Liberalism and Islam

I have been thinking about the coziness between Liberalism and Islam, which became evident about twenty seconds after the jihad attack on the World Trade Center, and now drives policy in the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Scandinavia.  A pair of complementary questions put themselves that I propose for a general discussion.

Does Liberalism embrace Islam, knowing that Islam is a religion and despite its active hostile attitude towards religion, as conceived by it categorically, solely because Liberalism has more animus against Christianity than it does towards Islam and therefore sees Islam as an ally in its campaign against Christianity?

Or…

Does Liberalism ally itself with Islam because it senses that Islam is not a religion, but is rather a secular ideology, utterly hostile to anything transcendent,  just like itself, and is therefore its perfect ally in the campaign against Christianity?

94 thoughts on “Liberalism and Islam

  1. Pingback: Liberalism and Islam | Neoreactive

    • What is the evidence that Islam is theistic? What Islamic behaviors in fourteen centuries suggest that Islam is anything except a secular ideology? What theism needs a rule, taqqiya, that directs its adherents to lie to outsiders about doctrine? Did Greek and Roman polytheists feel an obligation to lie about their beliefs? Are Unitarians, the Liberals par excellence, Christians? Do they claim to be Christians? If so, are they lying? If Muslims are lying, how does one know that they are theists? Why is it that the claim of Three-in-One incites murderous hostility from Muslims? The namesake Cassiodorus was not a monotheist; he was a Trinitarian, after the Nicene Creed, who was profoundly dedicated to Pagan, that is polytheistic, learning.

      • “What evidence is there tha Islam is theistic.”

        The first pillar of Islam- “There is no God but God.”

      • If you think Islam is not religious, you must not know any Muslims.

        Josh: See my reply to Bruce below. (TFB)

      • Desiring a worldy murderous annihilation in order to obtain an eternity of maximum sexual pleasure all under order of a radically autonomous “god” seems downright anti-religious.

  2. The two have in common their anti-Christian outlook, if you will; they are, therefore, allies.
    It matters little if the left sees Islam as religious or not; either way, it is a useful battering ram.

    • Pragmatically, from a purely secular point-of-view, it might “matter little.” Metaphysically (and we here at The Orthosphere are metaphysical), it is massively relevant. The question whether Islam is true is the same as the question whether Islam is a religion, rather than a secular ideology. Why, for example, is not Buddhism or Baha’i or Subud a “useful battering ram”?

      • To whom is it massively relevant? If it is a religion, it is a false religion. If it is more a secular ideology, it is in a league with all other totalitarian systems. Neither Buddhism, Baha’i, nor Subud (?) have a 1400 year history of bloody conquest, nor do their members number in the hundreds of millions as do the adherents of Islam, and therefore, they could hardly join forces with leftist liberals to persecute the true church in any threatening degree as does Islam.

        Islam is useful to the left. Both the left and Islam are deluded and blinded by their hatred of God. Does it matter to us the metaphysics of it? And if so, why?

        Debra: It matters because we are interested in truth. (TFB)

      • What I’m getting at is that, within the gnostic second reality, everything except God and the things of God, have ‘transcendent’ potential, transcendence being that part of things in the world which are or can be made to be political. Regardless of whether Islam ‘is true’ or might, at some level, contain a truth or truths, it seems to me that the gnostic age has given it a definition — life — within the scope of their second reality. I doubt if Liberals approve of ‘Islam’, rather they approve of it as they have defined it or, to put it another way, they love it as God loves the world. They created the second reality and everything in it.

      • Well, sorry but there’s a bit more. I’m arguing that it doesn’t matter whether liberals see Islam as a kindred ideology or a useful ally because they do not see the same Islam that we see. They have created something that pleases them and call it Islam. I would suggest that when Muslims oppress women, liberals see ‘bad behavior’, ‘naughty behavior’ but the naughtiness does not diminish the love liberals feel for Islam, their child. Liberals love Christianity with the same zeal but it is not the Christianity that you and I know. I’ll quit now and thanks.

  3. Islam and Liberalism are both fundamentally desirous of radical sexual autonomy while simultaneously virulently opposed to genuine white Supremacy.

