Creative protest against Burqban in France

[Crux]

Uw32TU7uAi4
'Niqa*****' unveil themselves in Paris

Are this veil-wearing, leg-baring duo making a powerful political point, or trivialising the niqab debate?




http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/28/1285690693684/nesrine.jpg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/nesrinemalik)


Nesrine Malik (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/nesrinemalik)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Thursday 7 October 2010 16.30 BST
Article history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/07/niqa*****-niqab-debate#history-link-box)


Just when you thought the niqab ban story had no more legs, it goes burlesque. Two French women have taken it upon themselves to register their opposition to the niqab ban in France by covering their faces but baring their legs in miniskirts. The duo, who call themselves Niqa***** (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2010/10/do-the-niqa*****es-enrich-the-burqa-ban-debate/), have posted a video where they stop traffic and turn heads and sashay in heels down the streets of Paris. Portmanteau in name and in dress, they merge the sacred and the profane. The footage is tongue in cheek, all rather typically French. "We were not looking to attack or degrade the image of Muslim fundamentalists – each to their own – but rather to question politicians who voted for this law that we consider clearly unconstitutional," they said. "To dictate what we wear appears to have become the role of the state."


Somehow, the trite juxtaposition isn't as lowbrow as one would think. Like a good advertisement, it makes a clear, simple, powerful point. Bypassing all the ambiguity of the debate, it goes straight to the viscera, eliciting a range of responses. Some have observed that the public's reaction is less unfriendly than usual because it's clear the two women are not wearing the burqa for religions reasons, which highlights the Islamophobic aspect of opposition to the niqab. At one point a policewoman asks for a picture. Once the law comes into effect, she will be obliged to fine them. It proves that covering up per se is not the point. It's what it entails, and what value judgements we then make based on that – a tenuous position indeed from which to legislate against any form of dress.


In discussions about the niqab, this opposition's argument of last resort is that public nudity is the polar opposite of full coverage and hence the same laws should apply. The video subverts that argument by rendering exposed and covered flesh two sides of the same coin but as manifestations of personal freedom of dress. Is it mocking the niqab? As the campaign is in protest against the niqab ban, I think not. But even if it were, so what? What I like about the video is its iconoclasm. Both the religious and secular could do with being less precious and heavy-handed about what women would like to wear.


However, it is not a novel idea. Personally, I think it is reminiscent of a sinister orientalist fetishising, one that hides an exotic woman's face but lays bare her body as a faceless sexual object, mystified by lack of character but simultaneously made accessible. But that is just my own visceral reaction. Ultimately, it is about choice.
Another display has also been hitting the headlines. "Princess Hijab" (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/07/201076171111616492.html), a 20-year-old guerrilla artist, traverses Paris incognito spray-painting hijabs and niqabs on male and female models on posters and billboards. She claims it is not a political point she is trying to make, rather an examination of contradictions inherent in mainstream culture.
But is it art? What impact do these kinds of demonstration make? Perhaps none at all in the immediate term, but what is encouraging is that the concept of the niqab is being decoupled from religion and incorporated into popular culture, examined and discussed in terms of freedom of choice, artistic expression, and redefinitions of sexuality and personal space. All in inimitable, indigenous French avant-garde fashion. It is a hallmark of integration and a repudiation of the state's transgression into the realm of personal freedom.

[Amphictyonis]

When Russia was still around they were behind the communist party in Afghanistan. Once in power, the Afghan communist party banned them, and organized religion in favor of state atheism. Was Russia being racist (seeing they were pulling the strings in Afghanistan)?

The US, at the time, in order to fight "communism" funded the most right wing fundamentalists they could find. How did that work out?

[khad]

When Russia was still around they were behind the communist party in Afghanistan. Once in power, the Afghan communist party banned them, and organized religion in favor of state atheism. Was Russia being racist (seeing they were pulling the strings in Afghanistan)?
The PDPA was in no way against Islam. It was only the reactionary forms of Islam sponsored by US, Pakistani, and Saudi interests. And yes, the full burkha was affiliated with such strains of the religion. This did not mean that the PDPA militated against hijab.

In this patriotic video, you can see the woman wearing a loose headscarf:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFyWnCABiAA

Anti-theists really need to get over themselves.

[Crux]

When Russia was still around they were behind the communist party in Afghanistan. Once in power, the Afghan communist party banned them, and organized religion in favor of state atheism. Was Russia being racist (seeing they were pulling the strings in Afghanistan)?

The US, at the time, in order to fight "communism" funded the most right wing fundamentalists they could find. How did that work out?
So unless we support Sarkozy we are pro-US? Wait what was your logic again? Oh right...

[Crimson Commissar]

This ban is necessary to stamp out the cult of Islam. It's not harming anyone. These people can live without wearing some stupid black cloth over their bodies. I see no reason why this ban should be viewed as bad. While the state of France is definitely not a nation I would ally with, it's reasoning for taking these actions against Islam seem fine to me. Call it "Islamophobia" if you want, but in my opinion my support of this burqa ban is far better than the so called communists of this forum who support radical islamic organisations who are in many cases even more tyrannical than any capitalist state in existance.

[Queercommie Girl]

There is nothing wrong if some people wish to wear the hijab or anything else what-so-ever for that matter, freedom of clothing is a basic democratic right to be frank.

However, it would be wrong for someone to impose either politically or culturally the wearing of such an item of clothing on anyone, but most importantly women from a Muslim cultural background, simply on the grounds of "culture", "religion" or "tradition".

Simply put, on the one hand, Western states have no right to infringe upon the cultural freedoms of non-Western peoples, but on the other hand, proletarians of non-Western cultures have the full rights to rebel against their "cultural traditions" if they so wish, like how Chinese youths rebelled against Confucianism during the May 4th Movement in 1919. Anyone who stands on the other side of the fence in this kind of movement and call for the respect of "ancient traditions" would indeed be a cultural reactionary.

[Rafiq]

who are in many cases even more tyrannical than any capitalist state in existance.

