Anti-Muslim attacks and Imperialism

[Jimmie Higgins]

There has been an ongoing debate on this site about the nature of "Islamopobia" and the recent attacks against Muslims. I am of the opinion that these attacks are not a battle between secular society and religion, but are part of an ideological justification of the "war on terror" and the imperialist aims of countries such as the US and UK.

Some suggest we stand aside and let reactionaries like anti-immigrent groups in Europe and reactionries such as religious immigrents fight it out. Most of us here agree that religion is not progressive and a political dead end (to say the least, many would argue much more strongly against religion) and everyone here agrees that anti-immigrent groups are reactionary (if not, you are probably a fascist trolling quietly until the day you slip, your arm shoots into the air to hail your leader, and you are promptly kicked-off this site). But I want to argue that the reality is that this situation is not just one set of reactionaries against another set, but is a calculated racist attack that strengthens the ruling classes in the US and Europe domestically as well as strengthens and gives cover for US and UK imperialism.

In a recent speech on the 3rd anniversary of the War in Iraq, Blair paints "terrorism" as "Muslim extreemism" and the UK and US as upholders of "progressive secularism".

http://www.pmo.gov.uk/output/Page9226.asp

"They, the terrorists, know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow. Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world."

But, domestically, he said we must also recognize Muslim extremism here too for what it is - not pander to it. "The struggle against terrorism in Madrid, or London or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Palestine or rejectionist groups in Iraq........this is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash about civilization.... "we" is not the West. "We" are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. "We" are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts."

But we have to equally recognize that this extremism is deep-rooted, and its impact was felt worldwide, with some 30 to 40 countries subject to regular terrorist attacks loosely linked to its ideology.

That was why this global terrorism would not be defeated until its ideas were confronted head on - its absurd anti-Americanism; its pre-feudal concept of governance; its position on women and other faiths. "The only way to win is: to recognize this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas in which it operates as linked; and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists."

Putting aside the obvious hypocracy of the statements about defending "democracy" for a moment, you might argue that Blair singles out Muslim extremism from the general Muslim (not to mention the general arab) population. And yet terrorism is confined only to muslims -- specifically arab Muslims -- specifically arab muslims who are engaged in struggles which are contrary to the aims of US and UK imperialism.

Our ruling classes, in order to turn workers with the same class interests against eachother, have historically used xenophobia and jingoism to get workers to identify with their domestic ruling class and against other workers. In order to accomplish this, they have often cloaked their imperialism in progressive-sounding cause: the war to save democracy, saving the world from fascism, and so on. So just because our ruling class now says it is defending secular humanism, do not buy into it

Case in point. In the US and Europe, the "cartoon controvercy" was painted by the mainstream newspapers and even sections of the left as Muslims forcing the secular left to adhere to their religious taboos. Such an uproar from the same people who probably got all indignant when that aithiest in California sued to have "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegence. Clintonite turned pundit George Stephanopolus said about the anger in responce to the cartoons if "Muslim minorities can exist in larger secular societies". Maybe we should give them a few blocks of Warsaw eh George.

But again, this was not an attack on free-speech and secular freedoms. This was an attack to provoke xenophobia towards muslims (who also happen to be a large segment of the immigrent population in a country where there is an anti-immigrent right-wing movement and a Queen [real progressive there] who said "We must show our opposition to Islam"). But the Guardian UK reported that the right-wing newspaper which published the cartoons rejected cartoons lampooning Jesus. So unlike the way this was painted by most of the press in the US and Europe, this was not secular freedoms vs. religious intolerence, it was regular old attack on immigrents.

I believe it is imperitive for radicals to point out these attacks for what they are and how they fit into the "war on terror" and US imperialism. Muslims are right to be angry because of the attacks on arabs in Iraq and elsewhere - as aeithiests and everyone else should be equally angry at the imperialist offensive goin on right now.

For the middle east, we need to continue to argue that the answers to imperialism are material and class-based not magical and divinity-based. At the same time we have to critically support the fight-back against imperialism even if it takes on a nationalist or religious form.

In Europe and the US we need to stand up to attacks on Muslims just as we would stand up to anti-semetic attacks. I think if minutemen were protesting outside of Spanish mass at Catholic churches in Los Angles and saying they were fighting Popish influence in the US, no one here would question protesting the minutem men even if our protest could be viewed as supporting catholics who are also violently opposed to abortion and homosexuality and so on.

[Fuzzy_Louster]

I would say that the attacks on muslims is not the justification for the war on terror, but the result of the war on terror. The scare tatics used by the American and European governments circulate lies and fear, confusing the fact that we are all being kept under the foot of the bourgoisie. So, this isnt some part of the war on terror, I would suggest that it is an unforseen added bonus that will work to the advantage of these governments.

[kingbee]

This was an attack to provoke xenophobia towards muslims

So you're telling me that the Danish paper thought

"Let's whip up some xenophobia, and then the whole of Western Europe will follow"?

I don't think this is racist against Muslims at all. It's just a difficult contradiction between religious values and free speech, compounded in an era of globalisation that makes things a whole lot more difficult.


And yet terrorism is confined only to muslims -- specifically arab Muslims -- specifically arab muslims who are engaged in struggles which are contrary to the aims of US and UK imperialism.

In a world where all states act 'rationally' in their own self interests this doesn't surprise me. Blair doesn't single out Islamic terrorists because they are Muslim, he singles them out because Islamic terrorism happens to be the biggest threat to the British state.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:55 AM
Blair doesn't single out Islamic terrorists because they are Muslim, he singles them out because Islamic terrorism happens to be the biggest threat to the British state.
All leaders who embark upon an imperialist campaign need a scapegoat.

Hitler used the Jews.

Cold War USA used the dirty Commies.

Extremist "Muslims" are the "enemy" of "freedom" and "democracy", according to the likes of Bush and Blair. But, why should we believe those who have launched such aggressive attacks against the Afghan and Iraqi people, as well as the average and native Muslim, who happens to be of the "wrong" colour?

Nobody can argue against the fact that since 9/11 the US and UK has indirectly/directly (it is arguable) whipped up a fear of the brown-skinned man who wears a beard, and therefore must be some kind of Muslim. Such a creation of fear gives Blair and his regime legitimacy and a justification for the draconian measures he has put in place, and tries to put in place.

The only "threat" to the British state is Tony Blair himself.

(Gravedigger)

In Europe and the US we need to stand up to attacks on Muslims just as we would stand up to anti-semetic attacks.

I agree.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
I think if minutemen were protesting outside of Spanish mass at Catholic churches in Los Angeles and saying they were fighting Popish influence in the US, no one here would question protesting the minutemen even if our protest could be viewed as supporting catholics who are also violently opposed to abortion and homosexuality and so on.

I would question it; it's not our fight!

Protest U.S. and British imperialism in the Middle East? Absolutely!

Protest racist attacks on immigrants? Absolutely!

Defend Islam? No way!

Defend Catholicism? Out of the question!

Defend "freedom of religion"? Don't be ridiculous!

That's a bourgeois liberal "value" that revolutionaries should wipe their asses with! :angry:

Let the bourgeois liberals and the social democrats kiss all the superstitious ass they want to...and that's a lot! :lol:

Revolutionaries should have nothing but contempt for that crap.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Andy Bowden]

But the denial of people to do something that from a Marxist perspective is irrational and harmful - pray, engage in church - can often come from people who are opposed to said religious practices that have absolutely nothing to do with secularism, or athiesm.

Would you say that Jews in the time of the Tsar should not have the right to go to synagogues unmolested, as this "defends religious freedom"?.

Muslims are being made a scapegoat, and we should stand in solidarity with Muslims as a people but not Islam as a religious creed - just as we wouldn't support any religious creed.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden
Would you say that Jews in the time of the Tsar should not have the right to go to synagogues unmolested, as this "defends religious freedom"?

"Synagogue attendance" was not the "Jewish problem" in Czarist Russia. The problem that Jews faced there was pogroms...large-scale murderous attacks on Jews organized by the Czarist government.

In fact, "Bloody Nicholas" was rather inclined to large-scale murderous attacks on all of his subjects. A list of his atrocities would be a post of substantial length.

Besides which, that was then; this is now. Nearly everyone was religious back then and the few who weren't still embraced "freedom of religion" as a "sacred human right".

In the "west", we revolutionaries ought to be beyond all that by now!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Andy Bowden]

So if the FN was to gain power in France, and decreed an end to the construction of Mosques, would you back it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/fgalkin/ndwhg1.gif

That is all I have to say on the matter.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:55 AM
So you're telling me that the Danish paper thought

"Let's whip up some xenophobia, and then the whole of Western Europe will follow"?


Considering that it was a right-wing newspaper and that the cartoons contained no actual critique of religion, but rather were seemingly designed to offend, I would say that that is precisely what they thought.

I think the point Gravedigger is attempting to make is not that we should defend Islam or Catholicism, but rather that we should prevent the right-wing from using Islam and religion as a pretext for oppression and hate. And that standing up to such attacks and standing in solidarity with immigrants and minorities does not equal standing up for a religion.

I find it fascinating that Lefties argue that we shouldn't stand by immigrants and minorities targetted for their religion because such a thing would constitute standing in support of reactionary forces. Yet these same people have quickly jumped into the "it's just freedom of speech" pool, populated by right-wingers, Nazis and racists. Lenin's Tomb has a good post about the recent "freedom of speech" protest in London: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/03/beh...taire-tiny.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/03/behead-those-who-insult-voltaire-tiny.html) . Funny, I don't recall the BNP and 'Civil Liberty' standing up for freedom of speech before this issue...

And Noxion: what are you trying to say? That the existence of anti-Semitism justifies anti-Islamism? I don't recall anyone here arguing in favor of anti-Semitism or in favor of Islamic groups. The argument is over whether we should support these populations, even though they are being targeted over their religion, a reactionary thing. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are anti-Semitic or racist, it is mostly hardcore Islamic groups that propagate such filth. And I don't see anyone in government calling for attacks against high-powered right-wing Islamic leaders. This type of xenophobia doesn't affect people like the royal family Saudi at all, it's usually the average Islamic immigrant in a city who has to face more stringent immigration, racism, abuse at the hands of cops, etc. If anything it would seem that the "dont side with religion" side of the argument would support anti-Semitic cartoons. After all, Judaism too is a religion and is reactionary, right? Unless there is a double standard that is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

nd Noxion: what are you trying to say? That the existence of anti-Semitism justifies anti-Islamism? I don't recall anyone here arguing in favor of anti-Semitism or in favor of Islamic groups.

Anti-semitism is rife in the Middle East. I am merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of muslims, goaded by their clerics, burning embassies and rioting over a private newspaper publishing cartoons that are no more inflammatory then most cartoons satirising politicians or other religious figures. Tell me, are cartoons depicting Tony Blair or George Bush or even Jesus riding a bomb about to fall onto an Iraqi village worthy of riots and property damage?


Furthermore, I highly doubt that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are anti-Semitic or racist, it is mostly hardcore Islamic groups that propagate such filth.

So where are the concerned Muslim groups condemning anti-semitism? If they exist in large numbers, why aren't their voices being heard?

The flag-burning radical islamists have no right to complain about being offended, considering the offence coming out of their own mouths.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 26 2006, 11:37 AM
So if the FN was to gain power in France, and decreed an end to the construction of Mosques, would you back it?
Better still...demolish the ones that already exist!

Who needs that crap?

If Muslims responded by destroying Christian churches, that would be even better! :D

Everything that hurts religion helps us!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:34 PM

nd Noxion: what are you trying to say? That the existence of anti-Semitism justifies anti-Islamism? I don't recall anyone here arguing in favor of anti-Semitism or in favor of Islamic groups.

Anti-semitism is rife in the Middle East. I am merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of muslims, goaded by their clerics, burning embassies and rioting over a private newspaper publishing cartoons that are no more inflammatory then most cartoons satirising politicians or other religious figures. Tell me, are cartoons depicting Tony Blair or George Bush or even Jesus riding a bomb about to fall onto an Iraqi village worthy of riots and property damage?


Furthermore, I highly doubt that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are anti-Semitic or racist, it is mostly hardcore Islamic groups that propagate such filth.

So where are the concerned Muslim groups condemning anti-semitism? If they exist in large numbers, why aren't their voices being heard?
Your comparison to other satirical cartoons does not equate. You aren't taking into account that Muslims have several of their countries occupied by the West and in Europe/the US face harassment, discrimination, etc. As I've been saying from the beginning, this isn't just about a cartoon. I suspect the cartoon was more "the straw that broke the camel's back".

As far as not hearing Islamic voices condemning anti-Semitism and racism, that probably has to do with the fact that we rarely hear Islamic voices in the media at all. The media almost seems to make a concerted effort to endlessly portray Muslims as all being invading terrorists hellbent on destroying democracy and liberties. Just google anything that has to do with "liberal islam" or "progressive Islam" and you will find a torrent of information. I even have found some rather interesting stuff, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anarchism . Bullshit to be sure, but fascinating and something I did not know about nonetheless. Just because you haven't heard of it does not mean stuff does not exist. Also:
The flag-burning radical islamists have no right to complain about being offended, considering the offence coming out of their own mouths. Please go back and show me where anyone said we should support radical Islamists or that they had any right to complain? Guess what? When this kind of stuff is used to helped sway people's views and convince them to accept racial discrimination against Arabs, more foreign wars, etc. it isn't the radical Islamists who suffer the most, its your average immigrant in the West, its your average joe-shmoe in Baghdad. But I guess re-fighting abstract ideological battles with religion is more important than what really happens in people's lives to you?

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 26 2006, 11:46 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 26 2006, 11:46 PM)
Andy [email protected] 26 2006, 11:37 AM
So if the FN was to gain power in France, and decreed an end to the construction of Mosques, would you back it?
Better still...demolish the ones that already exist!

Who needs that crap?

If Muslims responded by destroying Christian churches, that would be even better! :D

Everything that hurts religion helps us!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
How exactly did the cartoons, the conflict over "freedom of speech" etc. hurt religion? The cartoons werent exactly arguing that we should forego religion because its used to control people, or because its based on metaphysical lies, or anything of that nature. If anything the cartoons were meant to portray Islam as cultural invaders and a religion based on violence, in effect ascertaining that this is some kind of "us versus them", "christianity vs islam" culture war, which in my experience just serves to strengthen the support for both religions in their respective areas.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
How exactly did the cartoons, the conflict over "freedom of speech" etc. hurt religion?

By demonstrating the irrational violence that lies at the heart of religion.

Do you imagine that Catholics or Protestants or Eastern Orthodox or Hindus or whatever wouldn't do exactly what the Islamicists did, given the chance?

Sure, the apologists for other religions may take the "cartoon war" as an opportunity to point to "their own tolerance". :lol:

But only the naive would believe that for a second.

Revolutionaries should, if anything, take the Islamicist violence over this issue and point out how typical this behavior is among the seriously religious!

Instead of drunkenly trying to figure out "which side is progressive".

They're all bastards! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

I think that it's important here to seperate religion from religious people, because they're two very different things.

Religion is a belief system; a set of opinions and ideas which constitute a coherent worldview and "theory of everything" based, by definition, on absolutely nothing. Religious people, however, are just the poor sods who buy into the crap.

This distinction may seem obvious, but it's important that we make it because it needs to be made clear that religion has no rights; ideas simply don't have them. Ideas, any ideas, can be attacked, slandered, insulted, and made fun of, and society has absolutely no duty to intervene; indeed, it has an obligation to do nothing.

Why? Because that's just the way that free speech works. We might not like it when someone attacks an idea that's close to us, but they nonetheless have the right to do it.

Now, the Danish cartoons may have been racist, they were certainly meant to be inflammatory. But the paper in question had every right to print them. Muslims, in turn, had every right to respond, and many of them did.

But to claim that statements against Mohammed constitute an "attack on immigrants" is laughable.

There are real "attacks" on immigrants going on in Europe, but they're sure as hell not in cartoon form. If you want to stand-up for immigrant rights then you need to address the real-world injustices that immigrants face every day.

Buying into the "cartoon scandel" as the "symbol of European evil" just helps the Clerics and fundamentalists muddy the waters by equating real oppression with "blasphemy".

Remember, the Muslims who torched the Danish emabassies weren't upset about the treatment of Muslim immigrants in Europe, they were upset that the "Holy Prophet" has been "dephiled".

Accepting this religious "outrage" as a valid symbol of minority oppression avoids the actual problems and makes it seems as though if only Europeans "understood Islam better", anti-immigrant sentiment would disappear.

White Europeans aren't treating immigrants badly because they're Muslim, they're doing it because they're immigrants. Now, sometimes they'll cloak their anti-immigrant measures in anti-Muslim rhetoric, but it's a smokescreen nothing more.

Accepting them at face-value and accusing them of "Islamophobia" instead of plain racism, let's the rightists choose the playing field and define the terms. Instead, we need to adopt a purely materialist paradigm and recognize that "religion" is not a "right", it's an opinion, and it is in no way "protected" or "sacrosanct".

You see, there's a critial difference to protecting immigrants from class oppression and protecting Muslims from "religious oppression". The difference is that while the former is about basic class consciousness, the later is subject to the dicates of doctrine and "culture". If someone's "faith" requires them to oppress their daughter, then, we are told, it is "islamophobic" to stop them from doing so.

A regular working-class Frenchman who beats his daughter and psychologically torments her will, if caught, serve several years in prison.

A Muslim working-class Frenchman who psychologically torments his daughter and forces her to "cover herself" in shame, however, has a "religious right" to continue doing so.

Indeed, we on the left are even encouraged to protest any attempt to change this fact! Muslims, we are told, have the "right" to "practice their faith"; any critiques of their "culture" is "chauvinistic" and "culturally imperialistic"; and we must be "tolerant" of their reaction as "self-determination" must come "independently".

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Again, no one is advocating discrimination against Muslim people, merely discrimination against certain acts they might do.

When it comes to non-religious areas, such as union organizing or class issues then clearly we cannot "turn away" Muslim workers. Proletarian issues are proletarian issues and we need all the support we can get. But just as religion is not grounds for predjeduce, it is not an excuse for oppression. Religion is not "sacrosanct" and has no "rights" attatched to it besides the basic right to conscience.

Look, the real point here is that the "civilizations" paradigm is wrong from both sides. Instead of allowing the rightists and Islamists to set the field, we need to take an independent approach to this issue.

Class issues must be addressed on class terms, but the emancipation of the proletariat is not just about economic conditions, it's also about social ones. Those social practices which are inherently reactionary must be fought and all reasonable means of eliminating them must be used.

The bourgeois state is not the best of allies as it tends to be notoriously fickle with regards to religion, but when it does something that helps us, we cannot be so blind with hatred that we miss the opportunity to let our enemies fight our enemies.

Islam has no "special rights" and neither do its practicioners. Culture is not "immune" from attack and the fact that something is "part of a culture" in no way means that it cannot be wrong.

Human sacrifice has been part of numerous cultures across numerous regions. Does outlawing human sacrifice constitute "Western chauvinism"?

No one wants to tell Muslims what they should eat or how they should speak; frankly we don't care. But when anyone attempts to force their beliefs on others or to subjugate anyone else in the name of their "faith", that's where we have a duty to step in, even if the victim is the child of the perpetrator.

"Culture" may be a personal matter, but actions are very much a public one.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 26 2006, 05:46 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 26 2006, 05:46 PM)
Andy [email protected] 26 2006, 11:37 AM
So if the FN was to gain power in France, and decreed an end to the construction of Mosques, would you back it?
Better still...demolish the ones that already exist! [/b]
Crap. Every time I get some outrageous Redstar quote to put in my sig, he comes out with something even more outrageous.

LSD is simply blathering about irrelevancies; of course religions have no rights and Muslims have no special rights; but Muslims have the same right anyone else does, to practice their religion as long as they are not infringing anyone else's rights.

Why people are attacked in the sense of what subjectively motivates their attackers is also irrelevant. In another thread, LSD spent a long time explaining to me that the subjective motivations of the French state don't matter, as if I didn't know. But now, suddenly, we're supposed to start psychoanalyzing the real motivations of fascists....instead of dealing with the fact they are scapegoating Muslims as Muslims, and justifying this as a fight against Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, and Islamic terrorism.

Somebody just posted an article in the Anti-Fascism forum about neo-Nazis planning to attack Turks and Arabs at a football championship. The Nazi's only stated reason for hating them? "They're Islamic terrorists." Will Redstar be cheering on that attack, too?

And as with everything, the fascists are building on themes already present in bourgeois politics; Blair is paving the way for them.

Blair's stated justification: secularism. We don't need to read his mind; we just need to recognize this is a phony justification, and the ruling class does not stand for free thought and church-state separation. Certainly not in the UK, which still has an established church!

[LSD]

LSD is simply blathering about irrelevancies; of course religions have no rights and Muslims have no special rights; but Muslims have the same right anyone else does, to practice their religion as long as they are not infringing anyone else's rights.

Yes, that's called Freedom of Conscience. We don't need to invent a new paradigm to deal with it.

If someone's "religious observance" effects no one but themselves, then of course they have a right to it, and any attempt at state intercession is an unconsionable violation of basic human rights ...but what happens when it doesn't?

What happens when their "religious practice" does "infringe" someone else's rights?

From the way you constructed your sentence, a casual observer would conclude that at that point you would end your support for "religious freedoms", but counterintuitively, you have made it clear that that isn't so.

Rather you support a father's "right" to indoctrinate and oppress his daughter in the name of his "faith".

Presumably, this support is tendered irrespective of the "faith" in question, but I'd be curious as to how supportive you'd be if we were talking about a less "sensitive" religion ...or if we weren't talking about organized religion at all.

What if, say, a man decides that women are simply to "uppity" in modern society and he's going to raise his daughters "right" and ensure that they "know their role".

So, as they grow up, he teaches them to think of themselves as inferior. To subjugate themselves to men and to never look at another man in the face for he is her "better". Furthermore, to ensure that they do not "tempt" men with their "lust", he makes them cover themselves in enormous garbage bags at all time, with a nice big label on the front that says I am a piece of shit.

Now, to these girls, this kind of treatment is normal. It is, after all, all they've ever known. And it's more than likely that they would strongly object to anyone telling them that their father could be wrong or that he could be wronging them.

So ...did this man commit a crime?

Were his actions child abuse or were they a valid expression of "religious freedoms" and parental rights?

Now, I am not saying that this scenario is an exact parallel to Islam (for one thing, hijabs tend to be more restrictive than garbage bags), but it's close enough. I honestly don't know how you're going to answer my questions (or, given your track record, if you're even going to answer at all), but I do know that there is no functional difference between my hypothetical and the very real situation that millions of girls find themselves in today.

And the fact that you choose to side with the oppressor for the sole reason that he happens to be "Muslim" is frankly despicable.


Why people are attacked in the sense of what subjectively motivates their attackers is also irrelevant.

Yes it is.

Which is why your previous discussion about the "secret racism" of the French government and the "motives" of the bouregoisie was completely pointless.

Every piece of legislation, like everything else, needs to be understood in and of itself. An act of bourgeois parliament is not "inherently evil" merely because it is a product of the state machine.

If a law will have progressive results, it is a progressive, even if the people voting for it aren't.


But now, suddenly, we're supposed to start psychoanalyzing the real motivations of fascists....instead of dealing with the fact they are scapegoating Muslims as Muslims, and justifying this as a fight against Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, and Islamic terrorism.

No, we shouldn't "psychoanalyze" "fascists". But we also souldn't allow them to define the fight.

They "justify" their anti-immigrant and anti-working class measures as "fighting Islam", but we should know better. We should recognize that their attempts to link their reactionary policies to secularism is nothing but a smokecreen and call them out on what they're really doing.

Buying into their paradigm and labeling them "Islamophobes" instead of racists and class enemies only empowers them. It legitimates their efforts by concdeding that they "really are" fighting on behalf of secularism and "democracy".

When a French factory refuses to hire Algerian immigrants or a German company won't pay Turks at scale, it's not an "anti-Muslim" act, it's anti-immigrant one. And our obligation is not to stand by Islam and "Islamic rights". It's to stand by workers and workers' rights.

It's really about knowing your battle's and recognizing your role. Freedom of conscience is essential and no one has the right to discriminate based on beliefs ...not even on truly horrible ones.

Racists, sexists, homophobes, Muslims, they all have the same basic human rights and class positions and proletarian issues are proletarian issues.

But actions are not "protected" because the person who commits them "believes" in them. A racist should not be fired because he is a racist, but if he acts on his racism, then he has every reason to be booted out the door.

The same goes for sexism, the same goes for homophobia, and the same goes for religion. It may not be "politically correct" to admit it, but this particular irrational supersition is not "superior" to the others.

Religious people believe in religious ideas and a lot of religious ideas are horrific.

If they choose to act on these ideas, then they deserve what they get. A man who believes it is his "sacred duty" to rape women or who believes that "God commands" him to kill, is not excused of his crimes on the basis of his "belief".

Likewise, a man who oppresses his daughter or beats his wife is equally culpible for his crimes, even if it's acceptable in his "culture".

Again, belief is a private matter; but actions are a public one.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:43 AM
Do you imagine that Catholics or Protestants or Eastern Orthodox or Hindus or whatever wouldn't do exactly what the Islamicists did, given the chance?

