Montreal, Canada: Protest against Danish Cartoons

[RNK]

Just saw on the news,

Muslim groups are organizing a protest march along St Catherine's street here in Montreal, this Saturday at 2PM EST.

I didn't catch where it would begin, but the protest will take place along St Catherine's street and make it's way to the Danish consulate located at:

Royal Danish Consulate,
1, Place Ville Marie,
35th Floor
Montreal, Quebec,
H3B 4M4

I will be there.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Why will you be there?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Moved to Opposing Ideologies.

In future don't advertise for the "God Squad" in Events and Propaganda because they're not welcome! :lol:

[steel town boot boy]

Why do you want to support that? Or do you just straight up live for protests?

[LSD]

Muslim groups are organizing a protest march along St Catherine's street here in Montreal, this Saturday at 2PM EST.

:angry:

Fuck, that's just what we need, a bunch of angry religious nutjobs shutting down st. Catherines.

Why can't you take your reactionary nonsense off to St. Therese where no one will notice?

Hopefully, there won't be that many of you so it won't significantly block traffic, but it's still going to be nightmare getting downtown 'cause you probably got the police to divert traffic, didn't yall?

Oh yeah, you&#39;re real revolutionary. Protesting the fucking Danish consulate. <_<

Honestly, don&#39;t you have something better to do with your time, like eating lead paint?

[RNK]

What God Squad? I don&#39;t give a shit about Islam or God or whateverthefucktheJewscallhim. All I care about is the fact that former Colonial, Imperialist powers are trying to provoke hatred against a people they once were involved in oppressing under archaic control.

It must feel nice, picking and choosing which types of indignation you are against. Shame on me for believing oppression is wrong reguardless if the oppressed are Religious or not.

Fucking bigoted scum.

[Phalanx]

I hope then you&#39;ll also support protests against anti-semitic cartoons. If you like I&#39;ll post a few. Many countries have been printing and publishing anti-semitic cartoons for years but I never hear of people getting out on the streets or burning buildings down.

[LSD]

All I care about is the fact that former Colonial, Imperialist powers are trying to provoke hatred against a people they once were involved in oppressing under archaic control.

"Imperialist powers"? "archic control"?

We&#39;re talking about a Danish newspaper, for fuck&#39;s sake, this isn&#39;t exactly the colonial fucking army.

There are actual instances of oppression and control in the middle east, the occupation of Iraq is a particularly relevent example, but this cartoon business is nothing more than an attempt by fundamentalist Islam to further secure its hold.

By buying into it you are only perpetuating its reign.

That may not bother you, but it sure as fuck bothers us.


It must feel nice, picking and choosing which types of indignation you are against.

Yes, it&#39;s called being politically aware.

You don&#39;t support someone just because they&#39;re "indignant", you support them because they&#39;re right.


Shame on me for believing oppression is wrong reguardless if the oppressed are Religious or not.

Who, precisely, is being "oppressed" in this instance?

The mullahs calling for the hands of the cartoonist or the screaming mobs burning down buildings?

There is real oppression and exploitation going on the world, a danish cartoon, however, is not an example of it

This entire "outrage" is an opportunist farce engineered and manged by the fundamentalist Isalmic right trying to get as much mileage as possible out of the reaction and ignorance so unfortunately common in the middle east.

Supporting this ludicrous "indignation" is not a statement of solidarity with the oppressed, it is complicity with their oppressors.

The middle east will not be free until it is free of the shackles of imperialism and religion.

You may not "give a shit about Islam" but you&#39;re serving its interests nonetheless.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Ernest+--> (Ernest)What God Squad?[/b]

From your original post....


Originally posted by Ernest+Feb 9 2006, 11:19 PM--> (Ernest &#064; Feb 9 2006, 11:19 PM)Muslim groups are organizing a protest march along St Catherine&#39;s street here in Montreal, this Saturday at 2PM EST.[/b]

(Emphasis added.)

A "Muslim group" is a group of pious individuals who could form a "Squad" and been as this "Squad" believes in God, they can be named the "God Squad".

The same way a group of footballers could form a "Football Squad".

Got it?


Originally posted by Ernest
....or whateverthefucktheJewscallhim.

Yahweh (God or G-d). :)

Oh and Muslims call him Allah.


Originally posted by Ernest
....are trying to provoke hatred against a people they once were involved in oppressing under archaic control.

So if the cartoons had been published by Spanish newspapers it would have been okay because Spain was under the control of a Muslim Empire? ....indeed if there was an anti-Spanish cartoon in Muslim papers could Spaniards "raise hell"?

Plus, as far as I am aware Denmark had no colonies in the Middle East.


[email protected]
Shame on me for believing oppression is wrong reguardless if the oppressed are Religious or not.

Well unless you haven&#39;t noticed, it is usually the Religious who do the oppressing.


Ernest
Fucking bigoted scum.

Nah, you&#39;ll find the "bigots" at the march. I&#39;ll give you a hint, they&#39;ll be the ones chanting "Allah".

[RNK]

This cartoon is another example of the West taking a collective shit on the heads of the "inferior" races of the world.

And Denmark was not the only country with newspapers that published the pictures.

In any case, I did not stumble onto this forum to partake in childish internet arguements with confused kids. If you want to be selectively just and righteous, go ahead. Be an armchair socialist; you&#39;re nothing but an alienated child fighting against a system you feel left out of, gathering in some pathetic internet forum, preaching your weak, shallow Leftist shit to make yourself feel you&#39;re contributing, when really you don&#39;t have a clue what you believe. You claim moral superiority but you&#39;re nothing more than an oppurtunist yourself; you can watch an entire race of people fall victim to a humiliation not seen since the enslavement of Africa and the slaughter of Jews, and sit there claiming their upheavel at being mocked by a billion people is simple fundamentalism. And something tells me that if it were US papers that had ran the pictures (and then re-ran them after the first protests began, to further spite Muslims), you&#39;d be right there in line.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Ernest+Feb 10 2006, 03:07 AM--> (Ernest &#064; Feb 10 2006, 03:07 AM)This cartoon is another example of the West taking a collective shit on the heads of the "inferior" races of the world.[/b]

Uh, since when has being a Muslim been the same as being a "race"? ....indeed the people protesting the cartoon are not protesting them because they are racist, rather because they are blasphemous.


Originally posted by Ernest+--> (Ernest)....you&#39;re nothing but an alienated child fighting against a system you feel left out of....[/b]

Well your profile puts you at 22, I&#39;m 18. Hardly an age difference from which you can claim to be "wise" and "grown up" is it?


[email protected]
....you can watch an entire race of people fall victim to a humiliation not seen since the enslavement of Africa and the slaughter of Jews....

For a start, Muslims are not a race and the cartoons didn&#39;t depict them as one.

Secondly, these cartoons have not "enslaved" a single Muslim, nor have they "slaughtered" them. Indeed cartoons far worse than these were repeatedly published during the times of the incidents you refer to and no fuss was raised at all.

Why? ....because "races" that are being "enslaved" and "slaughtered" can&#39;t protest.


Ernest
And something tells me that if it were US papers that had ran the pictures (and then re-ran them after the first protests began, to further spite Muslims), you&#39;d be right there in line.

Why the fuck would I want to fly to America to protest with a load of pious individuals about blasphemy of a Religion that is grotesque?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just noticed this from the "Pulpit of Wisdom"....


Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:07 AM
....and sit there claiming their upheavel at being mocked by a billion people is simple fundamentalism.

Well atheists don&#39;t get offended by "blasphemy".

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Ernest+Feb 10 2006, 03:07 AM--> (Ernest &#064; Feb 10 2006, 03:07 AM)This cartoon is another example of the West taking a collective shit on the heads of the "inferior" races of the world. [/b]
Islam is multiracial and multicultural.



Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:07 AM
....gathering in some pathetic internet forum, preaching your weak, shallow Leftist shit to make yourself feel you&#39;re contributing,
Uh.........settle down, now.
You are free to leave so don&#39;t get hostile.


[email protected] 10 2006, 03:07 AM
you can watch an entire race of people fall victim to a humiliation not seen since the enslavement of Africa and the slaughter of Jews,
Again, Islam is multiracial.
They are cartoons&#33; Auschwitz and the slave trade don&#39;t compare to a cartoon.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ernest
In any case, I did not stumble onto this forum to partake in childish internet arguments with confused kids. If you want to be selectively just and righteous, go ahead. Be an armchair socialist; you&#39;re nothing but an alienated child fighting against a system you feel left out of, gathering in some pathetic internet forum, preaching your weak, shallow Leftist shit to make yourself feel you&#39;re contributing, when really you don&#39;t have a clue what you believe.

You know what RevLeft needs? We need a "form post"...just something for our critics to fill in the blanks or check off the boxes.

For example...

You people are nothing but (check all that apply)...

[] alienated children

[] middle class spoiled brats

[] armchair socialists who&#39;ll never do anything

[] pathetic internet geeks without a social life

[] arrogant teenage punks

[] intolerant bigots

[] Eurocentric racists

[] brain-damaged drug addicts

[] dope-smoking hippies

[] sex-crazed degenerates

[] sinners who deserve eternal damnation

Imagine how much time and energy this would save our adversaries. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

European media publish anti-Muslim cartoons: An ugly and calculated provocation

The World Socialist Web Site unequivocally condemns the publication by a series of European newspapers of defamatory cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and killer. These crude caricatures, intended to insult and incite Muslim sensibilities, are a political provocation. Their publication, initially by a right-wing Danish newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism, was calculated to fuel anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment.

The decision of the right-wing Danish government to defend the newspaper that initially published the cartoons, and of newspapers in Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland and Hungary, both conservative and liberal, to reprint them has nothing to do with freedom of the press or the defense of secularism. Such claims make a mockery of these democratic principles.

The promulgation of such bigoted filth is, rather, bound up with a shift by the European ruling elites to line up more squarely behind the neo-colonial interventions of US imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is no accident that it occurs in the midst of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, new threats against the Palestinian masses, and the preparations to launch sanctions, and eventual military aggression, against Iran.

It is, moreover, a continuation and escalation of a deliberate policy in Europe, spearheaded by the political right and aided and abetted by the nominal “left” parties, to demonize the growing Muslim population, isolate it, and use it as a scapegoat for the growing social misery affecting broad layers of the working class.

In the name of the fight against terrorism, governments throughout Europe are implementing repressive measures that target, in the first instance, Muslim and other immigrant populations, while preparing the ground for the destruction of the democratic rights of the working class as a whole. These police state preparations go hand in hand with an offensive against the jobs, wages and living standards of working people and an ever-greater concentration of wealth in the coffers of a wealthy and privileged minority at the top.

One does not have to uphold Islam, or any other religion, to sympathize with the indignation of Muslims around the world who have expressed their outrage at the racist drawings flung in their face by media outlets that claim to be defending Western secularist values against the dark hordes from the East.

On Friday, protests against the publication of the cartoons spread across the Middle East, northern Africa and Asia, with thousands demonstrating in Iraq, tens of thousands in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and some 50,000 filling a square in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. Muslims also protested in Britain and Turkey.

The events that have led up to the present confrontation make it clear that the publication of the cartoons was a political provocation. The Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which first published twelve caricatures of Mohammad on September 30, supports the right-wing government headed by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen—a government that includes in its coalition a rabidly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten was infamous for its affinity for Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark.

Last September, the newspaper asked forty cartoonists to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad, something that is proscribed by Islamic law as blasphemous. Spelling out the provocative and inflammatory aim of this exercise, the chief editor said its purpose was “to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues.”

The newspaper proceeded to publish twelve drawings. These included a cartoon showing the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a smoking bomb, another with Muhammad on a cloud in heaven telling an approaching line of suicide bombers that he had run out of virgins with which to reward them, and a third depicting the prophet grinning wildly, with a knife in his hand and flanked by heavily-veiled women.

In October, Prime Minister Rasmussen refused to meet with the ambassadors of eleven predominantly Muslim countries who had requested a meeting to discuss their objections to the cartoons. Setting the tone for the ensuing developments, Rasmussen declared that the cartoons were a legitimate exercise in press freedom, and implied that there was nothing to discuss.

The affront was stepped up when a Norwegian magazine published the drawings in January. Denmark continued to ignore protests by Danish Muslim groups and other Muslim organizations until the end of January, when Saudi Arabia and Syria recalled their ambassadors from Denmark and the Saudi regime initiated a consumer boycott of Danish goods.

Only when the boycott spread and the Danish company Arla Foods, the second largest dairy producer in Europe, announced that its Middle Eastern sales had completely dried up, did the Danish government and Jyllands-Posten issue statements of regret, while defending the decision to publish the cartoons.