  4. Groups like the Islamic State have all the quintessential characteristics of a Gnostic theo-political movement bent on trying to immanentize the (Islamic) eschaton. Much like the Puritans of old, modern Islamists are allied with and promoted by the centers of wealth in the Middle East, much like how the Roundhead strongholds were in London and other areas of commerce. Other similarities include iconoclasm, a lack of an authoritative clerical hierarchy and relatively novel theology. So despite all the talk of modern Islamism as being a “throw back” to the 7th Century, it is part an parcel of modernity. At worst, Western Liberalism sees it as a competitor.

    • Protestants would argue, of course, that the novel theology is that of the Roman Church with its extra-biblical tradition, and that (part of) the point of the Reformation was to restore biblical theology to the Church.

      • You think the Puritans represented a restoration of “biblical theology” to the Church?

      • The Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus that met in 431 is my favorite one to surprise Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox with because it shows the that council’s Fathers believes something that Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox reject, the belief that an ecumenical council can teach infallible. Here are that council’s documents in Calvin College’s Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.i.html). Calvin College is, by the way, a Protestant school.

      • Of course, ISE. The Westminster Divines—the men who compiled the Westminster Confession of Faith—were an extraordinarily erudite group, and there were other impressive Puritans as well. Their writings help us understand the teachings of the Bible, free of Roman accretions. The New England Puritans were not up to the same standards, but they were still much better people than popular culture gives them credit for.

        Mr. McEnaney, thank you for that. I did not know that that particular error was so old.

      • free of Roman accretions.

        Like celebrating Christmas?

        The Puritan-revolutionaries were not returning to “Biblical theology” (whatever that means) they instituted a gnostic cult-system that still reverberates around the world today. This followed logically from the system they set up with their absurd doctrine of Bibliolatry. Eric Voegelin famously and correctly diagnosed the problem:

        If a movement like the Puritan, relies on the authority of a literary source, the leaders will have to fashion ‘the very notions and conceits of men’s minds in such sort’ that the followers will automatically associate scriptural passages and terms with their doctrine, however ill founded the association may be, and that with equal automatism they will be blind to the content of Scripture.

        As I said we are forced to live with rotten fruits of that “erudite group” of revolutionaries, as the Orthosphere’s own Prof. Bertonneau:

        The cultural continuity of the North American continent after the European advent in the early Seventeenth Century is consistent, even irrepressible. The ideological descendants of the Puritans, who were also famously the witch-burners so beloved by propagandists of the Left, are modern liberals and Leftists in all their guises, including the incipient feminists of 1848, the eugenicists of the 1920s and 30s, and the deconstructing marxisant Islamophile aschemiolators and ardent Christophobes of our present situation. In the early Nineteenth Century the Puritan spirit ensconced itself in Western New York State, where, in the “Burned Over District,” it spawned the Gnostic outbreaks of the Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day Adventism, the Oneida Society, and various splinter-groups of Fourierist socialism, as satirized by Nathaniel Hawthorne in The Blithedale Romance. The most traditional part of North America above the Mexican border until recently was Quebec, French and Catholic in its origins, and largely agricultural in its habits, but even there the new Puritans now have their way.

        http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/11/thanksgiving-mythology/

        I used to actually think that some of the neo-reactionaries were too hard on Protestantism, but not anymore.

      • Boys, boys! Can’t we put aside our differences for one post to focus some hatred on the Muslims?

      • Sorry for the double post. If anyone wants to delete this and the first comment that would simplify the thread.

      • Yes, yes, ISE, we all know you believe that Protestantism is responsible for liberalism, for the heartbreak of psoriasis, and for all else that plagues the world, yadda yadda yadda. As long we’re quoting Roman Catholics, here’s another one, G.K. Chesterton:

        “The French Revolution is of Christian origin. The newspaper is of Christian origin. The anarchists are of Christian origin. Physical science is of Christian origin. The attack on Christianity is of Christian origin. There is one thing, and one thing only, in existence at the present day which can in any sense accurately be said to be of pagan origin, and that is Christianity.”

        The Roman Church is being rotted from the inside out by liberalism; the Roman Church is spreading liberal ideology wherever it is. Not such a good bulwark against, or antidote to, liberalism, then is it?