According to the Capitalists, so was the Soviets and their allies.


Plus, almost every Muslim nation has an Imperialist puppet.

Why don't you just piss off you reactionary fuck.


Did Muslim kids beat you up as a child or something?

You seem to have a personal unhealthy rage against Muslim people.

"they can live without their stupid black cloth"

Fucking Racist prick. What do you mean "they"?

[Crimson Commissar]

According to the Capitalists, so was the Soviets and their allies.


Plus, almost every Muslim nation has an Imperialist puppet.

Why don't you just piss off you reactionary fuck.


Did Muslim kids beat you up as a child or something?

You seem to have a personal unhealthy rage against Muslim people.

"they can live without their stupid black cloth"

Fucking Racist prick. What do you mean "they"?
Ugh. Do you have to automatically associate all opposition to Islam as racism. Really. I am in no way a racist. You should know by now that I oppose all religions, and for reasons that are not racist in the slightest. I oppose all religion, and I just...want to see it gone from our society. Both capitalism and religion must be opposed by us if we want to see true freedom and equality any time soon. By "they" I mean the muslims of France. It's not meant in any racist way. I greatly respect former muslims who rebel against the tyranny of Islam and become free atheists. In many cases, even more so than I respect former christians who rebel against christianity.

[Ocean Seal]

The major point here is that banning the niqab doesn't really stop sexism it merely makes it such that women can no longer leave the home, but the ban reflects the anti-Arab sentiment in France and is meant to marginalize all Muslims as a fringe minority. This restricts the freedom of all people who should quite honestly have the opportunity to dress as they please, but this is a racist statement bent on protecting French culture and attacking Arabs.

[Crux]

This ban is necessary to stamp out the cult of Islam. It's not harming anyone. These people can live without wearing some stupid black cloth over their bodies. I see no reason why this ban should be viewed as bad. While the state of France is definitely not a nation I would ally with, it's reasoning for taking these actions against Islam seem fine to me. Call it "Islamophobia" if you want, but in my opinion my support of this burqa ban is far better than the so called communists of this forum who support radical islamic organisations who are in many cases even more tyrannical than any capitalist state in existance.
The fuck it is. Who are you, Geert Wilders? The "cult of islam"? Jesusfuck. So basically you think islamophobia is allright? That french nationalism and xenophobia is positive? Please do tell me how. Nevermind the fact that very few muslims wear the burqa and this law will hardly help "stamp it out". I think both positions are reactionary and shit.

[Rafiq]

Ugh. Do you have to automatically associate all opposition to Islam as racism. .

It's fucked up how you group them all together.



And don't give me your "christianity is less barbaric then Islam" shit.


Why don't you compare Muslims and Europe in the Middle Ages.

It has nothing to do with religion, but education and power.

I am seriously taking into consideration that when you were a child, Muslim boys used to beat you up or something, because you have a disgusting hate for us.


I think you are more open to christianity because you are Xenophobic.

That "weird Foreign" prays they chant, those odd clothing, those colored skinned Arabs all are probably a little frighting to you.

And then you have your sweater wearing, westernized, average Christian.


It is definitely a case of Xenophobia in your situation.

[Rafiq]

Holy Shit Crimson what kind of Communist are you.

In all times, now you pick on the Muslims, where they are being harassed the most in Europe.

It's like being a Communist Anti Semite in the 1930's. At the time where they were oppressed most.

[Queercommie Girl]

The fuck it is. Who are you, Geert Wilders? The "cult of islam"? Jesusfuck. So basically you think islamophobia is allright? That french nationalism and xenophobia is positive? Please do tell me how. Nevermind the fact that very few muslims wear the burqa and this law will hardly help "stamp it out". I think both positions are reactionary and shit.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but in the hypothetical scenario of Muslim youths rebelling against their own "cultural traditions" like how Chinese youths rebelled against Confucianism during the May 4th Movement in 1919, then what would be your views then? I think in such cases it is clearly culturally reactionary to stand on the other side of the fence.

In this case I oppose the ban, but as Marxists we must remember that there is absolutely nothing intrinsic in "Islamic culture" itself that we are defending, only the cultural rights of Muslim proletarians at a particular epoch in history. Marxism is fundamentally incompatible with non-materialistic world-views, period. Doesn't mean we should support militant atheism, but in principle this must be kept in mind.

Suppose Muslim workers one day change their minds...well, as I said there is nothing to defend in "Islamic culture" itself. We just follow the views of Muslim proletarians either way.

[Crimson Commissar]

It's fucked up how you group them all together.



And don't give me your "christianity is less barbaric then Islam" shit.


Why don't you compare Muslims and Europe in the Middle Ages.

It has nothing to do with religion, but education and power.

I am seriously taking into consideration that when you were a child, Muslim boys used to beat you up or something, because you have a disgusting hate for us.


I think you are more open to christianity because you are Xenophobic.

That "weird Foreign" prays they chant, those odd clothing, those colored skinned Arabs all are probably a little frighting to you.

And then you have your sweater wearing, westernized, average Christian.


It is definitely a case of Xenophobia in your situation.
The FUCK? I am definitely NOT more open to christianity. But when is christianity ever discussed on this forum? I don't critiscize it here because there's nowhere TO critiscize it. Both muslims and christians are annoying as all hell to me. All religion is barbaric. Some are more barbaric than others, yes. But I'd say Christianity and Islam are both equally barbaric. No, I've never really been harmed by a muslim person that seriously in my life. Religion just annoys me. It annoys me how much it controls our society and how it promotes ignorance and disgusting sexist, homophobic and racist beliefs. Islam is not a perfect religion. Sexism, homophobia and racism do exist within it. Islam is basically a clone of Arab culture. And I might be wrong, but isn't Arabic considered the "holy language" of Muslims? What if I went around saying that English was a holy language and that all people in this world should speak it? You would label me as a racist and xenophobe. The same should apply to muslims.

