Is anti-theocracy considered a "far right" position, e.g. the Netherlands

[Jimmy]

Sharia law is quack imo

 

[icehorse]

Because being a poor country is the norm if you are not in Europe.

that's partly true, but not entirely.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're incredibly easy to see thru. Instead of knowing about a topic, all you have to do is demand citations. (But it's a common tactic on RF, so I can see how you think it's acceptable.)

Ah yes, the classic deceptive tactic of asking someone to provide facts to support their claims. A common tactic of... normal debate. Copletely unacceptable.

So the question becomes: when is it reasonable to ask for citations?

When people make specific claims that you don't accept uncritically, or if you want to analyse or understand the basis for these claims.

Most posters on RF know...

Blah, blah, blah, "It's totally unfair to ask me to support my presuppositions with actual facts because blah blah".

If all it takes is you being asked to provide evidence of your claims for you to completely unravel like this, perhaps it's time to think about making different claims.

With all that said, I'll give you a hint: Islam is - by its very definition - a totalitarian ideology.

So says you, a clear Islamic scholar.

I mean, by this stretch, most religions are totalitarian. Why single out Islam?

If we take Muslims at their word

Which Muslims at which word?

- which we ought to - the totalitarian nature of Islam is self evident.

Good thing it's "self evident" so you don't have to actually support your position at all. It's not like there are totalitarians within lots of religions.

In poll after poll, a large percentage of Muslims living in Europe want to bring Sharia to Europe.

Please provide these polls.

The numbers are frequently in the 40% or 50% range.

Citation needed.

Why do you think Europe is being flooded with Muslim immigrants?

A combination of overseas atrocities and increasing wealth accumulation within Europe, plus Europe's immigration and naturalisation laws and agreement to abide by international asylum laws.

Isn't it blindingly obvious that these people are fleeing mostly failed states?

Lots of people of lots of religions flee from failed states. That's not an argument in favour of preventing a specific category of those people from being able to enter certain states.

And in case you're going to cry "colonizers", no, I'm not buying it.

You don't seem to "buy" anything that isn't explicitly right-wing dogma.

Please explain to me why your position, which seems to be that it is acceptable to suggest that Muslims, as a group, should be prevented from entering certain countries - regardless of individual circumstance or merit - is not just explicit ethno-nationalism. And if your argument is that "we should ban this category of people from entering these states because they come from failing states", then you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to single out Muslims. You should instead be arguing in favour of bans on all people from failing states, or all people who are explicit theocrats, or all people who wish to spread authoritarianism. Instead, you seem to be arbitrarily deciding that Muslims, specifically, should be banned, regardless of whether or not those individual Muslims come from failing states, are theocrats, or support authoriatarianism.

When you boil away your rhetroic, your position is just one of hating Muslims, and trying to justify that hate with arbitrary nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If we go with that definition, then Islam is sort of a poster child for populism.

How so?
I'm betting that your answer will be equally applicable to almost any religion, especially abrahamic ones.

By that definition the term islamophobic would virtually never be appropriate.

I just gave you an example of where it would be appropriate, in the case of scum like Wilders.
Did you miss where I informed you that he actually made proposals to make the quran illegal and close any and all mosques and organized quran burnings?
That's extremely indiscriminate. That's not "against the radicals". That is against any and all things islamic. Even only a casual cultural reading of the book in context of religious studies would be illegal in that case as the book itself would be illegal.

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously when you are this obtuse.

For example Islam purports to encourage charity, and I'm sure Wilders is okay with charity, no?

He didn't propose to only burn certain pages of the book or only ban certain aspects of the book.
The big picture shows us that he isn't fine with ANYTHING that happens or is promoted if it has an "islamic stain".

I think it's generally used in an attempt to curtail any criticism of Muslims. I've been called "islamophobic" many times on this forum because I'm extremely critical of many of the core ideas of Islam.

I can understand how you've been called that. Your obtuseness when it comes to this topic is indeed ringing all kinds of alarm bells in my head.
Your seemingly unwillingness to see the big picture around this Wilders character is another hint.
Eventhough you don't seem to be saying it directly, this entire thread does have some kind of smell of you trying to defend him while seeming very unwilling to see the bigger picture. I'm left wondering if it's just a case of you not willing to see the bigger picture, or not willing to acknowledge it.