Sure, the apologists for other religions may take the "cartoon war" as an opportunity to point to "their own tolerance". :lol:

But only the naive would believe that for a second.


Well it appears to me as if maybe those other religons wouldn't. Not because any religion is more "tolerant" than any other, but simply because most Catholics, Protestants, Hindus etc. could shrug off such attacks, and such attacks would probably be irrelevant to the majority of their lay people. As someone mentioned earlier, such satirical material is pretty common, just look at all the times Jesus gets made fun of in popular culture :-D. However, I think the anger that Muslims exhibited was possibly because they correctly interpreted what the cartoons really stood for: not a satire of their religion, or even a critique of their religion, but something that is part of a campaign to dehumanize Muslims and middle-easterners and turn public opinion against them in order to justify actual physical violence against them (both domestically in the West with racism, and with wars in the Middle East).

[321zero]

http://static.flickr.com/40/118686610_e06403f9d6_m.jpg
"Deeply hurtful to Catholics."

Muslims do not have the same access to the crystalised violence of the law as other religious groups in Europe (in this case French and Italian Catholics). http://www.christiantoday.com/news/church/....france/418.htm

http://static.flickr.com/46/118692278_7115d705e7_m.jpg

Humour doesn't kill Muslims, racists and racist warmongers do.

[321zero]

If a law will have progressive results, it is a progressive [law], even if the people voting for it aren't.

This overlooks the fact that the application of law under the bourgeois dictatorship is highly contextual - which is why for example communists should oppose state censorship of porn or 'hate speech', despite the impeccable feminist or liberal motivations of its proponents.

If anyone's gonna 'censor' anything, it should be us.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Crap. Every time I get some outrageous Redstar quote to put in my sig, he comes out with something even more outrageous.[/b]

Always glad to be appreciated; being "outrageous" means I'm doing my job. :D


BattleOfTheCowshed
However, I think the anger that Muslims exhibited was possibly because they correctly interpreted what the cartoons really stood for: not a satire of their religion, or even a critique of their religion, but something that is part of a campaign to dehumanize Muslims and middle-easterners and turn public opinion against them in order to justify actual physical violence against them (both domestically in the West with racism, and with wars in the Middle East).

This "interpretation" has been raised before...but with nothing to bolster its plausibility.

Peoples who have been subjected to imperialist depredations have much to "riot" over. But the "cartoon war" never specifically dealt with any of the real issues.

U.S. imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan? Israeli treatment of the Palestinians? Racism in Europe?

Not a word was said!

The Islamicists were, in their own words, protesting blasphemy!

It is "western intellectuals" who propose to tell us "what it really means". I suppose they simply can't imagine that people would kill over such an archaic value. Religion is "nice" and "tolerant"...and "only an isolated nutball" would want to kill somebody over a thing like "blasphemy", right?

How easily they forget the time when Christians had the power to do what the Islamicists are doing now. And they curiously ignore what the Christians are doing in our own time -- the "war on drugs" is a "morality war" in concept and a war against people of color in practice -- and what Christians want to do in the immediate future: criminalize abortion and homosexuality.

What is the source of this almost calculated "ignorance"? I submit it is the view that religion is "harmless" or even "a good thing" and that it "should be tolerated".

When in fact it is not harmless, not a good thing, and should no more be tolerated than serial killing!

Islamicism is really what religion is all about...and the Islamicists have their counterpart in every major religion.

What secularists in general and revolutionaries in particular need to grasp is that there can be no "compromise" between a modern civilized "world-view" and a view that invites us to "re-create the Middle Ages".

Islamicism is reactionary. So is Christian Fascism. So is Hindu fundamentalism. So is Tibetan Buddhism. So is ultra-orthodox Judaism.

It is necessary that we quit kidding ourselves about this stuff and pretending that it will "just go away".

It's not "going away" until it is defeated...until religious belief is regarded in the same light as we now regard cannibalism.

That's going to take a while...at least another century of bitter struggles.

The "cartoon war" was but a minor skirmish behind enemy lines.

Worse lies ahead.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

White Europeans aren't treating immigrants badly because they're Muslim, they're doing it because they're immigrants. Now, sometimes they'll cloak their anti-immigrant measures in anti-Muslim rhetoric, but it's a smokescreen nothing more.

Extreme and utter nonsense! :o

If it was a dude, regardless of color or descent, who would adapt every norm of the host country they simply wouldnt give a fuck.

But because they affirm the right to believe something different, they are discriminated against

where do you live?

[LSD]

If it was a dude, regardless of color or descent, who would adapt every norm of the host country they simply wouldnt give a fuck.

Sure they would.

Because they'd still be "taking a job" from a white man.

Organizations like the BNP and FN don't care what a person "believes", the care about where they were born and whether or not they're truly "part of the culture".It's romantic nationalism, pure and simple, and Islam has very little to do with it.


But because they affirm the right to believe something different, they are discriminated against

Again, this is not about beliefs it's about actions.

People who are discriminated against because of their ethnicity or "beliefs" deserve our full and complete support, but that support must end once they become oppressors themselves.

And, by the way, let's keep in mind that this "something different" that they've chosen to believe is truly awful! "Islam" is not some harmless "spiritualism", it's a reactionary and brutally regressive value system that glorifies intolerance and celebrates inequality.

Now, we should not rely upon the bourgeois state to eliminate it as granting so much power to a capitalist institution is, ultimately, against our interests. But we must nonetheless by consistant in our fight.

As communists we are labouring for full equality, whether that jives with "Muslim values" or not.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+--> (BattleOfTheCowshed)Well it appears to me as if maybe those other religons wouldn't. Not because any religion is more "tolerant" than any other, but simply because most Catholics, Protestants, Hindus etc. could shrug off such attacks....[/b]

Wanna' bet?

There have been two similar controversies in Britain in the last couple of years.

The first was when a bunch of Sikhs got all pissed off because of some Theatre production. And, if I'm not mistaken, that particular production got shut down!

The second controversy, was when a load of nutball Christians got pissed off about Jerry Springer the Opera which depicted "Jesus" in a nappy. :lol:

That production didn't get shut down, but the Christians, Evangelical ones if memory serves me correctly, did cause a lot of bother. Indeed, I'm sure they'd be happy for your, or anyone else's, support the next time they protest "blasphemy".
______

Additionally, I think it's rather naive to take Monsieur Blair on his rhetoric about secularism. He may say that is what he is for, but his actions show otherwise.

Under Blair, there has been a puritanical war on "sin" -- the Respect Agenda which is about reintroducing Religious morals, the massive increase in Police presence in city centres to oppress people who just want to get pissed (and to protect private property of course), the introduction of faith schools and so on.

Indeed, the faith schools shit is perhaps the most telling thing about Blair's approach. He is perfectly happy to turn schools into clerical fascist shitholes and on top of that, he doesn't care if the clerical fascists are Christian, Muslim, Jewish and so on, so long as they're willing to stump up the cash.

In fact, Mr. Blair has actually tried to "woo" Muslim support for the Iraq invasion -- via the Muslim Council of Britain and so on. He's also quoted from the Qu'ran and tried to introduce laws that would make criticism of Islam, even from an atheist perspective, illegal.

Blair, knowing that Saddam Hussein wasn't the most loved person in the Muslim World, has tried to gain a certain amount of Muslim support for the invasion -- and he probably would have gained this support had it not been for the continued resistance in Iraq from the Iraqi Resistance.

Indeed the main rationale for the War in Iraq that has been used by the Blair cabal has been to introduce liberal democracy in Iraq and not that the War was against Islam.

To be honest Gravedigger, I think you're introducing a ruling class rationale that hasn't been used very much, if at all. Certainly, the actions of the Blair cabal seem to point to the fact that they are more than willing to cooperate with Muslim authorities which will praise them.


Gravedigger
At the same time we have to critically support the fight-back against imperialism even if it takes on a nationalist or religious form.

This is a quite amusing statement given what led to the creation of this thread. The three members, including myself, who oppose your viewpoint with regards the headscarf ban, all support the Iraqi Resistance as far as I'm aware.

Indeed, one of the people you accuse of being a "Second International type" has been one of the most persistent critics of those who refuse to support the Iraqi Resistance.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:37 PM

If it was a dude, regardless of color or descent, who would adapt every norm of the host country they simply wouldnt give a fuck.

Sure they would.

Because they'd still be "taking a job" from a white man.

Organizations like the BNP and FN don't care what a person "believes", the care about where they were born and whether or not they're truly "part of the culture".It's romantic nationalism, pure and simple, and Islam has very little to do with it.


Understand they are 2 types of anti-immigrants here

one is the rabble of parties such as the BNP

the others are the elitists within the bourgeoisie who see anything deviating from the "judeo-christians-humanist" heritage of western europe as a threat. They are the ones who incite hatred against muslims, they are the ones who posted such inflammotory cartoons just to incite division in western societies, to separate muslims from non muslims even further, this done out of a western superiority complex in regard to their "judeo-christian-humanist" heritage.

edit: to illustrate this Wilders, dutch right wing politician, has started a party and one of its key points is the removal of article one (anti-discrimination, regarding to sex, race, religion) out of the dutch constitution and replacing it with an article which says the "judeo-christian-humanist" ideas are dominant in the netherlands.



Again, this is not about beliefs it's about actions.

People who are discriminated against because of their ethnicity or "beliefs" deserve our full and complete support, but that support must end once they become oppressors themselves.

Its not about actions, the large percentage of muslims are passive as hell.


And, by the way, let's keep in mind that this "something different" that they've chosen to believe is truly awful! "Islam" is not some harmless __, it's a reactionary and brutally regressive value system that glorifies intolerance and celebrates inequality.

Fundamentalism, yes. But the vast majority of muslims in western nations arent like that. Believe me, I KNOW THEM. In fact those most adhering to the Koran (still not fundamentalist) are the nicest cuz others are often like "hey miss, can i go home i havent eaten all day its ramadan" (as in they abuse their religion for personal gain) but this still obviously doesnt have to do with that either.

Even the AEL (Arab-European League), is far from that awful as you claim, they are sometimes on some issues even progressive. They aint got shit on the mormons when it comes to shitty beliefs.

Islam does not celebrate inequality per say, depends on how your interpret, which many muslims do.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:21 PM

the others are the elitists within the bourgeoisie who see anything deviating from the "judeo-christians-humanist" heritage of western europe as a threat. They are the ones who incite hatred against muslims, they are the ones who posted such inflammotory cartoons just to incite division in western societies, to separate muslims from non muslims even further, this done out of a western superiority complex in regard to their "judeo-christian-humanist" heritage.

edit: to illustrate this Wilders, dutch right wing politician, has started a party and one of its key points is the removal of article one (anti-discrimination, regarding to sex, race, religion) out of the dutch constitution and replacing it with an article which says the "judeo-christian-humanist" ideas are dominant in the netherlands.
"judeo-christian-humanist"? You are fucking making this shit up now. Humanism is the diametric opposite of judeo-christianity.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by NoXion+Mar 27 2006, 06:11 PM--> (NoXion @ Mar 27 2006, 06:11 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 05:21 PM

the others are the elitists within the bourgeoisie who see anything deviating from the "judeo-christians-humanist" heritage of western europe as a threat. They are the ones who incite hatred against muslims, they are the ones who posted such inflammotory cartoons just to incite division in western societies, to separate muslims from non muslims even further, this done out of a western superiority complex in regard to their "judeo-christian-humanist" heritage.

edit: to illustrate this Wilders, dutch right wing politician, has started a party and one of its key points is the removal of article one (anti-discrimination, regarding to sex, race, religion) out of the dutch constitution and replacing it with an article which says the "judeo-christian-humanist" ideas are dominant in the netherlands.
"judeo-christian-humanist"? You are fucking making this shit up now. Humanism is the diametric opposite of judeo-christianity. [/b]
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/3559401...n_Grondwet.html (http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/35594011/Partij_Wilders:_Schrap_artikel_1_in_Grondwet.html)

DEN HAAG - Tweede Kamerlid Wilders wil artikel 1 van de Grondwet (het non-discriminatiebeginsel) afschaffen en vervangen door een ander artikel waarin de joods-christelijke en humanistische traditie en cultuur van Nederland als dominante cultuur wordt vastgelegd. Haagse kopstukken reageren gelaten op de plannen van Wilders.

after running it through the translator at freetranslation.com

The Hague - Second Member of parliament Wilders want article 1 of the Constitution (the nun-discrimination principle) abolish and replace through someone else article in which the Jewish-Christian and humanist tradition and culture of the Netherlands as dominant culture becomes vastgelegd. Haagse top persons react let to the plans of Wilders.

voilá
i didnt make it up

its a moron the guy, but its really what most of the elitists lean towards, though he is quite the radical in that respect that he goes so far.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:20 PM
its a moron the guy, but its really what most of the elitists lean towards, though he is quite the radical in that respect that he goes so far.
He's the special kind of moron in that he's almost dialectical in the opposite ideals of Judeo-christianity and humanism he holds. Do I need to explain the contradiction?

[LSD]

Understand they are 2 types of anti-immigrants here


There are actually probably more than that, but as I've been saying to Severian, the motivations of oppressors are really irrelevent.

It doesn't matter whether a boss "believes" that he is acting against Islam, is acting against Islam, or doesn't put any thought into it at all. Any action that he does against the interests of the working class must be opposed.

You see, we need to adopt a class position; one in which "religion" and "faith" is not an issue. So when the workers are being oppressed, we support them. But if they chose to turn around and oppress themselves, we condemn them vociferously.



the others are the elitists within the bourgeoisie who see anything deviating from the "judeo-christians-humanist" heritage of western europe as a threat.

The problem with that theory, though, is that Islam is a judeo-christian religion!

Mohammed developed Islam out of the framework of Judaism and Christanity. Sure, he modified it a tad and added some Arabian cultural elements, but primarily, the Koran is a "judeo-christian" document.

If so-called "Islamophobia" were about "defending judeo-christian values", then Muslims would not be the primary target. Muslims, again, agree with most classical "judeo-christian" values. Monotheism, "faith", worship, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance... these are all shared values between them and both Muslims and "judeo-christians" would agree on every single one of them.

The people who wouldn't are atheists!

If this were about "values", then we would see an organized campaign against secularists and non-believers. Instead, you even cite a so-called "Islamophobe" as openly endorsing "secularism"!

Clearly, there's something else going on here than a "clash of values". Although, I will concede that the "battle of civilizations" paradigm is precisely what the right-wing is trying to sell. That they are desperate to have us believe that they are genuinely fighting for "modern ideas".

But we should know better.

Despite the rhetoric that they use to cloak their actions, we need to examine what they do in and of itself. Again, motivations are irrelevent, but actions speak for themselves.

This is nothing more than rehashed romantic nationalism and to accept the rightists myth that this is something "nobler" or "more important" than that discredits our cause and distracts from our efforts.

We need to fight for proletarian unity, not the "right" of "religion". Muslims doe not have "special status" or need "special protections". They need the same protections that every other member of the proletariat needs.

Any discrimination against any worker is to the detriment of the proletarian movement and must be opposed by any serious leftist. It doesn't matter what "excuses" the bourgeoisie uses, our obligation is to the entire international proletariat, regardless of "beliefs".

Attacks against Islam, however, should not only be allowed, but should even be encouraged! Islam is an inherently reactionary social force and any weakening of its power is to the bennefit of the revolutionary movement.

It may seem counterintuitive to make this distinction, but it's an essential one nonetheless. We need to simultaneously support Muslims, but oppose Islam. It's a much harder job than kneejerk "anti-Islamophobia", but it is ultimately a much more productive one.


Its not about actions, the large percentage of muslims are passive as hell.

If that's true then there's no problem.

Again, I don't care about "beliefs".

What people choose to think is their own business and any attempt by the state or bougeoisie to intercede must be opposed. But the anti-"islamophobia" crowd goes much much further than that.

They say that not only do Muslims have a right to think what they want, but they also have a right to act on those thoughts. That "freedom of religion" is "inalienable" and that any attempt to stop reactionary behaviour is "intolerable western chavinism".

I'm still not sure if this paradigm applies to other religions. It seems to me that most of these "defenders of religious freedom" are less likely to be heard when the religion in question is less "sensitive".

So, while there are literally dozens of members on this site ready to speak up in the name of a Muslim father's "right" to cover his daughter in a burka. Not a soul is willing to stand up for the Morman father's "right" to marry off his 13 year old.

I guess that defending white fanatics is less "politically sexy" than defending minority ones. Kind of like how Israel is the "big cause" on the left even though, relatively speaking, it's remarkably unimportant.

In this post-colonialist subjectivist environment, it's easy to buy into the myth that "cultural values" really are "important" and that "western chauvinism" is as bad as "western imperialism.

The truth though is that "chauvinism" is really not the issue. No one here is suggesting that progressive ideas are better because their "western"; we're saying that they're better because they're progressive. And these rationaly superior ideas should be promoted instead of objectively inferior ones.

As I recall, you agreed with me on this question and conceded that there is a need to oppose "religious freedom" when the rights of others are at stake. Well, that's all I'm talking about.

Again, I do not support prejeduce against anyone. But I will also not tolerate oppression in the name of "faith".


Islam does not celebrate inequality per say, depends on how your interpret, which many muslims do.

Many Muslims may not celebrate inequality, but Islam does.

It's right there in black and white arabic for anyone to read. The Koran is not "subtle" in commandments, nor does it shy away from "politically correct" issues.

Yes, in recent years many "liberal" Muslims have begun "re-interpreting" their holy texts to make them more compatible with contemporary sensibilities. But did you notice that this only happened once it became an issue? That until people began talking about rights, no one thought to "find" them in the Koran?

For twelve-hundred years, the "holy word of God" was taken to mean one thing and only once that thing became especially anachronistic, did anyone think of "re-interpretation".

No Muslim schollars spoke of "women's rights" in the 15th century. When the read that "men are above women", they assumed it to mean what it said!

Now, we are told that this is "alegory" and "hyperbole" and that "Allah didn't really mean it that way"... :rolleyes:

Sorry, but if this is the "word of God" we're talking about here, you can't "re-interpret" it to suit a political agenda. Islam, as written is a fiercely sexist, homophobic, and intolerant religion.

That not all Muslims choose to actually follow Islam in all its commandments is certainly true, but that doesn't mean that Islam is "tolerant", it just means that there are a lot of "bad Muslims".

Again, we cannot abide any persecution, no matter the "reason" given. But likewise, we cannot allow inherently reactionary dogmas to be promulgated unobstructed.

It is our responsibility to be honest and forthright in our message and that means opposing reaction wherever it lies. Even if it's not particularly "sensitive" to "religious values".

[321zero]

He's the special kind of moron in that he's almost dialectical in the opposite ideals of Judeo-christianity and humanism he holds. Do I need to explain the contradiction?

FFS the European bourgeois are expert in doublethink. These fuckers have made a speciality out of 'humanitarian interventions'. Before that the Nazis thought they were the pinnicle of civilisation and before that Europe exported the white mans burden all over the world.

One result was that they imposed there own special brand of judeo-christian morality on other peoples - homophobia in the Carribean? Made in Britain.

They are used to inflicting their virtues on other people. in instrumental terms Judeo-Christian Humanism is the new christianity. It might not make sense to you but then you're clever and they have all the guns.

It works for them - a nod of atonement to the missing six million, the crusader spirit and the legacy of the enlightment ™.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:16 PM

LSD is simply blathering about irrelevancies; of course religions have no rights and Muslims have no special rights; but Muslims have the same right anyone else does, to practice their religion as long as they are not infringing anyone else's rights.

Yes, that's called Freedom of Conscience. We don't need to invent a new paradigm to deal with it.
Certainly not. I'm defending the traditional Marxist attitude towards religion here.

Redstar is chucking it overboard (and has explictly argued against Engels on this), in favor of support to....fascist attacks on mosques! Care to comment what you think about that?

In any case, it's definitely a "new paradigm"...for leftists.


Rather you support a father's "right" to indoctrinate and oppress his daughter in the name of his "faith".

AKA people's right to raise their children in their own religion.

That isn't especially, in an of itself, a democratic right; but think about the implications of trying to deny it in practice. Necessarily involves massive repressive machinery; punishing people for belonging to a religious minority, etc. Can't do it without denying all kinds of democratic rights.


What if, say, a man decides that women are simply to "uppity" in modern society and he's going to raise his daughters "right" and ensure that they "know their role".

So, as they grow up, he teaches them to think of themselves as inferior.

Stripping out the emotional arguments, this is different from normal child-raising - only in degree and connotation. Actually you could describe normal child-raising that way if you chose, and Andrea Dworkin probably has.

(Your arguments on the headscarf ban generally, BTW, are very Dworkinesque. She liked to whip people up into such a frenzy with real and exaggerated examples of the worst practices of the porn industry, that they would forget every other consideration and support censorship regardless. Porn isn't about free speech, it's about rape! You're supporting the porn moguls' right to rape women!)

I don't look to the bourgeois state to fix the patriarchal family; even when working people have power, we won't primarily use laws and regulations in our effort to change it.

Anyway, admit it: this discussion has gone way past the headscarf ban long ago. Redstar's calling for the demolition of mosques by the National Front; you've said immigrants are setting back social progress; Armchair Socialism has oh-so-carefully explored the question of whether to support immigration restrictions for this purpose. The headscarf ban is just not a major issue to spend a lot of time on in that context; your constant raising of it seems like an attempt to distract attention from your less savory positions on more important questions.


Which is why your previous discussion about the "secret racism" of the French government and the "motives" of the bouregoisie was completely pointless.

My previous discussion of those points exist only in your mind; you are fabricating quotes in pure Redstar style.

I did point out the objective class interests behind the headscarf ban; perhaps you have a problem distinguishing between objective class interests and subjective motivations.

It may well be that the French bourgeoisie really believes its own propaganda and thinks itself still a great champion of secularism; but it is not, because its class interests no longer lie in that direction. As its actions show.


If a law will have progressive results, it is a progressive, even if the people voting for it aren't.

321's response to this - and his latest post (above) - are right on and important.

Dworkin found this out the hard way: it matters who will be enforcing the law. Her own book was banned by Canadian customs under a law she inspired and supported.


No, we shouldn't "psychoanalyze" "fascists".

Glad you agree. But then in your next post you say:


Organizations like the BNP and FN don't care what a person "believes", the care about where they were born and whether or not they're truly "part of the culture".It's romantic nationalism, pure and simple, and Islam has very little to do with it.

How do you know what they really care about, if you haven't psychoanalyzed them? Maybe some of their leaders don't care about either, they just care about who makes a convenient scapegoat. Like George Wallace.

Maybe some of their newer members really were recruited around the "Islamic threat."

More importantly, why does it matter?

When the BNP says "Are you concerned about the growth of Islam in Britain: We owe it to our children to defend our Christian culture!" Their posters (http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=770)

(Note: not "defend secularism." If they do sometimes claim to defend secularism - I'd guess that's rare - of course that's BS which they should be called out on. The same when Blair or Chirac claim it - which they often do!)

Is your answer to just say - the BNP isn't really defending Christianity, it's defending whiteness? They're not really mosque-destroying anti-Islam people, they're really skin-color racists?

Lemme tell you: the BNP is capable of backing up its actions with words and being a lot more convincingly anti-Islam than you or even Redstar!

Rather than saying the BNP does't really mean its propaganda, it's necessary to answer that propaganda. It's necessary to say their scapegoating divides the working class and builds a movement which aims to smash the workers organizations in the interests of big business.

Regardless of whether it's anti-Islam, anti-Jewish, or anti-brown people scapegoating.

For that matter, What about chauvinism against Eastern European immigrants? (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7013/701336.html)

Which the BNP also joins in when it's convenient. Obviously that's not "really" based on skin color. Nor do religious differences seem to be much of a factor.

Economics is at the base of it - for the ruling class generally, the need to keep these immigrants in a second-class status so they can be superexploited more for longer, and produce as many division in the working class as possible. For the BNP, the need to exploit every resentment and potential scapegoat they can. And as low-wage competitors, Polish workers are targets of resentment by the less class-conscious British workers.

The ruling class and the fascists will use whatever they can find to serve those interests, to perpetuate workers with fewer rights, and to scapegoat and divide.

Fear of the "Islamic" threat is one of those things they can find and use...it is useful to them, so we should not feed it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:07 PM
It doesn't matter whether a boss "believes" that he is acting against Islam, is acting against Islam, or doesn't put any thought into it at all. Any action that he does against the interests of the working class must be opposed.
But you also say it matters what a fascists' motivations are, whether they're really anti-Islamic or using that as a smokescreen for racism. Seems to me the standard you explain in this paragraph would be better applied to the BNP's anti-Muslim demagogy as well.


You see, we need to adopt a class position; one in which "religion" and "faith" is not an issue.

Exactly. Unfortunately for you religion clearly is an issue; you even claim religion may act in politics while representing no class interests at all.

And then you turn around and start going into theology with:


The problem with that theory, though, is that Islam is a judeo-christian religion!

Who cares? The common theological origins don't determine what "values" prevail in any majority-Muslim, -Christian, or -Jewish country. Objective conditions, history, the course of the class struggle do that.

"You see, we need to adopt a class position; one in which "religion" and "faith" is not an issue."


Although, I will concede that the "battle of civilizations" paradigm is precisely what the right-wing is trying to sell. That they are desperate to have us believe that they are genuinely fighting for "modern ideas".

