islam and queer liberation [Archive]

Revy

14th May 2010, 18:57

Homophobia is definitely not comparable to islamophobia, though it's definitely a concern. You can be progressive but still be homophobic, though it's obviously an issue and wrong. However, you can't be a progressive and hold islamophobic and/or xenophobic views. We need to be careful not to dismiss progressive movements because of homophobic elements, because in the end, we can't wait forever for a perfect movement with the perfect line. For example, the Taliban, or ZANU-PF are both progressive anti-imperialists but hold ridiculous homophobic views. But should we dismiss them for their homophobic views? Definitely not, since homophobia is widespread all over the Islamic world and Africa, and it's more progressive for humanity to have an homophobic anti-imperialist government in a certain country than a homophobic colony or imperialist stooge.

Keep up the struggle, though, comrade!

those governments are not "progressive". And homophobia is a reason to dismiss them, among other reasons. If the oppression of gays doesn't matter to you, then you have a problem. It is like arguing that if far-right racist Christian groups governed America, it would be more progressive because they put an end to the wars (many of them are anti-war). You are only thinking in one lens and that is distorting your view.

The Taliban and ZANU-PF are not socialist movements, so I don't see why we should care about their "line".

Lenina Rosenweg

14th May 2010, 19:08

mosfeld

14th May 2010, 19:08

those governments are not "progressive". And homophobia is a reason to dismiss them, among other reasons. If the oppression of gays doesn't matter to you, then you have a problem. It is like arguing that if far-right racist Christian groups governed America, it would be more progressive because they put an end to the wars (many of them are anti-war). You are only thinking in one lens and that is distorting your view.

Im bisexual and Im against oppression of homosexuals and homophobia should be criticized, but you shouldn't denounce a progressive anti-imperialist movement on the grounds that they're homophobic, especially when homophobia is rampant in these countries and their homophobia is cultural and subjective anyways. The fact that you compare far-right christian racist groups to national liberation movements is ridiculous.

The Taliban and ZANU-PF are not socialist movements, so I don't see why we should care about their "line". Im aware that they're not socialist, they're progressive anti-imperialists. "Line" might've been the wrong word, but you get the gist of what Im saying. :)

Lenina Rosenweg

14th May 2010, 19:30

How is the Taliban or Zanu-PF progressive or anti-imperialist? Perhaps they could be seen as anti-imperialist in a way but only in the sense of defending the control of national capital, if only of that of a tiny corrupt elite. They are not our friends or allies.The way forward for the working class needs lies in independent struggle, not tailing thugs like the Taliban or ZANU.

redwasp

14th May 2010, 20:21

peace,

Homophobia is definitely not comparable to islamophobia, though it's definitely a concern. You can be progressive but still be homophobic, though it's obviously an issue and wrong. However, you can't be a progressive and hold islamophobic and/or xenophobic views. We need to be careful not to dismiss progressive movements because of homophobic elements, because in the end, we can't wait forever for a perfect movement with the perfect line. For example, the Taliban, or ZANU-PF are both progressive anti-imperialists but hold ridiculous homophobic views. But should we dismiss them for their homophobic views? Definitely not, since homophobia is widespread all over the Islamic world and Africa, and it's more progressive for humanity to have an homophobic anti-imperialist government in a certain country than a homophobic colony or imperialist stooge.

Keep up the struggle, though, comrade!

the most slanderous and backward islamophobic and racist remarks are sold as 'progressive atheïsm' today.

how can a progressive person be homophobic? homophobia is just one of the faces of patriarchal oppression. queer struggle and womens struggle are two sides of the same liberation-movement.

peace,

redwasp

redwasp

14th May 2010, 20:26

peace,

A few thoughts. What do you think of Sultan Galiev?

don't know enough about him to answer this question.

Would you say homophobia in Muslim cultures is more a product of Western imperialism or due to "indigenous" causes? Tariq Ali in his historical novels portrays 12th century Islam as being very tolerant of lgbt people.Is this romanticism or is this accurate?

all evidence seems to point to the idea that homophobia is a western import product.

My understanding is that the world's largest lgbt organization, Al Fatiha is Muslim.

are they the largest? i didn't know. faisal alam, the founder, is a friend of mine. he will be pleased.

Also-I would not regard the Taliban as being either progessive or anti-imperialist. Not only are they homophobic they are intensely misogynist and feudalist. They are also an expression of Saudi and Pathan tribal imperialism.

true. taliban government was installed to serve the american interests. only years later they started opposing the US. however the enemy of my enemy isn't necesarily my friend.

peace,

redwasp

redwasp

14th May 2010, 20:28

peace,

Im bisexual and Im against oppression of homosexuals and homophobia should be criticized, but you shouldn't denounce a progressive anti-imperialist movement on the grounds that they're homophobic, especially when homophobia is rampant in these countries and their homophobia is cultural and subjective anyways. The fact that you compare far-right christian racist groups to national liberation movements is ridiculous.

Im aware that they're not socialist, they're progressive anti-imperialists. "Line" might've been the wrong word, but you get the gist of what Im saying. :)

all progressive, socialist and anti-imperialist afghan comrades i know view taliban as backward, conservative. they are anti-bourgois that is true, but they want to go back to feudal times. remember, louis XVI was also against a bourgeois regime.

peace,

redwasp

Revy

14th May 2010, 20:49

Im bisexual and Im against oppression of homosexuals and homophobia should be criticized, but you shouldn't denounce a progressive anti-imperialist movement on the grounds that they're homophobic,

Yes, we should. There is a difference between opposing imperialism and supporting resistance against it (as I do) and opportunistically supporting every kind of movement which poses itself against imperialism no matter how reactionary many of their ideas are.

especially when homophobia is rampant in these countries and their homophobia is cultural and subjective anyways. The fact that you compare far-right christian racist groups to national liberation movements is ridiculous.
All homophobia is "cultural" (as all forms of social oppression are!), no matter what country. It doesn't excuse it. I did not compare "national liberation movements" in general to far-right groups. I compared groups which hate gays to the far-right groups (which also hate gays). My point is that because one aspect of a movement is positive (opposing imperialism) it does not mean it is positive overall de facto. There are many right-wing extremists in the US that are against the wars. Although opposing US imperialism is a progressive position, those individuals are not progressive.

I do not think it is a choice between the US and the Taliban. I want the US to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan. If that means the Taliban will take over the entire country again, so be it, but I do not support them and I will support the Afghan people should they choose to overthrow the regime in favor of secular socialism.

Il Medico

17th May 2010, 20:16

For example, the Taliban,...

Are you joking? How is a homophobic, misogynistic, group of religious zealots in any way progressive??? You anti-imperialist lot never cease to amaze me with your "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bollocks. And on top of that, you miss who your enemy is entirely. Instead of capitalism, you focus in on one imperialist nation, throwing your lot in with any bourgeois, racist, homophobes, or misogynist who will say mean things about America. It's ridiculous, reactionary and completely anti-working class.

Devrim

17th May 2010, 21:58

Tariq Ali in his historical novels portrays 12th century Islam as being very tolerant of lgbt people.Is this romanticism or is this accurate?

I don't think that Islam has ever been particularly 'tolerant' of homosexuality. Popular culture in Middle Eastern countries has a slightly different idea of what 'gay' means to the common one in the West.

To put it rather crudely, because I can't think of how to phrase it without using words like passive/active partner, which I don't really like, to be the 'fucked' is to be gay and is considered shameful. To be the 'fucker' isn't at all shameful, and lots of people who don't consider themselves gay at all would see nothing wrong or shameful about it.

Devrim

(A)(_|

18th May 2010, 08:01

I recently saw this movie called "Jihad for love" on homosexuality in the Muslim world. Apart from the fact that all the people which were documented were very religious which I simply couldn't relate to as Islamic texts show an obvious intolerance to gays -such as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah- and would describe their actions as lewd.

Never mind that, in Egypt being gay is shameful and is unlawful under Egyptian law as what it terms "An obscene act". A few years ago, the police raided some gay gathering on a Nile boat and all the people there were detained, held on trial and imprisoned for years. I never really could understand why Muslim culture was so much more intolerant to homosexuality as opposed to its western counterpart. I think it has to do with the overall religiosity of the Muslim world amplified by whichever reasons. The west simply isn't too interested in these matters any more as I imagine they would have been a century or two ago. I've thought about it a long time and cannot think of any consistent reasons as to why fundamentalism is rampant somewhere and not somewhere else? I need to read Karen Armstrong :)

Tablo

18th May 2010, 08:07

I support queer liberation. While I do feel like Islamophobia is a problem, I do still feel like it is a load of shit, as are all religions.

Steve_j

18th May 2010, 13:00

To put it rather crudely, because I can't think of how to phrase it without using words like passive/active partner, which I don't really like, to be the 'fucked' is to be gay and is considered shameful. To be the 'fucker' isn't at all shameful, and lots of people who don't consider themselves gay at all would see nothing wrong or shameful about it.

Bit offtopic but i have always found this aspect any culture really difficult to comprehend, but interesting none the less.

Ravachol

18th May 2010, 17:26

For example, the Taliban, or ZANU-PF are both progressive anti-imperialists

With all due respect but, ARE YOU ON ACID :confused:

jake williams

18th May 2010, 18:17

The point about the relationship between especially European Islamophobia, or anti-Arab racism, and fascism, is extremely important, and bears repeating. I don't follow European politics exceptionally closely, but a lot of what I see is still fucking terrifying. You basically have a united coalition of liberals and "reformed fascists", the latter claiming to have seen the errors in their ways, embraced Jews (now that they're all gone) and Israel, and learned that they're in fact supposed to hate Muslims. I think it's extremely naive to assume it could never happen again. We should be really scared. The antideutsche here are a weird sort of mirror image of the National Bolsheviks, in that they are both inversions of anti-fascist movements into proto-fascist movements.

Homophobia is definitely not comparable to islamophobia, though it's definitely a concern. You can be progressive but still be homophobic, though it's obviously an issue and wrong. However, you can't be a progressive and hold islamophobic and/or xenophobic views. We need to be careful not to dismiss progressive movements because of homophobic elements, because in the end, we can't wait forever for a perfect movement with the perfect line.
I agree entirely with this, and it's an important point. All the same, that doesn't mean we stop fighting homophobia in our movements. It's true that we can't wait for perfect politically correct movements, especially of horrendously oppressed people, but it's also worth remembering that the only way to fight homophobia (or for that matter, racism) is from within our own movements, which means sometimes welcoming people with backward views on this or that.

When imperialists, or their "left-wing" apologists justify imperialist intervention on the basis of gay or women's liberation (a dubious claim by imperialism at any rate), it's a gift to the national bourgeoisies of the targetted countries. It allows them to step up their attacks against queer people, as fifth-column allies of imperialism, an imperialism which right now is massively targetting, among others, Muslim countries. The problem is that when we prioritize lifestyle over anti-imperialism, we side with imperialism, and strengthen the targetted ruling class, and their oppression of queer people. It's ineffective.

We need anti-imperialist movements in solidarity with the victims of imperialism and homophobia, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid being a local example here. It's new, but it's a great fucking start. It's worth mentioning that a lot of the gay-bourgeoisie organizers of Toronto's pride parade are trying to shut them out. The point is, it's not easy to do, and it's going to take a lot of time to earn the trust of the targets of imperialism, or especially for Muslim immigrants in Western countries, racist proto-fascism, but that's the sort of difficulty we're going to have to deal with if we actually want to do anything useful for anyone, other than the Western bourgeoisie.

For example, the Taliban, or ZANU-PF are both progressive anti-imperialists but hold ridiculous homophobic views
Bullshit and nonsense. The Taliban are fanatical religious reactionaries, or at least their leadership is. Certainly there are a lot of really unfortunate people signing up, with not a lot of better options, but anti-imperialism, and the Taliban is debatably even that, is not necessarily progressive. There's a world of difference between progressive anti-imperialist movements with some backward views, and reactionary anti-imperialist movements that are never going to be on our side.

The Zanu-PF is a more complex story, but there too, it's really unlikely that much progressive change is going to come from there. It's true that their main enemies are the white ruling class in southern Africa, but again, it doesn't mean they're great people. And again, it's for reasons other than their homophobia, however repugnant that might be.

counterblast

18th May 2010, 22:18

Definitely not, since homophobia is widespread all over the Islamic world and Africa, and it's more progressive for humanity to have an homophobic anti-imperialist government in a certain country than a homophobic colony or imperialist stooge.

