meanings with sophisticated words that dont meach. Terribly academic in an ivory tower sort of way.
Plato’s Republic can be interpreted either way. It has a certain element of “survival of the fittest” that could lend itself nicely to an equally right wing intepretation.
If you define leftism as collectivism, then so be it. Social democracies are very collectivist in that they are concerned with group rights over individual rights? Are they not leftist? Is universal healthcare not leftist. Is the extensive safety network of western europe not leftist? They are subjugating the individual for the sake of the group. How? Through redistribution of wealth. What about those anti-hate speech laws? Individual right vs group right, prehaps?
Sure they are closer to the center than communism, but they re still on the left side of the political spectrum, the point being that the left has many faces.
Collectivism does not a leftist make. Hunting bands came together because as individuals, they would likely perish. Aristotle said that man is a (an innately) political animal. That means he likes interacting with people. Does that make him a leftist by default? Do you want to live in a community or would you rather live alone, and how does that reflect on your left/right position?
Lets get past this notion that collectivism is leftist by default. Leftist thought, as Kate identifies it through her indictment of Mao etc, is a new phenomenon, one that was repressed by conservative rightists throughout history. When blasphemy and apostasy stopped being major issues, modern leftism came into existence.
I wonder if you would call Martin Luther a leftist for demanding that all people be allowed to read the Bible? Was he fighting for the individual right or the group right of individuals?
Sorry, I meant to say “This is NOT “my truth” or “your truth”.
they take it as an article of truth that one’s station in life entitles them to seize the assets of others and distribute those assets to those who did not earn them.
You mean like freeloading conservative farmers feel entitled to avail themselves of the fruits of other’s labour as long as grass grow, wind blow and sun shine?
Hey “sput”, Martin Luther was a Conservative through and through.
sput – let’s take hunting bands and that way of life out of the equation, you are talking about a time when there was no currency or private property as we know it. The was no state as we know it. Marx, Lenin and Mao weren’t trying to get back to nature.
You are spinning your wheels so fast that your point is falling away from you with some real bad analogies.
sput – I disagree with your definitions and argument.
‘sociopolitical mode’ is not a ‘fancy term to obscure the meaning of leftism’. It’s a valid term; the fact that you don’t use or understand it doesn’t, of course, make it invalid!
Where does Kate define ‘leftism’ as ‘rabid communism’? Your opinion that the Communists were not pro-Islam (are you referring to their attacking Afghanistan? To their relations with the ME?) was not an ideological decision but a political decision. This isn’t proof that the ideologies of the two are unrelated. I claim that they are both collectivist and therefore, intrinsically related.
I disagree that the left are as anti-Islam as they are anti-religion. Islam is not simply a religion but a sociopolitical mode (there’s that term again!). Not tolerating interference with religion in their lives does not mean ‘anti-religion’, nor is it a definition of ‘leftism’.
The fact that they don’t interfere with Islam as a subset is not because they are protecting the community ‘from the right’s attacks of a few maligned individuals’ but because it IS a subset. The left are relativists. The left promotes the ideological relativism of subsets where there are no universal values other than that all groups are subsets.
They show no concern with the humans in these subsets; eg, where is their concern for the subjugation of women in the Islamic subsets?
Discussion of the primacy of reason over emotion isn’t ‘fancy talk’, and your labelling me as a pseudo-intellectual is an ad hominem attempt to divert from the issue. It happens to be an extremely useful analytic tool – does the ideology promote reason, or suppress reason? Islam suppresses reason.
Plato’s Republic can’t be ‘interpreted either way’. It is clearly a totalitarian regime with a focus on the elite (Philosopher-Kings) in control of the homogeneous group – and subsets. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not part of any ideology of the right. It is, however, found in collectivism, which seeks to survive by controlling the population by defining it within subsets, each with a different value in the collective.
Leftism isn’t simply promoting collectivism, for as I said, a robust society must have both forces operative within it: collectivism and individualism. Leftism focuses on and promotes ONLY collectivism. It also promotes emotional bonds rather than reason, promotes relativism, promotes Big Government (because individuals have no reasoning ability of their own). Leftism is actually found in two-class social structures, with the governing elite as the top class, and the rest of the population as subsets without power.
Your examples of a society promoting universal health care isi NOT an example of a leftist society, but could be of a robust society that promotes BOTH collective and individual rights.
