Someday someone is going to have to explain to me—or explain it to Glenn Beck, who can then explain it to me—just what exactly “secular left” hopes to get out of our supposed “unholy alliance” with “Islamic jihadists” who want to impose Sharia law in the United States. We secular leftists are fond of the separation of church and state and we have very different ideas about what “getting stoned” means. What’s in this alliance for us? What do we get out of it?

44 replies on “What’s In It For Us?”

  3. organic chickpeas and organic lemons for our hummus recipes?

    More curly fries for us at the soon to be vacant Hooters?

    More pool lap times?

    Wholesale discounts for halal cutlery?

  6. In Horowitz’s mind, two groups that happen to disagree with me on issue X (for example, waging a non-defensive war on the other side of the planet) for *completely different reasons* = “an unholy alliance”. The lack of critical thinking involved is pretty astounding, particularly in someone who at least outwardly appears to be literate.

  8. @ 7 – The funny thing is that the left doesn’t hate Jesus, since it’s better at applying his teachings than the religious right. It hates the lies that the religious right is saying in the name of Jesus and that have nothing to do with the content of the gospels, and everything to do with the parts of the old testament that the RR likes… and only those parts.

  9. It isn’t an alliance. It’s that, apparently, we can’t tell the difference between an anti-war demonstration against America and an anti-American demonstration against war.

    It gets cloudy for us because the two things tend to be a tad identical.

  10. The left has always stood for the rights/uplifting of minorities, and the right has always stood for the rights/uplifting of people similar to themselves.

    The left believes, to one extent or another, that all people belong under the same roof while the right looks after themselves first, others second or not at all. The left chooses to view people optimistically, some may say naively, while the right assumes the worst of people not like themselves and the best of their own.

    Separation of church and state helps stop the disenfranchising of the non-Christian minority, and thus advances the left’s causes. The right perceives the left’s reaching out to Muslims as an “alliance” with “Jihadists” because they cannot imagine how any US citizen could identify, bond, otherwise view as human, any citizen of the Muslim world.

  11. I got nothing. I have long since utterly failed to actually understand batshit rightwing arguments, and at this point I just observe them with utter fascination. (But you know, I can do that with mounted & preserved bugs, too…. hm…. )

  13. We’re ganging up with Islam to take out the Christians. Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Didn’t you get the memo? Once we’re done with the Christians we’re going to turn on Islam and the world will be rid of godhavers once and for all!

  14. Exactly. If you’re going to lie and demonize, at least be consistent in your demonizations! Especially if lying is your job, you should have the competence to make it a little less transparent.

    Then again, if your target audience is so pathetically desperate to believe in convenient lies, you don’t really need to be consistent; just say shit that sounds good. So, Obama is a Muslim, but he believes in Christianity when the pastor is (supposedly) an anti-American Black Nationalist. Liberals are secular Atheists who embrace Islam. Evolution is false, except it’s true enough to (supposedly) “disprove” a biological root to homosexuality. You should never question the President in a time of war, unless it’s Obama, in which case you can question his very citizenship. Background checks should not be required for buying a gun, but we need the PATRIOT Act. Our Founding Fathers knew everything and wrote a perfect Constitution, but they only wrote the First Amendment on accident and what they really wanted was a Christian theocracy.

    When you have the intelligence and memory of a goldfish, Republicanism makes perfect sense.

    9: I hope you’re being sarcastic, because equating “anti-war” with “anti-American” is something that even Republicans are tired of.

  16. Addendum: I’m not saying that the left is not guilty of the “us vs them” mentality that I accuse the right of, but I believe that the core of being a leftist is what I described above.

  18. @14 I’m not being sarcastic but I completely get where you’re coming from.

    They are different when you’re talking about Americans protesting and American war.

    What I am talking about is a country being invaded and attacked by America which has protests featuring signs reading, “Fuck America.” That is simultaneously anti-war and anti-American. I would even say it is more the former than the latter.

    From the article: “This “unholy alliance” as we called it was first clearly visible in the anti-American demonstrations opposing the Iraq War. These were mislabled “anti-war” demonstrations by the general media.”