Keep up the struggle, though, comrade!

Homophobic anti-imperialism is an oxymoron.

End of story.

LeninBalls

18th May 2010, 23:27

You anti-imperialist lot never cease to amaze me with your "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bollocks.

Because every anti-imperialist share the exact same views on everything.

Glenn Beck

18th May 2010, 23:36

End of story.

If you say so, you're the decider after all.

mosfeld

18th May 2010, 23:58

The problem I see in this thread is that people think that there's some alternative to supporting either the ZANU-PF or the Taliban. No doubt if there was a more progressive movement than either two I'd support them, but in the absence of them, I'll throw my support at the most progressive group which actually exists.

For anyone interested in my stance on the Taliban, Im in complete agreement with this (http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2010/01/in-defence-of-taliban-against-nato.html) article.

In Afghanistan the war of national resistance to imperialist invasion and occupation, led by the Taliban, is intensifying. The NATO led forces are having to send in around 40,000 extra troops to try to beat back the popular insurgency led by the Taliban. Yet despite widespread opposition among progressive people in the imperialist countries to the imperialist assault upon Afghanistan there is a definite coolness, if not hostility, to the Taliban who are leading the armed struggle against the imperialist forces.

It is, of course, the reactionary ideological outlook and practice of this fundamentalist Islamic movement that is the reason for the lack of enthusiasm for the anti-imperialist struggle being waged by the Taliban. In particular it is their view as to the position of women in society, a very subordinate one to men, which outrages progressive people in the “advanced” capitalist countries. On all major social issues – civil and women’s rights, education, culture, etc. - the Taliban are far more reactionary in theory than their imperialist opponents. For this reason some “leftists” actually hope – more or less covertly - that the imperialists will triumph in Afghanistan on the grounds that this would help the people of Afghanistan to throw off some of the shackles of feudalism.

This sort of perspective on the Taliban is very much one taken from the standpoint of people living in developed, Western capitalist societies. It fails to take into account the fact that Afghanistan is still in the main a traditional feudal society in which the vast majority of people are peasant farmers deeply immersed in Islamic religion. Any project to bring about the liberation of the Afghani people has to take into account the complex and crosscutting contradictions present in that society – ones of class, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.. The modern history of Afghanistan demonstrates that attempts from “above” to impose progressive change on the Afghani people backfire and have actually resulted in the strengthening of oppressive feudal structures rather than their weakening. In no aspect of Afghani life is this more apparent than in the case of women.

Barry Lyndon

18th May 2010, 23:58

Yeah, the Taliban, who started out as mercenaries for the Saudis/Pakistanis/CIA to topple the Afghan communist government, who destroyed womens rights, whose grand ambition is the resurrection of a fuedal medieval caliphate. People who would not hesitate to murder people like you, Mosfeld, and have murdered people like you in Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan deserve a better choice then between American imperialism and the Taliban. The besieged leftists that do still exist there, such as the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, deserve our full support.
http://www.rawa.org/index.php

As for homophobia, while it may have been somewhat understandable(if not defensible) in the past that it cropped up among leftists(I remember Che Guevara writing very homophobic things in some of his diaries), it is unacceptable in this day and age. As communists, one should be opposed to all forms of oppression-classism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, imperialist chauvinism, and homophobia.

To claim that revolutionaries in the Third World are incapable of taking a progressive stance on this issue is incredibly patronizing. Cuba, to its credit, has reversed many of its homophobic policies of the past, and the Party of Socialist Unity in Venezuela is supporting gay pride parades.

Barry Lyndon

19th May 2010, 00:04

jake williams

19th May 2010, 02:42

As for homophobia, while it may have been somewhat understandable(if not defensible) in the past that it cropped up among leftists(I remember Che Guevara writing very homophobic things in some of his diaries), it is unacceptable in this day and age. As communists, one should be opposed to all forms of oppression-classism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, imperialist chauvinism, and homophobia.
But like I said, there's a difference between being opposed to homophobia, as I should hope we all are, and refusing to work with people or groups who are homophobic. I think the latter actually results in being objectively supportive of homophobia, because to really get rid of homophobia, we need to support progressive people's movements which aren't homophobic, and to get from here to there, we need to work with people who are homophobic until their consciousness on that particular point develops.

To claim that revolutionaries in the Third World are incapable of taking a progressive stance on this issue is incredibly patronizing. Cuba, to its credit, has reversed many of its homophobic policies of the past, and the Party of Socialist Unity in Venezuela is supporting gay pride parades.
The fact is that objectively a lot of otherwise progressive groups - including, until recently, parts of the Cuban Communist Party - have had homophobic views. To support, against them, imperialism, or even to take the idiotic "I'm not on either side" ultraleftism - that is precisely the sort of position we should not be taking. That's not to say that wherever there are conflicts one must be uncritically supportive of one particular side, but that in the particular case of imperialism we cannot be supportive of imperialism, or for identical reasons as in consequence the two positions are identical, neutral toward it.

It's not patronizing - some groups are that way. What's patronizing is to assume that they will forever be that way, that they cannot, I think with the help of those who have better positions on these issues, move beyond them. And that's what's implied when idiotic Western leftists side with imperialism against non-Western movements solely on the basis of backward views on homosexuality, views which I nonetheless think we should be able to view as backward.

NGNM85

19th May 2010, 05:11

I have a certain amount of sympathy for religious moderates or religious progressives, who may very well be very helpful in defusing the really dangerous fundamentalism, but in some ways I think promoting tolerance within Christianity or Islam, or whatever, is kinda missing the point.

It comes down to this oft-repeated fiction that the Osama bin Laden's, the abortion clinic bombers, etc., are just a few lone nuts and not in any way representative of their faith. They may not be representative of the majority of the rank and file believers, but they are absolutely representative of the faiths , themselves. The abortion clinic bomber and the jihadist can quote chapter and verse. I garuntee they read their respective texts cover to cover. That's actually where they got the idea.

It's just like the christians who burned heretics and tortured people in every horrible manner you could imagine for 500+ years. They read the whole book and they were totally able to square their actions with it. I can't quote the Koran, but the Bible is extremely clear in saying it considers homosexuality 'an abomination.' I mean, if one reads these books, especially parts like Levicticus, y'know, these are open exhortations to violence. Even Jesus occasionally says things like, and I may be getting a word wrong here, "He that does not believe in me, bring him before me, and slay him before me." This isn't something that can be seperated from the texts.

Ultimately, what I'm saying is, I don't think there's a problem within religion, I think religion IS the problem.

Second, even if it weren't for the inherent violence, bigotry, sexism, etc., that are a fundamental part of the DNA of religion. (At least the Abrahamic faiths.) Simply that the fact that religion is so fundamentally illogical, and has such an innately deleterious effect on rational thought is sufficient to oppose it. I don't see any good arguments for absolute certitude in the face of zero evidence, I don't see any real positive outcomes to abandoning reason and logic. That's just my two cents.

Lenina Rosenweg

19th May 2010, 05:31

You are right about some of the inherent absurdities and intolerances of religions. Orthodox religions anyway are fixed belief systems, a "higher power" out there whom you must submit to. I feel religions are reactionary. But a critique of religion has go beyond asking, "How you can you believe all that shite? Don't you know you're being lied to?" Why are people attracted to religions? What needs do they fulfill?

Religions are tools of the ruling class but religious ideas have been used many times in rebellion against ruling classes.

How does a socialist relate to religious people?

This is from another thread

Originally Posted by xAMKx
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

-Marx
"To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions."

NGNM85

19th May 2010, 05:52

You are right about some of the inherent absurdities and intolerances of religions. Orthodox religions anyway are fixed belief systems, a "higher power" out there whom you must submit to. I feel religions are reactionary. But a critique of religion has go beyond asking, "How you can you believe all that shite? Don't you know you're being lied to?" Why are people attracted to religions? What needs do they fulfill?

Well, first of all religion can be very comforting. It allays people's fear, fear of death, fear of the unknown. It makes the universe simple and sensible, and there's always a happy ending. It also can be a source of community and social support. Also, most religious people are raised in religious community, and go through a long process of indoctrination, starting from early childhood. I can at least understand why they are attracted to it. What I don't understand is why they don't see through it.

If one applies the arguments people use for religion to anything else is sounds completely mad. Imagine the following sentences;
'I believe black holes emit radition because it gives my life meaning'
'I know black holes emit radiation because I feel it in my heart.'
'I wouldn't want to live in a world where black holes didn't emit radiation.'

In any other context the arguments for religion sound absolutely retarded.
The one that drives me absolutely crazy is the "You can't 100% prove there is no god!" Which they say all smug and satisfied and you can tell how pleased they are with themselves for producing what they presume to be a masterpiece of logic. First of all this is at best, an argument for deism, nothing more. Second, I can't 100% prove there are no unicorns, but that still doesn't mean I should entertain the possibility, or that the study and contemplation of the nature of unicorns is a legitimate exercise.
This is why challenging religion, or criticizing it is absolutely forbidden, because it isn't even shallow. This is why we have to break out of these rules and start asking hard questions.

Lenina Rosenweg

19th May 2010, 06:51

People are religious basically because they feel they don't have control over their lives. Workers have no control of the product of their labor. People's lives are at the mercy of capitalism-abstract, impersonal forces most people don't understand."God" is the same thing-a vast, impersonal force no one understands. Its no coincidence that every US president in recent history, before starting a war, ends his declaration w/"God bless the United States of..."

Religion is also alienated human power. Its what we could be projected onto a fantasy land. Marx said something like, "men are religious not because of too much imagination but too little" (I've probably mangled the quote). The concept of an an alienated "god" out there reflects how people are alienated from their own creative powers.

I agree that church groups in the US also provide social support networks. Its interesting that the US has the weakest "social safety net" and has the worst public education system of any First World "western" country, and is also the most religious.

I agree that organized religion has gotten way too much of a free pass in the US. On the other hand, I've found its pretty much impossible to argue someone out of religious belief (I've tried). People from Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins sometimes brilliantly showed up the hypocrisy and absurdities of religion. Unfortunately they haven't made a dent.

Religious belief isn't rational. People join or stay in a religion for emotional reasons which have a logic all their own. Talking to religious people, as a socialist, I've found its better to focus on economic issues directly affecting us. A gay co-worker on a picket line is just as much or a brother or sister in solidarity than anyone else, no matter what the bible says.

Once people's lives are no longer commodities and humanity can reclaim its power, the need for religion will no longer exist.

Barry Lyndon

19th May 2010, 21:12

But like I said, there's a difference between being opposed to homophobia, as I should hope we all are, and refusing to work with people or groups who are homophobic. I think the latter actually results in being objectively supportive of homophobia, because to really get rid of homophobia, we need to support progressive people's movements which aren't homophobic, and to get from here to there, we need to work with people who are homophobic until their consciousness on that particular point develops.

The fact is that objectively a lot of otherwise progressive groups - including, until recently, parts of the Cuban Communist Party - have had homophobic views. To support, against them, imperialism, or even to take the idiotic "I'm not on either side" ultraleftism - that is precisely the sort of position we should not be taking. That's not to say that wherever there are conflicts one must be uncritically supportive of one particular side, but that in the particular case of imperialism we cannot be supportive of imperialism, or for identical reasons as in consequence the two positions are identical, neutral toward it.

It's not patronizing - some groups are that way. What's patronizing is to assume that they will forever be that way, that they cannot, I think with the help of those who have better positions on these issues, move beyond them. And that's what's implied when idiotic Western leftists side with imperialism against non-Western movements solely on the basis of backward views on homosexuality, views which I nonetheless think we should be able to view as backward.

I don't disagree with a word you said. My argument was a little un-nuanced. Thanks for fleshing it out.

Crusade

20th May 2010, 01:31

In one place you have it where it's wrong to hate Muslims but alright to hate gays. In another place it's alright to hate Muslims, but wrong to hate gays. And in another place you're supposed to hate both. :bored:

counterblast

20th May 2010, 04:05

If you say so, you're the decider after all.

I'm glad someone in this topic has some common sense!

But in all seriousness, I don't see how it can be logically argued that a predominantly heterosexual state is somehow not imperialist or anti-imperialist, as long as it continues to colonize non-heterosexual or non-gender-conforming people.