I'm not a fan of book burning in general, but some books really are evil and I can see how a symbolic burning of such books - in the correct context - could be a useful exercise.

The Quran isn't particularly more disgusting then the bible dude.

To be honest, the mindless, uncritical support of the Quran is - IMO - very dangerous.

Who are you talking about?

Not that many years ago Muslims around the world reacted violently to cartoons. And more recently Islamic terrorists murdered magazine employees in France. This can all be traced directly to instructions in the Quran. So I think that symbolic burning of the Quran (and probably the OT as well), isn't categorically a bad idea.

So here it seems you're changing your own definition of Islamophobia a bit, no?

No, I'm not changing the defintion at all.
Again, it's not about pixels. It's about the big picture. It's not about one (symbolic) action. It's about systematic action and systematic indiscriminate hatred.

But it wasn't the point of the OP - which I should know since I created it

I know. It should be. Because focussing on the pixel like in the OP doesn't show the whole picture.
It's misleading.

The so-called "journalist" I linked to used ONLY Wilders' anti-Islam stance to label him far-right.

Are you talking about the video clip?
Because if you are, then you are either lying or wrong about that.
The islamophobia stance is not the "only" reason he is labeled far-right.

Incidently, interesting speech in that clip at the 1:25 minutes mark from the scumbag:
Here's the translated transcript: "Do want, in this city and in the Netherlands, more or less Moroccans?"

Moroccans. Not "muslims" or "fundamentalist muslims" or "muslims who want shariah". No. Instead: Moroccans. Arabs.


Anyhow, at no point at all in that clip is it stated that he is far-righ "because of his anti-islam" views. At no point at all.
The dude talking is also dutch. He knows who Geert Wilders is also. He knows the background. He knows the full story. He knows of the racism, the ultra-nationalism, the islamophobia, the populism etc. That is why is far-right. The full picture.

 

[wellwisher]

Any theocracy other than Christian theocracy is bad. That is a far right stance.

The term Conservative is based on the root word "conservation". Each country has its own history and Conservatives attempt to conserve that past, so the culture can see where it came from, and where it is going. Depending on the country, the Conservatives in that country will try to maintain their traditions, including the root religions of their country.

Conservatives, in the Netherlands, will conserve Christianity, while Conservatives in say Saudi Arabia will conserve the Muslim religion; conservation. Liberal and Conservative are not one size fits. It has to do with Conservatives being the ones trying to conserve while the Liberals try to alter what is being conserved to accommodate the new. A Dutchman going to Saudi Arabia preaching Christianity would be seen as too liberal.

Liberals in the US are conservative when it comes to the right to abortion. They do not like any change to that law, but will try to conserve what they felt was a human right; line from past to future.

The political left tries to dumb this down and overlaps the wrong things with the wrong label leading to divisions that need not be. For example, Democrats are conservative when it comes to the natural environment. They try to conserve the land. The Republicans who are more into business often want to develop the land. They are more Liberal with the Land.

I do not think there are any pure Conservatives or Pure Liberals. We need to use the conservation criteria, in each case, to see who is trying to conserve and who is pushing for change. There is nothing evil about maintaining. Museums conserved natural and cultural history and that is good. The scientists in this site try to conserve science traditions. I am liberal with science, since I like to approach the old from new angles.

Conservative in the US tend to be about Christianity since this country was colonized by European countries who were predominately Christians; England, France, Spain, Netherlands, and Germany. The Constitution is also unique to the USA so that is conserved.

 

[icehorse]

When people make specific claims that you don't accept uncritically, or if you want to analyse or understand the basis for these claims.

If you can find an answer with a 30 second google search, then don't bother me with your cries for citations.

So says you, a clear Islamic scholar.

I mean, by this stretch, most religions are totalitarian. Why single out Islam?

All you have to do is read their book. Have you? It's kind of the poster child for totalitarian manuals.

