:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
Hey, I'd been composing this reply to you even as I'd been watching Kaine-Pence debates, and it was as if I was hearing robots speak. They certainly seemed to be relying on rote memorization; deliciously, I've also had a chance to read Donald Trump's tweets, and I had to share with you a laugh with him tweeting, "Kaine looks like an evil crook out of the Batman movies."
God help/save us!
I must way it is nice to read such a well thought out post as yours here is and I think I'll stick to these sorts of discussions gong forward and start ignoring the bait and rambles I have too often responded to in the past from a few others here.
I think he may have originally coined the term, but it is bigger than that. Dave Rubin's show does takes a great look at it and I'd encourage anybody and everybody to check out the "Rubin Report" on youtube.
I have actually watched that show before, and I specifically watched it recently when Sam Harris was invited on the show; to be honest, I disagree with Sam Harris and Dave Rubin a lot on the issue of Islam.
More than just words. It is about the rise of authoritarianism on the left (which is more often found on the right), the shutting down of dialogue and censoring of free speech, etc. It is the oversensitive and politically correct hunters of liberal blasphemy. It is born out of a generation of coddled millenials who grew up on helicopter parents, participation trophies, and stranger danger. It is about "safe spaces" where people don't have to have their beliefs and ideologies threatened by letting other people speak disparate views. It is about "micro-aggressions": people looking for an excuse to take offence. And it is about the Opression Olympics, where whoever can show themselves to be the most oppressed has the exclusive right to speak and impunity from criticism.
Lol, hey, I'm a Millennial - we're not so bad! But yes, I do kind of see what you're trying to say. That said, I'm a big supporter of political correctness because I believe the lack of political correctness is driving the kind of bad ideas we see emerging openly from people who don't even feel ashamed or any qualms about saying anymore that they want Muslim lands nuked or Muslims to be killed; I read this kind of poisonous nonsense almost on a daily basis on the Internet, and I've only just started recording the idiotic comments made in one of my recent threads. Yet it's getting a little bit out of control with "Muslims get out" restaurant sign to actually Muslims constantly having to exercise hypervigiliance in regards to mosques being burnt or vandalism happening to Islamic centers; to be honest, I'm just looking at it from a bird's eye view of history and seeing that the trends that we're seeing today specific to Muslims is actually quite reminiscent of the time before the Holocaust took place because Antisemitism in Europe had been taking the exact forms it's taking today specific to Muslims:
For example, I note that Cambridge University Press's Introduction:
Anti-semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust reads, "The introduction of official anti-Semitic policies and bans and the incidence of violence against Jewish persons and property climbed to levels unprecedented in the modern age. Violence against Jews took place not only in the German Third Reich and Eastern Europe. Marrus and Paxton have observed that demonstrations against Jews, including physical attacks, occurred in September 1938 in Paris, Dijon, Saint Etienne, Nancy, and in several locations in Alsace and Lorraine. These anti-Semitic manifestations in France led the grand rabbi of Paris to caution his co-religionists during the High Holy Days of the autumn of 1938 to refrain from gathering in large numbers outside of synagogues. By 1938, Germany and Austria did not stand alone in Europe in terms of the enactment of anti-Semitic laws. Anti-Semitic laws found a home in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia."
I see the exact same things happening from hysteria being created against
shariah laws coming to the U.S. (wut?) and being banned to opposition of mosque-building.
For the record, I don't think anyone should have impunity from criticism, but I also understand the importance of political correctness in everyday discourse and behaviors. For example, I also note that blacks were called N-word and there's a reason we don't use that word anymore; it is because we know the historical associations and connotations that word implies. If we use it, we should rightly be called bigoted and ostracized from having a say in public discourse; someone might say that's unfair but we have a right as a self-regulating society to be able to determine what types of persons and discourses we want to embolden within our society because the matter is far bigger than freedom of expression but includes the ability of such discourse to marginalize further a minority.
I am a classical liberal, for core liberal values like free speech, and doing what you want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, and I find the regressive left to be just as much, if not more of a threat to me than the far right, because it is coming form my side and undercuts my image and credibility to those on the right who paint liberals with a broad brush. Sort of similar to how radical Muslims may be in a way more of a problem for you, creating a broad brush reaction that sweeps you in, than the seething anti-muslim haters.