This week the simmering controversy exploded when the French newspaper France Soir republished the cartoons. Defending its printing of the drawings in an editorial on Thursday, the newspaper’s editor wrote: “Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots.”

Other newspapers in France, including the liberal Libération, followed suit, printing some or all of the ugly cartoons. Le Monde, for its part, ran a sketch of a man, presumably Mohammad, made up of sentences reading, “I must not draw Muhammad.”

The German newspapers Die Welt, Die Tageszeitung, Tagesspiegel and Berliner Zeitung, the Dutch papers Volksrant, NRC Handelsblad and Elsevier, Italy’s La Stampa and Corriere della Sera, Spain’s El Periodico and two Dutch-language newspapers in Belgium were among those that published some or all of the cartoons over the past several days.

In Britain, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 all showed some of the cartoons on television news broadcasts.

An indication of the political forces and motives behind the deluge of racist caricatures was the decision of Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament who has proposed a law that would ban women from wearing burqas, to post the cartoons on his web site “as a token of support to the Danish cartoonists and to stand up for free speech.”

Among those European politicians and government officials who have sprung to the defense of the Danish government and the media outlets that published the images is French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. With quintessential cynicism, the man who helped incite last year’s anti-police riots in the largely Muslim immigrant suburbs of France by referring to their inhabitants as “scum” and “gangrene” has now adopted the mantle of press freedom to support yet another attack on Muslims.

The absurd attempt to give this anti-democratic assault a democratic veneer is exemplified by Sarkozy, who authored the current state of emergency that has gutted civil liberties in France. The French government of Sarkozy and President Jacques Chirac set the precedent for such anti-Muslim attacks by imposing—with the support of the Socialist and Communist parties and the “far left” Lutte Ouvrière (Workers Struggle)—a ban on Muslim girls wearing head scarves in the public schools. This overt attack on religious freedom in general and the rights of Muslims in particular was likewise passed off as a defense of secularism and the “enlightened” values of the French Republic.

The real content of the supposed crusade for secularism and press freedom was shown in the first wave of mass deportations of French Muslims under a law championed by Sarkozy in the aftermath of last year’s riots. The law provides for the summary deportation of all foreigners who are indicted—not convicted—of crimes. Hundreds of youth were arrested by Sarkozy’s riot police during the disturbances, and these are now threatened with being shipped out of the country.

The new Grand Coalition government headed by Angela Merkel has likewise called for stronger measures to evict foreigners from German soil.

The foreign policy interests behind the anti-Muslim attack were indicated by the Netherlands’ announcement of plans to send additional troops to help police Afghanistan for US imperialism.

On Friday, the US State Department issued a statement opposing the publication of the cartoons. “These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims,” said a department spokesman, adding, “We fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”

This intervention is entirely hypocritical, coming from a government that has sought repeatedly to muzzle the American press and has waged a brutal attack on Muslims within the US. The Bush administration has, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, spearheaded the assault on Muslims around the world, using the so-called “war on terrorism” as the pretext.

Washington’s “respect” for the beliefs of Muslims was exposed before the eyes of the world in the pictures of sadistic abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where military and intelligence officials employed tactics designed to exploit Muslim beliefs and sensibilities.

The official US response to the publication of the cartoons is largely motivated by immediate concerns over the impact the provocation could have on Washington’s imperialist operations in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere.

Some who defend the publication of the cartoons claim they are examples of satire—as though crude appeals to the basest and most bigoted impulses can be equated with genuine social or cultural criticism. In fact, the images plastered on the pages of European newspapers and broadcast on television news programs have far more in common with the type of anti-Semitic caricatures made infamous by the Nazis than they do with satire.

That such outpourings can have anything to do with a struggle for secularism in opposition to religious belief is absurd. A genuine critique of religion can be conducted only on the highest intellectual level, appealing to science and reason—not ignorance and fear.

The current episode reveals the enormous dangers facing the working class from the visible decomposition of democracy in all of the capitalist countries. The promotion of anti-Muslim chauvinism, and all forms of communalist and nationalist poison, is the expression of a social system that is mired in insoluble crisis and incapable of meeting the most basic needs of the broad masses of the people.

The only antidote to such backward and reactionary politics is the development of a united movement of workers of all countries, religions and nationalities in opposition to war and in defense of democratic rights against the capitalist ruling elites and the system they uphold. The program upon which such a struggle must be based is socialist internationalism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Afghanistan: anti-Muslim cartoons provide focus for hostility to US-led occupation (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/afgh-f10.shtml)

Denmark and Jyllands-Posten: The background to a provocation (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/denm-f10.shtml)

Hey look, yall are taking the same position as Bush:
Bush condemns protests against anti-Muslim cartoons (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/bush-f10.shtml)

[red team]

Not everybody in the march are mullahs. Furthermore, being oppressed and reactionary is not mutually exclusive. Also, Muslims and people who are religious in general can be separated between those who are active leaders and those who are confused into believing the mysticism preached by said religious leaders. I have absolutely no illusions about the barbarity of Islam and all religions in general, but provocation only serves to drive the mindless flock closer to their religious leaders and their backward ideologies. I don&#39;t support marching with them, but neither do I support remaining neutral. When faced with a situation where two sides are equally reactionary your position should be to welcome the set back of the stronger reactionary side, not because you support the lesser of two evils, but because tactically it gives you a chance to break through from the weakening of both your opponents.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The World Socialist Web Site
A genuine critique of religion can be conducted only on the highest intellectual level, appealing to science and reason—not ignorance and fear.

How could one question that?

Well, I&#39;d start with the fact that it doesn&#39;t happen.

As we&#39;ve seen in this subforum repeatedly, what happens instead is an endless parade of appeals for tolerance of superstition&#33;

And when&#39;s the last time you ever heard of a prominent left group openly attacking superstition?

Especially in any kind of sustained way?

The most we normally see in the U.S. is a sort of watery "attack" on "right-wing Christians"...generally accompanied by pious reassurances that the criticism is not directed against "most Christians" who are "really nice people" and even "fellow workers".

And even this is often followed by appeals to suck up to "progressive Christians" who "want the same things we do". :o

When the bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class, the secularization of society was one of its main strategic goals...and while much has been achieved, there is also much remaining to be done.

Now I&#39;m beginning to wonder: is the further secularization of public life the last progressive thing that the "old" bourgeoisie is capable of?

All mixed in with racism, patriotism, cultural chauvinism, etc., to be sure. Everything else they do is done from reactionary motives now...why not "finishing the task" of secularization?

We "on the left" are not obligated to echo the reactionary content of bourgeois hostility to Islam or any other superstition. We don&#39;t have to "buy into" any mindless stupidities about the "clash of civilizations" or the "war on terrorism" or the "high crime rate from immigrants who are people of color", etc.

But why should it concern us if Islam "takes its lumps"? Is it not a worthy target? To whatever degree it is discredited in Europe or anyplace else, is that not a good thing?

The "old" bourgeoisie does it differently than we would...but if the job gets done, then what does it matter? A secularized working class can overcome racism...but who can overcome a division "ordered by God"?


...Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament who has proposed a law that would ban women from wearing burqas...

I&#39;m for it&#33; While we&#39;re at it, let&#39;s get rid of the special costumes for priests, nuns, and monks. They can wear that crap in private if they like, but not in public&#33;

It&#39;s deeply offensive. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:26 AM

Hey look, yall are taking the same position as Bush:
Bush condemns protests against anti-Muslim cartoons (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/bush-f10.shtml)
Yeah, so?
George W. also is pro death penalty and anti gun control just like me.
Perhaps he is following my lead :lol: .
(My 100th post&#33;)

[red team]

The "old" bourgeoisie does it differently than we would...but if the job gets done, then what does it matter? A secularized working class can overcome racism...but who can overcome a division "ordered by God"?

The "old" bourgeoisie is actually not getting it done. Iraq was the most secular society in the arab world. Now it&#39;s a fundamentalist hell hole thanks to imperial military intervention by the "old" bourgeoisie. U.S. public education was once a secular bastion of the country. Now it&#39;s getting dismantled in favor of privately run religious schools. I&#39;m not hopeful that this situation is going to improve much, that&#39;s why taking an absolute atheist position is stupid. It&#39;s only going to guarantee you absolute defeat rather than a slim chance at a partial victory.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red team
I have absolutely no illusions about the barbarity of Islam and all religions in general, but provocation only serves to drive the mindless flock closer to their religious leaders and their backward ideologies.

I&#39;ve seen this assertion made on a number of occasions.

Its logical corollary is seldom mentioned; i.e., that the "best way" to get people away from religion is respecting it as a rational and legitimate option.

I do not think that approach has worked very well. We&#39;ve had more official "religious tolerance" in the U.S. than in any other country...and the consequence is that we are positively plagued by superstition. You&#39;d have to go to the most backward country in Europe (Poland?) to find someplace where the public atmosphere is so polluted with toxic nonsense.

Recall how the Christians wiped out paganism...by vigorously attacking its presence in public life. They didn&#39;t worry about "driving pagans closer to their religious leaders and backward ideologies". They just attacked and kept on attacking until the pagans were completely discredited.

It took them a few centuries to accomplish the task, of course.

They didn&#39;t have the internet then. :lol:

But they got the job done&#33;

Why shouldn&#39;t we?

Especially considering the fact that we have a much better alternative than the Christians had. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[rioters bloc]

funny... all the lefties i know support such actions :blink:

each to their own.

[Severian]

Of course, these cartoons are not about promoting freedom of thought or expression; they are about provoking a reaction and promoting anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe.

Some leftists may share that prejudice; see Armchair Socialism&#39;s thread on Immigration (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42456&hl=immigration)- Over the last couple of days I&#39;ve been reading a lot of the Redstar papers and basically there are two statements that Redstar holds true with regards the proletariat becoming revolutionary. The first is that they will need to be atheists and the second that they will be advanced both in views and abilities.
....
However it occurred to that more and more of the Western proletariat is being made up of immigrants. I don&#39;t know the exact figures but I&#39;d guess that there are far more immigrants in the working class than the middle and upper class. And a lot of these immigrants come from countries, if I borrow another Redstar phrase, "That are closer to the 11th century than the 21st."

This leads me to a conclusion that I myself don&#39;t like, that immigration may be detrimental to creating a revolutionary working class.

Rioters Bloc is probably correct in her observation. This kind of prejudice is a lot more common on this internet forum than among real-life activists.

It&#39;s real easy to be a bourgeois atheist while floating in cyberspace. And lemme comment that it implies contempt not only for immigrants, but to a lesser degree for the majority of working people in every country, by people who consider themselves more enlightened and superior to the masses.

As for the protest, a lot more details would be needed to form an opinion of it: is it simply a condemnation of Islamophobic prejudice? Does it call for censorship? Is it mostly Islamic fundamentalist in tone, content, and direction?

[BuyOurEverything]

Recall how the Christians wiped out paganism...by vigorously attacking its presence in public life. They didn&#39;t worry about "driving pagans closer to their religious leaders and backward ideologies". They just attacked and kept on attacking until the pagans were completely discredited.


While I have no qualms whatsoever about mercilessly attacking religion, I&#39;m somewhat more hesitant to &#39;let the ruling class do it for us&#39;. Your example of paganism and christianity is a perfect one. True, they essentially destroyed paganism, but what did they replace it with? These cartoons were not meant to spread secularism, nor did they acheive that goal &#39;even by accident.&#39; I see no reason why leftists should support that. Having said that, there&#39;s also no reason why leftists should &#39;rally against them&#39;. A good analogy would be something TAT brought up in another thread, the German left attacking the Nazis for pracicing homosexuality and being &#39;deviant&#39;. Sure, it might get rid of the Nazis (although in that case, it certainly didn&#39;t) but what would it replace it with? Homophobia and reactionary thought. It leaves us no better off. Leftists should steer clear of the &#39;enemy of my enemy is my friend (or at least tolerable)&#39; mentality. Reactionary thought is reactionary thought. We need to speak the truth, not pick sides in a fight between one group of idiots and another.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 10:17 AM

Some leftists may share that prejudice; see Armchair Socialism&#39;s thread on Immigration (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42456&hl=immigration)- This leads me to a conclusion that I myself don&#39;t like, that immigration may be detrimental to creating a revolutionary working class.

Rioters Bloc is probably correct in her observation. This kind of prejudice is a lot more common on this internet forum than among real-life activists.

It&#39;s real easy to be a bourgeois atheist while floating in cyberspace. And lemme comment that it implies contempt not only for immigrants, but to a lesser degree for the majority of working people in every country, by people who consider themselves more enlightened and superior to the masses.


If the cartoons are promoting anti islamic prejudice, I have no problem with that.

Why should I defend the people who, if given the chance, would gleefully waste me and all my Queer and Commie friends?

