I find that funny and sad. Right wing, and liberal. yet it is the right wing that is defying them, and the liberal trying to excuse them. So much for labels.

You read what I wrote, right? We are actually in agreement on this occasion.

I'm liberal, and I have no intention of excusing them or their savage behaviour.
I don't like having their extreme right religious beliefs forced on me with the threat of violence. I'm a liberal, yes, but I know when something is absolutely wrong. And I know when to stand and fight for my liberal beliefs. If these muslim extremists want a fight I say bring it on, I'll go them.

You will agree that Bush and the Bushmen have not been in any sense of the word any great defendres of Civil Liberties. The Patriots Act and the on going spuying on the citizens precludes any thought that Bush is a defender od democracy. Waging War on Iraq in an wholly illegal manner and now with Iran. Islam has become the rallying point of all those who oppose this unipolar world dominated by the USA.

They never hold Communistic governments accountable, either. Same pattern, different subject.

Communist Governments do not make the tall moral claims that the elected regimes make.

Gideon, may I ask a question? If Liberals are defending Islam, are Conservatives then attacking Islam? It would seem implied.

Islam is generally defined as a religion, but may also refer to the people that hold to that religion. In the context of your cited arguments, it may also apply to those governments that hold to Shariya, or Islamic law. It is also a cuture.

So, which of these am I, as a Liberal, defending? Which are Conservatives attacking? Are you looking to expunge the religion? Or the Islamic people? Or just to topple those governments?

Please show me where I have erred. Everything that you say is true. Islamic law and culture is anti-homosexual, treats women as second class citizens, isn't big on Democracy or free speech, etc. Not only that, but when granted the opportunity to vote in free elections, Muslims tend to elect OTHER MUSLIMS! See Palestine and Iraq for references. So, what solution would you offer that is being held up by my opposition? Forced conversion, genocide or just toppling the governments? (I don't mean that in a "mean" way, but think about it for a moment.)

The last estimate I saw was that there were about 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. They don't seem to need my defense. I do tend to tell people that they are a fact of life and can't be ignored. Is that the defense of Islam that you are referring to?

So when I wrote that the US and Israel must negotiate with Hamas, for example, I don't think that I am being Liberal, just realistic.

You read what I wrote, right? We are actually in agreement on this occasion.

Actually, you say you are liberal, but there has been more than one occassion where we agree.  I think you are just becoming more conservative.

I don't know if this was aimed at me - I assume it was in some ways, as by JU standards I'm fairly liberal and I have defended some Muslims - but I think there are some Muslims worth defending.

It wasn't directed at you, cacto...it was directed at the trend of the American left to defend Islam as it is being practiced by Islamic nations, specifically by calling our soldiers "terrorists" and Bush the biggest terrorist of them all, and by calling the guerilla warriors in Iraq "freedom fighters" when, ironically, the "freedom" this faction desires is, in fact, harsh tyranny.

And yes, many MUSLIMS are worth defending, but the religion itself needs to be called to task because of the fact it is being overtaken by radical elements. And the nations that are run by Islamic governments (ironically, a combination of church and state, another liberal soapbox) are especially culpable in these violations of almost every liberal tenet.

Like Larry, I think we're assigning a lot of different meanings to one word. "Islam" is an extremely overloaded word, just like "Theory", "Liberal" and "Conservative"

There's Islam the faith, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It's really no more a violent religion at it's core than Judaism or Christianity. There is a lot of variance in how it is practiced, and that's where the violence comes from.

There's Islam the government, which is a very very bad thing. Any theocracy is bad because it forms around one particular view of a religion and grows increasingly intollerant of dissent and criticism. As soon as attacking the government becomes an attack on God, horrible things start to happen.

