Skip to main content

Last night I wrote "How the Islamic crazies are like the Right" to hammer home how fundamentalist Islam has more in common with the radical religious right, the American Taliban, than it does with the American Left.

This is a key point-- it was easier for the Right to tie the American Left with our previous boogeyman, the communists, since we technically were nearer to the extreme left than where conservatives.

But today, things look quite different. I started the ball rolling on similarities on that previous post. Here are more similarities, as submitted by readers:

Foreign Policy

Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation

Executing Minors

Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice

Pop Culture

Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it

Self-image

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

God

Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone

Stem Cell Research

Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone

Use of Force

Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort

Bush's War in Iraq

Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster

Press

Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press

Free Speech

Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion

Individuals

Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity

Cooperation

Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together

Tolerance

Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live

Conscience

Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection

Origins

Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years ago, maybe more

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government

Fear

Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Liberals: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that respect for our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is eminently moral

Women

Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be

Marriage

Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other

We could keep this up all day, I suspect. Remember, the point isn't that the American Taliban is just like Al Qaida (though given the chance...), the point is that there's no reason that liberals would ever "root" for Al Qaida or the Taliban or any of the crazies in the Islamic fundamentalist world.

The reasons we hate the American Taliban are the same reasons we hate fundamentalists of all stripes -- they seek to impose their own moral code on the rest of society, and do so with the zeal and moral absolutism possible only from those who believe they are doing "God's work".

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:56 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  a moderate view (3.66)
    I consider myself a moderate Republican, but voted Democratic for the last 2 years as a protest vote against the War in Iraq.  More and more I am leaning to the left.  However, gross over-generalizations like the above passages confirm my views as a moderate.  Classifying the Republicans "running the show" as gay-hating, woman-bashing, religious nuts is about as accurate as portraying Democrats as Drug-abusing, weak-on-terrorism, baby-killers.  

    I know its more fun to play extremist polictics and spout hyperbole, but the problem with this country right now is that everyone on the other side is a charicature (sic?) or demon.  If either party's motivated grass-roots following put half as much effort into public policy as it does into demonizing each other, we'd have fixed most of the problems by now.

    •  Don't think that's what Kos is saying. (4.00)
      This post equates the "American Taliban", (i.e. the Dobson crowd) with the fundamentalist Islamists.  I don't believe Kos meant to include the entire Republican party in this chracterization.  I daresay that as a moderate Republican, you have more in common with rank & file Democrats than you do with the Christofascist wing of your own party.

      Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

      by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  unfortunately... (4.00)
        ...that's the same cop-out that someone like a Rove can use when he's talking about 'liberals' (oh, I meant hard left liberals).

        They guy's got a good point about stuff like this.  It plays great to the faithful, but is fairly off-putting for those of a more moderate mindset.

        •  However, (none)
          when Rove made those comments, he specifically named Democrats...he also told ridiculous lies about how liberals wanted to "offer therapy" to the terrorists.  I can recall no statements by anyone about offering therapy to the terrorists.

          The most overplayed statement of any kind about 9/11 that circled the wingnutosphere forever & was evidently the most outrageous statement that conservatives could find were the comments by Ward Churchill (who was incorrectly identified with the left & Democrats) & I don't remember him saying anything about therapy.

          As far as I can tell, there are no misrepresentations in the characterizations Kos made in his post, as they are all part of the announced agenda of Dobson & his ilk.

          Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

          by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:20:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This concept (none)
            was in part a response to a post of Armando's last night: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/5/05142/91447

            Right wing bloggers equate those who disagree with Bush to terrorists. Sure, this may play better for those who are more liberal than moderate, but the point is...fight fire with fire. They want to call us terrorists? Fine...go ahead, but we're not going to let that go unanswered...especially on the 4th of July.

            I don't see how anyone but a terrorist or a member of the extreme religious right could be offended by this...

          •  well (none)
            not to make a mountain out of it... but...

            "Last night I wrote "How the Islamic crazies are like the Right"...

            And while he somewhat lessens the rhetoric a little later on (throwing in adjectives like Radical, Religious...), it is the nature of these types of comparisons to be very black/white || good/evil || us/them, and thus quite flawed (logically) from the get go.

            But, all the partisan-sniping aside...the only political groups to the right of BushCo on most social issues, on this whole dang planet, do seem to be fundamentalist based and concentrated largely in the ME.  Making that point clear to the fence standers here at home is certainly a worthwhile agenda, IMHO.  It's good for people to see who they are standing with, and might force a few to ask that one extra 'why' that jumpstarts their thinking caps.

        •  Notice that Kos did not even mention (4.00)
          Republican or even "conservative" at all, nor did he reference any partisan affiliation.

          He's referring to the radical religious right as an entity unto itself, and because of this, there are really no appropriate corollaries that can be drawn between Kos' remarks here and the recent outrageous statements by Rove.

          If I were a moderate, rational republican, I'd be much more offended by the Dobson gang referring to themselves as "republicans" and "conservatives". They are the creatures bringing shame, suspicion and disrepute to the GOP, not those of us who challenge the insanity and anti-democratic, anti-constitutional agenda of these extremist nutbirds.

          Defeat the sound-bite.

          by sbj on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:00:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yea, but... (none)
            it's all semantics till you get to the voting booth.

            There are only (functionally) two sides, and this kind of stuff tends to alienate (a bit) all but the faithful.

            Just sayin' that's all.

            And he (Kos) did call the first one a 'Right' thing.

            If I were a moderate, rational republican, I'd be much more offended by the Dobson gang referring to themselves as "republicans" and "conservatives".

            It's true, they are.  But you are replying to a thread that was started by a moderate, rational republican.  

            I'm just saying keep an eye on the rhetoric, is all...really...it's just a blog. ;)

            •  I think that, in order to accurately represent (none)
              the functionality currently operating in the political theater, we are best served by describing 3 sides, liberal/moderate Dems, rational moderate/ conservative Repubs, and the extremist lunatics masquerading as conservative Christian Repubs. Conflating the evangelical fascists with rational repubs will only slow the return to sanity in the political arena. (IMHO).

              Defeat the sound-bite.

              by sbj on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:02:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You nailed it (none)
        Exactly right

        "My own mind is my own church." Tom Paine

        by Snoutboy on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:58:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A "4" (none)
      for the well-thought-out-ness of your post, though I think you've likely misinterpreted "American Taliban" to mean "all Republicans."