But we should know better.

Yes, we should know better than to think the issue is Islam vs secularism.


Any discrimination against any worker is to the detriment of the proletarian movement and must be opposed by any serious leftist. It doesn't matter what "excuses" the bourgeoisie uses, our obligation is to the entire international proletariat, regardless of "beliefs".

Attacks against Islam, however, should not only be allowed, but should even be encouraged! Islam is an inherently reactionary social force and any weakening of its power is to the bennefit of the revolutionary movement.

Oh. So how (and why) do you imagine the National Front, or even the mainstream bourgeoisie, is going to attack Islam without attacking Muslim workers?

How are they going to demolish mosques, as Redstar hopes for, without unleashing a more general pogrom against Muslims? How are Muslims going to retaliate in kind - as he also hopes for - without unleashing another Yugoslavia?

Just as attacks on synagogues are always part of a more general anti-Semitic campaign against Jews - part of broader pogroms, basically. Attacks on mosques are part of a more general "Islamophobic" campaign against millions of Muslim workers. Or workers who are presumed to be Muslim, for that matter.

This is, among other reasons, because neither Blair, Chirac, LePen, or Griffin has any interest that would be served by attacking Islam-the-religion - they certainly do have an interest in going after millions of immigrant workers, who happen to be Muslim, and beating them into submission.

Opposition to "Islam" - whether in the name of Christianity or secularism - is handy for this - and if it gets a few leftists tied up in knots over their own theological approach to religion vs atheism, so much the better.


It may seem counterintuitive to make this distinction, but it's an essential one nonetheless. We need to simultaneously support Muslims, but oppose Islam. It's a much harder job than kneejerk "anti-Islamophobia", but it is ultimately a much more productive one.

It's not just "harder" and "counterintuitive" - its guarantees that you'll be so wrapped up in the contradictions of your own line, with trying to walk this unnecessary tightrope, that you'll be unable to actually do anything to oppose the fascists. Hardly "productive."

Note your line, let alone Redstar's, has no support among real-world activists and left parties.


So, while there are literally dozens of members on this site ready to speak up in the name of a Muslim father's "right" to cover his daughter in a burka. Not a soul is willing to stand up for the Morman father's "right" to marry off his 13 year old.

Straw man. There is one civil law code that applies to everyone, and it limits the age at which girls can marry. If some Muslims want an exception, they can't have one. The more progressive elements in majority-Muslim countries are fighting to raise the marriage age.


The truth though is that "chauvinism" is really not the issue. No one here is suggesting that progressive ideas are better because their "western"; we're saying that they're better because they're progressive.

Oh, so now your subjective motivations matter and we're supposed to psychoanalyze Redstar and see if his chauvinist positions really have a progressive motivation?


Sorry, but if this is the "word of God" we're talking about here, you can't "re-interpret" it to suit a political agenda.

The opposite is true; that's exactly what human beings have always done with the supposed "word of God."

Even in the earliest days of Islam: The Koran today is not the original edition; older and different versions have been dug up in Yemen. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem has different versions of Koranic verses engraved on its walls.

The Hadith - another part of the Muslim scriptures - were made up to support different sides in early debates, and then backdated to supposedly go back to Mohammed and his companions.

Because religion is a human creation, not a creation of God, it always reflects social context and class interests. Some atheists can be oddly religious in claiming otherwise, and saying that some believers are "bad Muslims" or not really religious - because they go against the supposed word of a nonexistent God!

[redsoldier32]

i agree with severian myself, god is just some human creation because we humans have always needed to "believe" in something

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 26 2006, 07:43 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 26 2006, 07:43 PM)
BattleOfTheCowshed
How exactly did the cartoons, the conflict over "freedom of speech" etc. hurt religion?

By demonstrating the irrational violence that lies at the heart of religion. [/b]
This could not be more ridiculous or obviously false.

Religious war, pogroms, inquisitions, etc have been going on for thousands of years. If they hurt religion, it woulda collapsed a long time ago.

On the contrary, Battle of the Cowshed is absolutely right. Wars of religion strengthen the chauvinists within all groups. Yugoslavia's a good example. As always, the pogroms and the destruction of churches and mosques went hand in hand.

Certainly we do not weaken religion, or the ultraright fanatics using religion, by supporting them! On the contrary, all the more progressive forces in Yugoslavia were absolutely right to oppose all the chauvinists.....

If someone's going to say that wasn't "really" a religious war, there are plenty of examples of more explicitly religious ones, ancient and modern. Yugoslavia's just well-known, recent, and nearby to many posters.

Sudan's a good example of a conflict along straightforward religious lines; it didn't exactly lead to a great outbreak of atheism. On the contrary, it led to a Muslim fundamentalist regime in the north, and the suppression of the workers movement.

Muslim-Hindu conflict in the Indian subcontinent is another example; greatly strengthened Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and ultraright Hindu Chauvinism (the BJP, etc.) in India.


Do you imagine that Catholics or Protestants or Eastern Orthodox or Hindus or whatever wouldn't do exactly what the Islamicists did, given the chance?

Under similar conditions, of course they would, and have. Theology is no obstacle.

Irish Protestant ultrarightists did much the same attacking Catholic churches (http://www.serve.com/pfc/weekly/inu27apr97.html#tricks) do you support that as well as NF attacks on mosques?

The LVF attacked some Protestant targets as well....in order to have it blamed on Catholics and "fester hatred and bitterness". Looks like everyone who acts in the real world understands this kind of attack benefits the forces of reaction, not those of progress!

Zarqawi's been acting on much the same basis....though that's benefited the occupation more than him, long run, it's definitely run counter to class unity in Iraq. Not that you'd care about that.


Sure, the apologists for other religions may take the "cartoon war" as an opportunity to point to "their own tolerance". :lol:

But only the naive would believe that for a second.

Then there are a lot of naive people, because it certainly has been succesful for all those trying to take the moral high ground for Christendom. That's why the Danish right-wing newspaper, followed by a Norwegian Christian paper, printed the cartoons, as a provocation that would tend to polarize things to the right as Battle of the Cowshed correctly says.

And a lot of Muslim governments and organizations fell neatly into the trap, by calling for censorship and attacking Danish embassies. Probably strenghtened their hand against the working class at home, though.

Just as in the examples I gave earlier - Yugoslavia, Sudan, India, Ireland.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 27 2006, 04:26 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 27 2006, 04:26 PM) To be honest Gravedigger, I think you're introducing a ruling class rationale that hasn't been used very much, if at all. Certainly, the actions of the Blair cabal seem to point to the fact that they are more than willing to cooperate with Muslim authorities which will praise them.


Originally posted by [email protected]
At the same time we have to critically support the fight-back against imperialism even if it takes on a nationalist or religious form.

This is a quite amusing statement given what led to the creation of this thread. The three members, including myself, who oppose your viewpoint with regards the headscarf ban, all support the Iraqi Resistance as far as I'm aware.

Indeed, one of the people you accuse of being a "Second International type" has been one of the most persistent critics of those who refuse to support the Iraqi Resistance. [/b]
I think they have used this rational at different times (I agree less in the past). They used it to give a "progressive cover" for taking out the very reactionary Taliban. Now I feel they will use anti-arab, linked with, anti-muslimism, more because they are loosing their grip on consiousness about the war, which also makes them want to expand the war and to do this they need to find an overrideing rational such as a "war on terror" or possibly a broader war against a reactionary ideology:


"Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)"

Th e Department of Defense conducted the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in the fourth year of a long war, a war that is irregular in its nature. The enemies in this war are not traditional conventional military forces but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit Islam to advance radical political aims. These enemies have the avowed aim of acquiring and using nuclear and biological weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans and others around the world. They use terror, propaganda and indiscriminate violence in an attempt to subjugate the Muslim world under a radical theocratic tyranny while seeking to perpetuate conflict with the United States and its allies and partners. This war requires the U.S. military to adopt unconventional and indirect approaches. Currently, Iraq and Afghanistan are crucial battlegrounds, but the struggle extends far beyond their borders. With its allies and partners, the United States must be prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some years to come.

In order to stand up to imperialim, we must be clear about the issues of religion and extreemism and the Islamic regimes in the middle east and so on or else we risk disorienting ourselves and others on the left when, say, the US widens the war and starts bombing runs in Iran. The risk of this is that if we say that religion is the root cause of the repressive Islamic regimes in the Middle east we are letting the real root cause for both the rise of Islamicist governments, the decline of radical secular alternatives in the Middle east, and other repressive regimes in the area: namely British, followed by US, imperialism.

If religion is the root cause of all this repression, then the removal of the Taliban by the US was progresssive, the US should stay in Iraq to ensure that one religious group dosn't opress or dominate another. This is the logic that Bush and Blair are trying to push forward.

So am I saying religion has the answer to imperilaism or that religion is progressive? No! But we need to be sharp on the point that the ruling class attacks on Europe and US are not in order to "protect secularism".

We also need to be clear that arabs and muslims are angry not because they "can't take a joke" as the US media claims about the Danish cartoons, but because the US is killing people who happen to be Muslim. Is it pandering to Islam to be angry that gaurds in Guitanimo pissed on the Koran? No doubt Redstar thinks so. But the truth is that the anger is because there are prisoners there to be humiliated in the first place!

If arabs are turning to religion to express their anger it is partially because of the lack of a responce from the secular left. We should be the ones organizing demos and making inroads with arab communities in Europe and showing that the fight against impirialism is stronger when it is on a multi-racial class basis rather than a religious one.

[LSD]

Alright, this is going to be a long one, so bear with me here! :lol:


Certainly not. I'm defending the traditional Marxist attitude towards religion here.

Hardly. You are suggesting that we address "Islamophobia" as a distinct social problem, requiring seperate attention from the class struggle.

That's a definitively counterproductive stance for Marxists to dake.

I must say though, Severian, I am glad to see that, so far at least, you've been relatively willing to delve into the important issues this time. Hopefuly, that will be sustained and we'll have a more fruitful dialogue than last time. :)


Redstar is chucking it overboard (and has explictly argued against Engels on this), in favor of support to....fascist attacks on mosques! Care to comment what you think about that?

I'm against it.

The government should not be granted the authority to dicate what kind of buildings people can or cannot build, or what kind of actions they choose to comit inside of them, so long as no one's rights are violated in the process.

If mature adults want to visit a particular building every Friday and mutter to the wall in arabic, that is their basic human right and no state on earth has the moral authority to stop them.

The thought of any "leftist" supporting any government's efforts to "smash mosques" would be hillarious if it were not so scary.

I'm very disturbed by the thought that anyone could contend that the Third Reich's demolition of Synangogues was in any way "progressive".


AKA people's right to raise their children in their own religion.

Yes, a "right" that you seem to take as nearly universal. A, by the way, wholy ludicrous position.

Parents should have certain rights to raise their children, insofar as it's nescessary to have some sort of functional support sysem and the bourgeois state is not organized, responsible, or trustworthy enough to do the job.

That said, these parental "rights" are limited and only extend as far as is nescessary for the well-being of the child.

Parents do not have the right to beat their children, nor do they have the right to sexually penetrate them. Why, then, should they have the right to psychologically torment them?

You may have considered my "garbage bag" analogy to be hyperbolic (although I was correct in predicting that you'd fail to answer the question ;)), but the point stands. Religion is simply no excuse for subjugation and oppression.

"Faith" doesn't matter, "culture" doesn't matter, even class doesn't matter. This is an issue of child-welfare versus parental rights, and whether a parent's right to his "faith" trumps a child's right to be raised free.


Stripping out the emotional arguments, this is different from normal child-raising - only in degree and connotation.

Well ...yeah. That's because everything is a "difference only in degree and connotation".

American segregation and German judenhasse were only different "in degree", but that doesn't mean that one was not far worse than the other.

In this case, while all child rearing may contain a degree of coercion and oppression, society must still draw a line at which the amount of subjugation becomes unacceptable. At which tolerable paternalism becomes outright abuse.

You seem to feel that this line "does not apply" when we're dealing with matters of "faith", but have still refused to answer whether this theory applies universally.

Again, if a man did exactly what Muslim fathers do, but didn't couch it in the same kind of "cultured" rhetoric and was slightly more blunt about his intentions, I have no doubt that you would, rightfully, accuse him of child abuse.

That if the bourgeois state were to remove his parental "rights", you would not cry that his "rights" had been violated or that his "freedoms" had been impinged upon. Rather you would, rationaly, point out that such a man simply has no business raising children given his "ideas" on the subject.

And yet when the motivation is not overt misogyny but "religious" misogyny, somehow the situation's "different" for you. Considering your rejection of "psychoanalysis" and "motivation", that's somewhat bizarre.

The fact is, that for all your insistance that this is a matter of "rights", it only seems to apply to a pretty narrow range of cases. Namely, when the attacks are against "politically insenitive" victims. When the spectre of colonialism rears its head and the unnamable spirit of "western chauvinism" is invoked.

I reject that any group has special privaleges and insist that we take an entirely pragmatic approach to this issue.


How do you know what they really care about, if you haven't psychoanalyzed them? Maybe some of their leaders don't care about either, they just care about who makes a convenient scapegoat. Like George Wallace.

Maybe some of their newer members really were recruited around the "Islamic threat."

More importantly, why does it matter?

It doesn't!

Again, their subjective motivations are completely secondary. But it is important to recognize that the "campaign against Islamism" is false, if only to recognize that it distracts from true class solidarity.

That the bourgeoisie is so eager for us to accept their paradigm of "us versus Islam" should make us instantly weary of it. Any time the rulling class pushes an idea that hard, you've got to be skeptical as to why.

In this case, it's because buying into their "clash of civilizations" model, no matter which side we take, is ultimately benneficial for the capitalists.

If we defend "Islam" and "Muslims" against "Islamophobia" instead of defending workers against bosses, then we are allowing the capitalists to define the terms of the debate. We are condeding the field to them and playing right into their hands.

Instead, we need to defend the rights of workers on the basis of class unity, not some imagined "defense of Islam". When workers are mistreated it doesn't matter what excuses the bosses come up with to "defend" their actions, we need to attack them all the same.

The "excuses" shouldn't even enter into it. Our loyalty is to the class, nor some "religious" subset thereof.


Is your answer to just say - the BNP isn't really defending Christianity, it's defending whiteness? They're not really mosque-destroying anti-Islam people, they're really skin-color racists?

No, my "answer" is to say that the BNP and like organizations are racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant fascists who couch their romantic nationalism is nonsense about "battling Islam".

That "answer", however, is totally irrelevent because the question is totally irrelevent. It doesn't matter what my "opinion" of the BNP is, it matters how we respond to it.

Whether we adopt it's paradigm and defend "Islam" or whether we adopt a class-line and defend workers.

Now, that means defending all workers, whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu. or atheist. And it means defending them equally even if they happen to hold particualrly distasteful ideas.

What it doesn't mean is defending their "right" to oppress or holding their "faith" up as sacrosanct or above critisism.


For that matter, What about chauvinism against Eastern European immigrants?

It only reinforces my point!

This is not about Islam, it's about anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner measures designed to divide the working class and promote romantic nationalism.


Economics is at the base of it - for the ruling class generally, the need to keep these immigrants in a second-class status so they can be superexploited more for longer, and produce as many division in the working class as possible.

Absolutely right!


Exactly. Unfortunately for you religion clearly is an issue; you even claim religion may act in politics while representing no class interests at all.

What I said was that religion can have a political effect disconnected from class relations due to its tendency to perpetuate anachronistic "cultural" values. Meaning that class interests that once existed can still impact the present even if such motivations are no longer related to current economic conditions.

No one has a class interest in seeing young Muslim girls subjugated. Certainly the bourgeosie does not bennefit by having these potential employees cut off from the work-force and mainstream society; nor does it relish the prospect of not having them as consumers.

The proletariat certainly gains nothing as a class. There is no advantage to the workers, be they male or female, in having girls raised in such an abhorrent manner.

So which "class interest" is being served here? What is motivating these actions?

The answer, clearly, is religion.

Religion is not playing an "independent" role, but it is playing a detatched one. The anti-progressive stultifying effect of religion is such that it can persist moral norms, even once they've become fully irrelevent to material reality.

Society is simply more complex than class. Class is an essential feature no doubt, but it is oversimplistic to imagine that all social forces can be reduced to current class relationships. The echos of the past do not disappear that quickly.


Who cares?

Apparently NewKindofSolider, since he suggested "defense of judeo-christian value" as the reason for "Islamophobia" in the first world.

I was merely pointing out that such a hypothesis is deeply flawed. Do you disagree?


Oh. So how (and why) do you imagine the National Front, or even the mainstream bourgeoisie, is going to attack Islam without attacking Muslim workers?

Fickly and inconsistantly.

As I've said before, I do not count on the state to "defeat" religion, nor do I expect that it will be anything approaching reliable when it comes to battling supersition. But when it does something right, even if it's for the wrong reasons, we cannot be afraid to acknowledge it.

In terms of "why", I again frankly don't care. It doesn't what justification the French government had in mind or what rationalizations they chose to publish.

This law is benneficial because of the effects it will have in battling religion and promoting secularism. Whether this was "intended" or not is irrelevent.

It's not very often that the bourgeois state does something "right", but this just happens to be one of those times.


It's not just "harder" and "counterintuitive" - its guarantees that you'll be so wrapped up in the contradictions of your own line, with trying to walk this unnecessary tightrope, that you'll be unable to actually do anything to oppose the fascists.

Nonsense.

It only becomes "impossible" when you get trapped in liberal postmodern garbage about "cultural rights" and "relative tolerance".

A truly proletarian line is simple. I say that it's hard because in the environment of the modern left, it's difficult to stick to; but despite the effort required, it's still clearly worth it.


Straw man. There is one civil law code that applies to everyone, and it limits the age at which girls can marry.

What's your point?

In France there's now "civil law" that "applies to everyone" that says that girls have to dress secularly. You've made it quite clear that you oppose this law.

Similarly, I am asking if you oppose the "civil law" that you speak of above, the one that limits when girls can be married, even if it contravenes "religious belief".

Again, why is the "right" to dress one's daughter more important than the right to marry her? Why does "religious freedom" only apply to one religion and not the other?

For that matter, again, how can you oppose female genital mutilation? If it is "religously mandated" and done with the "consent" of the child, how can you justify the bourgeoise "infringing" on their expression of "faith"?

Doesn't that "oppression" also "divide" the working class? Isn't it "western chauvinism" to say that we have the right to tell these girls what to do with their clitorises?

Again, you cannot have one without the other. If these girls have the "right" to decided what they wear, surely they have the right to "decide" what medical procedures are done upon them.

It is the inevitable result of your line of argumentation.

I, on the other hand, reject your basic premise and contend that it is actually your line that divides the working class. You are tolerating oppression among the working class and delaying class solidarity.

A working class rapist is still a rapist and he deserves no special "considerations" due to his class position. Likewise, the fact that most of these Muslim parents are working class is irrelevent when it comes to their abuse of their children.

Muslims who are attacked on class issues need our full support, but Muslims who are stopped from oppressing their daughters do not.

And the fact that both "attacks" come from the same group and that they may well indeed derive from the same motivations is irrelevent. Whether or not the bourgeoisie thinks it's being progressive and even whether it is objectively aiming to be or not doesn't matter.

All that matters is that this head-scarf law will have progressive results in and of itself.

That doesn't mean that we should not fight similar legislation that does not have progressive results. On the contrary, we have an obligation to do precisely that. But attacking anti-immigrant legislation does not mean that we must attack every law that happens to involve immigrants!

Immigrants are divided from local workers for a number of reasons, one of them is the cultural differences which come with different material environments. Immigrants from third world countries tend to hold less advanced ideas because they're coming from less advanced countries.

Accordingly, when they move to the first world, they take their ideas with them and, for a time at least, attempt to sustain them in an environment which is not hospitable to them. This inevitably leads to conflict and, typically, the more advanced values will win out as the immigrants become absorbed into the immersive culture of their adoptive home.

Still, though, it takes time and sometimes doesn't happen quite so peacefuly.

In this case, it is taking some time for the Muslim "cultural" value of female oppression to become fully replaced by western bourgeois notions of individual equality.

This "cultural difference" is heralded by many on the right as another "barbarism" of "Islam" and as part of their show of being "defenders of the west", the French government has passed a law to facilitate this particular value's dissolution.

Now, again, whether or not the French state is "honest" about its motivations or whether it is a cynical effort to secure it's interest, it reall doesn't matter.

Many French laws are reactionary and they must be fought and opposed fiercely. But this law happens, whether by design or by chance, to be progressive.

It reduces the power of religion and stops a disgusting example of parental abuse.

Now, you spoke a lot about the "hypocrisy" of the French government in that it's support for secularism is largely show and very little content, and you're right ...but it still doesn't matter.

Whether they know it or not, whether they intended it or not, the French government has done a good thing here and we need to be willing to admit that.

This law will help millions of girls ...and that's enough.


Oh, so now your subjective motivations matter and we're supposed to psychoanalyze Redstar and see if his chauvinist positions really have a progressive motivation?

No, we're supposed analyze his positions to see if they have a progressive result.

His "motivations" are as insignificant as those of the bourgseoisie. It honestly doesn't matter if he is "chauvinisitic". All that matters is whether or not his ideas, in and of themselves, are good.


Because religion is a human creation, not a creation of God, it always reflects social context and class interests.!

Perhaps, but the problem is that it very often does not reflect the social context of today.

Again, religion tends to stultify values and reflect the norms of time in which it was created. That's the "distinct" role that it plays in class society. It acts as a force of regression, not usually fighting on behalf of former class relationships, but rather in support of the values they created.

In particularly secular environments in which liberal concepts of individual rights have taken particular hold, the ostenisbly "religious" will "re-interpret" their religion to be more politically convienient.

Now, if this were the only force in religious life, then I would agree that there is no problem. But the reality is that this "re-interpretation" tends to last for only so long as it is politically nescessary.

The "holy texts" are not changed, they are merely "reconsidered" and once it becomes possible to "go back to the text", that's exactly what the religious do!

Religion is an inherently reactionary social force and cannot help but to be a danger to any progressive undertaking.

That does not mean that the state should be supported in "any" actions against religion, but it means that we should not engage in campaigns "defending" religious "rights".

Our paradigm must be strictly secular. That doesn't mean that we "abandon" religious comrades, but our support must only be class-related.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)They used it to give a "progressive cover" for taking out the very reactionary Taliban.[/b]

Perhaps.

From what I remember of the rationale used with regards the Afghanistan War, from the Blair cabal at least, was that it was a "War Against Terrorism" to neuter a threat to the "Western World".

They could, of course, have linked it in with secularism, but as far as I'm aware the major bourgeois ideologues in Britain -- and lets not forgot here, that the major political parties are the ones the ruling class employs to present the ruling class ideology and not the fringe parties -- were mainly promoting the rationale of "defence against further attacks".

Why they chose this particular rationale when there were other options, I don't know. Perhaps via their "survey groups" they found out that that was the rationale that would "go down well" in Britain.

America, is likely different. I can see the rationale of fighting a "War Against Islam" having more support across the pond. But still the other rationale was the more widespread.

After all, the Neo-Conservative cabal don't seem to want to place the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Religious framework....though the Christian fascist cabal, which Bush is a part of, do seem inclined towards the Crusader rationale.

However, if you'll excuse my ignorance, I don't see quite how the rationales of the British and American ruling classes "links" with the actions of the French ruling class.

The French ruling class did participate in Afghanistan, but I'm not aware of that being a "big issue" in France. And as for Iraq, as far as I know, the French ruling class opposed that imperial adventure because the still had decent relations with Iraq.

Fundamentally, I suspect you and I agree on most of the issues here....

1) We both agree that we should oppose attacks on immigrants.
2) We both agree that we should oppose the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and also support the Resistance efforts in these countries.
3) We both agree that whatever rationales are used to justify these imperial adventures should be relentlessly attacked and rubbished.

And we no doubt agree on other, smaller, issues. But the point where we disagree is one particular issue, the headscarf ban. I think this ban is fundamentally progressive in that it frees young Muslim girls from the shackles of male oppression, you think that this law will not only not do that, but that it also constitutes an "attack" on the rights of immigrants.

If you wish to talk about that particular issue, then we can discuss it. However, the position you've taken with regards this debate, is, well....absurd.

I'm not about to support the imperial adventures of "my" ruling class, nor am I about to start supporting the British National Party as Severian keeps implying, nor am I about to do anything else which has been levelled at me in this and other threads.

Rather, with regards that one particular law, the results, which I think will be fundamentally progressive, totally negate all other considerations.


Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)....or else we risk disorienting ourselves and others on the left when, say, the US widens the war and starts bombing runs in Iran.[/b]

Not really.

I can tell you now that I will not support an American invasion of Iran whatever the rationale. And additionally, if there was an invasion, I would support the Resistance effort whatever from it takes.

I really don't see how my position on the headscarf ban changes any of this....indeed, I would agree with you with regards saying that the Middle East will never make progress towards human liberation until the Imperialists are driven out!

America has a long history of support the most reactionary ruling classes available -- think "Saudi" Arabia!

Therefore, as I said, I don't quite know how you could tag me with the label of German Social-Democracy (1914)....indeed, that label would be better suited to Severian.

Severian's rationale may well lead him to support an invasion of Iran -- presumably because a US occupied Iran would give more space in which Trade Unions could operate.

