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

[LuisDantas]

Trying to disqualify Islam from the category of religion because they do not respect freedom of Religion doesn't really make sense to me.

I don't think that is what I am doing, though.

I am not trying to disqualify; I am saying outright that Islam is not a religion and does not want to be a religion.

I have as much authority to do so as anyone else, modified by how informed and how sincere I am as opposed to others who might agree or disagree.

There are many reasons why I don't consider Islam a religion. It goes considerably beyond the presumption of being inherent to people who never heard of it, but that is reason enough.

Were the Christian's during the dark ages not really Religious?

Many were not, and many are not even today. Although that is not as direct a comparison as it may seem to be at first.

I do not aim to be generous when considering whether a creed qualifies as a religion.

I think when one gets to the point where they are denying that a Religion is a Religion, that person is the one not respecting freedom of Religion and laying groundwork for the denial of that right for the allegedly non-religious.

How would that work?

Do you know of any non-arbitrary way of defining religions? I have not learned of any, despite a lot of effort from many people.

There are those who establish an unavoidably arbitrary catalog of "proper" religions and establish rules to "protect the right" of adherence to any one of those.

That is arbitrary as well, and a very serious obstacle to the freedom of adhering to other religions - or to syncretisms, or often to no religion at all.

That is no defense of "freedom"; it is imposition of political or societal expectations to restrict freedom.

As for whether or not Muslims support freedom of Religion, do you have any stats to support that?

I don't need stats. I am aware of the doctrine.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Summary:

Many Muslims in Europe want Sharia law. Sharia law represents a big step towards theocracy.

Geert Wilders recently won a big election in the Netherlands based on his positions that Islamic immigration to the Netherlands must be stopped. In this video and others, Wilders is called "far right". So does that mean that being against theocracy is now a "far right" stance?

Some polls on Sharia in Europe:

Poll: 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia

i24NEWS

www.i24news.tv

And around the world, support for Sharia is quite high:

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of

www.pewresearch.org

Wilders has been on the right/far right (depending how you want to characterise it) for quite a while, and moderated his language around many positions in the election lead up.

So it would depend whether you want to accept only his most recently stated positions, or would include those he's consistently held over time. His rhetoric against Islam has traditionally gone beyond mere border control, he has consistently argued in nationalistic terms against the EU, and he's made comments reducing climate change to a tool being used by the EU and other groups for coercive purposes.

You can agree with him or not, but his description as 'far right' is not based only on his most recent comments.

Separate to this particular issue, I would say right wing actors are too commonly called far right these days.

 

[icehorse]

Wilders has been on the right/far right (depending how you want to characterise it) for quite a while, and moderated his language around many positions in the election lead up.

So it would depend whether you want to accept only his most recently stated positions, or would include those he's consistently held over time. His rhetoric against Islam has traditionally gone beyond mere border control, he has consistently argued in nationalistic terms against the EU, and he's made comments reducing climate change to a tool being used by the EU and other groups for coercive purposes.

You can agree with him or not, but his description as 'far right' is not based only on his most recent comments.

Separate to this particular issue, I would say right wing actors are too commonly called far right these days.

The point of the OP was really to look at biases in journalism, Wilders just being an example.

My claim is that IF the only thing you knew about Wilders was what was in the news video, you might conclude that being anti-theocracy - all by itself - is sufficient to be labeled "far right".

It strikes me that most "journalism" these days has become shockingly biased. So when I saw the video, my interpretation was that the journalist supports multiculturalism and mass-immigration which tend to be left or far-left positions, and that anyone who disagrees should be categorized as "far right". If so, that leaves an enlightenment-loving moderate like me having to side with the far-right, which I do not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The point of the OP was really to look at biases in journalism, Wilders just being an example.

My claim is that IF the only thing you knew about Wilders was what was in the news video, you might conclude that being anti-theocracy - all by itself - is sufficient to be labeled "far right".

It strikes me that most "journalism" these days has become shockingly biased. So when I saw the video, my interpretation was that the journalist supports multiculturalism and mass-immigration which tend to be left or far-left positions, and that anyone who disagrees should be categorized as "far right". If so, that leaves an enlightenment-loving moderate like me having to side with the far-right, which I do not.

Well...as I said, the media is definitely prone to labelling all right positions as 'far right' these days, so I guess in that sense we have some agreement.

 

[icehorse]

Well...as I said, the media is definitely prone to labelling all right positions as 'far right' these days, so I guess in that sense we have some agreement.

It seems like defending enlightenment values is now too often considered "right wing". E.g. free speech vs. the quickly encroaching idea of so many things being "hate speech".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It seems like defending enlightenment values is now too often considered "right wing". E.g. free speech vs. the quickly encroaching idea of so many things being "hate speech".

Perhaps a different issue again, though.
Whilst I'm definitely not a libertarian, I do consume libertarian content, and understand what you mean.
However, my point would be more 'why is right wing heavily demonised in much of the Media'?

I've never been even vaguely right wing, but a range of ideas and discourse is healthy. As it stands, taking a centrist position is often seen as fence-sitting or an apologist position, and taking a right wing view on an issue is often characterised as 'far right'.

I don't find any of that useful in contributing to a robust and mature democratic dialogue, frankly.

And before anyone argues the toss, yes, this happens in the other direction too, with leftist positions characterised as basically communistic or contrary to common sense as a matter of course by some sections of the media. It's not exactly equivalent, but this issue isn't one sided