First a Bangladeshi professor, Rezaul Karim Siddique, was hacked to death on Saturday; ISIS has taken credit and the “reason” given was Siddique’s atheism. The only thing is, Siddique’s daughter says that he believed in God. The BBC reports there may have been other reasons:
Siddique, 58, was a professor of English at Rajshahi University in the country’s north-west. He was attacked with machetes as he left for work.
He founded a music school and edited a literary magazine, his family said.
Police believe he may have been targeted by extremists because he was involved in cultural activities. They have detained a member of an Islamist student organisation for questioning.
Hardline Islamist groups dislike anyone involved in the cultural field, the BBC’s Dhaka correspondent Akbar Hossain says.
Yep, being involved in the “cultural field” should certainly be a reason to kill someone.
And now there’s been another killing in Dhaka, just reported by the BBC. This time the victim, Julhas Mannan, was an editor at Roopbaan, Bangladesh’s first LGBT magazine. Mannan was also hacked to death—by three people posing as couriers. Being hacked with machetes has to be one of the more painful ways to be murdered.
It’s time for the Left to stand up against the Islamic demonizing and murder of gays and nonbelievers and the oppression of women. Can we expect to see Britain’s National Union of Students to now condemn the misogyny and homophobia of Islam?
I’ve presented data on women before, which you can see at the Pew Report On the World’s Muslims. Here are Pew’s data on views of homosexuality and Pew’s summary (remember, they didn’t survey Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran or Yemen).
Muslims overwhelmingly say that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 33 of the 36 countries where the question was asked.25 Only in three countries do as many as one in ten Muslims say that homosexuality is morally acceptable: Uganda (12%), Mozambique (11%) and Bangladesh (10%). In most countries surveyed, fewer than one-in-ten Muslims believe homosexual behavior is not a moral issue. The exceptions are Bangladesh (14%), Guinea Bissau (14%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (10%).
Note as well that 89% of Muslims in the liberals’ favorite country, Palestine, see homosexual behavior as immoral. An out gay wouldn’t last a week there, making it even more hypocritical when LBGTQ organizations, as well as feminists, condemn gay-friendly Israel but give strong support to Palestine. In contrast, in Bangladesh “only” 67% of Muslims see homosexual behavior as immoral. But they still kill gays there.
What does it mean that the Left overwhelmingly (and properly) came down hard on Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gays in Kentucky, but keeps very quiet about the much more vicious persecution of gays by many Muslims?
The result of Islam’s bigotry? This man is no more:
Nor is this man:
Razib Khan has an insightful tweet about this:
“Some Muslims feel atheists & gays provoke by existing. The existence offense”
Link: https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/724603357256511488
#ExistenceOffense
Which I suppose is a step above God, who provokes by not existing.
And I marvel at the object relations.
The provocation of non-existence. . .
No, regressives prefer to ignore the voices of POC who dare to question regressive ideology:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/outside-the-socialjustice-movements-small-tent/479049/
And I freaking hate the sjw approved term “POC”. “POC” are just a means to an end, so that the regressive can feel good about xirself. And “POC” who speak up and show some critical thought are silenced by regressives because it disrupts the narrative. The regressive can’t very well signal their virtue when an angry POC is telling them that they are full of shit*t.
Regressives use POC the way pro liferes use embryos. Show how concerned and righteous you are for “the oppressed” without having to lift a finger. Act offended on Twitter in order to signal your virtue. And silence the voices of those POC who might disagree because they are preventing you from demonstrating to the world how morally pure you are.
The regressive movement is not about helping the actual oppressed. It is about narcissistic people patting themselves on the back. This is why they defend it so fiercely, so violently. It is all about *them”.
Perhaps in response to our dialogue of yesterday, I am glad that Cindy uses the term regressives instead of liberal, progressive, or left. In my view, as a proud mainstream liberal and atheist, I totally distance myself from those, regardless of how they would place themselves on the political spectrum, who would not condemn without reservation the incidents described by Professor Coyne. I and I believe most of those who share my political viewpoint feel no kinship or affinity with those labeled regressives. Regressives stand in exact opposition to core liberal beliefs: freedom-of-thought and freedom-of-expression.
Regressives are to liberals as was the Stalinist Communist Party of the United States was to liberals in the late 1940s. In the latter situation, liberal organizations severed any ties with the CPUSA. Today, any truly liberal organization must do the same to the regressives.
Social justice movements in American history (abolitionism, women’s rights, civil rights) have a long and honorable history that liberals should justifiably be proud of. But, liberals must make it clear that the regressive approach is a perversion of that tradition.
The regressive movement (if it actually is a movement) seems concentrated on college campuses. It is the job of college administrators and faculty not to accede to the ridiculous and authoritarian demands of the regressives. To the extent that they don’t, they betray the liberal values that colleges are supposed to foster.