Queer and trans people are an oppressed demographic with a very distinct set of cultures and values.

jake williams

20th May 2010, 06:18

But in all seriousness, I don't see how it can be logically argued that a predominantly heterosexual state is somehow not imperialist or anti-imperialist, as long as it continues to colonize non-heterosexual or non-gender-conforming people.
Because colonization and imperialism on one hand, and the oppression of queer and trans people on the other, are massively distinct phenomena, and to conflate the two is a serious analytical error.

Queer and trans people are an oppressed demographic with a very distinct set of cultures and values.
No. Queer and trans people (if we're using the terms as their creators intended, as opposed to that extremely small subset thereof which self-identifies as queer) come from basically every culture, and each individual, like every other individual, relates to their own culture in complex ways. Asserting that queer people have a distinct set of cultures and values is absurd, about equally as it would be to assert that men and women have distinct cultures and values.

The misidentification of non gender/hetero conforming people - which to an extent is almost everyone - with very particular subcultures, is also a pretty dangerous analytical error, and one which for that matter plays an uncomfortable role in the oppression of queer people.

Hiero

20th May 2010, 11:40

i am not only a bolshevik, i am also muslim and queer.

Wow, identity politics just got even crazier and more confusing.

Boru

20th May 2010, 14:14

Islam is an Abrahamic religion, i.e. a violent, tribal, "desert God" religion.
Frankly, a world with religions such as Islam or Christianity is never going to be a socialist one.

Bad Grrrl Agro

20th May 2010, 15:28

Im bisexual and Im against oppression of homosexuals and homophobia should be criticized, but you shouldn't denounce a progressive anti-imperialist movement on the grounds that they're homophobic, especially when homophobia is rampant in these countries and their homophobia is cultural and subjective anyways. The fact that you compare far-right christian racist groups to national liberation movements is ridiculous.

Being bisexual doesn't make your comment any less ridiculous. Until you are (without compromise) fighting all oppression, all bigotry, all imperailism, all hierarchy, and fighting it all on all fronts, then you'd just be another token.

Bad Grrrl Agro

20th May 2010, 15:51

Are you joking? How is a homophobic, misogynistic, group of religious zealots in any way progressive??? You anti-imperialist lot never cease to amaze me with your "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bollocks. And on top of that, you miss who your enemy is entirely. Instead of capitalism, you focus in on one imperialist nation, throwing your lot in with any bourgeois, racist, homophobes, or misogynist who will say mean things about America. It's ridiculous, reactionary and completely anti-working class.

Thank you!

The enemy of my enemy concept is how the U.S. put the Taliban in power. The Taliban seemed a perfect tool (yes [disposable] tool of U.S. interests) to fight the "Communists" in Aghanistan. Once the cold war was over the U.S. had less of a use for this tool as the U.S. had pissed most of that portion world including them. Seeing as the tool wasn't working for U.S. interests anymore, it was kind of like a broken tool. What do you do if (like the U.S.) you have digusting amounts of money and have a broken tool? The Imperialists in the U.S. said "Okay, time to throw out the broken tool and buy a new one"

I say about every party to the story I just told; Fuck them all with something hard and sandpapery!

Lenina Rosenweg

20th May 2010, 16:00

One's relationship towards the means of production (i.e. whether or mot one is a member of the working class) is what's important. Some workers are homophobic. Some workers are sexist, racist, etc. The best way forward are struggles against racism, sexism, homophobia solidly rooted in the working class. All struggles are interrelated of course but class struggle comes first.

A strategy which focuses on sexual orientation, other identities not directly rooted in class exploitation first, risks turning into essentially middle class liberal identity politics.

There is an intriguing article on how downgrading class struggle by the "class of 68" eventually led to New Labour in Britain. Similiar processes occurred in the US and elsewhere

http://libcom.org/library/croissant-roses-new-labour-muslim-britain

There's nothing remotely progressive about the Taliban. They are ultimately just as much products of capitalism and imperialism as anything else the US has created.

counterblast

23rd May 2010, 09:55

A strategy which focuses on sexual orientation, other identities not directly rooted in class exploitation first, risks turning into essentially middle class liberal identity politics.

And a strategy which focuses predominantly on class (in Amerikkka, at least) risks turning into a club for straight white boys.

For example see: any American socialist/communist group.

Solidarity won't come from prioritizing "class struggle" and organizing gay rights marches and immigrant rallies for the sake of seeming "diverse" and "inclusive"; but by putting struggles such as race, sex, ability, gender expression, and sexual orientation front and center, as the inseparable equals to class.

Marx and his theories are important, but I can promise you that he didn't have to deal with any of the oppressions listed above, and for those obvious reasons his theories should not be taken too seriously outside of a pure class context.

Lenina Rosenweg

23rd May 2010, 16:52

And a strategy which focuses predominantly on class (in Amerikkka, at least) risks turning into a club for straight white boys.

For example see: any American socialist/communist group.

Marx and his theories are important, but I can promise you that he didn't have to deal with any of the oppressions listed above, and for those obvious reasons his theories should not be taken too seriously outside of a pure class context.

Homophobia, like sexism and racism, has of course existed under many different social systems and modes of production. Today though they are subsumed under capitalism and exist to facilitate the reproduction of this system. Homophobia and sexism are products of the nuclear family system, an integral part of capitalism. Women provide unpaid child rearing and housework services. At the same time families are the only real "support system" most working class people have. This provides support for reactionary "family values".

The liberal lgbt movement itself has been seduced into supporting and reinforcing bourgeoise norms like "marriage equality" and gays in the military.This is ultimately an ineffective strategy.To put it simplicity, liberal lgbt rights groups need Obama and Hillary, but Obama and Hillary don't need them.Look at the strategy of NOW or pro-choice groups-that's why we are losing these battles.

Please don't misunderstand, I've done a lot of campaigning for "marriage equality" in my state. This strategy needs to be rooted in working class politics to have any long term success.

American History X is an interesting film but I would disagree with its basic premise. Racism is not a "disease" which can be cured with proper therapy, ts a product of capitalist dynamics.

All these forms of discrimination have complex dynamics but they are ultimately caused by capitalism. They serve to divide the working class.

Engels has written about anti-Irish racism in Britain. Bebel, Zetkin, Kollantai, etc. have written about women's oppression under capitalism. There is a rich Marxist feminist tradition. Early Soviet Russia was the first country to legalize homosexuality.

Lenina Rosenweg

23rd May 2010, 17:01

And a strategy which focuses predominantly on class (in Amerikkka, at least) risks turning into a club for straight white boys.

For example see: any American socialist/communist group.

You are partly right here. This may partially be the result of socialization among women to be more compliant. Lifestylism is also endemic within some lgbt communities. There's a need for independent struggle from different communities of course but this has to avoid identity politics. Being gay or lesbian isn't an "identity" its just a way people can express themselves sexually. Ultimately we have more in common with each other as workers under the system of wage slavery.

gorillafuck

25th May 2010, 02:19

Lifestylism is also endemic within some lgbt communities.
Huh?:confused:

Lenina Rosenweg

25th May 2010, 03:23

For many (not by any means all) lgbt people being gay or lesbian, rather than being a way people express themselves sexually, is considered a "lifestyle choice" with its own sets of "consumer preferences". Pride Day in US cities once were demonstrations of political militancy and solidarity. Now they've become largely hyper-commercialized niche marketing tools.

The Gay Liberation Front in the early 70s was socialist and expressed solidarity with Third world liberation movements, the BPP, etc. In the 80s and 90s conservative elements took over the movement and in the 2000s it became hyper commercialized Have you been to P Town recently?

This is changing and younger lgbters are creating or recreating a more radical scene.

Bad Grrrl Agro

25th May 2010, 05:44

Engels has written about anti-Irish racism in Britain. Bebel, Zetkin, Kollantai, etc. have written about women's oppression under capitalism. There is a rich Marxist feminist tradition. Early Soviet Russia was the first country to legalize homosexuality.

Soviet Russia did "legalize homosexuality" for a while...

... and then they said "Jajaja we were just kidding, off to the gulags with all of you!"

jake williams

25th May 2010, 14:27

T In the 80s and 90s conservative elements took over the movement
As some good LGBT activists/writers have pointed out, a lot of this is the consequence of, in addition to the general period of ruling class reaction that went on then, the AIDS crisis and the need for mass emergency funding from wealthy LGBT people, especially gay men.

This is changing and younger lgbters are creating or recreating a more radical scene.
Yes, but with mixed effects. These sorts of processes have some very good consequences, but they also have some shitty consequences. There are a number of major ideological and organizational tendencies in the queer movement which I find extremely disturbing. A lot of the basic ideology behind "queer" itself is really problematic, because often the message to LGBT people from the "queer community" is "You don't have a right to lead normal lives, you have to be freaks like us", which is a totally idiotic way to try to create a mass movement.

Not to mention that at least from what I've seen the queer movement is a weird mix of like street punks and academics. It's simply not the case that queer/LGBT politics has to be neutral or antithetical to working class politics, but the unfortunate reality is that it often is. Even insofar as academic movements go it's pretty bad, postmodernism is like the biggest enemy serious politics has ever had.

bloodbeard

2nd June 2010, 04:23

peace,

i am not only a bolshevik, i am also muslim and queer. i am active in the belgian anti-fascist queer group 'mikpunt'. i believe that today islamophobia is one of the main entrance-gates of fascism in the west, while homophobia is serves that same role in the east (the islamic world, but also poland, the baltic states, russia...). all anti-fascists should struggle against both islamophobia and homophobia.

peace,

redwasp

I have never met a queer muslim before. Wow. :)

So correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know, according to the quran, there's no special type of hell for being gay right? It is not a sin, only the acts of homosexuality are considered sinful since it goes against the union of male and female. Since marriage is considered half the religion, it's a sin to have sex outside of marriage, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual sex, so I really do not think Muslims should hold homophobic views and discriminate against gays just for being gay and not having attraction to the opposite sex...

Furthermore, I think no sex before marriage is a tough one and any muslims who are struggling with it should realize how much tougher it would be for someone who is gay, as they cannot even look forward to marriage, to enjoy sex. Anyone who had sex outside of marriage should condemn themselves first before they condemn gays!

Well, thank goodness that in Islam, god is all forgiving.

automattick

2nd June 2010, 05:35

This whole topic is premised under the assumption that 1) the entire working class in the west is white and male (in fact, it is increasing non-white and female) and 2) that we should adopt a "more is better" approach (and what about class consciousness?)

I am all for inclusion, but we need to make a synthesis between being homosexual and class. What good is it to adopt the Leninist strategy of simply allying with oppressed minorities only to have them break away and form their own version of reactionary politics? Wasn't that the entire fail of most of the so-called socialist, anti-imperialist revolutions? Name one which did not devolve into fascism or Stalinism, with a strong secret police.

Class runs across all colors, creeds and sexual orientations. To take the very basic Leninist strategy to ally broadly with all social movements, will not lead one inch closer to socialism, but rather opening the floodgates of fascism. Look at how the black liberation movement in America went from socialistic to fascistic in twenty years.

GreenCommunism

2nd June 2010, 11:10

Early Soviet Russia was the first country to legalize homosexuality.

revolutionary france before napoleon legalized homosexuality too i think.

Racism is not a "disease" which can be cured with proper therapy, ts a product of capitalist dynamics.
i didn't see the movie that way, i think the movie expressed that certain conditions created the neo-nazi. his father bashing affirmative action, his father dieing to criminals, influence of an older neo-nazi adult, and in the end the black criminals (i think they were crips) trying to steal his father's minivan which was their heritage was just too much and thus commited the hate crime.

RaÃºl Duke

6th June 2010, 02:27

I have never met a queer muslim [marxist-leninist] before.

There was one on revleft before. Unless I forgot, it didn't bode well and in the end was either restricted or left. Why we attracted such confused members (also "post-modernist", I really didn't find anything po-mo about the person's views, christian 'leftists' like splitteeth, who was restricted for anti-choice views) in the first place I will never know.

GreenCommunism

6th June 2010, 13:42

i've heard that similar to gay christians who try to fit in and denounce their sexuality, hang in gay bars but feel guilty about it. there are some muslims who are homosexuals and engaging in such sexual activity but say they are not homosexual since they do not want to marry another person of the same sex or other things like that. some countries in the third world have a quite deformed view of homosexuality and they claim that those people are criminals. this is i believe what happens when homosexuality is illegal, a certain part of the criminals identify with it and it becomes transgression. in our society i think criminals are the most homophobic, that is gang members or so.