Indeed, before you start pasting the tags of social-democracy onto people, you should perhaps consider what members act like social-democrats!


Originally posted by Gravedigger
The risk of this is that if we say that religion is the root cause....

No one is saying the "root cause" is Religion....indeed if I did think that this was the case, then I would completely oppose the Iraqi Resistance, which is not the case.

We could have a discussion about what role Islam, and more importantly the Islamic authorities, play in the Middle East -- indeed on a Middle Eastern board in English I recently had a conversation with a couple of Arab comrades about the Arab left in general, and what problems Islam causes them.

However, this is besides the point. I would say, and I think you would agree, that before Islam can be addressed in the Middle East, the imperialists and the Islamic Governments they support must be driven out!


[email protected]
....then the removal of the Taliban by the US was progresssive, the US should stay in Iraq to ensure that one religious group dosn't opress or dominate another. This is the logic that Bush and Blair are trying to push forward.

Bush, Blair....and Severian it seems.

Take a look over the other thread, he thinks that supporting the Iraqi Resistance means that we view Iraqi's as "wogs" that "can't do any better".

You see, this line of debate is applicable, just not to me.


Gravedigger
We should be the ones organizing demos and making inroads with arab communities in Europe and showing that the fight against impirialism is stronger when it is on a multi-racial class basis rather than a religious one.

If you wish to discuss the merits of forming a united front against Imperialism, then we can do that, but I will not form a united front against "blasphemy".

I'll leave that to RESPECT and the Socialist Workers' Party....it is their favourite pastime! :lol:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:43 PM


Certainly not. I'm defending the traditional Marxist attitude towards religion here.

Hardly. You are suggesting that we address "Islamophobia" as a distinct social problem, requiring seperate attention from the class struggle.
You might as well say I favor addressing racism as a distinct social problem, requiring seperate attention from the class struggle, and that this is somehow not traditionally Marxist.

Nothing is separate from the class struggle - opposing the persecution of religious minorities, and fighting for freedom of religion, is part of it.

And of course I started out by establishing what the traditional Marxist view of this subject is...in this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46523)


I must say though, Severian, I am glad to see that, so far at least, you've been relatively willing to delve into the important issues this time. Hopefuly, that will be sustained and we'll have a more fruitful dialogue than last time. :)

No, I've been more willing to delve into the unimportant issues. That won't last, but I'll give you one more on this headscarf thing.



Redstar is chucking it overboard (and has explictly argued against Engels on this), in favor of support to....fascist attacks on mosques! Care to comment what you think about that?

I'm against it.

The government should not be granted the authority to dicate what kind of buildings people can or cannot build, or what kind of actions they choose to comit inside of them, so long as no one's rights are violated in the process.

If mature adults want to visit a particular building every Friday and mutter to the wall in arabic, that is their basic human right and no state on earth has the moral authority to stop them.

The thought of any "leftist" supporting any government's efforts to "smash mosques" would be hillarious if it were not so scary.

I'm very disturbed by the thought that anyone could contend that the Third Reich's demolition of Synangogues was in any way "progressive".

Excellent! And it seems to me this is an important question, far more so than the headscarves.

Yet somehow you said nothing about it, until I point-blank asked you.

It strikes me this is not terribly principled - remaining silent on awful errors (errors is mild) by one's allies. And that there is a tendency to tolerate things from Redstar which would not be tolerated from anyone else.



AKA people's right to raise their children in their own religion.

Yes, a "right" that you seem to take as nearly universal. A, by the way, wholy ludicrous position.

It's a pity you didn't choose to quote and respond to what I actually said about this right.



Stripping out the emotional arguments, this is different from normal child-raising - only in degree and connotation.

Well ...yeah. That's because everything is a "difference only in degree and connotation".

American segregation and German judenhasse were only different "in degree", but that doesn't mean that one was not far worse than the other.

In this case, while all child rearing may contain a degree of coercion and oppression, society must still draw a line at which the amount of subjugation becomes unacceptable. At which tolerable paternalism becomes outright abuse.

Not everything - there are also qualitative differences. But your examples are differences of degree, yes. There is some point - which is probably a judgement call - where an act should be legally prohibited as child abuse.

don't think people should be locked up for mildly spanking their children; there is some point where a beating does become a crime.


You seem to feel that this line "does not apply" when we're dealing with matters of "faith", but have still refused to answer whether this theory applies universally.

I don't feel that. Whether an act is child abuse is not determined by whether it is justified in religious terms.

Is raising children to believe that when they pass puberty, they should cover their hair with a scarf, child abuse that should be prevented by law?

I don't see it. And in order for you to argue this position, you had to compare it to genital mutilation, and other things which are definitely different in degree, to put it mildly!

And of course the headscarf ban was not directed at parents, nor did it reduce their "parental rights".

It was a rule where the school llimited the behavior of girls. Kicked some of them out of school. A shame I have to keep reminding you.

Odd that while pretending to defend these girls' rights against "absolute parental authority" you keep referring to these teenagers as "children" and pretending they are wholly incapable of independent thought!

In fact, when children become teenagers they begin forming their own political and sometimes religious opinions. Even when they simply mirror their parents', they are often capable of articulately arguing for them, and considering these beliefs their own. Occasionally this might even happen younger, in highly polarized situations like occupied Palestine or apartheid Soweto.

Teenagers' right to free expression has to be fought for against both parents and the school authorites who act "in loco parentis" as as U.S. law puts it anyway. I know, 'cause I did when I was a teenager. Both my religious and political opinions.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression did apply to teenagers - that they had the right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War - this was a victory for social progress against the ruling class. It was a product of the antiwar movement and high school students' efforts to organize against the war, including in school.

You've had to argue the opposite - since you claim to support freedom of religion but oppose it in this particular case. You have to claim - and have claimed - freedom of religous expression doesn't apply to "children."

But by doing so, what can you say for secondary students' right to political expression? Political expression is part of the same bourgeois-democratic gains as religious expression - if you reject one, you're going to be handicapped in defending the other.

Really, regardless of any position you or I take, by banning "religious symbols" in the schools - the French state has established a precedent which strengthens its ability to ban the expression of political ideas in its schools by "children". That's always been my whole point about not supporting any repressive action by the bourgeois state - the precedent will be used against you. And so will your support for that precedent.


I reject that any group has special privaleges

Straw man. And lemme point out, the same straw man used by U.S. homophobes to reject gay rights.


and insist that we take an entirely pragmatic approach to this issue.

One problem with pragmatism is it leaves you blown by the wind. Without an overall framework for deciding positions on particular issue, you're very vulnerable to bending to prevailing winds in society. In this case, you might just possibly be bending to prevailing winds about the supposed clash of civilizations between "Islam" and the advanced, civilized, progressive "West".


Again, their subjective motivations are completely secondary. But it is important to recognize that the "campaign against Islamism" is false, if only to recognize that it distracts from true class solidarity.

It doesn't just "distract" from it - it damages it. It's necessary to point out that when they rail against "Islam" - or "Islamism", but usually they say Islam - they are really attacking millions of Muslim workers. And therefore, the entire working class. ("An injury to one is an injury to all.")

So why is your campaign against Islam better than theirs, exactly? Other than your subjective motivations, which in your case I will agree are probably better?


In this case, it's because buying into their "clash of civilizations" model, no matter which side we take, is ultimately benneficial for the capitalists.

I couldn't agree more. So which of us argued that the advanced capitalist states were defending secularism and democracy against Islam, exactly? I seem to remember it was you, not me.

That is the "clash of civilizations" idea, in a nutshell.


If we defend "Islam" and "Muslims" against "Islamophobia" instead of defending workers against bosses, then we are allowing the capitalists to define the terms of the debate.

If we defend "Negroes" against "Jim Crow" instead of workers against bosses, then we are allowing the capitalists to define the terms of the debate...this is the Eugene Debs perspective.

He meant well, and was a real class fighter, but he was dead wrong on this. "We have nothing special to offer the Negro" - just class unity.

But the more oppressed will never join a "class unity" that does not address their oppression. That stands by silent while Jim Crow continues. That stands by silent
while the National Front rails against Islam - or with empty hands while they attack mosques - because defending "Islam" and "Muslims" is supposedly not our fight.

It's necessary to take a stand against every kind of oppression, whether those targeted are defined on the basis of their skin color, their language, their sex...or their religion. If religion is not the issue, but rather class - as you said in your last post - then you should have no trouble treating it like any other arbitrary basis which are used to single people out for second-class treatment. A demagogic attack on a religious minority is just the same as a demagogic attack on a "racial" minority.

I'm not married to the "Islamophobia" term - it's as flawed as "Islamic fundamentalism." But both refer to real - and reactionary - political phenomena which must be combatted.

In the case of "Islamophobia", it refers to those who scapegoat and dehumanize 1 billion Muslims, using the real and exagerrated reactionary trash that is part of their religion, and the real and exagerrated oppression committed in its name....


When workers are mistreated it doesn't matter what excuses the bosses come up with to "defend" their actions, we need to attack them all the same.

Exactly! Including the excuse of their membership in a religious minority.



Is your answer to just say - the BNP isn't really defending Christianity, it's defending whiteness? They're not really mosque-destroying anti-Islam people, they're really skin-color racists?
.....
It doesn't matter what my "opinion" of the BNP is, it matters how we respond to it.

Well, that's my question, how to you respond to their demagogy. Baseball bats are a necessary but not sufficient weapon against fascism - their crap circulates widely, and at least partially misleads many. It has to be answered.

And I don't think you explained how you'd answer it. I don't think you can answer it - because you say the same thing they do.


No one has a class interest in seeing young Muslim girls subjugated. Certainly the bourgeosie does not bennefit by having these potential employees cut off from the work-force and mainstream society; nor does it relish the prospect of not having them as consumers.

But they won't be cut off from the workforce - that's just not an economic option for working people today. They may be unemployed, especially if bosses heavily discriminate against North Africans/Middle Easterners and especially NA/ME women....but they'll be part of the workforce.

This is not something which just relates to Muslims; the U.S. has also seen plenty of sexist crap about how awful working women are, (also poor women who don't work, Catch-22) how they're neglecting their children, etc. Much of it is Christian in form.

The bourgeoisie does foster this crap - not to keep women out of the workforce, but to make them feel guilty about being there. And to make men feel like women don't belong there, either.

It blocks class unity, and makes women less likely to fight for their rights as workers or as women.


Apparently NewKindofSolider, since he suggested "defense of judeo-christian value" as the reason for "Islamophobia" in the first world.

I was merely pointing out that such a hypothesis is deeply flawed. Do you disagree?

Oh, absolutely. But it is a banner of the fascists and to a lesser degree the mainstream bourgeoisie. As 321zero pointed out, their slogans and self-justifications don't have to make sense!



Oh. So how (and why) do you imagine the National Front, or even the mainstream bourgeoisie, is going to attack Islam without attacking Muslim workers?

Fickly and inconsistantly.

As I've said before, I do not count on the state to "defeat" religion, nor do I expect that it will be anything approaching reliable when it comes to battling supersition.

You're not responding to the point I'm making...it's not about how strongly they're going to attack Islam - but I think you're wrong there, when it comes to the National Front, BNP etc. They may do it quite strongly. The fascists are often better than most leftists at marrying word and deed.

My point is, how are they going to attack Islam without attacking Muslim workers.

Out of time - I may or may not respond to the rest later.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Armchair,
I agree that there are several different (however, they are interrelated in my opinion) issues at play when it comes to the "Muslem Question". Often in this discussion these different isses get crosses and I think the debate becomes muddies because of it.

I don't think there is an argument about religion and the iraqi resistance or Islamic nations being critically supported against US or European imperialism or outright invasion.

So the main point of contention seems to remain the question of headscarfs and the nature of the anti-muslim attacks. Frankly the real absurd realtivism I see here is equating stae opression with parental opression of their children.

Sure women's liberation must be supported, but I am also against pornography as exploitive and harmful, but marxists should not side with state power and repression because, as I have said, it strengthens the power of the state and it does not empower women.

What would be more empowering for muslim women in france would be not living in jim-crow like economic segregation when unemployment for north africans and arabs is much higher than in the general population.


Originally posted by "Z-Net"+--> ("Z-Net")Others said wearing a Muslim headscarf or not being white considerably reduced job prospects.[/b]


"BBC"
Unemployment among people of French origin is 9.2%. Among those of foreign origin, the figure is 14% - even after adjusting for educational qualifications.

Not to mention Le Pen gaining votes a few years ago on an anti-immigrent platform. And it is in this atmosphere that religious attire was banned.

In order for french muslims to feel empowered to stand up to their parents customs, they must feel empowered not be be thrown out into the street without any prospects for work.

In the US where the primary group of immigrents who are under attack are Latino, we can not demand that Latino catholics change their views on abortion before we fight back against racism in solidarity with them! We fight back and it is in this process of struggle that other debates and arguemnts will be taken up and other opressed groups - even groups opressed within Latino-immigrent culture such as women and homosexuals - will feel confident and inspired to fight as well. This can be helped even further radicals are working in solidarity with the general movement and bringing our views and anaylsis into the movement.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)Frankly the real absurd realtivism I see here is equating stae opression with parental opression of their children.[/b]

I suppose it's always an issue of judgement with regards determining whether bourgeois state or parental "favoured" -- not a great word I know.

We could all agree for instance, that we'd support the bourgeois state when it intervenes against parents who molest their children, or parents who beat their children.

So with regards this particular form of psychological oppression against Muslim girls we must again, make judgement call. It is my opinion that the bourgeois state on this particular issue is right, where as you'd say that it intervenes too much as it were.

I suppose we could argue this for the next year and still neither judgement would change because we have, in a way, drawn our lines in the sand and we're gonna' stick by them!

So unless you wish to discuss this issue for eternity ( :lol: ) I think it would be more fruitful to discuss the other subjects you brought up in your last post....agree?


Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)What would be more empowering for muslim women in france would be not living in jim-crow like economic segregation when unemployment for north africans and arabs is much higher than in the general population.[/b]

I couldn't agree more....truly smashing the segregation imposed on immigrants would go a lot further with regards empowering Muslim women -- once again, I must point out that the ban on headscarf's only affected children.

However, it would contend that the young girls freed from the shackles of male oppression by the headscarf ban will be more likely to go on an do the stuff you mentioned above.

Remember, it was the loss of credibility of traditional Christianity, partially due to the attacks on Christianity by the emerging bourgeois, that opened the door as it were for the feminist movement to emerge.

The development of modern-capitalism and the subsequent suffering of the Christian paradigm was what made it possible for the first feminists to start fighting for women's liberation.

The question, in my eyes anyway, becomes how are Muslim women going to get to the political level of 20's, or perhaps 60's, feminism?

In my opinion, in France at least, the headscarf ban will open the door to this a lot quicker than if Muslim girls were left to fester under the shackles of male oppression.

You see, I would contend that before Muslim women fight for their empowerment they have to feel empowered! And that isn't going to happen so long as they are coerced into wearing that horrid garment.


[email protected]
Not to mention Le Pen gaining votes a few years ago on an anti-immigrent platform. And it is in this atmosphere that religious attire was banned.

Well, like all fascists, Le Pen's thugs should have the living fuck beaten out of them by militant anti-fascists....that will go a long way to stopping him.

However, as has been pointed out, it really doesn't matter if the motives of this law were to "appease" Le Pen or not. That it will be fundamentally progressive is what we should concentrate on.

Additionally, as I commented in the other thread, if Le Pen is making political capital out of attacking Islam and Muslims and using the veil as a target for some of his attacks.

Don't you think he'll find he has less support within the French populace when the French populace see with its own eyes that Muslims are becoming less and less attached to their Religion?


Gravedigger
In the US where the primary group of immigrents who are under attack are Latino, we can not demand that Latino catholics change their views on abortion before we fight back against racism in solidarity with them!

I never said we should "demand" they change their position....I said we should defend them from attacks by fascists.

However, I did ask a question a few posts that you didn't answer. It was would you attend a rally, if there was one, called Immigrants Against Abortion?

After all, by supporting the right of Muslim fathers to oppress their daughters aren't you, in reality, supporting the movement named Muslim Fathers For Female Oppression.

As I said, defend immigrants from attacks from fascists and so on....absolutely. But support their attempts to oppress their daughters....fuck no!

That is a line I won't cross.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Certainly not. I'm defending the traditional Marxist attitude towards religion here.[/b]

And what does this "traditional Marxist attitude towards religion here" relate to? ....Bolshevik actions in 1917, Cuban actions....or what?

Because Engels in 1891, in what I would imagine were the last recorded words from the old guy on this matter, wrote....


Engels
II. Political Demands

[....]

5. Complete separation of the Church from the State. All religious communities without exception are to be treated by the state as private associations. They are to be deprived of any support from public funds and of all influence on public education. (They cannot be prohibited from forming their own schools out of their own funds and from teaching their own nonsense in them.)

6. In that case the point on the “secular character of the school” no longer arises, since it relates to the preceding paragraph.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htm

You could, without much trouble, extend the principle of prohibiting "all influence on public education" by Religion to include Religious garments worn by teachers and students -- therefore furthering the "secular character of the school".

Also you should bear in mind another factor here, Engels was writing for German Social-Democracy and it was not unknown for either Marx or Engels to "tone down" their language a bit to appease the less radical elements of the movement.

[Severian]

continuing from earlier thread....

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:43 PM

It's not just "harder" and "counterintuitive" - its guarantees that you'll be so wrapped up in the contradictions of your own line, with trying to walk this unnecessary tightrope, that you'll be unable to actually do anything to oppose the fascists.

Nonsense.

It only becomes "impossible" when you get trapped in liberal postmodern garbage about "cultural rights" and "relative tolerance".

A truly proletarian line is simple. I say that it's hard because in the environment of the modern left, it's difficult to stick to; but despite the effort required, it's still clearly worth it.
Let me quote you from another thread:
Like the Nazis and their forebearers, most anti-"religious" prejeduce today is not actually based on religion. It is, rather, about "religious" excuse-making for politically or ideologically convienient discrimination.

The kind of bigotry you're talking about is not so much about belief as it is about the construction of a racist paradigm where no race exists. And this form of inherently racist religious discrimination must be fought by any progressive leftist and is the firm enemy of social liberation.

That said, though, this does not mean that we should refrain from attacking religion. There is a difference between attacking Muslims and attacking Islam.

As much as religious apologists like to make them synonymous, the fact remains that religion and the religious are two distinct beings. Religion is belief; religious people, as I've already outlined, are about a whole lot more. As communists, we have to walk a very thin tightrope. We must attack reactionary biggotry against religious people, but at the same time not let ourselves be deluded into defending religion.

It's a difficult balance act and sometimes we fall a little far on one side or the other. When that happens, we recognize our mistake, dust ourselves off, and move on.

But we have no choice but to get back on to that tightrope. Religion is wrong and is destroying lives. To ignore that fact would be to abandon the millions of religious victims around the world.
Religious persecution thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46523)

So religion is the issue for you, you can only oppose bigotry against a religious minority if you can convince yourself its really a form of racism. Because of that you have to keep walking this difficult tightrope, and IMO this keeps you so full of doubts, hesitations, and caveats that it keeps you from effectively and wholeheartedly acting to oppose those attacking Muslim workers under the banner of opposing Islam. Whether that's Blair or Griffin.

Evidence: none of those groups actually doing anything in the real world shares your line.

You are vacillating between Redstar's explicitly pro-fascist line and a line of opposing all this anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim crap. Those who vacillate rarely accomplish much.



Straw man. There is one civil law code that applies to everyone, and it limits the age at which girls can marry.

What's your point?

In France there's now "civil law" that "applies to everyone" that says that girls have to dress secularly. You've made it quite clear that you oppose this law.

No, that's not what the law says. I have been pointing this out from when we first started debating the headscarf ban, and you have always ignored this point. You ignore my points, while demanding I respond to all of yours, and the double standard is deeply annoying.

The law says that students cannot wear religious symbols. If you don't believe me, say so, and I'll find a quote. But stop ignoring my points.

This is an explicit violation of freedom of religion - for everyone. It also bans crucifixes and Jewish skullcaps.

So it applies to everyone, yes - it violates everyone's rights.

But everyone knows it is primarily aimed at Muslims, that it was passed because of the growing Muslim population. Nobody had a problem with students wearing religious symbols before.

That its effect - to target and stigmatize the Muslim population, reinforcing the second-class status of immigrants from North African/Middle Eastern countries (and their children and grandchildren and.....) As far as I know all of those kicked out of school have been Muslim girls.

So that's what the debate ceners on, the effect on Muslims.


Similarly, I am asking if you oppose the "civil law" that you speak of above, the one that limits when girls can be married, even if it contravenes "religious belief".

And I answered, no. Apparently not only do I have to answer every last one of your petty little points, I have to answer them repeatedly, while you ignore or evade my responses. Does that mean you concede those points? You claimed that's what it meant when I did.....

See, this is why I can't continue this indefinitely - I just get too frustrated.


All that matters is that this head-scarf law will have progressive results in and of itself.

And you can know in advance what the results of a law will be? Or did you attempt to measure what the results actually have been? Not that I've seen.

This method sucks, and inevitably leaves you blowing in the wind subject to all kinds of ruling-class and middle-class pressures.

It's the same one Chomsky uses to decide whether to support a war, and he actually did support Clinton's invasion of Haiti on this basis - as it happened, that invasion resulted in the Aristide administration imposing a series of IMF measures which further impoverished the Haitian population. So much for eclecticism.


Immigrants from third world countries tend to hold less advanced ideas because they're coming from less advanced countries.

Sweeping generalizations are a great producer of prejudice, even when stereotypes hold a grain of truth.

I could also say: workers from the Third World are often more class-conscious than the relatively more priviliged First World workers.

Lemme ask you something: is the far left in Europe - are you? - doing anything in relation to these workers and their consciousness, that would enable you to know anything but generalities here? The truth is always concrete, and the full truth is only revealed in action.....

For example, how many far-left groups in Europe put out newspapers in Arabic, Turkish, or whatever language is most often spoken by immigrants? Do you speak any of those languages?


Accordingly, when they move to the first world, they take their ideas with them and, for a time at least, attempt to sustain them in an environment which is not hospitable to them. This inevitably leads to conflict and, typically, the more advanced values will win out as the immigrants become absorbed into the immersive culture of their adoptive home.

Which sounds like an excellent reason not to worry so much about the supposed Islamic threat to secularism and democracy? Even if "it takes time and sometimes doesn't happen quite so peacefuly."

So why are you so worried about it?

More worried about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe - where you support measures by the state against it - than by the threat in, say, Iraq - where you support it! (If I understand your response to Gravedigger right.)

That's backwards: Islamic fundamentalism is a lot more capable of repressing the workers and preventing social progress in Iraq, obviously! It is a major problem the working-class movement has to confront - there.

But the two positions do have a common thread: supporting the bourgeoisie and deciding your positions based on what you're against (religion in one case, Uncle Sam in the other) rather than on what advances the workers' efforts to liberate ourselves.

Liberate ourselves - neither the French state nor the Iraqi resistance will do it for us.


This "cultural difference" is heralded by many on the right as another "barbarism" of "Islam" and as part of their show of being "defenders of the west", the French government has passed a law to facilitate this particular value's dissolution.

Well, this is a step forward: in the Religious Persecution thread you argued that the French government was doing this out of a bourgeois class interest to defend democracy and secularism against the Islamic threat.

There would be serious political implications if such a class interest existed.

It'd help advance the discussion if you openly acknowledged when you shift your position.


No, we're supposed analyze his positions to see if they have a progressive result.

I'm fairly sure that calling for fascists to destroy mosques doesn't.

To name one of many examples.

So would we tolerate someone who called for destroying mosques out of...whatever motivation you think the BNP and FN have? Hopefully not. Revolutionaryleft.com isn't ernestoguevara.com....yet.

Why do we tolerate Redstar, then?


That does not mean that the state should be supported in "any" actions against religion, but it means that we should not engage in campaigns "defending" religious "rights".

See, this is the tightrope problem again. While this position will hopefully keep you from storming the mosques alongside the BNP's goons....it will probably keep you from defending them, either. Because, of course, that is an attack precisely on a right to practice religion.

And again, that kind of attack can only be the prelude or accompaniment to a larger pogrom against millions of workers who are Muslim. To hesitate or vacillate in standing up to it.....can be disastrous.

[Severian]

Now, if you'll bear with me for a moment, I'll make a point about a hypocrisy that's pervaded this entire debate.

LSD and his allies have persistently complained about my failure to respond to every one of his points. Said I was evading the issues because I couldn't refute his brilliant arguments.

LSD even claimed, "If you make an assertion, I rebut it, and then you fail to even mention it again, it indidcates that you have conceded the point." here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46523&st=75)

So I'm going to demonstrate just how ridiculous this is. Here's a list of my rebuttals of LSD's assertions...which LSD failed to "even mention again." Has he conceded all these points?


That isn't especially, in an of itself, a democratic right; but think about the implications of trying to deny it in practice. Necessarily involves massive repressive machinery; punishing people for belonging to a religious minority, etc. Can't do it without denying all kinds of democratic rights.
.....
Actually you could describe normal child-raising that way if you chose, and Andrea Dworkin probably has.

