Do you enjoy critical research ?

by Introvert 2 30 Replies latest social entertainment

• 

  MeanMrMustard

  What's going to happen to the UK if it becomes Muslim majority in the future?

  I think that the majority Muslim population, since they aren’t likely to embrace Western values, would become more militant, Sharia law would be implemented, and the UK would descend into tyranny... unless the Brits can remember their classical liberal heritage.
  

  The reason: Islam is a LEFTIST ideology. It’s a collectivist, authoritarian structure.
  

  Do you think that the personal beliefs of the Muslims might impact the laws at some point?

  Yes. See above. There is no separation between Mosque and state. For Islam, the Mosque is the state, one in the same.

  I'm concerned about people's personal beliefs AND governmental law, because one impacts the other.

  Right, ok. The point that I have been trying to make: there are certain foundational ways of looking at the world that characterize “left” and “right”. It is not universal. They do NOT align with political parties exactly. And it is the “leftist” viewpoint that you should be scared of, not religion per-se.
  

  Of all the authoritarian regimes of the last 100 years, how many have been secular and how many have been religious? Mao, Pol Pot, Soviet Union, Hitler even - these were all secular in nature, were they not? We already touched on Islam - so that’s one on the religious side. We all came from the JW cult. Pretty authoritarian - in its own bubble. JWs are not trying to get ahold of law to force others into their perspective.
  

  The point here is not to try to promote religious thinking over secular thinking. Rather, just to point out that you can still end up in the same type of authoritarian hell with atheists at the wheel. The difference is left vs right. The farther left, the more comfortable you get losing the individual to the collective, and using the force of law, of the government, to enforce some sort of uniformity. Fundamental rights like freedom of association, speech, private property - all are optional to the left.

  You can also get Republicans wanting to force religious norms with law - completely agree. But to me, that’s a person claiming to be on the right, indulging in leftist thinking... it’s shortsighted at best.
  

  Again, that’s the way I see the continuum... so that it operates like a continuum.
  
• 

  OneGenTwoGroups

  Of all the authoritarian regimes of the last 100 years, how many have been secular and how many have been religious? Mao, Pol Pot, Soviet Union, Hitler even - these were all secular in nature, were they not?

  As Hitch reminded audiences many times and schooled religious devotees about is obvious in history books around the world ... the people that did the bidding of these evil leaders were religious, they weren't secular. Sorry, parroting Christian fundamentalist talking points / propaganda to hate on atheism with doesn't work on me.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKuJ1vwMWk
• 

  OneGenTwoGroups

  Fundamental rights like freedom of association, speech, private property - all are optional to the left.

  If that is the case, I'm definitely not "left" leaning at all, I must be full "right", and what is more, I've never talked to a single person that is "left".
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  As Hitch reminded audiences many times and schooled religious devotees about is obvious in history books around the world ... the people that did the bidding of these evil leaders were religious, they weren't secular. Sorry, parroting Christian fundamentalist talking points / propaganda to hate on atheism with doesn't work on me.

  We are not too far off from each other, OGTG. But I think you are missing the point. I said explicitly in the previous post, the purpose of bringing up secular evils is not, repeat not, to promote a religious point of view over an atheist point of view. Or to argue, as the gentleman opposite of Hitchens was arguing, that the lack of religion was the cause of the atrocities. I’m not saying that at all. I’m an atheist too.
  

  What I am saying is that the left vs right divide is independent of theism vs atheism, Democrat vs Republican, etc. I do not think the lack of religion was the cause of authoritarian regimes, as if all that was needed to prevent these atrocities was Jesus. But I am also saying that the lack of religion wouldn’t have prevented it either. That’s where it sounds like you were going with your line of thought - if religion is eradicated, then all is well. If you have a thriving environment of leftist thinking, you’ll end up in the same spot, the only difference being the justification for the tyranny.
  

  If that is the case, I'm definitely not "left" leaning at all, I must be full "right", and what is more, I've never talked to a single person that is "left".

  I don’t think most people are leftists. Have you talked to anyone that thinks “hate speech” is a form speech that can and should be banned? Have you talked to anyone that agrees with The Green New Deal? Have you talked to anyone that thinks health care is a right (as opposed to an entitlement)? Just take a gander at the Democrat line up this election cycle.
  
• 

  Vidiot

  I don't subscribe to the idea that an irreligious society is inherently better, either.

  Personally, I've come to suspect that authoritarian leaders like Stalin don't necessarily lead "secular" political movements because they personally subscribe to the ideology...

  ...but rather because the movement was a convenient vehicle to use in their rise to power.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @V:

  Exactly. I don’t think this type of collectivist think is tightly causally bound to religion, or to atheism.

  It’s an independent line, generally “left”.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Christopher Hitchens: 'Did millions die because of 20th century atheism?' - no, I don't think so.

  Millions died in the 20th century because of communism. Communist regimes were secular.

  Those millions of people weren't killed in the name of atheism, but in the name of socialism and communism.

  As Hitch reminded audiences many times and schooled religious devotees about is obvious in history books around the world ... the people that did the bidding of these evil leaders were religious, they weren't secular - this seems like an oversimplification that I don't necessarily agree with.

  The truth is that secular regimes killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.
  
• 

  Vidiot

  LoveUni - "Those millions of people weren't killed in the name of atheism, but in the name of socialism and communism."

  An important distinction.

  And even then...

  ...in the end, deep down... all extremists are about the Group.

  Not the Cause.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  ...in the end, and deep down... all extremists are about the Group. - of course.

  I disagree with Hitchens, here.

  Mao, Stalin and others weren't acting on some kind of religious impulse, IMO.

  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. That's it. It's not a set of values for societies to live by or for governments to implement.

  Mao massacred 60 million of his own citizens neither in the name of religion nor in the name of atheism. He massacred those people in the name of his political ideology.

  We should blame religion when religious regimes kill people in the name of their religion.

  We can't blame religion when secular regimes kill people. This is what Hitchens appears to be doing and I disagree with him.

  Of course, we also can't blame atheism when secular regimes kill people, either.
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  We should blame religion when religious regimes kill people in the name of their religion. We can't blame religion when secular regimes kill people.

  Right. This still seems to be something deeper. The pretext doesn’t matter, it’s the foundational viewpoint - which I generally would call “left”. Deprecation of the individual, a focus on the collective, a subjective view of rights (whatever the group decides), etc.