RedLaw

7th June 2010, 04:27

Homophobia is definitely not comparable to islamophobia, though it's definitely a concern. You can be progressive but still be homophobic, though it's obviously an issue and wrong. However, you can't be a progressive and hold islamophobic and/or xenophobic views. We need to be careful not to dismiss progressive movements because of homophobic elements, because in the end, we can't wait forever for a perfect movement with the perfect line. For example, the Taliban, or ZANU-PF are both progressive anti-imperialists but hold ridiculous homophobic views. But should we dismiss them for their homophobic views? Definitely not, since homophobia is widespread all over the Islamic world and Africa, and it's more progressive for humanity to have an homophobic anti-imperialist government in a certain country than a homophobic colony or imperialist stooge.

Keep up the struggle, though, comrade!

The Taliban are not a progressive force in any shape or form. They represent
the barbaric ideology of a backward regime that wishes to return to life as it
was in the 7th century.
They are feudalistic and their treatment of women is comparable to slaves or
dogs. Their goal is to keep as many of the populace illiterate and ignorant as
possible. The Taliban,to my mind,represent in every way,a literal return back
to the dark ages for the people of Afghanistan.
The Taliban has,probably,the most hardline interpretation of Sharia law in all
of the Muslim world and uses amputation and stoning as common punishment.
Under the five years of rule the Taliban enjoyed,no TV's,computers,photos,
chess,dolls or music was allowed.
A future that must choose between U.S.Imperialism or the Taliban is indeed a
sad situation for Afghans.

Sir Comradical

7th June 2010, 04:36

If you're a homosexual, then you should denounce Islam for being a homophobic religion.

Bad Grrrl Agro

7th June 2010, 05:02

If you're a homosexual, then you should denounce Islam for being a homophobic religion.

So that's your dictation to every homosexual? So plain and cold. You see, first of all there's a difference between taking a stand against islamic law ruling the land and denouncing the religion entirely. I don't condemn religion's right to exist, I just don't want it (any religion) to become the law of the land. For some people religion on a personal level has given them the comfort to live another day. As long as they don't push their faith on me, then they can practice their religion as much as they want.

Sir Comradical

7th June 2010, 05:30

So that's your dictation to every homosexual? So plain and cold. You see, first of all there's a difference between taking a stand against islamic law ruling the land and denouncing the religion entirely. I don't condemn religion's right to exist, I just don't want it (any religion) to become the law of the land. For some people religion on a personal level has given them the comfort to live another day. As long as they don't push their faith on me, then they can practice their religion as much as they want.

That's all well and good but let's treat religion as an ideology, which it is. It's an ideology which, as far as I know, is deeply homophobic and at it's most liberal, would consider homosexuality as some kind of mental handicap. If I was gay, I don't see how I could remain a Muslim.

Lenina Rosenweg

7th June 2010, 05:46

Ideologies are products of the material conditions of the society that produce them. Today we may see Islam as intolerant and obscurantist. Several hundred years ago Muslim societies were vastly more tolerant than Christian Europe.In the 1600s European travelers were amazed that Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox could peacefully live together, inconceivable in the Europe of that time.

What is Islam? The Wahabi sect in Saudi Arabia is vastly different than pantheistic Indonesian Islam. Any religion is merely a set of texts, usually over 1,000 years old, traditions and beliefs. Christianity has elements which are just as reactionary and obscuratinist as many see Islam today.A religious tradition can change very rapidly. The capitalist revolution ,for complicated reasons, occured in Europe first.This was reflected in the Reformation, Enlightenment, etc. The rise of capitalism and then European imperialism helped foster reactionary forces in the Muslim world.

A historical materialist approach is understand that material forces drive change, not belief systems.

Bad Grrrl Agro

7th June 2010, 06:46

That's all well and good but let's treat religion as an ideology, which it is. It's an ideology which, as far as I know, is deeply homophobic and at it's most liberal, would consider homosexuality as some kind of mental handicap. If I was gay, I don't see how I could remain a Muslim.

Sexuality does not define an entire person nor does gender identity nor race nor culture nor religious background. Mi abuelita is an old school Mexican Catholic and I ended up coming out to her (as trans) because she'd in all likelihood find out eventually. As we know the Catholic Church is not particularly trans-friendly. But I won't fight her religion. She can pray and believe what she wants, it's not like she's hurting me with it. Actually, she's been more understanding (or trying to understand) than my dad (who is her son, and is less religious) so things are more complex.

Sir Comradical

9th June 2010, 12:18

Sexuality does not define an entire person nor does gender identity nor race nor culture nor religious background. Mi abuelita is an old school Mexican Catholic and I ended up coming out to her (as trans) because she'd in all likelihood find out eventually. As we know the Catholic Church is not particularly trans-friendly. But I won't fight her religion. She can pray and believe what she wants, it's not like she's hurting me with it. Actually, she's been more understanding (or trying to understand) than my dad (who is her son, and is less religious) so things are more complex.

All I'm saying is that if you treat Islam as an ideology, then there's no doubt that it has a discriminatory view towards gays. Given this obvious reality, it only makes sense to leave Islam if you're a homosexual. That doesn't mean you should hate your relatives who still believe in religious clap-trap.

Red Lion

9th June 2010, 13:29

You can be progressive but still be homophobic

No you can't.

Mahatma Gandhi

9th June 2010, 14:27

Bad Grrrl Agro

9th June 2010, 15:50

revolutionary france before napoleon legalized homosexuality too i think.

If you want to take it back, lets take it back... Ancient Greece!

RaÃºl Duke

9th June 2010, 16:59

It's probably the only religion which shuns all forms of discrimination, promotes equality and social justice. It is the closest thing we've got to communism.

Ehhh....

I doubt that claim...
in practice, that is in the real world, Islam like Christianity and quite a few other religions, is homophobic and sexist.

Bad Grrrl Agro

9th June 2010, 17:20

Ehhh....

I doubt that claim...
in practice, that is in the real world, Islam like Christianity and quite a few other religions, is homophobic and sexist.

There are also homophobic, sexist and transphobic athiests out there.

RaÃºl Duke

9th June 2010, 17:23

There are also homophobic, sexist and transphobic athiests out there.

True, but there's no such thing as an atheist theology and the idea (i.e. disbelief due to lack of credible evidence/knowledge, Occam's Razor) behind general atheism do not advocate such things.

Islamic, Christian, etc theology on the other hand makes explicit remarks regarding the un-equal status of women and the "un-naturalness" of homosexuality

Bad Grrrl Agro

9th June 2010, 17:35

True, but there's no such thing as an atheist theology and the idea (i.e. disbelief due to lack of credible evidence/knowledge, Occam's Razor) behind general atheism do not advocate such things.

Islamic, Christian, etc theology on the other hand makes explicit remarks regarding the un-equal status of women and the "un-naturalness" of homosexuality

Which is why I'm a pagan. Though that's my personal life and I won't drag it into conversation usually.

Sir Comradical

10th June 2010, 00:03

Islam is a beautiful, progressive religion. It's probably the only religion which shuns all forms of discrimination, promotes equality and social justice. It is the closest thing we've got to communism. What fanatics do, however, is a different matter, and it has no bearing on Islam.

Who are you kidding, Gandhiji?

I've read the Quran, it's a poorly written croc of shit. As for the religion, it's obscurantist at best.

Mahatma Gandhi

10th June 2010, 04:55

Who are you kidding, Gandhiji?

I've read the Quran, it's a poorly written croc of shit. As for the religion, it's obscurantist at best.

Calling the Koran 'shit' is hardly the way to attract members of the Islamic faith. Second, why can't leftists ever convey their ideas without using vulgar language? I've been noticing this for a long time, and this attitude only angers people who may otherwise be sympathetic to socialist ideals.

Conservatives are far better when it comes to behavior; they have class. Leftists, on the other hand, are cheap and vulgar. I wonder why....

Sir Comradical

10th June 2010, 05:15

Calling the Koran 'shit' is hardly the way to attract members of the Islamic faith. Second, why can't leftists ever convey their ideas without using vulgar language? I've been noticing this for a long time, and this attitude only angers people who may otherwise be sympathetic to socialist ideals.

Look up "beautiful verses Quran" on google, most the verses have quite mediocre messages. If you want to attract muslims, a good way is to talk about real issues like imperialist wars, military occupations, poverty, exploitation and unemployment. I see no need to kiss-up to a mediocre religion just because a lot of people believe in it.

Vulgar language is not something to have a cry over. Get over it.

Conservatives are far better when it comes to behavior; they have class. Leftists, on the other hand, are cheap and vulgar. I wonder why....

Ohh please...:rolleyes:

Devrim

10th June 2010, 08:41

I've read the Quran, it's a poorly written croc of shit. As for the religion, it's obscurantist at best.

I presume that you haven't read it in Arabic. It is immensely beautiful, and in my opinion one of the supreme achievements of human literature.

Look up "beautiful verses Quran" on google, most the verses have quite mediocre messages.

The message has nothing to do with the beauty of the poetry.

Devrim

Sir Comradical

10th June 2010, 09:46

I presume that you haven't read it in Arabic. It is immensely beautiful, and in my opinion one of the supreme achievements of human literature.

The message has nothing to do with the beauty of the poetry.

Devrim

Ok I take back the part where I said it's poorly written.

GreenCommunism

10th June 2010, 14:53

Islam is indeed homophobic but in the christian bible homosexuals are to be killed, while in the muslim faith, well it isn't perfect but they have to be beaten up twice then left alone. it shows some degree of tolerance to leave them alone after they have been discouraged of being homosexual.

as for sexism woman have right to half of the inheritance, which is discriminatory but better than nothing for christian woman. the muslim faith also respect woman as intelligent and cultivated beings. though this does not happen in practice. those who are fundamentalist often do not even care about centuries of debate by muslim scholars. in other word, fighting fundamentalism is fighting for islam.

Lulznet

16th June 2010, 16:23

One cannot support an Abrahamic religion and be pro-homosexuality.

Its just impossible due to the fact that the doctrines say themselves that homosexuality is immoral. :rolleyes:

Atlee

16th June 2010, 17:00

peace,

i am not only a bolshevik, i am also muslim and queer. i am active in the belgian anti-fascist queer group 'mikpunt'. i believe that today islamophobia is one of the main entrance-gates of fascism in the west, while homophobia is serves that same role in the east (the islamic world, but also poland, the baltic states, russia...). all anti-fascists should struggle against both islamophobia and homophobia.

peace,

redwasp

I had to look this up for educational reason to see more official teaching of Islam about homosexuality:

'Of all the creatures in the world, will you approach males and abandon those whom God created for you as males?' (Surah 26:165)

Basically the Qur'an forbids homosexuality. Even wearing clothing of the opposite sex is forbidden.

This goes back even further, Allah reveals to Prophet Moses (pbuh) in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and the tale of Lot in Sodom.

'You satisfy your lust with men instead of women. Indeed you are a nation that has transgressed beyond bounds.' (Surah 7:81)

Those that hide will deal with the Life to Come (Surah 4:15-16).

This is directly a synopsis of what I found in my personal library. :blink: I feel I need to rest my head from all the reading I do. :closedeyes:

Atlee

16th June 2010, 17:03

One cannot support an Abrahamic religion and be pro-homosexuality.

That about covers it from Jews to Muslims to Christians and every fraction or order in between. Like the say on the farm, "NO, brown chicky brown cow." :laugh:

Lulznet

16th June 2010, 17:05

That about covers it from Jews to Muslims to Christians and every fraction or order in between. Like the say on the farm, "NO, brown chicky brown cow." :laugh:

And their respective doctrines denounce homosexuality as being immoral.

Thus you cannot be a true Muslim, Jew or Christian and be pro-homosexual. :D

Bad Grrrl Agro

16th June 2010, 18:39

And their respective doctrines denounce homosexuality as being immoral.

Thus you cannot be a true Muslim, Jew or Christian and be pro-homosexual. :D

Well my friend and advocate (who is an openly lesbian pastor) has been one of the biggest advocates for the Trans (and overall LGBT) community in Milwaukee. Personally, from my perspective as a TS I'd say that I'd feel safer at her Church than some of the leftist groups in Milwaukee. Niether her nor the people who go to her Church have ever sir'd me or insulted me. While at events of leftist groups here in Milwaukee of all sorts to varying degrees I've had to deal with being sir'd.
I don't personally identify as Christian, Muslim or Jewish but that Pastor makes her Church a safe place for me and I appreciate her doing that.