      Still, even if not this time, we all have our moments of playing demonizer rather than thinking rationally, so this is a good object lesson in taking a step back when we feel it all boiling over.

      who controls the 'raqi war? who tells big lies by the score? Bush do! Bush do!

      by br00mhiLdA on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:04:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  While we also support your moderate (4.00)
      views, we question your self-truthfulness when you say republicans aren't gay bashing.  Sure, Log Cabin republicans do exist.  But in every leadership position your party now has, they want to take away rights of gays, be it marrage, adoptions, inheritance or even civil unions.

      My own apprehensions about this thread are in referance to hating.  I don't hate anyone.  Hate is bad, no matter what.  Passionately dislike, OK, hate, no.

      •  Hate BAD, peace GOOD (none)
        Agree - Kos, this was good right up until you talked about how "we hate ..."

        I hate the flu, I hate the humidity in DC in August, but i feel no such emotion for any other human being.

        Remember, hatred is what fuels both Al Qaeda and the Christofasciwingnuticals; it is the blossom of fear, and its odor causes a dispeptic (and damaging) response on our side - but shouldn't.

        The path to peace is surely found by doing everything we can to  reduce or eliminate our enemy's fear of our values. We can't start doing that until we also stop being so afraid ourselves, and fueling that fear with words (and feelings) like hate.

        Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hatred. Hatred leads to the Dark Side.
        - Yoda

        I am the federal government.

        by mateosf on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:13:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sort of... (4.00)
      the problem with this country right now is that everyone on the other side is a charicature (sic?) or demon.

      I agree with you completely; I have too many Republican friends to imagine that the letter on one's voter registration card necessarily means anything (note however that Markos is referring to the American Taliban, a distinct subset of Republicans, and not the Republican party).

      Also,

      If either party's motivated grass-roots following put half as much effort into public policy as it does into demonizing each other

      From where I'm standing, these ideological extremists that Markos is referring to ARE currently the motivated grass-roots of the Republican party.  If I'm incorrect, please let me know.

      Visit www.theseguys.com - a blended double-tequila margarita of pop culture & LA nightlife.

      by KB on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:08:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, you are correct. (4.00)
        "From where I'm standing, these ideological extremists that Markos is referring to ARE currently the motivated grass-roots of the Republican party.  If I'm incorrect, please let me know."

        There is an extreme lunatic wing of the Republican party that fears/hates homosexuals.  No competent person can disagree with that.  Thankfully, they are a small segment (I refuse to believe 51% of the voting public doesn't have a gay brother, friend, etc.).  

        What worries me is when I see this forum, which generally contains very intelligent discussion on relevant topics, reduced to "Republican = Woman's place is in the kitchen."  The "wingnuts" as they are referred to in this post are able to hate/fear homesexuals because they are merely charicatures or aliens to them.  They don't have to feel compassion or empathy for them because they are not even human.  I am worried this post is travelling down the same train of thought...i.e. Republicans and their ideas can be ignored because they are jokes/woman-haters/demons, etc.  

        •  Yep (none)
          All too frequently, Republicans to it to Democrats (and vice versa), women do it to men (and vice versa), Christians do it to Muslims (avv), blacks do it to whites (avv) and so forth.  It's pretty easy to find someone to be the Other.

          I'm not sure you can understand very much about the world if don't generalize to some degree, but you run into significant problems when you take your generalizations and presume they apply to every member of a particular group.  

          And some people are too ignorant to realize the inherent dangers, and some are all too aware but find it easy to start a bandwagon of blaming than take personal responsibility for anything.

          Visit www.theseguys.com - a blended double-tequila margarita of pop culture & LA nightlife.

          by KB on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:19:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  is it hyperbole if it's in their party platform? (none)
      granted, not all of the above comparisons are in the platform, but many are.  An example obviating the need for hyperbole is found in the Texas GOP platform from 2004 (reviewed by Kevin Drum).

      America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

      by bribri on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:12:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Problem (4.00)
      with the American Taliban is not that they are like Al-Qaeda, it is that they aren't different enough.

      Dobson et. al. are just the (small 'd') democratic mirror-image of Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden. Change the environment and the system of incentives and constraints in which they find themselves and it would be Omar on the radio here in the US and Dobson packing an RPG in the Afghan Bush. In terms of preferences, there is no difference between the two -- both have a fundamentalist world-view that is quite simply at odds with modern notions of liberty, fairneses, and decency.

      They are the same. It is only the environment in which they operate that is different.    

      Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

      by Benito on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:13:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Demonization (none)
      I think it will help us more to make the Repubs defend their (very shitty) record instead of demonizing them.

      We, as Democrats, aren't very good at mudslinging.  We should avoid it for that reason.  

      If we can make the Repubs explain their Iraq, healthcare or energy policies we will do more damage to them politically than if we call them the American Taliban.

      Also, Iraq, healthcare and gas prices have a real effect on our day to day lives.  No one cares enough about the Taliban to draw a clear parallel between them and the fundie Repubs, anyway.

      That's where I saw the Leprchaun. He tells me to burn things! -R. Wiggum

      by Blue Neponset on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:14:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Demons on the right (none)
      But the truth is the right is full of demons and that's just the half of it. Would u have made that argument in 1943 about the Nazis ?  No, they were evil and so is Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and Bu$H. Allo are fascists and to be treated as such.

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

      by Blutodog on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:27:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  To some extent I agree (none)
      I agree that laying out comparisons like these isn't going to change the world, that there is nothing really to GAIN by pointing out the similarities between the hard right in this country and the hard right overseas that our hard right is fighting.

      There is more, but still not a great deal, to gain from pointing out the differences between ourselves and these two groups.

      Where we REALLY gain is by taking these broadly drawn differences and turning them into a manifesto for the Democratic Party.

      We've seen swing voters and moderate Republicans tell us time and again that they don't like BushCo but they're turned off by what they perceive as the absence of a Democratic Party message about WHAT WE STAND FOR.

      We can't fight any more elections as the Anti-Bush Party.  It wasn't enough last time, and it won't be enough in the future.

      So let's take these "Oh my god, we're so unlike them both, and they're so like each other!!" statements, and turn them into a platform instead of just saying them to each other and sniggering.

    •  I don't see that Kos even mentioned (4.00)
      Republicans, or even conservatives in his piece, nor did he reference any partisan affiliation at all. Clearly he did reference the "radical religious right", and this group of people is who he's calling the "American Taliban".

      I don't find any sort of "stealth, broad-brush" smearing of the Republicans, (or conservatives), in these comments at all.