There's Islam the fundamentalist/extremist movement. This is a combination of that varried practice of faith and theocracies that have spanned centuries. This gets baked into the culture almost after all those centuries. This is also always a bad thing because extremists tend to act the most violently to anything they percieve as heretical (is that a word?). You have one whacked out view of Islam, reinforced by the government ruling you, and for many it's all they ever know. It's very much like the Amish (minus the violence)... a very odd and unique take of faith and culture. It becomes baked into whoever is raised in it.

Two of the three forms of Islam are very bad. They promote violence, intolerance, the degredation of women, of homosexuals, of free thought and speech. The faith doesn't call for that crap any more than other faiths do. This is what I defend. I defend the actual faith of Islam. Most people usually mean the government or the extremist form of Islam. Why? Because it's what they see on the news, so to most it becomes synonymous. It's the same problem you see with the term "Theory" when it comes to Evolution/ID arguments. Both sides use the same word but have fundamentally different definitions.

There are fundamental problems with Islamic culture. It has become deletrious in it's fanatacism and can not survive in a global setting. Radical governments with extremely intollerant cultures survived just fine when it took weeks and weeks to move between nations, before communication was instantaneous, before one resource could tilt the entire globe on its ear. It has become a culture that needs either an overhaul, or it needs to be removed.

But remember, what the culture is, what the extremists do, and what the theocracies do is different from the religion itself. It is the individuals, the terrorists, the organizations and states that promote the violence that the issue is with. The average Muslim is not the enemy. Islam itself is not the enemy. It's the people and groups that are attacking us, that are blowing cars up, that are flying planes into buildings that are the problem. When you start going on about how Islam is violent, that Islam = Terrorists you are attacking people who have nothing to do with all of this. These are the ones I defend when I step up and defend Islam. When you say to them that Islam is evil, to them you're saying they are evil. Such an attack actually HELPS the terrorists as it pushes people towards their cause. I mean, if we're going to call them all terrorists and evil, they might as well be right? It errodes any support we may be building in the area.

zoomba,

You are correct on that point. I was general in my terminology. But my question still remains valid: why do liberals defend Islam (all three forms) for the very same ideology that they feel merits their attack on Christianity, and why do they defend two forms of Islam that are fundamentally opposed to everything liberals support?

This is one of the multitude of reasons I defected from the left. As a longtime Amnesty International supporter, I was well aware of the massive human rights violations in Islamic led countries, and as a friend of an organization that worked closely among the Kurdish population, I was well aware of the atrocities committed against these individuals. Yet everyone of my "liberal" friends was quick to come to bat for these groups, including, ironically enough, individuals who were dangerously close to being hardcore female supremacists. How can you attack a culture for not allowing you to show your breasts in public while defending a culture that shrouds almost every square inch of a woman's body behind a burqa in public?

In defense of Islam, you are comparing apples and oranges, a religion to a "nation". Although western civilizations tend to broaden the term, that doesn't make it so. Also, why are you asking in a forum that is predominately republican a topic for democrats to comment on?

... But to humor your points:

"The environment: Liberals are quick to condemn our dependence on fossil fuels in the west. They are quick to decry our environmental atrocities, while failing to hold Islamic countries accountable for the same."


When you claim to be Numero Uno, you don't have much latitude in screwing up.

Secondly, the numbers are: 1/4 of the world's pollution, 1/3 of 1/6 of the world's population the US accounts for. The numbers aren't in your favor.

But of course this means nothing as it is comparison of the US to any and all countries.


"Equal rights: Women are second class citizens in Islamic countries, and homosexuality is justification for murder in many villages, without consequence from the national government."


All US citizens are second class citizens.

Some ethnic groups as well as women are still fighting for true "equality".


"Free Speech: Do I even have to go here?"


Speech is curtailed in the US as well. The question is: how long is the leash?


"Freedom of Religion: There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger."


Since Islam is a religion, that is correct. The same is said for Judaism and Christianity.


"Democracy: virtually nonexistent"


... and the point here is??? Democracy is not a good thing or the best thing.