  19. @2

    No. Mostly people on the left do not think that Israel is sincere when they want peace, that their actions are contrary to that goal, and that their military actions are morally equivalent to the terrorists they condemn.

    Above all, we can understand the difference between Jews and Israel, whereas smug shits insist on equating them, demanding that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.

  20. You secular leftists are fond of using government to force your religious views on society.
    You secular leftists are fond of punishing anyone who disagrees with you.
    You secular leftists insist that anyone who believes differently from you are damaged goods. (‘infidel’; ‘homophobe bigot hater’; difference without a distinction…)

    See Danny, you and the jihadists have oodles and oodles in common…..

    (of course, Danny insists that everyone interpret the Bible the way he does and won’t be satisfied until they change their beliefs about homosexual behavior, even if those beliefs never influence their actions. Not even Osama wants to reach inside the brains of others like Danny….creepy…..)

  21. @8, 12: I guess I should have clearly labelled it as sarcasm.

    The joke, you see, is that from Beck’s point of view the left *does* hate Jesus, and Islam *does* hate Jesus, and then there’s the false transitivity (akin to saying that because the NFL’s Cowboys and Eagles both hate the Redskins, the Cowboys and Eagles must be lovey dovey). I’ll be less subtle next time.

  22. it’s just projection. accuse the left of something the right is actually guilty of before anyone makes the actual logical link.

    remember “american taliban” = christian rightists? until john walker lindh can along and gave them a way to defuse the term by linking it, absurdly, to permissive marin county hottubber parenting.

    in fact, these jackholes WOULD impose Sharia on america, if only it was more explicitly codified in the bible. good thing they’re fucking petrified of islam, or they’d realize their world views are almost identical.

  23. @20 I love the phrase “You secular leftists!!!”

    It’s said as if to be equivalent to “You right-wing fundie!” yet, you know, they are complicated words that imply positive things about the subject such as reason and literacy, as opposed to being the stuck-in-the-mud, stuck-in-the-past object of ridicule in any major piece of social criticism generated in the last 500 years.

  24. @19

    The more contemptible actions of Israel are the direct result of promises made in the text they consider to be the revealed word of God. It is because they consider that land to be God given, an idea supported by their religious texts.

    Condemning Israel and condemning Judaism are not very distinct to me and that isn’t JUST because I’m smug.

    That fact does not set Israel apart from the Palestinians. It is true of both sides. I think the reason we talk about Israel more is because they are a client state of the U.S.

  25. I’m impressed that the left in America is successfully pushing Sharia law and the “homosexual agenda” at the same time. That’s impressive range.

  27. An “alliance,” holy or otherwise, is patently absurd, but I do wish the left (as a whole) would be more vocal about the way women are often treated in Islamic societies (like property), the way gays are treated (like criminals who need to be executed), and the way little girls are treated (like dirty creatures who need to have their genitals removed).

    I don’t typically see a lot of overt outrage or thoughtful criticism in the MSM (Dan being an exception to that rule on most days). Plus, when idiots like Mayor Bloomberg speculate that a Tea Party member is probably behind a bomb in Times Square, and then the media gives it credence… well, it does look a little odd.

    Anyway… just a thought.

  28. I don’t know, I think if anything, it’s a sort of extension of the whole “It’s political correctness run amok” thing. Some on the right believe that, out of a determination not to offend Muslims, those on the left are willing to just roll right over and accept it.

  29. Cognitive dissonance. Those who think Islamic jihadists and secular liberals are in cahoots probably hold that belief out of the tunnel-vision, persecution-complex idea that both parties — Muslims and secularists — are out to get the good, God-fearing Christians. But that disregards the fact that us Godless homo-loving liberals have even more beef with the Islamic fundamentalists than we have with the American Christians, who want to take away our rights but don’t — at least not openly — want to throw us in jail or stone us to death.

    And how do jihadists feel about us Godless homos? Do you even need to ask? Even by Beckian standards, the clear logical lapse required to accept that conspiracy is astounding. Thanks for the education, bat-shits!