        Oh, and we Protestants are not bibliolatrous. We recognize the Bible as God’s word, ascribing to Scripture the same authority Jesus did (as can be seen by His repeated quotation of Scripture). Maybe if you made the same sort of sincere effort that Bonald did to understand Protestantism, you wouldn’t make such ridiculous mistakes.

      • Yes, yes, ISE, we all know you believe that Protestantism is responsible for liberalism, for the heartbreak of psoriasis, and for all else that plagues the world, yadda yadda yadda

        Oh not just me WM. I have been saying all along that many of your fellow brethren rather proudly take credit for spawning liberalism. Maybe you were too busy putting your fingers in your ears going yadda yadda yadda to have heard? That seems to be your standard tactic.

        As a good example of this consider the writer “Brad LittleJohn” and his work on the Calvinist two kingdoms theology: http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/kingdoms-guide-perplexed-pt-5-hooker-locke/

        I can assure he’s not an anti-Calvinist “bigot.” He seems to me be both a committed Calvinist and very well informed in Western political thought, though of course I disagree on a lot of things. I guess though he’s just in the business of making “ridiculous mistakes.”

        Excerpt: What is especially noteworthy is that Locke methodically lays out a theological argument for his view of civic order first, and then follows with the political consequence. And his theological principles are remarkably evocative of the early Protestant distinctions of the civic and the spiritual kingdoms. Locke will quote Hooker often and reverently throughout his career, and in his 1689 Letter on Toleration his principles are directly reminiscent of Luther and Hooker throughout.

        So we see that the Reformation theme of the two kingdoms continued to direct some of the foremost minds of the 17th century, and through them, would have an immense effect on the modern age.

        Then there is this tripe:

        The Roman Church is being rotted from the inside out by liberalism; the Roman Church is spreading liberal ideology wherever it is. Not such a good bulwark against, or antidote to, liberalism, then is it?

        You and Roebuck keep repeating this silly argument as though it were really devastating. It’s not. Liberalism has completely triumphed there is no religion and really no place on earth that is not infected. This says nothing* about its origins which come out a specific place and time. It was not overtly hostile to Protestantism the way it was Catholicism (or Islam). Protestants worked with and supported liberal regimes, Catholics fought them and were usually in the end slaughtered by them. Big difference.

        This comment is particularly stupid: s spreading liberal ideology wherever it is.

        Some of the most Catholic countries (Poland, Philippines & Croatia) are (along with Islam) the only places really resisting liberalism. I’m sure this will only hold up until American missionaries go there and bring “freedom” of course. All the areas Protestantism and where Calvinism especially took root are moral ulcers on the face of the earth- (Britain, Holland, Scandinavia, New England, South Africa). Who’s to blame for this? Are you going to try to claim Mexican immigrants did it?

        Maybe if you made the same sort of sincere effort that Bonald did to understand Protestantism, you wouldn’t make such ridiculous mistakes.

        This coming from someone who reflexively lashes out at Catholics even when it was non-Calvinist Protestants criticizing his sect and who claimed that Catholics think the Church Fathers “authored the Bible.”

    • “I did not know that that particular error was so old.”

      In general, if distinctively Catholic beliefs are errors, then they are very old errors.

      • The part in which an ecumenical council teaches infallibly(circumcision).;) I’m not trying to convince you, I’m sure you have your other explanations.

      • You mean Acts 15, Josh? I don’t see anything about infallible teaching; what I do see is Luke recording how one of the misunderstandings that arose, in this case, Jewish ritual vs. new Christian reality, was resolved.

  5. While cozying up to each other in the west with the leftists employing Islam as their boots on the ground to effect destruction of western civilization. They are equally destroying and hollowing out Islam from within by progressive evangelism chiefly through universities and other channels of progressive infection through western media facilitated also through through female literacy. Their women live western lifestyles behind closed doors while acting like good muslims in public.

    The declining birth rates of Dar-al-Islam testify to their success as well as the rise of islamic fundamentalism in reaction to that.

  6. In other words, both Islam and Liberalism are the “creations” of the homosexual “nature” absolutely averse to and thus necessarily destructive towards the worship of The Perfect Man.