      While it's understood that the religious extremists on the right currently support the Bush gang with uncommon fervor, and currently align themselves with the Republican party as part of their effort to control the political agenda of the nation, these extremists are no more representative of true "conservative republican principles" than bin Laden is, and Kos, I believe is trying to make that point.

      For me, in our democracy, liberals and conservatives exist on the same continuum. We may disagree about methods and ideas from time to time, but we're still on the same side. We still share an abiding interst in what's best for the country, and we recognize that it's essential to have respect for each other even when we disagree. We accept that we need to share authority, and we understand that playing by the rules is usually more important than winning by any means necessary.

      The Dobson style politicos have no regard for any of these essential democratic principles. Where we co-exist on a Democracy Continuum, they exist on a Tyranny continuum, a place where shared power in a participatory environment is anathema to their ambition. Dobson, like bin Laden, requires absolute obedience to his demands and he will turn on anyone who doesn't accede to his outrageous demands. This kind of behavior is anti-democracy in every respect.

      It's my belief that more and more people are finally realizing that the Dobson gang is really a scary and dangerous bunch. I fully believe that their aspirations to hijack the Republican party are already starting to fail as moderate and rational conservatives (such as yourself presumably) realize how truly insane and violently intolerant these nuts are. hopefully by the end ofthis year we'll be able to detect a substantive change in the makeup of the republican party and real, rational conservatives will regain control of it, ushering in a return to reality based thinking in the political arena.

      Defeat the sound-bite.

      by sbj on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:31:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  reply (none)
      in response to your observation that both sides consider the other demons at this point.  my question is, who started it?  i don't remember this kind of hatred when clinton was president.  your man GWB, and his cronies are explicitly responsible.  you reap what you sow
    •  Don't feel bad. (none)
      I've heard of countless conservatives, among them registered Republicans, lifelong Republicans, who had been forced by their conscience to vote Democratic, even though it seemed the lesser of two evils.

      Glad to have an independent-thinking conservative on board. Welcome.

      JP
      http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

      Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

      by jurassicpork on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:40:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  EVIDENCE, PLEASE (4.00)
       Classifying the Republicans "running the show" as gay-hating, woman-bashing, religious nuts is about as accurate as portraying Democrats as Drug-abusing, weak-on-terrorism, baby-killers.

      You are telling me that Bush, Frist, Santorum, and Dobson are NOT gay-hating, woman-bashing, religious nuts?

      Would you like to substantiate that given the daily appearance of public statements by at least one of the above which support the contention that this is in fact what they are?

      Or is your problem that calling these crazies what they are is "extremist" because nice people don't tell the truth about the GOP in public?

      How many "moderates" remain in the GOP leadership that can not fairly be characterized as gay-hating, woman-bashing, religious nuts?  

      McCain is a Republican Senator, but I don't really think he can be considered a GOP party leader ... he doesn't even have any committee chairmanships anymore. He's simply part of the moderate face the GOP is trying to present to people who don't know any better.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:06:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great meme Kos (none)
    I hope you continue this as a weekly post
  •  Why? (none)
    If their god-damned God is so god-damned great, why do the god-damned nitwits gotta go running around trying to ram their god-damned beliefs down our god-damned throats?

    Can't their god-damned God do it, if it's so god-damned important that we toe his god-damned line?

    I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker, The Cowboy and the Cossack

    by xysrl on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:58:08 PM PDT

    •  God-damn, that felt god-damned good! n/t (none)

      I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker, The Cowboy and the Cossack

      by xysrl on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because He Told Them To Do It n/t (none)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:04:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's kinda like a quest (none)
      Their god sets weird tasks for them, like converting the world.

      I'd settle for some shrubbery.  Ni!Ni!Ni!

      •  It's actually a very, very good question (none)
        And it goes to the very root of why we do politics at all:  who gets to decide who runs things, and how they are run?

        Fundamentalists have bitten hook, line and sinker to 2 of the old seven deadlies:  pride and anger.

        Their arrogance almost defies belief--they are soooooo sure they know the Only Way to Righteousness.  They've gone so far and berserk with this they actually call themsleves Christians while they approve of us blowing off the arms of childen for lies.

        The anger is harder for me to fathom.  In the end I think it all just boils down to immature envy; "christian" disciplines can be very, very restricitve and almost punitive.

        No sex before marriage (it really pisses them off to be so achingly virgin while hordes of evil liberals bang sexual organs at every possible opprtunity), no tabocco, no swearing, no greed, respect your parents....

        It not could be perpetuation of the root injustices they hate--poverty means nothing to them, as doing murder mean nothing (Iraq).

        It really doesn't work for me.  Other than plain envy I have no idea why these freaks are so pissed off.  Jesus they think they're persecuted just when somebody call them freaks, which they are.  Poor babies.  Lord knows why they got so mad.

    •  Even the OT made that point. (none)
      There was a man named Gideon who destroyed an idol to Baal; when fanatics came to kill him, his father turned them away by telling them that if Baal was so offended at the destroying of his shrine, then let Baal deal with it. That story is in the Book of Judges.
  •  You should start a quiz ...... (4.00)
    .... on this.

    Was this statement made by Al-Qaeda or the Family Research Council?
  •  Post Some Quotes (none)
    How about somebody post some quote and let's see if we can guess the speaker. Like if is Osama bin Laden, James Dobson, or W.

    I bet it would be hard to tell the difference.

    "It has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity" - Kofi Annan

    by theglobalizer on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:59:59 PM PDT

  •  Marriage: (4.00)
    Wingnuts: One man, one woman.
    Taliban: One man, up to four women.

    Er.

    Liberal: One person, one person.

    Hm.

    Not sure that works.

  •  GOP view of the left (none)
    Liberals in the MidEast = Good

    Liberals in the MidWest = Bad

  •  First time making the front page! (none)
    Good lookin out, Markos

    Campaignation: A Strategic Look Ahead to 2006 and 2008

    by malkori on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM PDT

  •  I don't like this one (none)
    Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan

    American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us

    Liberals: God didn't choose anyone

    or the creation one that much either- there are deeply religious, non-atheist liberals.

    When will you be "ready to fight fifty years to win"?

    by A Ball of Lint on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:02:47 PM PDT

    •  how 'bout... (4.00)
      Al Qaida/Taliban: God wants Osama bin Laden to lead us as we destroy the Great Satan

      American Taliban: God wants George Bush to lead us as we destroy terra

      Liberals: God doesn't want destruction

      who controls the 'raqi war? who tells big lies by the score? Bush do! Bush do!

      by br00mhiLdA on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:07:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and (3.50)
        Al Qaida/Taliban:  Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God

        American Taliban:  Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God

        Liberals:  The Universe as we know it was created at least 14 billion years ago.  You might not agree.  That's cool.

        who controls the 'raqi war? who tells big lies by the score? Bush do! Bush do!

        by br00mhiLdA on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:10:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Try this (none)

          Liberals: Most scientists believe the theory that the Universe as we know it was created at least 14 billion years ago. You may not believe it, but that doesn't make the science wrong.