Radicals create a problem for me in the sense that I feel they're shortsighted and completely unworthy of even having a role in discussions about the future of Islam; they may think they have a right to shape that discussion but I see them as a gangrene that requires either revascularization (i.e. rehabilitation) or amputation in extreme cases like
Daesh. However, I see the people who are (from my side) being labeled regressive left the ones who don't require either revascularization or amputation and are not analogous to the case of the radicals in our midst. I think you find the regressive left probably a threat as idealogues, but I think that threat is overestimated by people like Sam Harris or Dave Rubin or Bill Maher and the conversation is really hyperfocused on Islam even though they may say it's bigger than that in terms of the vision of the liberal left.
I like to listen to people who disagree with me, and see if they have any insights I may not have due to my own experience and bias. That is what brought me to this forum, as well as to many other forums (including forums where I have been a lone voice speaking up in defence of Muslims in the face of crazed anti-muslim hatred). I listen to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as well. I know that many, and even some atheists, find them repugnant, and I disagree with a lot of what they say, but they do have some valuable insights. I'll even listen to people like Daesh type muslims on the one end and Tommy Robinson types on the other, to try to get a sense of where their minds are coming from. You've seen me do that in regard to a select few not so tolerant Muslims on this board.
Like you, I listen to and read materials from people whom I actually would vehemently disagree just to see what they're saying. I find Sam Harris repugnant for the idiotic things he says like Muslims should be profiled (imagine if he'd said that about Jews!) and that there's no such thing as Islamophobia (yes, and I'm Santa Claus!). Richard Dawkins I find abhorrent for his sexism. I might listen to them but only to note what they're saying about Islam and Muslims because I perceive them as a soft threat because they're waging a cultural war within the left to have their Islamophobic stances accepted as mainstream public discourse that so far had been the monopoly of the right whom we'd never take seriously because we already know they're buttheads.
Broad brushes, especially for an entire, what, like at least a fifth of the world's population? Not good, I agree. But that means we need to learn to distinguish and to help people realize that Muslims are as disparate as Christians are. You've got the Lord's Resistance Army killing today and the Crusades historically, and then you've got hippy dippy prayer circle picnic Christians. People need to realize that Muslims aren't all the same either.
I agree, and it drives me crazy that people don't know that or are not willing to accept that; it's pretty weird and definitely born of xenophobic strains within our culture.
But that doesn't mean there isn't core doctrine to Islam that is troubling to atheists. And it doesn't mean we shouldn't point them out and oppose them when they surface. Everything from dislike of homosexuals (or dislike of homosexuality at the least; murdering gays hanging them from bridges at the most) to treatment of apostates, etc. There is no sound basis for atheists to encourage belief in Islam, or in any religion, and yet so many will do just that; sending their kids to religious schools etc to get indoctrinated even though the parents believe none of it. It would be unthinkable for religious people to encourage atheism, so why should atheists encourage theism?
I accept that Islam would be taken as a false religion by atheists as I was one and so understand that part and have no objection because I've said so before and would reiterate that I think belief/disbelief is something that a person can't force within themselves and just exists. So, I don't think atheists should necessarily encourage theism; however, in terms of you talking about nontheists sending their children to religious schools, I'd say they probably just want their children to be moral human beings and religion whether you accept it or not is actually that guidance that they probably see as beneficial.
True some will argue that religion is needed to keep the sheep in line; that religion is the opiate of the masses, etc. But modern times are showing that to be not so. The nordic countries have all but abandoned religion and they are some of the most progressive, healthy, best educated, and most empathetic nations on the globe. They somehow found a way to move on to post-Christian society and make a god of it.
You have painted the picture far too rosy, my friend. They might be healthy, educated, and progressive, but they're having again a hard time with empathy. Denmark has banned
halal and kosher slaughter. Students at a school for health care and education in Denmark have been told they cannot pray during working hours because "religion and education do not belong together" and so prayer has been banned. Danish officials have tightened immigration with a well-known goal of keeping Muslims out of their country. Sweden has become a completely feminist society so that the 2005 changes to rape laws mean that statistically and legally what would never count as rape in the U.S. is now counted as rape and that includes sexual harassment. Sweden is expelling 80,000 immigrants and Finland is deporting 20,000 immigrants. Norway seems to be heading the same way of other Nordic countries.