Islam is a barrier to Communism. Let&#39;s sweep it away with an iron broom.
In the west, women burned bras. In Marxist Yemen women burned the veil, which is great.
I don&#39;t care if Frantz Fanon thought differently.

Now I am not trying my best to get restricted here, but yes some immigration is making it harder to advance the left agenda.
I have spoken to and quizzed many people who were from, or whose parents were from, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran and there is no chance of any of them supporting Communism. That&#39;s the reality.
They are an obstacle to the new day and quite frankly I wish they would return to their places of origin and take some other class enemies with them.

Conversely, I have met some Kurds who were followers of the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan, and if the rest of their countrymen are similiar in their perspectives, then the entire Kurdish nation is welcome here for all I care.


Theres nothing Bourgeois about this atheist.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 10:17 AM
Some leftists may share that prejudice; see Armchair Socialism&#39;s thread on Immigration (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42456&hl=immigration)....

I was at that time asking a question about which I was genuinely curious and two of the posters - Gravedigger and John_worldrevolution.info - did provide me with good and thoughtful answers.

However, as I said to the posters in that thread that decided to "paste" me with all kinds of "labels". If you have a problem with my post and think I&#39;ve "violated" board guidelines, either report it or start a thread in the CC.

Or of course you can do what Severian has done and bring it up as "proof" of my "prejudice" - why he doesn&#39;t "report" what he perceives as "anti-immigrant prejudice" is beyond me - whilst curiously leaving out passages from the original post.

[Solace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:39 PM
Fuck, that&#39;s just what we need, a bunch of angry religious nutjobs shutting down st. Catherines.
I just want to point out that a couple of Muslim associations condemned the "protest" for those same reasons.

Where the fuck is Ste Therese, anyway.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I just noticed this "corker"....


Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 10:17 AM
It&#39;s real easy to be a bourgeois atheist while floating in cyberspace. And lemme comment that it implies contempt not only for immigrants, but to a lesser degree for the majority of working people in every country, by people who consider themselves more enlightened and superior to the masses.

I don&#39;t know what this says about Severian&#39;s class position, but that he so blatantly feels atheism is the "reserve of the bourgeois" and not attainable to anyone outside of this social spectrum.

Suggests a lot more about Severian&#39;s "prejudices" than any I might hold.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 10 2006, 10:03 AM
but that he so blatantly feels atheism is the "reserve of the bourgeois" and not attainable to anyone outside of this social spectrum.
Silliness.

Severian was "condemning" such idea, and not promoting it. To my understanding, at least.


EDIT: Tut.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Solace+Feb 10 2006, 03:15 PM--> (Solace @ Feb 10 2006, 03:15 PM) Severian was "condemning" such idea, and not promoting it. To my understanding, at least. [/b]

Read again....


Severian @ Feb 10 [email protected] 10:17 AM
It&#39;s real easy to be a bourgeois atheist while floating in cyberspace. And lemme comment that it implies contempt not only for immigrants, but to a lesser degree for the majority of working people in every country, by people who consider themselves more enlightened and superior to the masses.

Notice that one cannot be an atheist who is repulsed by religion without being a "bourgeois" person "who consider[s] themselves more enlightened and superior to the masses."

In Severian&#39;s world, it is simply impossible to be an uncompromising atheist without being these things.

[LSD]

Of course, these cartoons are not about promoting freedom of thought or expression; they are about provoking a reaction and promoting anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe.

I think you&#39;re missing the point, Severian.

No one here supports the cartoons or the newspaper that printed them. Nor are anyone of us planing on joining any rallies promoting them. The question here, though, is whether or not we should support a protest organized by "muslim groups" to fight "Islamophobia".

Especially considering that we should be "phobic" of Islam, it&#39;s pretty fucking scary&#33;

The grip that Islam has over the middle east is one of the sadder facts of the present world situation. That billions of people&#39;s entire lives are currently controlled and dominated by the arbitrary dictates of a long antiquated and anachronistic "faith" is absolutely disgusting.

Does that mean that we should support the far-right in its, largely, anti-immigrant, anti-arab crusades? Of course not.

But neither should we rally to support the Islamic opposition.

The fact is this protest was not organized to fight racism, it was, as the original poster stated "organized by Muslim groups". These groups are not angry about percieved ethnic stereotypes, they are angry about a "blasphemous" depiction of the "holy prophet".

This has nothing to do with "race", it&#39;s about religion. And, frankly, we have no business getting involved in this proverbial inquisition unless its to condemn its superstitious overtones.

If you want to condemn the cartoons from a secular progressive perspective, that&#39;s fine. But that is not what this "Muslim" protest is going to be and you know it.

Again, this is an example of this odd fear in the left that we somehow can&#39;t ever critisize the third world because of its history of exploitation. That being oppressed grants one "special liscence" to be as reactionary and bigoted as one wants.

Well, frankly, that&#39;s crap.

We do the arab world no good by playing into the hands of Islamic fundamentalism and "joining" in this farce of "outrage".

Your position that rationality is a "bourgeois" privilage unavailable to the general masses is, honestly, despicable.

The "common" people are just as capable of achieving a secular mindset as anyone else and asserting otherwise is elitist garbage. There is no "class prerequisite" for rationality, and there is no third world "blank cheque" for reaction.

What are you going to tell the millions of women being beaten by their husbands "in the name of Islam"? Sorry, dear, your husband can&#39;t help it. Secularism is only for the bourgeoisie??? :angry:

Islam may be a part of modern arab "culture", but it&#39;s a bad part and we should not be afraid to admit that.

"Tolerance" of reaction doesn&#39;t do anyone good, least of all the people who are suffering because of it.

And there are a lot of them.


It&#39;s real easy to be a bourgeois atheist while floating in cyberspace.

So atheism is "bourgeois", now?

I guess that means that we shouldn&#39;t condemn religion? That we should be "tolerant" of superstition and reaction?

How about racism? Do people have a "right" to their racist beliefs as well?

I&#39;ll never understand this bizarre liberal concept that somehow holding convictions is "elitist" or "arrogant".

We don&#39;t think that we&#39;re "better" because we&#39;re atheists, but we sure as fuck think that our ideas are.

That&#39;s what it means to hold convictions; it means believing them to be superior. Otherwise, why hold them?

This is not a class issue. Atheism is better than religion, regardless of the economic status of the person involved.

Your attempt to turn this into a class baiting game and label those who disagree with you as nescessarily "internet bourgeoisie" is quite beneath you, Severian. It really doesn&#39;t matter what your economic or social position is, religion is a destructive and corrosive influence that inevitably hinders social progress, period.

That a self-declared Marxist would be unable to recognize this is rather shocking.

Tell me, Severian, what&#39;s next? Should we invite homophobic "comrades" to "join" us? After all, we don&#39;t want to seem "superior" to them.

Maybe we would participate in one of those "defend marriage" rallies. I&#39;m sure that&#39;d win us support. Statistically speaking, most American workers and most new immigrants oppose gay marriage, so if our aim is to avoid "bourgeois superiority" or whatever you call it, I guess we&#39;d better get out our "traditional definition" banners.

I mean, what else can we do, we certainly don&#39;t want to portray ourselves as "englightened"&#33; :o

As revolutionary leftists, it&#39;s not our job to "accept" whatever reactionary ideas happen to be popular, it&#39;s our job to fight them. That may not make us "popular" in the short-run, but the alternative is accomplishing nothing in the long-run.

But if "popularity" and "tolerance" are your chief aims, I think that the DNC is recruiting. I&#39;m sure they&#39;d be dellighted to sign you up. At least with reformism, you don&#39;t have to worry about all that pesky confrontation.


Where the fuck is Ste Therese, anyway.

AMT zone 6. Way up north, off the island.

Very few people, not much activity. Perfect place for an Islamic protest, don&#39;t you think? :D

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red team+--> (red team)The "old" bourgeoisie is actually not getting it done. Iraq was the most secular society in the Arab world. Now it&#39;s a fundamentalist hell hole thanks to imperial military intervention by the "old" bourgeoisie. U.S. public education was once a secular bastion of the country. Now it&#39;s getting dismantled in favor of privately run religious schools. I&#39;m not hopeful that this situation is going to improve much, that&#39;s why taking an absolute atheist position is stupid. It&#39;s only going to guarantee you absolute defeat rather than a slim chance at a partial victory.[/b]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but...

1. I agree that the "old" bourgeoisie -- or at least important portions of it -- is trying to promote religion as a "social glue" for a decaying system.

2. But hedonism makes money...and there are plenty of capitalists who promote that as an attractive alternative to the constraints of superstition.

3. By whipping up a hysterical campaign against Islam, the European ruling class unintentionally discredits religion as a whole. Don&#39;t forget that it was the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent "wars of religion" that opened the space for atheism to emerge. When people see "into the heart" of religion -- the murderous desire to convert or kill the unbeliever -- that&#39;s when many draw back in justifiable disgust.

4. Iraq is not really relevant to this discussion; the U.S. seeks to impose a quisling regime on that country which may or may not be domestically fundamentalist but will definitely be externally servile to U.S. economic and political interests.

5. The public schools in the U.S. were never all that "secular"...I can not only remember morning prayers in school but that unfavorable opinions of religion were never expressed by any of the teachers.

It is not beyond possibility that "senile" capitalism in the U.S. could entirely dismantle the public school system; replacing it with secular private schools for the elite and religious schools for the masses.

But I think such a move would provoke enormous outrage...and possibly even a new network of secular private schools "for ordinary kids".

In the "internet age" and the era of "home schooling", it&#39;s even possible that all efforts to turn schools into "religion factories" are doomed...no matter what they do.

6. I do not grasp what you mean by "a slim chance at a partial victory" at all.

If you are suggesting that we should admonish the ruling class to "go easy on Islam", that sounds "stupid" to me...I don&#39;t see what "partial victory" we could possibly gain from that even if they were inclined to take our advice.


Originally posted by rioter&#39;s bloc+--> (rioter&#39;s bloc)Funny... all the lefties I know support such actions.[/b]

Most likely because they haven&#39;t really thought about the matter. "Knee-jerk" reactions may not be as common on the left as they are on the right...but that doesn&#39;t mean that they "never happen".

Revolutionaries actually have to use their brains...it&#39;s the most important weapon at their disposal.

People who act without thinking rarely accomplish anything useful.


Originally posted by Severian
It&#39;s real easy to be a bourgeois atheist while floating in cyberspace.

Another "unique" insight from the mind of Severian. Atheism is no longer a correct understanding of the universe but rather, in his eyes, just an artifact of bourgeois ideology.


And lemme comment that it implies contempt not only for immigrants, but to a lesser degree for the majority of working people in every country, by people who consider themselves more enlightened and superior to the masses.

If the "majority of the working people in every country" flop on their bellies for some superstition, then we "revolutionaries" should do likewise...otherwise we&#39;ll be "showing contempt" and implying that we are "more enlightened" and "superior to the masses".

Severian hits a new "low" with this one&#33; :o

Very well, I ain&#39;t ashamed to "bite the bullet". Atheists are more enlightened than the superstitious. People who know stuff are superior to the ignorant.

That does not confer the "right to rule" (as Lenin and Trotsky would have it) but rather the obligation to enlighten&#33;

A task that Severian clearly finds distasteful...for reasons known only to himself.


[email protected]
While I have no qualms whatsoever about mercilessly attacking religion, I&#39;m somewhat more hesitant to &#39;let the ruling class do it for us&#39;.

It ain&#39;t my "preferred option" either&#33; :lol:

But even in Europe, the "left" is still too weak to have a really significant impact on this or any public issue.

And in the U.S., even the so-called "left" can hardly bear to throw marshmallows at the Christian fascists&#33;

Look at Severian&#39;s statement -- which is presumably a reasonably accurate reflection of one group&#39;s practice. To attack religion "shows contempt for the workers".

They&#39;re hardly alone in their servility; most of the "left" in the U.S. could organize a "Pray for Socialism" rally without arousing any comment at all. :o

It wouldn&#39;t surprise me if they did&#33;


Eoin Dubh
Now I am not trying my best to get restricted here, but yes, some immigration is making it harder to advance the left agenda.

You need not respond to Severian&#39;s attempt to side-track the discussion. Not even he would argue that the gusano colony in Miami should be "united with"...at least I don&#39;t think he would. :lol:

Immigration is not some "pure virtue" that automatically confers "political correctness".

Some immigrants move to western Europe or North America precisely to escape the wretched medieval cultures of their homelands. Apparently there are a growing number of gay refugees from Iran moving to Europe.

Mexican immigrants to the U.S. come from the countryside...because they can no longer either feed their families or find markets for whatever tiny surplus they can produce. And yes, they bring their medieval superstitions with them.