I would like to think that regressive are as marginal as you seem to think. They, of course, would not accept the label themselves and would claim “progressive” status. I’m afraid that their point of view is common off campus as well as on.
I say that as a liberal, progressive person myself. The regressive types see folk like me as bigots and racist for my hostility to religion and Islam in particular. IMO they are the ones who have moved away from liberal principles but, of course, they would argue otherwise. We don’t have commonly agreed labels for each other.
Yes, “regressive” is an exonym – but then, what’s so wrong with exonyms?
Yep. Glad we cleared that up.
The words progressive and SJW confuses me also sometimes. I get confused because on pretty much every other website or comment section, SJW is a word used by right wing nuts.
Just yesterday I was reading about a new game that had a black main character. The whole forum of that game was filled with topics like: “Let’s hear it for white pride”. ” The SJWs have done it again”.
All the racists came crawling out of the woodwork and they seriously though progressives, Jews and SJWs had forced the developers to put in a black character in the game.
I also “found out” yesterday that SJWs and progressives were responsible for the black and female characters in starwars. Anyone who thought it’s OK to have ethnic minorities, homosexuals and women in film and games were told they were gays, Jews and SJW.
So now, I’m a proud gay, Jewish SJW.
I therefore prefer to use the term regressive left so that I won’t seem to support those right wing nuts I see all over the Internet.
The SJWs and racists/misogynists (“RMFs” feed of each other. They each use the vile actions, real and imaginary, of the other to justify their own vile actions.
I also prefer “regressive left” but I don’t think that avoiding any particular term is going to help. Whichever group will take any term and simply extend it. You’ve given examples of the RMFs extending “SJW” to include “not being a prejudiced fuck”.
Similarly the SJWs themselves just extend the meanings of words. Not wanting to have sex with someone who has a penis is now “transphobic”. Disagreeing about no-platforming someone is now racist.
I can well see the RMFs claiming that black and female characters in Starwars is a perfect of the regressive left’s authoritarian ideology.
Well said. You left out ‘free speech’
Anyone who argues in favour of free speech will be automatically categorized as a racist/misogynist/Islamophobe etc by the regressives. Even if you are non-white, or a woman, who believes that folks you disagree with should not be prevented from speaking, you will be accused of suffering from ‘internalized racism/misogyny’ etc.
If you believe in free speech, you are just a sh*tlord who wants an excuse to harm people.
I suppose it depends on which web sites you frequent.
I’ve never seen those crazy people use the term regressive left, only the termns SJW and progressives.
I have no clue how they imagine that leftists/SJW force movie makers into including black or female characters anyway.
It’s like they imagine blacks, homosexuals and women doesn’t exist and shouldn’t be portrayed in movies. The feel oppressed by the existence of movies with something other than white heterosexual men. Some of them call for boycott of movies and games that have women and minorities in them. And then they dare accuse others for being against free speech. The hypocrisy never fails to astound me.
Besides, the fight for the rights of women, homosexual/transsexuals and ethnic minorities is too important to let either side destroy it. Just like we shouldn’t let religious people destroy the word atheist by comparing us to Stalin.
So I’ll still consider myself a progressive and I’ll also consider myself as someone who is concerned with human rights issues no matter how the far left and the far right tries to destroy it.
As I mentioned further down on this page, the losers in this fight will be women and minorities.
sub
There is no excuse for this, none at all. I am disgusted by what passes for justice in Islamist countries. I am appalled at the treatment of women, gays, and children. And yet I hesitate to really comment. You see, when do we get to refer to the Christian serial killers as Christian extremists? Charlie Manson thinks he is Jesus, isnt he a Christian Extremist? Our jails and prisons in the United States are filled with Christians. And they ALL think they will be forgiven because they are Christians and they also think no other religions get that benefit. My point is that we have horrible people in America. Most of the bad shit is done by Christians. In Muslim countries, its mostly Muslims in their prisons and jails. I am not trying to justify this horror at all. It seems that almost all of this kind of stuff is done by people who believe in God and think they derive their power from God. His works are sure mysterious…
#DrMorq
The common thread here is ideology not open to new evidence and, in the case of Christianity and Islam alike, often focused on an proposed afterlife for which there is no evidence (either for its existence or how we get there) that is more important than the life we’re living.
For Western Christians, this no longer manifests as random massacres on any sort of large scale, but you don’t have to go very far back to find a time where Biblical justifications for murder were common in the United States (think of the lynchings which were still frequent a century ago). Luckily, Enlightenment values have tamed these ideologies so that the worst of Christians for the most part make life difficult for people they don’t like, rather than kill them. This is progress (not where we want to be, but progress in the right direction).
The Islamic world still has this type of barbarism on a daily basis, justified purely in religion. While military operations and political movements are more complicated and involve factors other than religion (even when religion is a dominant one), we can safely say that killing local women, gays and atheists specifically because of who they are is Islam. It would involve quite the mental gymnastics to say otherwise (the most common way I see is labeling it not “true” Islam, but that’s another discussion altogether). So yes, I think if Christian groups start running around killing people in the name of Jesus, we do get to call them Christian Extremists; e.g. when they bomb abortion clinics and site their Lord and Savior as the reason.