It is only with the recent mass immigration of Muslims that they have had their recent problems. Remember Theo Van Gogh? Ayan Hirsi Ali recounts the tale well. She was next on the hit list. That, Charlie Hebdo, 9/11, the London bombing, and other attacks by Islamists have been burned into the memories of people and given Islam a terrible name. And as I said above, we need to work to remember that this isn't representative of all sorts of Muslims, at least not the violence, but that can be hard to do when the Regressive Left leaps in to censor cartoons and the like, and comes to the defence of rapists, or shuts down all and any fair criticism of Islam itself. It frankly makes all Muslims out to be ready to crack; as if a mild mannered accountant and soccer coach who happens to be Muslim will turn into a raging terrorist if he sees a copy of the Jesus & Mo comic strip.
Do I agree with the Theo Van Gogh murder? No. Do I agree with Ayan Hirsi Ali, however, because I disagree with Theo Van Gogh's murder? No. I've had the displeasure of listening to her many times, and I still can't believe that the liberal left is so enamored with her along with the right because she spews so much hate against Islam. What's the fascination, I can't imagine except well I actually can because she says what people don't want to say about Muslims and she legitimizes the anti-Islamic rhetoric that has been popularized due to her status as an ex-Muslim. For God's sake, in the U.S., people from the right are up in arms and turning to Trump as a consequence of Hillary's "lies" and people are also disillusioned on the left in regards to Hillary for being corrupt and thereby were turning to Bernie Sanders but Ayan Hirsi Ali gets a pass for all her lies despite it becoming well-known that she misrepresented herself and lied on her asylum application? Yeah, that makes total sense. Uh, not.
I do think the cartoons should be censored even if there'd never been any cause to believe that there would be any negative reaction, and the reason is because I frankly think it's hate speech. Also, I've seen a double standard emerge when we talk about these cartoons specific to Muslims. Can you imagine us talking about whether there should be cartoons of the Holocaust in the United States or anywhere in the West? Hell, no. People would say that's Antisemitism. Not to mention, Holocaust denials are already banned in 14 countries across Europe. The only places such cartoons are drawn is in Iran, a matter about which I have nothing good to say because I feel it's an exercise in hate that should not be allowed to exist and is also against Islamic values. Also, I'd note in the United States, the word "Negro" and "Oriental" are banned since Obama signed a legislation during his administration making it so.
Also, yes, I've seen Dave Rubin and Sam Harris put the idea forward that actually not identifying radical Islam or Islamic terrorism as the cause of how all this problem and is somehow "racist" against us Muslims because the regressive left are the ones who're "secretly" perhaps thinking how Muslims might turn batshit crazy and attack the majority. And Sam Harris even went so far as to say that's a possibility that the Muslim gynecologist could perhaps in fact turn certifiably nuts but that's a chance we have to take. Wut? :hiding: Like seriously. The fact that he thinks like that is more cause of concern because he's actually exposing his own Islamophobia rather than actually making any meaningful comments about the so-called regressive left. For the record, I don't think the regressive left as we're so called are afraid of this but we're actually afraid of having Islam and terrorism become synonymous because the wider public (especially the right-wingers voting Trump) will certainly not be able to make the distinction (as they don't on a daily basis on the Internet comments' sections I read) and I'm sure the 600% increase that you've seen in Islamophobia in U.K. is going to rise to a higher level and the tripled Islamophobia increase in U.S. since Paris Attacks is probably going to significantly increase as well, and I'm saying these based on statistics and also the truth that legitimizing a discourse means that more people will feel free to engage in the same because we're influenced by our peers as was pointed out by an article titled "
Comments affect perception of research, study says."
I supported Bernie. I still do. He's not done yet. He's now organizing grass roots politicians and getting them voted into be mayors, governors, etc. The corrupt 2 party system of the USA is another topic, but one that I am guessing you and I would agree on almost 100%; though I may go a bit further. Jill Stein is who I would vote for if I had a vote to cast in your election. My own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, I fear may get eaten up by the regressive left instead of pushing true progressive policy the way I would like him to. But really up here in Canada he isn't likely to do much damage and nor really did Stephen Harper from the other extreme. We're so much more liberal up here that even our extreme right is still all for universal health care, etc.