But what happens when they get to Los Angeles or Phoenix or Houston? Do they have a negative impact on the already semi-secularized (and large&#33;) Hispanic populations in those cities? Or is the "cultural flow" in the other direction?

Guess&#33; :lol:

The "worst case" scenario that I can imagine is that proletarian revolution and communism might be delayed for a generation or two by large scale immigration from extremely backward countries.

In the "grand sweep" of things, that&#39;s trivial.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by Eoin [email protected] 10 2006, 05:41 AM
I have spoken to and quizzed many people who were from, or whose parents were from, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran and there is no chance of any of them supporting Communism. That&#39;s the reality.
No, that&#39;s your prejudice.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Severian+Feb 11 2006, 07:01 AM--> (Severian &#064; Feb 11 2006, 07:01 AM)
Eoin [email protected] 10 2006, 05:41 AM
I have spoken to and quizzed many people who were from, or whose parents were from, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran and there is no chance of any of them supporting Communism. That&#39;s the reality.
No, that&#39;s your prejudice.[/b]
Ok so I am prejudiced for hearing the honest answer from a second generation Chinese Canadian who says " Mao took my families land, F*ck Communism&#33;"
Or the gentleman from Afghanistan who went all bug eyed, skin flushed, and ballistic when I began to wax eloquently about Marx&#39;s theory of surplus value as we were working together on the job. He hopped up and down, spitting on me as inarticulate rage exploded from his little self.

I base my position on experience from actually leaving my computer and exiting my home and venturing forth into the world seeking workers to subvert and clone from my own brain.

You may want to give political incorrectness a try once in a while, Severian.

Being honest with ones self feels good.

P.S. Islam sucks

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:58 AM
The fact is this protest was not organized to fight racism, it was, as the original poster stated "organized by Muslim groups".
It can&#39;t be both? You assume Muslims are happy about prejudice against Muslims?


These groups are not angry about percieved ethnic stereotypes, they are angry about a "blasphemous" depiction of the "holy prophet".

Again, sounds like an assumption. I pointed out, earlier, some of the questions which IMO are relevant to evaluating any such protest. If you know any facts that would help answer &#39;em, you haven&#39;t given any indication here. And if the answer is negative in this case, that doesn&#39;t automatically mean it&#39;s negative in every case.


This has nothing to do with "race", it&#39;s about religion.

A pointless quibble and evasion. Bigotry against a religious groups also must be condemned and fought, because it helps divide the working class just as much as bigotry on the basis of skin color.

I might point out that discrimination against people on the basis of religious differences is banned by the same civil rights legislation that bans discrimination on the basis of skin-color differences. Working people fought for that, and correctly so.

To take an example from farther away, which you may be able to see more clearly: there was recently a bombing of a Shi&#39;a Muslim gathering in Pakistan. Obviously it had nothing to do with "race". It was about religion, specifically religious-sectarian bigotry against the Shi&#39;a. (There have been similar attacks against Sunni Muslims as well, a war of sectarian retaliation.)

Is that of no concern to the working class? Do we refuse to combat that sectarianism and bigotry, or automatically refuse to do so together with Muslims who don&#39;t like being the target of bigotry and persecution?


That being oppressed grants one "special liscence" to be as reactionary and bigoted as one wants.

I think that&#39;s Redstar&#39;s position, that he supports reactionary "anti-imperialist" groups in the Third World because he expects nothing better from the wogs. Certainly it&#39;s not mine.


So atheism is "bourgeois", now?

Some is, and there&#39;s nothing new about that. As Engels pointed out, "atheism is the religion of the modern bourgeois."

The founders of the modern communist movement pointed out certain features that distinguished bourgeois atheism, atheism as a religion, from their own perspective. Those features are all on display here.

Religion is perceived as the cause of all kinds of social problems. Fighting religion is promoted as an activity separate from the class struggle and even prioritized higher than the needs of the class struggle. Propaganda and even persecution, not the transformation of society, is seen as the means of uprooting religion.

When Redstar writes "Recall how the Christians wiped out paganism...by vigorously attacking its presence in public life. They didn&#39;t worry about "driving pagans closer to their religious leaders and backward ideologies". They just attacked and kept on attacking until the pagans were completely discredited.", it&#39;s the view of Marx and Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm) that he&#39;s polemicizing against....and the view of bourgeois atheism that he&#39;s advocating.

It&#39;s easy to adopt such a theological approach while floating in cyberspace, divorced from the material world. To regard bad theological doctrines, rather than social relations, as the primary problem....and to promote a better theological doctrine, atheism, as the path to salvation.

Those who turn atheism into a religion, and set out to save people&#39;s souls from false prophets, are as capable as anyone of being dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted against followers of competing religions. And of taking positions on Islam and Islamophobia which dovetail with Christian intolerance and prevailing hostility to immigrants.

[LSD]

It can&#39;t be both? You assume Muslims are happy about prejudice against Muslims?

Not at all, but I know that there have been far worse things said about both Muslims and Arabs and that the majority of the outrage being expressed over this particular cartoon has been over the depiction of the "holy prophet" and not over ethnic stereotypes.


If you know any facts that would help answer &#39;em, you haven&#39;t given any indication here. And if the answer is negative in this case, that doesn&#39;t automatically mean it&#39;s negative in every case.

I have no specific knowledge on this protest, but I do know enough about the subject being "protested" to know that it&#39;s no place for me or anyone else who&#39;s serious about progressive revolutionary politics.

This "world-wide outrage" is entirely manipulated by the forces of fundamentalist Islam. It is an attempt to further strengthen its strangle-hold over the Muslim world by

Remember, most of the muslim world has not seen these infamous cartoons. Those who burnt down the consulates in Lebanon and Syria had almost definitely not seen them ...but their leaders certainly had&#33;

And don&#39;t think for a second that these leaders don&#39;t have a particular agenda in mind.

You accuse redstar of supporting "reactionary" third-world movements, but it&#39;s you in this case who&#39;s playing into their hands by buying into their "outrage".

Again, if you want to condemn these cartoons as racist, there are some very decent arguments that you could make. But joining in the "muslim group" protests only legitimizes the degree of "anger" being stirred up and validates the Islamic paradigm.

Revolutionary leftists need to always approach from a secular position. Even if that doesn&#39;t make one particularly popular.

I suppose that&#39;s just another of our "crosses to bear". :lol:


A pointless quibble and evasion. Bigotry against a religious groups also must be condemned and fought, because it helps divide the working class just as much as bigotry on the basis of skin color.

Putting race and religion in the same category is lunacy. Race is an inherent attribute, religion is a belief.

A belief actually in many ways rather similar to racism.

Both are founded on illogical and unscientific premises, both advocate irrational worldviews, and both group people into seperate grades of "worthiness" based on entirely arbitrary factors such as skin colour or "faith".

From an external objective perspective, there is very little difference between religion and racism. Indeed, throughout history, we very often find them intermingled if not utterly indistinguishable.

Now, with that in mind, why if we must "respect" the religion of workers, musn&#39;t we respect their racism? ...or their homophobia? ...or their sexism? ...or their numerous other reactionary beliefs?

Doesn&#39;t "bigotry" against homophobic "comrades" "help divide the working class" as well?

Religion is not "sancrosanct", it is not somehow "distinct" from other opinions. It just happens to have a historically protected place in this society.

But that does not mean that, as revolutionaries, we should be afraid to attack it.

After all, in fighting racism, we don&#39;t attempt to "work within the system". We don&#39;t tell black supremicists and white supremecists to "just try and get along"; rather we attack the foundations. We smash the paradigm&#33;

What makes religion "different"?

Why must we be so "tolerant" of this form of reaction when we are unafraid to target others? Is it because this form is a "protected class" in bourgeois legalism? Is it because this form has been drilled into our heads from childhood as "sacred" and "personal"?

Sorry, but if we advocate a revolutionary change in society, we need to start by re-evaluating our personal "beliefs". One of those re-evaluations means asking just what it is that makes religion so God damn "special".

The answer, course, is nothing.

Religious bigotry does not divide the working class, religion divides the working class.

None of your so called "bourgeois internet atheists" "hate" religious people, no more than we hate homophobic people.

We merely hate their ideas ...and try really fucking hard to fight them.


I might point out that discrimination against people on the basis of religious differences is banned by the same civil rights legislation that bans discrimination on the basis of skin-color differences.

And that would be under the same bourgeois legal code that protects "property rights" and "econmic freedom"?

Hardly the most unbiased source&#33; :lol:

Religion is protected because of its prominant role in world history, nothing more. It is only a "special class" because the power of the clergy and the pure number of supersititous made it so.

Look, I am not advocating religious hatred here. People should not be discriminated against based on their religion in the same way that they should not be discriminated against based on any of their other opinions.

But that doesn&#39;t mean that those opinions are not "fair game"&#33;

Attacking religion does not mean calling religious people names or burning down their places of worship, it means educating and informing them about the nature of their beliefs.

It&#39;s an arduous and time-consuming process, I&#39;ll grant you, but it is an essential one nonetheless.


Religion is perceived as the cause of all kinds of social problems.

And you would honestly argue with this position?

Do you seriously contend that religion is not the cause of numerous social problems?

Don&#39;t tell me that you&#39;re one of those liberal apologists who blames it all on the "extremists" and "fundamentalists". Let me guess, "most" religious people are "really nice people", it&#39;s just a "few bad apples" that "spoils the barrel"? :rolleyes:

We&#39;ve all heard it many, many times before.

One thing that I&#39;ve learned from moderating the Religion sub-forum is that there are no shortage of excuses when it comes to religious apologism. But, in the end, the shear weight of historical and social evidence cannot be overcome.

Religion is reactionary by nature. It is, even from a purely epistomological perspective, a universally dangerous and regressive force in society.

It&#39;s not the only one, of course, but your argument in this thread has seemed to be that those who fight against religion instead of "standing" against "religious bigotry" are "class traitors".

Again, I must wonder, why this does not extend to other popular superstitions.

If, as you say, "transformation of sociey" and not "propaganda and persecution" is the sole force for social change, then why should we not allow that "transformation" to occur before we support other progressive causes?

Supporting gay rights is, simultaneously, divisive to the working class and religiously offensive to many workers. Why should we risk such a divisive and, in many parts, decidedly unpopular position, when instead we should rely on "social transformation"?

Under your paradigm, pro-gay "propaganda", and "persecution" of homophobes is clearly out of the question.

I mean, really, if we&#39;re not careful, somewhat might confuse us for "englightened"&#33; :o


Propaganda and even persecution, not the transformation of society, is seen as the means of uprooting religion.

And how exactly does one "change society" without changing people first?

A reactionary proletariat is not going to lead a successful revolution and we are well past the era of elite "vanguards" "leading us to the future".

If we are ever going to have a successful communist revolution, it will have to be one in which the proletariat is active, radical, and rational. That means free of the shackles of all limiting superstitions and divisions.

That doesn&#39;t just include religion, of course, it includes a lot of pre-capitalist garbage that has not yet been fully eradicated.

Is this elimination "above" the class struggle? Not at all. Rather it&#39;s part of the class struggle. It is a part of the education and emancipation of the proletariat. It is one step closer towards class radicalization.

Until the proletariat is a truly advanced class it is not capable of waging a successful campaign and so if our long-term aim is the advancement of a revolutionary proletariat, one of our intermediate aims must be the elimination of religion.

I&#39;m not saying that it will be "easy" or "comfortable", but it&#39;s nescessary and it&#39;s inevitable.


Those who turn atheism into a religion, and set out to save people&#39;s souls from false prophets, are as capable as anyone of being dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted against followers of competing religions.

Who has said anything about "saving souls"?

You assume that the proletariat is so unintelligent and irrational that it can only trade one religion for another. That when confronted with reason and logic, it will recoil in "divisive" and "dogmatic" anger.

I suppose that emerges from your Leninist tendencies.

You see the working class as needing to be "lead" by its "betters" who will take care of all that pesky "thinking" for it.

I, on the other hand, see a proletarian revolutionary as a solely proletarian task, one undertaken by the entire class, with no need for "leaders" or "vanguards".

Such a mass action is fundamentally dependent on an informed and rational populace. One which has freed itself from the shackles of superstition and reaction.

In your mind, you distinguish the education of the proletariat from the class struggle, but this is an artificial distinction of your own making. To true communists, there is no difference between strengthening the proletariat and weakening the bourgeoisie, it is all part of the same war.

(that would be the class one)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Bigotry against a religious groups also must be condemned and fought, because it helps divide the working class just as much as bigotry on the basis of skin color.[/b]

Sophistry...and not even very good sophistry at that.

Modern racism is applied to people of color...who have no choice but to manifest their color just by being alive.