(Your arguments on the headscarf ban generally, BTW, are very Dworkinesque. She liked to whip people up into such a frenzy with real and exaggerated examples of the worst practices of the porn industry, that they would forget every other consideration and support censorship regardless. Porn isn't about free speech, it's about rape! You're supporting the porn moguls' right to rape women!)

I don't look to the bourgeois state to fix the patriarchal family; even when working people have power, we won't primarily use laws and regulations in our effort to change it.

Anyway, admit it: this discussion has gone way past the headscarf ban long ago. Redstar's calling for the demolition of mosques by the National Front; you've said immigrants are setting back social progress; Armchair Socialism has oh-so-carefully explored the question of whether to support immigration restrictions for this purpose. The headscarf ban is just not a major issue to spend a lot of time on in that context; your constant raising of it seems like an attempt to distract attention from your less savory positions on more important questions.
....
321's response to this - and his latest post (above) - are right on and important.

Dworkin found this out the hard way: it matters who will be enforcing the law. Her own book was banned by Canadian customs under a law she inspired and supported.
.....
Lemme tell you: the BNP is capable of backing up its actions with words and being a lot more convincingly anti-Islam than you or even Redstar!

Rather than saying the BNP does't really mean its propaganda, it's necessary to answer that propaganda.
....
Fear of the "Islamic" threat is one of those things they can find and use...it is useful to them, so we should not feed it.
....
How are they going to demolish mosques, as Redstar hopes for, without unleashing a more general pogrom against Muslims? How are Muslims going to retaliate in kind - as he also hopes for - without unleashing another Yugoslavia?

Just as attacks on synagogues are always part of a more general anti-Semitic campaign against Jews - part of broader pogroms, basically. Attacks on mosques are part of a more general "Islamophobic" campaign against millions of Muslim workers. Or workers who are presumed to be Muslim, for that matter.

This is, among other reasons, because neither Blair, Chirac, LePen, or Griffin has any interest that would be served by attacking Islam-the-religion - they certainly do have an interest in going after millions of immigrant workers, who happen to be Muslim, and beating them into submission.

Opposition to "Islam" - whether in the name of Christianity or secularism - is handy for this - and if it gets a few leftists tied up in knots over their own theological approach to religion vs atheism, so much the better.
...
If some Muslims want an exception, they can't have one. The more progressive elements in majority-Muslim countries are fighting to raise the marriage age.
.....
Some atheists can be oddly religious in claiming otherwise, and saying that some believers are "bad Muslims" or not really religious - because they go against the supposed word of a nonexistent God!
....


LSD kept straw men alive by ignoring the first and and the next-to-last parts quoted; the others are just posts he didn't respond to.

But overall it was a serious response, and certainly not too short!

Which, I think, indicates the ridiculous nature of the demand that every point be responded to.

[Enragé]

---
something went wrong here

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)AKA people's right to raise their children in their own religion.

That isn't especially, in and of itself, a democratic right; but think about the implications of trying to deny it in practice. Necessarily involves massive repressive machinery; punishing people for belonging to a religious minority, etc. Can't do it without denying all kinds of democratic rights.[/b]

And what "serious Marxist" gives a rat's ass about what happens to kids anyway...especially when "mosques might be demolished". :o


Redstar's calling for the demolition of mosques by the National Front...

I did not "call on" the French National Front to do that...but if they did, that would be fine with me.

I don't believe in "freedom of religion".


Religious war, pogroms, inquisitions, etc., have been going on for thousands of years. If they hurt religion, it woulda collapsed a long time ago.

Not in the absence of a credible secular alternative.

In principle, communists have such an alternative to offer.

Though, to be sure, we still have numbers of "communists" who instead persist in defending "freedom of religion"...except when it's really inconvenient or too embarrassing.

But they don't embarrass easily. :lol:


Then there are a lot of naive people...

True, that! Even on this board. :(


Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)If religion is the root cause of all this repression, then the removal of the Taliban by the US was progressive, the US should stay in Iraq to ensure that one religious group doesn't oppress or dominate another. This is the logic that Bush and Blair are trying to push forward.[/b]

While in fact they have installed "their own" Islamicists!

Bush and Blair are lying again.

Can that not be said?


Is it pandering to Islam to be angry that guards in Guantánamo pissed on the Koran? No doubt Redstar thinks so.

What should be attacked about Guantánamo is torture...not pissing on the Koran.

Islamists seem uninterested in the atrocious treatment of their own followers...but rather emphasize the "blasphemous" treatment of their "holy book".

It's pretty clear what's important to them!


If Arabs are turning to religion to express their anger it is partially because of the lack of a response from the secular left.

So shall we offer "comradely advice" to whatever there might be in the way of a "secular left" in the Muslim world?

Ok, my advice to them is a frontal attack on Islam!

Rip those bastards to shreds at every opportunity!

And don't get trapped in the swamp of "freedom of religion" like the stupid American "left".

We need freedom from religion! :angry:


Originally posted by Severian
I don't think people should be locked up for mildly spanking their children; there is some point where a beating does become a crime.

Defend Freedom of Religion...and don't forget to beat your kids! :lol:


It's necessary to point out that when they rail against "Islam" - or "Islamism", but usually they say Islam - they are really attacking millions of Muslim workers. And therefore, the entire working class. ("An injury to one is an injury to all.")

And millions of Muslim peasants. And very large numbers of Muslim petty-bourgeois. And substantial numbers of Muslim clerics. And a small but growing number of Muslim capitalists.

Severian's spirited defense of Islam must encompass all classes as well.

Unless, possibly, he wishes to argue that Islam is "more proletarian" than Christianity or whatever. :lol:

In the Muslim world, I rather expect that workers are still very much a minority class.


But the more oppressed will never join a "class unity" that does not address their oppression.

True. So it's up to us to decide what forms of oppression we wish to oppose and what forms we don't give a shit about.

I don't give a shit about the oppression of religion...in fact I'd be a lot harder on the bastards than that wuss Stalin was.

You, on the other hand, wish to "unite with the godsuckers" on what purports to be a "class basis"...which means that you must tolerate pretty much any damn thing they want to do.

Evidently, violence against children is one of the things you're willing to "go along with".

Spare the rod and spoil the child as the "Good Book" so helpfully reminds you.


It's necessary to take a stand against every kind of oppression...

Except kids. :angry:


[email protected]
In the U.S. where the primary group of immigrants who are under attack are Latino, we can not demand that Latino catholics change their views on abortion before we fight back against racism in solidarity with them!

By and large, Hispanic peoples in North America do not frame their struggles in terms of "Catholic Right"...so it's not a major problem here.

But Catholicism clearly holds them back...so I would support Spanish-language propaganda against the Catholic Church and in favor of atheism.

And of course, it gives me enormous pleasure every time the Church loses another lawsuit to the victims of its endemic child-molesting.


Severian
You are vacillating between Redstar's explicitly pro-fascist line...

Opposition to religion has now been "dialectically transformed" into "pro-fascism". :lol:


For example, how many far-left groups in Europe put out newspapers in Arabic, Turkish, or whatever language is most often spoken by immigrants?

To do this requires fluency in those particular languages...something very rare among westerners.

In the U.S., most left groups at least try to publish some material in Spanish...and some do so with regularity and have been doing so for decades. I remember PL's newspaper was bi-lingual back in the 60s.


Why do we tolerate Redstar, then?

Since he's "worse than any Mullah", right? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

He's the special kind of moron in that he's almost dialectical in the opposite ideals of Judeo-christianity and humanism he holds. Do I need to explain the contradiction?

no, not to me at least ;) Doesnt mean the elite doesnt use it. The elite uses religion too, even though its often diametrically opposed to making a profit, so they only talk about the things in that religion that serve them...same goes for this example.




There are actually probably more than that, but as I've been saying to Severian, the motivations of oppressors are really irrelevent.

It doesn't matter whether a boss "believes" that he is acting against Islam, is acting against Islam, or doesn't put any thought into it at all. Any action that he does against the interests of the working class must be opposed.

You see, we need to adopt a class position; one in which "religion" and "faith" is not an issue. So when the workers are being oppressed, we support them. But if they chose to turn around and oppress themselves, we condemn them vociferously.

Attacking people because of their religion separates the working class, divides it. Therefore it is against the interests of the working class.
Now attacking someone is something different than talking and discussing and trying to do away with superstition, attacking is "You fucking muslim go fuck a goat". And thats what we need to oppose, and that is whats happening.

The elite is using relatively small religious differences, magnifies and exagerates them untill all muslims beat up and rape women, in order to divide the working class.


The problem with that theory, though, is that Islam is a judeo-christian religion!

Mohammed developed Islam out of the framework of Judaism and Christanity. Sure, he modified it a tad and added some Arabian cultural elements, but primarily, the Koran is a "judeo-christian" document.

If so-called "Islamophobia" were about "defending judeo-christian values", then Muslims would not be the primary target. Muslims, again, agree with most classical "judeo-christian" values. Monotheism, "faith", worship, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance... these are all shared values between them and both Muslims and "judeo-christians" would agree on every single one of them.

The people who wouldn't are atheists!

I know!

Thats not the point here that its bullshit, the point is that they are trying to outlaw Islam, not on rational basis, not on any basis (because as you said the koran is a judeo-christian document) except on the basis that "they" call themselves "muslims" and therefore are to be regarded as our "enemy".

So you can see that they do not attack the religion which is Islam, but exclusively the people who follow that religion, whom we should defend. You agree with this right?

Then stop making excuses, then stop condoning acts of agression against an entire people, acts which have as only reason, and possible outcome, that "we" we will be divided from "them", one part of the working class from the other.


Attacks against Islam, however, should not only be allowed, but should even be encouraged! Islam is an inherently reactionary social force and any weakening of its power is to the bennefit of the revolutionary movement.

But as explained they are not attacks on Islam, not criticism on what Islam is, of what constitutes as Islam, but simply attacks on those who follow that religion, people we should defend as you said.



It may seem counterintuitive to make this distinction, but it's an essential one nonetheless. We need to simultaneously support Muslims, but oppose Islam. It's a much harder job than kneejerk "anti-Islamophobia", but it is ultimately a much more productive one.

I have nothing against constructive criticism which shows how Islam is flawed, nothing against that at all. I do have something against attacking people for what they believe, provoking them etc. Attacks/criticism on the religion of Islam is necessary, mindless, rabid attacks, without arguments, in order to provoke an entire people (such as the cartoons of Muhammad), to seperate muslim from non-muslim is something we should FIGHT for it hurts class struggle, it hurts proletarian unity, it diminishes the chance for a brighter day and will only lead to muslims becoming more radical (because they feel attacked, which they are).

No muslim i know, and i think most muslims, would not mind if you would try to patiently refute, try to calmly discuss the ideas and the pillars of Islam. However if you start shouting MUHAMMAD IS A FUCKING PEADOPHILE AND A MURDERER ...well then you shouldnt be surprised if he at best walks away, or if you'll find his fist coming at you with great speed. Can you blame him? Ofcourse not. Even if muhammad was indeed a paedophile and a murderer, that is something to be brought with tact, subtle, after much discussion about the other flaws of islam. Why? Because attacking the center of one's beliefs straight away will only lead to that person refusing to talk any longer, will make him radicalise, will anger him/her, will close his mind from anything else you say. Remember that we are talking about ideas engrained in people's minds since childhood, entire lives are based around those assumptions...to deal with these flawed assumptions you need to break down that wall brick by brick, which will be a slow and painful process, especially for the believer involved for it will be as if his whole world collapses around him, everything he has ever believed in, worked for, lived for, turns out to be a lie. Understand now? Posting cartoons does not accomplish this, banning headscarfs at schools doesnt accomplish this either, all it accomplishes is the further radicalisation and alienation of a people.


If that's true then there's no problem.

Its true. They only become active when they feel attacked.


while there are literally dozens of members on this site ready to speak up in the name of a Muslim father's "right" to cover his daughter in a burka

no i dont think this is true. They would however speak up for the girl's rights to do so. Some girls over here actually did this, even though their parents didnt want that, because they felt they were making a statement, because they felt they were standing up for a people, a people which has been under attack for years now. Attacking a people leads to them turning inwards, into their own group, for guidance, it leads to them rediscovering old ideas and old traditions because they enforce their uniqueness in a society hostile to them.


Again, I do not support prejeduce against anyone. But I will also not tolerate oppression in the name of "faith".

But as you yourself said this is not about faith, or difference in values, (judeo-christian = islamic, more or less), its about attacking a people, in order to seperate the working class, in order to blame muslims for the things that are wrong in our countries.

You know that they actually a couple of times said there was a link to being muslim and being a criminal (as in; stealing stuff, raping, beating up people, not as in religious violence)? If anything, islam would say; chopp of their hands, stone them, flog them.
So its not about values, its about prejudice, about generalisation, about criminalising an entire segment of our society so that we remain divided and they have a scapegoat


Many Muslims may not celebrate inequality, but Islam does.

And so does christianity, and so does judaism, hinduism, and all the rest of that crap.

The problem is that Islam is highlighted as THE oppressive, sexist religion while its only ONE OF THE. The reason why it is highlighted, put more emphasis on, is to justify attacking ALL muslims, while not attacking all christians, all jews all hindus etc

As the dutch fucker with the "judeo-christian-humanist" heritage; and in the same way as Pope Urbanus running up to the First Crusade; the only reason why they show Islam to be more perverted than their own sick ideology is not because it really is, but to justify (in the first case) the discrimination and (in the second case) the murder of muslims while still keeping discrimination and murder outlawed when directed against their "own" society, all in order to expand their power

[redstar2000]

A demo to warm Severian's heart...

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/67148.html

Look at all the pretty pictures. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[321zero]

In my opinion, in France at least, the headscarf ban will open the door to this a lot quicker than if Muslim girls were left to fester under the shackles of male oppression.

You see, I would contend that before Muslim women fight for their empowerment they have to feel empowered! And that isn't going to happen so long as they are coerced into wearing that horrid garment.

You have a touching faith in the honesty of your bourgeois masters. The stop-and-search law in the UK is formulated in a strictly neutral way - clearly it is supposed to apply to all UK residents equally.

But it is applied an obviously racist way - black people are stopped much more frequently. In recent years the British state has felt the need to crackdown on its Muslim subjects, and what do you know? The cops have taken the hint and as a consequence stop-and-searches of Asian people have soared.

The French law against religious symbols in schools is no doubt formulated in a strictly neutral way - but as any fool can see from the timing and from the general increase in 'concern' about the 'problem of immigration' and the alleged 'unwillingness' of immigrants to assimilate it's effect will not be neutral, rather it will fit right into the general anti-immigrant campaign, currently dressed up in the tattered remnants of bourgeois secularism, precisely in order to confuse people like you.

Muslim girls will not be "empowered" if they are coerced into not wearing a headscarve.

Go read Marx On the Jewish Question again.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by 321zero+--> (321zero)The cops have taken the hint and as a consequence stop-and-searches of Asian people have soared.[/b]

Young black men still face the most discrimination from the British Police....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292037969 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47505&view=findpost&p=1292037969)

Read the rest of the quoted article for more information.


321zero
Muslim girls will not be "empowered" if they are coerced into not wearing a headscarve.

And when the British Government abolished slavery, primarily because it wasn't economically efficient in the British colonies, former slaves were not "empowered" because they were being "coerced" into not being slaves....give me a break.

[321zero]

Young black men still face the most discrimination from the British Police....

Yes exactly, because it suits the racist British state to persecute Blacks, just as in recent years it particularly suits them to persecute Muslims\Asians.

You've proven nothing except that you believe them when they 'we are all equal before the majesty of the law.' Gullible or what?


And when the British Government abolished slavery, primarily because it wasn't economically efficient in the British colonies, former slaves were not "empowered" because they were being "coerced" into not being slaves....give me a break.

Slavery is not a believe system. You didn't get "willing slaves" queuing up on the beaches of west Africa. If you want to break the chains in the minds of religious people you will need a more subtle intrument than state-repression or fascist terror.

Also while slavery may have been abolished, the super-exploitation of Blacks was not. Bourgeois legality does not match reality.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by 321zero+--> (321zero)You've proven nothing except that you believe them when they 'we are all equal before the majesty of the law.'[/b]

Where have I said anything like that?

You've put it into quotations, so am I to safe to assume that you are directly quoting me here?

If I'd been doing what you accuse me of, then I would have frequently mentioned that the French Law against Religious symbols in State Schools also includes Jewish and Christian symbols.

However, I have instead, as my posts will show, focused on headscarf's only....indeed I think I've only mentioned the other stuff once.

I would have thought that this focus on Islamic practice in particular would have been a de facto admission that I recognise that the Islamic practice of psychologically abusing girls was the main focus of the French Law in question.

So really, what are you basing these charges of "gullibility" on other than your own illogical conclusions?


321zero
If you want to break the chains in the minds of religious people you will need a more subtle intrument than state-repression or fascist terror.

Please explain how preventing Muslim men from oppressing Muslim girls is an example of "state-repression", in the sense you mean it, or for that matter "fascist terror"?

Do you, for instance, think there should be any limits on "Freedom of Religion"?

[Kaze]

just a note on the hijab or "headscarf" worn by muslim women, it is not a tool of oppression, except where it is forced. muslim women who protested the banning of the hijab in french schools were protesting because culturally being forced to take off the hijab would be akin to a woman being told she cannot have an education unless she goes to school topless.

how is banning modesty helping women exactly? by forcing them out of education? by forcing them to "conform", and "conform" with what exactly? this forced unveiling is facism, and dont be fooled into thinking otherwise. if a person is told what to wear by a religion that is bad, but if the state tells the same person what not to wear is that any better?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

just a note on the hijab or "headscarf" worn by muslim women, it is not a tool of oppression, except where it is forced. muslim women who protested the banning of the hijab in french schools were protesting because culturally being forced to take off the hijab would be akin to a woman being told she cannot have an education unless she goes to school topless.

Bull-fucking-shit. A girl going without her head covered is in no way sexualised except in the minds of those with an irrational fear of female beauty.

[redstar2000]

It was a long time ago, but someone here made a post about the statements of an Iranian Ayatollah that gave a first-class picture of what those bastards are really like.

According to this fucktard, women's hair generates "mysterious sex rays" that have a really terrible effect on men! :lol:

And that's the "scientific reason" that Muslim women must "keep their heads covered" in public.

Dumbasses!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

why does no one respond to my post earlier?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:51 PM

just a note on the hijab or "headscarf" worn by muslim women, it is not a tool of oppression, except where it is forced. muslim women who protested the banning of the hijab in french schools were protesting because culturally being forced to take off the hijab would be akin to a woman being told she cannot have an education unless she goes to school topless.

Bull-fucking-shit. A girl going without her head covered is in no way sexualised except in the minds of those with an irrational fear of female beauty.
Well then you wouldn't have a problem with a law requireing all men to have their penises hanging out and women topless? I mean rationally, there is no reason to cover these things, it is just an irrational cultural thing.

I agree that women in many islamic countries are opressed, but the headscarf is not the sorse of this. A french law prohibiting this does nothing to combat sexism.

In addition, historiacally, women in Iran voluntarily wore the headscarfs to protest western "cultural imperialism" under the Shah of Iran. Women played a big role in the revolution, it was only later that women and workers were opressed when the Clerics consolidated power.

Changes in cultural fasion have never preceeded changes in consiousness, it is always the other way around. Students in the 60s didn't grow out their hair and then start questioning racism and the war and the established system! Women didn't start wearing pants and smoking and then decide to fight for sufferage! Women didn't burn their bras and then decide they should get paid the same as men!

It is truely absurd to argue that a law prohibiting religious clothing will somehow magically raise consiousness!

[LSD]

OK, folks, this is going to be another long one. :lol:

Gravedigger, if you're curious, I addressed your post at the bottom. I prefer that over double-posting.

Firstly, though, before I get into arguments, I would like to briefly address Severian's issue of "completeness".

For the record, Severian, I did not insist that every point must be responded to. In these kind of discussions, a lot gets repeated and it would be entirely superfluous, not to mention mind-numbingly dull, to repeatedly respond to every single line posted.

Clearly, judgment calls are required as to what's relevent and what isn't.

My objection was not that you were not addressing everything I wrote, but rather that you were evading the crux of the issue and instead choosing to focus on, in my opinion, insignificant minutae.

The quote that you posted was, if you remember, in reference to a specific accustion that you made and then failed to reconstruct. You accused me of having "contradicted myself" (a rather serious charge), but I after I rebuted this claim, you failed to ever mention that subject again.

It is not especially irrational to conclude, under those circumstances, that you had abandoned the position.

Insofar as my posts in this thread, I believe that I have fully responded to the important posts that you have made. Of the list you posted of "missed" points, it's worth mentioning that not only did I respond to similar or related topics for almost every entry, but I even responded directly to one of them.

There may have been a couple of topics that I completely ignored but that was because, in my estimation, they were unimportant to the central debate.

Again, you can hardly complain as you have certainly done this far more times than I have.


You might as well say I favor addressing racism as a distinct social problem, requiring seperate attention from the class struggle, and that this is somehow not traditionally Marxist.

The difference, though, is that race is a seperate issue. Religion is merely opinion under a more "politically correct" label.


Excellent! And it seems to me this is an important question, far more so than the headscarves.

Yet somehow you said nothing about it, until I point-blank asked you.

Because it wasn't relevent to the point I was making. I was addressing the issue of this headscarf law in particular and the nature of "Islamophobia" in general.

Responding to every sensationalist post that Redstar makes would be a waste of my time and a complete diversion. Based on what I've written so far, I think it went without saying what my position on such action would be.

And even if it didn't, if anyone was curious, all they had to do was ask.


Not everything - there are also qualitative differences. But your examples are differences of degree, yes. There is some point - which is probably a judgement call - where an act should be legally prohibited as child abuse.

Exactly.

And such is the case in this instance. Again, it's not quite so clear cut as when a parent is actually physically beating a child, but it's nonetheless abuse.

You have still not responded to my hypothetical "garbage bag" analogy, so I'm going to bring it up here again.

If a man, a non-muslim man, decides to dress his daughters in garbage bags with I am a piece of shit labeled on the front, and furthermore teaches them that they "must" wear these garbage bags at all times outside the house and that unless they wear them an invisible man in the sky will strike them down and make them suffer for all eternity... is that child abuse?

What about when the children become teenagers and "want" to wear the piece of shit bags?

Obviously, the best solution would be to not allow this man to raise children. To catch him from the beginning and prevent him from ever indoctrinating his daughters to believe the misogynistic crap he believes.

But, unfortunately, that's simply not an option in this case.

I, again, do not trust the state enough to allow it to unilaterally remove Muslim children from their homes. Likewise, I do not trust anyone enough to give them the power to universally examine all homes for signs of coercive indoctrination.

In the context of liberal capitalism, there is simply no means of "nipping" this problem "at the bud" and so, unfortunately, we are forced to act less directly.

School, you see, is already a public instition. One in which the rules differ greatly from society in general. Most schools have a dress code of some description and expanding that code to prohibit religious symbols, one of which is particularly oppressive, is not an unreasonably act.

It may not be pretty, it certainly isn't pefect, but it's basically the only option available to us at this point.


Is raising children to believe that when they pass puberty, they should cover their hair with a scarf, child abuse that should be prevented by law?

Yes.

You are oversimplifying and sanitizing the issue by pretending that this is merely a question of style or fashion; that it's just about "covering hair". It's about far more than that and you know it.

These girls aren't "advised" to wear an article of clothing, they are told that they "must" cover themselves in "shame" so that their "shameful" bodies cannot be viewed by men. That they live to serve men and must accomodate themselves to this task.

They are further told than unless they accept this subjugation, "Allah" will "strike them down" and "punish them for eternity"! :o

These are little girls being raised to believe that their second-class status is "ordaned by heaven" and the only choice available to them. Demonstrating that this is fallacial by forcing them to experience secular life may be distasteful, but it's still nescessary.


When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression did apply to teenagers - that they had the right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War - this was a victory for social progress against the ruling class.

Yes it was. But that's not the case here.

These children (or teenagers if you prefer) are not protesting or making political statements. They are wearing their second-class "religious" subjugation and advertising their "shame".

Teenagers who protested the vietnam war were doing so in spite of parental pressures and so it was a victory against the repressive institution of the "traditional family".

Teenagers who wear symbols of reaction and oppression because their parents tell them to, however, are in no way progressive and it is an insult to truly independent teenagers to equate the two.

You're probably right, undoubtably some muslim girls have taken it upon themselves to wear the veil witohut parental indoctrintation, but if so, they constitue the distrinct minority. The overwhelming majority of headscarf wearing girls are not "making a statement", they are merely "covering their shame" as they have been taught from birth.

It may be "unfair" to paint all headscarfs with one brush, but since that brush acurately describes 99% of cases, it isn't especially illogical to employ. If there was some way to only target indoctrination cases, it would be worthy of consideration, but, of course, no such way exists.


But by doing so, what can you say for secondary students' right to political expression? Political expression is part of the same bourgeois-democratic gains as religious expression - if you reject one, you're going to be handicapped in defending the other.

And what if they want to wear SS uniforms or Swastika armbands?

Teenagers should have a right to political expression, but that right is not universal. School is not a private home and the classroom is not the street. There is a time and a place for unlimited speech, and this isn't it.

