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

[icehorse]

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.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims are in favor of theocracy - it's hard to separate the two.

 

[flowerpower]

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

Personally, I am completely fed up with identity politics.

I mean, there seemed to be a time and a place for them but that ship has long sailed IMO.

Identity politics (or as some people like to call them, I guess disparagingly: "culture wars") are nothing but trouble now.

 

[flowerpower]

@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.

I can't see anything that I disagree with here. It's subjective to determine whether Islam is a collection of bad ideas I suppose - the only things that I found redeeming about it when I had my "phase" (is what I guess I'll call it) were somewhat reactionary in nature (first of more than just a few red flags right there), considering it to be some kind of a fashion statement (pretty disrespectful to the religion for me to view it that way and a superficial exercise of my own too) based upon me arbitrarily idolizing friends of mine who were Muslims and considering core tenants of the faith that Islam doesn't exactly have a patent on - such as the idea that we all come from the same universal source and that source is ultimately characterized by a form of universal love and beauty.

Suffice to say, I'm glad that my "phase" was as brief as it was and that I don't intend to revisit it any time soon. It's one thing for a faith to be a bundle of bad ideas - it's quite another issue altogether to take that bundle of bad ideas and make it so politically charged as Islam currently exists.

I do like the crescent moon and star symbol though. Very elegant. Easily my favorite symbol of the major religions from an aesthetic standpoint.

 

[sun rise]

Hundreds of millions of Muslims are in favor of theocracy - it's hard to separate the two.

45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’​

 

[icehorse]

45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’​

Any idea what they mean by that? Some sort of Christian version of Sharia? I doubt that, but who knows.

In any case, your point seems to be something like "it's already flawed, why not make it worse?" ?

 

[flowerpower]

Any idea what they mean by that? Some sort of Christian version of Sharia? I doubt that, but who knows.

In any case, your point seems to be something like "it's already flawed, why not make it worse?" ?

I've seen, on other political forums, people often referring to the USA's Christian fundamentalist right wing as "America's Taliban".

It's really sickening - at best, it does a massive disservice to all the people who have suffered and died due to Islamic theocracies - especially under the Taliban. It's like the people who run around calling everyone they disagree with "Nazis".

Yes - Christian fundamentalism is currently doing some despicable things in the USA (and, yes, it has a bad historical record) but to falsely equate those factions with the Taliban is pretty low IMO.

 

[sun rise]

Any idea what they mean by that? Some sort of Christian version of Sharia? I doubt that, but who knows.

In any case, your point seems to be something like "it's already flawed, why not make it worse?" ?

No. What I'm saying is that the uncertainty about what that 45% actually wants is the same as the uncertainty about what Muslims want.

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

A new survey report looks at attitudes among Muslims in 39 countries on a wide range of topics, from science to sharia, polygamy to popular culture. The survey finds that overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law to be the official law of their land, but there is...

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Alright. Give us a step by step process on how they might effectively do that. Do you also call on moderate Christians to combat the fundamentalism and extremism within their faith?

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

The OP asked if opposing theocracy was considered a far right position. My point was that, given that far right is authoritarian, it would only be "anti authoritarian" if someone else is at the helm. Far left is also authoritarian, and would seemingly oppose authoritarianism for the same reasons; they're not the ones in power.

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"?

No, but it's often implied that they're all collectively responsible for it or "allow" it to happen.

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.

Yeah, people are often unaware of or overlook the fact that the political compass has two axis. Particularly in America; where "leftist" and "liberal" are conflated, and accuse democrats of being "socialist" or "communist" despite being right of center by global standards.

 

[sun rise]

The OP asked if opposing theocracy was considered a far right position. My point was that, given that far right is authoritarian, it would only be "anti authoritarian" if someone else is at the helm. Far left is also authoritarian, and would seemingly oppose authoritarianism for the same reasons; they're not the ones in power.

No, but it's often implied that they're all collectively responsible for it or "allow" it to happen.


Yeah, people are often unaware of or overlook the fact that the political compass has two axis. Particularly in America; where "leftist" and "liberal" are conflated, and accuse democrats of being "socialist" or "communist" despite being right of center by global standards.

You're also implicitly referring to the Overton Window which is much more to the right in the US compared to Europe and elsewhere.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

But, apparently, my country which is known as Catholiland, doesn't look like a theocracy.
Since you will see women walking half-naked on the street, on TV, and so much promiscuity; prostitution is legal; on TV there is zero censorship, not even swear words are bleeped out.
Is that what you mean by a far-right Christian country?

 

[flowerpower]

The OP asked if opposing theocracy was considered a far right position. My point was that, given that far right is authoritarian, it would only be "anti authoritarian" if someone else is at the helm. Far left is also authoritarian, and would seemingly oppose authoritarianism for the same reasons; they're not the ones in power.

That's confusing to the point where I suspect that it's nonsensical.

Maybe it's just the silly left-right spectrum playing tricks on both of our minds.

According to you, what isn't authoritarian? Centrism? Am I to understand that being anti-authoritarian can only exist if you have no power and oppose whatever authority in involved in the status quo.

I agree that the extreme left and the extreme right both represent authoritarianism as I understand it though.

This is getting really messy.

No, but it's often implied that they're all collectively responsible for it or "allow" it to happen.

Who is often implying that?

I mean, I know Islamophobia is real and some very nasty people come up with some very ugly ideas alongside their prejudice but I don't see how, in day-to-day life in our society that this is EVER expressed or even remotely implied. Especially not in the 2020s.