[Queercommie Girl]

The FUCK? I am definitely NOT more open to christianity. But when is christianity ever discussed on this forum? I don't critiscize it here because there's nowhere TO critiscize it. Both muslims and christians are annoying as all hell to me. All religion is barbaric. Some are more barbaric than others, yes. But I'd say Christianity and Islam are both equally barbaric. No, I've never really been harmed by a muslim person that seriously in my life. Religion just annoys me. It annoys me how much it controls our society and how it promotes ignorance and disgusting sexist, homophobic and racist beliefs. Islam is not a perfect religion. Sexism, homophobia and racism do exist within it. Islam is basically a clone of Arab culture. And I might be wrong, but isn't Arabic considered the "holy language" of Muslims? What if I went around saying that English was a holy language and that all people in this world should speak it? You would label me as a racist and xenophobe. The same should apply to muslims.

I understand some of your sentiments, but to be frank comrade, you are never going to get rid of religion that way. Bourgeois anti-theism simply doesn't work. There are very strong socio-economic reasons for why religions exist in the world today, and frankly short of changing those conditions, religions will forever persist.

The demise of religion would only occur in a truly classless communist society. Meanwhile, as Marxists we have a certain duty to defend the cultural rights of ethnic minorities, even if they happen to be religious in nature. Not to mention this is the only strategically viable way to go ahead.

But I completely agree that Marxism is fundamentally humanistic and materialistic. Philosophically it cannot be made compatible with any non-materialistic philosophical tradition, period. While we have the duty to defend the democratic rights of workers in the area of belief, we also have the duty to maintain a sound level of philosophical purity in our world-view. To defend Muslims from Western racism is a good thing, to actually really think there is something inherently progressive in Islam is frankly a dangerous and reactionary attitude which must be criticised.

[gorillafuck]

When Russia was still around they were behind the communist party in Afghanistan. Once in power, the Afghan communist party banned them, and organized religion in favor of state atheism. Was Russia being racist (seeing they were pulling the strings in Afghanistan)?

The US, at the time, in order to fight "communism" funded the most right wing fundamentalists they could find. How did that work out?
People being against a ban that is for the purpose of scaremongering against Muslims isn't very much the same as funding the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan.

The US and France aren't even enemies, ya know.

[Ocean Seal]

The fuck it is. Who are you, Geert Wilders? The "cult of islam"? Jesusfuck. So basically you think islamophobia is allright? That french nationalism and xenophobia is positive? Please do tell me how. Nevermind the fact that very few muslims wear the burqa and this law will hardly help "stamp it out". I think both positions are reactionary and shit.
This is probably the most important point, the basis for this is nationalistic and it essentially causes people to view Muslims as a marginalized radical group.



Holy Shit Crimson what kind of Communist are you.

In all times, now you pick on the Muslims, where they are being harassed the most in Europe.

It's like being a Communist Anti Semite in the 1930's. At the time where they were oppressed most.

Here is another point. Who do you think is supporting this ban and pushing for it? If you picked racist islamophobic organizations like the EDL then you're right. This is like attacking the kosher dietary requirement at the time when anti-Semitism was at it's strongest. Banning the veil, even with noble intentions is playing into the hands of the bourgeoisie and their fascist lackeys.

[Crux]

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but in the hypothetical scenario of Muslim youths rebelling against their own "cultural traditions" like how Chinese youths rebelled against Confucianism during the May 4th Movement in 1919, then what would be your views then? I think in such cases it is clearly culturally reactionary to stand on the other side of the fence.

In this case I oppose the ban, but as Marxists we must remember that there is absolutely nothing intrinsic in "Islamic culture" itself that we are defending, only the cultural rights of Muslim proletarians at a particular epoch in history. Marxism is fundamentally incompatible with non-materialistic world-views, period. Doesn't mean we should support militant atheism, but in principle this must be kept in mind.

Suppose Muslim workers one day change their minds...well, as I said there is nothing to defend in "Islamic culture" itself. We just follow the views of Muslim proletarians either way.
Surely, but this is a case of the french political establishment trying to rule and divide, i e very different.

[Queercommie Girl]

Surely, but this is a case of the french political establishment trying to rule and divide, i e very different.


I'm not doubting you here, but to be frank with you comrade, if you read some articles by the SWP it seems anti-Islamophobia (which is positive) is transitioning into Islamophilia (which is not).

The way the SWP handled the whole Respect thing is frankly a manifestation of this to some extent.

Just saying, sometimes Marxists need to careful. As Lenin said, too much of a correct thing, and then it suddenly shifts to the opposite.

[Crux]

I'm not doubting you here, but to be frank with you comrade, if you read some articles by the SWP it seems anti-Islamophobia (which is positive) is transitioning into Islamophilia (which is not).

The way the SWP handled the whole Respect thing is frankly a manifestation of this to some extent.

Just saying, sometimes Marxists need to careful. As Lenin said, too much of a correct thing, and then it suddenly shifts to the opposite.
Well, I wouldn't disagree with you there. To some extent the IST has capitulated to identity politics in the form of political islam. So it's important to fight islamophobia, but do it for socialism, yeah.

[Crimson Commissar]

I dunno know if it's been mentioned before, but the burka ban is related to the anti-terrorism laws that are passing all over Europe. They compare burka to ski masks that people use to rob banks! THey all seem agaist anything that covers the face. I wonder what this would mean for black bloc activity? If they really enforce this law, i would imagine that the black bloc is in trouble.
They are right in a way. Anyone who wears a burqa cannot be easily identified. Not sure if anyone has ever used a burqa in commiting a crime or something, but it's definitely a possibility.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Once again, this isnt a major problem in France, or Europe, today. By suggesting as targetting, such as this, is just a way for the french goverment too pick some support, by riding on the current wave of islamophobia and changing focus frome the shit that muslims have too endure today.

A week ago, here in Sweden, there was a 13 year old girl who was abused by some guys at her school, the motive of the crime was that she had a veil (and she was a muslim) the boys cuted her with theire keys.

