Turn on thread page Beta

How does being concerned about spread of Islam in the West make someone far-right? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Could someone explain how this works? Does far-right just mean "anti-Islam"?
    I think it's pretty valid to claim that far-right implies anti-Islam .
    far-right => anti-Islam
    Now far-right doesn't just mean anti-Islam . They are against immigrants in general (especially the ones with an 'inferior' nationality such as Romanians for Nigel Farage , while Germans are fine as neighbors ) .

    However anti-Islam DOES NOT IMPLY far-right . It means you are a sensible Westerner!
    Islam is an ideology , anti-Islam the opposition to that ideology . My opinion :Anyone who is in favour of progress (and is sensible) would be against Islam (since the whole ideology refers to a backward society ) .

    Anti-Islam doesn't mean you are against muslims as citizents of Western countries . For me it means that I want them to change and adjust to our societies . Back laws against Islam (not against muslims) ; minimise faith schools ( do not fund them at least !), try to distribute them uniformly in your country , do not fund any religious institution (whatever that is) .

    Of course Islam is a problem but far-right is not the solution. They seem to make more sense , because they provide a solution to that problem (a problem that more liberal parties ignore) but that doesn't mean they won't continue their plans ; build up walls , be against immigrants .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vesniep)
    I think it's pretty valid to claim that far-right implies anti-Islam .
    far-right => anti-Islam
    Now far-right doesn't just mean anti-Islam . They are against immigrants in general (especially the ones with an 'inferior' nationality such as Romanians for Nigel Farage , while Germans are fine as neighbors ) .

    However anti-Islam DOES NOT IMPLY far-right . It means you are a sensible Westerner!
    Islam is an ideology , anti-Islam the opposition to that ideology . My opinion :Anyone who is in favour of progress (and is sensible) would be against Islam (since the whole ideology refers to a backward society ) .

    Anti-Islam doesn't mean you are against muslims as citizents of Western countries . For me it means that I want them to change and adjust to our societies . Back laws against Islam (not against muslims) ; minimise faith schools ( do not fund them at least !), try to distribute them uniformly in your country , do not fund any religious institution (whatever that is) .

    Of course Islam is a problem but far-right is not the solution. They seem to make more sense , because they provide a solution to that problem (a problem that more liberal parties ignore) but that doesn't mean they won't continue their plans ; build up walls , be against immigrants .
    I agree.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    So let me get this straight.

    Am I correct in thinking that although I support decriminalising drugs; opening drug rehabilitation centres; getting rid of the legal benefits of marriage entirely (so no one is discriminated against); freedom of speech; secularism; publicly funded healthcare, schools, and university; and a welfare system, I'm actually far-right because I have the consistancy to dislike all kinds of traditionalist ultra-conservatism, and don't make an exception for Islam?
    Could someone explain how this works? Does far-right just mean "anti-Islam"?
    As long as you're able to distinguish between Islam (the disturbing and archaic religion) and Muslims (ordinary people who shouldn't be treated differently to you or me) then you're golden.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Exactly. People like Bornblue actually have far more in common with the far-right than we do, given the fact that they actively defend or even support a far-right ideology, while we spend a lot of time denouncing it.
    I don't support a far-right ideology and never have. The ideology of Islam, like the ideologies of both Christianity and Judaism are all very right wing. Some far right Christians shoot up abortion clinics, I don't blame ordinary peaceful Christians and nor should I.

    However I will never accept ordinary Muslims who've done nothing wrong being blamed for or punished for the acts of despicable terrorists. That's where we differ.

    One of the great pulls for young Muslims into the arms of extremists is a feeling that they are not wanted or trusted here and that's down to people like you.

    By all means throw the book at the disgusting terrorists, but suggesting that we should ban 1.6 billion people from a country because of the acts of a few terrorists, really is fascism in action.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't support a far-right ideology and never have. The ideology of Islam, like the ideologies of both Christianity and Judaism are all very right wing. Some far right Christians shoot up abortion clinics, I don't blame ordinary peaceful Christians and nor should I.