Why not single out Islam? I've criticized other religions in other threads, but this thread is about Islam.

Please explain to me why your position, which seems to be that it is acceptable to suggest that Muslims, as a group, should be prevented from entering certain countries - regardless of individual circumstance or merit - is not just explicit ethno-nationalism. And if your argument is that "we should ban this category of people from entering these states because they come from failing states", then you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to single out Muslims. You should instead be arguing in favour of bans on all people from failing states, or all people who are explicit theocrats, or all people who wish to spread authoritarianism. Instead, you seem to be arbitrarily deciding that Muslims, specifically, should be banned, regardless of whether or not those individual Muslims come from failing states, are theocrats, or support authoriatarianism.

When you boil away your rhetroic, your position is just one of hating Muslims, and trying to justify that hate with arbitrary nonsense.

This is about ideas, plain and simple. As Sam Harris famously put, "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas". This has nothing to do with ethnicity, that's your imagination. For decades immigration policies have stated that countries can deny entry to people who hold ideas or values counter to the country's ideals. This is nothing new. And again, immigration IS NOT A RIGHT. If you want to immigrate, you have to have something to offer the country you'd like to move to. Again, nothing new here.

 

[icehorse]

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously when you are this obtuse.

Did you not read my response to book burning? I'm not defending all of Wilders' actions in this thread. I'm specifically talking about why being critical of Islam is viewed as being a far right stance.

I can understand how you've been called that. Your obtuseness when it comes to this topic is indeed ringing all kinds of alarm bells in my head.
Your seemingly unwillingness to see the big picture around this Wilders character is another hint.
Eventhough you don't seem to be saying it directly, this entire thread does have some kind of smell of you trying to defend him while seeming very unwilling to see the bigger picture. I'm left wondering if it's just a case of you not willing to see the bigger picture, or not willing to acknowledge it.

You're reading things into my words that are not there. Take the OP at face value. Take what I've said at face value. I'll summarize my main points again (although I don't think there will be anything new here):

- IMO, the journalist labeled being critical of Islam as a far right position. To me that's poppycock. Of course some far right politicians are critical of Islam, that doesn't mean it's a far right position. People from many different political leanings are critical of Islam.

- I'm not defending Wilders full stop. But I am defending certain actions or ideas. Can you not separate ideas from the messenger? This is a common logical flaw I see happening on RF all the time. People conflate the message with the messenger. That's a bad approach to clear thinking.

The Quran isn't particularly more disgusting then the bible dude.

Agreed! How about that! But why is that relevant?

No, I'm not changing the defintion at all.
Again, it's not about pixels. It's about the big picture. It's not about one (symbolic) action. It's about systematic action and systematic indiscriminate hatred.

Again, you're either reading things into the OP that are not there, or you're trying to shift the topic. Feel free to start a thread lambasting Wilders, you'll probably get some agreements from me.

Anyhow, at no point at all in that clip is it stated that he is far-righ "because of his anti-islam" views. At no point at all.
The dude talking is also dutch. He knows who Geert Wilders is also. He knows the background. He knows the full story. He knows of the racism, the ultra-nationalism, the islamophobia, the populism etc. That is why is far-right. The full picture.

Let's say that's true (it probably is). In that case the "journalist" committed a sin of omission. It appears to me that the "journalist" is actually an pro multicultural activist. This is very dangerous business.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you can find an answer with a 30 second google search, then don't bother me with your cries for citations.

What a perfectly reasonable response to someone simply asking you to support your own claims. On an internet forum. Where you can, apparently, provide them very easily.

Clearly, it's my fault you can't support your position with facts. How dare I be too lazy to provide the evidence that supports YOUR claims.

All you have to do is read their book. Have you? It's kind of the poster child for totalitarian manuals.

A lot religious texts are.

Why not single out Islam?

Because it makes you appear as if your issue isn't with authoritarianism, but with Muslims as a group, and makes you an Islamophobe.

I've criticized other religions in other threads, but this thread is about Islam.

