The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[Papageorgio]

True progressives and liberals, encouraged debate and diversity of opinion, not today. That is why they are regressive.

No doubt one of them is going to deny this, and that should be fun.
.

I used to love that we Americans could voice our objections, we questioned authority, we challenged others. Now, only certain privileged classes are allowed to protest and be heard, the regressive left will condemn you if your opinion doesn't align with theirs, no tolerance. Sad to see that was something I loved about liberals.

 

[Mac1958]

True progressives and liberals, encouraged debate and diversity of opinion, not today. That is why they are regressive.

No doubt one of them is going to deny this, and that should be fun.
.

I used to love that we Americans could voice our objections, we questioned authority, we challenged others. Now, only certain privileged classes are allowed to protest and be heard, the regressive left will condemn you if your opinion doesn't align with theirs, no tolerance. Sad to see that was something I loved about liberals.

The questioning of authority, the challenging of ideas, the promotion of opposing public discourse, true intellectual curiosity and wide-open debate manifest in brilliance and progress.

The opposite manifests in the opposite. Progress, regress.
.

 

[Tilly]

This prof seems to think the leftards are just skeerdy cats

Atheist: 'Okay For Those on The Left to Critique, Mock, Deride Christianity, But Islam Gets a Free Pass'

An atheist professor said Tuesday that it’s acceptable to criticize Christians but not Muslims, because he does not “fear” retaliation from Christians.

“I know what keeps me from critiquing Islam on my blog is just fear,” Phil Zuckerman said at a discussion on religious liberty at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. “I’ve got three kids.


“So I know I can say anything about Christianity or Mormonism, and I’m not living in fear, which is a testament to Christianity and Mormonism, and that’s wonderful. Thank you,” said Zuckerman, who is a self-described atheist and professor of secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif.

Zuckerman was a panelist at the discussion as part of Georgetown University’s Religious Freedom Project at its Berkley Center...

...“I absolutely agree that it is okay for those on the left to critique, mock, deride Christianity, but Islam gets a free pass, which is so strange, because if you care about women’s rights, if you care about human rights, if you care about gay rights, then really Islam is much more problematic – sorry to paint Islam with a huge brush – and much more devastating,” he said....

Atheist: 'Okay For Those on The Left to Critique, Mock, Deride Christianity, But Islam Gets a Free Pass'

 

[Tilly]

Sorry, couldn't unbold and reduce font on that for some reason.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Sorry, couldn't unbold and reduce font on that for some reason.

Don't worry about it , Tilley.

You can bold my font any time you want.

 

[Tehon]

Isn't this about the regressive left? Not sure why women and religion are now the topic. Sounds like a topic on another thread, it's way off topic in this thread..

Yep, another great example of the point of the thread.

Too many examples now to count.
..

You made the connection between Islam (religion), women's rights and regressive leftists in the OP.

Unfortunately this is all you are willing to tolerate in your thread.

What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling.

I agree with you though in that this thread has been very informative and I thank you for that.

C'mon people, save your reasoned debate for threads intended for such. Your arguments are not welcome here.

You can't refute a thing so it's a troll thread. That isn't logic. The arguments you can't refute are not welcome here? LOL! More regressive logic.

It was a deliberate attempt at provoking people to make emotional responses. Debate about the meaning of the term regressive leftist was discouraged even though the several examples offered by the OP were not in harmony. The incessant self congratulatory nature of the OP is a quite revealing tell tale as to his intent. It is what it is.

Are you accusing me of being regressive?

If you are part of the Progressive political movement, you are a regressive. Regressive's, fall back on isms to advance his agenda. Using divisiveness to advance an agenda, demonizing you opponent, an all or nothing attitude without debate, it is regressive. Look at global warming, look at marriage, look at the restroom debate. If you question, you are called a fool, an idiot, a racist, a sexist a homophobe. That hatred of an opposing position is very evident.

Many times in this thread the regressive will condemn Christianity as a threat to peace. It is the intolerance of the regressive that is a real threat to peace. The mere fact that the White House refused to deal with real terrorist attacks and wanted to label as something entirely different was eye opening. The avoidance of the word terrorists when referring to actual terrorists was mind numbing.