School is about education, that means it needs to maintain certain values. Open displays of fascist or racist symbols simply should not be permitted. In an environment in which children are supposed to be learning about the world, it make absolutely no sense to allow National Socialism to play a part.

Same goes for the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the nation of Islam, and headscarves.

Just as teenagers should not be permitted to brandish symbols in support of others' oppression, they should not be permitted to brandish symbols in support of their own.

The hijab is not merely a "symbol of Islam", it is also a symbol of Islamic misogyny and as such it has no place in an educational institution.

When these teenagers are on the street or in their home, the state has no business interfering in their dress code, but while in school, the school administration and the state for which it works have a clear obligation to maintain the secular and nondenominational nature of schooling.


One problem with pragmatism is it leaves you blown by the wind.

I am not being "blown" by anything, thank you very much.

And romantic idealism contributes nothing. Adopting a line is useless unless it has some bearing to the real world and that means being reasonable and pragmatic in one's actions and ideas.

Blind faith in one's ideology may be less work, but it's a whole lot less effective in getting real things accomplished.

This "tightrope walk" of mine may be harder than kneejerk liberal "political correctness", but I'd rather take the hard road than the wrong one.


So why is your campaign against Islam better than theirs, exactly?

Because their campaign is not actually against Islam.

Mine is.

I, again, emphatically support the rights of working Muslims. All that I reject is the use of their religion as a blanket excuse for oppressive actions on their part. It's much in the same way to how I oppose sexism but will still work with sexist workers on working-class issues.

I will gladly stand side to side with a striking factory worker as he fights for his right to fair treatment. But if returns home and beats his wife, I will stand by his wife as she has him arrested.

Class solidarity is not universal, it exists only on issues of class. And until the proletariat is rid of reactionary and regressive values, we will never be able to fully support every worker in everything that they do.

At this point in history, there's simply still too much cultural "baggage" for the kind of line you're promoting.


I couldn't agree more. So which of us argued that the advanced capitalist states were defending secularism and democracy against Islam, exactly?

What I said was that the bourgeoisie has an interest in promoting western liberal values at home as they are ideological prerequisites to capitalist rule.


If we defend "Negroes" against "Jim Crow" instead of workers against bosses, then we are allowing the capitalists to define the terms of the debate...this is the Eugene Debs perspective.

The difference, though, is that "negroes" did not choose to be black. Racism, like sexism, is an entirely distinct form of discrimination, with a seperate sociological origin from traditional class divisions.

That's not to say that race and class are not heavily intertwined, clearly they are. But racism clearly transcends class lines and has historically had an important role in and of itself.

Ignoring this social role of racism is not "bad" per se, but it is counterproductive as it ignore the role that the "race" paradigm has in supporting the institions of capitalism.

It is worth noting, however, that by the 1960s, a good deal of the bourgeoisie had an interest in opposing segration as it had become a political liability and international embarassment.

Remember, most of George Wallace's support in his Presidential bid did not come from the rulling class, but from ordinary rural working-class racists.

It was proletarian racism, actually, that was the biggest obstacle to class unity and it was the transcendental nature of racism that Debs failed to recognize.

Racism needed to be directly dealt with because, otherwise, the proletariat was incapable of realizing its internationalist potential. Debs may not have been a racist himself, but because he refused to make anti-segregation an official party platform, many pro-segrationists were able to call themselves "socialists" with no apparent contradiction.

People like Victor Berger were leading members of the Socialist party in the early twentieth century despite their repeated vocal support for racism. It was a cancer in the left that had to addressed and wasn't. That's clearly not the situation today.

Religion is not race and neither racism nor opposition to freedom of consicence are serious problems in leftist circles. Rather, today the problem is postmodern liberalism and the notion of "cultural relativism". Today, the postmodernists have taken over and are very hard at work trying to convince us that "all cultures are equal" and "tolerance is the highest ideal".

Even some ostensible "feminists" have been duped into believeing that Sharia law is "acceptable" because of its "cultural heritage".

This is simply postcolonialist liberal white guilt nonsense.

No oppression is tolerable, whether it is "religious", "cultural", or both. We have an obligation to protest any injustice and any violation of rights, again, even in the perpetrator is a parent and the victim a child.


But the more oppressed will never join a "class unity" that does not address their oppression.

But unlike Debs, I am not promoting that we do nothing on the issue of race. I am not calling on Muslim workers to wait until I am elected President of France before things will change.

On the contrary, I am adamently in favour of supporting Muslim workers when they are attacked, just like I am in favour of supporting all other workers when they are attacked.

Again, it's a class-line, not an ideological one.

It doesn't matter if the workers in question are religious, racist, sexist, or all three. Their subjugation on class issues cannot be tolerated. But that does not mean that I am going to organize a "communists againt anti-racism" campaign!

Racism should be fought, even if a good number of racists happen to be working class. And when these working class racists appear on the wrong side of a protest, I will gladly and loudly condemn them for it.

Now, these racists could, rightfuly, complain that I am not maintaining "solidarity" with them. That I am failing to maintain "class unity" by condemning their "white pride" parade. After all, they see themselves and their "race" as the "victim" of "racial politics" and "Jewish conspiracy". Shouldn't I "support" them in their "struggle"?

The answer, clearly, is no. But from your logic, one would not conclude that.

Rather, the inevitable result of your line of argumentation is that all workers should be supported in everything they do, regardless of the specifics involved.

Otherwise, you claim, we risk "alienating" them from "class unity".

Well, frankly, the kind of people we're talking about here are not liable to be "united" with us anyway. Those Muslims who accept secular values and practice at least marginal rationality can and will be our allies. But those parents who would raist their daughters to subjugat themselves; who would teach them to "believe" such disgusting barbarism; the kind of people that you fear this headscarf law will "alienate"; they are already so "alien" from materialistic class struggle, that it's really not an issue.

These people are, after all, almost universally sexist, homophobic, and intolerant. They view Muslim society as "superior" and consider "degenerate" behaviour to be "deadly sin".

Until this worldview is discarded, they will have no place within a revolutionary movement and so their "alienation" should not be a concern.

That is not to say that these workers are not deserving of our support on class issues, of course they are, but they are simply too wrapped up in primative superstition to play a progressive role in combatting capitalism.


It's necessary to take a stand against every kind of oppression, whether those targeted are defined on the basis of their skin color, their language, their sex...or their religion.

What if the "religion" in question is Naziism?

Nazis are about as irrational and superstitious as any other "believer", so it's a fair analogy and it really hits the question of just how far you take this "opression" paradigm of yours.

If Nazis find themselves "oppressed" by anti-fascism or anti-racism legislation, should we support them?

They're only trying, after all, to "practice their faith". Should communists stand by their "right to religion"?

You see, I support Nazis in that they have a right to believe and express their opinions, no matter how reprehensible they may be, but that's the extent to which I will go.

I will certainly not engage in a campaign of anti-"Naziophobia" or fight for recognition of Nazis as "valid" or "protected".

Workers who choose to believe in "Islamic values" have the same basic rights as all other workers, but they deserve no special consideration or sympathy by virtue of the reactionary ideology that they have chosen to uphold.

And if they decide to act on this ideology then, just like when Nazis try to act on theirs, we should spare no efforts in stopping them.

It doesn't matter if the guiding figure is a little German man with funny 'stache or a little Arab man with a long beard. Oppression is oppression.


If religion is not the issue, but rather class - as you said in your last post - then you should have no trouble treating it like any other arbitrary basis which are used to single people out for second-class treatment.


And I don't!

That's precisely the point I've been trying to make. The attacks that you percieve as "Islamophobic" in nature are nothing more than traditional class-based attacks "with a twist".

The cover of the "war on terrorism" and resurgent romantic nationalism in the face of recent immigration surges, has allowed the bourgeoisie a perfect "justification" in which to cloak their class-based politcs.

Accordingly, it is our obligation to stand-up for any oppressed workers and defend their basic rights and protections against excessive state or capitalist intervention.

The fact that some of these workers may be "Muslim" is wholly irrelevent.


My point is, how are they going to attack Islam without attacking Muslim workers.

Again, inconsistantly.

Remember, the bourgeoisie is acting here from a variety of motivations. Accordingly, they tend to be somewhat fractured in their approach. That means that many of their attacks on Islam are intermingled with their attacks against Muslim workers and vice-versa.

Because of this, we must be very careful in analyzing each act to determine whether or not we should oppose it. But we should not make the mistake of over-cautiousness and miss the opportunity to allow the state to do some of our work for us.

We only have so much time and so many resources. If the French state want to try and address the issue of the oppression of Muslim girls, for whatever reason, we should let them do it.


The law says that students cannot wear religious symbols. If you don't believe me, say so, and I'll find a quote. But stop ignoring my points.

This is an explicit violation of freedom of religion - for everyone. It also bans crucifixes and Jewish skullcaps.

Again, I do not care about "freedom of religion". It's an entirely made-up construct that grants far too much credibility to the notion of religion as seperate from opinion.

Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are the democratic rights in question here, not some imaginary "right" to religious practice.

And insofar as these rights are concerned, I, again, insist that there is no serious violation occuring here. School is not society in general and has a specific purpose and function. Certain limited restrictions on expression are acceptable if it serves the educational and experiential purposes of schooling.


That its effect - to target and stigmatize the Muslim population, reinforcing the second-class status of immigrants from North African/Middle Eastern countries

What garbage.

How does requiring all children to dress secularly "stigmatize" anyone? If anything, it removes the stigma by eliminating overt symbols of religious association.

The integration of Muslim girls into mainsteam society does not "punish" them, it allows them to experience relative equality and to advance the process of their seperatation from the "values" of their less developed countries of ethnic origin.


And I answered, no.

No, actually you didn't. Rather you accused me of fabricating a "Straw man" and then stated the undisputed fact that "there is one civil law code that applies to everyone, and it limits the age at which girls can marry".

You never actually addressed whether or not you supported that law, merely that it existed.

Now, however, I'm glad to see that you've answered the question and given your opinion on the subject.

I must say, however, that it's somewhat surprising that you take the position that you do. I would appreciate some explanation here as I'm highly confused.

How does a 15 year old girl have the "right" to subjugate herself and wear a virtual Yellow Star on her head, while simultaneously not having the right to enter into a religious marriage?

15 year olds can have sex, after all, so there's no age of consent issue here. Rather it's just a matter of arbitrary "marriage" age laws. Surely such bourgeois "nonsense" does not have supremecy over your much heralded "right of religion"!

You see, again, you are drawing nonsensical lines here. Opposing genital mutilation, but supporting the headscarf; opposing religious marriage, but supporting religious subjugation.

Frankly, it just doesn't add up.


And you can know in advance what the results of a law will be?

Of course not.

But, while we're on the subject, let's examine what the effect has actually been.

I mean, for all your complaining about "violations" and "explusions", there must have been thousands of girls kicked out of school, right?

Well, actually ...no.

In fact, over the year and a half that this law has been in effect, out of 12,000,000 French students, barely fifty have been expelled because of it.

That's less than .001% of the total school population!

In fact, in the last semester, out of, again, 12,000,000 students, only 12 attempted to wear religious clothing and only one, that's right one, was expelled because of it.

Not exactly the "hell" that you've described is it? And, while only .0004% of students have suffered any serious consequences because of this bill, hundreds of thousands of girls have experienced living without the shackles of misogynistic enslavement, for many of them for the first time in their lives.

Seems like a good deal to me.


Which sounds like an excellent reason not to worry so much about the supposed Islamic threat to secularism and democracy?

Indeed.

In fact, if you'd care to look, you'd see that I never once claimed that Islam poses a serious threat to "secularism and democracy". I pointed out how an Islamic counter-culture in France could be potentially damaing to French bourgeoisie, but it's been you who keeps bringing up this "threat to democracy" motif.

I have rather been speaking primarily about the threat that Islam poses to Muslim girls. That is the real human beings who are being oppressed right now in the name of "religous freedom".

This is not some vague esoteric issue about "society", this is about protecting real working class victims from subjugation and enforced servitude.


Well, this is a step forward: in the Religious Persecution thread you argued that the French government was doing this out of a bourgeois class interest to defend democracy and secularism against the Islamic threat.

Again, I don't care what the motivation or interest of the bourgeoisie is here.

I would actually contend that the class interest here is complex and that there are numerous interests being met.

On the one hand, the bourgeoisie does have an interest in maintaining a consumeristic and liberal society. So long as "times are good", it's in the capitalists interest to preserve bourgeois rights. Otherwise, they risk the rise of a bureaucratic or state class rivaling their position of supremecy.

At the same time, however, there is a clear interest in keeping the working class divided and also in promoting nationalist and "ethnicist" values as it helps keep the citizenry in line.

Patriotistic fervours are very useful for a state engaging in imperialistic ventures and demonizing Muslims at home helps the rulling class demonize them abroad.

In the case of this headscarf law, I don't know which interst motivated the law-makers. In all honesty it was probably a bit of all of them. But regarldess of what the "intention" was, the effect has nonetheless been beneficial.

And, again, in the end that's all that matters.


See, this is the tightrope problem again. While this position will hopefully keep you from storming the mosques alongside the BNP's goons....it will probably keep you from defending them, either. Because, of course, that is an attack precisely on a right to practice religion.

No, it's an attack on freedom of assembly and I will treat it as such.

I have no respect for "religious institutions" and, in a revolutionary context, I will gladly cheer while the mosques and churches are demolished. But allowing the bourgeois state to establish where and how people can assemble is simply unacceptable.

I don't care if it's mosques or bingo halls being shut down, any state oppression on working-class leisure time is intolerable.


Well then you wouldn't have a problem with a law requireing all men to have their penises hanging out and women topless?

No, I would have a problem with such a law.

Firstly, I would object because it would apply to all citizens and I reject the right ot the state to dictate what mature adults can or cannot wear.

Furthermore, though, I would object to this law even if it was retricted to children in schools the way that the headscarf law is because it mandates that all children wear a specific thing rather than forbidding them from wearing one.

Not to mention that there is no potential bennefit from this law. It will expose both girls and boys to increased ridicule (if their anatomy fails to be sufficiently impressive) and will accomplish absolutely nothing worthwhile whatsoever.

Look, I am not contending that the headscarf law is "painless". Again, limiting what schoolchildren can wear is a restriction of their freedoms. What I am contending is that it is an acceptable restriction given the context and particulars of the situation.


I agree that women in many islamic countries are opressed, but the headscarf is not the sorse of this.

No, but it's a symptom of it and when it is carried into non-Islamic countries, it becomes a primary symbol of this oppression.

You are corect in that banning the headscarf in school will not lead to the destruction of Islam or sexism, but it will expose millions of girls to a kind of secular environment that they would otherwise not know.

It's not a "total" solution, but it does help address the problem.


It is truely absurd to argue that a law prohibiting religious clothing will somehow magically raise consiousness!

There is nothing "magic" about it.

Ending segregation didn't "magically" end racism, but it certainly helped.

Integrating muslim girls into regular society will allow them to adopt more progressive values and participate as equals when they grow up. It introduces them to functional living and demonstrates the potential that they have free of Islamic "law".

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:02 PM

Well then you wouldn't have a problem with a law requireing all men to have their penises hanging out and women topless?

No, I would have a problem with such a law.

Firstly, I would object because it would apply to all citizens and I reject the right ot the state to dictate what mature adults can or cannot wear.
Ok, don't take my suggestion seriously. My point was that there are some social customs which are not rational or necissary and yet the custom still holds weight. Just because an AMerican woman goes to a beach in Europe where is is acceptable to not wear a top, she shouldn't be expected to automatically go topless and it dosn't mean that she is a right-wing christian that she dosn't feel comfortable taking off her top.


You are corect in that banning the headscarf in school will not lead to the destruction of Islam or sexism, but it will expose millions of girls to a kind of secular environment that they would otherwise not know.Well why not ban all private religious schools while you're at it? Why should only the rich be allowed to follow irrational customs and superstitions and avoid exposure to a secular environment?

As far as symbols of opression: banning them from the top of society is meaningless to the daily reality of the working class. It can only be seen as "secular society" attacking arabs for being religious... it does more to push arabs away from secularism and toward religion since it seems that relious figures are the only ones opposing regulations that are seen as being anti-immigrent.



It is truely absurd to argue that a law prohibiting religious clothing will somehow magically raise consiousness!

There is nothing "magic" about it.

Ending segregation didn't "magically" end racism, but it certainly helped. This is a fantastic historical example. THe Supreme Court did ban segregated schools in the early 50s... but guess what, it wan't until the end of the decade that schools began to change and that's because people organized themselves and began challenging the schools themselves.


Integrating muslim girls into regular society will allow them to adopt more progressive values and participate as equals when they grow up. It introduces them to functional living and demonstrates the potential that they have free of Islamic "law".All it does is tell them that they have to do what the state decides is best for them, not to take matters into their own hands!

[LSD]

My point was that there are some social customs which are not rational or necissary and yet the custom still holds weight.

Perhaps, but this is not just some "social custom" we're talking about here.

This isn't a matter of wearing a crucifix around the neck or growing out one's hair. These girls are being taught that they must be "ashamed of their bodies" because of the "lustful power" of their "evil sex".

They are raised as second-class and subjugated slaves to the needs and "weaknesses" of men.

Remember, genital mutilation is also a "religious custom", that doesn't mean that it has any place in civilized society.


Well why not ban all private religious schools while you're at it?

Well "I" am in no position to "ban" anything, but if I had the power, I would absolutely ban private education.

The money and resources should not be going into the private sector. It is a complete injustice that the children of rich parents can enjoy superior education.

School taxes should be increased dramatically and all private education should be outlawed. Just like how all private healthcare should be outlawed in any decent society.


As far as symbols of opression: banning them from the top of society is meaningless to the daily reality of the working class.

Who said anything about the "top of society"?

These girls in question are almost all working-class. If anything, this law targets the very bottom of society here; marginalized victims of "tolerated" oppression.

If there was a more "directed" method of solving this problem, I would be in favour of it. But it is essential that we limit the powers given to the bourgeois state here and so we are forced to accept "compromise" solutions.

Again, this is not a "perfect" answer, but it is an acceptable one.


This is a fantastic historical example. THe Supreme Court did ban segregated schools in the early 50s... but guess what, it wan't until the end of the decade that schools began to change and that's because people organized themselves and began challenging the schools themselves.

Firstly, the Supreme Court banned segregation only in the mid '50s and the reason that it took so long for that decision to be implemented was that the Eisenhower administration emphatically refused to cooperate.

It was only in the 1960s that the federal government finally started cracking down on segregated schools. And insofar as your suggestion that it was "local organization" that lead to the Brown decision being applied across the board, that's simply not true.

In many areas, desegregation was openly opposed by such a significant majority of the population that any anti-segregation "local organization" was pretty much impossible.

See George Wallace's "stand in the schoolhouse door" for an example of this. Wallace was seen as a hero in the south for his "brave" defiance of the Federal government. And it was finally a Federal Court Judge and armed Federal Marshalls who forced Wallace to back down.

This is not to say that the bourgeois state should be "trusted", but merely to point out that occasionaly the state can be used to effect progressive results, esepcially when addressing particularly reactionary "beliefs".

That's what happend in the US in the 1960s and it's what's happening, in this instance, in France today.

The southern white population objected to the removal of their racist privalege, just like Muslim parents object to the removal of their religious privalege. And in both cases, more progressive elements of society need to force change.

Now, obviously this is not a direct parallel to segregation and I was only using it as a passing example; but the underlying principle is the same.


All it does is tell them that they have to do what the state decides is best for them, not to take matters into their own hands!

I'm sorry, but that's simply not a legitimate argument against state action.

By that logic, laws against rape and murder should be opposed as they do not teach citizens to "take matters into their own hands", but rather tell them to "do what the state decides is best".

In the context of liberal capitalist society, opposing all bourgeois legislation by virtue of it being bourgeois legislation is simply unrealistic. Something needs to counterbalance the forces of the "market" and individual oppression.

Unfortunately, the only institution with the power to do that at this point is the state. In a postrevolutionary society, or highly countercultural pre-revolutionary setting, that may be no longer true.

But today, we are forced to work with the tools that are available and nothing more.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

By that logic, laws against rape and murder should be opposed as they do not teach citizens to "take matters into their own hands", but rather tell them to "do what the state decides is best".

Wow, that is the stupidest response I have ever heard. :blink:

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:46 PM
Defend "freedom of religion"? Don't be ridiculous!
May I ask why not?

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:21 PM
According to this fucktard, women's hair generates "mysterious sex rays" that have a really terrible effect on men! :lol:

And that's the "scientific reason" that Muslim women must "keep their heads covered" in public.

Dumbasses!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I know you are talking about muslims and not ISLAM.

Because, first of, in Islam it is not a "law" to wear scarf on your head as a woman. It does not say that anywere in the Quran. It is only tradition that existed in that time, because of the wind and the sand and so on. I'm not preaching about Islam, I just want people to have the right facts.

[amanondeathrow]

really stir things up. God knows, we need it.

Because, first of, in Islam it is not a "law" to wear scarf on your head as a woman. It does not say that anywere in the Quran.

Whether or not it is actually written in the Quaren, women are still forced to wear scarves in many countries and Islam is used as a justification.

What is and what is not actually meant by religious texts is a debate for priests and clerics; a true Marxist should only be concerned with what the material results of religion are.

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by Dee's [email protected] 29 2006, 02:02 AM
really stir things up. God knows, we need it.

Because, first of, in Islam it is not a "law" to wear scarf on your head as a woman. It does not say that anywere in the Quran.

Whether or not it is actually written in the Quaren, women are still forced to wear scarves in many countries and Islam is used as a justification.

What is and what is not actually meant by religious texts is a debate for priests and clerics; a true Marxist should only be concerned with what the material results of religion are.
True, but what I meant was that even though woman are opressed in these countries because of people using Islam as pretext you shouldn't say anything untrue about a religion.

What religion has as impact on a society is a different diskussion.

[redstar2000]

Another Sensationalist Post by Me! :P


Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)Well why not ban all private religious schools while you're at it?[/b]

Good idea! There's no point in asking the modern bourgeoisie to do it...but if they did it, it would be an enormous step forward. :D

Shutting down the superstition factories would be an obvious early step in the revolutionary process.


Why should only the rich be allowed to follow irrational customs and superstitions and avoid exposure to a secular environment?

The rich send their kids to first rate secular schools where, among other things, they are carefully instructed that religion is to be encouraged for the masses but ignored when rational rulers make policy decisions in their own class interests.

The ordinary people who send their kids to religious schools are motivated by faith...and make considerable financial sacrifices to "ensure" that their kids are fully indoctrinated with the "correct superstition".

There is also the fact that public education in America's "inner cities" is essentially being flushed down the toilet...so even some secular parents will send their kids to a religious school just so the kids will learn how to read. :o


As far as symbols of oppression: banning them from the top of society is meaningless to the daily reality of the working class.

No...it has an impact though that impact may be delayed.

The especially pious will see any secular decision as an "attack on religion"...that's the way their "mind set" works.

But most people are not "especially pious"...and after a while, they get used to the new arrangements.


...it does more to push Arabs away from secularism and toward religion...

This assertion is constantly made...without any justification that I can see whatsoever.

How is it known that secular repression of religion "drives people deeper into religion"?

Where are all the worshipers of Zeus and Isis these days? They certainly got thoroughly "repressed" by Christian authorities.

In fact, where are the North African Christians? As late as 600CE or thereabouts, all of North Africa was fervently Christian...and now you'd have a damn hard time finding even one!

The fact is, repression works! A sustained campaign to completely secularize a modern society could probably wipe out religion as a significant factor in a century.

Horrors! :lol:

In pre-modern societies, it might take two centuries.


mo7amEd
May I ask why not?

Because "freedom of religion" is an old bourgeois value that is no longer relevant to a modern secular society...which we expect communism will be.

It would be like defending "freedom of cannibalism" or "freedom to own slaves".

What we need is freedom from religion...and we need it desperately!

Revelation has been exposed as a completely invalid source of information about the real world. To act "as if" it were "true" is suicidal!

See the numerous and ever-growing number of threads in the Religion Subforum that demonstrate the stupidity, cruelty, and reactionary "values" of religious superstitions.

It's a dismal list...and gets longer every day.

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

[Kaze]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:51 PM

just a note on the hijab or "headscarf" worn by muslim women, it is not a tool of oppression, except where it is forced. muslim women who protested the banning of the hijab in french schools were protesting because culturally being forced to take off the hijab would be akin to a woman being told she cannot have an education unless she goes to school topless.

Bull-fucking-shit. A girl going without her head covered is in no way sexualised except in the minds of those with an irrational fear of female beauty.
in your mind it is not sexualised, in the culture you come from it is not a sexualised concept. there are tribes in africa where it is perfectly acceptable culturally for women to be topless all the time. however in europe such women would be asked to wear something to cover her nakedness. just as western women visiting the middle-east are advised to dress modestly, if they visit a cultural, historic or religious site they may be asked to cover their head.

different cultures have different customs. just because we dont see the sexuality in hair doesnt mean that everyone else should conform to the same principle. in thailand the undersoles of feet are deeply offensive.

if a western woman went to live with pygmys for example and sent her daughter to a pygmy school, cuturally she would have a different concept to her classmates about the sexuality of bare breasts. if an example of the french law were applied there it would mean she would be forced to do the same as her class mates, wether she wanted to be half naked or not.

that is clearly wrong.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:02 PM
My objection was not that you were not addressing everything I wrote, but rather that you were evading the crux of the issue and instead choosing to focus on, in my opinion, insignificant minutae.
Ah. I feel the same way about many of your posts.