Membership in a religious group or belief in a particular collection of superstitions is something that people can change.

It&#39;s not "easy"...that&#39;s true. Childhood indoctrination is terribly difficult to overthrow.

But people do it...all the time&#33; It&#39;s certainly happened on this board.

As to "dividing the working class", well, it is divided.

In fact, it will still be divided "on the day of the revolution".

What should our attitude be towards workers who hold reactionary positions? Does their class position "give them permission" to be reactionary?

Severian evidently thinks it does...hence his support for "tolerance" of superstition as opposed to my "bigotry".

If he were consistent, he would also be "tolerant" of working class racism, sexism, homophobia, and patriotism...but consistency is not one of his virtues.

Severian thinks there are things we should "overlook" in the interests of "working class unity".

At this point, I am not concerned with something that does not exist and may never exist. Humans are a contentious species and "unity" enjoys a very transient existence at best.

What I am interested in at the present time is a solid foundation of revolutionary ideas around which people who actually want revolution could possibly unify.

And superstition in any form doesn&#39;t qualify&#33;


I might point out that discrimination against people on the basis of religious differences is banned by the same civil rights legislation that bans discrimination on the basis of skin-color differences. Working people fought for that, and correctly so.

Severian appeals to bourgeois legislation...the enforcement of which is practically a "dead letter" these days anyway.

*Shakes head in disbelief*


To take an example from farther away, which you may be able to see more clearly: there was recently a bombing of a Shi&#39;a Muslim gathering in Pakistan. Obviously it had nothing to do with "race". It was about religion, specifically religious-sectarian bigotry against the Shi&#39;a. (There have been similar attacks against Sunni Muslims as well, a war of sectarian retaliation.)

Is that of no concern to the working class?

To the extent that there even is a "working class" in Pakistan, its attitude should be to condemn outright the superstitious drivel that gives rise to such fratricide.

But I think there are some Trotskyists in Pakistan...and I&#39;m sure they&#39;re out there pleading for religious tolerance. Surely they can dig up a verse or two from the Qu&#39;ran proclaiming that "it&#39;s not nice for Muslims to kill each other while infidels are still alive".


I think that&#39;s Redstar&#39;s position, that he supports reactionary "anti-imperialist" groups in the Third World because he expects nothing better from the wogs.

"Wog" is a word that you have chosen to use...more than once.

Meanwhile, I think it interesting that you are ready to leap to the defense of the Islamic superstition "against bigotry"...but you don&#39;t like them at all when they take up arms against U.S. imperialism.

And my "bigoted" position is exactly the opposite.


Religion is perceived as the cause of all kinds of social problems. Fighting religion is promoted as an activity separate from the class struggle and even prioritized higher than the needs of the class struggle. Propaganda and even persecution, not the transformation of society, is seen as the means of uprooting religion.

Severian could say exactly the same things about the modern struggles against racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Are they also "bourgeois"?

His is a very traditional view...first, we&#39;ll "get socialism" and then we&#39;ll "straighten out all this other stuff."

Well, no, that will no longer serve. What I think is clear is that class struggle is refracted through various "lenses"...and we should pick the ones that are sharpest at any particular point in time.

In modern America, I think the sharpest aspect of class struggle is the struggle against superstitious tyranny. That is what positively dominates public discourse in this country now.


...it&#39;s the view of Marx and Engels that he&#39;s polemicizing against....and the view of bourgeois atheism that he&#39;s advocating.

Severian links to this article...

The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm) by Frederick Engels, June 26, 1874.


Engels
But this cannot suit our Blanquists. In order to show that they are the most radical, God is abolished by them by decree, as in 1793: "May the Commune forever free humanity from this ghost of past misery (God), from this cause of its present Misery." (The non-existing God a cause&#33;) There is no room in the Commune for priests; every religious demonstration, every religious organisation, must be forbidden."

And this demand for a transformation of people into atheists by order of the star chamber is signed by two members of the Commune, who had opportunity enough to learn in the first place, that a multitude of things may be ordered on paper without being carried out, and in the second place, that persecutions are the best means of promoting disliked convictions. So much is certain, that the only service, which may still be rendered to God today, is that of declaring atheism an article of faith to be enforced and of outdoing even Bismarck&#39;s anti-Catholic laws by forbidding religion altogether.

The careful reader will note that the Blanquists did not propose "abolishing God" -- that&#39;s Engels&#39; word-play -- but rather abolishing "religious demonstrations and organizations".

Or perhaps the Blanquists would have accepted my wording: removing superstition from public life.

The "star chamber" was a secret court of the English monarchy where people could legally "be disappeared"...and has no relevance to the Blanquist proposal at all.

And the Blanquists did not propose (at least here) to make atheism "an article of faith"...but rather a fundamental axiom of legitimate public discourse.

Bismarck&#39;s "anti-Catholic laws" were among the most progressive in Germany&#39;s history to that point...and probably made some contribution to the eventual emergence of the secular Weimar Republic. They did not "forbid Catholicism" but rather began the disentanglement of "church and state".

There is much to criticize in the ideas associated with Blanqui and his heirs...of which Lenin is certainly the most prominent. Engels does a very good job of this in the linked article.

But I don&#39;t see how the honest observer could avoid the conclusion that Engels either misunderstood or deliberately mis-stated the Blanquist position on superstition.

Note further that Engels ascribes to the Blanquists the motive of desiring to "appear the most radical".

He does not explain why he thinks this to be a "reprehensible motive". Just why is it "wrong" for revolutionaries to advocate the most revolutionary positions that they can think of?

Are there not reformists enough???


Those who turn atheism into a religion, and set out to save people&#39;s souls from false prophets, are as capable as anyone of being dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted against followers of competing religions.

Usually it is open right-wing ideologues who utter this charge against "Marxism" as a whole. It&#39;s just word-play again, of course. Marxism "is" a "secular religion" and leading revolutionary figures of the past are either "gods" or "prophets", blah, blah, blah.

Severian trods this well-worn path with his customary dexterity. Echoing many of the superstitious who have posted in this subforum in the past, he converts atheism into a "religion" with plenty of "negative characteristics".

He probably thinks that I regard a day without crucifying at least one Christian as a wasted day. :lol:

Perhaps Severian is the "Rodney King" of this board...he&#39;s always the voice that painfully croaks, "why can&#39;t we just all get along?".

Because it&#39;s not that kind of world, that&#39;s why&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:02 AM
This "world-wide outrage" is entirely manipulated by the forces of fundamentalist Islam. It is an attempt to further strengthen its strangle-hold over the Muslim world by
This is factually not the case.

Muslims generally, not just fundamentalists, are outraged. And it&#39;s not any Islamist party, but rather the mostly non-fundamentalist governments of the Muslim world, which have been responsible for making this particular insult a major issue. Those presidents and kings are the leaders who, as you say, have seen the cartoons.

Certainly "fundamentalist Islam" could not storm and set fire to the Danish embassy in Syria without the Ba&#39;athists&#39; permission&#33; (Remeber Hama?) More likely, the Ba&#39;athists organized the whole thing.

And this protest in Montreal is organized by "Muslims"...that does not necessarily mean Muslim fundamentalists. OK? Non-fundamentalist mosques and Muslim groups do organize protests sometimes also. The Muslim Council of Britain is organizing a protest explicitly to dissociate itself from the "extremist" response to Islamophobia.

The New York Times reviews the history of how this became a big deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

As leaders of the world&#39;s 57 Muslim nations gathered for a summit meeting in Mecca in December, issues like religious extremism dominated the official agenda. But much of the talk in the hallways was of a wholly different issue: Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad.

The closing communiqué took note of the issue when it expressed "concern at rising hatred against Islam and Muslims and condemned the recent incident of desecration of the image of the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the media of certain countries" as well as over "using the freedom of expression as a pretext to defame religions."
....
"It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it," said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

Sari Hanafi, an associate professor at the American University in Beirut, said that for Arab governments resentful of the Western push for democracy, the protests presented an opportunity to undercut the appeal of the West to Arab citizens. The freedom pushed by the West, they seemed to say, brought with it disrespect for Islam.

He said the demonstrations "started as a visceral reaction — of course they were offended — and then you had regimes taking advantage saying, &#39;Look, this is the democracy they&#39;re talking about.&#39; "

The protests also allowed governments to outflank a growing challenge from Islamic opposition movements by defending Islam.

You&#39;ve also made a number of ssetatements about the motivations of those condemning these cartoons - without giving any explanation of how you know their motivations.

So I thought the communique of the OIC conference might be of interest. Since it was essentially the call for these protests.

The Conference expressed its concern at rising hatred against Islam and Muslims in the world and condemned the recent incident of desecration of the image of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in the media of certain countries and stressed the responsibility of all governments to ensure full respect of all religions and religious symbols and the inapplicability of using the freedom of expression as a pretext to defame religions.
link (http://www.saudiembassy.net/2005News/Statements/StateDetail.asp?cIndex=568)

(If you follow that link, you&#39;ll see the communique begins with...a condemnation of fundamentalism.)

So the OIC wraps up the issue of "desecration" together with the issue of "hatred against Islam and Muslims" in the OIC declaration. With the issue of hatred and Islamophobia given somewhat more prominent billing.

For a communist, promoting political clarity, it would seem correct to disentangle those two issues. Instead, you&#39;ve further entangled them.

Redstar wrote:

Modern racism is applied to people of color...who have no choice but to manifest their color just by being alive.

Membership in a religious group or belief in a particular collection of superstitions is something that people can change.

Ironically, this is the exact same argument used to fend off comparisons between homophobia and racism.

Why yes, they can change their religious beliefs. But they have a democratic right not to.

And here in the real world, they haven&#39;t. The fact is that the working class includes people of varying religious beliefs.

Certainly this approach, with its fetishization of individual choice, has nothing to do with a communist attitude towards any kind of prejudice or discrimination which divides the working class.

Lemme suggest workers and their union at this Nebraska meatpacking plant (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7007/700757.html) took a far less theological and far more class-struggle oriented approach to problems of freedom of worship for workers of different faiths....and their class unity is stronger for it.

Members of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 271 at Tyson Fresh Meats here approved a five-year contract December 23 that workers say registered gains for their rights.

The agreement grants workers the right to have 10-minute prayer breaks for workers who are Muslim, according to Said Yousuf, a shop steward and vice president of the union local. In addition, the company offered reinstatement to 10 workers who were fired last year for taking such breaks.
....
On September 17, some 300 workers walked out of the plant to protest company denial of prayer breaks and the firing of 10 workers for “unauthorized breaks.”
...
Dina Tovar, 20, has worked in the plant for over a year. While she did not join the union when she got hired, she says now she probably will..... Pointing out that her family’s heritage is Mexican, she said that workers from many countries work side by side in the plant and get along well.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+Feb 11 2006, 10:50 AM--> (Severian &#064; Feb 11 2006, 10:50 AM) Muslims generally, not just fundamentalists, are outraged. [/b]

Like these Muslims....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46059

???


Severian
The Muslim Council of Britain is organizing a protest explicitly to dissociate itself from the "extremist" response to Islamophobia.

Have you applied for membership yet?

Anyway, "Blair&#39;s Friends" aren&#39;t exactly an example of "tolerance" themselves....

Muslim head says gays &#39;harmful&#39; (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4579146.stm)

And whilst Severian may like to "champion" these organisations, those people they&#39;d happily discriminate against (and do discriminate against) speak out....

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/religion%20index.htm

If only those Gay Rights groups would shut and know their place, right Severian? ....I mean what is the World coming to when people start criticising the homophobia present in all Religions. I guess those Gay Rights groups are just all "bourgeois atheists". :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Lemme suggest workers and their union at this Nebraska meatpacking plant took a far less theological and far more class-struggle oriented approach to problems of freedom of worship for workers of different faiths....and their class unity is stronger for it.[/b]

Oh what a glorious victory for the working class&#33; :lol:


The agreement grants workers the right to have 10-minute prayer breaks for workers who are Muslim, according to Said Yousuf, a shop steward and vice president of the union local.

What about ten minutes to sacrifice a chicken to Changó? Should be easy enough at a Tyson plant. :lol:

Meanwhile, Dina Tovar, the individual Severian quotes, went on to say...


The Militant
She noted that health insurance costs increased and that is the main issue in the contract she is dissatisfied with.

That&#39;s some "class struggle" alright. Time for superstition and workers there have to pay more for health insurance.

What a great trade union&#33; :lol:

And note that supporting this kind of reactionary shit is what Severian considers "being a good communist".

It is starting to look as if the Trotskyists will be the first to sponsor a "Pray for Socialism" Rally...perhaps on Mayday. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[RNK]

I wonder if cut & paste debates further the Revolution.