    However I will never accept ordinary Muslims who've done nothing wrong being blamed for or punished for the acts of despicable terrorists. That's where we differ.

    One of the great pulls for young Muslims into the arms of extremists is a feeling that they are not wanted or trusted here and that's down to people like you.

    By all means throw the book at the disgusting terrorists, but suggesting that we should ban 1.6 billion people from a country because of the acts of a few terrorists, really is fascism in action.
    On the other hand, you will ignore polls conducted by highly respected non-partisan bodies that show that a majority of Muslims worldwide are extraordinarily conservative and right-wing if it means you get to keep pushing your baseless conjecture about how the vast majority of Muslims are "moderates" and "peaceful".
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    On the other hand, you will ignore polls conducted by highly respected non-partisan bodies that show that a majority of Muslims worldwide are extraordinarily conservative and right-wing if it means you get to keep pushing your baseless conjecture about how the vast majority of Muslims are "moderates" and "peaceful".
    Being right wing or even 'extraordinarily conservative' does not make one guilty for the crimes of others. They can think what they want. I don't agree with having a thought police. What matters is what they do and the vast, vast majority are peaceful and do not commit atrocities and crimes.

    If polls were as reliable as you make out then Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister and we would never have voted to leave the EU.

    Polls very often have deliberately misleading or vague questioning which can easily be spun, just as the Sun did when they claimed 800% of Muslims loved Isis..

    By all means throw the book at terrorists and string them up, by all means call them evil, but never blame ordinary, innocent Muslims for the acts of terrorists.

    That's a fundamental humanitarian principle, we don't blame people for what they haven't done. Banning 1.6 billion Muslims from entering a country because of the actions of a few extremists is punishing people for what they haven't done.

    And do you not think that if we do that, it makes the lure of Islamic extremism far greater?

    I'm opposed to the terrorists as much as you are. The difference is I don't want to punish innocent people for their crimes.
    Now do tell me, what part of my reasoning is 'far right'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Except polls very often have deliberately misleading or vague questionning which can easily be spun, just as the Sun did when they claimed 800% of Muslims loved Isis..
    But PEW isn't The Sun. It doesn't have an agenda. There are polls in that very same survey that are used by people to show how few Muslims support terrorism. The only thing tainting those polls for you is your perspective on them because of your agenda. If you look at the methodology, if you learn a little about PEW, you'll see they're almost certainly highly informative.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They can think what they want. I don't agree with a thought police. What matters is what they do and the vast, vast majority are peaceful and do not commit atrocities and crimes.

    By all means throw the book at terrorists and string them up, by all means call them evil, but never blame ordinary, innocent Muslims for the acts of terrorists.
    I'm not interested in terrorists. But I do worry that a people with such consistently ultra-conservative views perhaps may clash with our liberal society. I don't see why those views shouldn't be criticised as much as possible to expose them and make people turn away from them.



    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That's a fundamental humanitarian principle, we don't blame people for what they haven't done. Banning 1.6 billion Muslims from entering a country because of the actions of a few extremists is punishing people for what they haven't done.
    Not allowing people into the country isn't punishing people, because being allowed in is a privilege. Supposing that by allowing masses of people in from countries like Syria or Afghanistan may harm your liberal society is not exactly outlandish. Just look at Germany. Politicians telling women to cover up and be extra cautious because they may get assaulted by migrants in the street, and women afraid to go to swimming pools because of the amounts of sexual assaults that are committed there by migrants. Or in a less direct way, France, where terror attacks have put it into a state of emergency, and parents are not allowed to go into school with their kids, schools trips have been cancelled, and music festivals too. This is stuff that's really happening, as a result of large populations of Muslims in the country.

    Consider this Karl Popper quote: "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."