That's probably where a lot of the motivation comes from. And I don't think people do it out of malice. They think they are doing right, when they speak some pretty horrible things and support some pretty horrible people. We see it not just with Muslim immigrant rapists, but within Black Lives Matter with murderous black people who they get behind just because they are black and were shot by the police (as opposed to totally innocent black people who are shot by the police due to out of control racism etc; like the aid worker who was face down with his hands out and the cop shot the guy anyway; that is outright murder). Black Lives Matter also came to Toronto, where I live, and interrupted a public apology by police to the gay community for transgressions a number of years ago, and interrupted the gay pride parade. Oppressio Olympics in action.
I have been in two minds about BLM. I certainly don't like cop shootings, but I also see why BLM has begun as a movement. I mean we've had blacks being marginalized as a community with institutional racism and stop-and-frisk based on racial profiling. In my law class about race and crime and law and another class about social justice lawyering, we'd had a great picture painted for us specific to what's happened historically with the black community and how they're in present day still being affected with those injustices. So, from what I understand, you're seeing is a recognition of all the evils that are perpetrated against blacks even in our post-racial society. For example, the book Color of Crime clearly shows that people with "Black-sounding" names are less likely to be invited for interviews than people with "White-sounding names" because in many cases the names are used as a proxy for racial discrimination. Blacks are also the subject of linguistic profiling. Basically, consistently what happens is that signs of blackness is education, employment, politics and business doesn't bode well for the black people. Then this is not surprising that the justice system frequently treats blacks differently as well. For example, in the Stanford swimmer case, he was given six months of jail for rape. Do I think this would have happened if he'd been, say, black from a less privileged background? And the honest answer from my side is no. Race matters. So, while I don't even think liberals want to support BLM in matters of violence, they do want to show solidarity and support for blacks who are still fighting a war against institutional racism and unconscious and conscious biases against race in the media and in real life. I don't think it's at all a matter of Oppression Olympics but simply a factual recognition of realities that we'd rather tune out because they're not convenient and do not fit in with our perception of who we want to be and presume to be.
Ultimately people do themselves a disservice when they attack themselves to identity politics and rage against the "oppressors" for the "oppressed" giving no actual thought to the details and individuals involved in the particular case. That is why people will rush to support these rapists... just because they are Muslim refugees... and we've done bad things to Muslims.
I don't think injustice anywhere should be justified, but I'd still maintain that if they didn't do what you indulge in what you term here as identity politics, the oppressed would seriously be bereft of the only theoretical wall of protection in discourse that exists currently between them and any said oppression being explored as an avenue in practical reality and in the name of rationality by people whom you know are just waiting with bated breath on the right-wing to do so.
Rape is another area where the regressive left leaps into action. It is wrong to blame a victim, but it is also wrong to immediately and unquestioningly believe every charge of rape just because it is alleged. Did you know that rape is more of a thread outside of a college setting in general real life than it is on college campuses? Did you know many of these schools have set up kangaroo courts where there is no due process and that men have been expelled on zero evidence? The burden is usually on the men to prove they didn't rape her and that there was consent, instead of the traditional burden of innocent until proven guilty.
Well, as a woman, I have a very different take on these issues; and we can probably explore that in my thread about rape and victim-blaming. I'm probably going to come out sounding all feminist on this one though I'd certainly be interested to see where we might end up in discussion on the topic.
Anyway... lol... got all political there on a religious forum. Back on topic I go!
Haha. Okay, agreed.
I don't know the longer term history to this. Was France banning religious symbols prior to Islam becoming the big bad? I am not sure if this is more because of Islamism or due to a general backlash against religion. Do keep in mind that religious society, including both Christian and Muslim society, did far worse than ban symbols or headgear to atheists and pagans when they could get away with it. It was a death sentence to admit you didn't believe in God in many religious societies throughout history. A little backlash should be expected now that we've broken free of that, and the pendulum may swing too far in the other direction before it stops. I actually think we can attribute the regressive left to the same sort of backlash/pendulum phenomenon. Minorities have been abused in horrible ways for many many years, so now there is a lot of guilt and unthinking defence of them, just for being able to identify as one.