How does a leftist govt subjugate the individual? By denying and limiting their power over their own actions and limiting the individual’s duty to be responsible for their own welfare and actions. Hate-speech laws are a denial of freedom of speech. No govt can legislate emotions. Defamation, by the way, is not the same as hate-speech laws.
No, it is inaccurate to say that hunting bands come together as individuals because otherwise they would perish. Our species is communal; we cannot ever survive on our own; that’s because our knowledge base is learned rather than genetic. We must learn from others how to survive. So, the society is ‘natural’. This is what Aristotle meant; not that man ‘likes’ to interact, but that he MUST interact because of that requirement for a learned knowledge base.
I completely disagree that leftist thought is new or was repressed throughout history. As I said, one of the earliest written documents of leftism is Plato’s Republic. Leftism is the promotion of collectivism, the promotion of group rights against individual rights. It has nothing to do with countering blasphemy or apostasy. Indeed, both are foundational for leftism, which represses individual dissent.
Luther was not a ‘leftist’; he was fighting for the individual right to think – and doubt, and question. Leftists of today certainly don’t fight for that!
I think that you are confusing classical liberalism with its focus on the individual with ‘leftism’? Impossible! Leftism, as a political ideology, is focused around collective ‘rights’ (public) and rejects private rights (individual, corporate).
Come one!! Come all!! We have the best deals and the widest selection on logical fallacies, poor reasoning and hyperbolic rhetoric to be found anywhere, anytime in the WHOLE UNIVERSE!!! Nowhere else will you find our manner and particular brand of sloppy thinking, hasty conclusions or wild overgeneralizations!!! We have your “Weak Man”, “Straw Man” and “No True Scotsman”!!! Looking for propter hocs—? We regularly stock your “Post hoc” and “cum hoc” variety!!! We have all illicits – from minor to major – and we refuse to distribute your middle terms!!! For our latin lovers we’ll throw in some non sequiters, tu quoque and argumentums – ad hominem, ad populum, ad baculum and ad verecundiam….bloody well AD NAUSEUM!!! We never STOP!!! You won’t find any “modii” here – tolens, ponens or otherwise – just good ol’ faulty thinking and reactive nonsense!! We’ll gladly affirm your consequents, deny your antecedents and redden your herrings!!! We specialize in generalizations – the hastier the better…and custom jobs are our specialty!! We live to misdirect, redirect, overwhelm, retrospect, equivocate, ridicule, ignore but overestimate, amplify, justify, apologize and mystify!!!
We’re knee jerk stupid and proud of it!!! Call us unreasonable!!! Call us prejudicial!!! Call us whatever you want…we show no remorse!!! We are the death of civilized discourse!!!
We are groupthink right-wing bloggers, and we are legion!!!!!!!111!!11!!!
ET: I know at least one leftist that isn’t as you say, therefore your assertions are false.
Russ, excellent comment.
Your point about the importance of Creation, the Fall, and redemption is thought provoking.
An interesting teaching within Reformed theology is the doctrine of the Fall of man. The world in general believes man has “freedom” or power to do good or evil at any point in time. However, according to God’s revelation to man, i.e. the Bible, ever since Adam rebelled against God, and fell, all his descendents (all of mankind) have inherited a depraved, fallen nature. This means no one is “free” in the true sense to be able to do good, but unless he is regenerated (converted) by the Spirit of God, he cannot (of himself) do good. He remains a slave of his own fallen nature and is unable to extricate himself. He is not “free” but is in bondage and the wrath of God rests upon him. This is the basic problem with the world since the Fall. One may become very highly educated and have all knowledge, but unless he is redeemed and delivered from his fallen, depraved nature, he remains in bondage.
VV: Thor is all-powerful; your god is his subject.
Except, heck, sigh, anon, I’m not talking about a leftist as a person but leftism as an ideology. So, your accidental leftist friend is, well, an accident. My condolences to you both.
Rather than adding a counter argument based on facts, yet another leftist launches accusations based on feelings.
We know already, anon, in your world feelings trump fact and invective trumps all.
That’s why your politics are bankrupt. And your lives spread misery.
Althouigh, your post was humorous.
Anon: I know at least one SDA commenter who isn’t
as you say, therefore your assertions are false.
ET: I see, you were criticizing a non-existent ideal. Carry on, then.