Lulznet

16th June 2010, 18:54

Well my friend and advocate (who is an openly lesbian pastor) has been one of the biggest advocates for the Trans (and overall LGBT) community in Milwaukee. Personally, from my perspective as a TS I'd say that I'd feel safer at her Church than some of the leftist groups in Milwaukee. Niether her nor the people who go to her Church have ever sir'd me or insulted me. While at events of leftist groups here in Milwaukee of all sorts to varying degrees I've had to deal with being sir'd.
I don't personally identify as Christian, Muslim or Jewish but that Pastor makes her Church a safe place for me and I appreciate her doing that.
But can she truly call herself a Christian? When it is in the Christian doctrine that homosexuality is immoral and a 'sin'?:rolleyes:

the last donut of the night

16th June 2010, 19:48

Well my friend and advocate (who is an openly lesbian pastor) has been one of the biggest advocates for the Trans (and overall LGBT) community in Milwaukee. Personally, from my perspective as a TS I'd say that I'd feel safer at her Church than some of the leftist groups in Milwaukee. Niether her nor the people who go to her Church have ever sir'd me or insulted me. While at events of leftist groups here in Milwaukee of all sorts to varying degrees I've had to deal with being sir'd.
I don't personally identify as Christian, Muslim or Jewish but that Pastor makes her Church a safe place for me and I appreciate her doing that.

Just curious here, what do you mean by being "sir'd"? Being called "sir"?

Lulznet

16th June 2010, 19:50

Well my friend and advocate (who is an openly lesbian pastor) has been one of the biggest advocates for the Trans (and overall LGBT) community in Milwaukee. Personally, from my perspective as a TS I'd say that I'd feel safer at her Church than some of the leftist groups in Milwaukee. Niether her nor the people who go to her Church have ever sir'd me or insulted me. While at events of leftist groups here in Milwaukee of all sorts to varying degrees I've had to deal with being sir'd.
I don't personally identify as Christian, Muslim or Jewish but that Pastor makes her Church a safe place for me and I appreciate her doing that.

Just curious here, what do you mean by being "sir'd"? Being called "sir"?
I think its referring to facing homophobic remarks. :blink:

Bad Grrrl Agro

16th June 2010, 19:57

I think its referring to facing homophobic remarks. :blink:

Well to be specific, trans phobic is the word you're looking for. Sir'd means refered to in a masculine sense. Examples: He, him, his, Mister, sir, boy, man, etc. instead of the female pronouns that I identify with.

Atlee

17th June 2010, 07:45

And their respective doctrines denounce homosexuality as being immoral.

Thus you cannot be a true Muslim, Jew or Christian and be pro-homosexual. :D

False, there is no such thing as a truism or an absolute. There are Muslim specific cultures that have historically allowed homosexuality for variable reasons. Culturally, the Jewish faith has more progressives... maybe for political reasons i.e. secularist Karl Marx? The modern day Catholics take a different approach, a homosexual person is to remain celibate, and in prayer, as a sign of their faith. Each faith deals with many layers which I have simply crunched down to basics here. The mores of any society are going to be different from another. I try to stay from using a blanket term as it is stereotyping people in the worst light possible to their simplified identities.

Atlee

17th June 2010, 07:55

But can she truly call herself a Christian? When it is in the Christian doctrine that homosexuality is immoral and a 'sin'?:rolleyes:

Christian doctrine is based on forgiveness, but it comes with personal responsibility that we as human being and towards dignity restrain ourselves from future sin and become accepting. Christian sects thereof might use "immoral"; however, the greater community does not. Homosexuality is a natural thing an part of our inalienable right that comes after life (which is another whole issue unto itself), to have sexual relations within sacrament (another secondary argument of marriage).

HEAD ICE

18th June 2010, 02:01

You can be progressive but still be homophobic

Can you please explain why this is? Because you are making this statement separate from your insane support of the US imperialist abortion of the Taliban. How exactly is homophobia, the irrational hatred of a group for no good reason, a progressive thing? How does that belief further society? How does hating gays bring us together as a class?

I feel you think homophobia is compatible with progressivism because if it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to call yourself a progressive.

GreenCommunism

18th June 2010, 06:57

i think he means someone can be progressive but not perfect. homophobia might be one issue but the person can be very strongly against sexism and racism.he needs more education to change his mind.

Bad Grrrl Agro

20th June 2010, 20:58

I think its referring to facing homophobic remarks. :blink:

And I am a she. Not an 'it'.

Devrim

20th June 2010, 21:12

I think its referring to facing homophobic remarks. :blink:And I am a she. Not an 'it'.

Try reading back over that again because I read it as referring to the phrase 'sir'd', not to you yourself.

You could be right, but if you are it would be a shocking thing for somebody to say. Obviously you should refer to people as the sex of their choice. It is very rude not to.

Well my friend and advocate (who is an openly lesbian pastor) has been one of the biggest advocates for the Trans (and overall LGBT) community in Milwaukee. Personally, from my perspective as a TS I'd say that I'd feel safer at her Church than some of the leftist groups in Milwaukee. Niether her nor the people who go to her Church have ever sir'd me or insulted me. While at events of leftist groups here in Milwaukee of all sorts to varying degrees I've had to deal with being sir'd.

I am actually really surprised by this. Is a mediocum of politeness beyond these people? I would have thought that leftists would have been falling over themselves to oblige you.

I have never heard of this problem here in this country. Maybe it is for two reasons, first Turkish has no gendered pronouns, he/she/it are all one word, though of course you can differentiate if you need to, and second because we have well known family entertainers who are transgendered. I can only ever remember hearing one comment about it on TV, and it was seen as a very mean abusive thing to say by most people.

Devrim

Bad Grrrl Agro

20th June 2010, 21:56

Try reading back over that again because I read it as referring to the phrase 'sir'd', not to you yourself.

You could be right, but if you are it would be a shocking thing for somebody to say. Obviously you should refer to people as the sex of their choice. It is very rude not to.
You may be right and I hope you are.

I am actually really surprised by this. Is a mediocum of politeness beyond these people? I would have thought that leftists would have been falling over themselves to oblige you.

I have never heard of this problem here in this country. Maybe it is for two reasons, first Turkish has no gendered pronouns, he/she/it are all one word, though of course you can differentiate if you need to, and second because we have well known family entertainers who are transgendered. I can only ever remember hearing one comment about it on TV, and it was seen as a very mean abusive thing to say by most people.

Devrim

It is to varying degrees and I feel safest within anti-authoritarian circles. The issues I face are much smaller cases amongst them. The worst are stalinists who will tell me with no shame to my face that "I am a symptom of capitalism"
Some other groups are "accepting" only to an extent that leaves me feeling tokenized, like I'm just a means to a quota that they can point to and say "look! We're trans inclusive!" and then assume they know what "all of us transsexuals need".
It comes off as an approach that is much like a business executive's approach to appease another demographic.

The reason I feel somewhat safer within anti-authoritarian circles is because it's usually one person who will sir me or say something hurtful and/or offensive and the rest tend to have my back when I stand up for myself.

gorillafuck

21st June 2010, 00:49

I have never heard of this problem here in this country. Maybe it is for two reasons, first Turkish has no gendered pronouns, he/she/it are all one word, though of course you can differentiate if you need to, and second because we have well known family entertainers who are transgendered. I can only ever remember hearing one comment about it on TV, and it was seen as a very mean abusive thing to say by most people.

Devrim
In the US, I can't think of one popular transgendered entertainer.

On the topic if gendered pronouns, what do I say to refer to people who identify as no specific gender (I know two people like that).

Devrim

21st June 2010, 06:55

In the US, I can't think of one popular transgendered entertainer.

Bülent Ersoy

http://www.bulentersoyfan.com/resimler/bulent-ersoy-main2.jpg

Bülent began her career as a male singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer), in the genre of Turkish Classical Music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Classical_Music), and became an actor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor) early on. Already one of Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey)'s most popular male singers and actors, Bülent Ersoy gained international notoriety in 1981 after having sex reassignment surgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery) in London by a British plastic surgeon. Ersoy kept the name "Bülent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BClent)" even though it is a male name.
After the operation, Bülent found herself in opposition to the regime of Kenan Evren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenan_Evren). In a crackdown on "social deviance," Ersoy's public performances were banned along with those of other transsexual and transgendered people.
From Ersoy's standpoint, the ban should not have even applied to her, as she was an actual woman and not simply a man dressed as one. To circumvent the ban, she petitioned the Turkish courts to legally recognize her as a woman. The petition was rejected in January 1982. Days later, Ersoy attempted suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide). In 1983 she left the entertainment industry in protest of the Evren regime's repressive policies. Later that same year, Evren left office and many of his policies were rescinded.
Ersoy continued her career mostly in Germany in addition to Turkey. Along with her musical career, she made several Turkish movies in Germany. During that time she also started having a relationship with Birol Gürkanlı.
Finally, in 1988, the Turkish Civil Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Civil_Code&action=edit&redlink=1) was revised so that those who completed sex reassignment surgery could apply for a pink or blue (pink for female, blue for male) identity card by which they were legally recognized in their new sex. Ersoy soon returned to singing and acting, becoming more popular as a woman than she had been as a man. Her public even took to calling her "Abla," or "elder sister," an affectionate sign of their total acceptance of her gender.
Despite her personal victory and acceptance of her fans, Bülent Ersoy has continued to court controversy. Critics noted that in a film in which Ersoy plays a cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer) patient who falls in love, she never kisses her leading man, though this may have had to do with her being highly germ phobic. On her 1995 album, Alatürka (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alat%C3%BCrka&action=edit&redlink=1), she sang the adhan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhan) as part of the piece, "Aziz İstanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_%C4%B0stanbul&action=edit&redlink=1)," an act which, because of her transsexual status, angered many Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) clerics. In 1998, a further storm of controversy was created when Bülent married her companion, Cem Adler. Interestingly, the public outrage that resulted had nothing to do with Ersoy's transsexual status but rather that her husband was over twenty years younger than she was.
Bülent Ersoy was badly injured in January 1999 while driving with her husband, but recovered after surgery. Later that year, she divorced Adler after learning of his tryst with a call girl. Now semi-retired, she continues to perform in many TV shows and serves as jury member on one of Turkey's most popular television shows, "Popstar Alaturka".

Ersoy married "Popstar Alaturka" contestant Armağan Uzun (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arma%C4%9Fan_Uzun&action=edit&redlink=1) in July 2007, however filed for divorce in January 2008. She also made a show in July 2007 and is making new series of Popstars Alaturka which is expected to start in September 2007. There are also rumors of a new album produced by Erol Kose (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erol_Kose&action=edit&redlink=1).
Ersoy sparked major controversy in February 2008 when she publicly criticised Turkey's incursion into Northern Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Iraq) and said she "would not send her sons to war" if she were a mother.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BClent_Ersoy#cite_note-1) An Istanbul public prosecutor has subsequently filed charges against her for "turning Turks against compulsory military service", an article which also brought prominent Turkish intellectual Perihan Magden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihan_Magden) to trial in recent past. The Turkish Human Right Foundation (IHD) have stood up to Ersoy's defence. On 19 December 2008 Ersoy was pronounced not guilty of charges by a Turkish court. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BClent_Ersoy#cite_note-2)
In the show 'Popstar Alaturka', Bülent Ersoy has announced that she will be beginning a new album project very soon and the album is expected to be ready by the end of. Although she did not announce what would be genre of the album, it is expected that it will be hybrid of Turkish Classical style and 'Arabesk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabesque_music)'. Selami Sahin who is a famous songwriter in Turkey is also said to have composed two new songs for Ersoy.
In August 2009; Bulent Ersoy announced that she had postponed making a new album due to the economic crisis at the present state of bad sales in the Turkish Music Industry.
Popstar Alaturka Season 2009 proved to be the last time Ersoy was on the show. Alongside Bulent Ersoy, Armagan Caglayan also left his seat as Jury in the show.

Fan Site (http://www.bulentersoyfan.com/en/index.html)

On the topic if gendered pronouns, what do I say to refer to people who identify as no specific gender (I know two people like that).What does it mean 'to identify as no specific gender'?