    Both Islam and Liberalism are anti-Supremacy. Self-annihilators who have overcome the biological barrier in the perpetuation of their self-annihilating ideologies.

  7. Pingback: Liberalism and Islam | Reaction Times

  8. This may be a little more nuanced than many people realize, and it gets complicated depending on what facets of Modern liberalism you are talking about.

    1) The general public and the lower echelons of the liberal elite, entertainers for example, do not like Muslims. Some will make that clear like Bill Maher, but most will parrot the liberal line because they are scared to death of the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ a modern thought crime which in many countries has become as career-destroying as ‘homophobia’. For these people who are typically of low intelligence, it is simply a matter of fear. Not so much of Muslim reprisals as this is vastly overstated as a threat, but of high-liberal reprisals.

    2) So why do the upper echelons of the liberal elite, politicians, bureaucrats, professional social justice warriors, and the like have such an affinity for these foreign religionists? Well, there are a few reasons.

    – Liberals do not have an expansive view of history. Nothing that occurred before the Enlightenment, and in many cases, before 1900 is real to them, its a kind of distant fantasy totally irrelevant to the world today. Any drawing of evidence from an older time is useless on a liberal.

    – Anything liberals will accept as knowledge from the past is always tilted against their own Traditions, so they will look at the crusades and see a horrific democide committed by evil Christians rather than a justified military campaign against hostile armies that attacked Christendom.

    – At least in Europe, Muslims are a reliable demographic bloc for the left. If you will vote for the far leftists, then they will typically come to your defense, ignoring your faults and trumpeting your achievements. This demographic strategy has been key for many European leftist parties who expanded Islamic immigration in the early 00s.

    – Finally, the biggest factor for upper echelon liberals, RACE. Liberals despise the history of white Europeans, even post-Enlightenment, and see white Europeans as a force for evil even when they themselves are white Europeans. Muslims is synonymous in the liberal mind with Arab (hence why ‘Islamophobia’ and racism are often interchangeable for the liberal). Liberals simply cannot hold any group perceived to be an ethnic minority accountable for their actions. You see this in America with blacks, and in Europe with Muslims. Any bad actions are “not representative” of the whole community, the acts of madmen, or even worse the result of generational disenfranchisement perpetrated by whites who must now pay for their sins.

    Now that we understand the motivations, its important to note this dynamic is breaking down somewhat. Criticism of Islam has become more acceptable in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, particularly among the hard left who are waking up to a fundamentalist threat to liberalism itself. Of course, they see Christianity always as a greater threat since Christians did once ruled all of Europe and Muslims only ruled a small portion of it. Islam is going to see its freedom restricted soon as it is close to raging out of control and liberalism cannot allow that. Remember, the victims of many Islamic reprisal attacks have been leftists rather than Christians.

  9. Prof. Bertonneau,
    I definitely do not think it’s the latter. I think it’s because Islam is alien and the religion of exotic, brown people. Larry Auster used to write about how liberalism encourages the replacement of the vertically transcendent (God) with the horizontally transcendent. The more alien (culturally, racially, etc.) the more god-like they are.

    • If transcendence were necessarily “vertical,” that is, at ninety degrees to the world, would not the notion of “horizontal transcendence” be a contradiction in terms? Of course, a deliberate contradiction in terms might be descriptively useful. Being equally oriented to “horizontal transcendence” neither Islam nor Liberalism would qualify as religions although their adherents might well express their purely secular convictions and yearnings in religious-seeming words and deeds, as indeed they do. Muslims and Liberals might be passionate and even fanatical in their cause. See Ita Scripta’s remarks above.

      PS. It just occurred to me that the prayer-posture of the Mohammedans is significant of “horizontal transcendence.” The followers of the “perfect man” do not pray in the old mythic direction of the heavens, but in the direction of a geographical place.

      • I guess I shouldn’t get caught up in phrases so forget horizontal and vertical transcendence. I guess Auster’s point was that when people don’t worship God they find a substitute. When they find a substitute in other people, the more alien the other people, the more that natural desire to worship God is (seemingly) fulfilled.

  10. ” utterly hostile to anything transcendent”

    I thought in Islam Allah was utterly and entirely transcendent. Not knowable. Not incarnate and joined to his creation. All transcendence and will.