This is EXACTLY the case. Having spent time in a muslim/arab country and comparing the views of devout muslims (not just fundamentalists) makes it clear that REASON is not acceptable. Much like our socialist so-called “Liberals”.
Kate:
I think that we, as conservatives, do best when we avoid speculating on why our opponents think they way they do and instead focus on stating our principles. It is tempting to dismiss liberals as being intellectually or morally deficient. I myself sometimes do it, but I think I do so out of anger and frustration rather than true insight.
People disagree with us for many different reasons, and in varying degree. We should not emulate the Kinsellas of the world who, lacking intellectual confidence, dimiss their opponents as “Nazis” and the like. Real thought is hard, for all of us, liberal and conservative alike. Furthermore, real thought takes time, more time than that required to dash off a quick post. I think that’s one difference between writing an important book and taking part in blog discussions.
Trouble is, Village Voice, the total depravity of man in Reformed theology pushes him so far into the dirt, the mire, the hopelessness of anything non-Reformed, that he too becomes a puppet — his God, a Puppeteer greater than which is inconceivable — even Allah.
So, Reformed theology too has a limited affinity to Islamism because their puppeteer God is powerless against the perfect freedom of his created “op-eds”. God’s “wrath” too easily becomes a Reformer’s wrath. And yet again, God’s freedom was, is, and will be, smashed on the rocks of power and pride.
The Christian/Jewish One God is a jealous God, says He — lovingly (unto the ages of ages). Take away the synergy between me and the perfect freedom of my created beings, and you (in your perfect freedom) suffer the consequences. Even when you were vicious, demeaning, and denying of my existence, I love you more than you can comprehend. I have plans for you that would stagger your imagination, even ratiocination.
The Christian/Jewish God gives us every possible chance to be perfectly free.
The allahs of islam, the gods of reformed theology, the liberal gods, like fallen left-winged angels have set up their own agendas bound up with puppet strings.
Noel
… Modern Christianity, however, is a far different creature from modern Islam.
This is the most true statement in the entire post. And the difference in the two religions is that Moslems actually believe what is written in the Qur’an. The most pious Christian isn’t close to the average Moslem. Their faith is complete.
After the Russian and Chinese revolutions, they killed the doners, so eventually there was no-one left to create the wealth, and consequently wealth was no longer available for redistribution, no-one bothered creating wealth,as they knew it would be taken from them, so the states went broke, and if you believe Naomi Klein, ‘ disaster capitalism’ takes over.
Of course in the West the Left believe in taxing the wealthy out of existance rather than killing them, but the effect on the economy amounts to the same thing.
Exactly, Stephen – the only difference between a Stalin and a Lorne Calvert is the speed at which the process is completed.
Actually, anon, the ‘ideal Form’ or universal, is existentially real (Aristotle), so, your supposition that it’s non-existent is – well, it’s false.
I agree, as well, with Vitruvius’ comment; there’s at least one SDA commenter who isn’t as you say…therefore…your comments are false. Heck, doubly false.
This is getting complex.
Rudolf Otto in his famous book The Idea of the Holy introduced us to the idea of the “Numinous”.
This was a word chosen to describe a person’s immediate experience with divinity prior to or without any attending impositions of moral codes, dogmas, precepts, or other factors pertaining to religion.
Simply the phenomenological experience of an encounter with divinity.
Generally this experience happens subjectively. As a rule it does not involve outer circumstances.
Because this experience happens internally, if you will, it occurs in the dimension of divine activity that we would refer to as “immanent” rather than divinity in transcendental aspect.
Both Jung and Paul Tillich were in agreement with the idea that divinity became known primarily in “immanence”. And this is one reason why they both appreciated Rudolf Otto’s work.
Their view was that man could only touch the transcendent vis a vis contact with divinity immanently. To put it rather mundanely, mankind has to know divinity psychologically as a path to knowing divinity transcendentally.
Religions are full of discussions about this. In scholastic theology sometimes the “grace” of lumen glorie is one way that this experience is discussed. Also as samadi, satari, and a variety of names here and there around the world.
The respect for the psychological dimension of religious experience is one of the failings of the Semitic religions. The pedophile scandals in the Catholic Church are simply one dimension of not recognizing that there is a huge psychological dimension that has to be considered in a religious context.