Responding to every sensationalist post that Redstar makes would be a waste of my time and a complete diversion.

This isn't just "sensationalism", it's an endorsement of fascist repression.


Based on what I've written so far, I think it went without saying what my position on such action would be.

Unfortunately, no. Much of what you've said resembles Redstar's approach. It would not at all be inconceivable you'd endorse "anything which weakens religion" - didn't you just use that phrase?


Teenagers should have a right to political expression, but that right is not universal. School is not a private home and the classroom is not the street. There is a time and a place for unlimited speech, and this isn't it.

Anarchists for state-limited speech, unite! But thanks for finally stopping the dance and admitting that this is, in fact, a free-expression issue and you are supporting the repression of free expression by the bourgeois state.


School is about education, that means it needs to maintain certain values. Open displays of fascist or racist symbols simply should not be permitted. In an environment in which children are supposed to be learning about the world, it make absolutely no sense to allow National Socialism to play a part.

Same goes for the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the nation of Islam, and headscarves.

Any liberal or conservative school official could repeat this argument word-for-word, except they'd add communism and who knows what else.

There was one high school not far from where I live - the principal banned Confederate flag T-shirts and Martin Luther King T-shirts as equivalent.

And as you keep evading, enforcement is critical. As long as enforcement is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, their bans on fascism will be fictional. Their bans on communism will be strictly enforced.

"The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep underneath bridges, beg, and steal bread."

But I've gone into all this in more detail in this thread on censorship - starting with the demand to censor those Danish cartoons as it happens. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46427)

The answer's the same with liberals wanting to ban headscarves and swastikas, or the governments of majority-Muslim countries demanding a ban on anti-Muslim cartoons.



So why is your campaign against Islam better than theirs, exactly?

Because their campaign is not actually against Islam.

Mine is.

Oh, so we're back to subjective motivations again. Yours are better than the National Front's - they don't really mean what they say.


I, again, emphatically support the rights of working Muslims.

Except when "that right is not universal."

And incidentally, if you're going to oppose fascism, you have to oppose all their attacks. Not just those on workers.

There are relatively few working-class Jews in the U.S. today, but that doesn't mean I stop opposing anti-Semitism! That doesn't mean I'm indifferent to fascist scapegoating - even when its a Jewish stockbroker immediately targeted!

To save typing, lemme borrow a bit from Lenin:It cannot be too strongly maintained that this is still not Social-Democracy, that the Social-Democrat’s ideal should not be the trade union secretary, but the tribune of the people, who is able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects; who is able to generalise all these manifestations and produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; who is able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to set forth before all his socialist convictions and his democratic demands, in order to clarify for all and everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat.
more (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iii.htm)


Class solidarity is not universal, it exists only on issues of class.

Every political issue is a class issue.


The difference, though, is that "negroes" did not choose to be black.

Oh not this crap again. This is exactly what homophobes say: gay people chose to be gay.....

Who cares? People have a right to be gay, and they have a right to be Muslim. What's more, they are not going to give up being Muslim tomorrow, regardless of what you do...so do you oppose discrimination against Muslims as Muslims, or not? Apparently not.


It is worth noting, however, that by the 1960s, a good deal of the bourgeoisie had an interest in opposing segration as it had become a political liability and international embarassment.

BS. It was a "political liability" only because of Black workers' massive fightback against segregation; it was an "international embarassment" only because of the colonial revolution.

They had an "interest" in opposing segregation only in the sense that they were bending to pressure.

Some workers were racist, yes; and even more middle-class people. But if you're trying to deflect the responsiblity for racism off of the ruling class, you are dead wrong.


It was a cancer in the left that had to addressed and wasn't. That's clearly not the situation today.

Oh, I'm not saying that Islamophobia is a major problem on the left. But then, your position has no support outside this board.

I've explained previously what I think the left's problem is. The most common manifestation, in Europe and Canada, is backhanded support to nationalism and one's own bourgeoisie against U.S. imperialism.

But to be clear: Debs' position wasn't a problem primarily because it let Victor Berger and other racists alone. Given the all-inclusive nature of the early Socialist Party, no platform would have dislodged them.

His position was a problem because it kept the revolutionary-minded workers who held this position - out of any active role in the fight against racism.

As yours does, in the fight against anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attacks.

More on the pre-WWI revolutionary approach vs the Bolshevik actively anti-racist approach (http://marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1959/black.htm), by a prewar revolutionary turned communist.


If Nazis find themselves "oppressed" by anti-fascism or anti-racism legislation, should we support them?

That's repressed. There's a difference.

But before you start complaining about another unanswered question: I oppose the bourgeois state banning fascist groups, but I do not start defense campaigns for them.



If religion is not the issue, but rather class - as you said in your last post - then you should have no trouble treating it like any other arbitrary basis which are used to single people out for second-class treatment.


And I don't!

But you do. Or why all this crap - above - where you keep saying racism is special and not like the oppression of religious minorities?

You don't think skin color is an arbitrary basis for singling people out for second-class treatment? If everyone on earth had the same color skin, some other basis woulda been used instead. Who knows, maybe eye color if nothing else was handy. Left-handedness.

Actually, religion was a common excuse for slavery, before race became one. It was the initial excuse used for enslaving both Africans and American Indians. The problem was that once someone converted, it was harder to justify keeping him/her enslaved...so, presto! racism.

Something roughly parallel happened with slavery in the Muslim world, too; probably not to the same degree.



My point is, how are they going to attack Islam without attacking Muslim workers.

Again, inconsistantly.

Remember, the bourgeoisie is acting here from a variety of motivations. Accordingly, they tend to be somewhat fractured in their approach. That means that many of their attacks on Islam are intermingled with their attacks against Muslim workers and vice-versa.

In other words, they're not going to attack Islam without attacking Muslim workers; the attacks are "intermingled." ( I'd argue this is not because of any "variety of motivations" - apparently those subjective motivations matter after all? - but because it's not in the nature of the bourgeoisie to be able to separate the two.)

And yet:


Because of this, we must be very careful in analyzing each act to determine whether or not we should oppose it.

There's the tightrope again. You're going to be way top busy, very carefully analyzing each act, to actually do anything opposing any of them. Too full of doubts and hesitations to take any risk, make any effort or sacrifice.


If the French state want to try and address the issue of the oppression of Muslim girls, for whatever reason, we should let them do it.

What makes you assume they are capable of doing so? It is contrary to their class nature. The capitalist system does not work the way it does because of bad intentions, and have the potential to work differently if the state "wants" to "try" to make it work differently.

The system works the way it does because of its nature.


Again, I do not care about "freedom of religion".....some imaginary "right" to religious practice.

That's your problem.


In fact, over the year and a half that this law has been in effect, out of 12,000,000 French students, barely fifty have been expelled because of it.

And how much has enrollment increased in religious schools subsidized by the French state? I don't know myself - I do know a Muslim religious school has been started, where there was none before.


b]hundreds of thousands of girls have experienced living without the shackles of misogynistic enslavement,[/b]

Unfortunately no, nor will that happen under capitalism. They experienced living without headscarves. Why you think this will have some magical effect is unclear to me.

Maybe you think Muslims are so barbarously superstitious that they think they'll be struck by lightning the instant they take off their headscarves, and now they've seen that didn't happen? It's as good as any explanation you've stated.

It's as if you made a cancer patient put on a wig, and thought this cured their cancer.

That's a negative effect right there: allows you to think the French state is doing something about sexism. Covers up festering problems. May fool a certain number of SP and CP members.


In fact, if you'd care to look, you'd see that I never once claimed that Islam poses a serious threat to "secularism and democracy". I pointed out how an Islamic counter-culture in France could be potentially damaing to French bourgeoisie,

You wrote :
"Islam, today, represents a viable social challange to capitalistic secularism and the bourgeoisie is well aware of that." and


And despite the propagandistic nature of these displays, the protection of these rights is actually still quite ingrained in western society. Accordingly, and out of an interest to protect its "rights" (especially to property), the French bourgeoisie naturally opposes flagrantly reactionary "values".

The fundamentalist muslim treatment of women is such a "value" and, accordingly, the bourgeoise is genuinely motivated to suppress it.
"these rights", in context, refers to "bourgeois-democratic rights." link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46523&st=75)

Oh, so you never said "threat", just "viable social challenge." Why do you keep wasting your time and mine with these petty terminological quibbles?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian
But then, your position has no support outside this board.

The Worker Communist Party of Iran which, as far as I know, is based in London, fully supports the French Law on banning headscarf's -- and I'd imagine its sister party in Iraq has the same position.

[LSD]

This isn't just "sensationalism", it's an endorsement of fascist repression.

Oh come on... :rolleyes:

It's quite clear that Redstar does not support fascism. Rather he sees the state, even an FN-lead state, as a viable means of combating religion.

I disagree with this position insofar as this matter is concerned and fear such acts would mark too much of an increase in state powers, but that doesn't mean that I'm about to go calling Redstar a "fascist" for disagreeing.

Honestly, Severian, this personal crap is getting tired. First you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a "red-brown" hybrid, then you want to close down the Religion forum because you don't like something Redstar posted in Politics, and now I'm a fascist because I didn't respond to Redstar's post soon enough for your liking.

Seriously, this is a discussion board; grow the fuck up.


Unfortunately, no. Much of what you've said resembles Redstar's approach. It would not at all be inconceivable you'd endorse "anything which weakens religion" - didn't you just use that phrase?

It's possible that I used that phrase or something like it, I can't remember every word I posted. But if I did, I'm sure that I qualified that it must be within acceptable democratic limits.

In fact, I distinctly remember a post (I don't know if it was in this thread or the other one) in which I refuted your contention that I support "anything" against religion.


Anarchists for state-limited speech, unite!

Not "state-limited", context-limited.

I support a fascist's right to express his position, but not in my house. Similarly, there are acceptable limits for what kind of speech can be expressed in the educational context of school. I think that that limit should be very broad, but to claim that it doesn't exist is ludicrous.

You've talked about "banning communissts" and relayed sensational stories about Martin Luther King t-shirts, but you haven't actually answered my question.

Should high-school students be permitted to wear Swastika armbands to class? Should they be allowed to wear a shirt denying the holocaust or endorsing anti-semitism?

Obviously it's important to encourage children and teenagers to be as free as possible with regards to expression and to teach them to explore opinions without fear of reprisal, but again, this is not "unlimited".

I keep coming back to this analogy, but that's because you keep refusing to address it. A father who sends his daughter to school wearing a garbage bag with the words I am a piece of shit written on the front is engaging in abuse of that child.

Now, is it "repressive" to prevent her from wearing that bag at school? Possibly. Would it be better to "nip the problem in the bud" and stop him from ever indoctrinating her in the first place? Probably.

But does that mean that removing this bag is "wrong"? Absolutely not.


But thanks for finally stopping the dance and admitting that this is, in fact, a free-expression issue and you are supporting the repression of free expression by the bourgeois state.

"Dance"???

I'm the one who's being trying to debate the free speech angle from the beginning! You were the one who denied that this was a free expression issue and refused to engage in the discussion.

Instead, you evaded by starting long irrelevent dicussions about class interests and motivations.

Regardless though, whichever of us was doing the evasion, it's clear that we were at an impasse. Whoever was "to blame", at least we're finally addressing these issues now. :)


And as you keep evading, enforcement is critical. As long as enforcement is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, their bans on fascism will be fictional. Their bans on communism will be strictly enforced.

But this isn't a question of communism or fascism. This isn't even a question of politics.

And as much fun as the slippery slope is, it's simply not a logical argument.

The fact is the French school system has had the reserve power to control speech for a very long time. This headscarf law is not a "radical" departure in any meaning of term and so there is no risk of "precedent".

If the French government wishes to ban communist or fascist symbols from school, they already have the ability. In fact, although I don't know for certain, I would imagine that fascist symbols are already banned from the public school system in France.

I know for a fact that they are in Canada.

So, if you're really concerned about political repression and you genuinely fear that if students can't wear swastikas it will inevitable lead to them not being able to wear hammers and sickles, then your real fight should be with the fascism-ban, not the headscarf one!

If anything is a "precedent" for the kind of repression you're afraid of, it's that.

This headscarf law is, again, pretty much irrelevent to that issue. It certainly has no relevence to political questions and is unlikely to be used as a predicate or precedent for any attempt at restricting student-speech.

If you want to attack this law, you're going to have to do it on its merits. There's simply no "slope" in this case, "slippery" or not.


Oh, so we're back to subjective motivations again. Yours are better than the National Front's - they don't really mean what they say.

Again, you're missing the point.

This is not about subjective motivations, it's about actions. I am not saying that my "motivations" are "better" than anyone elese, I'm saying that my actions are.

That while I oppose Islam but support the rights of Muslims, the FN and the BNP etc... claim to oppose Islam, but in actuality, they oppose Muslims.

Whether that's their "intention" or not, I really cannot say (although I can guess), but I do know that while they claim to be attacking Islam, what they're primarily doing is attacking Muslims.

Is that what they "want"? I again, neither know nor care, but I do not that they want us to believe it. And, again, by buying into their paradigm of "islamophobia", you are allowing them to define the debate instead of siezing it and making it our own.

If the bourgeoisie is attempting to divide the working class, the worst thing you can do is take a non-class line! This is the time for class unity, not sectional struggles. We don't have an interest in defending "Muslims"; "Muslims" are not a class. We have an interest in defending workers, whatever their "religion" might happen to be.


And incidentally, if you're going to oppose fascism, you have to oppose all their attacks. Not just those on workers.

So if Mussilini had fought Hitler, which one should I have supported?

Both would have been victims of fascism, after all, so by your reasoning, I would have to support one of them!

For someone who's been so insistant that we not define ourselves by what we're against, it's quite hypocritical to now turn around and say that the enemy of our enemy is always our friend.

We should oppose antisemitism because it is a racist and oppressive construct which helps to divide the working class, perpetuate the "racial" paradigm, and justify fascist and fascistic policies.

The ban on headscarves, however, does not seriously bennefit "fascists", but it does seriously bennefit the girls in question as well as any revolutionary or progressive interest.

Again, we must be pragmatic when addressing these issues. Blanket generalizations are entirely counterproductive.


Every political issue is a class issue.

No it's not.

Rape is not a class issue. You could argue that the enforcement of rape laws are a class issue and that the prevention of rape is a class issue, but rape is not a class issue.

Accordingly, laws against rape should not be opposed, although the state's dismall record of enforcing them should.

In the same vein, although many of the girls in question here may be working class, the removal of the veil is not a "class issue" because this is a matter of oppression by workers upon workers.

Like with rape, this is an issue of basic protection. These girls are being abused and all measures to fight this abuse should be employed. Unfortunately, under bourgeois capitalism, the state is the only reaslistic weapon at our disposal.


Who cares? People have a right to be gay, and they have a right to be Muslim. What's more, they are not going to give up being Muslim tomorrow, regardless of what you do...so do you oppose discrimination against Muslims as Muslims, or not?

I do.

And I articulate the difference between religion and race not to say that one is less "worthy" of protection than the other, but to clarify the actual underlying democratic rights in question here.

Your attempts to link religion with race and therefore anti-religion with racism is simply disingenuous. The reason that it matters that religion is a choice is because it indicates what religion is:

It's an opinion.

Accordingly, this is a freedom of conscience issue and not a "discrimination" issue. Muslims who are actively prejeduced against have had their basic democratic freedoms violated, but it is still not comparable with segregation or slavery.

You see, race does not exist. And so anti-racism is about fighting the very foundations of the racial paradigm. Religion, on the other hand, is very much resl. Not only is it a valid social construct, but it has its own set of implicit social and cultural values.

That makes addresing this issue much more complex. Black or asian or South American people do not oppress anyone by virtue of their "race", nor do they attempt to use their "race" as justification for any acts. Accodingly, any attempt to link "race" to behaviour is clearly racist hyperbole.

Religion, however, is a set of beliefs and so it is very much about acts.

We can't simply "ignore" that truth because it's not politically convenient

As long as religion exists, so will religious prejeduce. There's nothing that we can do about that. Religion by itself nescessitates intolerance because it is predicated on "divine" supremecy as its foundation.

There is no excuse for discrimination, whether it is based on "race", "religion", or both; but there is a serious difference between racism and "faith" and to pretend otherwise is a incredibly foolhardy.

Religion is not "harmless" and it is not "personal". Accepting the premise that religon is "just like" race takes us down a very dangerous road. We must not allow attacks on free expression to occur, but we likewise cannot allow ourselves to be duped into supporting religion in any way.


Some workers were racist, yes; and even more middle-class people. But if you're trying to deflect the responsiblity for racism off of the ruling class, you are dead wrong.

I am not saying that the capitalists can be credited with ending racism, I am merely saying that, given the right situation, the bourgeois state can effect progressive results.

No, the US government did not end segregation out of the "goodness of its heart". But the example is nonetheless a good one because it highlights the fact that class does not determine correctness on all issues.

The Federal Marshals may have worked for the bourgeoisie and the screaming protesters may have been working-class; but the the protesters were wrong and the Marshals were right.

Just a little reminder that life is often much more complex than you'd like to think.


His position was a problem because it kept the revolutionary-minded workers who held this position - out of any active role in the fight against racism.

As yours does, in the fight against anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attacks.

How so?

I have been entirely consistant regarding my opposition to anti-immigrant attacks. My refusal to "tolerate" Islam or to endorse "religious" oppression in no way makes me unable to fight against genuine discrimination.


But before you start complaining about another unanswered question: I oppose the bourgeois state banning fascist groups, but I do not start defense campaigns for them.

Precisely!

Likewise, I oppose the bourgeois banning Islam or oppressing Muslims, but I do not join in anti-"Islamophobia".

You are, effectively, calling for a "defense campaign for fascists", only in this case, they're religious "fascists".

But the Islamic subjugation of women is in no way "more acceptable" than the Nazi subjugation of Jews. Both of them are intolerable examples of large-scale coercive suborination and both of them must be opposed.

I join with you in defending Muslim workers from state or business oppression, but I will not defend Islam or the "right to practice" oppressive "faiths". Islam is not "inocuous", it is fundamentally reactionary and I will not support a cause that says that being "phobic" of "Islam" is wrong.


In other words, they're not going to attack Islam without attacking Muslim workers; the attacks are "intermingled."

Intermingled, yes, but not indistinguishable.

To the bourgeoisie there may be no distinction between their attacks on Muslims and their attacks on Islam, but that doesn't mean that we can't differentiate between them.

The subjective motivations, again, don't matter, but the real-world actions do.

Again, allowing the state to enforce this ban unopposed does not mean "trusting" in the bourgeoisie, it just means recognizing that in this case, on this issue, they happen to be doing us a favour ...whether they're aware of it or not.


There's the tightrope again. You're going to be way top busy, very carefully analyzing each act, to actually do anything opposing any of them.

Pure nonsense.

I've had absolutely no trouble indicating my opinions on these subjects. I'm not personally in France, so there's very little that I can actively do aside from making my thoughts felt and expressing support, but I am still quite clear on where I stand.

Your repeated assertions that I am somehow "unable" to render judgments on religious or religous-involved subjects is simply untrue. And unless you're prepared to start offering something to back it up, I'd appreciate if you'd stop making it.


What makes you assume they are capable of doing so?

Because it's what they've done.

Again, if they pass a law that is, in my judgement, excesssive, I will oppose it and encourage others to do the same. But I will not oppose every act of bourgeois parliament merely because it is an act of bourgeois parliament.

This law has had a marginal negative effect and despite your protestation that it has resulted in mass expulsions, as I have already shown, it's actual effects were much more prosaic.

Again, over the year and half that this ban has been in existance, barely 50 students have suffered any academic consequences because of it. That's out of 12,000,000 French students!

Seriously, Severian, your paranoia has proven to be quite unfounded.


And how much has enrollment increased in religious schools subsidized by the French state?

I don't know, but undoutably some Muslims of means have chosen to pay for private education rather than abide by the new rules, but these cases certainly constitute the minority.

Even following the passing of ban in 2004, the percentage of French students in private schools stayed constant at around 15%. So if there was an increase in enrollment, it was not a major one.

Certainly the overwhelming majority of Muslims students continue to attend the public school system and despite apocalyptic predictions, no "catastrophe" has happened yet.

Rather, these girls have simply taken off their headscarves and begun living in the twenty-first century.


Unfortunately no, nor will that happen under capitalism. They experienced living without headscarves. Why you think this will have some magical effect is unclear to me.

The effect is not "magical", nor is it "mysterious". It's just a simple matter of elementary behavioural psychology.

A child with no experience of secular living will naturally grow up to be an adult with no conception of secular living. Ideas which are ingrained at childhood tend to persist unless they are challanged.

Accordingly, exposing these girls to a "veil-free" environment will afford them with the opportunity to experience what such life is like. For many of them, it may not make a difference, they may leave school and stick their "Yellow Star" right back on their head; but for some of them, it will be revelation.

For those girls who were curious or wondering, or who were too afraid to try and defy their "culture", the removal of options forces them to take that final step. And the realization that they can be just like everyone else, just like men, will have a fundamental effect on their worldview

Secular living is not a "magic bullet", but history and psychology have shown us that people are quite resiliant and tend to adapt to changed cirumstances, especially when the new conditions are superior to the previous ones.

Again, many girls may well choose to go back to slavery; but enough will want to continue living in freedom.


Oh, so you never said "threat", just "viable social challenge." Why do you keep wasting your time and mine with these petty terminological quibbles?

Because there's a difference between the two.

A "threat" comes from a person; a "social challange" comes from an idea.

I never said that Muslims are a "threat" to anything. What I said was that Islam presents a social alternative to liberal bourgeois capitalism. Accordingly, if it ever bacame a viable social alternative or large-scale counterculture, it would pose a serious challange to the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Your attempts to try and crowbar a racist or anti-immigrant position into this statement is simply ludicrous, not to mention highly insulting.

If you want to attack my positions fine, but don't invent new ones to try and make your job easier. I get that ad hominems have become your latest "thing" -- acusing anyone who dares disagree with you of being "fascist" or "red-brown hybrids" -- but I'm sick of it.

If you have coherent arguments to make, make them, but leave the petty name-calling out of it.

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 29 2006, 03:43 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 29 2006, 03:43 AM)
mo7amEd
May I ask why not?

Because "freedom of religion" is an old bourgeois value that is no longer relevant to a modern secular society...which we expect communism will be.

It would be like defending "freedom of cannibalism" or "freedom to own slaves".

What we need is freedom from religion...and we need it desperately!

Revelation has been exposed as a completely invalid source of information about the real world. To act "as if" it were "true" is suicidal!

See the numerous and ever-growing number of threads in the Religion Subforum that demonstrate the stupidity, cruelty, and reactionary "values" of religious superstitions.

It's a dismal list...and gets longer every day.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
What is the difference between Freedom of religion, or Freedom from religion?
You are allowed to believe in wherever you want, and you are allowed to believe in nothing. That is your choice.

But what you are saying is that religion should be banned?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by mo7amEd
But what you are saying is that religion should be banned?

Driven out of public life, to be precise.

I don't care if someone privately believes in imaginary "entities" up in the sky and, within reasonable limits, regulates their personal behavior on the "dictates" of those "entities"...but that's as far as I am willing to go.

No public monuments to superstition, no public display of it, and, most especially, no indoctrination of the young!

And, of course, no appeals to superstition on issues of public controversy.

Without "public legitimacy", religion becomes irrelevant and will probably just "wither away" without causing any further harm.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:42 AM
I'm the one who's being trying to debate the free speech angle from the beginning! You were the one who denied that this was a free expression issue and refused to engage in the discussion.


In reality


(Severian)
That's not the same as supporting the state's moves against democratic rights
(LSD)This is not an issue of "democratic rights".

thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47911&st=50&#entry1292043734)

I'm not going to continue an extended discussion with someone who tries to completely, 180 degrees rewrite the history of that discussion.

[Severian]

Back on topic.....


Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:29 AM
There has been an ongoing debate on this site about the nature of "Islamopobia" and the recent attacks against Muslims. I am of the opinion that these attacks are not a battle between secular society and religion, but are part of an ideological justification of the "war on terror" and the imperialist aims of countries such as the US and UK.
I don't think so, as far as the stuff that's explicitly against Muslims in general, not just against Islamists.

I think that's driven more by the needs of bourgeois policy towards immigrants. As in Denmark. It can even be a foreign policy liability.

That's why both the Bush administration and a number of U.S. "elder statesmen" came out in support of the Dubai Ports World deal - they knew the opposition to it was too explicitly anti-Muslim, and would be a liability in terms of U.S. relations with its client regimes in majority-Muslim countries.

Also, foreign policy is the continuation of domestic policy, not vice versa.


But I want to argue that the reality is that this situation is not just one set of reactionaries against another set, but is a calculated racist attack that strengthens the ruling classes in the US and Europe domestically as well as strengthens and gives cover for US and UK imperialism.

That it does. Leaving aside whether "racist" is exactly the word.