[Amusing Scrotum]

As to whether Muslims were outraged about racism or blasphemy, I found this article -- Thousands join pro-Islam protest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4700482.stm) -- interesting....


Originally posted by BBC News+--> (BBC News)Among them was Hanifa Brka, a 29-year-old student from Birmingham, who said: "This is the heart of our faith - we believe it is wrong to talk badly about the prophet.[/b]

In other words, they were blasphemous and not racist.

Indeed the people who consider the cartoon "racist", are Liberal MP&#39;s....


Originally posted by BBC News+--> (BBC News)Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather described the cartoons as "a juvenile posturing exercise".

"Nothing was done to further the cause of liberal values or the freedom of speech - the publication of the cartoons was just plain racist," she added.[/b]

This seems right up Severian&#39;s street....


BBC [email protected]
While Bruce Kent, friend of British hostage Norman Kember and representative of Christian group Pax Christi, said religious groups should be working together for "a world of justice and peace".

And this was downright hilarious....


BBC News
Earlier, organiser Anas Altikriti, of the Muslim Association of Britain, said he was confident the demonstration would not be taken over by extremists, adding that only the official slogan - United against incitement and united against Islamophobia - would appear on their T-shirts and placards.

The cartoons were "offencive" and "blasphemous", but we can&#39;t miss an opportunity to make some money&#33; :lol:

[Sentinel]

It seems to be the leninist line in this issue that "an enemy of our enemy is our friend"?
I bought the paper of the swedish (leninist) communist party today, and it condemned the cartoons, and called for "respect for people&#39;s beliefs". Duh&#33;

I mostly like the party in question and am not totally against leninism or anything, (even though I&#39;m since recently beginning to find more libertarian forms of communism more and more appealing) but I think it&#39;s a stupid approach.

The cartoons were against Islam and not "racist". Religion is at least as reactionary as capitalism and so not defendable, ever. The left should distance itself from superstition on every occasion.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:49 AM
That&#39;s some "class struggle" alright. Time for superstition and workers there have to pay more for health insurance.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to hold the line on health insurance nowadays? OK, of course you don&#39;t. But it&#39;s hard to think of any union in the U.S. who&#39;s successfully done it recently.

The Militant tried to give as complete a picture as possible, which is why that quote was there for you to yank out in order to emphasize only one side of the overall situation. And that overall picture is that the workers made an advance in this contract fight, including on wages - but more importantly on class unity.

It&#39;s pretty clear that wouldn&#39;t be the case if your approach had any influence in that situation.

As for the quotes and so forth about different protests, let me just reiterate what I said earlier:
As for the protest, a lot more details would be needed to form an opinion of it: is it simply a condemnation of Islamophobic prejudice? Does it call for censorship? Is it mostly Islamic fundamentalist in tone, content, and direction?

The decision on whether to support a particular protest would have to be made case-by-case. Pointing out problems with some of the protests - even if it was done by some means more reliable than selective out-of-context quoting - doesn&#39;t invalidate this approach.

And none of those quotes, incidentally, disprove what I said earlier about fundamentalists not being the major element of most of these protests.

Unless you think all Muslims are fundamentalist. Hm. What kind of people hear "Muslim" and assume "fundamentalist"?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Do you have any idea how hard it is to hold the line on health insurance nowadays? OK, of course you don&#39;t. But it&#39;s hard to think of any union in the U.S. who&#39;s successfully done it recently.

Ah, I see. Join the union, pay the dues, and win more time for prayer&#33;

Now, how did that old Wobbly song go?

Work and pray,
Live on hay,
You&#39;ll get pie in the sky when you die.
That&#39;s a LIE&#33;

The unions are sending one "hell" of a message these days. Are you really surprised that fewer and fewer workers are listening?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The decision on whether to support a particular protest would have to be made case-by-case.[/b]

In other words, whatever sect you&#39;re involved in is planning a joint protest in "solidarity". Am I far off?


Originally posted by [email protected]
And none of those quotes, incidentally, disprove what I said earlier about fundamentalists not being the major element of most of these protests.

Well only the really pious get offended by cartoons of their "prophets".

I mean, the streets weren&#39;t teaming with Christian protesters against Jerry Springer The Opera. Most people who say their Christians these days, only seem to mean it in the most estranged manner.

That apparently doesn&#39;t seem to be the case with Muslims, unfortunately. :(


Severian
Unless you think all Muslims are fundamentalist. Hm. What kind of people hear "Muslim" and assume "fundamentalist"?

As I commented in another thread, if you try to be a clever twat, at the very least try to be clever first.

As it is, the only real Muslims are the "fundamentalists". They&#39;re the ones that take all that shit seriously.

Just like the Christians who bomb abortion clinics represent the "true face of Christianity", the Muslims who burn Embassies down over "blasphemous" cartoons represent the "true face of Islam".

If you are referring to the "moderate" (nominal) Muslims, then the ones that I have seen discuss the issue have all considered this a great embarrassment - one woman who appeared on TV went so far as to say the Police should make mass arrests of the Muslim protesters.

No doubt the "Muslim Council of Britain" has put her on their "hit list" and in future she - like gay people - won&#39;t be receiving an invitation to the "Dinner for Allah" or whatever money-spinner they have planned.

Indeed your listing of the "Muslim Council of Britain" as a "moderate" group, suggests you and I have radically different ideas on what constitutes "moderate". Indeed I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if you start promoting Pat Robertson or any of the other Christian fascists as the "face of progressive Christianity".

That certainly what the standards you&#39;ve set out would lead one to conclude.

[redstar2000]

The real face of Islam...

Why striking bus drivers in Tehran are the real defenders of Muslim rights (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1707972,00.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

From that opinion piece by Nick Cohen:

I&#39;m not saying it isn&#39;t newsworthy, but you shouldn&#39;t forget that it was manufactured by hard-line Danish imams who hawked the cartoons round the Muslim world for four months (and, somewhat blasphemously, added obscene drawings of their own). The religious right and Syrian Baathists welcomed them and proved yet again that they need to incite frenzies to legitimise arbitrary power.
.....
It cannot be said often enough that this is not a clash of civilisations but a civil war within the Islamic world between theocratic reaction and the beleaguered forces of liberty and modernity. As I have tried to emphasise, the best service the rich world&#39;s liberal left can render is to get on the right side for once.

And that "right side", according to Cohen, is the side of U.S. imperialism. "Hitherto a strong critic of American foreign policy, including the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, Cohen created controversy in 2002 when, in several hard-hitting columns, he announced his support for the invasion of Iraq and denounced some on the political left for failing to address the fascism of Saddam Hussein and Islamist ideology. " Wikipedia:Nick Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cohen)

So thanks for illustrating the similarity of your arguments on "Islam" to those of the imperialists.

Or maybe you just posted that for the news of the Tehran bus drivers&#39; strike? That is an important bit of news, and helps disprove the prejudice that Muslims are all raving fanatics, or your ally&#39;s claim that "I have spoken to and quizzed many people who were from, or whose parents were from, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran and there is no chance of any of them supporting Communism. That&#39;s the reality."

That news does nothing to support your side of this debate, though.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
So thanks for illustrating the similarity of your arguments on "Islam" to those of the imperialists.

Ah yes...if I quote an account of a bus drivers&#39; strike in Tehran, that "must mean" that I&#39;m not only aware of all the opinions of the author of that account but that I "support them". :lol:


Or maybe you just posted that for the news of the Tehran bus drivers&#39; strike? That is an important bit of news, and helps disprove the prejudice that Muslims are all raving fanatics...

Just the Muslims in power, Severian.

They do what all the seriously religious do when they have the power to get away with it.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 11 2006, 03:49 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 11 2006, 03:49 AM)
rioter&#39;s bloc
Funny... all the lefties I know support such actions.

Most likely because they haven&#39;t really thought about the matter. "Knee-jerk" reactions may not be as common on the left as they are on the right...but that doesn&#39;t mean that they "never happen".

Revolutionaries actually have to use their brains...it&#39;s the most important weapon at their disposal.

People who act without thinking rarely accomplish anything useful. [/b]
pardon me...but seeing as how you have no knowledge of how much said activists think about the matter, or how much they &#39;use their brains&#39;, i really don&#39;t see how you can criticise at all. i don&#39;t know how active you are - i&#39;m sure you are, but i don&#39;t know that, and so i wouldn&#39;t accuse you of being inactive. by the same token, you have no right to imply that a large portion of sydney activists don&#39;t &#39;accomplish anything useful&#39;.

my comment was simply an observation. you don&#39;t need to hack into it and accuse people who have a different opinion to you as knee-jerk reactionaries.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by rioter&#39;s bloc
Pardon me...but seeing as how you have no knowledge of how much said activists think about the matter, or how much they &#39;use their brains&#39;, I really don&#39;t see how you can criticise at all.

Are you suggesting that I "should have" sat down and talked with all the lefties in Sydney before suggesting that their position was not really "thought through"?

Or that no one should ever say anything critical about any political group or individual except ones that they know personally?

Put it this way: I am not unacquainted with how "activists" think about things...not only is there a wealth of activist writing on the internet but I have had some personal experience in that regard.

And I know from both reading and personal experience that people who "just want to do something" rather easily fall victim to unthinking responses.

Back in the early 60s, there was a guy in the American civil rights movement who complained at some length about this. If memory serves me, he pointed out that "just because white people have toilets that flush, that doesn&#39;t mean that toilets are evil and outhouses are good."

If I were in Sydney, I&#39;d tell your associates that just because some Danish racists attacked Islam, that doesn&#39;t mean that Islam is good.

And it certainly doesn&#39;t mean that we on the left should "defend Islam"...that&#39;s just a howling absurdity.

I was actually giving your associates "the benefit of the doubt". If they have thought about this stuff and come to the "reasoned" conclusion that "Islam is good" (or "progressive" or whatever), then they have really fucked up big time&#33;

But that is something you would know better than I. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:47 PM

Just the Muslims in power, Severian.

They do what all the seriously religious do when they have the power to get away with it.
More accurately, what all capitalist regimes do when they need to and can get away with it....

It&#39;s hardly news that the Iranian regime is repressive and anti-working class.

Your implication that it&#39;s primarily a "Muslim" rather than a capitalist regime, however, is dead wrong. Accepting at face value what that regime puts out to mystify the real basis for its actions.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Your implication that it&#39;s primarily a "Muslim" rather than a capitalist regime, however, is dead wrong.

Well, to be crude about it, what class holds state power in Iran?

The Islamicist despotism may be said to rule "in the interests" of nascent Iranian capitalism sometimes...but that&#39;s not really the same as state power in a modern capitalist country, is it?

It&#39;s not really Iranian capitalists that have "the final say" in Iran at this point, is it?

Violence against striking workers is indeed in the interests of emerging capitalism in that country; but why use the "religious police" for that purpose?

Modern capitalist countries don&#39;t send in the "vice squad" to protect scabs, do they?

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s much question about the fact that beneath the pious rhetoric of the mullahs, there&#39;s a good deal of "wheeling & dealing" going on, fortunes are being accumulated, and workers are being exploited.

But to blandly label Iran as "just another capitalist country" is, in my opinion, grossly misleading at this point.

Indeed, I think it probable that some Iranian capitalists find the rule of the mullahs an increasingly intolerable obstacle to their own plans to develop Iran.

That&#39;s why I think the next Iranian revolution will be a bourgeois revolution. It will have enormous popular support and participation, to be sure. But what will come out of it will be a much more modern bourgeois republic.

I just hope that when it happens they really will hang all the mullahs&#33;

That&#39;s the real key to progress in Iran at this point.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Gonzo Journalism]

I support the Danish cartoons. From what I can gather they&#39;re supporting free speech and they&#39;re anti-cencorship. The fact that people have been taking these protests so far only prooves the point the cartoonist was trying to make.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Gonzo [email protected] 14 2006, 08:29 PM
The fact that people have been taking these protests so far only prooves the point the cartoonist was trying to make.

Well the cartoonists weren&#39;t trying to make any point.

They were Illustrators - not Political Cartoonists - and were therefore commissioned to draw Mohammad for money. Meaning the cartoonists themselves - who are now in hiding - were not trying to provoke a political debate on "free speech", just "earn a crust".

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2006, 09:29 PM
Well the cartoonists weren&#39;t trying to make any point.
Portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist is not trying to make a point?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nah Intifada. These cartoons depicting Muhammad as a terrorist -- which were published in an openly right-wing & anti-immigrant newspaper that supported/s fascists at a time when Western Imperialists are occupying two countries whos citizens are predominantly Muslim -- were completely politically unmotivated.