As far as I can see, Islam is probably the least sophisticated Western religion when it comes to an acknowledgement of the psychological dimension of religion. They will arrest someone and drag them from the street because of the most foolish kinds of violation purely in the realm of objective behavior. No thought given whatsoever to the motivating factors, to the psychological dimension of experience. You’re not covered up properly, and so the God who ordained the universe thinks you should be stoned to death.
Judaism and Christianity have come some distance toward recognizing the psychological dimension. The idea that all self-knowledge is simply the contents of the objective mind has gratefully given way to an understanding that the divine realm as it pertains to the unconscious cannot be negated or left out of the equation.
Back in 1981 Fr. John P. Dourley was teaching at your own Carlton University and wrote and excellent book about this called The Psyche as Sacrament, A Comparative Study of C.G. Jung and Paul Tillich.
In the West, this was one of the biggest points of discussion between Tillich and Karl Barth.
Islam’s treatment of sexuality, its theological insistence on rules, regulation, and dogma rather than inner experience, its automatic ability to condemn people to death for violations of silly and purely objective rules, all point to the primitive, unsophisticated, backward nature of the religion.
What a hoot!
Quite aside from proving an earlier post of mine, where I said you guys really don’t have ANYTHING to offer but demonizing, asinine criticisms of the Left (do you ever do anything else on this site – like, discuss your own ideas? I haven’t seen it!) – this thread offers up a smorgasbord of comedy delights —
First we have a bunch of irrational science-denying medievalists calling out the Left for being anti-reason!
It is to laugh! You dudes cast aside the testimony of 100 Nobel prize winners and deny the scientific evidence of Global Warming! (“We don’t need no fancypants book learnin’ – it’s snowin’ outside! there ain’t global warmin’ [hic!]”)
Why do you do this? Because corporations (oil in this case) tell you so. Screw reason, logic, and science – you believe your irrational crap because your corporate overlords say so!
What’s the appropriate response to 9/11, committed mostly by Saudis? Invade and occupy Iraq, which had nothing whatever to do with it!
Why? As Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the war said, and as Alan Greenspan attested: oil.
Again, your corporate overlords speak, and you rush to defend the nonsensical.
More corollations between fundamental Islam and your beliefs are the homophobia – Bush’s use of homophobia with his threat to write it into the constitution, Harper’s use of it with his promise of the vote about gay marriage – we also have one of your gargoyle mouthpieces Coulter referring to Edwards as a “fag”.
All good for keeping your corporate overlords in powers, huh guys?
Let’s not ignore the misogyny – creeps like McCain smiling while H. Clinton is described as a bitch, McCain telling his repulsive joke about Chelsea Clinton (remember another of your gargoyles, Limbaugh, vomiting his disgusting jokes about Chelsea C. back when she was a child?)
And what about the racism which raises its ugly head in just about every thread on this site (calling D. Suzuki a ‘nip’, etc.) Racism – the most illogical anti-reason system of thought there is.
Why, you even have your own mullahs – Robertson, Dobson, the late Falwell, etc.
Remember the Schiavo incident? Diagnosis via videotape? Uh, what’s next, guys – reading chicken entrails?
So you cheer on the destruction of the very ecosystem you seek to exploit for monetary gain, you seethe with rage at ‘foreigners’, women, and homosexuals, you cheer on ill-founded wars and deny science…and say the other side is the same as fundamentalist Islam!
BTW Kate, the business class of Germany – the corporatists – pushed to have the Nazis take over Germany so’s the commies wouldn’t.
Quaint historial ‘theorizing’, though!
Outside of hoary philosophical discussions about the existence of ideals, the fact is that you have admitted that you are criticizing an ‘idea’ – whether or not that idea has some form of existence has nothing to do with whether there are actually *people* in existence that match that ideal. Your first mistake was confusing the existence of the idea with the existence of an actual manifestation of it, and your continuing error lies in the fact that you have based your entire perspective, and likely wasted a lot of mental effort, on assertions that are so narrowly applicable as to be empty of value.
Shorter: The people you describe don’t exist, although the idea of them might. Attacking the idea is fine as an intellectual exercise, but it doesn’t have any applicability to actual people and therefore doesn’t do much more than assuage your anger at a perceived other. Just so you know.
The argument that “the people you describe don’t exist” is incorrect, because it is not the case that there are no persons who are instances of some the kinds of people that some persons here have described. By the way, there’s some background information on the use of quantifiers available in this adjacent SDA thread:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008013.html#c240277