Last year a when the convention with cartoon characters that were made to look like Muhammad were attacked by terrorists, this nation with the freedom of expression condemned the artists. A few years back when a cross was put into a jar of urine, it was freedom of expression, why the change? Why is one allowed to make fun and blaspheme one group, but we aren't allowed to make fun and blaspheme another.

I wouldn't support either artists for what they did, I would support the freedom to do so.

True progressives and liberals, encouraged debate and diversity of opinion, not today. That is why they are regressive.

Oh joy, another definition of the regressive left. It seems your fall back "ism" is a catchall, that must be convenient.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yep, another great example of the point of the thread.

Too many examples now to count.
..

You made the connection between Islam (religion), women's rights and regressive leftists in the OP.

Unfortunately this is all you are willing to tolerate in your thread.

What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling.

I agree with you though in that this thread has been very informative and I thank you for that.

C'mon people, save your reasoned debate for threads intended for such. Your arguments are not welcome here.

You can't refute a thing so it's a troll thread. That isn't logic. The arguments you can't refute are not welcome here? LOL! More regressive logic.

It was a deliberate attempt at provoking people to make emotional responses. Debate about the meaning of the term regressive leftist was discouraged even though the several examples offered by the OP were not in harmony. The incessant self congratulatory nature of the OP is a quite revealing tell tale as to his intent. It is what it is.

Are you accusing me of being regressive?

If you are part of the Progressive political movement, you are a regressive. Regressive's, fall back on isms to advance his agenda. Using divisiveness to advance an agenda, demonizing you opponent, an all or nothing attitude without debate, it is regressive. Look at global warming, look at marriage, look at the restroom debate. If you question, you are called a fool, an idiot, a racist, a sexist a homophobe. That hatred of an opposing position is very evident.

Many times in this thread the regressive will condemn Christianity as a threat to peace. It is the intolerance of the regressive that is a real threat to peace. The mere fact that the White House refused to deal with real terrorist attacks and wanted to label as something entirely different was eye opening. The avoidance of the word terrorists when referring to actual terrorists was mind numbing.

Last year a when the convention with cartoon characters that were made to look like Muhammad were attacked by terrorists, this nation with the freedom of expression condemned the artists. A few years back when a cross was put into a jar of urine, it was freedom of expression, why the change? Why is one allowed to make fun and blaspheme one group, but we aren't allowed to make fun and blaspheme another.

I wouldn't support either artists for what they did, I would support the freedom to do so.

True progressives and liberals, encouraged debate and diversity of opinion, not today. That is why they are regressive.

Oh joy, another definition of the regressive left. It seems your fall back "ism" is a catchall, that must be convenient.

Are you saying, that the use of isms is not used by the left to demonize their opponents? Trump supporters are racist. The GOP are all sexist, Trump and his supporters are sexist. The GOP hate blacks, the GOP hates Mexicans, the GOP hates the environment. No debate, no latitude. If you are against man made climate change, you are for big oil, you are an imbecile, you are... If you don't agree with BLM, you are a racist, believe marriage is between a man and a woman, you are a homophobe, you believe in religion, you are a moron. It is pretty cut and dry.

The Progressives encourage debate, they encourage dialogue. If you are, then you are a regressive. When questioned on Benghazi, Clinton said, "What does it matter? In other words, don't question her and her authority.

And you have no real answers, so you deflect. You refuse to address the issue, you don't want to debate it, you want to minimize and squash it.

Today's Progressives practice regressive politics, don't like it? Then talk to them.

 

[Papageorgio]

The shallow, simplistic, binary thinking of hardcore partisan ideologues.

If you're not a LWNJ, you must be a RWNJ. And vice versa.

But I am convinced they don't even see it.
.

I think some of them see it, and it might even make them vaguely uncomfortable. For example, when they find themselves making excuses for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion.
However, remain in lockstep they must, so they can't/won't back down and therefore find themselves having to employ false equivalances and reductio ad absurdums galore, to both safe face, and to insinuate those in opposition are bigots, racists and islamophobes, who therefore they have an alterior motive, whos word is dirt, and who are (hopefully), discredited.
I suspect some wouldn't behave like this in RL if faced with someone attempting to discuss where Islam and women's rights, for example, diverge, at least I hope so. In fact, we have an example in this thread where coyote is amicable and even in agreement with flacc, but virulently disagrees and mock funnies other posters when they express exactly the same concerns. Go figure.