    • Allah, as characterized in the Koran, is so remote and unknowable that his transcendence cancels itself. It is not a type of transcendence in which one can participate. Josh asked earlier in the thread whether I knew any Muslims. I know one nostalgically cultural Muslim who is in fact a completely secular person, a bureaucrat, and philosophically a materialist. I know another who is full of passion, but his passion is entirely focused on imitating the “perfect man,” Mohammed. He invokes Allah because Mohammed invoked Allah, but it is a reflexive formula purely. The same bloke is also, like his secular counterpart, a materialist. He wants tangible chattels and believes that the behavior of the “perfect man” sanctions their acquisition by pretty much any means. My suspicion is that the Western pre-modern designation of “Mohammedanism” is a better name for whatever Islam is, than “Islam.”

      According to Mohammedan theology,everything that happens is willed by Allah and there are no secondary causes. This too is self-cancelling. The cosmology implied by the theology is hardly any different from the materialist cosmology of Epicurus and Lucretius. Morally on the other hand there is a vast difference between Mohammedanism and Epicureanism, the latter being pacifistic and anti-imperial.

      • Infowarrior1, that sounds like a criticism from someone who may need to learn more about Catholics mean by “tradition.” Many Protestants quote a New Testament passage about “traditions of men” out of context. In that passage about “traditions of men, ” Our Lord is scolding people who give the Temple money to avoid supporting their parents with it.

        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15&version=RSV

      • That’s true. But then if tradition contradicts scripture doesn’t it render that “tradition” suspect?

        If tradition is true. Then it certainly is consistent and non-contradictory to scripture.

      • Not necessarily, Mr. McEaney. The passage from Mark you refer to is not so limited in its scope.

        And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”‘ (that is, given to God)—then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
        —Mark 7:6-13

        Notice the last line: And many such things you do. Surely this condemnation cannot be limited to those who fail to honor their parents; surely Isaiah was not prophesying about the practice of making things Corban and nothing else. Isaiah 29:13, and also, therefore, what Jesus said, applies equally to other practices that are commandments of men, such as the ritual washing mentioned in Mark immediately before the passage quoted above.

        Consider also Matthew 23, in which Jesus excoriates the Pharisees for their traditions. It is all unbiblical practice, not just failing to honor one’s parents, that Jesus condemned.

  11. I think your first formulation is correct: liberals see Muslims as doing their dirty work, wreaking havoc, committing the murder and mayhem necessary to bring western civilization down. Muslims are the useful storm troopers, willing to undertake the actual physical assaults that liberals themselves are too craven to commit. Of course liberals rarely think of what should happen next. Once Christianity is completely deracinated from the West, they are supremely confident of their ability to subdue and subjugate Islam. But I think it will be quite the contest to see who gets to send whom to the gulags.

    • The two theses are not mutually exclusive. Liberals could see Muslims as their “useful storm troopers, willing to undertake the actual physical assaults that liberals themselves are too craven to commit” (they do!) and they could sense that Islam is something other than a religion, or at least something other than a normal religion, and in this way quite as irreligious and materialistic as Liberalism itself.

  12. Zippy’s comment was interesting. My attitude towards Islam has changed somewhat of late- I’ve been reading Muslim thinkers, both modern and pre- modern. Rumi and Avicenna especially, but also Henry Corbin and Martin Lings. The disconnect between their writings and modern politicized Islam is staggering.

    • Rumi, whose name has a non-Islamic connotation, was a mystic and contemplative in the Neo-Platonic vein; Avicenna was an Aristotelian. Both were Persian, as I recall. I suspect that both were marginal in their day, which would explain the “disconnect” that you cite.

      Do any of the present-day Islamic preachers cite Avicenna or Rumi? As for Rumi, I imagine that his readership is massively Western.

      René Guénon, whose critique of modernity is absolutely essential to my point of view, was a late-in-life convert to Sufism, which, like Rumi’s cult of poetic mysticism, reflects Late-Antique Pagan religiosity.

      • It may be that Avicenna has had a bigger influence on the West by way of his Christian disciple Thomas Aquinas.