    (Original post by Bornblue)
    And do you not think that if we do that, it makes the lure of Islamic extremism far greater?
    The amount of stigma and political rhetoric against fascism in Europe since WW2 has meant that only tiny minorities of people support it. I don't see why such pressure against Islamism wouldn't do a similar thing.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Now do tell me, what part of my reasoning is 'far right'?
    It isn't. But you have avoided that fact that you do rather pander to, or at least deflect criticism from, a far-right ideology and a far-right demographic, even if claim to be against it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    But PEW isn't The Sun. It doesn't have an agenda. There are polls in that very same survey that are used by people to show how few Muslims support terrorism. The only thing tainting those polls for you is your perspective on them because of your agenda. If you look at the methodology, if you learn a little about PEW, you'll see they're almost certainly highly informative.
    The Sun didn't carry out the poll, they reported on it inaccurately. I don't use polls to show that few Muslims are terrorists, I use the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not carry out terrorist attacks.

    I'm not interested in terrorists. But I do worry that a people with such consistently ultra-conservative views perhaps may clash with our liberal society. I don't see why those views shouldn't be criticised as much as possible to expose them and make people turn away from them.
    I don't care what people think. I don't want a thought police. As much as you might wish evil thoughts were a crime, they are not. As long as they are not committing crimes or carrying out acts of terror it doesn't matter what their views are. That's what you call a tolerant society. I disagree immensely with the conservatives, doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed in the country.



    Not allowing people into the country isn't punishing people, because being allowed in is a privilege.
    Nice spin. Not allowing an entire group of people in because of the acts of a few despicable extremists is punishing people for what they haven't done and I don't agree with doing that.



    The amount of stigma and political rhetoric against fascism in Europe since WW2 has meant that only tiny minorities of people support it. I don't see why such pressure against Islamism wouldn't do a similar thing.
    If we blame all innocent Muslims and stigmatise them for the acts of terrorists you make them feel unwanted, isolated and unwelcome. That's the breeding ground for extremism.

    It isn't. But you have avoided that fact that you do rather pander to, or at least deflect criticism from, a far-right ideology and a far-right demographic, even if claim to be against it.
    I've never avoided criticizing ultra-conservative views, I just don't think that innocent people should be punished for the acts of others whatever their views are.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vesniep)
    I think it's pretty valid to claim that far-right implies anti-Islam .
    far-right => anti-Islam
    Now far-right doesn't just mean anti-Islam . They are against immigrants in general (especially the ones with an 'inferior' nationality such as Romanians for Nigel Farage , while Germans are fine as neighbors ) .

    However anti-Islam DOES NOT IMPLY far-right . It means you are a sensible Westerner!
    Islam is an ideology , anti-Islam the opposition to that ideology . My opinion :Anyone who is in favour of progress (and is sensible) would be against Islam (since the whole ideology refers to a backward society ) .

    Anti-Islam doesn't mean you are against muslims as citizents of Western countries . For me it means that I want them to change and adjust to our societies . Back laws against Islam (not against muslims) ; minimise faith schools ( do not fund them at least !), try to distribute them uniformly in your country , do not fund any religious institution (whatever that is) .

    Of course Islam is a problem but far-right is not the solution. They seem to make more sense , because they provide a solution to that problem (a problem that more liberal parties ignore) but that doesn't mean they won't continue their plans ; build up walls , be against immigrants .
    I agree with large parts of that but there is a difference between a Romanian and a German in the example you used.

    The German is likely to be far more similar in every way to a British person than a Romanian and more likely to be better off too.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by string56)
    Indeed. Both Islamists and the far right, appear to have much in common...
    They both tend to hate Jews, they both view those who don't subscribe to their ideology as less than human, they both have complete contempt for LGBT and the idea of womens' rights.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vesniep)
    I think it's pretty valid to claim that far-right implies anti-Islam .
    far-right => anti-Islam
    That's actually not necessarily true. There are many on the neo-Nazi far right who view Muslims as freedom fighters against the "Jewish conspiracy", and praise their attacks on the "ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government, which is their name for the US government... that's right, not Israel, it's what they call the American government)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    As long as you're able to distinguish between Islam (the disturbing and archaic religion) and Muslims (ordinary people who shouldn't be treated differently to you or me) then you're golden.
    Actually, we critics of Islam tend to be the people who actually do make that distinction.