          ... or ...

          Liberals: Many people believe that Universe and man were created 6,000 years ago by God. However, physical evidence and Occam's Razor make other conclusions more probable.

          Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.

          by admiralh on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:06:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How About Another Modification (none)
          Because I admit this one gave me pause too, both times I've seen it....

          Al Qaida/Taliban:  Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God

          American Taliban:  Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God

          Liberals:  How on earth does anyone know that our concept of a "year" is the same as a "year" to God, if in fact He does exist?

          My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

          by shanikka on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:42:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The stem cell point may well be wrong (none)
      Does this one really work?
      Stem Cell Research

          * Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
          * American Taliban: No Stem cell research
          * Liberals: Stem cell research

      If the Al Qaida/Taliban position matches the Muslim positions I found, then it's not right.

      Evidence:

      From a press release on embryonic stem cell research:

      A majority of Muslim Americans support embryonic stem-cell research according to a new poll conducted by the Islamic Institute. The Washington-based Islamic advocacy group also announced its support for the research based on recommendations of a panel of Islamic scholars, scientists, and medical doctors

      Islamic Institute

      A from a statement by the research committee of IslamToday.net:

      We must also consider the fact that even if the embryo were not destroyed by the extraction of the stem cells; it would have no chance of survival on its own, since it is not in a womb or even in an artificial environment that could bring it to term. Finally, the time of its destruction is very early on in its development - five days. This is an extremely short period of time.

      Because of these differences, and in consideration of the benefits that could be realized for humanity from this procedure, we incline to the idea that therapeutic cloning of this sort is permissible. However, these questions warrant further investigation.


      Islam Today

      < snark>Logically, therefore, liberals support Muslim terrorism.</ snark>

      Stem-cell graphical snark for your use: http://img206.echo.cx/img206/535/blastocyst0ya.gif

      by technopolitical on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:39:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not sure about this one either. (none)
    Al Qaida/Taliban:  Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God  

    I don't think there is anything in Islamic beliefs about the age of the Universe.  (Kind of hard to prove--too many schools of jurisprudence and too many self-appointed scholars to check them all.)

    As far as I know, Muslims believe there is nothing in the Qur'an or their religious held beliefs that go against science.  Some of them seem to take some satisfaction from referencing verses in the Qur'an that seemed to go against scientific knowledge 1400 or 1000 or 500 or even 200 years ago but that have since been proven to be correct.

  •  Liberals: God didn't choose anyone... (none)
    but she still has the right to choose if she wants to!
  •  asdf (none)
    A happy coincidence when God's opinion and mine are in complete agreement!

    Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

    by groggy on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:03:01 PM PDT

  •  Even without the first two (none)
    The third remark of each section really outlines what it's like to be a true liberal worldwide.  Going back to the core values posted a month or two ago, these here are a gread added checklist to remember when asked on just about any position out there.

    (They also reflect Unitarian Universalism beliefs very well :)

  •  As Emperor Bullshit says, "They hate our (none)
    freedom.  So does the American Taliban.  

    What you describe, of course, is fascist totalitarianism vs American democratic pluralism.

    RIP: LAND OF THE FREE

    by NorCalJim on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:06:12 PM PDT

  •  good points Kos (4.00)
     I know why Im a Democrat.  Because were right and they are not.
    •  But even so, (none)
      we are always open to a periodic critical examination of our own beliefs in the context of an ever-changing world to make sure that we are still on the right side of things.  Always assuming you are right is never the best way to go.

      But here's a '4' anyway, since we are right.  (At lieast right now.)

      Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

      by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:09:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Damn! (none)
    Good stuff - thanks for posting this!
  •  Nice Listing (none)
    I began making essentially the same comments during the Clinton: America-Held-Hostage years when culture-wing Republicans were making so darned many of the same accusations against America.

    I agree that a collection of quotes--video tape would be better--would make the point effectively.

    I'm not sure who politically should be the object of this pitch, that's outside my practical knowledge. I'm pretty sure the mainstream and DLC party would say 'nobody.'

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:08:10 PM PDT

  •  Awesome. + A Few Changes... (none)
    Foreign Policy...add "rule of law" to Liberal:

    Foreign Policy

    Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
    American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
    Liberals: Rule of law, peace and international cooperation

    Leaders...typo...change "choose" to "chose" for first 2...then change Liberals to "God doesn't choose anyone...the voters do."

  •  Energy (4.00)
    Al Qaida/Taliban: Wants the West to be totally energy dependent on oil so it can finance terrorism
    American Taliban:Wants the West to be totally energy dependent on oil so it can finance war on terrorism
    Liberals: Wants the world to be totally energy independent of oil to eliminate terrorism.

    And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall -- Dylan

    by Rp on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:08:52 PM PDT

  •  Not sure about this theme (none)

    The actual Taliban murdered and raped women, and prevented their attendance in school and participation in society.

    As much as I despise the religious right - and I do mean DESPISE - I simply don't think there is a corrollary to the Taliban in American political life.

    The comparison is over the top and probably turns more peole off than it persuades.

    •  No (none)
      The only difference is that Dobson et. al. live in a liberal democracy under the rule of law. Change that and they would be stoning people to death faster than you could say "repent sinner!"

      Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

      by Benito on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:22:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Al Qaeda >= American Taliban (none)
      Yes, our Taliban is not as bad as their Taliban...

      ...yet.

      It bothers me when we are not allowed to notice the incremental advances toward fascism and fundamentalism without being accused of equating those lesser abuses to greater abuses.

      Yes, Gitmo is not as bad as a Soviet gulag or Nazi prison camp.  Yet.  But is it wrong to notice similarities?  Dachau was not built in a day.

      Yes, the Taliban beheads people and Falwell is pretty civilized.  So far.  But is it wrong to notice the similarity of the rhetoric?

      Must we wait for the day our women are in burqa's and our courts amputate thieves' hands before we're allowed to point out the dangerous track we're on?

      •  by what measure? (none)
        innocents killed?
        economic damage?
        laws broken?

        It's hard to claim the American Taliban are any less casual about civilian deaths and the rest than are Al Qaeda.