In a recent speech on the 3rd anniversary of the War in Iraq, Blair paints "terrorism" as "Muslim extreemism" and the UK and US as upholders of "progressive secularism".....But, domestically, he said we must also recognize Muslim extremism here too for what it is - not pander to it.

Right.


Putting aside the obvious hypocracy of the statements about defending "democracy" for a moment, you might argue that Blair singles out Muslim extremism from the general Muslim (not to mention the general arab) population. And yet terrorism is confined only to muslims -- specifically arab Muslims -- specifically arab muslims who are engaged in struggles which are contrary to the aims of US and UK imperialism.

That may shift, as the "global war on terrorism" is officially redefined as "the long war." All kinds of organizations and countries, on any continent, may be targeted - if they're "contrary to the aims of US and UK imperialism" of course.

I think Blair and Bush do want to avoid a "clash of civilizations" West vs Islam situation. They'd rather divide the Muslim world than fight the whole thing.

There are some "Clash of civilizations" people in their administrations - and some of the other European powers are actually worse on this.

E.g. some Dutch EU politician said if Turkey joined the EU, it would be as if the battle of Vienna 1683 was lost - referring to the battle where the armies of "Christendom" defeated those of the Ottoman Empire.more (http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6836/683605.html) Or a French prime minister, Raffarin, said on the same topic "Do we really want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?"

While the banner of "democracy and secularism" needs more examination. Their deeds as well as their words. Hypocritical yes...but reflecting some actually new policy shifts as well.

They are favoring the establishment of bourgeois-democratic forms such as elections and parliaments - including pressing their client dictatorships to do so - in order to make their client regimes more stable, and perhaps also to make 'em less fertile breeding grounds for anti-U.S. terrorism.

I think this does highlight the necessity of giving a clear class content to any call for democracy and secularism - not to converge with the campaigns of Bush and Blair. E.g. seeking to expand the democratic rights and political space working people have to organize and fight back - not just supporting democracy in the abstract.


Our ruling classes, in order to turn workers with the same class interests against eachother, have historically used xenophobia and jingoism to get workers to identify with their domestic ruling class and against other workers. In order to accomplish this, they have often cloaked their imperialism in progressive-sounding cause: the war to save democracy, saving the world from fascism, and so on. So just because our ruling class now says it is defending secular humanism, do not buy into it

Right.


So unlike the way this was painted by most of the press in the US and Europe, this was not secular freedoms vs. religious intolerence, it was regular old attack on immigrents.

Consider the possibility it may have been both: a provocative attack on immigrants, and a response from governments in Muslim countries which fell for the provocation and advanced some of the reactionary domestic interests of those governments.

If you recognize something is a provocation...it's best not to be provoked!

And to get back to an earlier point - it's interesting to note that most major newspapers in the U.S. did not reprint the cartoons. The U.S. upper class don't want to be perceived as against all Muslims.

While a lot of European newspapers did, reflecting the attitude of sections of the elite there against immigrants from the Muslim countries.


For the middle east, we need to continue to argue that the answers to imperialism are material and class-based not magical and divinity-based. At the same time we have to critically support the fight-back against imperialism even if it takes on a nationalist or religious form.

Y'know, this is not a new question, and it's interesting to look at how past generations of revolutionaries have wrestled with it.

Probably some of the first people to seriously deal with it were the early Communist International - the Second International being basically "an international of the white race." Even the most fervent anti-Leninists owe their opposition to imperialism to the early Communist International - without knowing it, and without knowing the reasons behind it.

Lenin summed up the discussion: There has been a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often—perhaps even in most cases—the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes. This was irrefutably proved in the commission, and we decided that the only correct attitude was to take this distinction into account and, in nearly all cases, substitute the term “national-revolutionary” for the term “bourgeois-democratic”. The significance of this change is that we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm#fw3)

The point, I think, is that communists seek to advance the movement and class-counsciousnessof working people in every country; and don't sacrifice workers in any country, or give political support to those who crush them.

Also of interest, the Theses on the national and colonial question (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/2nd-congress/ch05.htm#v1-p177)

and the Baku Congress of the Peoples of the East (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/baku/ch07.htm#women)


In Europe and the US we need to stand up to attacks on Muslims just as we would stand up to anti-semetic attacks. I think if minutemen were protesting outside of Spanish mass at Catholic churches in Los Angles and saying they were fighting Popish influence in the US, no one here would question protesting the minutem men even if our protest could be viewed as supporting catholics who are also violently opposed to abortion and homosexuality and so on.

Right. Except that unfortunately some people here would question it. But that's their problem.

One aspect of your example which some people may have missed: "Spanish mass". 'Course, there is a whole tradition of anti-Catholic bigotry in the U.S.; some of it brought over by Scots-Irish and Irish Protestants; some of it directed against earlier waves of Irish and Italian immigrants.

[LSD]

I'm not going to continue an extended discussion with someone who tries to completely, 180 degrees rewrite the history of that discussion.

Whatver, Severian, if you want to bow out that's your right, but taking select quotes out of context doesn't prove anything.

If you take a look at the Reliogion thread (which for some reason you didn't link to), it's obvious that I was the one demanding that we disuss the free speech issue.

For example, the very final post in the thread, made by me, includes the following:


Originally posted by lsd+--> (lsd)You've spoken at length about how this law is "islamophobic" and anti-immigrant and that it only passed because of the racism of the French legislature.

You've also made a big deal about how the bourgeoisie is bennefitted by this law and, accordingly, it "must" be harmful to the workers. You haven't actually given any evidence in support of that contention, but you've been rather insistant that we should take your monochromatic assertion as fact.

We may have different "frames of reference", but the only reason we are failing to have a fruitful discussion here is because you keep evading the important issues.

If you don't "know or care" what the class motivations of this legislation are then let's move the fuck on.

For instance, you have accused this law of being "anti-democratic" and "anti-worker". How about you begin proving these assertions?[/b]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292036452 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46523&view=findpost&p=1292036452)

And insofar as the quote that you posted, it's rather telling that you chose not to post the entire thing, but only one lin out of context.

I guess that was because if you posted the whole thing, it would be obvious that I was not denying that this was a free expression debate; but rather pointing out why limitations on expression are sometimes justified.


LSD
This is not an issue of "democratic rights".

Children are regularly prevented from making decisions that adults can make. A 13 year old is technically "mature" enough to decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette, but I would not support allowing them to do so.

Again, responsibility comes with age and while, yes, fundamental freedoms are important, they are not binary.

Societal privalege comes with the ability to rationaly excersize it and for the same reason that a 6 year old should not drive a semi, it is nescessary to limit the freedoms accorded to children with regards to dress.

It's even worse when we're talking about Islamic households, as very often these girls grow up in environments where not only are they indoctrinated as to Islamic "faith", but they are also ingrained with the notion of their own inferiority and submissive stature. They believe that they must accede to their "cultural" norms and so do so without ever really considering it.

Making them go to school without any religious adornments allows them to understand that their parents way is not the only way.

Again, Severian, you are resorting to cheap tricks and insults instead of real aguments. It's really quite said for someone who claims to be able to "do polemics in [his] sleep".

[321zero]

321zero

You've proven nothing except that you believe them when they 'we are all equal before the majesty of the law.'
Armchair

Where have I said anything like that?

You've put it into quotations, so am I to safe to assume that you are directly quoting me here?

Mea culpa. I dropped the word 'say' from "when they [say] 'we are all equal before the majesty of the law." Rest assured that if I actually quote a revleft member, as opposed to the imagined voice of a third party, then I'll use the quote box provided.

Armchair

If I'd been doing what you accuse me of, then I would have frequently mentioned that the French Law against Religious symbols in State Schools also includes Jewish and Christian symbols.

However, I have instead, as my posts will show, focused on headscarfs only....indeed I think I've only mentioned the other stuff once.

Well once is enough I would have thought.

Armchair

I would have thought that this focus on Islamic practice in particular would have been a de facto admission that I recognise that the Islamic practice of psychologically abusing girls was the main focus of the French Law in question.

That's the de facto admission I was after, an acknowledgment that you understand the meaning of Anatole France's joke: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.” I was annoyed when you told me that Blacks rather than Muslims/Asians still suffered most disproportionately from stop-and-search, something I acknowledged in the first post, and a non-sequitur in this context.

Armchair

Please explain how preventing Muslim men from oppressing Muslim girls is an example of "state-repression", in the sense you mean it, or for that matter "fascist terror"?

Well it's getting a little confused in the to-and-fro, but Redstar and his defenders have given me the impression that they would support a FN government, state-led campaign against religion. It seems to me that this argument sees a positive content to FN fire bombings of Synagogues and Mosques, a positive content which would be supportable if the campaign was led by the 'secular' French state under FN government, utilising the sanitised, crystallised violence of bourgeois law rather than unseemly fascist gangs, as is the case now.

This looks like a close cousin to classical reformism - wanting to use the bourgeois state as a means to revolutionary ends.

In its first incarnation the headscarf ban was to have included adult workers in the state sector. There is already a de-facto, though optional, head-scarf ban operating for private employers - in that they happily refuse to hire women who are not willing to go bare-headed. Of course they always displace the reason onto the general public - 'our customers don't want to be served by someone wearing a headscarf.'

Armchair

Do you, for instance, think there should be any limits on "Freedom of Religion"?

Yes, I would happily go along with the cessation of state support for faith schools, of tax-exemption status for churches and similar secular measures. However these are negative demands. I draw the line at making positive demands on the bourgeois state, for example, that they ban the construction of mosques, or dictate what individual believers wear on their own heads. How would this work for Sikh boys? First they'd have to remove their turbans, and then presumably they'd have to get a short haircut, in keeping with the secular requirements of French citizenship!

Now if it was a revolutionary workers state, or the equivilent ;), leading the campaign - well that's another question...

We should have a poll on the question of support for state bans on fascist symbolism. That would separate the reformist sheep from the revolutionary goats.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 321zero
Well it's getting a little confused in the to-and-fro, but Redstar and his defenders have given me the impression that they would support a FN government, state-led campaign against religion.

Can we get real here...just for the time being?

Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National is not going to win a majority in the French parliament at any time in the foreseeable future and is not going to "form a government". They have won a few local elections and have shown what they would be like "in power"...to the point where even a bourgeois mediocrity like Chirac walloped Le Pen with more than 80% of the vote.

So the whole "example" is profoundly irrelevant.


It seems to me that this argument sees a positive content to FN fire bombings of Synagogues and Mosques.

Well, if Jews and Muslims started burning down Christian cathedrals in retaliation, that might help things along.

And if those burnings can be plausibly linked to the FN, it wouldn't bother me at all if FN offices were torched and known members of the FN beaten up or killed.

Anything that will help stir up popular opposition to superstition has got to help us!

What's so hard to understand about that? So bourgeois liberals and social-democrats preach "religious tolerance"...so what! So they deny the self-evident fact that all religions lust to destroy their competitors in the godracket...what's that got to do with revolutionaries?

We're "supposed" to "pick a side"? :blink:

So we'll have "crescent reds" on one side and "holy cross reds" on the other??? :lol:


I draw the line at making positive demands on the bourgeois state...

A point that I likewise made...probably more than once.

The difference is that I refuse to "defend freedom of religion"...or any other bourgeois "right", for that matter. If the bourgeoisie decide to repress some religion or some right-wing political group...I laugh!

And when they attack our side, I don't bother with bourgeois platitudes about "freedom of speech" or "freedom of assembly" or "freedom of the press".

The bourgeoisie should be attacked as despots who deserve to be overthrown!

That's all a communist needs to say...let the defenders of bourgeois despotism blather about "human rights". It's their job! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by 321zero+--> (321zero)Well once is enough I would have thought.[/b]

I've probably made over 20 posts on this subject, and yet one passing reference to the fact that the law also targets symbols of Judaism, Christianity and so on, "proves" that I "believe" in the rhetoric of bourgeois law?

To me, that assertion seems ridiculous....when it is based on my posts on this subject and other subjects -- so I don't see the point you are trying to make.


Originally posted by 321zero+--> (321zero)....but Redstar and his defenders have given me the impression that they would support a FN government, state-led campaign against religion.[/b]

Redstar said he would support a specific act with regards the FN destroying Religious buildings. In other words, he wouldn't be outraged if they did that specific act.

Meanwhile, in a thread in the Commie Club someone asked me this: Care to say where you stand on the National Front demolishing mosques, A.S.?

My answer was....


Originally posted by AS
You mean what would I propose if I was in France and the National Front came to power?

Well, I think the main focus of my efforts would be directed at (1) trying to combat National Front goons and (2) trying to stop them from persecuting people.

If this meant that a few buildings were demolished, then so be it....they're fucking ugly anyway.

I certainly wouldn't propose that whatever anti-fascist resistance there was concentrate their efforts on protecting buildings....that policy strikes me as particularly stupid.

However, if you have a good reason as to why anti-fascists should direct their attention away from fighting fascists and protecting certain communities to the protection of certain buildings, then I'm willing to hear you out.

Does it disappoint you that I propose protection of people rather than buildings?


Originally posted by 321zero
In its first incarnation the headscarf ban was to have included adult workers in the state sector.

It's a fair suggestion....if someone is going to represent the Secular French State then they too should, theoretically at least, appear as secular as well.

Private Industry, in this regard, is different and I would definitely not support a headscarf ban directed at women working in that particular area, but I'd support a ban on all Religious symbols worn by teachers and, after consideration, probably other sectors which should appear secular.


Originally posted by 321zero
There is already a de-facto, though optional, head-scarf ban operating for private employers - in that they happily refuse to hire women who are not willing to go bare-headed.

Well that's their decision.

You're also unlikely to get hired if your hair is dyed purple with lime green streaks....so most people don't do that. Sure, that's an infringement on freedom of expression but as both you and I know, our "freedoms" in the epoch of bourgeois despotism exist on paper only.

So, as best we can, we try to modify our actions rationally in order to avoid getting shit on. If you're black, you can't change that, but if you decide to wear a Religious symbol on your head or if you have a particular desire to dye your hair a certain colour, you can, and if you want to avoid getting shit on too much should, change.

It's not "nice", granted, but this isn't a "nice" world....doesn't reality stink! :(


Originally posted by 321zero
However these are negative demands.

Negative and positive are pretty subjective labels....why is the demand to stop the the State funding Religious schools "negative" where as the demand to stop the State allowing Religious symbols in State schools "positive"?


[email protected]
Now if it was a revolutionary workers state, or the equivilent ;) , leading the campaign - well that's another question...

That, again, is really subjective.

An action isn't progressive because of what party carries it out, it is progressive because of the results of the action.

I for instance, wish that the English feudal class had completely eradicated the Welsh language, that to me, would have been a fundamentally progressive act....but that doesn't necessarily mean that I have to view the English feudal class as progressive (although at that time they probably were). Rather it means that the results of that particular action, regardless of who carried it out, would have been progressive.

Likewise, I think that the former Ba'athists in Iraq, for instance, are being progressive every time they damage the American War machine....though that doesn't mean I think Ba'athism itself is progressive. Rather I think the specific act is progressive.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.


321zero
We should have a poll on the question of support for state bans on fascist symbolism. That would separate the reformist sheep from the revolutionary goats.

You didn't make your own position clear here, but I suspect that you oppose the bourgeois state banning fascist symbolism....am I right?

Personally, I don't care for the reasons as to why the German State for instance, bans Neo-Nazi groups (not very well I must add), but that they do do this, doesn't bother me at all.

I'm certainly not going to campaign for Germans to have the "right" to be a fascist....that would be daft.

Likewise, I'm not going to campaign for anyone else's "right" to be superstitious....the Socialist Workers' Party will do that anyway! :lol:

[321zero]

...why is the demand to stop the State funding Religious schools "negative" where as the demand to stop the State allowing Religious symbols in State schools "positive"?

You might prefer to phrase the demand as 'stopping the state allowing', but this makes the presupposition that the state 'allows' us any given behaviour, and can legitimately 'disallow' the same.

Why use this tortuous phrasing when the demand is clearly that the state ban religious symbolism?

You demand an extension and validation of state power onto people’s bodies; I demand the separation of church and state, i.e. the withdrawal of the state from entanglement with religious belief.


(321zero)
We should have a poll on the question of support for state bans on fascist symbolism. That would separate the reformist sheep from the revolutionary goats.



You didn't make your own position clear here, but I suspect that you oppose the bourgeois state banning fascist symbolism....am I right?

Personally, I don't care for the reasons as to why the German State for instance, bans Neo-Nazi groups (not very well I must add), but that they do do this, doesn't bother me at all.

Yes you are right; I oppose state bans on fascist symbolism, just as I oppose laws against the burning of national flags.

In my view you should be interested in the 'why'. The European bourgeois have an interest in convincing people that fascism was nothing to do with the rule of capital. It is also revealing that the German state doesn't do a good job of it. After-all Nazi fire-bombings of immigrant tenements fits with the general thrust of the (disavowed) racism of the German state.

If the move in the European Union to have communist symbolism banned, which uses the same logic (fascism and communism are twins in opposition to bourgeois liberalism), is successful perhaps then you might find your interest piqued. Speculating a little, I wouldn't be surprised that once such a law is on the books its enforcement by the state will be considerably more vigorous than that presently suffered by the neo-Nazis.

Just as when censorship laws allegedly framed to crack down on misogynistic porn are in fact used to go after lesbian and gay porn.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by 321zero+--> (321zero)....but this makes the presupposition that the state 'allows' us any given behaviour, and can legitimately 'disallow' the same.[/b]

Presupposition....


Originally posted by dictionary.com+--> (dictionary.com)1. To believe or suppose in advance.[/b]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=presupposition

The state is just a vessel through which class rule can be expressed....right?

And in the present era, the bourgeois is in control of the state....right?

Therefore, what is your problem with someone supposing in advance that the bourgeois will use the state to dictate what they deem as appropriate behaviour from the standpoint of their class interest?

After all, the bourgeois state does dictate what behaviour we are allowed in our workplace and it does, as of recently, dictate where we can smoke....in both cases it is dictating what kind of behaviour is allowed under the despotism of the bourgeois.

Some here have argued that smoking bans are progressive and that it is appropriate that the state is supported when it tries to dictate the "behaviour" of smokers....I disagree with that view.

However, if the bourgeois, through the state, wish to dictate what kind of "behaviour" is allowed in schools, then depending on what they choose to dictate, I may or may not agree with them.

With regards not allowing Religious symbolism in schools, I fully agree with the bourgeois state.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that under the despotism of the bourgeois our "behaviour" will be subject to limits....often enforced by the state.

So in this regard, I don't see the point you are trying to make....unless your point is that the ruling class doesn't impose its will on society.


Originally posted by 321zero
Why use this tortuous phrasing when the demand is clearly that the state ban religious symbolism?

At this point in time, the only ban on Religious symbolism I am prepared to support is one which applies to the school environment. I'd maybe go as far as to support it in most, if not all, state institutions, but that's not a demand to ban all Religious symbolism everywhere.


Originally posted by 321zero
You demand an extension and validation of state power onto people’s bodies; I demand the separation of church and state, i.e. the withdrawal of the state from entanglement with religious belief.

See, the separation of church and state is an abstract thing. You've admitted that you don't support Freedom of Religion indefinitely, so one must assume that at some point you support the state interfering with the church....presumably in cases of genital mutilation, underage marriage, honour killings and so on.

The state does interfere in these things, therefore breaking the separation between the state and the church....so you can't use that defense unless you are going to argue that the state should not interfere in any Religious practices.

Additionally, there is always the other side of the separation of church and state debate....that being that in state institutions Religious should be excluded.

With regards schools, I think the state and the church should be separated and that no Religious symbolism should be seen in these institutions....I wouldn't mind it if Religious Education was also scrapped.

In the words of old man number 2....


Originally posted by Engels
II. Political Demands

[....]

5. Complete separation of the Church from the State. All religious communities without exception are to be treated by the state as private associations. They are to be deprived of any support from public funds and of all influence on public education. (They cannot be prohibited from forming their own schools out of their own funds and from teaching their own nonsense in them.)

6. In that case the point on the “secular character of the school” no longer arises, since it relates to the preceding paragraph.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htm

(Emphasis added.)

That's my position as well....Religion should have absolutely no influence on the school environment.

I would modify Engels position slightly....in that I support there being no Religious schools allowed.


[email protected]
I oppose state bans on fascist symbolism....

Taken part in any Right to Wear Fascist Symbolism rallies recently have you? :lol:

On a side note, one of the most important things with regards the stopping of British fascism before it became anything close to a mass movement was the "Battle of Cable Street" and the Governments response....banning fascist uniforms.

Do you seriously wish to argue that it would have been a more effective method with regards stopping fascism had Mosley's goons been allowed to carry on wearing their silly uniforms?


321zero
If the move in the European Union to have communist symbolism banned, which uses the same logic (fascism and communism are twins in opposition to bourgeois liberalism), is successful perhaps then you might find your interest piqued. Speculating a little, I wouldn't be surprised that once such a law is on the books its enforcement by the state will be considerably more vigorous than that presently suffered by the neo-Nazis.

It would be a pain in the arse if "communist symbolism" was banned....but it wouldn't be a massive setback.

Unlike fascism, communism doesn't need uniforms and symbols or shows of power or any of that rubbish....and therefore, banning the hammer and sickle wouldn't do that much damage to the movement of a class.

Fascism, like Religion, thrives on public attention, where as communism, on the other hand, has a definite material base within the working class as it is an expression of class interest.

Fascism's base within the working class, will always be fickle because it is not in the interests of the working class.

Additionally, what you mustn't forget is that the bourgeois has always targeted communists and therefore, a formal law wouldn't change much at all....after all, McCarthy didn't have support with regards the American Constitution for his actions, but most of the ruling class still supported him.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:18 AM
In its first incarnation the headscarf ban was to have included adult workers in the state sector. There is already a de-facto, though optional, head-scarf ban operating for private employers - in that they happily refuse to hire women who are not willing to go bare-headed. Of course they always displace the reason onto the general public - 'our customers don't want to be served by someone wearing a headscarf.'
That's an interesting bit of info.

They're clearly singled out for discrimination using their religion and its visible identifying marks. And clearly being unable to get jobs does not exactly help these women develop more independence as women.

The more women go into the paid workforce, the more they begin to challenge traditional male domination.

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 26 2006, 11:46 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 26 2006, 11:46 PM)
Andy [email protected] 26 2006, 11:37 AM
So if the FN was to gain power in France, and decreed an end to the construction of Mosques, would you back it?
Better still...demolish the ones that already exist!

Who needs that crap?

If Muslims responded by destroying Christian churches, that would be even better! :D

Everything that hurts religion helps us!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
But would it really hurt religion as a whole if Muslims were to destroy Christian churches? Sure, it might weaken Christianity, but wouldn't it also strengthen Islam? Wouldn't the net effect simply be to give religion a more visible presence in society and demonstrate religion's continued capability of enforcing itself on society?

Of course, people like you or me are likely to point at this as just another example of religion's barbarism, but what about people caught in the middle of the struggle? Is it of any consolation for a young oppressed Muslim girl to know that her religion has just scored a hit on another religion, possibly strengthening the religion by which she is being oppressed in the first place?

Haven't religious wars also seriously hindered the economic development of entire societies in the past (and even presently)? How much earlier would Europe have had its bourgeois revolutions if it hadn't been for the destruction of the religious wars there in the 15th and 16th centuries? (The same question could be asked about how much the two world wars delayed capitalist development and communist revolution).

For instance, is it a good thing that Iraq is now embroiled in religious violence? It seems to me like this religious violence is simply stoking the fires of religion there, instead of weakening it. Maybe there are other factors involved. I don't know. But is violence between religious always helpful? Wouldn't it be much better to have secular forces attacking religion as a whole, rather than religions vying against each other for supremacy?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade-Z
Haven't religious wars also seriously hindered the economic development of entire societies in the past (and even presently)?

Remembering always that I'm not an "expert" on these matters, it seems to me that a "good case" could be made for the view that the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries weakened feudalism and strengthened the emerging bourgeoisie.

In the ebb and flow of victory and defeat, the network of feudal "obligations" was ripped up badly.

Meanwhile, bourgeois merchants profited from those wars.

So I think it speeded things up.

Did the imperialist world wars "prolong the life" of capitalism? That's a tougher one...and I'm not really sure.

The religious violence in places like Iraq might seem, at first glance, to "reinforce religion"...but I think over time the people in that wretched land will learn to despise Islam! I have no idea "how many" deaths it will take for that to happen...but happen it will.

When the "river of blood" gets "deep enough". :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[piet11111]

for the imperialist world wars "prolonging the life" of capitalism im not certain of ww1 but in the case of ww2 most definitly yes.

the entire reason the nazi's where tolerated and appeased was because it was either the nazi's or the communists.
the war itself also pulled america out of the great depression and allowed them to make so much money they could afford rebuilding europe (or risk not having someone to trade with)

the cold war also served to prolong capitalism as the choice was between soviet style "socialism" or capitalism that is able to provide in the needs of the poeple.
the choice was obvious.

[Jormungand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:34 PM
Anti-semitism is rife in the Middle East.
That's because all they have ever known from the Israeli Jews is the Nazi-esque doctrine of Zionism that strips them from their homes and forces them into smaller and smaller camps and into some of the worst living conditions on the planet. Why shouldn't they be anti-Semitic? The founding of Israel was more or less okay with the global community at the time because Arabs were viewed as lower than blacks.