    It's many Muslims themselves and left-wing fellow travellers who assert that criticism of Islam equals hatred of Muslims.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Actually, we critics of Islam tend to be the people who actually do make that distinction.

    It's many Muslims themselves and left-wing fellow travellers who assert that criticism of Islam equals hatred of Muslims.
    If you go up to a religious person and tell them why their religion is bad the probably would feel like you were attacking them. But the reason this debate isn't so difficult to have isn't because of Muslims and the 'left-wing' it's because of these guys:



    And these:

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If you go up to a religious person and tell them why their religion is bad the probably would feel like you were attacking them. But the reason this debate isn't so difficult to have isn't because of Muslims and the 'left-wing' it's because of these guys:
    What a dishonest and obnoxious post.

    First, religious people need to get the **** over it. In a democracy we are entitled to criticise ideas. Religion is not a race, and a religious person is not entitled to shriek "Wacist!" simply because you pointed out the glaring flaws and bigoted core ideology of their belief system. All theistic religions are backward, superstitious and regressive, but it's only Islam that is the almost exclusive source, at present, of worldwide chaos, mayhem, murder, mass rape, suicide bombing and enslavement.

    Second, it's utterly pathetic for you to imply that criticism of Islam means you're some kind of BNP member and that their position makes criticism of Islam impermissible. It suggests a complete lack of intellectual substance behind your position, and a preference for fraudulent accusations of neo-Nazi associations over genuine engagement and discourse. Not to mention it's a fundamental logic fail; the fact that neo-Nazis also criticise Islam has no actual bearing on the validity of criticisms and you don't get to cry "Look the far-right also crticises Islam" to shut down any critique of this backward religion.

    I oppose the fascistic, misogynist, homophobic, intolerant, violent character of Islam because I am a humanist social democrat, and Islam is fundamentally incompatible with civilised democracy. That doesn't mean every Muslim is a bad person or they subscribe to every regressive element of their religion, but equally that has no actual bearing on the underlying nature of Islam and it is no defence to a critique of the religion and its tendency to encourage violence and strife.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    What a dishonest and obnoxious post.

    First, religious people need to get the **** over it. In a democracy we are entitled to criticise ideas. Religion is not a race, and a religious person is not entitled to shriek "Wacist!" simply because you pointed out the glaring flaws and bigoted core ideology of their belief system. All theistic religions are backward, superstitious and regressive, but it's only Islam that is the almost exclusive source, at present, of worldwide chaos, mayhem, murder, mass rape, suicide bombing and enslavement.

    Second, it's utterly pathetic for you to imply that criticism of Islam means you're some kind of BNP member and that their position makes criticism of Islam impermissible. It suggests a complete lack of intellectual substance behind your position, and a preference for fraudulent accusations of neo-Nazi associations over genuine engagement and discourse. Not to mention it's a fundamental logic fail; the fact that neo-Nazis also criticise Islam has no actual bearing on the validity of criticisms and you don't get to cry "Look the far-right also crticises Islam" to shut down any critique of this backward religion.