I see the regressive left making the comparisons of which is worse. Trump is worse than Clinton, earlier in this thread Christians are worse than Muslims. You also so them comparing transgenders using bathrooms as an equivalent to the Civil Rights of blacks.

This entire thread has been enlightening to the regressive left.

Trump is "worse" than Clinton.

Christians and Muslims (and Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, numerologists, etc) are equal parts good and bad (same goes for their fan clubs)

Transgender rights and civil rights for blacks may not be the same, but the bigots and their justifications are almost identical.

I see no difference, lying to put innocent lives endanger is deplorable. Calling women who accuse a man of sexual abuse "bimbo eruptions" is cold and uncaring.

Links would be good. Actual news sources if you please.

Hillary Clinton Continues to Lie About the Failed State She Helped Create
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/u...illary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0

 

[Ravi]

Isn't this about the regressive left? Not sure why women and religion are now the topic. Sounds like a topic on another thread, it's way off topic in this thread..

Yep, another great example of the point of the thread.

Too many examples now to count.
..

You made the connection between Islam (religion), women's rights and regressive leftists in the OP.

Unfortunately this is all you are willing to tolerate in your thread.

What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling.

I agree with you though in that this thread has been very informative and I thank you for that.

C'mon people, save your reasoned debate for threads intended for such. Your arguments are not welcome here.

You can't refute a thing so it's a troll thread. That isn't logic. The arguments you can't refute are not welcome here? LOL! More regressive logic.

It was a deliberate attempt at provoking people to make emotional responses. Debate about the meaning of the term regressive leftist was discouraged even though the several examples offered by the OP were not in harmony. The incessant self congratulatory nature of the OP is a quite revealing tell tale as to his intent. It is what it is.

Are you accusing me of being regressive?

Agreed. And the emotional responses have come from the OP and his dog ma junkie.

I just love the irony.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Agreed. And the emotional responses have come from the OP and his dog ma junkie.

I just love the irony.

Says the uneducated little twerp who think the entire internet is a "RWNJ" conspiracy so vast that every single definition of Sharia that can be found on it has been intentionally falsified.

 

[Ravi]

Agreed. And the emotional responses have come from the OP and his dog ma junkie.

I just love the irony.

Says the uneducated little twerp who think the entire internet is a "RWNJ" conspiracy so vast that every single definition of Sharia that can be found on it has been intentionally falsified.

Still not getting why you need to lie but still not surprised that you do

 

[Tehon]

You made the connection between Islam (religion), women's rights and regressive leftists in the OP.

Unfortunately this is all you are willing to tolerate in your thread.
I agree with you though in that this thread has been very informative and I thank you for that.

C'mon people, save your reasoned debate for threads intended for such. Your arguments are not welcome here.

You can't refute a thing so it's a troll thread. That isn't logic. The arguments you can't refute are not welcome here? LOL! More regressive logic.

It was a deliberate attempt at provoking people to make emotional responses. Debate about the meaning of the term regressive leftist was discouraged even though the several examples offered by the OP were not in harmony. The incessant self congratulatory nature of the OP is a quite revealing tell tale as to his intent. It is what it is.

Are you accusing me of being regressive?

If you are part of the Progressive political movement, you are a regressive. Regressive's, fall back on isms to advance his agenda. Using divisiveness to advance an agenda, demonizing you opponent, an all or nothing attitude without debate, it is regressive. Look at global warming, look at marriage, look at the restroom debate. If you question, you are called a fool, an idiot, a racist, a sexist a homophobe. That hatred of an opposing position is very evident.

Many times in this thread the regressive will condemn Christianity as a threat to peace. It is the intolerance of the regressive that is a real threat to peace. The mere fact that the White House refused to deal with real terrorist attacks and wanted to label as something entirely different was eye opening. The avoidance of the word terrorists when referring to actual terrorists was mind numbing.