[Gonzo Journalism]

It seems I got the completely wrong idea about these cartoons. I thought that they were just promoting free speech, I guess I should do a little more research next time I post.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Intifada+Feb 14 2006, 11:03 PM--> (Intifada @ Feb 14 2006, 11:03 PM)
Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2006, 09:29 PM
Well the cartoonists weren&#39;t trying to make any point.
Portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist is not trying to make a point? [/b]

Not really.

The cartoonists were payed to draw those pictures and they did.

It&#39;s also been pointed out that the picture of Muhammad as a terrorist, could imply that terrorists have appropriated Muhammad for political reasons.


CompañeroDeLibertad
....which were published in an openly right-wing & anti-immigrant newspaper that supported/s fascists....

Most of the cartoons never appeared in that newspaper. They were reprinted by a Syrian (I think) newspaper and put on the internet.

[Gonzo Journalism]

The cartoonists were payed to draw those pictures and they did.

Ok. Then the people who told the cartoonists to draw those pictures were the ones trying to make a point.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:18 AM
It&#39;s not really Iranian capitalists that have "the final say" in Iran at this point, is it?
Yes, in fact, it is. The mullahs are their representatives. Rafsanjani particularly is very openly associated with business interests. (Too openly, considering the instability of the regime and Iranian workers&#39; history of struggle.)


Violence against striking workers is indeed in the interests of emerging capitalism in that country; but why use the "religious police" for that purpose?

Modern capitalist countries don&#39;t send in the "vice squad" to protect scabs, do they?

Nor is that what happened in this case. Besides your pro-imperialist op-ed, here&#39;s a couple sources that give a more detailed look: this (http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav020706a.shtml), and this. (http://www.labournet.net/world/0602/iran4.html)

Rather it was thugs from the "Workers House" and the "Islamic Shora" [literally council, sometimes translated as labor council] of the bus company - that is, the government-linked organizations claiming to speak for workers (and which do actually sometimes make some feeble protest in the name of workers&#39; economic interests.) (In the period immediately after the &#39;79 revolution, many shoras did actually function as workers&#39; organizations; over time some were banned and others lost their independence.)

This kind of bureaucratic thug violence by the official labor federation against independent workers&#39; organizations is common under repressive capitalist regimes; it&#39;s not unheard of under bourgeois democracy either. Remember what happened to Jock Yablonski?

The Iranian government also used its own security forces directly, and locked up hundreds of workers in jails notorious for the punishment of political prisoners. I really don&#39;t know where you got this "vice squad" thing from, other than your own preconceptions blinding you yet again.

This bus drivers&#39; strike is really more important than this whole debate - as a sign of workers&#39; increasing discontent and self-organization in Iran. But of course to you the Iranian workers are only victims to hold up as an example of how awful "Islam" is...not fighters, certainly not a revolutionary class.

You place your hopes in some imaginary bourgeois revolutionaries instead. (Bet ya can&#39;t name one.)

Letter from families of arrested bus workers (http://www.labournet.net/world/0602/iran3.html)

Wow&#33; Look at that&#33; Nothing at all there about "Islam" being the problem. Maybe they think their problems are caused by flesh-and-blood oppressors on earth?

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 15 2006, 12:14 AM
Not really.

The cartoonists were payed to draw those pictures and they did.
So?


It&#39;s also been pointed out that the picture of Muhammad as a terrorist, could imply that terrorists have appropriated Muhammad for political reasons.

Maybe so.

I think if you put it into context, however, it is simply another Islamophobic piece intended to all portray Muslim, in partiular immigrants, as fundamentalist maniacs.

Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published these cartoons, is know to be a right-wing paper, and has been accused of carrying out a racist agenda against immigrants.

A 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism found that the Danish media, as a whole, devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants (most often those of Islamic faith) while often ignoring the problems that such immigrants face. They hold newspapers such as Jyllands-Posten partly responsible for the rise of the anti-immigrant right-wing in Danish politics, in particular the Danish People&#39;s Party.

Meanwhile, to add fuel to the fire, a German newspaper has published a cartoon portraying the Iranian football team as suicide bombers.

Link (http://www.lastkick.com/?p=730)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Intifada+--> (Intifada)Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published these cartoons, is know to be a right-wing paper, and has been accused of carrying out a racist agenda against immigrants.[/b]

Yeah, but they published them back in September (?) and since then I&#39;m pretty sure quite a few "Muslim countries" have republished - and in some cases published for the first time - the cartoons.

Aside from that, even though the Danish Papers goal was probably to publish a racist message, the only way that message can be construed as racist is if someone thinks that either all Arabs are Muslims or that Muslims are a race on their own.

I don&#39;t think either option is a logical one.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Meanwhile, to add fuel to the fire, a German newspaper has published a cartoon portraying the Iranian football team as suicide bombers.

Not in the best taste obviously, but do you remember what the British Tabloids were printing about Germans before the semi-final of Euro 96&#39;?

Anyway, did you notice the response from Iran....


90
The Iranian newspaper 90 has called the cartoon "shameless" and called on the Iranian football federation to lodge an official protest.

"It is now clear that the Germans are under the influence of the Zionists (Israel) and have lowered themselves to become their scarecrows," wrote 90.

Beyond.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Yes, in fact, it is. The mullahs are their representatives.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a few of the leading capitalists in the U.S. were somewhat obsessed with the "morals" of the working class -- Henry Ford, for example.

But it was unusual.

Now, you would argue that Iran is "just another emerging capitalist country" which just "happens to have" this peculiar "ruling style" of medieval superstitious despotism.

I do not find such an analysis at all credible.


But of course to you the Iranian workers are only victims to hold up as an example of how awful "Islam" is...not fighters, certainly not a revolutionary class....Wow&#33; Look at that&#33; Nothing at all there about "Islam" being the problem. Maybe they think their problems are caused by flesh-and-blood oppressors on earth?

And maybe an Iranian version of Lenin or Trotsky will emerge to "lead them to socialism". :lol:

This is just more special pleading for your own perspective and is of no help at all in understanding Iran or anyplace else.

If the bus drivers in Iran or any Iranian workers have not grasped that their first task is to overthrow the mullah despotism, then nothing else they do will help&#33;

They are "victims of Islam" whether they "know it" or not.

And they probably don&#39;t know it yet, sad to say. Which means they will keep on being "victims" until they learn it&#33;

Meanwhile, you spring to the defense of superstition so eagerly these days that I&#39;m beginning to wonder: are you looking for a "working-class" church to join?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 15 2006, 03:19 PM
Yeah, but they published them back in September (?) and since then I&#39;m pretty sure quite a few "Muslim countries" have republished - and in some cases published for the first time - the cartoons.
Indeed they have.

However, the difference is the intent behind the publishing of the cartoons by Jyllands-Posten initially and then by the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr.

El Fagr published the cartoons with an article denouncing them, whilst the Jyllands-Posten published them with the official reason of "protecting freedom of expression". Of course, I don&#39;t believe that.

The reaction shown by sections of the Muslim population was what they wanted to provoke. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Aside from that, even though the Danish Papers goal was probably to publish a racist message, the only way that message can be construed as racist is if someone thinks that either all Arabs are Muslims or that Muslims are a race on their own.


Jyllands-Posten is a newspaper known for it&#39;s negative slant on immigration and immigrants, especially Islamic ones.

I find it hard to believe that the publication of such cartoons were not meant to be hostile towards the stereotypical immigrant in Denmark.


Not in the best taste obviously, but do you remember what the British Tabloids were printing about Germans before the semi-final of Euro 96&#39;?


Both are ignorant and hateful actions that should be condemned by any sane person.


Anyway, did you notice the response from Iran....


It is understandable.

The Zionists always try to portray all their enemies as nothing but suicide bombing maniacs.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Intifada+--> (Intifada)El Fagr published the cartoons with an article denouncing them, whilst the Jyllands-Posten published them with the official reason of "protecting freedom of expression".[/b]

Do you know where I could read an English translation of this article, because it seems to me that no matter how offended they were by the cartoons, republishing them would amount to "blasphemy".

Which kinda&#39; makes me doubt why they&#39;d republish the cartoons, surely they could have voiced their outrage without publishing them? ....like many papers have.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I find it hard to believe that the publication of such cartoons were not meant to be hostile towards the stereotypical immigrant in Denmark.

I think that much is obvious, but the cartoons weren&#39;t racist unless you consider all Arabs to be Muslims or Muslims to be a separate race.

However, as far as I can tell the majority of the "Muslims World" didn&#39;t find these racist, but "blasphemous". Even the "Westernised Muslims" took this stance - hence the banners saying if you insult Islam you deserve to die.

Plus, the "moderate Muslims" who went to that protest in London, had T-shirts and banners that read "Stop Islamaphobia".

Personally I think people should be "phobic" about Islam - and Christianity and Judaism and so on - and wouldn&#39;t like to prevent such a "phobia" - even though "phobia" is the wrong word.

Actually, the responses I&#39;ve seen from Secular Arabs and "token Muslims" have all been expressing embarrassment. This popped up in Events and Propaganda earlier....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46336

Those are the people who seem to require our help, because they&#39;re the ones fighting against a Medieval Superstition and as we should know, that&#39;s a fucking dangerous job.


Intifada
It is understandable.

The Zionists always try to portray all their enemies as nothing but suicide bombing maniacs.

No it&#39;s not "understandable". The "World Jewish Hierarchy", the "Zionists" or just the plain old "Jews" had nothing to do with the cartoons. If they wanted to blame a "group", why not blame "White Christians"?

After all, they were responsible.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Personally I think people should be "phobic" about Islam - and Christianity and Judaism and so on - and wouldn&#39;t like to prevent such a "phobia" - even though "phobia" is the wrong word.

I relish the opportunity to mock religion, but to selectively mock one religion (as many in the West do) is bigoted and hypocritical. What Arabs and Muslims find very troubling is selective "phobia." If you mock all religion consistently, in a secular, free thinking way, in attempt for enlightenment and secularism, then that&#39;s one thing. But the notion that you can mock religion, but all others must be treated with reverence is utter bullshit. This is why this defense of "freedom of speech" didn&#39;t hold any water in the Arab world. We all know that the West wouldn&#39;t dare reprint those cartoons if these were offensive to Jews. The Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted the Muhammed cartoons in the name of "free speech." It isn&#39;t any wonder whether they&#39;d reprint some of David Irving&#39;s writings about the WWI era in the name of "free speech."

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)....but to selectively mock one religion (as many in the West do) is bigoted and hypocritical.[/b]

Yes Catholicism is "mocked" a lot and certain branches of Evangelicalism have been the subject of much recent scorn, but I wouldn&#39;t call that "bigoted" or "hypocritical".

However, this thread is discussing the mocking of Islam, so I don&#39;t know why you said that.


Originally posted by Free [email protected]
This is why this defense of "freedom of speech" didn&#39;t hold any water in the Arab world.

Well Secular Arabs, as I&#39;ve said, all seem to be deeply embarrassed about this, only Muslims seem to have expressed any anger.


Free Palestine
We all know that the West wouldn&#39;t dare reprint those cartoons if these were offensive to Jews.

Actually the Independent recently re-printed a pretty anti-Semitic cartoon first published in Iran and that didn&#39;t cause uproar.

Anyway, as I&#39;ve already pointed out, re-printing those anti-Semitics cartoons - which denied the Holocaust - would be illegal in most European countries.

[Intifada]

(Armchair Socialism)

Do you know where I could read an English translation of this article, because it seems to me that no matter how offended they were by the cartoons, republishing them would amount to "blasphemy".


No.

Although, I believe the newspaper wished to give Egyptian Muslims a "heads up".


Which kinda&#39; makes me doubt why they&#39;d republish the cartoons, surely they could have voiced their outrage without publishing them? ....like many papers have.


It does seem odd.


I think that much is obvious, but the cartoons weren&#39;t racist unless you consider all Arabs to be Muslims or Muslims to be a separate race.


Indeed.


However, as far as I can tell the majority of the "Muslims World" didn&#39;t find these racist, but "blasphemous".

I think most Muslims were understandably offended by the cartoons.

They were "blasphemous" and offensive.

Still, I believe the Jyllands-Posten published them in order to further create a negative attitude towards Denmark&#39;s immigrant population, most of which are Muslims.


Even the "Westernised Muslims" took this stance - hence the banners saying if you insult Islam you deserve to die.


Well, such banners were not representative of all Muslims living in the West - Britain in particular. Most of those idiots were members of Al Muhajiroun, a group that in no way speaks for all UK Muslims.

I don&#39;t know if you have ever met one of their members.

I have met and talked to a former member. They are a very small group, consisting of probably a few dozen nutcases and that&#39;s probably it.

Most "normal" Muslims I know, and I know a lot, are completely against the reaction of a lot of Muslims worldwide. As you state, they feel embarassed.