Maybe some online kooks trying to create clickbait or hateful idiots on forums.

Is there anyone on this forum who "often implies" what you just said? Because I'm sensing quite a straw man.

Yeah, people are often unaware of or overlook the fact that the political compass has two axis. Particularly in America; where "leftist" and "liberal" are conflated, and accuse democrats of being "socialist" or "communist" despite being right of center by global standards.

Yeah I can agree with this. I often think of the USA as a two-party system that has essentially 2 right wing parties and nothing else.

The communist babble in America is complete gibberish and residue of McCarthyism and red scare stuff from a long time ago.

But, apparently, my country which is known as Catholiland, doesn't look like a theocracy.
Since you will see women walking half-naked on the street, on TV, and so much promiscuity; prostitution is legal; on TV there is zero censorship, not even swear words are bleeped out.
Is that what you mean by a far-right Christian country?

Yeah, I really don't see what he's seeing.

I don't think any Christian theocracies even exist in the 21st Century?

Maybe some lunatic rogue nations in Africa that call themselves Christian?

Pretty much every nation that could be arguably considered "a Christian nation" and delves into right wing politics is still secularist by their constitutions. Far Right Christian Theocracies don't exist anymore and they haven't for a very long time.

 

[libre]

I don't think any Christian theocracies even exist in the 21st Century?

Not for lack of trying.

That's confusing to the point where I suspect that it's nonsensical.

Maybe it's just the silly left-right spectrum playing tricks on both of our minds.

I think the point the poster you were responding to was accurate.
Everyone is against nationalism when it's an enemy nation or a Religion that doesn't match their personal views.
The dangerous people are the people who are ok with theocracy, nationalism when it is their nation or religion.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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

Theocracy is a right stance I think.

The nature of that theocracy determines whether it is far right or not.

And even the non religious can be considered far right if they reject a theocracy based off a racist and cultural agenda rather than on the merits of the theocracy itself.

 

[Father Heathen]

But, apparently, my country which is known as Catholiland, doesn't look like a theocracy.
Since you will see women walking half-naked on the street, on TV, and so much promiscuity; prostitution is legal; on TV there is zero censorship, not even swear words are bleeped out.
Is that what you mean by a far-right Christian country?

No, it obviously isn't what I mean. Italy is a secular state, even if most of its population are nominal, half-baked Catholics. What religious edicts does it enforce? Vatican City however is a theocracy. I refer to something like this:

Dominion theology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian nationalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Handmaid's Tale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Estro Felino]

No, it obviously isn't what I mean. Italy is a secular state, even if most of its population are nominal, half-baked Catholics. What religious edicts does it enforce? Vatican City however is a theocracy. I refer to something like this:

Dominion theology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian nationalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Handmaid's Tale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian nationalism isn't theocracy, though. Because even Mussolini was an atheist, but embraced CN fully.

 

[Father Heathen]

Personally, I am completely fed up with identity politics.

I mean, there seemed to be a time and a place for them but that ship has long sailed IMO.

Identity politics (or as some people like to call them, I guess disparagingly: "culture wars") are nothing but trouble now.

If people weren't constantly attempting to contest other peoples' rights and freedoms, it would go away. Can't fault anyone for defending themselves from bigotry fueled tyranny.

 

[Father Heathen]

Christian nationalism isn't theocracy, though. Because even Mussolini was an atheist, but embraced CN fully.

Yes, it is by the very definition a theocracy, and Mussolini was still a tyrant regardless, so that's a silly example.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's confusing to the point where I suspect that it's nonsensical.

Maybe it's just the silly left-right spectrum playing tricks on both of our minds.

According to you, what isn't authoritarian? Centrism? Am I to understand that being anti-authoritarian can only exist if you have no power and oppose whatever authority in involved in the status quo.

I agree that the extreme left and the extreme right both represent authoritarianism as I understand it though.

This is getting really messy.

I hope this helps make sense of what I'm trying to say:

Who is often implying that?

I mean, I know Islamophobia is real and some very nasty people come up with some very ugly ideas alongside their prejudice but I don't see how, in day-to-day life in our society that this is EVER expressed or even remotely implied. Especially not in the 2020s.

Maybe some online kooks trying to create clickbait or hateful idiots on forums.

Is there anyone on this forum who "often implies" what you just said? Because I'm sensing quite a straw man.

Yes, there are many people who imply that the mere presence of Muslims is a slippery slope to living under Shariah. The sentiment bounces around in rightwing echo chambers. Look back at the travel bans Trump imposed during his presidency.

Yeah I can agree with this. I often think of the USA as a two-party system that has essentially 2 right wing parties and nothing else.

The communist babble in America is complete gibberish and residue of McCarthyism and red scare stuff from a long time ago.

The two party system is definitely stale and boils down to choosing the lesser evil rather than anything ideal.

Yeah, I really don't see what he's seeing.

I don't think any Christian theocracies even exist in the 21st Century?

That's because, despite their efforts, liberty and democracy have managed to prevail so far.

Maybe some lunatic rogue nations in Africa that call themselves Christian?

Pretty much every nation that could be arguably considered "a Christian nation" and delves into right wing politics is still secularist by their constitutions. Far Right Christian Theocracies don't exist anymore and they haven't for a very long time.

Conservatives have been attempting to undermine the establishment clause of the first amendment for decades.

 

[Koldo]

@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.

Actually, most people immigrate due to economic causes. Not because of values.