"Civil Liberties: The Hussein regime in Iraq was a horribly ruthless and oppressive regime. Islamic countries are constantly at the top of Amnesty International's watch lists."


1. It was a civil war.

2. It was supported by the US. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.


"Fair labor standards: Again, Islamic countries come in on the low end."


Again, when you brag and boast Numero Uno, be wary of the skeletons you carry.

'til dawn...

Communist Governments do not make the tall moral claims that the elected regimes make.

---Bahu

Thanks very much for so clearly affirming my point.


Cacto:

Your point about Far Eastern vs. Mideastern Islamics brings an odd thought:
How long has Islam been in the East? I once read a book about the Arab invasions of Europe in the 5th century or so.
The book pointed out that the Muslim invaders were pretty easy on the conquered peoples, overall. Taxes were often lower than those Rome had imposed, and they even allowed the people to worship as they saw fit, as long as they swore allegiance to the Arab rulers. They weren't hateful maniacs, in other words. Not yet, at least.
This makes me wonder if the Middle Eastern Muslims, having been around longer, have simply evolved into a "purer breed" of Muslim than their more recent(?) Eastern converts?
This might explain the more liberal outlook of the Easterners, so similar to the outlook of the " brand-spanking new" Muslims inhabiting the Arab Pennisula (and thrusting into Northern Africa and Southern Europe) 1500 years ago.
Of course, that being said, it doesn't bode all that well for the future of the Muslims of the East.

You will agree that Bush and the Bushmen have not been in any sense of the word any great defendres of Civil Liberties. The Patriots Act and the on going spuying on the citizens precludes any thought that Bush is a defender od democracy.

Names, Bahu...names. Give me names and addresses of people...loyal, red-blooded, all-American Americans, whose lives have been disrupted in any way by the Patriot Act. Bush doesn't want to spy on "YOU", the "average American"; he wants the government to be able to listen in on suspected terrorists or their allies.
A few criminals have been caught under the use of the Patriot Act, too, yes, but I wouldn't call them Red-Blooded Americans, would you?
That's a far cry from George Orwell, no matter loudly or frequently you scream out the Lie.

Waging War on Iraq in an wholly illegal manner and now with Iran. Islam has become the rallying point of all those who oppose this unipolar world dominated by the USA

---Bahu

Another point proven most clearly. Thanks, Bahu. Keep talking; we'll never have to say anything again.

Those that defend the atrocities of the extremists and theocracies do so because they don't understand what the hell is going on in the world. They defend terrorists because deep down they feel guilty that as Americans, they have life so much better. I think it really comes down to a love-hate thing they have with the world they themselves live in. In their minds, anything is OK so long as it is done against the majority, or those stronger... Terrorists are the weaklings... The US is the Goliath to their David.

The underdog is always given a pass to do as it likes because it has to to make the playing field even or fair. Also, these Liberals who defend such horrible acts are the same sort of people who want to legislate everything in the name of fairness and safety and equality. In their mind, no one should be any better off than anyone else. So long as the scales aren't even, any act is permissible if it makes things more even or fair.

They assault the transgressions of Christianity and ignore those of Islam because they have never actually experienced them. They're the ones who complain of the US turning into a theocracy or a police state under Bush but have NO clue what one actually is. In their mind, Muslims are the noble savage... It's not their fault they are the way they are... it must be our fault they're like that because as the major power... all bad things are blamed on the big kid on the block.

Really, it's a combination of guilt and ignorance.

This makes me wonder if the Middle Eastern Muslims, having been around longer, have simply evolved into a "purer breed" of Muslim than their more recent(?) Eastern converts? This might explain the more liberal outlook of the Easterners, so similar to the outlook of the " brand-spanking new" Muslims inhabiting the Arab Pennisula (and thrusting into Northern Africa and Southern Europe) 1500 years ago. Of course, that being said, it doesn't bode all that well for the future of the Muslims of the East.