Moreover, such a reaction only plays into the hands of those who intend to fuel such religious violence.


Plus, the "moderate Muslims" who went to that protest in London, had T-shirts and banners that read "Stop Islamaphobia".


I don&#39;t see anything wrong in that.


Personally I think people should be "phobic" about Islam - and Christianity and Judaism and so on - and wouldn&#39;t like to prevent such a "phobia" - even though "phobia" is the wrong word.


Of course.

But, as Free Palestine has mentioned, to only have an agenda against one religion and its followers is bigotry.

Muslims, after 9/11 and the events that have followed since, feel growingly persecuted and threatened by the West, and I believe that they feel so with some justice too.


No it&#39;s not "understandable".

To the Iranians it is.

To them, the "white Christians" are in bed with the "Zionists" anyway.

I am aware that the term "Zionist" is used by some as a codeword for "Jews".

That is completely wrong.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Intifada+--> (Intifada)Although, I believe the newspaper wished to give Egyptian Muslims a "heads up".[/b]

Weird though that they&#39;d give a "heads up" about "blasphemy" by being "blasphemous". :huh:


Originally posted by Intifada+--> (Intifada)I think most Muslims were understandably offended by the cartoons.[/b]

"Understandable" that a group of people who believe in an imaginary person who can&#39;t be drawn getting offended when he is drawn.

Yeah I suppose it&#39;s "understandable" but it makes no sense at all.


Originally posted by Intifada
Still, I believe the Jyllands-Posten published them in order to further create a negative attitude towards Denmark&#39;s immigrant population, most of which are Muslims.

Aside from the fact that the response to the cartoons came when they were re-published. Muslims would have been angry if Mohammad was drawn eating ice cream.


Originally posted by Intifada
Most "normal" Muslims I know, and I know a lot, are completely against the reaction of a lot of Muslims worldwide. As you state, they feel embarassed.

Exactly.

The "token Muslims" don&#39;t seem to give a shit, only the really pious do.


[email protected]
I don&#39;t see anything wrong in that.

Being against "Islamaphobia" doesn&#39;t have anything to do with racism, it means don&#39;t attack Islam.

That&#39;s why we had the proposed "Religious Hatred Bill" which could possibly have resulted in every British member on this forum who posts against Islam getting put on trial. :o

"Stop Islamaphobia" my arse.


Intifada
Muslims, after 9/11 and the events that have followed since, feel growingly persecuted and threatened by the West, and I believe that they feel so with some justice too.

No, not Muslims in the abstract, rather "brown people" in general. Charles de Menzies was a Roman Catholic - I think - and that didn&#39;t stop the Police from shooting him, because they don&#39;t ask if you&#39;re a Muslim, they look at whether you&#39;re "brown".

"Islamaphobia" and the "movement" behind it, actually divert attention from general racism because they are trying to carve out a "niche" for Islam in British Public Life.

It&#39;s working as well, the "Muslim Council of Britain" now has a seat at "Blair&#39;s table" whilst ordinary "brown" people - whatever their Religion - are still getting "badgered" by the Police.

[Purple]

It is so fucking stupid how they go after nations, not individual business organizations, for printing the cartoons&#33; The nations themselves did not have anything to do with it, and if it had they would be certain to exclude it&#33; If there had been some more education on western societies in Muslim countries maybe they would realize what a fucking joke this is&#33;

Death to ignorance...

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:08 PM
It is so fucking stupid how they go after nations, not individual business organizations, for printing the cartoons&#33;

Actually in Pakistan I heard a "mob" burnt down a KFC.

The Colonel was pissed&#33; :lol:

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)Yes Catholicism is "mocked" a lot and certain branches of Evangelicalism have been the subject of much recent scorn, but I wouldn&#39;t call that "bigoted" or "hypocritical".[/b]

Are you an idiot? I said: "..in a secular, free thinking way, in attempt for enlightenment and secularism."


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)Well Secular Arabs, as I&#39;ve said, all seem to be deeply embarrassed about this, only Muslims seem to have expressed any anger.[/b]

Look, get real man. You&#39;re in Wales. How many secular Arabs do you know? Heading over to the ME anytime soon? Didn&#39;t think so. So please don&#39;t speak about subjects you have no understanding of.


Armchair [email protected]
Actually the Independent recently re-printed a pretty anti-Semitic cartoon first published in Iran and that didn&#39;t cause uproar.

And the BBC, Le Monde, or any media outlet in Copenhagen -- all the Western rags that reprinted the Muhammed cartoons in the name of "free speech?" That&#39;s what I thought.


Armchair Socialism
Anyway, as I&#39;ve already pointed out, re-printing those anti-Semitics cartoons - which denied the Holocaust - would be illegal in most European countries.

And? That&#39;s the price you pay for the "free expression" they claim to be so eager to defend.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)I said: "..in a secular, free thinking way, in attempt for enlightenment and secularism."[/b]

What you think the constant embarrassment of Catholicism doesn&#39;t help spread "enlightenment and secularism"?


Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)How many secular Arabs do you know?[/b]

A few.

However this matters little. In the age of "modern technology" information is only a click away. Today for instance a read something put out by various Middle Eastern groups expressing their embarrassment at what had happened.


Free [email protected]
And the BBC, Le Monde, or any media outlet in Copenhagen -- all the Western rags that reprinted the Muhammed cartoons in the name of "free speech?" That&#39;s what I thought.

How am I supposed to know that?

Anyway, as LSD pointed out in the other thread, it really didn&#39;t create any "news" so there was no real need to re-print them.


Free Palestine
That&#39;s the price you pay for the "free expression" they claim to be so eager to defend.

Well I know you&#39;d be very eager to see cartoons denying the Holocaust get published in the "Worlds Press" - they were published in the "Muslim Press" and the internet so I don&#39;t really get what you&#39;re moaning about - but generally most civilised people don&#39;t really want to see that kind of stuff.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)What you think the constant embarrassment of Catholicism doesn&#39;t help spread "enlightenment and secularism"?[/b]

You are very duplicitious. The way you have phrased this, completely ignoring the qualifier I stated, and the context of my point is pathetic. "Constant embarassment?" From who? I said in a secular, free thinking way, in attempt for enlightenment and secularism. This qualifier does not include Evangelicals practicing religious bigotry against Catholics. No, bigotry from Evangelicals does not help spread "enlightenment and secularism." It&#39;s not from a secular POV.


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected]
However this matters little.

If you think making sweeping generalizations about millions of people when you only know a "few" is of "little" matter..


Armchair Socialism
Well I know you&#39;d be very eager to see cartoons denying the Holocaust get published in the "Worlds Press" - they were published in the "Muslim Press" and the internet so I don&#39;t really get what you&#39;re moaning about - but generally most civilised people don&#39;t really want to see that kind of stuff.

Armchair Socialism: "Anti-Jewish cartoons are repugnant and uncivilized&#33; But anti-Islamic cartoons are OK with me&#33;"

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 15 2006, 09:22 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 15 2006, 09:22 AM)
Severian
Yes, in fact, it is. The mullahs are their representatives.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a few of the leading capitalists in the U.S. were somewhat obsessed with the "morals" of the working class -- Henry Ford, for example.

But it was unusual. [/b]
Prohibition, for starters. I could go on, but what does this have to do with anything?


I do not find such an analysis at all credible.

Your first, last, and only argument on any subject: because you say so.

It&#39;d save time if you&#39;d cut out the frills and just issue this proclamation at the start.



But of course to you the Iranian workers are only victims to hold up as an example of how awful "Islam" is...not fighters, certainly not a revolutionary class....Wow&#33; Look at that&#33; Nothing at all there about "Islam" being the problem. Maybe they think their problems are caused by flesh-and-blood oppressors on earth?

And maybe an Iranian version of Lenin or Trotsky will emerge to "lead them to socialism". :lol:

Well, at least it&#39;s finally clear what you mean by this "Trotskyism" you keep reviling.

It refers to the idea that the working class is the revolutionary class.

Of course you could more accurately call that "Marxism" or "communism."

Reminds me of a funny story about Mike Klonsky, Maoist guru of the October League, at some public meeting where somebody started giving him a hard time about Mao&#39;s alliance with the shah of Iran. Klonsky responded "You&#39;re calling for a proletarian revolution in Iran&#33; Why, that&#39;s nothing but Trotskyism&#33;"

Not-so-great minds think alike?

[redstar2000]

What would a "proletarian revolution" actually mean in the context of present-day Iran?

That is, once past the red flags and "Marxist" rhetoric, what would actually be done?

How long before Iran&#39;s version of the NEP? How long before Iran&#39;s "Stalin"? How long before modern capitalism would inevitably emerge?

Mike Klonsky was indeed something of a buffoon even back when he was National Secretary of SDS. As a Maoist, he even made Bob Avakian look good.

Nevertheless, he evidently had your number. A proletarian revolution in a backward country like Iran is an oxymoron...and perhaps one to which Trotskyists seem particularly prone.

Not that proletarian elements won&#39;t play a major role in a revolutionary upheaval in Iran...but do you imagine that they have the necessary self-confidence to rule?

From a historical materialist view, that&#39;s simply absurd&#33;

The Iranian proletariat is too culturally backward to hold state power for more than a few months at best; then some "Vanguard Party" would take over and create the usual state monopoly capitalist despotism.

The possibility of a Leninist Revolution in Iran cannot be absolutely ruled out...though it seems pretty unlikely at the present time.

In my view, there will be a popular uprising against the despotism of the mullahs and it will result in the rise to power of a semi-modern capitalist class with a decidedly secular orientation.

There won&#39;t be an Iranian "Lenin" or "Trotsky" or "Stalin"...but there might very well be an Iranian "Kemal Atatürk".

That would be progress. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)You are very duplicitious.[/b]

It&#39;s duplicitous.


Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)"Constant embarassment?" From who?[/b]

Everyone.

These days you rarely see an Irish comedian who doesn&#39;t make some kind of negative joke about the Catholic church which helps to further undermine their credibility and many American comedians "mock" American Christianity.

Remember, comedy - especially "nasty" jokes - served the French revolutionaries very well in effectively undermining the power and prestige of the Monarchy and the Church.

After all, a "God" that can&#39;t save itself from constant embarrassment and scorn isn&#39;t that "powerful" is he?


Originally posted by Free Palestine
I said in a secular, free thinking way, in attempt for enlightenment and secularism.

Well I consider the well thought out "free thinking" sketches by Irish comedians about Catholic Priests doing all kinds of things "enlightened" and "secular".

Indeed the implication of your standards is that criticism of Religion should remain at purely "academic" level with well meaning debates and books "analysing" Religion.

Personally, I&#39;ll take anything that drives a further dagger into the heart of Religion, be it Richard Dawkins documentary, an Irish comic or a well written account of Religious atrocities around the world.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
This qualifier does not include Evangelicals practicing religious bigotry against Catholics. No, bigotry from Evangelicals does not help spread "enlightenment and secularism."

To think you accused me of being duplicitous. Read again....


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 15 2006, 07:52 PM
Yes Catholicism is "mocked" a lot and certain branches of Evangelicalism have been the subject of much recent scorn, but I wouldn&#39;t call that "bigoted" or "hypocritical".

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292021424 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46127&view=findpost&p=1292021424)

Where does that even give air to the idea that Evangelicals are "mocking" Catholics?


Free [email protected]
If you think making sweeping generalizations about millions of people when you only know a "few" is of "little" matter..

Whilst of course you have sat down and had a cup of idea with each of the worlds billion Muslims.


Free Palestine
Armchair Socialism: "Anti-Jewish cartoons are repugnant and uncivilized&#33; But anti-Islamic cartoons are OK with me&#33;"

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the anti-Semitic cartoons played on the social notion that Jews are a race, whilst the anti-Islamic cartoons attacked a "holy prophet".

There is a huge difference.

[Free Palestine]

Do you have any thoughts of your own? Do you consult Redstar2000 on his opinion on a given issue and then parrot it? Seriously, I&#39;m curious. I noticed you also copy his habit of unnecessarily bolding words and use a lot of "unnecessary quotations" which never ceases to crack me up. I dub thee redstar2000&#39;s shadow from this point on. Or shall I say "redstar2000&#39;s shadow"? :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 20 2006, 02:44 AM
Do....

Are you going to reply to my post or not?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 20 2006, 02:44 AM
Or shall I say "redstar2000&#39;s shadow"? :lol:

If you were going to do it properly, you either do this....

"redstar2000&#39;s shadow"

Or better yet....

redstar2000&#39;s "shadow"

Or just....

redstar2000&#39;s "shadow"

The quotation marks denote a word that doesn&#39;t really "fit" and is only be used to save time. Or alternatively, they could emphasise a sarcastic remark - like in the case of "shadow".