Devrim

Tablo

21st June 2010, 07:45

What does it mean 'to identify as no specific gender'?

Devrim
I think they mean what do you say instead of he or she.

gorillafuck

21st June 2010, 16:02

Bülent Ersoy
I meant I can't think of any transgendered or transexual entertainers that are popular in the US.

What does it mean 'to identify as no specific gender'?

Devrim
I mean gender fluid.

Devrim

21st June 2010, 18:23

I meant I can't think of any transgendered or transexual entertainers that are popular in the US.

Yes, I got that. I was just showing an example from here.

I mean gender fluid.

No, I really have no idea what you mean. Is it a kind of drink? :confused:

Devrim

RaÃºl Duke

21st June 2010, 18:52

gorillafuck

21st June 2010, 19:09

No, I really have no idea what you mean. Is it a kind of drink? :confused:

Devrim
If you don't put enough gender fluid in someone their gender will be running too slow:lol:

But seriously, gender fluid means someone who isn't a specific gender. They do not fall under either gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Fluid

Bad Grrrl Agro

23rd June 2010, 08:32

There are people who don't identify with either being a woman or a man (I think they're called gender-queer).

But in English, we have gendered pronouns "he" and "she."

The term "it" is a gender-neutral pronoun but it's also one that connotates non-humans or inanimate objects (i.e. non-person or even non-living) so one is not sure if this is appropriate way to refer to gender-neutral persons.

The pronoun ze/hir is often used amongst many who identify as genderqueer. Generally, the use of the word 'it' is not considered appropriate. Some people also like plural (they/them).

Bad Grrrl Agro

23rd June 2010, 08:35

In the US, I can't think of one popular transgendered entertainer.

On the topic if gendered pronouns, what do I say to refer to people who identify as no specific gender (I know two people like that).

Amanda Lepore

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd June 2010, 10:36

I believe "hir" is also used in anthropological circles to refer to individuals of indeterminate sex.

AIs and posthumans can be referred to as "ve".

IslamicMarxist

30th June 2010, 20:21

IslamicMarxist

30th June 2010, 20:26

I don't think that Islam has ever been particularly 'tolerant' of homosexuality. Popular culture in Middle Eastern countries has a slightly different idea of what 'gay' means to the common one in the West.

To put it rather crudely, because I can't think of how to phrase it without using words like passive/active partner, which I don't really like, to be the 'fucked' is to be gay and is considered shameful. To be the 'fucker' isn't at all shameful, and lots of people who don't consider themselves gay at all would see nothing wrong or shameful about it.

Devrim

Not to be rude, but you say you are Turkish, and every time Islam is discussed you automatically bash it... You mentioned a Koran being in your home.. I am curious to know if you were always a communist and when did you become one, because from what I am seeing and hearing, Turkish people are increasingly becoming Islamist. Are you Kurdish?(Not that there is anything wrong with being Kurdish..)

Devrim

30th June 2010, 21:48

Not to be rude, but you say you are Turkish, and every time Islam is discussed you automatically bash it... You mentioned a Koran being in your home.. I am curious to know if you were always a communist and when did you become one, because from what I am seeing and hearing, Turkish people are increasingly becoming Islamist. Are you Kurdish?(Not that there is anything wrong with being Kurdish..)

No, I didn't say I was Turkish. I said I lived here. I am a dual European and Arab national.

I have been a communist since I was in my late teens, and I was never religious. My family is, not very at all, Catholic and not Islamic. Though I know many people from Muslim Turkish, Arabic, Persian, and Kurdish backgrounds who share the same ideas.

There is an increasing Islamicism in Turkey. It is deeply resented by large parts of the working class, and associated with a particularly right-wing government.

I don't 'automatically bash' Islam. I say what I believe. That it is a reactionary ideology. Maybe you think I am doing it all the time because you only read threads connected to Islam, but I write about other things much more.

Also I don't take part in 'Muslim bashing' which I think is a completely different thing. A very recent example of me arguing against it can be found here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamification-united-kingdom-t137501/index.html

Devrim

IslamicMarxist

1st July 2010, 02:32

No, I didn't say I was Turkish. I said I lived here. I am a dual European and Arab national.

I have been a communist since I was in my late teens, and I was never religious. My family is, not very at all, Catholic and not Islamic. Though I know many people from Muslim Turkish, Arabic, Persian, and Kurdish backgrounds who share the same ideas.

There is an increasing Islamicism in Turkey. It is deeply resented by large parts of the working class, and associated with a particularly right-wing government.

I don't 'automatically bash' Islam. I say what I believe. That it is a reactionary ideology. Maybe you think I am doing it all the time because you only read threads connected to Islam, but I write about other things much more.

Also I don't take part in 'Muslim bashing' which I think is a completely different thing. A very recent example of me arguing against it can be found here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamification-united-kingdom-t137501/index.html

Devrim

Very interesting.. I here it is very nice in Turkey. I respect the fact that you say what you believe.. But what I am trying to tell you is not to judge a religion that you know little about. My purpose on this forum is to open up talk between Muslims and Communists... We are both targets of White Nationalists in Europe. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to spread awareness of the lies that western media portrays Islam in. I'm sure a man born into a christian family who claims not to be very religious knows as much about Islam as I do. That's why you don't see me judging hinduism, or atheism ect. , I know little about both.

danyboy27

1st July 2010, 02:55

Very interesting.. I here it is very nice in Turkey. I respect the fact that you say what you believe.. But what I am trying to tell you is not to judge a religion that you know little about. My purpose on this forum is to open up talk between Muslims and Communists... We are both targets of White Nationalists in Europe. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to spread awareness of the lies that western media portrays Islam in. I'm sure a man born into a christian family who claims not to be very religious knows as much about Islam as I do. That's why you don't see me judging hinduism, or atheism ect. , I know little about both.

well, if you are trying to debunk the western lies about islam and make us see trough the lies of western media, its not working for me.

saying stuff like iran is a progressive socialist regime, revering reactionaries like khomeni and nasrallah dosnt work well for me.

i know some(2) lebanese communist, and to be honest they are exactly the opposite of you, and seem to hate everyone you praise so dear, starting with nasrallah and khomeni.

and yes, they are muslim.

IslamicMarxist

1st July 2010, 16:59

well, if you are trying to debunk the western lies about islam and make us see trough the lies of western media, its not working for me.

saying stuff like iran is a progressive socialist regime, revering reactionaries like khomeni and nasrallah dosnt work well for me.

i know some(2) lebanese communist, and to be honest they are exactly the opposite of you, and seem to hate everyone you praise so dear, starting with nasrallah and khomeni.

and yes, they are muslim.

I never said Iran is a Socialist Regime. It is indeed progressive, of course, someone who hasn't BEEN there would not know! And not to be rude, but no one in the area cares about what YOU think about Nasrallah and Khomeini. 90% of the population in the Area love them. And If you cannot see through the lies of western Media, how can you be a Communist? It's so simple, you must be narrow minded if you cannot. Anyway, the LCP and Hezbollah are allies, I know LCP members who hang posters of Nasrallah in there house. I don't know which Lebanese communists you talked to! And what has any Communist movement done for the middle east. NOTHING. Hezbollah liberated all of Lebanon from Israeli occupation, they liberated all the captured land, while you were all bickering about why you hate Nasrallah and Hezbollah and believe western media because they aren't socialist enough for you. Pathetic.

IslamicMarxist

1st July 2010, 17:04

well, if you are trying to debunk the western lies about islam and make us see trough the lies of western media, its not working for me.

saying stuff like iran is a progressive socialist regime, revering reactionaries like khomeni and nasrallah dosnt work well for me.

i know some(2) lebanese communist, and to be honest they are exactly the opposite of you, and seem to hate everyone you praise so dear, starting with nasrallah and khomeni.

and yes, they are muslim.

Good luck supporting anything and even having an identity, because it's going to be hard supporting anything if they don't do EXACTLY what the Manefesto of the Communist party sais. Everyone has different Ideas. What have you done for Lebanon? What have you done for Palestine? Nothing, you just sit home on your computer naming things that aren't socialist enough for you, even if they did GREAT things for people. Cuba has our support. Venezuala has our support. Nicaragua has our support. North Korea strategically has our support, not alot though... But all those nations probably aren't Socialist enough for you either. You don't see Castro bashing Hezbollah because they aren't Socialist enough for him, they are fighting for the same cause against Imperialism.. I support all Anti Imperialist movements for the better good. I don't judge them based on their specific Ideals.

Bad Grrrl Agro

1st July 2010, 20:55

Good luck supporting anything and even having an identity, because it's going to be hard supporting anything if they don't do EXACTLY what the Manefesto of the Communist party sais. Everyone has different Ideas. What have you done for Lebanon? What have you done for Palestine? Nothing, you just sit home on your computer naming things that aren't socialist enough for you, even if they did GREAT things for people. Cuba has our support. Venezuala has our support. Nicaragua has our support. North Korea strategically has our support, not alot though... But all those nations probably aren't Socialist enough for you either. You don't see Castro bashing Hezbollah because they aren't Socialist enough for him, they are fighting for the same cause against Imperialism.. I support all Anti Imperialist movements for the better good. I don't judge them based on their specific Ideals.

North Korea with their Juche bullshit are as reactionary as any right wing reactionary. As for Islamic militant groups, I wouldn't support ANY non-secular political force. I wouldn't back ANY christian political force, nor ANY islamic political force, nor ANY jewish political force. Personally, I think all hierarchies are fucked, but they are especially bad when bringing organized monotheistic religions out of the mud hole they belong in and into the public sphere where they don't belong. If someone wants to be religious or spiritual in their private life, thats fine, I do too. But faith is a private thing. I don't see it as something that I should make anymore public than every single little erotic detail about every blow job I've given. Some times leaving it very vague to the public sphere can be becoming too.

Religion+Politics= a very, very bad mix

GreenCommunism

2nd July 2010, 12:55

North Korea with their Juche bullshit are as reactionary as any right wing reactionary. As for Islamic militant groups, I wouldn't support ANY non-secular political force. I wouldn't back ANY christian political force, nor ANY islamic political force, nor ANY jewish political force. Personally, I think all hierarchies are fucked, but they are especially bad when bringing organized monotheistic religions out of the mud hole they belong in and into the public sphere where they don't belong. If someone wants to be religious or spiritual in their private life, thats fine, I do too. But faith is a private thing. I don't see it as something that I should make anymore public than every single little erotic detail about every blow job I've given. Some times leaving it very vague to the public sphere can be becoming too.

Religion+Politics= a very, very bad mix

i'm not sure if this is too idealistic, should we support some ennemies of our ennemies making them our friends? the united states often did that and so did the soviet union, i mean you may be right that it will backfire, but the reason they do it is evident, it does fuck your movement up. just like we should support a certain brand of fascism which is harmless to divide the fascist movement. serious fascist who aren't gang members would do the same.

danyboy27

2nd July 2010, 13:15

Bad Grrrl Agro

2nd July 2010, 19:37

gorillafuck

2nd July 2010, 20:15

I don't know much about the case of how Vietnam is today.
It's that kind of socialism where children work for scraps by sewing soccer balls together for foreign corporations.

But seriously, it's a single party state operating under free market capitalism.

Bad Grrrl Agro

2nd July 2010, 20:40

It's that kind of socialism where children work for scraps by sewing soccer balls together for foreign corporations.

But seriously, it's a single party state operating under free market capitalism.

Yeah, fucked up...

IslamicMarxist

2nd July 2010, 22:32

and you, what have YOU done for those people? beside just being a cheerleader for reactionary regimes?

have you spoke out for more freedom in north korea, Cuba or even vietnam?

you are just too content with the current way thing are done and you dont care about the freedom of those peoples.

First of all, I already told you, I send aid to Gaza weekly, after the 2006 war in Lebanon I went to Help rebuild homes for families and help families who had children taken from them by Israeli Imperialists. I've done a lot of help toward the poor and oppressed. You know nothing. You just sit on your computer and judge everything.

Now first off, I don't need to speak out for more freedom in Cuba, most of the anti government movements are capitalist and american proxy's. Now North Korea I cannot judge, I have not been there, I know nothing about it and neither do you or anyone in the world besides North Korea itself. Vietnam is an American dog now, and I speak up about anything in the international spotlight. I speak out against all injustice and oppression.