I disagree with you here because my believing that I should expect backlash in my mind seems to excuse the ones who are engaging in the backlash, and that is something with which I can never agree. Well, and good, but sorry, the guilt should be there; people in my humble opinion seem to be rewriting history to make the villains out to be the minorities when it's been well-documented that the majority are the ones to blame for much of the status quo. So, I'm not going to award anyone the "get-out-of-jail card" like in Monopoly except here it's in terms of correctly identifying guilt and feeling it deservedly.
Just so you know, I am completely against any sort of ban on religious symbols or on articles of clothing, food, or anything else. I am also completely against any special permissions for people based on religion. Wherever there is no sound hygiene or security reason to stop you from covering your face, you should be allowed to wear a face veil, and I should be allowed to cove my face with whatever I want. Wherever there is no security risk for carrying a knife, the Sikh should be allowed to carry the Kirpan, and I should be allowed to carry a hunting knife, etc.
That is warranted. What isn't warranted is shutting down criticism of Islam, banning the drawing of cartoons, banning or "uninviting" speakers like Sam Harris and Ayan Hirsi Ali from giving speeches they were invited to make on college campuses, etc. just because we are afraid of offending people and imagine them to have incredibly thin skins.
I have to disagree with you on this because I have listened to Sam Harris and Ayan Hirsi Ali and I'm sorry to say that I strongly believe they're both Islamophobic pundits; I don't know why we should allow them on our college campuses to spread ideas which are clearly poisonous and working as fuel to marginalize an already marginalized community. This applies, btw, more to Ayan Hirsi Ali than Sam Harris specific to giving talks on Islam. Would we want to, for example, invite Neo-Nazi individuals like Craig Cobb who believes in the inferiority of the black race and fighting their influence and presence by promoting the building of all-white communities? Or do we invite Farid Mortazavi to talk about the rightness of the Holocaust cartoons in Iran? Seriously, freedom of speech should not extend to including hate speech; it's not about the "thin skins" of others that might take offense but about how "thick-headed" these individuals are that they want the right to offend and spew hate speech and want to promote it as a collective good.
Islam is inherently evangelical and is easily read to support violence; as is Christianity. It just is. We're not talking about Jainism where the radicals are all about worrying about stepping on a bug, etc. Violence and conflict is core to all three of the Abrahamic religions, and you can find it in the "holy" texts. You can read it out and be a peaceful loving Christian/Muslim/Jew, but in doing so you are ignoring or re-interpreting some text and doctrine that can just as easily go the other way to the extreme. Monotheism is in itself prone for conflict too. As soon as you claim to have the only God and the only acceptable way, I see a storm coming.
That's where I'd disagree with you. Islam is inherently a peaceful religion but it's not a pacifist religion; Islam is a universal religion but it's not to be read as a universalist religion. I'd say one of the findings of Grame Wood specific to research on ISIS was that even a literalist interpretation of Islam doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion of acceptance of ISIS (whom I really like to call
Daesh).
However, I'll concede to your last line of this paragraph but only because it has some historical validity.
Oh that is certainly part of it. I don't praise the American Empire at all. Your country has done some pretty horrible things, and this is just one of them in a long line of them from genocide to native americans, to slavery of blacks, etc. And the USA certainly doesn't treat Palestinians fairly. Israel is basically keeping them in a concentration camp, and that has to end. But the more the Islamists blow stuff up, the less likely it will. Israe is a nation built on guilt and cultivates an image of having the moral high ground, and I think Palesines true deliverance will be to seize that moral high ground, expose Israel's attrocities, and be the peaceful Ghandi-like ones of the conflict. Israel can't keep doing this without international support... from mostly democratic nations that really COULD turn this all around.
I don't think Palestine will get justice in the way that you're thinking and while this is actually based on prophecies of the Last Days, I'd note that this is also a prediction that you'd find think tanks and politicians making based on current realities of the Israeli state and governmental policies. And to be honest, the conspiracy of silence will never be lifted even if all of Palestine turned into versions of Gandhi because I see their aggression as similar to the Nazi aggression and certainly appeasement of the Nazis was seen to fail in historical terms which is why we even had to go to war.
But that said, do you really think the religion has nothing to do with it?