        America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

        by bribri on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:43:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, it's a comparative matter (none)
        I get irritated when someone says that "you can't compare" Gitmo to the gulags, etc.

        People often misunderstand that to compare X and Y is not to say X=Y. It is to find out just how similar to (or different from) X is vis-a-vis Y.

        So of course you can compare Gitmo and the gulags.

        You can only know how much better we are than the worst governments of history if you compare us to them, and you can only stop us from sliding ever closer to such historical antecendents if you call attention to even incremental steps in the wrong direction.

        So, keep on comparing.

        "As every representative is elected to represent one of these two parties, the nation ...appears to consist only of these two parties" -- Henry Droop, 1867

        by Moosa Man on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:49:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good analysis (none)
        in that once a society swings right over to fascism/tyranny/dictatorship, we look at it as if it was always that way.  The vital lesson to be learned from history is that the road to serfdom (the real one, not the fakey fakey road that Hayek dreamed up) is ALWAYS incremental.  It's like that story about the frog:  you put it in a pot of water and gradually turn up the heat, and it swims and it swims and has no idea that anything is wrong so it doesn't jump out of the water.  Then suddenly it's too damn hot, but before it can jump out, it's dead.  

        That said, I think it's helpful to remind ourselves that a post like this one (kos') is doing interpretive work, not documentary work.  IMO, liberals/progressives tend to see the present through the framework of what we have learned from history, and we tend to be hyperaware of nuance and change in what we deem to be essential indices of a democratic, open, progressive, thriving, egalitarian society.  When many changes begin to occur simultaneously, and at an increasingly rapid rate, and when vast numbers of the citizenry seem either oblivious to or willfully ignorant of these changes, we start to see the writing on the wall.   And then we reach for symbols that we hope most people will view in similar light (Nazism, gulags, Talibanism) in order to try to convey our sense that things are moving in a very bad direction here, folks, and it's time to take note!

        I believe that right wing conservatives do the same thing in mirror-image:  for example, post-WW2, when communism appeared to be spreading across the globe, the extreme right (extreme at the time, I mean) in America saw any change in social policies that redistributed resources and democratized opportunity, as signs that the country was "going commie."  They painted the left with a wide and indiscriminate brush, deeming the tyranny of the Soviet Union's centralized and corrupt political economy as indistinguishable from democratically-based American social welfare policies.  So, both sides have used and continue to use the same methods to make their message.  

        HOWEVER, here is where we differ:  liberals and progressives by definition believe in dissent, argument, distrust of the status quo and the importance of challenging power, regardless of who wields it (progressives are often the loudest critics of liberals, and vice versa.  Oh, and remember how Clinton was torn a new one over "don't ask, don't tell?"  It was a terrible solution, IMO, and he was routed as loudly by the left as by the right, but for obviously different reasons) whereas, it seems to me, the extreme right is more than willing to sacrifice freedom, dissent and democracy, if that serves its overall purpose.  

        Given a choice, I'd rather suffer from left-wing anxiety about the world because it seems to be a guarantee against totalitarianism of any kind.

        Last comment and then I'll shuddup:  what the list suggests to me rather chillingly, is the possibility of the complete sidelining of moderate, progressive, secular, egalitarianism.  In other words, the war that's being fought in Iraq and elsewhere is not the real war that either type of Taliban needs to win.   The war they really want/need to win is against folks like us.  Because how bad, really, will Dobson & Co. feel if they control America and the Taliban control all of the Middle East?   Ya think that would stop either side from doing business with one another?  Ya think?  And what better way to keep the rank and file in line than keeping a war going 24/7 that helps each side demonize the enemy, including dissenters in their own ranks.  Yeah, I know, George Orwell already did that, but sans the religious fundamentalism.  

        So, creating a time line for getting out of Iraq is . . . maybe not so important.  Coz long term, the draft is . . . maybe their friend.  And war against Iran and any other mid-east nation where real democratic forces actually begin to gather some power?  Not so bad.  But not North Korea, man, coz that whole commie-threat thing?  Is just so last century.  

        Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly

        by writeout on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:00:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Murder and rape of women (none)
      might not yet be enshrined in the evangelical fascist cause, (though witch-burning and execution of abortion providers may be tolerable perspectives within this community), but, as an example of current insanity within the extremist religious community, here is an excerpt on women from Santorum' new book; "It Takes a Family". Courtesy of Capitol Buzz.

      Keep The Mom At Home: "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do... And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." (It Takes a Family, 94)

      Thanks Gloria Steinem: "Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more "professionally" gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment...Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders." (It Takes a Family, 95)

      Who Needs College? "The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." (It Takes a Family, 138)

      They may not have reached the murder and rape stage yet, but I have no doubt they're planning for it.

      Defeat the sound-bite.

      by sbj on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:24:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually, there is something to be said (none)
    for participating in, critiquing, interacting with, modern pop culture.  If the Dems want to pick up more support, they'd be much better off trying to understand the origins of pop culture and knowing what's going on than just joining the "me too!" condemnations of the insufferable moralists who are too serious to have any fun.  please Dems. don't buy into this...sometimes just playing along for fun does actually win over some people.  sanctimonious boycot-this boycot-that type of stuff does not.
  •  Fundamentalists, fundamentalists, fundamentalists (none)
    When referring to the rightwing crazies (to borrow kos' word), we should never say the word "Christian" without adding "Fundamentalists."

    For one, it doesn't cede all of Christianity to the right, just the crazy part. And two, it reminds everyone that the crazies in our country have someothing in common with the crazies out there: extreme religious fundamentalism.

    I know I keep saying this, but it bears repeating: the Christian fundamentalists of the Republican Party want the same thing that Islamic fundamentalists want-- for everyone else to abide by their belief system, whether everyone else wants to or not. In effect this is the attempted overthrow of the Enlightenment, the dismantling of modernity, and with it the eradication of individual freedom that is the foundation of democracy.

    •  Did you notice (4.00)
      ...that in the Mideast, we hear about "Islamic fundamentalists" and "Muslim terrorists" all the time. But in the Balkans, when Orthodox Christians were murdering, torturing and otherwise ethnically cleansing Muslims, spewing hate toward anyone who didn't believe in their specific version of Christianity (such as Catholic Croats as well as Bosnian Muslims), they weren't "Christian fundamentalists," they were "Serbs" or "Serb nationalists."