That's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. Islam has never been 'purer' than under the four great caliphs, when the entire faith was united. The famous Muslim tolerance was damaged by the Crusades; that much is clear, as professional poets and scholars began to see the fun that could be had from war. I think the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols was far more damaging though, on much the same level as the sacking of Rome. Barbarians had razed perhaps the most cultured city in the world.

Had Islam been naturally inclined towards violence, we should have seen a great orgy of destruction rising out of North Africa and the Middle East that was directed at Asia. And yet the sultanates and the Turks did little save attempt to hold their borders. There was no dramatic increase in oppression or anything of the sort.

The European push into the Middle East was damaging, with the typical colonial tendency to kill now and allow questions never, but I think the Cold War encouraged most of today's problems. The requirements of realpolitik meant both sides enforced certain governments (like the Iranian Shah and his secret police, the Palestinian Marxists, the Afghani puppet regime etc) and social institutions that were immensely unpopular. These regimes were so well financed that nothing save an immensely violent revolution seemed to bring them to an end. I think many extremists still hold that mindset - the west can only be halted in its interfering through extreme violence. After all, that's the only thing that worked in the 20th century. Post Cold-War examples like Somalia reflect badly on the west as well, as they show that the west can be cowed simply with a high enough bodycount.

To my mind the cartoons were little more than a religious justification. The fanatics wanted to rampage, they just needed a good reason. And seeing as how they are mostly supported by the oil money of the fabulously wealthy, they can hardly go around blowing up the oligarchies, who are almost certainly the cause of most of their complaints. And so the West is very easy to turn into a scapegoat. Bad for us, sure, but the situation isn't going to improve for us if we keep giving a justification for such a ridiculous notion. Either we move in and end their problems for them - whether cheaply, through aid, or expensively, through war - or we face the politics of diversion and continue to be targets.

That's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. Islam has never been 'purer' than under the four great caliphs, when the entire faith was united

---Cacto

Looking at it strictly from the perspective of "religious" purity, perhaps. But what I'm getting from you, if I'm correct, is that you feel that that "purity" was tainted by the interference and invasions of outsiders? The violence of the Crusades and such caused the paranoid midset of the present day?

This just in!!!! A check from Usama bin Laden for the Democratic party in the sum of 1 billion dollors, signed by Bin Laden "to my best allies"

But what I'm getting from you, if I'm correct, is that you feel that that "purity" was tainted by the interference and invasions of outsiders?

Almost. Uniquely amongst monotheistic religions Islam proposes a system of governance in addition to a religious dogma; Muhammad was both a capable king as well as a prophet. So if Islam had a tendency towards bloodshed that was built into the very faith, it would have been shown within the time of the four great caliphs. That it only occured well after the end of the first caliphate suggests that indiscriminate violence is grounded in something other than the Qur'an.

The violence of the Crusades and such caused the paranoid midset of the present day?

Not exactly. The Crusades I simply meant as an example of where Islam could have proved itself violent and yet failed entirely to match the bloodthirstiness of Catholic crusaders.

The dicatorships and tendency towards violence didn't arise because of outside influences. They started by themselves, with causes I lack the historical knowledge to chart. However it's fairly undeniable that regimes like the Afghani puppet government (which was responsible for killing or imprisoning most of the moderate leaders; the rest were killed by extremists in the hills) and the Iranian shah (we all know how bad he was and how much worse his successors were) were instrumental in destroying democratic tendencies in the Middle East and enshrining violence as the sole source of political power.

I see violence in the Middle East not as a consequence of the region's faith - the Zoroastrians have also chosen the path of violence, as have the Kurds, the Jews, even the Christians - but as a consequence of the region's history. It's not the West's fault any more than it was the fault of the Communists, but the region was definitely badly affected by the Cold War's side effects.

I think we've taken Gid's article far enough off-track, don't you? If you want me to go into my position/understanding/whatever in more depth you can post an article and I'll lay it down for you.