Sheikh Hasina Bangladesh’s Prime Minister said this while speaking about her country’s development:
“But if anyone writes filthy words against our religion, why should we tolerate that?”
I hope she flip-flops on this.
Here’s the hubris of this rub. When someone says filthy words, they mean a rational criticism against the ignorance and prejudice of Islam. By filthy words, they mean anything that makes them sad like babies crying after not getting desert.
Well, Sheikh Hasina, you have two outstanding citizens of this earth that you no longer need think about because of your filthy religion.
A woman defending Islam. Which proves for umpteenth time that coming from an oppressed group does not guarantee understanding the nature of oppression, let alone doing anything to diminish this oppression.
Or it can be used to ‘squelch competition’, too. If she’s already protected by her privilege as PM etc. then she can lord over other women. (“For thee but not for me.”)
This is one reason why “privilege” has to be carefully analyzed.
Probability of this event is indistinguishable from zero.
“fewer than one-in-ten Muslims believe homosexual behavior is not a moral issue”
Does anybody know what, if any, percentage of Muslims don’t believe that other peoples’ morals are any of their business?
In my culture (secular, of Christian heritage), if you asked these questions 20 years ago, I suspect you would get similar answers; mood is slowly shifting now. However, violence motivated by homophobia is rare. Most people seem to get what you say – that other people’s voluntary sexual behavior is none of our business, and society is based on coexistence with others, including those whom we do not like.
I so much admire those in the atheist and LGBT communities in Bangladesh who continue to speak out despite the very real risk of violent, painful death. There have been attacks where the victim has survived too.
The Islamist groups perpetrating these crimes are illegal but it often seems they receive more sympathy than the victims. The prime minister has refused to even denounce them after several of the murders. The only reason she’s doing it this time is because it’s IS and not one of the usual homegrown groups.
I think it’s a safe bet that the police, judiciary, civil service and all other arms of the Bangladeshi state are riddled with Islamist sympathisers who think that the victims of these extrajudicial murders got exactly what they deserved. I don’t hold out much hope that justice will ever be done in these cases.
You’re right there. I’ve done posts on some of the murders and I’ve featured a couple of centrist law professors who’ve written in the media there. They basically say that everything would be OK if the atheists would just shut up.
I wish I could just cut myself off from the world and stop reading about stuff like that. I get so angry.
On the topic of the regressives’ response to this, I’m sure they will be able to blame it on Western imperialism like usual. I already read one regressive say that homosexuals on Gaza are traitors that work with Israel for protection. I’m completely mind blown by that type of thinking.
Reading about the rise of a right wing party in Austria now, I’m also worried that no matter what happens now, women and homosexuals will lose. If the far right takes power in Europe, women and gays are screwed. But if the regressive left takes over, then they’ll let Muslims oppress women and gays as well. It’s the rock and the hard place.
American news orgs seem to think it’s not politically correct to report on these incidents. NPR News mentioned them at the top of the hour but never mentioned Islamism or any other motive, making for kind of a surreal report.
Islam is in dire need of a reformation, but I despair that it will never happen if even trying to talk about it gets you murdered. The cowardly western media certainly doesn’t help the conversation when it tiptoes around “religious sensitivities.”
I’m not sure that the left “keeps quiet” regarding this violence; what they refuse to do is accept a causal role for Islam in it.
Meanwhile, Kim Davis was in the news because of the propaganda machine on the Right, so it’s not really proper to criticise the Left for responding to her.
I know the english professor was not an atheist, but the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are maintaining that none of the bloggers killed so far are atheist and maintaining the constitution of Bangladesh is still secularist. Very disappointing
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/life-on-islamic-militant-kill-list-raihan-abir/7358854
Our national and multicultural broadcasters and left media in my opinion have become very friendly to religion generally, and excusing of Islam in particular – increasingly since 9/11. Our national conservative newspaper is more inclined to support Western conservative values, and of course, big business.
We have secular left excuses galore for religion here in Australia so long as its viewed as having an anti capitalist (not just moderated capitalist),anti modernity but also broadly POMO/Crit Theory agenda. On the other hand the conservative party has funded chaplains at schools. I think this soft religious inheritance is from the religious split of the Irish contingent amongst the convicts versus Brit upper classes where to some extent religious identity is seen as push back against capitalist imperialist (Anglo American) oppression of celtic identity. Non Irish absorb something of this too – most convicts were English. Ive got all four painful strands of the boring celtic anglo mix in my heritage and its a pity to see the damage done by this projection of identity politics that should be dead onto unrelated fields. Thus its dredged up regarding the impacts of non western religion, or pretending that this Pope is really genuinely reforming etc.