      The choice of words is instructional. Islam is blamed for the acts of its mass-murdering terrorists, but Christianity is not blamed for the acts of its mass murderers in Bosnia. I've never seen a good explanation for that, but suspect it's because many of those reporting on Bosnia for the West were Christians themselves, and instinctively separated their religion from the acts of those who twisted it.  

      In fact, fundamentalists/extremists of many religious persuasion tend to be more alike than they would admit - Muslim, Christian and Jewish.

  •  Brillinat Point! (none)
    Hardliners and hardliners.

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:12:38 PM PDT

  •  Kos, I have a serious, real question (none)
    What is your explanation for using American Taliban over Republican Taliban (or Taliban Republican) as was mentioned in the diary I addressed to you this morning?  

    I am open to being convinced that this isn't a wasted opportunity.  I want to do what works.  Without substantive argument as to why Republican Taliban or Taliban Republican is not a far more effective term, I remain unconvinced.  And this matters, since a big part of the hopeful 2006 and 2008 backlash will have to do with Republican theocracy.

    "Over time your quickness with a cocky rejoinder must have gotten you many punches in the face." --Al Swearengen

    by RepublicanTaliban on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:14:33 PM PDT

    •  perhaps (none)
      that would be too general. Not all Republicans are American Taliban...so it wouldn't be right to generalize them into that category. Although I agree with you for the most part...it would be LESS confusing for those in the middle to simply stick with American Taliban.
      •  Not all Democrats are "liberal elite" (none)
        either, but it doesn't stop Republicans from effectively using the phrase and frame to get lots of votes.  Just because you say "Republican Taliban" doesn't mean all Republicans are Taliban.  You can use mention Republican moderates in the same breath, which would make clear to any listener that there are different types of Republicans, but that Talibanus Republicanus is a clearly identifiable species.

        I'm completely unsold by this line of argument, and always will be.  Surely Kos has a better reason.

        "Over time your quickness with a cocky rejoinder must have gotten you many punches in the face." --Al Swearengen

        by RepublicanTaliban on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:14:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  but by your logic, then this suggests (none)
        that all Americans are Taliban.
        Republican Taliban is more narrow, accurate, and might help some of those moderate folks who are against Dubya, but keep pulling the "R" lever to realize who is currently in the driver's seat in the Repub party.

        America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

        by bribri on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:41:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not sure how to work (4.00)
    this in but it's from a TAPPED post last week.

    The coalition government relied heavily on a revolving door of diplomats and other personnel who would leave just as they had begun to develop local knowledge and ties, and on a large cadre of eager young neophytes whose brashness often gave offense in a very age- and status-conscious society. One young political appointee (a 24-year-old Ivy League graduate) argued that Iraq should not enshrine judicial review in its constitution because it might lead to the legalization of abortion.
    •  Sounds like diary material... (none)
      A bit o/t, but a good find.

      Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

      by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:27:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure it's OT (none)
        My point was that the radical clerics on the right don't really believe in the courts unless they toe the line. We bitch about bad decisions but don't attempt to remove judicial review.
        •  Just felt that it dealt with additional issues (none)
          and would probably make for a good diary.  It would be a good place to begin examination of how the legal system in Iraq is expected to develop, to compare & contrast with ours insofar as expressed civil rights are concerned (I remember there was talk about enshrining a right to privacy in the Iraqi Constitution-we have no such right expressed in the Consitution, only granted by the Courts (so far) as implied).  But yes, you are correct, it does show how far the wingnuts are willing to go.

          Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

          by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:40:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "This Modern World" (none)
    This thread reminds me uncannily of a Tom Tomorrow "This Modern World" comic strip from six weeks after 9/11. Take a look:
    http://tinyurl.com/c5wbg

    Similar, no?

  •  This discussion reminds me (none)
    of a post I read last year stating how many fundamentalist Christians / right-wing Republicans take on viewpoints in direct contradiction to the actual teachings of the Bible. Two of the numerous examples mentioned there (which I'm taking from memory because I can no longer find the link) were:

    1. Jesus teaches us all to forgive, to "turn the other cheek". His main message was one of peace and he should always be known -whether you believe him to be the son of God or just a brave man who once walked the Earth- as one of the greatest peace activists of all time.  

    2. God is the sole judge when it comes to deciding whether a given person is going to make it to heaven or not- therefore, this is not a job for preachers, priests, talkshow hosts, or others to decide.

    3. The pursuit of great wealth is not a Christian virtue... if anything it is a sin (with several quotes from the Bible)

    Perhaps others could fill in or add on to this.
    Thanks.
    •  Liberals & fundamentalists (none)
      Liberals who follow an organized religion usually admit they cherry-pick religious dogma, choosing to follow those beliefs that match their own moral center. So, there are progressive Jews who believe in social action based on tikkun olam - the need to work to repair the world - but may not keep kosher. And so on.

      Fundamentalists fool themselves into believing they are not cherry-picking, but often claim to be following the Bible, Koran, etc. literally. However, it's the rare individual who can follow all the teachings (especially since some can be contradictory. There's a reason why Jewish scholars have been arguing for centuries about proper interpretations of various passages). As you mention, there are some important teachings of Jesus Christ that many right-wing Christians are ignoring.

      Pretty much everyone selects the parts of their religion that have meaning to them, because it's extraordinarily difficult to follow every one of them. The difference is, liberals are honest about that. I don't think most fundamentalists are.

      •  Brilliant analysis. (none)

        Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

        by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:39:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, because someone who (none)
        flat out admits to "cherry picking scriptures" would also be following a form of pragmatism- as opposed to the (percieved) application of a strict form of idealism to every aspect of one's life.  

        In my opinion, the root cause of so much "evil" in this world is / has always been due to someone out there giving extremely oversimplified solutions -often primarily based on some form of idealism- to complicated problems which are actually quite complex (I do not doubt that the exact opposite is also theoretically possible). The idea is: the simpler the solution, the more people will understand. The more people understand, the bigger your audience becomes, etc.

        The first ex. of the above which comes to mind: it is apparently easier for the masses  to understand and accept a phrase like "They fight us because they hate our freedom" than (I believe I first heard a variant of this from the writer/director John Sayles during a radio interview broadcast from San Fransisco): "I guarantee you that if we Americans were some run-of-the-mill communist dictatorship hopping and skipping around the world doing some of the things we've been doing over the past few decades... we would, without a doubt, still have a band of terrorists thugs coming after us."

        The obvious next question is "What exactly have we been doing...?" - but this is complex to answer if done precisely. Moreover, any such answer is unlikely to fit into simplistic ideology.  

         

      •  Fundamentalists use their (none)
        religious affiliation to justify their beliefs.