[Crimson Commissar]

Once again, this isnt a major problem in France, or Europe, today. By suggesting as targetting, such as this, is just a way for the french goverment too pick some support, by riding on the current wave of islamophobia and changing focus frome the shit that muslims have too endure today.

A week ago, here in Sweden, there was a 13 year old girl who was abused by some guys at her school, the motive of the crime was that she had a veil (and she was a muslim) the boys cuted her with theire keys.
What we must realise is that not all anti-islamic laws are made based on the race of most muslims. From what I have heard, the issue of Islam in France is based on the actual religion rather than the skin colour of it's followers. I am very annoyed that no one in France seems to be making the same critiscisms about Christianity, but calling this ban "xenophobic and racist" is just absurd.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

What we must realise is that not all anti-islamic laws are made based on the race of most muslims. From what I have heard, the issue of Islam in France is based on the actual religion rather than the skin colour of it's followers. I am very annoyed that no one in France seems to be making the same critiscisms about Christianity, but calling this ban "xenophobic and racist" is just absurd.

The thing youre menthioning, that christianity (and other religions) arnt as targetted, shows that it is really about picking on a specific group.

[mossy noonmann]

What we must realise is that not all anti-islamic laws are made based on the race of most muslims. From what I have heard, the issue of Islam in France is based on the actual religion rather than the skin colour of it's followers. I am very annoyed that no one in France seems to be making the same critiscisms about Christianity, but calling this ban "xenophobic and racist" is just absurd.

i would be interested to know where you heard this cos i dont think this is true, there is a ""left republicanism"" (enough quotation marks?) that is basically against all religon or religous symbols. (JP Brard senator(sp?)) They say the same thing when a women wears a headscarf or sarko goes to the vatican, however it is quite clear that this ban is aimed at women who look like they are not of french origin

try google for hortefeux and anti arab racism

the home secretary of france was found guilty of being a racist
he is appealing

[Crux]

They are right in a way. Anyone who wears a burqa cannot be easily identified. Not sure if anyone has ever used a burqa in commiting a crime or something, but it's definitely a possibility.
So? You favour anti-mask laws as well?


What we must realise is that not all anti-islamic laws are made based on the race of most muslims. From what I have heard, the issue of Islam in France is based on the actual religion rather than the skin colour of it's followers. I am very annoyed that no one in France seems to be making the same critiscisms about Christianity, but calling this ban "xenophobic and racist" is just absurd. What you must realize is that it has everything to do with religious and racial oppression, you have to be more than willfully ignorant to not see that the "battle against islam" is not racially coded. It has fuck all to do with being against religion, which is probably the cause for you being "annoyed". As I side note your "anti-religion" position seems pretty superficial and immature, especially given that you seem to think that the french state and the french right wing are your friends here. Tell me does it also annoy you that the EDL don't protest against "christian extremists"? Because, by your logic, otherwise they seem like a group you could sympathise with.

[Rafiq]

They are right in a way. Anyone who wears a burqa cannot be easily identified. Not sure if anyone has ever used a burqa in commiting a crime or something, but it's definitely a possibility.


Yeah, no.

Sarkozy mentioned it was part of 'preserving the french identity and culture'.


Obviously you are a Xenophobic Nationalist Conservative piece of trash.

[Crimson Commissar]

Yeah, no.

Sarkozy mentioned it was part of 'preserving the french identity and culture'.


Obviously you are a Xenophobic Nationalist Conservative piece of trash.
For fuck sake, you don't get it do you? Why can't you comprehend that I can be both a socialist and an anti-theist? I don't oppose religion out of any racist beliefs, I oppose because I desire only two things in this world. Equality and freedom. Religion is the enemy of both these ideals. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, every single religion on this planet. They all promote stupidity, ignorance and violent hatred. The only purpose of religion is to force all humanity to bow before it's so-called God, who we don't even know exists at this point. Your belief in God is not what makes muslims and christians incapable of being leftists. It is your devotion to god. God may exist, I accept that. But we should NOT under ANY circumstances worship him. Believe in god if you want, but do NOT follow him. Don't sell yourself as a slave to such a tyrant, and his mad cultist followers. You are a socialist, so you obviously have some sense. Can't you see that god is even WORSE than the capitalists and fascists we oppose? Just listen to me, listen to other Atheists and Agnostics. You will never be free, NONE of us will ever be free until religion is gone, and we discover the truth about our existance. If god does not exist, then we are free. If god does exist, then we can never be free.

I don't give a shit what Sarkozy thinks, or his motivation for this ban. But I won't give into this disgusting Islamophilia, and I won't let you or any other person call me a racist islamophobe for not doing so. I am not a racist, and I am certainly NOT afraid of Islam. I am only concerned about what will happen to our species if we allow Islam, and all other religions, to continue to exist.

[Crux]

For fuck sake, you don't get it do you? Why can't you comprehend that I can be both a socialist and an anti-theist? I don't oppose religion out of any racist beliefs, I oppose because I desire only two things in this world. Equality and freedom.
I oppose religion too, man. I just think you are oversimplifying and going about this in a very wrong way.


Religion is the enemy of both these ideals. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, every single religion on this planet. They all promote stupidity, ignorance and violent hatred. The only purpose of religion is to force all humanity to bow before it's so-called God, who we don't even know exists at this point. Your belief in God is not what makes muslims and christians incapable of being leftists. It is your devotion to god. God may exist, I accept that. But we should NOT under ANY circumstances worship him. Believe in god if you want, but do NOT follow him. Don't sell yourself as a slave to such a tyrant, and his mad cultist followers. You are a socialist, so you obviously have some sense.
It's not a theological debate.

Can't you see that god is even WORSE than the capitalists and fascists we oppose? Just listen to me, listen to other Atheists and Agnostics. You will never be free, NONE of us will ever be free until religion is gone, and we discover the truth about our existance. If god does not exist, then we are free. If god does exist, then we can never be free.
Again this is not a theological debate.


