[Marxism] another victory for the forces of enlightenment

Joseph Catron jncatron at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 19:55:29 MDT 2012


On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:32 PM, John Obrien <causecollector at msn.com>wrote:


> Are we going to see justification for religious based honor killings next,
> or forced female
> circumcision - or women being second class in standing or worse? - or
> (Straight Only) Family
> Values?
>

Oh, FFS. This is embarrassing.

So-called "honor killings" (less prevalent, by the way, in affected
societies than family homicides in the United States) are entirely
cultural. There is nothing in the Quran or the hadiths condoning them. And
needless to say, I am aware of no Muslim organizations in the United States
that sanction them. This is simply rank bigotry of the vilest sort.

As for all the yammering in this post about poor, oppressed women, I have
never made it my business to understand the dynamics of American Islam
(although I'd like to know more about it), but I'm aware that in my part of
the world, women comprise the activist bases of every mass "Islamist" (for
lack of a better term) organization with which I'm familiar. In '67
Palestine, for example, Hamas' female cadres delivered it an overwhelming
majority of the female vote.

http://conflictsforum.org/briefings/IWAIOP.pdf
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/04/content_517078.htm
http://www.salon.com/2006/03/14/hamaswomen


> I have not seen (correctly) some of these same left groups and individuals
> standing up against
> bourgeois government interventions (attacks) on those Christians who
> refuse blood transfusions
> and wife beatings.


I'd support Christians refusing blood transfusions on religious grounds,
absolutely. If I don't back complete bodily self-determination (having
reached an age when I might draw the line at heroin-on-demand), I at least
favor the right to refuse to have things done to you. Is this
controversial? I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that it would be an
instinctive reaction for most of us.

As for "refus[ing] ... wife beatings," I can only assume you meant to type
something else, almost certainly something silly.


> I suggest it is an excuse to not want
> to deal with these issues - and many (sadly) never really did,
> uncomfortable to confront their
> own bigotry against Gays and Women.
>

If you're that concerned, I suggest you begin with your own bigotry of
imagining Muslim women as pitiful waifs in need of your rescue. I assure
you, many I know could kick your ass (or mine for that matter).

that Karl Marx correctly identified ALL religion as a major problem (the
> opiate of the people)
>

That's one (extreme) interpretation of a passage in the *Contribution to
the Critique of Hegel*. There are no shortage of Marxists in mosques and
churches with different approaches - perhaps more, on a global scale, than
those ideologically opposed to them.


> Karl Marx correctly opposed colonialism but that does not
> mean he would favor Ayotollah Khoemeni's crack down and murder of leftists
> in Iran in 1979 and onward.
> Khoemeni lied that he would support a secular government in Iran, to the
> surprise of some Iran leftists!
>
> Religious fanatics always lie as to their real intended purpose to impose
> their religious views on others.
>

While avowedly Marxist governments had such a bang-up record in the last
century?

That's a silly approach, of course, and one I intend to take no further.
But it's your approach, and a game two could play.


> I also oppose the subjugation of all women and stand opposed to all
> sexism.
>

Physician, heal thyself.


> History shows that many Islamic followers claiming to be a religion of
> peace - are liars and that is just
> their false propaganda.


I wish you could hear how crude of a bigot you sound like.

-- 
"Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
lytlað."



More information about the Marxism mailing list