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

[icehorse]

@libre and @Estro Felino -

You appear to be using the idea of the "oppressed vs. oppressor" (o-v-o), worldview in this discussion?! I might be wrong, I'm just speculating, but your posts supporting Gaddafi and criticizing "the West" are in lock step with this worldview.

I find o-v-o to be much more counterproductive than productive. It occasionally works, but it's overly simplistic and frequently downright wrong, as in this case.

To circle back to the OP, the "journalists" criticizing Wilders also appear to be operating from the o-v-o perspective. It might be that he is far-right, but there are a few facts that we ought to consider:

- the "journalists" mention ONLY his take on immigration
- people who use o-v-o frequently smear any and all criticisms of their ideas as being "far-right".

So let's step back: Why do so many Muslims want to immigrate to Europe? Because their countries are horrible places to live and Europe is far better. So while it's complicated to understand why some countries succeed and others fail, in this case there is a simple common denominator, the IDEAS of Islam. There is a HIGH CORRELATION between countries governed by Islamic IDEAS and crappy places to live.

Why would a successful country want to allow people who hold IDEAS that appear not to work into their countries? This is not about racism, it's about VALUES. A large percentage of Muslims who immigrate into Europe bring Islamic VALUES with them, and some of these values are are in opposition to Western. European, Enlightenment values.

I understand that the West has plenty of serious issues, and we can start other threads to discuss those issues. (But I would contend that those issues tend to be the result of unregulated capitalism, not Enlightenment values.)

So when it comes to immigration, I support Wilders. If a person wants to support Islamic values, they should not be welcome in the West. But it's critical to understand that I'm talking about IDEAS, not people. If a person wants to immigrate and wants to abandon Islam, then I'd say normal immigration policies should apply.

So again, this is not about people, it's about IDEAS. And Islam is indeed, IMO, a collection of bad ideas.

 

[Estro Felino]

To circle back to the OP, the "journalists" criticizing Wilders also appear to be operating from the o-v-o perspective. It might be that he is far-right, but there are a few facts that we ought to consider:

The problem here is generalization. People tend to have a confusing idea on the geopolitics of the Mediterranean, but there many Arabic-speaking migrants who are really exemplary citizens. Who practice their own religion quietly and discreetly.
They enjoy the secularism of Europe. I think it was obvious that under Gaddafi Libya was pretty secular. Because that was the last stronghold od the Pan-Arabism, which is secular.

- the "journalists" mention ONLY his take on immigration
- people who use o-v-o frequently smear any and all criticisms of their ideas as being "far-right".

True. Very simplistic view.

So let's step back: Why do so many Muslims want to immigrate to Europe? Because their countries are horrible places to live and Europe is far better. So while it's complicated to understand why some countries succeed and others fail, in this case there is a simple common denominator, the IDEAS of Islam. There is a HIGH CORRELATION between countries governed by Islamic IDEAS and crappy places to live.

Many do that out of economic reasons and many are secular, so they enjoy the secularism of Europe.
But there are also many who come here because their dream is to islamize Europe. And they don't even hide it, they say it out loud: they think we are immoral and need to be saved by their religion.
It deals with the fundamentalists, like this group, the Tabligh:

They fail to understand, that the more they push for that dream of islamizing Europe, the more people like Wilders will win the elections, in Europe.

Why would a successful country want to allow people who hold IDEAS that appear not to work into their countries? This is not about racism, it's about VALUES. A large percentage of Muslims who immigrate into Europe bring Islamic VALUES with them, and some of these values are are in opposition to Western. European, Enlightenment values.

All European countries are different. However many migrants are expelled for being radical fundamentalists, and for promoting terrorism.

So when it comes to immigration, I support Wilders. If a person wants to support Islamic values, they should not be welcome in the West. But it's critical to understand that I'm talking about IDEAS, not people. If a person wants to immigrate and wants to abandon Islam, then I'd say normal immigration policies should apply.

Wilders is a patriot and a nationalist. He wants his country to preserve its own heritage.
Belgium and Netherlands have been the most tolerant and accepting countries, as for immigration and multiculturalism. I guess the Dutch people have realized that unvetted immigration has brought nothing but insecurity and unrest.

 

[libre]

So when it comes to immigration, I support Wilders. If a person wants to support Islamic values, they should not be welcome in the West. But it's critical to understand that I'm talking about IDEAS, not people. If a person wants to immigrate and wants to abandon Islam, then I'd say normal immigration policies should apply.