I don't give a shit what Sarkozy thinks, or his motivation for this ban. But I won't give into this disgusting Islamophilia, and I won't let you or any other person call me a racist islamophobe for not doing so.
Islamophilia? You should give a shit about the Sarkozy governments motivation, as well as the rest of xenophobic right-wing in Europe. Because they know what they are doing, they are attacking a minority, for their own benefit, to use as a distraction, to use to divide us. And you my friend has swallowed the bait, hook line and sinker.


I am not a racist, and I am certainly NOT afraid of Islam. I am only concerned about what will happen to our species if we allow Islam, and all other religions, to continue to exist.
I am concerned what will happen if we give moral support to racists who wish to divide us, because they happen to attack religious groups. First of all, the burqaban will not stop islam or the burqa. We must oppose discrimination against muslims, because you know what? It's meant to hit against us too. If you wish to win believers to the socialist cause siding wit reactionaries is shooting yourself in the head.

[Queercommie Girl]

So? You favour anti-mask laws as well?
What you must realize is that it has everything to do with religious and racial oppression, you have to be more than willfully ignorant to not see that the "battle against islam" is not racially coded. It has fuck all to do with being against religion, which is probably the cause for you being "annoyed". As I side note your "anti-religion" position seems pretty superficial and immature, especially given that you seem to think that the french state and the french right wing are your friends here. Tell me does it also annoy you that the EDL don't protest against "christian extremists"? Because, by your logic, otherwise they seem like a group you could sympathise with.

That is the main point in this post.

[Queercommie Girl]

The FUCK? I am definitely NOT more open to christianity. But when is christianity ever discussed on this forum? I don't critiscize it here because there's nowhere TO critiscize it. Both muslims and christians are annoying as all hell to me. All religion is barbaric. Some are more barbaric than others, yes. But I'd say Christianity and Islam are both equally barbaric. No, I've never really been harmed by a muslim person that seriously in my life. Religion just annoys me. It annoys me how much it controls our society and how it promotes ignorance and disgusting sexist, homophobic and racist beliefs. Islam is not a perfect religion. Sexism, homophobia and racism do exist within it. Islam is basically a clone of Arab culture. And I might be wrong, but isn't Arabic considered the "holy language" of Muslims? What if I went around saying that English was a holy language and that all people in this world should speak it? You would label me as a racist and xenophobe. The same should apply to muslims.

Actually as things stand now Christian fundamentalism is more reactionary than Islam. This is due to several reasons:

1) Christian fundamentalism is closely associated with Western capitalist colonialism in recent times, like British Christian colonialists demonising the Hindu religion in conquered India under colonial rule, Islam is more associated with oppressed nationalities;

2) While political Islam can be extremely reactionary, on an individual level Muslims are more tolerant of things than Christian fundamentalists. I've never heard of individual Muslims going around calling Hindu or Daoist gods "demons" like Christian fundamentalists do all the time. While there is certainly homophobic oppression by Islamic states (e.g. Iran), Muslims don't tend to on an individual level go around murdering gays like Christian fundamentalists do;

3) Islamic theology is more philosophically sophisticated than the BS trash of Christian fundamentalists in the West and is less anti-scientific.

[Devrim]

I think it is very clear that this is a racist campaign, and that it tries to pull working class people behind it by appealing to 'progressive' sentiments.

The question is how to approach those sort of people.

Should we do it like this:


Fucking Racist prick.


The fuck it is. Who are you, Geert Wilders? The "cult of islam"? Jesusfuck. So basically you think islamophobia is allright?

Or more like this:


I understand some of your sentiments, but to be frank comrade, you are never going to get rid of religion that way. Bourgeois anti-theism simply doesn't work. There are very strong socio-economic reasons for why religions exist in the world today, and frankly short of changing those conditions, religions will forever persist.

The demise of religion would only occur in a truly classless communist society. Meanwhile, as Marxists we have a certain duty to defend the cultural rights of ethnic minorities, even if they happen to be religious in nature. Not to mention this is the only strategically viable way to go ahead.

But I completely agree that Marxism is fundamentally humanistic and materialistic. Philosophically it cannot be made compatible with any non-materialistic philosophical tradition, period. While we have the duty to defend the democratic rights of workers in the area of belief, we also have the duty to maintain a sound level of philosophical purity in our world-view. To defend Muslims from Western racism is a good thing, to actually really think there is something inherently progressive in Islam is frankly a dangerous and reactionary attitude which must be criticised.

Personally whilst not agreeing with everything Iseul says, or even his manner of argument. I think that the general approach is preferable.

I don't think this poster is a racist. I think he is sincre in his anti-theism. Unfortunately this is leading to him being dragged along in the wake of what is a racist campaign.

I don't think that calling people racists is going to convince anybody.

Devrim

[Crux]

Well I did follow it up with my latest post. But what he is doing is supporting the european far-right, in the name of "anti-theism".

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think this poster is a racist. I think he is sincre in his anti-theism. Unfortunately this is leading to him being dragged along in the wake of what is a racist campaign.

I don't think that calling people racists is going to convince anybody.


Agreed.

This is why in socialist politics, one should care about both strategy and principle, not just principle.

Subjectively genuine people can still objectively do the wrong things, like subjectively sincere third campist Trotskyists objectively becoming a tool of imperialism. (I'm sure you won't agree with this point though)

[Crimson Commissar]

So? You favour anti-mask laws as well?
What you must realize is that it has everything to do with religious and racial oppression, you have to be more than willfully ignorant to not see that the "battle against islam" is not racially coded. It has fuck all to do with being against religion, which is probably the cause for you being "annoyed". As I side note your "anti-religion" position seems pretty superficial and immature, especially given that you seem to think that the french state and the french right wing are your friends here. Tell me does it also annoy you that the EDL don't protest against "christian extremists"? Because, by your logic, otherwise they seem like a group you could sympathise with.
It does, yes. But I am also annoyed that they dont protest against Capitalism either. The EDL may oppose Islam, but in many cases it is simply motivated by xenophobia, and not only that, they completely ignore the atroscities commited by Christians and even the very nation they are defending, Britain. I have no sympathy for them. They are yet another group of nationalist idiots who only oppose Islam because they see it as a threat to the so-called British culture.