The point is that the arguments you are using to attack Islam can be used against countless other groups. So why are you singling them out? Why not, instead of making the argument "Muslims support totalitarianism, so Muslims - as a group - should be denied emigration to certain countries" you try making the far more defensible (and not explicitly ethno-nationalist, though still not morally justifiable) argument "authoritarians should be denied emigration to certain countries."

It's pretty obvious to anyone that you STARTED with the presumption that you want to stop Muslims from emigrating, and generated (or regurgitated) a poor argument to justify that position. If this is false, then please explain why you single out one specific group (some of whom are totalitarian, some of whom are not) rather than singling out the broader category of authoritarians for denial of emigration rights.

This is about ideas, plain and simple.

It's about you pushing far-right propaganda and being unable to engage with facts.

As Sam Harris famously put, "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas".

Regurgitating the words of other people doesn't really win you credibility.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity, that's your imagination.

It clearly does. That's the only rational explanation for why you're singling out Muslims rather than authoritarians broadly.

For decades immigration policies have stated that countries can deny entry to people who hold ideas or values counter to the country's ideals.

Right. So why not apply this standard fairly and accept that there are Muslims who hold ideas and values that DO NOT counter a country's ideals. Why not judge people individually rather than essentialising them as a group?

Because you just hate the group.

This is nothing new. And again, immigration IS NOT A RIGHT. If you want to immigrate, you have to have something to offer the country you'd like to move to. Again, nothing new here.

Speaking as someone who works in a field very closely related to immigration into the UK, there are countless Muslims who DO offer something to the UK. You are the one arguing that it's okay to prevent them from immigrating regardless of whether or not they can contribute something or are a benefit to us economically or culturally, purely because of the religious group they happen to belong to.

If you truly believe in merit-based immigration, you wouldn't be making essentialist arguments in support of the ethno-nationalist ideals of denying people entry based on religion, ethnicity or country of origin.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The term Conservative is based on the root word "conservation". Each country has its own history and Conservatives attempt to conserve that past, so the culture can see where it came from, and where it is going. Depending on the country, the Conservatives in that country will try to maintain their traditions, including the root religions of their country.

Conservatives, in the Netherlands, will conserve Christianity, while Conservatives in say Saudi Arabia will conserve the Muslim religion; conservation. Liberal and Conservative are not one size fits. It has to do with Conservatives being the ones trying to conserve while the Liberals try to alter what is being conserved to accommodate the new. A Dutchman going to Saudi Arabia preaching Christianity would be seen as too liberal.

Liberals in the US are conservative when it comes to the right to abortion. They do not like any change to that law, but will try to conserve what they felt was a human right; line from past to future.

The political left tries to dumb this down and overlaps the wrong things with the wrong label leading to divisions that need not be. For example, Democrats are conservative when it comes to the natural environment. They try to conserve the land. The Republicans who are more into business often want to develop the land. They are more Liberal with the Land.

I do not think there are any pure Conservatives or Pure Liberals. We need to use the conservation criteria, in each case, to see who is trying to conserve and who is pushing for change. There is nothing evil about maintaining. Museums conserved natural and cultural history and that is good. The scientists in this site try to conserve science traditions. I am liberal with science, since I like to approach the old from new angles.

Conservative in the US tend to be about Christianity since this country was colonized by European countries who were predominately Christians; England, France, Spain, Netherlands, and Germany. The Constitution is also unique to the USA so that is conserved.

Good post. Nothing wrong with conserving some things, but also nothing wrong with changing some things. People just disagree on what needs changing and what needs preserving. But yes, mostly we are a mix of old and new.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you not read my response to book burning? I'm not defending all of Wilders' actions in this thread. I'm specifically talking about why being critical of Islam is viewed as being a far right stance.

Well, I already noted that this is a misrepresentation of the video clip.
Nowhere in that video clip was it said that he is far right only because he is critical of islam.
I have no idea where you pulled that from.

- IMO, the journalist labeled being critical of Islam as a far right position.

This is a misrepresentation of what the dude in the video clip actually said.

Let's say that's true (it probably is). In that case the "journalist" committed a sin of omission.