IslamicMarxist

2nd July 2010, 22:36

Cuba, I don't have as much issue with the government there because things are getting better in that case. I don't know much about the case of how Vietnam is today. North Korea is just fucked up, though I do have to say Kim Jong is the Illest yo!

The Cuban Government has expressed solidarity with Hezbollah, and the Government of Iran. Fidel went to the funeral of Khomeini and said that the world lost one of the greatest revolutionaries of our time.

RaÃºl Duke

2nd July 2010, 23:07

But what I am trying to tell you is not to judge a religion that you know little about.

I feel Devrim probably knows more about it than you, after all he's well-traveled and lives in a nation with a plurality or majority of Muslims and where islamicists of sorts are politically organized.

Bad Grrrl Agro

2nd July 2010, 23:10

The Cuban Government has expressed solidarity with Hezbollah, and the Government of Iran. Fidel went to the funeral of Khomeini and said that the world lost one of the greatest revolutionaries of our time.

I was refering to Cuba since Fidel left his position to Raul Castro. Raul is actually significantly more LGBT friendly than Fidel and also more so than the Iranian Government.

As for Iran, religion should never, ever, ever, ever have a place in the public mileu.

most of the anti government movements are capitalist and american proxy's.

I'm generally anti-government and I am not a capitalist. I don't know what you mean by "american proxy's" so I won't comment on that.

IslamicMarxist

2nd July 2010, 23:11

I feel Devrim probably knows more about it than you, after all he's well-traveled and lives in a nation with a plurality or majority of Muslims and where islamicists of sorts are politically organized.

Devrim lives in a secular society where religion is starting to become popular. I don't think Devrim knows more about My own religion than me. Besides, let Devrim talk if he wants to talk, and my point is if you are going to just hide behind him stay out of the conversation. Let the big boys do the talking here.

IslamicMarxist

2nd July 2010, 23:13

I was refering to Cuba since Fidel left his position to Raul Castro. Raul is actually significantly more LGBT friendly than Fidel and also more so than the Iranian Government.

As for Iran, religion should never, ever, ever, ever have a place in the public mileu.

I'm generally anti-government and I am not a capitalist. I don't know what you mean by "american proxy's" so I won't comment on that.

Raul still supports the current foreign policy, nothing changed concerning Iran. Those are mostly domestic issues. You can criticize Iran in the sense that you don't believe religion and politics should be involved. That's fine. But if you want to criticize it saying it's capitalist and that the people of Iran do not support it, than you better be able to put up a good argument.

2nd July 2010, 23:15

Devrim lives in a secular society where religion is starting to become popular. I don't think Devrim knows more about My own religion than me. Besides, let Devrim talk if he wants to talk, and my point is if you are going to just hide behind him stay out of the conversation. Let the big boys do the talking here.

Oh god, people, open the way for the "big boy" to pass threw, so he can speak freely, go ahead big boy, talk.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Bad Grrrl Agro

2nd July 2010, 23:27

Raul still supports the current foreign policy, nothing changed concerning Iran. Those are mostly domestic issues. You can criticize Iran in the sense that you don't believe religion and politics should be involved. That's fine. But if you want to criticize it saying it's capitalist and that the people of Iran do not support it, than you better be able to put up a good argument.

No, LGBTQ issues involve LGBTQ folks everywhere. Anywhere where there is racist, sexist, homophobic OR transphobic oppression on an institutional level has a government worth fighting all out against.

Let the big boys do the talking here.

Fucking sexist pig!

gorillafuck

3rd July 2010, 03:40

I'm generally anti-government and I am not a capitalist. I don't know what you mean by "american proxy's" so I won't comment on that.
He means under the control of the United States.

Bad Grrrl Agro

3rd July 2010, 05:06

He means under the control of the United States.

If it's under the control of a government, would it be refered to as anti-government?

gorillafuck

3rd July 2010, 05:16

If it's under the control of a government, would it be refered to as anti-government?
Anti-government as in anti-Iranian government is what he means.

Bad Grrrl Agro

3rd July 2010, 05:22

Anti-government as in anti-Iranian government is what he means.

Okay, so anti-Iranian islamic theocratic fascist govenment movement which is a capitalist movement? Well, I'd still oppose the Iranian government too. It's in my interest to do so.

Devrim

3rd July 2010, 08:18

Devrim lives in a secular society where religion is starting to become popular. I don't think Devrim knows more about My own religion than me. Besides, let Devrim talk if he wants to talk...

I'd imagine that I know a lot more about your religion than you do yourself.

Those are mostly domestic issues. You can criticize Iran in the sense that you don't believe religion and politics should be involved. That's fine. But if you want to criticize it saying it's capitalist and that the people of Iran do not support it, than you better be able to put up a good argument.

You have yet to put up any argument against it beyond bleating that it is 'Islamic'? Peple have asked you about property rights, and you have just bleated 'It's Islamic'. It's a bit pathetic really.

Devrim

gorillafuck

3rd July 2010, 17:08

Okay, so anti-Iranian islamic theocratic fascist govenment movement which is a capitalist movement? Well, I'd still oppose the Iranian government too. It's in my interest to do so.
I'm not saying I agree with him, though I do think that the Moussavi supporting green movement was/is bourgeois (though that's not even anti-government, it's anti-Ahmadinejad)

Bad Grrrl Agro

3rd July 2010, 18:37

I'm not saying I agree with him, though I do think that the Moussavi supporting green movement was/is bourgeois (though that's not even anti-government, it's anti-Ahmadinejad)

I oppose both sides. I'm anti-Moussavi AND anti-Ahmadinejad.

Frank Zapatista

12th July 2010, 09:01

Homophobia is definitely not comparable to islamophobia, though it's definitely a concern. You can be progressive but still be homophobic, though it's obviously an issue and wrong. However, you can't be a progressive and hold islamophobic and/or xenophobic views. We need to be careful not to dismiss progressive movements because of homophobic elements, because in the end, we can't wait forever for a perfect movement with the perfect line.

I have to say, in all honesty I find this post kind of disturbing. As a homosexual myself I do not in any way condone homophobia in the movement. I've been subject to homophobia my entire life, whether its something as simple as name calling ("fag" etc.) or even being physically bullied, I've dealt with it my entire life and I find it disturbing that such a big issue is being belittled in my own cause. In third world countries it is especially an issue, people are killed all the time around the world for being gay, there are still countries where I would be given the death penalty for being who I am and many more where I would be arrested. Its simply luck that I was born where I was. Anyways, I digress, my point is that homosexuality is indeed a serious issue.

Adi Shankara

14th July 2010, 10:44

Why is everyone so quick to drop the baby out with the bathwater? you can be both opposed to Islamophobia and Homophobia. hell you can still be a muslim and be against gaybashing. It's not like an opposition is even a central doctrine to homosexuality, and besides, most of the writings on homosexuals were written in the Hadiths, which were not (in Islamic custom) given to Muhammad by god. in Islam, god said that the Qur'ran was complete. therefore, if people ignore most of the ideas on sharia and the hadiths...

Bad Grrrl Agro

14th July 2010, 16:48

Why is everyone so quick to drop the baby out with the bathwater? you can be both opposed to Islamophobia and Homophobia.

I'm no more anti-islam than I am anti-christianity or anti-judaism. If someone wants to have a religion that believes Elliott Smith will come back from the dead on a unicorn and save the world from chrystal meth, I don't care until they start interfering with the lives of others. I don't judge by what is said, I judge by what is done.

in Islam, god said that the Qur'ran was complete. therefore, if people ignore most of the ideas on sharia and the hadiths...

Yes, in writing, but the reality of action is different than the writing.

Adi Shankara

14th July 2010, 21:17

Yes, in writing, but the reality of action is different than the writing.

Hence why I oppose organized religious establishment, but not religious belief or faith. (and Islamophobia and racism continues to be a problem amongst many peoples, including homosexuals/transexuals/women)

Bad Grrrl Agro

15th July 2010, 00:58

Hence why I oppose organized religious establishment, but not religious belief or faith.
No qualms with you there.

(and Islamophobia and racism continues to be a problem amongst many peoples, including homosexuals/transexuals/women)
I can't say I can completely blame a homosexual/transsexual/woman who has Islamophobia, I blame the organized religious establishment for defiling the name of Islam. But I have major disdain with any organized religion having a space, time and position in the public mileu at all. In my eyes, faith and spirituality belongs more in private than sex.

Now, while I have reasons for Islamophobia, I stopped giving a damn about religion a long time ago and only start to give a damn when it's thrusted in my face (right before I bite it off :lol: )

But if I was to speak out against islam, it'd only be in the context of organized religion and monotheism.

So to sum it all up: If people keep their religion out of my face, I'll keep my middle finger out of theirs.
~Esperanza 6:28~
You can write that down. Out of "Transsexual Molotov" the book of Esperanza ;-)

eclipse

15th July 2010, 02:06

I hate this "every form of opression besides class is a secondary contradiction" - thing...

Religions involving unicorns? Count me in. I`d prefer pink and invisible, or robot ones. ^^

But concerning homophobia and the arabic world, I know at least a german book concerning homoexuality in pre-colonisation arabia. I`d be interested in other ones, also english.
h ttp ://ww w .amazon. de/ Die-Vertreibung-aus-Serail-Heteronormalisierung/dp/3939542342/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I have till not read the book myself (but plan to), put together from a review, the opinion is, that there was indeed a kind of rich culture of homoexuality, though forbidden nearly impossible to prove and partly accepted. And massive sorting out of people because of their sexual preferences as well as capital punishment is indeed a modern development. Brought about through western categories of sexuality.
An interesting phenomen from the review is that traditions that "look gay" in a western context tend to disappear among immigrants in Germany (hugging, cheek kissing among men, earrings).

I have made similar obervation in southern india where it seemed quite common among young men to walk hand in hand, touch and be tender to another, hug and so on, and some western people reacted quite strange and implicite homophobic on that.

I would not say that any religion has to be homophobic at all. Many religious people don`t take their creation stories as literal truth anymore, why shouldn`t they actualize other parts of their doctrine too? It`s not only the question if their religion command them too, but if they want to.

Bad Grrrl Agro

15th July 2010, 03:32

I hate this "every form of opression besides class is a secondary contradiction" - thing...
I agree with you, the opressions should all be considered equally fucked up.

Religions involving unicorns? Count me in. I`d prefer pink and invisible, or robot ones. ^^
I'll make sure to let you know if I find an invisible pink robot unicorn... :rolleyes::):):laugh:

But concerning homophobia and the arabic world, I know at least a german book concerning homoexuality in pre-colonisation arabia. I`d be interested in other ones, also english.
h ttp ://ww w .amazon. de/ Die-Vertreibung-aus-Serail-Heteronormalisierung/dp/3939542342/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
I don't speak German. I know some spanish and I know english.

I have till not read the book myself (but plan to), put together from a review, the opinion is, that there was indeed a kind of rich culture of homoexuality, though forbidden nearly impossible to prove and partly accepted. And massive sorting out of people because of their sexual preferences as well as capital punishment is indeed a modern development. Brought about through western categories of sexuality.
An interesting phenomen from the review is that traditions that "look gay" in a western context tend to disappear among immigrants in Germany (hugging, cheek kissing among men, earrings).
Most of the Muslims who've moved here (Milwaukee) from the middle east are vaguely around college age, here for school and dress like hipsters while sitting in cafes and hookah bars.

I have made similar obervation in southern india where it seemed quite common among young men to walk hand in hand, touch and be tender to another, hug and so on, and some western people reacted quite strange and implicite homophobic on that.
I want to go to India and be a hijra.

I would not say that any religion has to be homophobic at all. Many religious people don`t take their creation stories as literal truth anymore, why shouldn`t they actualize other parts of their doctrine too? It`s not only the question if their religion command them too, but if they want to.
Actions speak louder than words.

Devrim

15th July 2010, 06:17

... and besides, most of the writings on homosexuals were written in the Hadiths, which were not (in Islamic custom) given to Muhammad by god. in Islam, god said that the Qur'ran was complete. therefore, if people ignore most of the ideas on sharia and the hadiths...

Islam is against homosexuality. There are no two ways about it. The Koran is very clear on it.

Why is everyone so quick to drop the baby out with the bathwater? you can be both opposed to Islamophobia and Homophobia.