[Crux]

It does, yes. But I am also annoyed that they dont protest against Capitalism either. The EDL may oppose Islam, but in many cases it is simply motivated by xenophobia, and not only that, they completely ignore the atroscities commited by Christians and even the very nation they are defending, Britain. I have no sympathy for them. They are yet another group of nationalist idiots who only oppose Islam because they see it as a threat to the so-called British culture.
Well, yeah but you're missing the point. Should we oppose islam the way the EDL does? Secularism is not just some plain neutral value, as you see for yourself it can very well be used for reactionary ends. Just as ther are many progressive religious people and groups. That doesn't mean secualrism isn't preferrable and religion does not have an irrational and more often than not reactionary core. But religion is not fascism.

Allow me to throw in a famous Marx quote:
"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."

[Outcast]

I am torn because I hate France but I also hate Islam. I hate France because it is a capitalist state and I as a Communist hate capitalist states. But then on the other hand I as a Communist hate religion. And the burqa is a symbol of a religion (the Muslim religion, Islam). So I am torn between whether I think it is right or whether I think it is wrong for France to ban the burqa. I can see the pros and cons to both sides of it.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, yeah but you're missing the point. Should we oppose islam the way the EDL does? Secularism is not just some plain neutral value, as you see for yourself it can very well be used for reactionary ends. Just as ther are many progressive religious people and groups. That doesn't mean secualrism isn't preferrable and religion does not have an irrational and more often than not reactionary core. But religion is not fascism.


True, religion in general is certainly not fascism generally speaking. But I'd add that for LGBT people for instance, religious fundamentalists who attempt to murder them or exorcise the "evil spirit" from them are, from their point of view, little different from actual fascists.

I'd say the irrationality of religion is not the primary problem. The primary problem is a social one, namely that fundamentalist and conservative variants of religion usually do not support genuine social equality.

I can co-operate with progressive and left liberal religious people, but it is very difficult for me to co-operate with religious fundamentalists and conservatives. For one thing, being a queer they might not want to co-operate with me in the first place, other than see me exorcised.

Although I'm not anti-religion, I am indeed anti-fundamentalist.

Down with religious fundamentalism!

[Crux]

True, religion in general is certainly not fascism generally speaking. But I'd add that for LGBT people for instance, religious fundamentalists who attempt to murder them or exorcise the "evil spirit" from them are, from their point of view, little different from actual fascists. These people are fundamentalists are they not? So my point very much stand. Fascists may be realigious fundamentalists but religion is not fascism.

[Crux]

I am torn because I hate France but I also hate Islam. I hate France because it is a capitalist state and I as a Communist hate capitalist states. But then on the other hand I as a Communist hate religion. And the burqa is a symbol of a religion (the Muslim religion, Islam). So I am torn between whether I think it is right or whether I think it is wrong for France to ban the burqa. I can see the pros and cons to both sides of it.
This shouldn't be about "which you hate more", you have to see in the context of building discr5imination of muslims. Specifically choosing the burqa, something very few muslims wear, is also a way for the french establishment to try and paint all muslims as fundamentalists, and thus further their own interests.

[Queercommie Girl]

These people are fundamentalists are they not? So my point very much stand. Fascists may be realigious fundamentalists but religion is not fascism.

I didn't say I disagree with you as far as this particular matter is concerned, I just highlighted the general fact that religious fundamentalism is reactionary and sometimes for queer people could be objectively close to as reactionary as fascism.

[Crimson Commissar]

These people are fundamentalists are they not? So my point very much stand. Fascists may be realigious fundamentalists but religion is not fascism.
Fascism involves complete obedience to the state. Religion involves complete obedience to a God, or more than one God. Religion is fascism.

[Crux]

Fascism involves complete obedience to the state. Religion involves complete obedience to a God, or more than one God. Religion is fascism.
So by your account only the most extreme fundamentalists count as religious? So, I wonder, why is it that you take this fundamentalist angle?
No one, and I mean no one, lives by the scriptures according to the letter, both because of their own inner contradiction but also because it would be impossible to do in this age.
The main tenet of most religious texts are anti-poverty, yet for quite a few religious groups they seem to concentrate on other issues. And I think that has far more to do with material reality than celestial beings.

[Crimson Commissar]

So by your account only the most extreme fundamentalists count as religious? So, I wonder, why is it that you take this fundamentalist angle?
No one, and I mean no one, lives by the scriptures according to the letter, both because of their own inner contradiction but also because it would be impossible to do in this age.
The main tenet of most religious texts are anti-poverty, yet for quite a few religious groups they seem to concentrate on other issues. And I think that has far more to do with material reality than celestial beings.
Most religious people, not just Muslims btw, believe that God should be worshipped by everyone. Maybe they don't believe in the damnation crap, but they still believe God is an all-powerful figure that is to be worshipped by us. It's the main theme of most religions. Worship god, or burn in hell forever.

[Crux]

Most religious people, not just Muslims btw, believe that God should be worshipped by everyone. Maybe they don't believe in the damnation crap, but they still believe God is an all-powerful figure that is to be worshipped by us. It's the main theme of most religions. Worship god, or burn in hell forever.
But that's taking an absurdly idealist angle on the question. "God" is not a factor here. Did you read the Marx quote I posted?

[brigadista]

What we must realise is that not all anti-islamic laws are made based on the race of most muslims. From what I have heard, the issue of Islam in France is based on the actual religion rather than the skin colour of it's followers. I am very annoyed that no one in France seems to be making the same critiscisms about Christianity, but calling this ban "xenophobic and racist" is just absurd.

no its not taking into account the origins of french muslims and their colonial history

[Queercommie Girl]

So by your account only the most extreme fundamentalists count as religious? So, I wonder, why is it that you take this fundamentalist angle?
No one, and I mean no one, lives by the scriptures according to the letter, both because of their own inner contradiction but also because it would be impossible to do in this age.
The main tenet of most religious texts are anti-poverty, yet for quite a few religious groups they seem to concentrate on other issues. And I think that has far more to do with material reality than celestial beings.

