The term "Islamofascism" was introduced by... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-01-2006, 01:50 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:45 AM
The term "Islamofascism" was introduced by...

Quote:
'Islamofascism'
Beware of a religion without irony.

BY ROGER SCRUTON
Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The term "Islamofascism" was introduced by the French writer Maxine Rodinson (1915-2004) to describe the Iranian Revolution of 1978. Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as "fascist" any movement of which he disapproved. But we should be grateful to him for coining a word that enables people on the left to denounce our common enemy. After all, other French leftists--Michel Foucault, for example--had welcomed the revolution as an amusing threat to Western interests. It is only now that people on the left can acknowledge that they are just as much a target as the rest of us, in a war that has global chaos as its goal.

The word has therefore caught on, not least because it provides a convenient way of announcing that you are not against Islam but only against its perversion by the terrorists. But this prompts the question whether terrorism is really as alien to Islam as we should all like to believe. Despite his communist sympathies, Rodinson was a peaceful soul, who spent seven years teaching in a Muslim school in Lebanon and wrote a biography of Muhammad in which the prophet is portrayed as a mild-mannered campaigner for social justice. But this biography was denounced by the Egyptian authorities as an offense to Islam, was withdrawn from the curriculum of the American University in Cairo, and has ever since been banned in Muslim countries.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008822
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-01-2006, 03:06 PM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:45 AM
It always amazes me the sources you read.

Quote:
Despite his communist sympathies, Rodinson was a peaceful soul,
This quote alone shows an uneducated, extremely perverse thinking.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-01-2006, 03:35 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as "fascist" any movement of which he disapproved.
well this explains a lot
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-01-2006, 04:15 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
But this prompts the question whether terrorism is really as alien to Islam as we should all like to believe.
And this makes me sick.


What's the reason for this thread?
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-01-2006, 04:17 PM   #5
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


What's the reason for this thread?
If you knew the poster, this answer would be obvious.

It's sad.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-01-2006, 11:22 PM   #6
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
What's the reason for this thread?
Christofascists need an enemy to demonize, of course. What's a cosmic struggle of good versus evil without the "evil"?
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-01-2006, 11:29 PM   #7
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Speaking of "Christofascism," here's one of their latest faux-controversies:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/D...&comments=true

Quote:
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
A Muslim wishing to swear on the Koran? Gosh...who'd have thought that?

And, of course, it's always comforting to know that "religious freedom" is only really invoked when Christians are a minority in Muslim nations. We wouldn't want Ayn Rand's philosophy on the selfishness of mankind to be disproven, now do we?
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-02-2006, 01:14 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Now objectivism makes some clear points on the nature of belief; anyhow I hardly see how fascism with an Islamic face is a useless concept, it seems to be an apt description of Islamic theocracy and the goals within. I am open to the idea that the state resulting from religion will be authoritarian, but I will have consistency in that view, as would so many freethinkers, marxists and anti-theists.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-02-2006, 09:24 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


Christofascists need an enemy to demonize, of course. What's a cosmic struggle of good versus evil without the "evil"?
If "Christofascists" were of any political influence, you would have televangelists calling for blood, and the people would follow the orders.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-02-2006, 09:26 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
And this makes me sick.
Why so?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-02-2006, 09:31 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
Speaking of "Christofascism," here's one of their latest faux-controversies:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/D...&comments=true



A Muslim wishing to swear on the Koran? Gosh...who'd have thought that?

And, of course, it's always comforting to know that "religious freedom" is only really invoked when Christians are a minority in Muslim nations. We wouldn't want Ayn Rand's philosophy on the selfishness of mankind to be disproven, now do we?
It's funny you cite Prager as an example of "Christofascism" - a fantasized ideology invented by Utopians - he's Jewish, not Christian.

I could care less if he swears by the Koran. It is more bothersome that Ellison had ties to the Nation of Islam, and could potentially influence the shouting down of condemnation for radical Islam.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-02-2006, 10:16 AM   #12
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
It's funny you cite Prager as an example of "Christofascism" - a fantasized ideology invented by Utopians - he's Jewish, not Christian.

I could care less if he swears by the Koran. It is more bothersome that Ellison had ties to the Nation of Islam, and could potentially influence the shouting down of condemnation for radical Islam.
I saw it first on FOX News, where the hysteria alert is always on "imminent." The fact that Prager is Jewish doesn't change the fact that the "Christofascists" have something new to be outraged about. Some of the e-mail responses on Neil Cavuto's show absolutely disgusted me, considering their vitriolic level of hate and the assumption that this country was "theirs." And how dare some "minority" try to "break their rules" in "their country"? That kind of attitude absolutely sickens me.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-02-2006, 10:20 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


I saw it first on FOX News, where the hysteria alert is always on "imminent." The fact that Prager is Jewish doesn't change the fact that the "Christofascists" have something new to be outraged about. Some of the e-mail responses on Neil Cavuto's show absolutely disgusted me, considering their vitriolic level of hate and the assumption that this country was "theirs." And how dare some "minority" try to "break their rules" in "their country"? That kind of attitude absolutely sickens me.
How about a real example of recent "Christofascism?"

And don't mind naming names.

Who is a Christofascist?

Anyone who condemns radical Islamic Jihadists?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-02-2006, 10:40 AM   #14
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 08:45 AM
I don't know why this posted twice.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-02-2006, 10:46 AM   #15
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
How about a real example of recent "Christofascism?"

And don't mind naming names.

Who is a Christofascist?

Anyone who condemns radical Islamic Jihadists?
The "war on terror" and Islam has zero to do with this, so let's get that off the table right now.

1) "Christian fascism or Christofascism are terms used by some leftists and libertarians to describe what they see as an emerging proto-fascism and possible theocracy in the United States."

2) "More extreme than the Christian Right are two movements where there is more scholarly support for charges of neo-fascism: Christian Identity and Christian Reconstructionism. There are versions of the Christian Identity movement that adopt openly neo-Nazi ideologies."

3) "Some scholars consider Christian Reconstructionism a quasi-fascist movement because it is explicitly opposed to religious liberty and human rights. Chip Berlet and Lyons have witten that the movement is a "new form of clerical fascist politics."(Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 249) Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and claims that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North is totalitarian: "There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom."

Taking note of the overtly fascist "Christian Identity" and "Christian Reconstructionist" movements are notable. The former is deep rooted within the realms of hate (i.e., Aryan Nations, certain neo-Nazi movements, etc.), whereas the latter has more traction within the political realm. Reconstructionists like millionaire Howard Ahmanson, Jr. have a lot of influence, as they are a backer of many Religious Right organizations and the Republican Party.

Now where this ends up applying to the mainstream "Religious Right" is over the issue of how Christian Identity and Reconstructionist ideology percolates into the minds of the "Religious Right." Most of this we can attribute to--perhaps you've guessed it?--right-wing talk radio and FOX News. The most extremist and overtly bigoted talk radio hosts cook up an idea, which then slowly works its way down through a continuum of increasingly less extremist and more mainstream right-wing radio hosts, which then makes it on to FOX News. And, like I said, with extremist millionaire financiers, money talks. Their ideology is gradually making its way into the political discourse.

That's why this vitriolic insistence that a Muslim swear an oath on the Bible is kind of disconcerting. This idea that America is a "Christian country," where religious minorities must follow "Christian rules" is directly from the Christian Reconstructionist playbook. Money talks.
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com