  13. Actually, Jalal ad-Din Rumi, Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) were all significant figures in their day- and yes, steeped in Platonism and Aristotelianism. Rumi, the bhaktic mystic, is the darling of the New Age, though they conveniently regard Sufism as distinct from Islam. As I understand, Islam (and then the Eastern Roman Empire) basically mid-wifed the Greek intellectual tradition to Western Christendom. Corbin and Lings are 20th century thinkers, Corbin a neo-Platonist and Lings, a student of CS Lewis. As far as contemporary Islamic scholars go, I would say Seyed Hossain Nasr stands out as the most important Avicenna and Rumi “preacher”.

    • It’s a bit off -topic, but the old story that benighted Europeans had to learn about Plato and Aristotle from the Muslims, supposing that it was ever plausible, has been roundly disproved, most recently by Sylvain Gouguenheim in Aristote au Mont Saint-Michel: Les racines grecques de l’Europe Chrétienne (Seuil, 2008). [Aristotle at Mont Saint-Michel: the Greek Roots of Christian Europe.] There was no radical discontinuity in the Western European knowledge of the Classical Tradition, whether Roman or Greek. Such gaps as existed (Greek drama, for example) were filled in, not by Muslims, but by Orthodox Christians, whose Eastern Roman Empire lasted until the Fifteenth Century, before being obliterated by You-Know-Who.

  14. Amongst rival self-annihilators is the appearance of an alliance that does not interfere with each other’s primary initiative: annihilation –> reward –> annihilation. The Muslim seeks annihilation for reward and the Liberal seeks reward for annihilation. This symbiotic regression “looks” like alliance. It is really just two junkies damn near euphoria. So “we” have a mutual desire for annihilation only differentiated by the ordering and particular conception of the reward (radical sexual autonomy) and the mechanisms of perpetuation. And it is in these mechanisms of perpetuation that “we” observe the “struggle” between Islam and the West. In the Muslim world, perpetuation of murderous self-annihilators, i.e., the jihadist (the only “act”-or that stands as definitive proof of conversion to Islam) is done by sheer prolific breeding and only subsequently by propaganda. In Liberalism, the perpetuation of self-annihilators is pure brainwashing and sexual perverting. The biological obstacle is technologically obsolete. The only question is how do “we” operate in this milieu? “Our” enemies are self-annihilators in “perfect harmony” with each other’s end game.

  15. Both Islam and Liberalism owes its relative “success” to the sexual proclivity of its core adherents which amounts to an insatiable sexual appetite. There are no head-on collisions between two sides of the same coin. Both Liberalism and Islam serve as “blue prints” to satisfy insatiable sexual appetites before or after the self-annihilation of the adherent.

  16. The alliance between Jews, Muslims, and liberals is certainly interesting. Their affinity for the far Left highlights the fact that Judaism and Islam are very different from Christianity. You may also recall my post on Judeo-Islamic universalism from some time ago, in which I quoted historians claiming that particularism/tribalism/hierarchy are distinctly Christian vices (at least among monotheists). I think it comes down to us emphasizing different aspects of our common Old Testament inheritance. Islam and post-temple Judaism are prophetic religions above all else. Their experience of transcendence is tied up with a gnostic hostility to the world and social order. Christianity is a religion of substitutionary blood sacrifice, a continuation of the pre-prophetic Judaism instituted by Moses, our experience of the divine mediated sacramentally by the visible world. Our instinct is to consecrate the temporal order rather than overthrow it. We are as naturally conservative as they are naturally revolutionary. One might say that Christianity is paganism’s last stand, and if it falls nothing humble and human will be able to withstand the zealotry of the Judeo-Islamo-secular ideologues.

    • The question whether Mohammedanism is Gnostic is an important one. Two strong influences on Koranic theology, Monophysitism and Sabellianism, were Christian heresies with Gnostic characteristics.

    • I’m not really sure the alliance of Jews and Muslims with the left requires any particularly fancy explanation: Catholics have tended to vote left too when they’re in the minority.