        Spiritual seekers rely on their beliefs to guide them to the religion that embraces them.

        These 2 perspectives are diametrically opposed. the fundies have it exactly backwards. the beliefs validate the religion, not the other way around.

        Defeat the sound-bite.

        by sbj on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:41:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know... (none)
        "Cherry-picking" seems to me to buy into the same religious epistemology that evangelicals use, which is that the Bible is a book of propositions (beliefs) which you must either buy into completely or not (in which case, you aren't truly Christian).

        I don't buy that. It seems to me that that's not faith. I'd rather see faith as a fairly unified thing (e.g., Jesus' "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and your neighbour as yourself"), and then all these other issues of "value" and "belief" as judged by that. My main problem with evangelicals is not that they delude themselves about whether they are selective in what they take from the Bible (of course they are, how could they not be?), but that they mistake periphery for core, that is, they think that spirituality is about creating social order through the imposition of rules.

        Meister Eckhart said: I pray to God to be rid of God. A famous Buddhist saying: If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him. They're saying the same thing - we mistake our ideas about God for God. That's the idolotry of evangelicalism - it creates a graven image of God out of ideas, and tries to force everyone to worship it. I say this as a former evangelical, one who grew up with all this and can only be sad about how many people are worshipping a God of their own creation.

        It's the marketplace of ideas, not the mall of ideas.

        by mitumba on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 07:34:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Al Qaeda, the Bush regime, (none)
    and the evangelical fascists such as Dobson share virtually all of the characteristics and tactical methodology that cults employ against their subjects. Reading any one of numerous books and studies on the dynamics of cult recruitment, the principles and tactics that drive thought-reform (brainwashing) processes, and the absolute totalitarian power structure in these groups all conform exactly, chapter and verse, with the kind of PyOps assaults on the public being perpetrated by BushCo, bin Laden and the Dobson cabal.

    Instilling fear, weaponizing ignorance, promising security and/or salvation, creating buzzwords and catchy slogans designed to simplify complex problems and discourage independent thought, and effectively co-opting the psychological autonomy of their victims/followers in order to make them obedient to any order, this is what all these groups have in common.

    Rape is about power, not about sex. Dobson and bin Laden are about power, not about God or spirituality. BushCo is about power and dominance, not about the best interests of the people or the nation.

    Narcissistic charlatans all.

    Defeat the sound-bite.

    by sbj on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:59:11 PM PDT

  •  You hit the nail on the head (none)
    Religious extremism is destroying democracy, worldwide. The fact that the hijackers were religious fanatics just never comes up.

    And never mind that Osama favors prayer in schools, AK-47's, oppression (or worse) of gays, and the total abolition of the separation of church and state. Sounds like a Bush supporter to me.

    "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

    by Bensdad on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:01:27 PM PDT

  •  Where is (none)
    wimpywimpywimpy's post?
    •  Flamed (none)
      into Never-Never land.  Apparently he is something of a troll.

      Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

      by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:06:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  gone (none)
      poor wimpy...didn't like seeing the similarities so plainly...
      •  But why was his post removed? (none)
        That doesn't make sense...
        •  If your post (none)
          is rated a 0 or 1 by too many people...it is considered either unproductive, or a post by a troll (i.e. someone who is not here in the spirit of real discussion)...so it becomes a hidden comment...one that isn't productive or helpful to the conversation.
          •  "...helpful to the converstation..."? (none)
            Why can't one of these principles apply?

            Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it

            Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

            Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion

            Liberals: Embrace diversity

            Liberals: Critical reflection

            •  Evidently (none)
              this particular individual has something of a history of comments that are simply intended to hijack an otherwise productive thread with nonsense.  

              Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

              by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:24:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  well (none)
              in a sense...some of those principles do apply...

              those of us who troll rated him/her did so because we critically reflected and felt it wasn't useful to the conversation. Or, we decided to boycott Wimpy...

              As for a willingness to consider other points of view...sure, I'm willing to consider them, but that doesn't mean that they are useful to the community. This site is read by thousands of people each day...and we have an obligation to make sure that the debate here is useful and promotes good ideas. Wimpy insulted us...and while I agree that Wimpy has the right to do so as much as he/she wants...I also think that thousands of people should focus their sights on the more useful comments on the site.

  •  Let's find common ground people (none)
    Tom Cruise

    American Taliban: good actor, self obsessed wierdo
    Liberal: good actor, self obsessed wierdo
    Al Queda/Taliban: who?

  •  my 2 cents (none)
    Al Qaida/Taliban: women, covered hair, men, facial hair required
    American Taliban : lacquered helmet hair, baldness forbidden (God doesn't like the glare).
    Liberal: anything goes

    Al Qaida/Taliban: alcohol forbidden
    American Taliban : alcohol forbidden (around other AT's)
    Liberal: check out this nice Merlot

    http://home.infionline.net/~arm3/Wheatpaste.html

    by alfredo on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:12:28 PM PDT

  •  the God part (none)
    God

        Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
        American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
        Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone

    How about

    Liberals: All Gods equally clear on the "don't kill" rule

    (with a nod to  the 9/12 The Onion)

  •  american fascist/islamic fascist (none)
    i see where some moderate repubs are mad at the comparisons. you know what, tough shit.  your side, even if you are a moderate, has peddled divisiveness and hatred on end for years.  im not saying democrats haven't but not to the extent you guys have.  your party has never hesitated to throw out democrats=commies, traitors, etc.  Even the heads of your parties have no problem doing this. you may disagree with kos's assessment, but how many of you still voted for GWB in the last election.  he is at the top of the hill of american fascists.  now you get pissed when someone throws your shit back in your face.  i have no sympathy for you, moderate republicans, you are a cause of the problem when you vote for the extreme faction of your party just to keep power.
  •  Here, Kos... (none)

    Take your damn Pulitzer.

    But keep your acceptance speech short, please.  The bar just opened.

  •  this is comic book politics (none)
    Yes I'm tired of being demonized by people who want to take away my privacy and religious freedoms but this "us vs. them" approach will win us no undecided votes. Look what Durbin just went through. I would prefer the argument were kept at a higher level. "Soundbite" politics is ultimately self defeating for everyone.

    http://ddmcd.squarespace.com/welcome/

    by ddmcd on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:28:25 PM PDT

  •  Gods, Gays and Guns (none)
    I think it's more complicated than "their far right is like our far right".  Compared to the other democracies, even mainstream political discourse in the U.S. really demonizes and vilifies progressive and liberal ideas.  And I think that agressive hostility to all things "liberal" points to a tendency within our mainstream, not just at our margins, to resemble the "other" more than we would like to admit.  

