Is anti-theocracy considered a "far right" position, e.g. the Netherlands

[icehorse]

See how these sentences are contradicting?
You say you can't share timestamps to statements in the video because you claim the "lack" of someting.
And in the next sentence you say that you claim his islamophobia is the reason given for him being far right.

I say this is not so. I say neither of these things are ever stated in that video as one being the result from another.

The video is 2 parts. First it introduces Wilders. It lists a few facts about the person and the party. When it was founded, how performed historically, where it falls on the political spectrum (=> far right), the fact that he has radical viewpoints followed by a few examples (he wants less moroccans in a city and he is islamophobic)...

Then in the second part they proceed explaining a theory of how he managed to gain these additional votes and grow so much in the last election.


At no point in the video is it said or otherwise implied that his islamophobia is the reason, let alone the 'only' reason, he is categorized far right.


If you disagree, please point me to the timestamp where this is said or implied.

I guess this gets down to debating what a reasonable inference would be. I'm saying that a reasonable inference would be that the journalist ties anti-theocracy to the far right.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we should not be thinking about inferences, only what was said explicitly?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you repeated it, then yes, a reasonable inference could be made.

Wow.

I guess that says it all.

 

[icehorse]

Wow.

I guess that says it all.

propaganda / marketing / agenda-izing 101

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm saying that a reasonable inference would be that the journalist ties anti-theocracy to the far right.

Yea, you've made that ambundently clear.
You did not, however, support this inference.

 

[icehorse]

Yea, you've made that ambundently clear.
You did not, however, support this inference.

Well it is an inference after all. Inferences often do not have direct, quotable data points, it's kind of the nature of inferences. In this case, I made the inference because the journalist could easily have provided any other evidence supporting his claims about Wilders, but he did not.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Because the topic mentioned a far right stance. I can only speak from an American's POV. Most people, left or right, probably don't want an Islamic theocracy.

I find today's 'modern definition' of theocracy is meaning: rule by clergy or rule by clergy class.
That is quite different from the theocracy Jesus taught of God's kingdom rule (thy kingdom come...aka government rule)
Jesus as ruler of God's theocratic government for one thousand years over Earth - Rev. 20 2,6; 1st Corinthians 15:24-26
Seems to me most people don't want either an Islamic theocracy or Jesus' theocracy.

 

[icehorse]

I find today's 'modern definition' of theocracy is meaning: rule by clergy or rule by clergy class.
That is quite different from the theocracy Jesus taught of God's kingdom rule (thy kingdom come...aka government rule)
Jesus as ruler of God's theocratic government for one thousand years over Earth - Rev. 20 2,6; 1st Corinthians 15:24-26
Seems to me most people don't want either an Islamic theocracy or Jesus' theocracy.

Didn't Jesus say something like "render onto Caeser that which is Caeser's" ? isn't that a call for the separation of church and state?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Didn't Jesus say something like "render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's" ? isn't that a call for the separation of church and state?

Very interesting question ^ above ^.
In the paying of taxes 'yes' render unto Caesar but Jesus added to pay back God's things to God.
We find ' separation of church and state ' way back at 2nd Chronicles 26;16-21
The king (political) was Not to interfere with the duties of the priests (religious) and vice versa.
God chose the religious to preserve the Scriptures.
So, as long as what Caesar wants does Not conflict with God's Law then Christians are to obey Caesar. - Acts 5:29
In other words, a Christian's position is in a 'relative' position to Caesar but in an 'absolute' position to God's authority.
So, God has the Ultimate Position and the Ultimate Authority.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I find today's 'modern definition' of theocracy is meaning: rule by clergy or rule by clergy class.
That is quite different from the theocracy Jesus taught of God's kingdom rule (thy kingdom come...aka government rule)
Jesus as ruler of God's theocratic government for one thousand years over Earth - Rev. 20 2,6; 1st Corinthians 15:24-26
Seems to me most people don't want either an Islamic theocracy or Jesus' theocracy.

What Jesus meant by the kingdom of God would actually be great but what would be horrible is what the religious right envisions for the country. That would be more like the Old Testament laws instead of the loving and community based kingdom of God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well it is an inference after all. Inferences often do not have direct, quotable data points, it's kind of the nature of inferences. In this case, I made the inference because the journalist could easily have provided any other evidence supporting his claims about Wilders, but he did not.

If you would think for 2 seconds you would realize how dumb the inference is.

Which democratic secular party is NOT anti-theocracy?
Do you think the guy in the video is this dumb?


Having said that, it doesn't even matter much. You are reading things into it that were never said or implied.
As mentioned already, I actually gave you timestamps in the video to every place where Wilder's stance on Islam is noted and explained none of those references were tied into branding him as far-right. Instead, it is merely stated he is far right as an already established historical fact. In fact.... the ONE time where there is a somewhat example given of his far-right position, in that example Wilders is ranting against Moroccons and not even "muslims". And it's only a "somewhat" example... as the quote goes something like "...a far right politician who's know for holding radical stand points" which is then followed up by his rant against Morrocons.

So it's not even an example of explicitly his far-right political view but rather an example of one of his radical standpoints. But sure, you could interpret that as being connected to the far-right view. But that is the ONLY place in the entire video where such is done - and it wasn't even about muslims. It was about Moroccons. Any moroccon - muslim or otherwise.


I have asked you multiple times to directly refer to timestamps in the video and have you actually EXPLAIN how you think the guy in the vid is making that connection. You never did this. This tells me that you can't.


So yeah.... I don't know what else to say or where to go from here.