  30. I think I actually did hear Glenn Beck explain this. The socialists and the jihadists are working together because they both want the same thing: global instability, which will allow their respective doctrines to take hold.
    But yes, this doesn’t really make sense for all the reasons everyone has already said.

  33. Hey Dan,

    I’ll take a stab at it. Be forewarned that this is based off of anecdotal experience (numerous years of it, though), but there seems to be a belief system amongst conservative Christian evangelicals that everyone of us knows deep down that the Bible is true, Jesus is the Son of God, etc… A presumption of Christian understanding and perspective is present within every person, every culture… Therefore, any belief that disagrees or denys the validity of their belief system is believed to be of the devil. Anything, or anyone, that does not follow God’s commands (as they believe them to be) has been attacked, tainted, under the influence of the devil. Like any group that seeks to be in power, they don’t like groups and/or individuals who ‘rock the boat’ or question their authority. In their minds they are the “good soil” and all the rest are “the path”,”the rocks”,”the thorns” (see the “Parable of the Sower” Matthew 13:1-15; Mark 4:1-12; Luke 8:4-10; Thomas 9 and read it literally nor critically).

    Hence, “the unholy alliance” as both groups deny the ‘truth’ of their perspective. Both groups do not accept their opinions as facts. Both groups ‘rock the boat’. Both groups are threats… Or to use the Bible “No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he is born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:9-10) People who do what is “right” agree with them and the above convicts them, in their opinion.

    Hope that helps.

  34. @26 I’ve never understood the problem with “humanist” either. From an xian point of view, paying homage to one of god’s major creations should count positively… !

    @27 Maybe it depends on who you read, but I see folks on the left commenting about these issues. Particularly people who are part of the groups you describe, although there are western activists who do to some extent too. (There’s a huge anti FGM movement as one simple example.)

    There is one trap to avoid, which is ignoring exactly what the groups of people I mentioned above are saying and plow on with your own thoughts (as an example, the anti hijab/niqab/burka stance is often part of that, ignoring ME women’s position) , and there’s some leftist groups who therefore stay quiet to avoid that mess.

    Hm. Not sure how coherent the above is…

  36. @24: The “more contemptible actions” being their (arguably counter-)invasions and continued occupation of neighboring states for territories considered part of the Yahweh-promised Holy Land? I though the contemptible ones were Mossad assassinations, closed-court tribunals and executions, the blockade of occupied Palestinian territories (by which I mean places settled by displaced and stateless Palestinian nationals), the system of ethnic/religious apartheid (complete with ethnic ghettoization), and brutal police-state domestic security measures. I don’t see any of those as following from the Torah, necessarily. (I get that they’re in a state of near-constant war, and also that the USA does the same sort of things; I don’t think war justifies human rights abuses, and I’m no happier about it when it’s us committing the abuses.) I don’t object to the existence of Israel (I think citing historic precedent is a problematic method of resolving territorial disputes, whether they be from 50 years ago or several thousand); it’s there now, and people with a vested interest need to move forward from the present reality instead of getting hung-up on the past. I object to how Israel conducts itself as a sovereign security-state.

    @26: Or “socialist”.

    @27: Yes and no; that universalized view of “Islamic Societies” is less-than-accurate, although I agree that particularly the states that have laws backing these propositions are problematic. “Islamic Society” X is no more homogeneous than “Christian American Society”. Certainly we can condemn a given practice that we see as problematic (e.g. genital cutting, though the Jews and pro-male-circumcision Christians or others tend to get itchy about that one when you make an argument against inflicting irreversible genital mutilation on infants who cannot consent to it, as that applies equally to infant males and male circumcision, even if the damage isn’t as extensive as FGM might be; there’s that Jew-bashing again, so I’ll throw in scarification of young children and foot binding with my cultural practices that constitute physical abuse of children, just to show I’m an equal-opportunity hater of non-consensual body-modification) and say that the specific people practicing it are also to be condemned (cultural relativism aside), but it’s inaccurate to universalize that to an entire cultural group. Unfortunately, this objection is often construed as a defense of the practice itself, or of a (falsely) homogenized “Islamic Society”, which leads to accusations of some sort of “Unholy Alliance”.