      • There is absolutely nothing like the revolutionary/communist zealotry of the Jews seen anywhere among minority Catholics. The only way you can claim something so odd is by equating committed radicalism with voting for ambiguous center-Leftists like the New Deal democrats, but voting is not the main thing I’m talking about. (Catholics despise voting anyway.) Anyway, the Catholic hierarchy is *always and everywhere* regarded as a reactionary force, no matter how tiny a minority Catholics are. Real Leftist never work with us, nor we with them.

        In fact, the difference between Catholic minorities and Jewish/Muslim minorities is the strongest imaginable evidence for my contention.

      • Catholics and Jews were both minorities in mid 20th-century America. Jews ran the communist party. Catholics ran the Legion of Decency. Very different minorities. And it’s pretty clear to me that when Muslims come to a country, they act by instinct more like Jews than like Catholics. And where’s the country in which the Left has the same attitude toward Jews, Muslims, and Catholics? America is swarming with low-income, white-resenting hispanics, while the Jews are overall extremely wealthy, and the Left still hates Catholicism.

      • There is absolutely nothing like the revolutionary/communist zealotry of the Jews seen anywhere among minority Catholics.

        I agree, but the left did use Catholic Emancipation in English-speaking countries for its own ends, regardless of the fact they later hate them. They did the same for Protestants in Catholic countries (or at least France, as I know French Protestants were largely in favor of the Revolution). They do this because it’s an easy starting place: Catholics and Protestants share much more in common with each other, so the left-wing infiltrators of one can garner sympathy for the other group by what an obvious injustice it is for Protestants to make Catholics second-class citizens and visa versa. Meanwhile, the other side is eager to finally be freed from the agent of their supposed oppression, and adopts liberalism in the process.

        Both are, ultimately, considered reactionary forces by them, though. We can see now with the success of the Progressives in the Mainline that the ultimate goal of such progressives is not really an invigorated Leftist Christianity (putting aside it’s another religion entirely for the moment), but rather the death of the Church as an institution, even one as void and meaningless as the United Church of Christ. The left will eventually turn on every institution that supports their advance. They are enemies of society, so it’s what they do.

        They are really rather brilliant in their use of the split in the dominant religion to cause Christians to eat each other even while they think they are growing closer together. It’s an illusion, at least for the time being. Maybe one day in the future the orthodox of both camps will be forced together, but I think it’s already too late for that to be much good in the near term.

      • Ted Kennedy, William Brennan and Michael Moore spring immediately to mind as counterexamples.

      • I would also note that (cultural) Catholics certainly don’t shy away from left wing craziness in majority Catholic countries: French Revolution, Spanish Civil War, Liberation theology.

      • > French Revolution, Spanish Civil War, Liberation theology

        Murderous anti-Catholics being Leftists supports my thesis.

      • And, finally, in my own fair country, French Canadians must stand up and take a hearty, hearty bow for promoting liberalism here.

      • > And, finally, in my own fair country, French Canadians must stand up and take a hearty, hearty bow for promoting liberalism here.

        After they repudiated Catholicism.

      • Massachusetts more generally exhibits this tendency.

        In South Korea, Catholics have generally been on the left.

      • Also, it’s important to note that Muslims in the West can’t really be characterized as left liberals either. They may be opposed to us as Christians, but they’re pretty reactionary themselves.

      • Jewish Leftists needn’t repudiate Judaism. One can reject the Mosaic Law (as most Jews do) and even belief in God (as many Jews do) while still strongly self-identifying as Jewish and maintaining a continuity of opinion regarding traditional gentile social structures. Beliefs do not hold the same role in Judaism as they do for Christianity, as any Jew will tell you. For a Catholic or Orthodox to become a Leftist, he must reject beliefs regarded as essential to meaningful membership in the Church. He must also repudiate his ancestors, declaring that they were wrong and their Masonic-Muslim-Jewish-socialist critics right. This is a much bigger identity shift than is required of Jews and Muslims, who get to keep on seeing their pre-Leftist ancestors as blameless victims.

      • The point being that Catholic culture, no less than Jewish culture, seems perfectly capable of generating leftists and liberals, virulent leftists and liberals, especially when Catholics are in the minority.

      • They are clearly an anti-Catholic rather than Catholic party. Is there any evidence they don’t realize this?

        Pro-sodomy ex-Christians hate their ancestors in a way pro-sodomy Jews don’t.