Of course you can. You can be against Islam and not Islamophobic, which I think is defined as prejudice against Muslims.

I hate this "every form of opression besides class is a secondary contradiction" - thing...

I'm exploited as a worker not oppressed. There is a difference.

Devrim

eclipse

15th July 2010, 11:05

I'm exploited as a worker not oppressed. There is a difference.
In what sense does exploitation not equal opression? I know where you are hinting at, but I think it`s a wrong dichotomy.

Islam is against homosexuality. There are no two ways about it. The Koran is very clear on it.
Holy books are always reinterpreted again and again. Could happen in this matter too, and is it seems, it already did.

Devrim

16th July 2010, 06:21

In what sense does exploitation not equal opression? I know where you are hinting at, but I think it`s a wrong dichotomy.

No, exploitation is fundamentally different. Exploitation is the basis of capitalism. It is the extraction of surplus value from the worker.

There can theoretically be a capitalism without racial or sexual oppression, but there can not be a capitalist without exploitation.

Devrim

eclipse

16th July 2010, 10:07

There can theoretically be a capitalism without racial or sexual oppression, but there can not be a capitalist without exploitation.

I would doubt that, capitalism relies heavily on "divide and conquer" concerning the working class as well as collective identities like nation, race, religion who take social unrest down and hold up the illusion of something like unity of the classes.
If the ressentiments stopped, you`d have a united working class, that's not favorable if you want to uphold capitalism. Even if racial or sexual opression could stop within capitalism they would be exchanged with somthing similar to them.

I could also imagine a "socialist" society that's quite etatist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic or racist. In fact, there already were some and I think this is a point that should be analysed concerning the failure of "real existing socialism" because when capitalist society seems as a paradise of freedom you flee to, and you have to keep the workers inside socialism with a wall, something for sure has terribly gone wrong.

No, exploitation is fundamentally different. Exploitation is the basis of capitalism. I agree, you could even put exploitation and capitalism synonymous. So what does make capitalism so wrong that we have to abolish it without any hopes of reforming? That its exploitation is a form of opression, of creating class hierarchies, in putting all of us who are nothing, but should be everything, in the position of being miserable and subordinate.
If you put this one form of opression above all others, and even tolerate these you do nothing for your aims. You alienate people for whom other forms of opression than capital are the prime force of suffering they experience in their life from the cause, leading to liberal human rights movements that believe they can reach equality within capitalism. They are wrong. We have to show that all these forms of opression belong together.

Bad Grrrl Agro

16th July 2010, 18:25

I would doubt that, capitalism relies heavily on "divide and conquer" concerning the working class as well as collective identities like nation, race, religion who take social unrest down and hold up the illusion of something like unity of the classes.
If the ressentiments stopped, you`d have a united working class, that's not favorable if you want to uphold capitalism. Even if racial or sexual opression could stop within capitalism they would be exchanged with somthing similar to them.

I could also imagine a "socialist" society that's quite etatist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic or racist. In fact, there already were some and I think this is a point that should be analysed concerning the failure of "real existing socialism" because when capitalist society seems as a paradise of freedom you flee to, and you have to keep the workers inside socialism with a wall, something for sure has terribly gone wrong.

I agree, you could even put exploitation and capitalism synonymous. So what does make capitalism so wrong that we have to abolish it without any hopes of reforming? That its exploitation is a form of opression, of creating class hierarchies, in putting all of us who are nothing, but should be everything, in the position of being miserable and subordinate.
If you put this one form of opression above all others, and even tolerate these you do nothing for your aims. You alienate people for whom other forms of opression than capital are the prime force of suffering they experience in their life from the cause, leading to liberal human rights movements that believe they can reach equality within capitalism. They are wrong. We have to show that all these forms of opression belong together.

To further a point that seems to be along the lines that you're getting at: If capitalism is overthrown and class as we know it gets abolished but the new system still upholds racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist standards and norms what do we get? A new concept of class. A new class system starts to develop.
This time the class is just based on just another line. I mean, I get the shaft either way.

Devrim

16th July 2010, 18:59

I would doubt that, capitalism relies heavily on "divide and conquer" concerning the working class as well as collective identities like nation, race, religion who take social unrest down and hold up the illusion of something like unity of the classes.

Yes, I said theoretically. It would probably be very difficult for capitalism to get rid of racism. I could imagine it getting rid of homophobia though.

I could also imagine a "socialist" society that's quite etatist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic or racist. In fact, there already were some and I think this is a point that should be analysed concerning the failure of "real existing socialism" because when capitalist society seems as a paradise of freedom you flee to, and you have to keep the workers inside socialism with a wall, something for sure has terribly gone wrong.

I don't think that these things were socialist. There wasn't much that was socialistic about "real existing socialism" .

I agree, you could even put exploitation and capitalism synonymous. So what does make capitalism so wrong that we have to abolish it without any hopes of reforming? That its exploitation is a form of opression, of creating class hierarchies, in putting all of us who are nothing, but should be everything, in the position of being miserable and subordinate.

Capitalism can't be reformed. It needs to constant increase the rate of exploitation. What makes that so, is not that exploitation is a form of oppression, but economic tendencies.

If you put this one form of opression above all others, and even tolerate these you do nothing for your aims. You alienate people for whom other forms of opression than capital are the prime force of suffering they experience in their life from the cause, leading to liberal human rights movements that believe they can reach equality within capitalism. They are wrong. We have to show that all these forms of opression belong together.

I think it does exactly the opposite. The idea of working class revolution doesn't divide people into different interest groups, but unites the vast majority of society behind its material interests.

To further a point that seems to be along the lines that you're getting at: If capitalism is overthrown and class as we know it gets abolished but the new system still upholds racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist standards and norms what do we get? A new concept of class. A new class system starts to develop.
This time the class is just based on just another line. I mean, I get the shaft either way.

The point of communism is the destruction of class society. Classes are based on the economic relationship to the means of production.

That is not to say that 'racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist standards' will disappear the day after a revolution, but it does mean that you can't construct a 'new class system' upon prejudice.

Devrim

eclipse

16th July 2010, 23:25

Capitalism can't be reformed. It needs to constant increase the rate of exploitation. What makes that so, is not that exploitation is a form of oppression, but economic tendencies.
The analysis is correct, what i aimed at, is simple that capitalism/exploitation is opressing. Else, it would not be a bad thing anyway. Because you seperated the two concepts and i think this is impossible. ;)

I think it does exactly the opposite. The idea of working class revolution doesn't divide people into different interest groups, but unites the vast majority of society behind its material interests.
Depends on how it is brought into reality. I will not unite with a "socialist" group with dictatorian leadership, strong homophobic, nationalist or racist tendencies but alienated by it. And I know quite a lot of people that will be too.

I think we`re going the same way out of different directions here. We`re already agreeing that abolishing all this can only come through a communist movement and if these points are brought together, because they are different faces of the same medal.
The point we disagree is that I see a interwoven web and you prioritize capitalist opression because it is materially based.
I think everyone should be able to prioritize at will, but that it`s important to keep the big picture in mind and act in solidarity with other struggles.

I had the anti-imperialism discussion with a communist/leninist friend yesterday and he said, for him the deciding factors are, if a liberation movement is more progressive than the status quo and open to further progressive impulses. I think I can live with that definition. Clearly excludes scum like the Taliban.

Concerning the formation of new economical classes, that might be. Before capitalism, the control over the means of production and the wealth of society was based on heritage, blood, religion in feudal europe and this way overthrown by the bourgeoisie in a revolutionary, social and technological transformation. If for example a buerocratic, racist party apparat begins to control societies wealth, there might indeed form new economic unequalitie. Hierarchies have to stabilize themelves, and economy is always the key.

Bad Grrrl Agro

17th July 2010, 18:19

The point of communism is the destruction of class society. Classes are based on the economic relationship to the means of production.

That is not to say that 'racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist standards' will disappear the day after a revolution, but it does mean that you can't construct a 'new class system' upon prejudice.

Devrim

Main Entry: 1class
Pronunciation: \?klas\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French classe, from Latin classis group called to military service, fleet, class; perhaps akin to Latin calare to call — more at low
Date: 1602
1 a : a body of students meeting regularly to study the same subject b : the period during which such a body meets c : a course of instruction d : a body of students or alumni whose year of graduation is the same
2 a : a group sharing the same economic or social status <the working class> b : social rank; especially : high social rank c : high quality : elegance <a hotel with class>
3 : a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes: as a : a major category in biological taxonomy ranking above the order and below the phylum or division b : a collection of adjacent and discrete or continuous values of a random variable c : set 21
4 : a division or rating based on grade or quality
5 : the best of its kind <the class of the league>
6 : a data type in object-oriented programming that consists of a group of objects with the same properties and behaviors and that is arranged in a hierarchy with other such data types — compare object

It seems to me you have a point, but the concept of "class" is more inclusive than being limited soley to economics.

...Now, if you don't mind, I have a tummy ache to take care of and a need to slap myself accross the face because of last nights drunken decision making.

Dictionary Deffinitions of "Class" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/class)

Devrim

17th July 2010, 22:05

It seems to me you have a point, but the concept of "class" is more inclusive than being limited soley to economics.

Dictionary Deffinitions of "Class" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/class)

I don't think it is that outrageous to expect a Marxist definition of class, which is also accepted by most anarchists, here.

Depends on how it is brought into reality. I will not unite with a "socialist" group with dictatorian leadership, strong homophobic, nationalist or racist tendencies but alienated by it. And I know quite a lot of people that will be too.

I don't really think that those kind of groups are socialist, but more importantly it is about the class uniting as a class, which also means overcoming barriers of race, gender, and sexuality.

I had the anti-imperialism discussion with a communist/leninist friend yesterday and he said, for him the deciding factors are, if a liberation movement is more progressive than the status quo and open to further progressive impulses. I think I can live with that definition. Clearly excludes scum like the Taliban.

I can't. For us all factions of the bourgeoisie are reactionary. National liberation movements are, by definition nationalist movements. There is no progressive nationalism today.

Devrim

eclipse

18th July 2010, 18:07

I don't really think that those kind of groups are socialist, but more importantly it is about the class uniting as a class, which also means overcoming barriers of race, gender, and sexuality.

Is it a consenus we have there? :)

I can't. For us all factions of the bourgeoisie are reactionary. National liberation movements are, by definition nationalist movements. There is no progressive nationalism today.

That`s interestingb because I exspected, that I had less points of intervention in mind than you have, concerning the "class goes first" concept I unconciously seem to have connected with other posts here, accepting thing like homophobia among "comrades" if there is at leat ome class consciousness.

I think it`s ok to assist in reformist struggles (political reforms, higher wages the like) if you connect your intervention with communist aims and use this a point of agitation.

Bad Grrrl Agro

18th July 2010, 19:21

I don't think it is that outrageous to expect a Marxist definition of class, which is also accepted by most anarchists, here.

You need to start noticing when I'm arguing just to argue. I don't think I was really disagreeing with you. I just have a tendency to argue. If you told me that I'm a good person who deserves to be happy with you, I might argue with you there too. It's in my nature.

Iskalla

25th July 2010, 17:43

peace,

i am not only a bolshevik, i am also muslim and queer. i am active in the belgian anti-fascist queer group 'mikpunt'. i believe that today islamophobia is one of the main entrance-gates of fascism in the west, while homophobia is serves that same role in the east (the islamic world, but also poland, the baltic states, russia...). all anti-fascists should struggle against both islamophobia and homophobia.

peace,

redwasp

What makes your interpretation of Islam any more valid than an extremist that would have you put to death if you just so happened to be born in the wrong place? What can Islam offer humanity overall when the end note is there is only one side, and the other leads to some kind of hell in the afterlife? In challenging the homophobia and bigotry that is so often justified by Christianity and Islam do I become a xenophobe or Islamophobe? I might be wrong, but I see Christianity and Islam as one and the same, and they provide power to the undeserving and divide those beneath in the masses.

I'm no more anti-islam than I am anti-christianity or anti-judaism. If someone wants to have a religion that believes Elliott Smith will come back from the dead on a unicorn and save the world from chrystal meth, I don't care until they start interfering with the lives of others. I don't judge by what is said, I judge by what is done.

Get enough people to believe it an you'll become rich and powerful, you could even order crusades against those that don't own 'either/or', think of the profit :cool: