“We’ll sue you and your boss’s ass!!!”

That was very inadequit. I’m not sure I would want to take a course under someone who blows off a serious question. Obviously, there is a lot of confusion concerning the definition. I’m beginning to think it’s a lot like “religion.” Some even call secular humanism a religion. However, if any school of social thought can be called religion, then the word is so watered down that it no longer has meaning. But, that’s another area of argument, for now, best left alone.

Hamidreza: Thanks for your response.

“The US kicked Saddam’s teeth in, but it did that in defense of liberalism.”

Not so. The U.S. attacked Iran as a means of establishing a military force there in order to secure the region for the continued westward flow of oil. This was the second oil war, and the one that was sought after by the Neo-cons since the early 90s. “liberalism” had nothing to do with it. In fact, most liberals in the US were doing whatever they could to stop the invasion.

“neo-Nazi skinheads of Germany vote for the German Left party”

Although I don’t keep up with German politics, a quick check on the Web seems to show most voted for the NPD in the elections of 2004 in Saxony. That some might have voted for a liberal party could be true, but since you haven’t provided evidence (statistics from a reliable site), I cannot add more without more research.

The Respect party talking with the Muslim Brotherhood and like organizations? That’s exactly what I would expect from a true liberal organization. A liberal believes in talking and trying to come to common ground with opposing organizations, and attack only when attacked.

As an uninformed teen, I once attended a KKK rally and even shared some of their views. Now I am a member of a liberal organization (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State). Although I no longer share the opinions of the KKK, I would welcome civil debate with them. Would talking to them make me a radical right winger?

“support of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei by the western left.”

The “left” in the U.S. gives Ahmadinejad tacid support because there is at present nothing else holding back the Islamist extreemests from taking over a nation with nukes. That’s pragmatic. It is the Right in the U.S. that gives him weapons and free reign. You seem to be getting the distorted information usually put out by our neo-fascist (right wing) government.

I do wish you would give reference to your “quotes.” We don’t know in what context Al-Qaeda members were called “freedom fighters.” And, in actually, that’s what they are to the fundamentalists Muslims. Bush was wrong (as usual) when he said they attacked us because they “hate our freedoms.” They attacked us (and gave us warning), because we had military bases on their “holy soil,” and for blind support of Israel at the expense of the palistanians.

Lastly, “600,000 innocent Iraqis have been murdered by the Islamic death squads of Mahdis and Wahhabis, and all of this while the western leftists were cheering them on.”

You must be getting your information from some radical right source. You need to listen to the left, perhaps Air America Radio, and understand what the American left is really saying, in context. One thing you will find out is that the left understands that we killed far more Iraqis than the ongoing civil war caused by our destabilizaton of the country.

The figure you gave, “600,000″ caused by Muslim radicals is misleading. See: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf. You seriously need to open up to more reliable sources for your information.

Fascism is a scientific political movement, and it should not be discounted and taken so lightly. Fascism is far more than the reductionist “kick your teeth in” thing. The US kicked Saddam’s teeth in, but it did that in defense of liberalism.

How is it that the neo-Nazi skinheads of Germany vote for the German Left party that is so ostensibly supposed to be diametrically opposed to the neo-fascists, according to some leftists? Or the Respect party break bread with the ultra-right wing members of Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist Sharia demanding racist and supremacist organizations?

For example, the support of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei by the western left. Or Michael Moore and Juan Cole calling Al-Qaeda death-squad fascists as “freedom fighters” and supporting them? And there are many more empirical observations as well, which I will not bore.

And then we have religious fascism or Islamo-fascism, which is being denied by the postmodern and postcolonial left, due to their newfound romance with Islamic intolerance. State socialist economy and placing the group identity (national identity or religious identity) ahead of liberties, is the definition for fascism. Tell me what is about the Islamic Republic of Iran that does not meet this definition? And yes, the jackboots of the Islamic Basijis are very effective in killing all dissent in Iran. But of course the western self-hating anti-enlightenment postmodern selective bleeding heart leftists and lefto-fascists have their eyes, ears, and mouth shut.

If Lancet is correct and 600,000 innocent Iraqis have been murdered by the Islamic death squads of Mahdis and Wahhabis, and all of this while the western leftists were cheering them on, and demanding more power to them, then the left has a lot of ‘plaining to do. Shame on the anti-human rights and pro-identity rights post-colonial lefto-fascist.