That is not true for Christianity. Mainstream Christian fundamentalism today doesn't give a shit about the poor and explicitly supports Big Business. A fundamentalist once told me that a true Christian should not even give out alms to the poor.

Get your facts right.

And actually there are plenty of people who literally live by the scriptures according to the letter, especially among Christians.

[mosfeld]

Both muslims and christians are annoying as all hell to me. What the hell is wrong with you?


This ban is necessary to stamp out the cult of Islam.
Yeah man, those crazy brown people practicing their barbaric religion..

Like I've asked you before, in accordance with your racist "militant anti-theism", how would you organize the Muslim masses for revolution? The fact is that you can't because "militant anti-theism" is a stupid ideology solely for white European "idealist socialists" (surprise! you're a technocrat now!)


From what I have heard, the issue of Islam in France is based on the actual religion rather than the skin colour of it's followers.

Do you have to automatically associate all opposition to Islam as racism.

Clearly your allegiance lies with the European bourgeoisie in their crusade against Islam rather than the oppressed. The fact that you actually find common ground with the French bourgeoisie, who are completely euro-chauvinist and xenophobic, and support their racist white nationalist laws just proves your bankrupt political line and the necessity for you to rethink your bigoted, crypto-racist and Islamophobic "militant anti-theism". And nope - you don't have to automatically associate all criticism of Islam as racism, but the fact that you attack their followers as "mad cultist followers" and support anti-muslim laws, such as making the burqa illegal, passed by bourgeois politicians proves that your attack isn't on Islam but on working class unity, religious rights and women's rights. You're not a socialist, you're a disgusting reactionary, and you should be banned on grounds of racism.

[Crux]

That is not true for Christianity. Mainstream Christian fundamentalism today doesn't give a shit about the poor and explicitly supports Big Business. A fundamentalist once told me that a true Christian should not even give out alms to the poor.

Get your facts right.

And actually there are plenty of people who literally live by the scriptures according to the letter, especially among Christians.


RELIGION
BUT SOCIALISM IS AGAINST RELIGION. I CAN'T BE A SOCIALIST AND BE A CHRISTIAN.



O, quit your fooling! That talk is all right for those who know nothing of the relations between capital and labor, or are innocent of any knowledge of the processes of modern industry, or imagine that men, in their daily struggles for bread or fortunes, are governed by the Sermon on the Mount.



But between workingmen that talk is absurd. We know that Socialism bears upon our daily life in the workshop, and that religion does not; we know that the man who never set foot in a church in his lifetime will, if he is rich, be more honored by Christian society than the poor man who goes to church every Sunday, and says his prayers morning and evening; we know that the capitalists of all religions pay more for the service of a good lawyer to keep them out of the clutches of the law than for the services of a good priest to keep them out of the clutches of the devil; and we never heard of a capitalist, who, in his business, respected the Sermon on the Mount as much as he did the decisions of the Supreme Court.



These things we know. We also know that neither capitalist nor worker can practice the moral precepts of religion, and without its moral precepts a religion is simply a sham. If a religion cannot enforce its moral teachings upon its votaries it has as little relation to actual life as the pre-election promises of a politician have to legislation.
We know that Christianity teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves, but we also know that if a capitalist attempted to run his business upon that plan his relatives would have no difficulty in getting lawyers, judges and physicians to declare him incompetent to conduct his affairs in the business world.



He would not be half as certain of reaching Heaven in the next world as he would be of getting into the 'bughouse' in this.
And, as for the worker. Well, in the fall of 1908, the New York World printed an advertisement for a teamster in Brooklyn, wages to be $12 per week. Over 700 applicants responded. Now, could each of these men love their neighbors in that line of hungry competitors for that pitiful wage?
As each man stood in line in that awful parade of misery could he pray for his neighbor to get the job, and could he be expected to follow up his prayer by giving up his chance, and so making certain the prolongation of the misery of his wife and little ones?



No, my friend, Socialism is a bread and butter question. It is a question of the stomach; it is going to be settled in the factories, mines and ballot boxes of this country and is not going to be settled at the altar or in the church.



This is what our well-fed friends call a 'base, material standpoint', but remember that beauty, and genius and art and poetry and all the finer efflorescences of the higher nature of man can only be realized in all their completeness upon the material basis of a healthy body, that not only an army but the whole human race marches upon its stomach, and then you will grasp the full wisdom of our position.



That the question to be settled by Socialism is the effect of private ownership of the means of production upon the well-being of the race; that we are determined to have a straight fight upon the question between those who believe that such private ownership is destructive of human well-being and those who believe it to be beneficial, that as men of all religions and of none are in the ranks of the capitalists, and men of all religions and of none are on the side of the workers the attempt to make religion an issue in the question is an intrusion, an impertinence and an absurdity.



Personally I am opposed to any system wherein the capitalist is more powerful than God Almighty. You need not serve God unless you like, and may refuse to serve him and grow fat, prosperous and universally respected. But if you refuse to serve the capitalist your doom is sealed; misery and poverty and public odium await you.



No worker is compelled to enter a church and to serve God; every worker is compelled to enter the employment of a capitalist and serve him.
As Socialists we are concerned to free mankind from the servitude forced upon them as a necessity of their life; we propose to allow the question of all kinds of service voluntarily rendered to be settled by the emancipated human race of the future.



I do not deny that Socialists often leave the church. But why do they do so? Is their defection from the church a result of our attitude towards religion; or is it the result of the attitude of the church and its ministers toward Socialism?



