Yep ... pretty left ... it's all good though
So, to clarify:
- In order to leave Islam, I think one needs to be liberal. Liberal enough to ask as a woman, "Why do I have to wear a scarf/burka or dress so conservatively?" or, "Why cannot I not eat bacon or drink alcohol when many good people out there do the same?". So this is what I mean, liberalism is needed to escape the conservatism of Islam.
in this sense of the term, i'd agree with you to an extent. so i suppose i have no qualms with you there.
- Now, once leaving Islam, to be highly critical on the socio/economic/religious doctrine I think requires not just liberalism (to see the bigger picture), but more idealism, barriers, restrictions and generally being able to say "no" to Islam which brings people back to the centre, or move slightely right-of-centre. Being consistently on the left is where I think fails (liberalism can't defend itself, e.g. "Oh but women choooose so badly to wear a burka!"). I understand the irony that idealism, barriers, restrictions are almost the same characteristics of an illiberal Islamic mindset, but there is a key difference: theocratic justification (ban pork because it is written in the Quran) compared to pragmatic/consequential justification (ban Sharia Law for the equality it brings to Muslims with respect to the general non-Islamic population).
Btw, I'm not writing the above as facts - merely my my own personal observations.
i think you're misrepresenting a lot of things here. first off, there's no inherent link between a pragmatic and a consequential justification, but i suppose this is a pedantic point as i think you're saying your justifications for your 'idealism' are both pragmatic(ahaha what the fuck this makes no sense) and are derived from a consequential morality of some sort.
i would agree that some sort of barriers and restrictions to the treatment of islam are required to 'defeat' it, but these barriers and restrictions i speak of aren't exclusively limited to islam - i would generalize this principle to state that these barriers(such as not letting religious schools be state-funded) must exist for ALL religions and their manifestations in public. now yes, islam is a different religion but i don't think it should, in the core principles be treated differently to other religions, as it most certainly has the same base characteristics of the other abrahamic religons, and a similar manner of imposing morality on its followers to a broader spectrum of religions(though i'm not sure to the extent that this is true as i'm pretty ignorant of religions outside of the abrahamic spectrum).
though i'm surprised you conflate being on the 'left' with a tendency to appease other religions. you don't need to be centrist or right-of-centre to realise that the appeasement of religion(and specifically islam) within the 'west'(i fuckin hate this term but it seems relevant) is bullshit and is the reason that muslims believe they must be specially treated(yes generalization, but what i mean is that their religion is treated differently in the sense that we, in the 'west' don't generally viscerally criticize it in our media in the same way we say, say that the story of lot in the bible is completely vile and lot's 'gift' of his virgin daughters was a terrible thing - imagine saying this about anything to do with muhammad).
now hear me out: i'm not saying you NEED to be left either to efficiently combat islam - but i do think that on the other hand, you don't NEED to be centrist or centre-right to do so either. i think that however, one NEEDS to be consistent in their treatment of islam as with other religions, as it's linked to other religions by being defined as a religion at the very least, and singling out islam as a particularly 'dangerous' ideology(in the sense of national security and 'community cohesion) because of terrorism and the tendency of its followers to be conservative with respect to their ideals is sorta like picking out christianity as a particularly 'dangerous' ideology(in the sense of scientific progress) because, quoth the dawkins, that 45% of americans in the US believe that the earth is 6000 years old(idk how accurate that stat is, i just heard it in an episode of the big questions, but you see my point).
however, i will note that the 'left' doesn't really exist within the UK, or even the US anymore. the 'left' is composed of those who wish to appease islam and the cultural values of say, pakistan by virtue of the fact they are 'different' to western ideals and cultural values, which i find to be absurd. i won't appease ideals like honour killing(which admittedly has fuck all to do with islam), forcing children to wear hijabs, forcing apostates to return back to islam and the refusal to accept criticism of islam as even existent beyond the word of 'filthy infidels wishing to destroy the islamic ummah'. i will oppose them. however, i'd like to make it clear that the manner in which i oppose them does not include not allowing them to present these ideals before the 'west'. it doesn't include outlawing these ideals from any academic discussion, nor does it include the marginalization of those who identify as muslim but might not believe that shit, or those who do but are willing to argue their case. it includes not allowing their ideals to conflict with the basic human rights of other individuals.
anyway this post is pretty unorganized and i think i've been slightly vague so please pick holes in this.
Topic: Test your political affiliation