At this point, all you are doing is the equivalent of stuffing your ears, screaming "lalalala" and just repeating your unsupported claims while completely ignoring all the counter points presented to you.

So to sum up:

 

[icehorse]

Which democratic secular party is NOT anti-theocracy?

I think that across the West, leaders are so fixated on being PC that they look the other way when it comes to Islam We hear them say things like "Islam is a religion of peace".

At this point, all you are doing is the equivalent of stuffing your ears, screaming "lalalala" and just repeating your unsupported claims while completely ignoring all the counter points presented to you.

such insults and strawman arguments are noted.

With sincerity, I do not see why this is such a big deal for you? I'm not defending Wilders.

Think again about what "infer" means. To infer is to connect dots that are not explicit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think that across the West, leaders are so fixated on being PC that they look the other way when it comes to Islam We hear them say things like "Islam is a religion of peace".

Another comment that is neither here nor there and which doesn't contribute anything to your claims about the video in the OP, nor does it address any point I raised.
Just more vaguery.

such insults and strawman arguments are noted.

No insults or strawmen in that quote. Instead, just a description of your stubborn behavior in this topic.
That you feel insulted by it, might be the case. But it seems to me that that would be a "you" problem.

With sincerity, I do not see why this is such a big deal for you? I'm not defending Wilders.

Your OP is based on a misrepresentation of the video you try to discuss. I consider that rather relevant to the thread.

Think again about what "infer" means. To infer is to connect dots that are not explicit.

And I explained multiple times now that this happens all in your head as there is no such implication in the video at all.

I asked you multiple times to support your "inference" and point out specifically where the stuff that supposedly is being implied in the video can be found. You never did. And it doesn't look like you're going to either.

So...

 

[icehorse]

And I explained multiple times now that this happens all in your head as there is no such implication in the video at all.

I asked you multiple times to support your "inference" and point out specifically where the stuff that supposedly is being implied in the video can be found. You never did. And it doesn't look like you're going to either.

Let's step back. Can you tell me your definition of inference?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What Jesus meant by the kingdom of God would actually be great but what would be horrible is what the religious right envisions for the country. That would be more like the Old Testament laws instead of the loving and community based kingdom of God.

Since Jesus fulfilled the OT laws (Romans 10:4) what Jesus' visioned or envisioned is international in scope.
Jesus gave a 'New Commandment' Superior to the OT Law commands as found at John 13:34-35; John 15:12.
We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has including love of enemies.
In other words, we are now to love neighbor MORE than self, more than the old Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What Jesus meant by the kingdom of God would actually be great but what would be horrible is what the religious right envisions for the country. That would be more like the Old Testament laws instead of the loving and community based kingdom of God.

Paul in his day had to deal with converts aka Hebrew Christians who still referenced to the Law. - Romans 3:21,28; 10:4.
Whereas, James was dealing with the loving congregation based on the Kingdom of God - James chapter 2.
Thus, we show our faith/confidence in God's Kingdom (thy kingdom come....) by telling others about God's kingdom government coming with Jesus as being ruler for a thousand years - 1st Corinthians 15:24-26; Matt. 24:14; Acts 1:8

 

[Sand Dancer]

Since Jesus fulfilled the OT laws (Romans 10:4) what Jesus' visioned or envisioned is international in scope.
Jesus gave a 'New Commandment' Superior to the OT Law commands as found at John 13:34-35; John 15:12.
We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has including love of enemies.
In other words, we are now to love neighbor MORE than self, more than the old Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18.

The Golden Rule is universal. Jesus didn't come up with it but he taught and embodied it. I try to follow it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Paul in his day had to deal with converts aka Hebrew Christians who still referenced to the Law. - Romans 3:21,28; 10:4.
Whereas, James was dealing with the loving congregation based on the Kingdom of God - James chapter 2.
Thus, we show our faith/confidence in God's Kingdom (thy kingdom come....) by telling others about God's kingdom government coming with Jesus as being ruler for a thousand years - 1st Corinthians 15:24-26; Matt. 24:14; Acts 1:8

The kingdom of God was not somewhere else in the future. It is in you now. We all just need a revolution to make it happen.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The kingdom of God was not somewhere else in the future. It is in you now. We all just need a revolution to make it happen.

Since Jesus is Head of the Christian congregation then 'Yes' the Kingdom of God is both now and also future.
1st Corinthians 15:24-26 is still ahead of us when enemy death will be No more on Earth.
Since ' death ' still exists on Earth is a reason why we still ask God for His Kingdom to come ( thy kingdom come.... )
God's will is Not yet done on Earth as it is done in Heaven.
In Heaven there is: No pollution, No crime, No violence, No war, No sickness and No death in heaven.
Jesus wants us to ask God to bring those same good-and-healthy heavenly conditions to come and exist on Earth.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Summary:

Many Muslims in Europe want Sharia law. Sharia law represents a big step towards theocracy.

Geert Wilders recently won a big election in the Netherlands based on his positions that Islamic immigration to the Netherlands must be stopped. In this video and others, Wilders is called "far right". So does that mean that being against theocracy is now a "far right" stance?

Some polls on Sharia in Europe:

Poll: 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia

i24NEWS

www.i24news.tv

And around the world, support for Sharia is quite high:

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of

www.pewresearch.org

I'm a registered Republican and certainly not pro religion and theist in any concrete way.

I'm pretty sure that politics and religion while related in some ways, are just not the same animal as theists and atheists ascribe themselves to many different types of political and religious affiliations that notably contrast one another.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Theocracy is bad for everyone. It's toxic, outdated and unspeakably cruel. No reasonable person wants that to take hold in their country.