    • Jews who repudiate their ancestral beliefs eventually assimilate too and become indistinguishable from the rest of the population.

      The differences between Jews and minority Catholics are greatly exaggerated.

      • Greatly exaggerated? One group confesses Christ as Lord, Savior, the Godman and second person of the Holy Trinity. The other group confesses exactly zero of those things, and in fact goes to great lengths in its holy text to deny them and make slanderous lies about them. Not to mention Paul says of unbelieving Jews:

        What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

      • Nathan:

        It is pretty clear that denying Jesus does not of necessity lead to liberalism or secularism. Liberalism is not the only bad thing.

        The differences between Judaism and Catholicism in terms of their tendency to produce liberals, especially when they are a minority, their tendency to have people identify with them on a purely ethnic basis etc. etc. etc. are indeed greatly exaggerated. Since it was abundantly clear that that is what I was talking about, please read more carefully next time.

      • I think you must acknowledge, then, that Protestantism is equally capable of producing Leftists. Protestants have been just as, if not more, active in advancing left-wing causes both in Catholic countries and in their own countries. One need look no further than the utter disaster which is Mainline Protestantism in the United States. Orthodox belief is disappearing from those denominations.

        the differences between Judaism and Catholicism in terms of their tendency to produce liberals, especially when they are a minority, their tendency to have people identify with them on a purely ethnic basis etc. etc. etc. are indeed greatly exaggerated.

        The difference is that to be a liberal is to deny fundamental tenets of Christianity, Catholic or Protestant. In Judaism, this is not so. Even if they are Orthodox Jews, they are free to adopt liberalism for the Gentiles and peddle it on us. Roman Catholics, even though they do in fact help the left in Protestant countries, is fundamentally opposed to liberalism in a way Judaism is not.

      • I think you must acknowledge, then, that [Protestant cultures] are equally capable of producing Leftists.

        Obvious.

        The difference is that to be a liberal is to deny fundamental tenets of Christianity, Catholic or Protestant.

        No.

        Liberalism denies things that are not just incompatible with Christianity, but with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, paganism etc. etc. etc.

  17. Whilst initially they would appear strikingly opposed, Islam and the modern Left whilst make convenient bedfellows because they both demand utter submission to their dogma.

    Consider the Pope, who was widely lauded by progressives everywhere, until he made a mild comment about married couples forgoing children.

    The gay Dolce and Gabbana gentlemen have shown that just being gay is not in itself enough to warrant protected status to the modern leftist. You must adhere to the gay marriage and gay adoption narrative or you will be persecuted.

  18. I am sure we are all aware of James Burnham’s quote “Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide”. That is the nature of the relationship between Liberalism and Islam; the same as that between a mental illness and a suicide implement.

    • Because, by no normative definition can a religion be suicidal, neither Liberalism nor Islam can be a religion, although they might be fervent false religions – hence the second of my theses.

  19. By the logic that liberalism came after Protestantism and the two share some features, we could also blame Christianity in general for liberalism. It has been done. I mean, hey, why not?

  20. The reasons presented for the idea that Islam is not a religion are too cute by half, and, frankly, the idea is preposterous.

    I’d say the explanation, left out of the above options, is that liberals are totally clueless about religion. Liberals are not hostile towards religion in general, and tend to sentimentally interpret it as some combination of arbitrary group feeling and poetic gloss on liberalism. They are genuinely shocked and bewildered whenever they encounter the real deal, and tend to interpret that as either the result of some oppression or some weird power grab. This is doubly so when they encounter it among minorities: according to the liberal, fundamentalist Islam isn’t real Islam, but rather some distortion created by American or Israeli foreign policy or whatever.

    • Basically, liberals love minorities of whatever kind. Since they don’t have a freaking clue about religion, they are able to project whatever they want onto minority religions, and since a minority is a minority, they are able to excuse any bad behaviour on the minority religion’s part as due to oppression.

      Liberals in actual Islamic majority societies are certainly not in alliance with Islam. They hate it.

  21. There are some interesting and well informed comments here. My observation is simply that liberalism and Islam both seek to predominate. Liberalism does it through theft. Islam byway of destruction.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s