He isn't. That Geert Wilders is far right is common knowledge to people who actually know who he is and are familiar with his politics.
He just stated a fact.

It appears to me that the "journalist" is actually an pro multicultural activist. This is very dangerous business.

It appears to me that you are hellbend on misrepresenting what was actually said in the video clip.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It clearly does. That's the only rational explanation for why you're singling out Muslims rather than authoritarians broadly.

It's a common tactic of the likes of Wilders.
These guys are racists pur sang.

Here's the issue though... as politicians, you can't just spew your hatred against all arabs. You'll actually be charged with lawsuits for being racists and will be banned from politics etc. So they have to get creative.

This is why they pick on Islam with such a broad brush. "islam" then becomes synonymous with "arabs".

There collegues in Belgium from Vlaams Belang do the exact same thing.
Whenever they rant about "muslims", we all know that they really mean any arab immigrant (including those that aren't even muslims).
But again, they can't just come out and say it like that because that will get them in trouble.

However if you take their entire political program and everything else they say (including in local bars when no camera's are running), it's trivial to piece it together and knowing what they are really all about.

Extreme right racist facist neo-nazi's. No more, no less.

 

[Koldo]

that's partly true, but not entirely.

Can you elaborate?

 

[icehorse]

Well, I already noted that this is a misrepresentation of the video clip.
Nowhere in that video clip was it said that he is far right only because he is critical of islam.
I have no idea where you pulled that from.

I just went back and watched the clip again. The "journalist" referred to Wilders many times as far right. But the ONLY explicit position of Wilders that he mentioned was his stance on Islamic immigrants.

So at best this is a sin of omission.

In this video clip, the most parsimonious interpretation is that wanting to stop Islamic immigration is a far right stance. That's what the OP is about.

Mindless identity politics (IP) is everywhere. People trying to jam others into categories that do not fit so that they can criticize them. The example in this clip is the strong inference that if you want to stop Islamic immigration, you're part of the far right. That's nonsense.

Extreme right racist facist neo-nazi's. No more, no less.

It could be that you're correct. But that is not the point of the OP.

The point of the OP is to show another example of how "journalists" (and others), dishonestly use IP to slur their opponents. The journalist could have taken 15 seconds to list Wilders' other bad actions, but he did not. He focused only on immigration. That was deliiberate.

 

[icehorse]

Can you elaborate?

There are many non-European, prosperous countries. So of course I agree that Europe tends to be prosperous, but it's not unique in that regard.

 

[Koldo]

There are many non-European, prosperous countries. So of course I agree that Europe tends to be prosperous, but it's not unique in that regard.

How many of them are prosperous compared to the ones that are not? A very small fraction.

 

[Estro Felino]

There are many non-European, prosperous countries. So of course I agree that Europe tends to be prosperous, but it's not unique in that regard.

Well...honestly I think that Europe is actually unique. But in the worship of beauty - and I believe it's a certain type of spiritual afflatus that made it unique....

Foreigners don't understand that if Europe had been inhabited by other people, other than Europeans, it would have looked completely different.

 

[icehorse]

How many of them are prosperous compared to the ones that are not? A very small fraction.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point? My point is that there are many prosperous countries around the world, but that mostly the only prosperous Muslim majority countries are those blessed with oil.

 

[icehorse]

If all it takes is you being asked to provide evidence of your claims for you to completely unravel like this, perhaps it's time to think about making different claims.

This is rich coming from someone who can't be asked to answer a simple question that should take no effort whatsoever other than typing two sentences

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point? My point is that there are many prosperous countries around the world, but that mostly the only prosperous Muslim majority countries are those blessed with oil.

My point is:

The vast majority of countries outside Europe are not prosperous. There are almost no muslim majority countries in Europe and many of them are outside Europe. Therefore, it is no surprise there is hardly any prosperous muslim majority country in the world.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is rich coming from someone who can't be asked to answer a simple question that should take no effort whatsoever other than typing two sentences

The irony of this post, and your obvious building frustrating in resorting to this cheap tactic, indicate that your use of an emoji here is just you desperately trying to pretend you aren't getting very, very badly rattled at having been exposed so badly.