    @28: Sonofabitch, ya beat me to it. Yeah, what we get out of it is an ally in our war against America, ’cause, you know, we Secular Leftists hate America so much that we’ll ally with Right-wing Theocrats, to whom we’re ideologically opposed in every way other than America-hating. It’s a weird case of projection and conflation: I hate group X and group Y, so they must both hate me and be working together.

  38. @ 21 – I got the sarcasm – “Duh” is pretty clear, you don’t have to make it more obvious (I do I have a brain, contrary to most rightwingers). I was just adding, non-sarcastically, to your viewpoint.

  39. @37 I don’t quite understand your issue. The behaviors you listed do not follow from the belief that their land was promised to them by God himself? Why do you think they mistreat Palestinians, then?

    My understanding is that the entire conflict comes from that single, powerful premise, “God said *I* could have it.”

  40. @ 40 – Every religion and every government exist first and foremost to protect some people’s economic interests.

    God was invented because, hey, you can argue with a president or a king but you can’t argue with a divine being, right?

    So the premise is not “God said I could have it”, that’s the excuse. The premise is “I want it, so I’ll say God said I could have it.”

  41. Ricardo,

    The promise of that land has been a central point in Judaism for thousands of years when Judaists were truly tribal. Israel is barely 60 years old.

    I agree with your first point to an extent. I believe that monotheistic religions…or more to the point, those darned Abrahamic sects…were such successful memes because of how well they serve the purpose you describe.

    They were successful also because they cause their followers to kill and die in service to them. That is why Dan Dennett compares them to those brain hijacking parasites that ants and slugs get – it’s also why I look at Israel’s despicable acts and blame Judaism.

    I don’t think you can well support the claim that these religions were created for those ends.

  42. @28: That was my first thought also. “They both hate America!” And there is some truth to that, at least on the extreme fringe left-wing (anti-capitalist protests and eco-terrorism, for instance).

    @35: No, from an xian point of view, humanism is dangerous because it finds meaning outside of god and it glorifies human values instead of divine ones. xianity is all about the idea that only god can solve humanity’s problems and any human efforts otherwise are doomed to failure.

  43. re: #7 (“… better at applying [Jesus’] teachings ….”)

    It’s worth reminding at this point, of chapter four of the Acts of the Apostles. From each, to each.

    re: #27 (“… but I do wish the left (as a whole) would be more vocal about the way women are often treated in Islamic societies ….”)

    I’ve found, among many of my anti-Islamic, right-wing neighbors, that this is a misperception. When the left talks about the way women, gays, &c., are treated in Islamic societies, we talk about human rights issues. When my conservative neighbors talk about such things, they want to talk about what’s wrong with Islam.

    The problem with that latter approach, though, is it seems so many of the criticisms are phrased in such a manner that could indict all sorts of people they are otherwise sympathetic to. If one points out the fact the implications of equal application—as opposed to inventing a special rule for Muslims only—the response is to accuse that one supports the oppression of women.

    Giving a damn about human rights abroad seems to have come into vogue with conservatives after 9/11, when they needed to scrape up everything they could to support their crusade against Islam. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that human rights abroad come into vogue with conservatives right about the time they want to encourage the United States military to go abroad and donkey-punch human rights in the name of freedom.

  44. Easy, the left hates American dominance, and more broadly, its Judeo-Christian bedrock and its western (European) heritage. They reject the notion that progress of human civilization can be traced from the Greek-Roman classical times through European Christendom, the Enlightenment, and the creation of the United States as the modern successor to the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.

    Had they been alive at the time, they would have cheered the sack of Rome, and the sack of Constantinople and Jerusalem by Muslims a thousand years later.

    So in these leftists eyes, Muslim immigration to Europe and North America is a great thing and so are the loud voices of the Islamists who want to see mosques all across America. It is payback (in their eyes) the colonial times, plus it dilutes the strength of the American Judeo-Christian heritage and population.

    They see it as “enemy of my enemy is my friend” mixed with social chaos theory. Their dislike of the Judeo-Christian-European-heritage majority is so great that they are more than willing to fathom a growing Muslim/Third World minority as a counter-weight.

Comments are closed.