Separated at Birth? Islam and the Secular Left

It’s time to call Bulls–t.  

Hatchet-men from the Secular Left love to run their religion-bashing schoolyard taunts, lumping everyone (especially Christians) in with radical Islam.

Let’s flip their script, and look at the similarities between the secular Left, and the Islamists with whom they love to compare us.

First up, economics.  With the Middle East drowning in oil revenue, it’s easy to forget Islam’s pattern of economic failures. There is a reason that the Ottoman Empire was known as the “Sick Man of Europe”. They’re remembered for the accomplishments of conquered peoples, rather than their own great advancements.

This isn’t all that different from the “Progressive” model of “wealth distribution”, especially when you consider each side’s use of targeted taxes (a.k.a. “dhimmitude”).

Next, how do they handle rival ideas?  

They are not averse to bully tactics. Politics are a tool to assimilate rivals. They demand exceptional or unusual rights (e.g. curriculum in school; funding for special interest campus groups; “freedom from” being offended by outsiders). They will loudly proclaim the tolerance they ought to be treated with, while gladly running roughshod over people they disagree with. (Example: “Israel Apartheid Week”).

Both Islam and the Left force compliance (via courts) on those they disagree with, whether this means shutting down a bakery over a wedding cake, or shutting down a news magazine over the reprint of that now-famous cartoon of Mohammad.  

They are both quick to take offense.  Although only one group will burn embassies over a cartoon, or kill in response to a book-burning, both groups have been responsible for rioting and property damage.

Tender souls that they are, with “feewings” so easily bruised, courts and quasi-judicial “human rights” tribunals become tools to make an example of ordinary people refusing to kiss the godfather’s ring.  Call a lawyer, they’re obviously a something-o-phobe. (The only news guy brave enough to republish that cartoon — they shut down his news magazine — is once again the target of one of these attacks. Details here.)

Why litigate? To cow other future “offenders”, to silence dissenting opinions – ruining them financially, and to make their cultural re-write proceed unopposed. Why convince anyone of your viewpoint, just impose your own!

But when it comes time to go on the offensive, the “fairness” they demand toward their own position is quickly forgotten. They don’t mind throwing accusations our way.  Reinterpreting history, they insist our side is wrong, without even bothering to prove it.  As was once quipped: “‘Shut up,’ they explained.” (Should not be surprising. They have unquestioned allegiance to their own prophets and holy texts. Koran, Darwin, IPCC, etc.)

When it suits them, they make use of something called “lawfare” (Islam’s version described here) and “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation”. A more informal use of similar tactics would be the parade of people who have lost their jobs on allegations of having used a socially inappropriate word.

Ridicule is more useful than debate. (Right, Alinsky?)  Why dignify an objection with an answer? (Right Dawkins?) Why bother to find out that Christians’ doctrine of the Trinity isn’t actually Father, Son, and Mary, (as Islam teaches) before denouncing it as heretical? It seems neither group is very interested in the other side’s ideas (comparatively few books are translated into Arabic languages and the Left regularly misrepresents the Right’s actual views are), are they?

It’s easier to denounce something that nobody actually believes, and claim victory, than it is to enter into actual dialogue, and lay your cards on the table.

They will take as their own, a rival’s ideas, concepts and language, and reinvent them in a manner that suits them. Social Justice, for example, is not justice. And both use their respective (spurious) portrayals of Jesus to attack Christian claims.

Their parallels even include attitudes toward sex. In the Christian understanding, sex is the greatest possible expression of intimacy, trust and commitment between two people. Contrast that to the utilitarian attitude the others have toward sex. Both camps seem to treat it as the gratification of an appetite; a very self-centered and inward-looking approach by contrast.

And of course, there’s the Church-and-State angle. Despite criticisms to the contrary, most Christians and Conservatives (religious and otherwise) emphasize autonomy of both the Church and State for their respective roles in society. Islam and the Left do not — I will explain.

With Islam, politics is just an extension of the religion. There is no arms-length distance between them. But with the Left, the reverse is true. They expect religion to accept the will of the State when necessary; decreeing moral absolutes that the Church is obligated to accept. The State will even require the Church to violate its conscience to comply. Is this consistent with the protections of the First Amendment? I’ll leave that to you to decide.

Ultimately neither group has any intention of merely coexisting among other groups, or even winning everyone over to their way of thinking. The ends will justify their means to dominate, and  — if possible — to demolish any rivals.

It isn’t the “religious right” that should be compared to Islam at all, but the Secular Left.

The Secular Left and Islam, in one way, are virtually twin ideologies: they’re both tyrannies.

Image: Courtesy of: http://www.neformat.com.ua/forum/metal/17477-lucifugum-2.html

Wes Walker

About the author, Wes Walker: Wes Walker is the author of "Blueprint For a Government that Doesn't Suck". He has been lighting up Clashdaily.com since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck View all articles by Wes Walker

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.