Last year a when the convention with cartoon characters that were made to look like Muhammad were attacked by terrorists, this nation with the freedom of expression condemned the artists. A few years back when a cross was put into a jar of urine, it was freedom of expression, why the change? Why is one allowed to make fun and blaspheme one group, but we aren't allowed to make fun and blaspheme another.

I wouldn't support either artists for what they did, I would support the freedom to do so.

True progressives and liberals, encouraged debate and diversity of opinion, not today. That is why they are regressive.

Oh joy, another definition of the regressive left. It seems your fall back "ism" is a catchall, that must be convenient.

Are you saying, that the use of isms is not used by the left to demonize their opponents? Trump supporters are racist. The GOP are all sexist, Trump and his supporters are sexist. The GOP hate blacks, the GOP hates Mexicans, the GOP hates the environment. No debate, no latitude. If you are against man made climate change, you are for big oil, you are an imbecile, you are... If you don't agree with BLM, you are a racist, believe marriage is between a man and a woman, you are a homophobe, you believe in religion, you are a moron. It is pretty cut and dry.

The Progressives encourage debate, they encourage dialogue. If you are, then you are a regressive. When questioned on Benghazi, Clinton said, "What does it matter? In other words, don't question her and her authority.

And you have no real answers, so you deflect. You refuse to address the issue, you don't want to debate it, you want to minimize and squash it.

Today's Progressives practice regressive politics, don't like it? Then talk to them.

Are you saying, that the use of isms is not used by the left to demonize their opponents?

I'm saying that you are no better. You are apparently battling some strong demons and have no other constructive way to deal with your problems than to reciprocate in kind. With your own ism, one that seems to be all encompassing.

 

[Papageorgio]

You can't refute a thing so it's a troll thread. That isn't logic. The arguments you can't refute are not welcome here? LOL! More regressive logic.

It was a deliberate attempt at provoking people to make emotional responses. Debate about the meaning of the term regressive leftist was discouraged even though the several examples offered by the OP were not in harmony. The incessant self congratulatory nature of the OP is a quite revealing tell tale as to his intent. It is what it is.

Are you accusing me of being regressive?

If you are part of the Progressive political movement, you are a regressive. Regressive's, fall back on isms to advance his agenda. Using divisiveness to advance an agenda, demonizing you opponent, an all or nothing attitude without debate, it is regressive. Look at global warming, look at marriage, look at the restroom debate. If you question, you are called a fool, an idiot, a racist, a sexist a homophobe. That hatred of an opposing position is very evident.

Many times in this thread the regressive will condemn Christianity as a threat to peace. It is the intolerance of the regressive that is a real threat to peace. The mere fact that the White House refused to deal with real terrorist attacks and wanted to label as something entirely different was eye opening. The avoidance of the word terrorists when referring to actual terrorists was mind numbing.

Last year a when the convention with cartoon characters that were made to look like Muhammad were attacked by terrorists, this nation with the freedom of expression condemned the artists. A few years back when a cross was put into a jar of urine, it was freedom of expression, why the change? Why is one allowed to make fun and blaspheme one group, but we aren't allowed to make fun and blaspheme another.

I wouldn't support either artists for what they did, I would support the freedom to do so.

True progressives and liberals, encouraged debate and diversity of opinion, not today. That is why they are regressive.

Oh joy, another definition of the regressive left. It seems your fall back "ism" is a catchall, that must be convenient.

Are you saying, that the use of isms is not used by the left to demonize their opponents? Trump supporters are racist. The GOP are all sexist, Trump and his supporters are sexist. The GOP hate blacks, the GOP hates Mexicans, the GOP hates the environment. No debate, no latitude. If you are against man made climate change, you are for big oil, you are an imbecile, you are... If you don't agree with BLM, you are a racist, believe marriage is between a man and a woman, you are a homophobe, you believe in religion, you are a moron. It is pretty cut and dry.

The Progressives encourage debate, they encourage dialogue. If you are, then you are a regressive. When questioned on Benghazi, Clinton said, "What does it matter? In other words, don't question her and her authority.

And you have no real answers, so you deflect. You refuse to address the issue, you don't want to debate it, you want to minimize and squash it.

Today's Progressives practice regressive politics, don't like it? Then talk to them.