    Fareed Zakaria hints at it here:

    This is what really divides the U.S. from the other industrial democracies: Gods, Gays and Guns, if you will. If you were to take a sampling of public opinion in countries all [over] the world--and this has been done by the Pew foundation--you would find that the United States on most of these core cultural issues is much closer [to] Nigeria and Saudi Arabia than it is to Europe to Japan. Source

    Mix together some of our national characteristics like belief in American exceptionalism, the prominence of religious belief in our lives (compared to the other democracies), isolationism/insularity, an abysmal mind-numbing mass media, the weakness of non-governmental centers of power like organized labor, the arrogance of overwhelming military power, etc., add to that the wounded nationalism of 9/11, and I think we are developing into a society where all kinds of intolerance and extremism are able to take root, so long as we wrap them in the flag.

    Maybe I just feel vulnerable and pessimistic because I'm a liberal in a very red county, but I see a propensity to intolerance, militarism and fundamentalist thought as a characteristic of mainstream America right now, not just a feature of the far right that we can use to batter the talibaptists with.

    •  You really hit it there (none)
      Maybe, I, too, am overly sensitive, living in W country.

      But I think you really said it. Your paragraph after the Zakaria quote is terrific!

      "As every representative is elected to represent one of these two parties, the nation ...appears to consist only of these two parties" -- Henry Droop, 1867

      by Moosa Man on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:31:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's my take... (none)
    on this question. Whoever will stand behind this quote, with Thomast Jefferson:

    "...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

    Well, the United States that the Framers built, the one for grown-ups, belongs to you.

  •  Marriage one is wrong (none)
    For al Queda/Taliban, marriage is between one many and multiple women.

    I think bin Laden has about 4 wives.  

    And while you can joke about Mormonism or Newt's marrying ways, that's not something the American right believes in.  

  •  God didn't choose anyone? (none)
    Perhaps God chose both Osama and Bush.

    When a hurricanes were pounding Florida, Jeb said it was God trying to humble us.  Perhaps Bush and Osama are chosen by God for the same reason.

  •  Good post.... (none)
    Simple, effective.

    Check out Link TV's daily Middle East digest program, Mosaic.

    by shmooth on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:22:56 PM PDT

  •  I've always said... (none)
    the only difference between the American Taliban and Middle East version is where they shop for clothes.  

    Hmmm...maybe if some Wal Marts open up over there that will eliminate the last difference.  

  •  Change Liberal to Progressive? (none)
    It just seems more acceptable to the common man at the moment...

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

    by bewert on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 06:46:47 PM PDT

  •  Fundamentalist Enemies Keep Each Other In Business (none)
    This has got to be the essential point to be taken in this modern age. I look at Bush & Osama as a Big Time Wrestling tag team. The same with Sharon and Hamas -- they keep each other in business! When one side gets flabby politically, their loyal enemy commits some atrocity, and Bang! They're back up there in the polls.

    Recently I heard on the radio (can't find hide nor hair of this story on the web, but it's the idea that's valuable) an English teacher in Connecticut or Rhode Island photoshopped a great poster of Bush and Osama with their garments reversed. The caption was "21st Century Weapons, 11th Century Thinking". If the poster didn't happen, it should.

    Here's an interesting observation. Using data from the Israeli website Terror Victims Association -- Victims, in the twenty months prior to Ariel Sharon's obnoxious strut on the Temple Mount with 200 armed guards, in which he proclaimed it to belong to his people forever, and with the wind of W's impending election in his sails -- the date was September 28, 2000 -- in the twenty months prior, there were FIVE Israeli victims of terror. In the twenty months following, there were 440. But Sharon actually got what he wanted from the event: a leg up on Bibi Netanyahu as to leadership of Likud.
    As to W's election, all the news, bad and worse, that stemmed from this obscenity help him over the top (close enough for the Supremes to cast the deciding vote).

    I heard Terri Gross's 1994 interview with Shelby Foote, of PBS's Civil War fame, on the day of his death last week. I was taken aback by this quote -- "you are where you came from, if I'd been a young man in 1861, and the war had started, no matter how much I was opposed to slavery, how much I -- how much I saw the right on the other side, and the wrong on my side, I still would have gone with my people."

    Rather than re-pub it all, have a look at my piece "Higher Principle Could Not Trump Tribalism" at Progressive Reason.

    Remember the Dylan song, "Only A Pawn In Their Game"?
    A South politician preaches to the poor white man,
    "You got more than the blacks, don't complain.
    You're better than them, you been born with white skin," they explain.
    . . .
    Like a dog on a chain
    He ain't got no name
    But it ain't him to blame
    He's only a pawn in their game.
    Nowadays, the lynchings and shootings are down, but the prison-industrial-complex is still filled with black faces.

    Has anyone noticed where most of the Fundamentalist vote stems from?  Dixieland!  Richard Scrushy praised the Christian kindness of his Alabama jury, though their inability to follow the complexities of the evidence is probably what saved him.

    But why are they so religious?
    Backwardness? Yeah, that's part of it.
    But how about guilty conscience, maybe, for all of Linnard Skinnard's denial to Neil Young?
    They remind me of Lady Macbeth, in her sleepwalk scene -- washing, washing, washing, and never clean.
  •  On pop culture, it's more like: (none)
    Hate it, ban it.

    Hate it, make tons of money off it, use it for an electoral prop.

    Love it, hate it, maybe make tons of money off it, there are better things culturally to occupy my time.

  •  Heh. (none)
    Don't you think it's a bit odd for everyone to get bent out of shape about comparisons between the left and fundamentalist Islamists while simultaneously applauding comparisons between the right and fundamentalist Islamists?

    Don't you like... see the hypocrisy of all of this? Of the "outrage" of the "New McCarthyism" that you, yourselves, are engaging in?

    Just sayin'.

  •  Is This What It Takes for.... (none)
    the Left to feel good about itself?  These absurd and ludicrous comparisons help you get through the day? Good grief....what stuff!
  •  The Economy (none)
    Al Qaida/Taliban: The economy?
    American Taliban: The economy?
    Liberals: Yeah, the fucking ECONOMY, stupid!

    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 07:56:02 PM PDT

  •  Ugh (none)
    This post displays pure, unfiltered bigotry toward conservative Christians, Kos.  Disgusting.  Referring to conservative Christians as "American Taliban" is beneath contempt.
  • Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site