I've met and befriended many Muslim immigrants in my country who do not deserve to be barred or discriminated against in the name of opposing 'Islamic values'. Further, I see those that argue to discriminate based on Religion in the immigration process to be violating the enlightenment values they claim to be protecting.

We should be encouraging Muslims to further integrate into a secular world, rather than barring them from it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've met and befriended many Muslim immigrants in my country who do not deserve to be barred or discriminated against in the name of opposing 'Islamic values'. Further, I see those that argue to discriminate based on Religion in the immigration process to be violating the enlightenment values they claim to be protecting.

We should be encouraging Muslims to further integrate into a secular world, rather than barring them from it.

Nobody discriminates against anyone for their religion.
It's forbidden, as well.
Also because the EU standards imply the respect of all citizens, regardless of their religion.

 

[libre]

You appear to be using the idea of the "oppressed vs. oppressor" (o-v-o), worldview in this discussion?! I might be wrong, I'm just speculating, but your posts supporting Gaddafi and criticizing "the West" are in lock step with this worldview.

As an aside, I don't share Estro's worldview.
I do not support Gaddafi, I opposed NATO involvement.

 

[icehorse]

I've met and befriended many Muslim immigrants in my country who do not deserve to be barred or discriminated against in the name of opposing 'Islamic values'. Further, I see those that argue to discriminate based on Religion in the immigration process to be violating the enlightenment values they claim to be protecting.

We should be encouraging Muslims to further integrate into a secular world, rather than barring them from it.

I think Islam is closer to a totalitarian ideology than it is to a religion. If - somehow - you could remove all the political aspects of Islam, you might end up with something closer to a religion, but as it stands, I think it's a mistake to say that Islam is merely a religion.

And for decades now many countries in the West have had immigration laws to restrict immigrants who support totalitarian ideologies.

I've said this before: IMO, Islam needs to be seriously reformed! There is a group called "Muslim Reform Movement" that I think is headed in the right direction. It's not perfect, but definitely a step.

As for the Muslims you've met, scientists call that "anecdotal evidence". As such it has limited value.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've said this before: IMO, Islam needs to be seriously reformed! There is a group called "Muslim Reform Movement" that I think is headed in the right direction. It's not perfect, but definitely a step.

Actually money wins and the wealthiest countries of the Gulf are financing the radicalization of the religion in traditionally moderate countries like Morocco or Libya, for example.

My country is very close to these countries. But it's culturally light years away from the Islamic world. It's like two worlds apart.
Women cover themselves in those countries...and sometimes wear burqas to protect their honor.

I dare not imagine what they think of us, where women are basically half-naked on TV and on the street,...

There is too much cultural distance.

 

[icehorse]

Actually money wins and the wealthiest countries of the Gulf are financing the radicalization of the religion in traditionally moderate countries like Morocco or Libya, for example.

I think there is a lot of truth in that. But I think it's also true that there are tens of millions of Islamists who are not from the wealthy gulf countries.

 

[Yerda]

Anti-theocracy is common accross the political landscape. I'm against theocracy in any form and I'm a socialist. Most liberals and conservatives I know are pretty vocally against government by religious decree, etc.

Using fear and demonsation of Muslims to drum up support is pretty common to only one section, however.

 

[flowerpower]

The OP reveals yet another example about why the good old fashioned "left-right" political spectrum is reductive and problematic - the world and the way people conceive of it is far more complicated than that.

It makes total sense that being "Anti-Islamic Theocracy" in Europe would be regarded as a far right position if it's to be conceived of as a form of populism or a maintenance of the various traditional cultural heritages of Europe that have nothing to do with Islam - the opposition being extremely left-wing multiculturalism that might involve welcoming anything and everything.

Theocracy in all its forms, however, strikes me as an extremist right wing form of government. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that either.

So this Netherlands thing is kind of a left-right paradox. And, like I said - reveals the extreme limitations that conceptualizing political ideas that way imposes upon people and dumbs everyone down by exercising it, myself included.

Every time we start discussing "the left" or "the right" we all become more narrow minded as a result.

 

[icehorse]

Anti-theocracy is common accross the political landscape. I'm against theocracy in any form and I'm a socialist. Most liberals and conservatives I know are pretty vocally against government by religious decree, etc.