Are you saying, that the use of isms is not used by the left to demonize their opponents?

I'm saying that you are no better. You are apparently battling some strong demons and have no other constructive way to deal with your problems than to reciprocate in kind. With your own ism, one that seems to be all encompassing.

I didn't claim to be any better than anyone else. I didn't claim that one race or sex is better, I'm saying that the regressive left is not open to discuss anything that doesn't fit their ideals and their opinions.

By you saying I reciprocate in kind means that at least the regressives do use the tactics I brought out. Which is at least a start.

 

[Papageorgio]

Isn't this about the regressive left? Not sure why women and religion are now the topic. Sounds like a topic on another thread, it's way off topic in this thread..

Yep, another great example of the point of the thread.

Too many examples now to count.
..

You made the connection between Islam (religion), women's rights and regressive leftists in the OP.

Unfortunately this is all you are willing to tolerate in your thread.

What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling.

I agree with you though in that this thread has been very informative and I thank you for that.

C'mon people, save your reasoned debate for threads intended for such. Your arguments are not welcome here.

You can't refute a thing so it's a troll thread. That isn't logic. The arguments you can't refute are not welcome here? LOL! More regressive logic.

It was a deliberate attempt at provoking people to make emotional responses. Debate about the meaning of the term regressive leftist was discouraged even though the several examples offered by the OP were not in harmony. The incessant self congratulatory nature of the OP is a quite revealing tell tale as to his intent. It is what it is.

Are you accusing me of being regressive?

Agreed. And the emotional responses have come from the OP and his dog ma junkie.

I just love the irony.

Ravi agreeing with the left then minimizing those on the right. No discussion, just more of the regressive left intolerance. Thanks Ravi.

 

[Mac1958]

I think it's the use of the term "Regressive Left" that has caused them to go bananas.

And much worse, that the term comes from honest liberals.

And the fact that honest liberals brought up this topic long before me, adds to it even more.

Ouch!
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Still not getting why you need to lie but still not surprised that you do

Your exact words in response to the google search I listed was this, you silly little person:

18 million references from RWNJ sites that have brainwashed you with their dogma is worth nada.

 

[Valerie]

wacky mac and his sackless pack of apes are expert at going bananas.

that's what is happening here...



Hillary Clinton explained on Sunday that she won't use the term "radical Islam" because it "sounds like we are declaring war against a religion."

"It doesn't do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people," Clinton said.

"No. 2, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying, 'We are in a war against the West -- you must join us,'" she said.

Hillary Clinton explains why she won't say 'radical Islam' - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Mac1958]

wacky mac and his sackless pack of apes are expert at going bananas.

that's what is happening here...



Hillary Clinton explained on Sunday that she won't use the term "radical Islam" because it "sounds like we are declaring war against a religion."

"It doesn't do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people," Clinton said.

"No. 2, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying, 'We are in a war against the West -- you must join us,'" she said.

Hillary Clinton explains why she won't say 'radical Islam' - CNNPolitics.com

Is this supposed to destroy the premise of the thread or something?



And thanks for the personal insults and name-calling, more good stuff.
.

 

[Valerie]

Religious freedom is one of America's most fundamental liberties, and a central principle upon which our nation was founded. Unfortunately, though, throughout America's history, almost every religious group has been the target of discrimination at one point or another. Tolerance and fairness have generally prevailed, but only after principled voices have transcended prejudice and hatred.

Most recently, Muslim communities in the U.S. have faced a disturbing wave of bigotry and outright hostility. From religiously motivated discrimination and attacks on existing and proposed Islamic centers to vicious rhetoric from presidential candidates, Muslims in America are being unfairly targeted simply for exercising their basic constitutional right to religious liberty.

We must always — especially in times of controversy — vigilantly uphold our core values. When we violate one group's freedom, everyone's liberty is at stake. And the ACLU will continue to defend the civil rights of everyone in our country.

Protecting the Religious Freedom of Muslims




“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

If our Founding Fathers had meant for “freedom of religion” to mean only Christianity, I’m pretty sure that would have been specified.

Explaining "Freedom of Religion" for Those Who Seem Unable to Understand What it Means - Forward Progressives

 

[Mac1958]

Perfect!