Let us take a case in point, one of those cases that are being paralleled every day in our midst. An Irish Catholic joins the Socialist movement. He finds that as a rule the Socialist men and women are better educated than their fellows; he finds that they are immensely cleaner in speech and thought than are the adherents of capitalism in the same class; that they are devoted husbands and loyal wives, loving and cheerful fathers and mothers, skilful and industrious workers in the shops and office, and that although poor and needy as a rule, yet that they continually bleed themselves to support their cause, and give up for Socialism what many others spend in the saloon.
He finds that a drunken Socialist is as rare as a white black-bird, and that a Socialist of criminal tendencies is such a rara avis that when one is found the public press heralds it forth as a great discovery.
Democratic and republican jailbirds are so common that the public press do not regard their existence as 'news' to anybody, nor yet does the public press think it necessary to say that certain criminals belong to the Protestant or Catholic religions. That is nothing unusual, and therefore not worth printing. But a criminal Socialist - that would be news indeed!
Our Irish Catholic Socialist gradually begins to notice these things. He looks around and he finds the press full of reports of crimes, murders, robberies, bank swindlers, forgeries, debauches, gambling transactions, and midnight orgies in which the most revolting indecencies are perpetrated. He investigates and he discovers that the perpetrators of these crimes were respectable capitalists, pillars of society, and red-hot enemies of Socialism, and that the dives in which the highest and the lowest meet together in a saturnalia of vice contribute a large proportion of the campaign funds of the capitalist political parties.
Some Sunday he goes to Mass as usual, and he finds that at Gospel the priest launches out into a political speech and tells the congregation that the honest, self-sacrificing, industrious, clean men and women, whom he calls 'comrades,' are a wicked, impious, dissolute sect, desiring to destroy the home, to distribute the earnings of the provident among the idle and lazy of the world, and reveling in all sorts of impure thoughts about women.



And as this Irish Catholic Socialist listens to this foul libel, what wonder if the hot blood of anger rushes to his face, and he begins to believe that the temple of God has itself been sold to the all desecrating grasp of the capitalist?
While he is yet wondering what to think of the matter, he hears that his immortal soul will be lost if he fails to vote for capitalism, and he reflects that if he lined up with the brothel keepers, gambling house proprietors, race track swindlers, and white slave traders to vote the capitalist ticket, this same priest would tell him he was a good Catholic and loyal son of the church.



At such a juncture the Irish Catholic Socialist often rises up, goes out of the church and wipes its dust off his feet forever. Then we are told that Socialism took him away from the church. But did it? Was it not rather the horrible spectacle of a priest of God standing up in the Holy Presence lying about and slandering honest men and women, and helping to support political parties whose campaign fund in every large city represents more bestiality than ever Sodom and Gomorrah knew?
These are the things that drive Socialists from the church, and the responsibility for every soul so lost lies upon those slanderers and not upon the Socialist movement.

From: http://www.marxist.net/ireland/connolly/socialism/index.html

[Queercommie Girl]

From: http://www.marxist.net/ireland/connolly/socialism/index.html

Interesting article. While it is true that Marxism is not directly anti-religion in general, we mustn't actually pretend that God and religions are something that are actually real, or that the fact that capitalism makes people lose faith in religions really is some kind of "problem" since these people have lost "their souls" or something.

The fact is that it is impossible to analyse any religion in the abstract sense, the history of human religions is inseparable from the history of human class societies, and all the exploitation and oppression that is entailed by that.

Genuine socialists must receive an education that is truly rationalistic, materialistic and scientific, for socialism is not just the liberation of the worker from the capitalist, but the emancipation of the human race as a whole; an emancipation that is achieved not through gullible and irrational beliefs in some kind of childish fairy tale, but through progress in industry and technique, all of which are fundamentally based on the true modern scientific and not the ancient religious and superstitious view of the world.

I recommend this classic article by Lenin on the importance of Militant Materialism for all genuine Marxists:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm

On the Significance of Militant Materialism

[Crimson Commissar]

What the hell is wrong with you?
Yeah, I'm annoyed by the insane cults that we refer to as religion, which promote the slavery of humanity to an all-powerful god with no compassion for us whatsoever. Wow, I'm such a TERRIBLE socialist aren't I? :rolleyes:


Yeah man, those crazy brown people practicing their barbaric religion..
All religion is barbaric. I'm not attacking Islam specifically. Fuck you if you think I have any prejudice against someone based on their skin colour.


Like I've asked you before, in accordance with your racist "militant anti-theism", how would you organize the Muslim masses for revolution? The fact is that you can't because "militant anti-theism" is a stupid ideology solely for white European "idealist socialists" (surprise! you're a technocrat now!)
All religious people must be taught about the evils of the teachings they are following. Worshipping a god is a complete betrayal of the leftist ideals that we all stand for. As long as they can be convinced to betray their so-called god and possibly even abandon religion altogether, then I don't really give a shit. Socialism is the priority here though, so in my opinion we can just leave things like religion to be dealt with after the revolution.


Clearly your allegiance lies with the European bourgeoisie in their crusade against Islam rather than the oppressed. The fact that you actually find common ground with the French bourgeoisie, who are completely euro-chauvinist and xenophobic, and support their racist white nationalist laws just proves your bankrupt political line and the necessity for you to rethink your bigoted, crypto-racist and Islamophobic "militant anti-theism". And nope - you don't have to automatically associate all criticism of Islam as racism, but the fact that you attack their followers as "mad cultist followers" and support anti-muslim laws, such as making the burqa illegal, passed by bourgeois politicians proves that your attack isn't on Islam but on working class unity, religious rights and women's rights. You're not a socialist, you're a disgusting reactionary, and you should be banned on grounds of racism.
All religious people who actually take that shit seriously are mad cultist followers, not just muslims. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, it's all the damn same. Insane cults based around the worship of supreme beings that enslave humanity for their disgusting fascist, authoritarian agendas. Maybe the burqa ban isn't such a good idea. But no way am I going to oppose it either. As of now, I will take no position on this subject.

Also, is it really necessary to call me a "disgusting racist xenophobic reactionary" every time I speak out against Islam? You wouldn't say the same thing if I was here critiscizing Christianity would you? Islam isn't some perfect religion. Muslims are not all peaceful, tolerant people. As with all religions, there are progressive muslims and outright reactionary muslims. But the religion itself takes the side of the reactionaries, just as with Christianity.