    I oppose the fascistic, misogynist, homophobic, intolerant, violent character of Islam because I am a humanist social democrat, and Islam is fundamentally incompatible with civilised democracy. That doesn't mean every Muslim is a bad person or they subscribe to every regressive element of their religion, but equally that has no actual bearing on the underlying nature of Islam.
    It sounds like you're the one getting sensitive and obnoxious. I did not say that criticising Islam made you a BNP member (you'll notice I criticised the archaic religion myself earlier in this thread). What I said was that the existence of such organisations has made the debate 'difficult to have'. Which is your exact point, no? Read the post, don't just look at the pictures. These fascistic, far-right groups have corrupted the debate and prevented meaningful dialogue on the subject of Islam, religion and their place in society by allowing people who want to have a sensible, intelligent discussion get smeared.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It doesn't so long as you accept people who are of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds who still respect the rights of others.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That's actually not necessarily true. There are many on the neo-Nazi far right who view Muslims as freedom fighters against the "Jewish conspiracy", and praise their attacks on the "ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government, which is their name for the US government... that's right, not Israel, it's what they call the American government)
    I do find it very strange the level to which the Saudis and their followers in the West subscribe to conspiracy theories invented by neo-Nazis. If a White speaker got up on strange and started blithering on about how the Jews run the government and the banks and that Western countries are being controlled so that they act in the interests of Israel he would laughed off as a mindless quack, yet people such as Low Key promote this ******** and apparently these people are highly aware truthtellers.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I agree with large parts of that but there is a difference between a Romanian and a German in the example you used.

    The German is likely to be far more similar in every way to a British person than a Romanian and more likely to be better off too.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And that's to say what exactly ?
    Assuming that Nigel Farage is quiet rich his neighbor would be rich as well .
    There is a strong correlation between wealth and education so chances are the Romanian could be as educated and similar as the German is.
    My point is this : similarity ( at least in the West) is due to wealth not nationality . Germans are richer than Romanians that's why they appear to have more in common with British (who are also rich).
    However a rich Romanian (who could afford to buy a house in the same neighbourhood with Farage) could be as similar as a German is to a British.
    He would still prefer a German . Therefore , he thinks that nationality is something that determines you as a person ; it's wrong to be a Romanian and no matter how educated (which is very likely for rich people) and rich you are , you are still a Romanian .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It sounds like you're the one getting sensitive and obnoxious. I did not say that criticising Islam made you a BNP member

    These fascistic, far-right groups have corrupted the debate and prevented meaningful dialogue on the subject of Islam, religion and their place in society by allowing people who want to have a sensible, intelligent discussion get smeared.
    You seem to be the smearing, even if implicitly. The debate has not been corrupted, they have not prevented meaningful dialogue. Such dialogue may continue irrespective of far-right insanity.

    To bring the BNP and neo-Nazis into the debate is, I'm sorry, dishonest in the context of the points I were making, which you chose not to rebut but instead assert that no-one may make any such criticisms because, apparently, the far-right ruined it and that's the end of that.

    There seems to be an intellectually dishonest position spreading through the soft and hard left that because the far-right criticises Islam, it is therefore the duty of left-wing people to defend Islam and thus oppose the far-right, irrespective of the actual merit of the debate at hand. This is a mindset that is to be opposed and called out by all right-thinking, sensible people
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You seem to be the smearing, even if implicitly. The debate has not been corrupted, they have not prevented meaningful dialogue. Such dialogue may continue irrespective of far-right insanity.

    To bring the BNP and neo-Nazis into the debate is, I'm sorry, dishonest in the context of the points I were making, which you chose not to rebut but instead assert that no-one may make any such criticisms because, apparently, the far-right ruined it and that's the end of that.

    There seems to be an intellectually dishonest position spreading through the soft and hard left that because the far-right criticises Islam, it is therefore the duty of left-wing people to defend Islam and thus oppose the far-right, irrespective of the actual merit of the debate at hand. This is a mindset that is to be opposed and called out by all right-thinking, sensible people
    The fact that, at the sight of those images and without reading what I actually wrote, you described me as 'dishonest', 'obnoxious' and 'utterly pathetic' proves my point.

    I did not say that 'no one may make criticisms'. It would have been very odd for me to say that seeing as I've criticised Islam in this thread myself. I said 'this debate is difficult to have'. That's not 'intellectually dishonest'. That's the truth. In the same way that it's difficult to debate eugenics because of the Nazis.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.