Using fear and demonsation of Muslims to drum up support is pretty common to only one section, however.

It ought to be universal to both "left" and "right" that theocracy should opposed.

As for demonization, in poll after poll, large percentages of Muslims living in Europe are pro-Sharia. So calling that fact out does not seem like "demonization" to me.

 

[Father Heathen]

Theocracies themselves are far-right. If someone far-right opposes a theocracy, but's because they oppose the religion that theocracy is based upon rather than the idea of theocracy itself.

 

[Father Heathen]

It ought to be universal to both "left" and "right" that theocracy should opposed.

As for demonization, in poll after poll, large percentages of Muslims living in Europe are pro-Sharia. So calling that fact out does not seem like "demonization" to me.

Theocracy is just magic flavored fascism.

Muslims who want to impose sharia upon others are indeed a problem, but presuming that all Muslims want to do so is also a problem.

 

[flowerpower]

Theocracies themselves are far-right. If someone far-right opposes a theocracy, but's because the oppose the religion that theocracy is based upon rather than the idea of theocracy itself.

I think I agree.

But doesn't that presuppose a person's position as being "far right" to begin with in order for that to fly? Someone on the "far left" could hold that exact same position on theocracy too - there are examples of communists being theocratic and opposed to all other religions except the one(s) accepted as the state.

This is a hypothetical far right person we're talking about too - not really centric to the OP.

Theocracy is just magic flavored fascism.

Muslims who want to impose sharia upon others are indeed a problem, but presuming that all Muslims want to do so is also a problem.

Yes, and fascism is conceived as "far right".

Muslims who want to impose Sharia Law upon others using the government as an instrument to do so are "far-right" religious fascists.

I don't think I've read everything in this thread, but has anyone tried to make the argument that "all Muslims want to impose Sharia Law"?

Again: my core response to this thread is that the "left-right" political spectrum as its understood is a really messy problem and this Netherlands talking point is an excellent example as to why.

 

[icehorse]

Theocracy is just magic flavored fascism.

Muslims who want to impose sharia upon others are indeed a problem, but presuming that all Muslims want to do so is also a problem.

Then secular loving Muslims need to reform Islam or explicitly start an offshoot, because the percentage of theocracy-loving Muslims is quite high, and they tend not to wear name tags.

 

[icehorse]

Again: my core response to this thread is that the "left-right" political spectrum as its understood is a really messy problem and this Netherlands talking point is an excellent example as to why.

You've landed on one of the reasons I started this thread. I'm finding identity politics increasingly counter-productive.

 

[flowerpower]

Then secular loving Muslims need to reform Islam or explicitly start an offshoot, because the percentage of theocracy-loving Muslims is quite high, and they tend not to wear name tags.

Yeah, it's been the fastest growing religion in the world for a while now. And I think I understand the reasons as to why this is.

I actually considered converting to it at one point last year - very eyebrow raising for anyone who knew me; I told my doctor who literally suggested that I have my psychiatric medications adjusted/increased lol - not even joking; that actually happened. It almost "got me" LOL.

There are a lot of very disillusioned people in the world right now and, for a lot of non-Muslim people, Islam stands as a symbolic kind of subversive flag to stand behind and, to a lot of westerners (especially with Muslim friends) - asylum seekers from (ironically, in the space of this discussion) Islamic theocratic countries appear to be very sympathetic people.

As far as religions go, I don't see how it's all that different from any other - they all just seem to be saying the same stuff in different ways. As usual, it's the socio- or geo-political stuff that causes all the discord and problems - such as this Netherlands stuff and whether it's some kind of political "winger" position or whatever.

 

[icehorse]

As far as religions go, I don't see how it's all that different from any other - they all just seem to be saying the same stuff in different ways. As usual, it's the socio- or geo-political stuff that causes all the discord and problems - such as this Netherlands stuff and whether it's some kind of political "winger" position or whatever.

I think the world has pushed most other religions somewhat away from politics and to accept secularism. But Islam remains strongly political and theocratic.

 

[sun rise]

@Sand Dancer

Wilders is AGAINST theocracies, that's the point of the OP.

The title included "eg" ie "for example" so it's not exclusively about the Netherlands.

 

[sun rise]

And Islam is indeed, IMO, a collection of bad ideas.

I thought this thread was about theocracy not yet another debate about what "Islamic values" truly are across the entire range of values held by Muslims and in the Quran and Hadith.