You mean at the expense of content and substance? You mean in favor of petty letters and linguistic games to the detriment of meaning?

You gotta be kidding, ey?

And, thanks to author for maintaining a high level of civility on this board.

Chris,

Did you also think they had a religious excuse for saying “offence” instead of “offense” in the US?

Indeed I did! Is there anything that cannot be excused by religion?

Now if you’ll excuse me, the color of my tires is a bit odd; I may have to replace the aluminum in my carburetor.

My point is that mockery just for the sake of mockery, without having a sensible message is futile, and will only inflame the debate. Drawing a picture of Muhammad with a 17th century bomb in his turban, with a bit of Ottoman calligraphy thrown in, is not elegant, and will only increase the divide. Drawing something like the above cartoon in the ensuing debate is on the contrary witty and elegant (imho). I judge the value of the first contribution as a fair bit less than the above one. And if the decision was mine to make, I would have published this one, and not the first one.

Thinking all ideas equally worthy of respect is indeed silly. And even though I’m unsure of who or what you refer to as “lefto-fascist”, I think if you ask them, they may agree, or they at least they should agree to that.

But of course you’re right. People should not go out of the way to please people who are unbending in their anti-social or anti-democratic beliefs. However, very few believers belong in that category, and there’s no need to increase their numbers through thoughtless, sweeping provocations.

Also, quite frankly, I’m a bit tired of people that use the word “islamo-fascist”, as if it were some kind of political observance. It’s not, and the word makes no sense. But please read the above stuff also.

Hobbes, I’ll try to dig them out of my ancient fading memory. Here is one:
“Ah, Sex, Bourbon, the NY Times crossword, more sex — thus we compose a perfect Sunday morning.” [That there "compose" is a printing pun.]

Better than church.

Can we try to keep it pithy and urbane?

Politics & Religion: two topics which should be discussed in moderation except in jest… Yet we’ve got over 15,000 on it already on this page…

Come on people, lighten up.

Tea: for an American use of “offence” see Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall,”
where the curious variation is made into a marvelous pun.

–Poor Richard

Referring to the definition of lefto-fascism, I can only guess, but you seem to be championing only the authoritarian aspect, where I was referring to the economic aspect. If we see fascism only as that which is authoritarian, then, yes, any form of authoritarianism can be thought of as fascist. I believe that to be a bogus view.

However, if we look at the original definition of facism, then we see that the ideology was originally based on a hatred of anything “liberal,” such as labor unions, human rights, workers rights, etc. Thus, a fascist government will work for the benefit of the corporate world—some call it a “corporatocracy”—at the expense of the worker. Authoritarian, yes, but a corporatocracy as well. This is currently the state of affairs in the U.S., and this is why I believe we are very close to being a fascist state—if not there already, given that the executive branch pays no attention to the Constitution or the congress.

So, under the foregoing definition, I don’t see how a liberal ideology can be considered fascist, unless, of course, we take the view that all authoritarians are fascists, which seems to be a fallacious argument.

I would appreciate a civil response eliminating your definition so I can understand where I’m missing your meaning. This is your chance to educate, rather than denigrate.

The irony has tragically escaped you. This episode of the cartoons is precisely about how the lefto-fascists and the Islamo-fascists try to censor and stifle debate by crying “I am offended”. And then you come and demand the same thing? At least you could have figured the cartoon in the first place, and save us the misery to have to respond.

Again, respect for ideas, such as the gutter religion of Islam, and the gutter culture of Muslim religiosity (e.g. razor cutting the forehead of 4 year olds), is not an entitlement. I will mock their religion and their culture to my hearts content and there is nothing you can fortunately do.

In fact I am a Muslim apostate, and that to your chagrin.

I will only respect the individual rights of a person, and I will defend that.

Otherwise, I am under no obligation to respect his beliefs or ideas, right or wrong, gutter or exhalted.

It is well known when reason cannot penetrate the thick skull of the religious believer and the dogmatist, then mockery can do wonders. Mockery is quite a meaningful high-bandwidth method of communication – and unlike language, is quite universal.

There is no responsibility to respect the ideas of the silly, the primitive, the idiot, or for that matter the ideas of me and you – despite what the postmodern lefto-fascists demand that ideas be respected.