Yes, I do think that religion has nothing to do with it, though I do believe that people like
Daesh do believe that religion has something to do with it. Let me explain: I can honestly tell you without hesitation that interpreting Islam in the way
Daesh has done takes serious gymnastics and this is not based on any type of "feeling" but real time facts of how they continue so obviously ignoring the texts whenever it contradicts their interpretation. For example, I have seen jihadist manuals that are popular among
Daesh, and what's really obvious is that they cherry-pick and quote out of context only specific classical Islamic scholars' understandings about
jihad while ignoring the others who wouldn't have. Not only that, they completely ignore widely accepted and required practices within Islam such as giving widows or divorcees an
iddah period, not mutilating bodies, having trials before carrying out legal punishments. Please note that not only has the Muslim world rejected
Daesh as any kind of "Islamic State" but also scholars have a consensus that
Daesh are evil and the enemy of Muslims. It is not out of the vacuum Islamic scholars have classified
Daesh as kaffirs while others have classed them as
Khawarij (which known as hypocritical evil Muslims that are dwellers of hell-fire) while others say they're just perverted and sinful deviants and their divine fate is to up to divine judgment.
I don't believe that for a second. Listen to what the Islamists have to say. Actually listen to them. The agression of the west is only part of it. I know a lot of atheists who think that this Islamist thing is just a case of desperate people lashing out, and that they don't actually believe their religion tells them to hate the infidel etc. But just listen to them. They really do believe what they say. They really do want Islam to rule over all and they really do want the rest of us to convert or die. In fact, I've seen a few with that opinion even here on this board.
Look, I've been serious reading
Daesh publications and on the Internet have talked to
Daesh fanboys in the past as well as having talked to self-confessed
Daesh members; I have come to the conclusion that they have nothing to do with Islam based on my own research and foray into the madness of their world. For example, one of the self-confessed
Daesh members on the Internet with whom I'd talked had boasted about how he loves killing. Now, I've heard police officers and military men describe killing and none of them have ever been of the mind or said that it's a thing to be enjoyed; instead, they've treated it as a necessity. I actually think there's a certain depravity in the people who join
Daesh. I mean I was given death threats on the Internet even as a Muslim simply for posting verses of the Qur'an and
ahadith (prophetic traditions) and numerous scholarly
fatwa (rulings) that contradicted their actions and evil and understanding of them as an "'Islamic' State." That said, yes, I do agree with you that they, that is,
Daesh want "infidels" to convert or die; however, I'd say that they'd want me equally dead or perhaps more because in their opinion I'm certainly not the right kind of Muslim and will never be.
Odds are one will post something in the next couple of days; maybe right here in this thread for us to marvel at.
Dude, this is the Internet; every second of every day, there's something stupid posted on the Internet. Even though IB is a Muslim forum, I do not see any persons as being exempt from exemplifying stupidity (even me! though I rather hope you don't see my disagreement with you as stupidity because it's based on what I consider rather well-informed opinion on human psychology and history and present-day realities).
I do see your point, but it does not help to shut down those who actually have something substantive and nuanced to say. If you respond with a blanket "All is good here. Islam is a religion of Peace. Don't criticize" you make people who may be somewhere in the middle unable to come to your way of thinking; because they know you won't listen to them and will simply declare them bigots, so they are either silenced, or grow into that label. And meanwhile those with easy Trump-like answers are what comes to the surface.
Well, I'd once said on a now defunct Muslim forum that we need to reinvent a new slogan - something that won't make people laugh because now there's a meme to the effect of "the religion of peace strikes again!" - but also doesn't make people cower in terror of Islam being a vile dangerous villainous ideology that is out to get the non-Muslims because that is certainly not true.
We can't have an in depth and constructive national dialogue if one side just screams "Terrorists!" and the other side just screams "Bigots!" at us.
Don't you see the irony of painting the people who won't agree with Maajid Nawaz or Sam Harris as "regressive left" which I personally see as sophisticated name-calling that is meant to put a question mark on their validity and base. We've actually literally entered the arena of battle between ideas; and as you can see, the one I'm rooting for is not the one that is represented by the liberal left that knows there is a risk of conflating Islam with terrorism but is willing to risk it even if other innocent Muslims and I are likely to becomes its victim as a consequence as I don't personally relish the possibility or future direction of having innocent people thrown under the proverbial bus of a witch hunt for an anemic cause which I can't even get behind as a matter of principle.
(Peace be upon you)