Anti-mosque protests on the rise, say Muslim advocates

[Today]

Source!!

Opposition to the construction of mosques has skyrocketed in cities and towns across the country, scholars and advocates of Muslim culture tell The Upshot.

Public protests against three planned mosques have made news in the past week: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin joined others in opposing the building of a mosque a few blocks from the World Trade Center site. Hundreds demonstrated against a proposed mosque in a small town in Tennessee (pictured above). And some residents of Temecula, California, are opposing the local Muslim community's plan to build a bigger mosque, saying it could become a hotbed of radical Islam.

Professor Akbar Ahmed, the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University's School of International Service, is not surprised by the recent spate of public protests. He spent last year traveling to more than 100 mosques in 75 U.S. cities with a team of researchers, and concluded that opposition to mosques, including some attacks on them, is on the rise.

"Everywhere there's a mosque, there's a tension now," Ahmed says.

Ahmed believes most Americans have little idea what goes on inside the approximately 2,000 mosques in the country, which leads to fear and anti-Muslim sentiment. Comments from public figures like Sarah Palin exacerbate the problem, he says.

Palin posted Sunday on Twitter that a planned mosque near the World Trade Center site would "stab hearts." She joined a PAC and family members of some 9-11 victims in vocally objecting to the religious center. "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing," she wrote. (In addition to the mosque, the 13-story, $100 million project would include a swimming pool, gym, and performance space open to everyone, reports ABC News.)

[No churches in Saudi Arabia? Then no mosques near Ground Zero, Gingrich says]
"Sarah Palin's comments again were saying implicitly that mosques are associated with violence and terrorism," Ahmed says, though he adds that he thinks the tension over this proposed mosque is unique due to the "raw wounds" of the 9/11 attacks. "At the highest level, even in America, we have a [former] vice presidential candidate, she can openly make a statement like this."

Palin defended her statements in a post on Facebook, saying that she is all for religious freedom and tolerance, but that not building the mosque near Ground Zero is an issue of "common moral sense."

Jim Zogby, the head of the Arab-American Institute, a nonprofit research group, said there are not enough people in public life defending American Muslims' right to worship.

"There is very little counter-thrust in the public debate, and the result is, I think, Muslims are becoming increasingly concerned about their security in the country," Zogby says. "This is a worrisome environment. Something's got to give."

Opponents of mosques feel freer now to openly object to the presence of a mosque in their community, says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy organization.

"Mosques used to face opposition in the past, but it was usually couched in terms of opposition to parking or traffic," Hooper says. "But you know, it's only recently, I think, that people feel comfortable expressing their bigotry so openly."

Of course, opponents of mosques do not consider themselves bigots, and many are genuinely concerned that mosques may help produce homegrown terrorists. According to the Washington Post, 34 Americans have been charged by U.S. authorities since January 2009 with direct involvement in international terrorism. But in many of these case, it appears the suspects were radicalized via Internet contacts.

Ahmed says the incidents of Americans turning to jihad is a reflection of a "failure in Muslim leadership." He says Muslim religious leaders should have to be trained and certified, since they are in positions of power, often over young congregations. But he adds that opposing mosques at home will only fuel accusations from America's enemies that the country hates Islam and Muslims.

A pastor opposed to the proposed Temecula mosque reflected these fears of homegrown terrorism.

"There is a concern with all the rumors you hear about sleeper cells and all that. Are we supposed to be complacent just because these people say it's a religion of peace? Many others have said the same thing," Pastor Bill Rench told the Los Angeles Times.

Others say their opposition is a matter of pragmatism. Stephen Schwartz, a convert to Islam and the founder of the nonprofit Center for Islamic Pluralism, opposes the building of the mosque near the World Trade Center, calling it an "unnecessary and misguided attempt at conciliation." He says that Muslims should not build big new mosques in the country because it will stoke tensions with the non-Muslim community.

"The problem that emerges is that these projects, when they are ambitious and large, set off a certain sector of the American people," Schwartz says. "I think that's very unfortunate but it is reality. Muslims should take that into account and should understand that building large mosques right now will be problematic."

Some opponents of the mosque in Tennessee have told local news outlets they think people will learn jihad inside the mosque's walls, though the local Muslim community has had a smaller mosque in the town for years without incident.

Several hundred people in Tennessee took to the streets of Murfreesboro last week to protest the local Islamic Center's 15-acre land purchase. They were met by a counterprotest of equal size.

"In Islam, a mosque means 'We have conquered this country,' " one man told a local CNN affiliate. "And where are they? They're in the center of Tennessee. They're going to say, 'We have conquered Tennessee.' "

A plan for a separate mosque was tabled in another town in Tennessee this year after public opposition, reports the Tennessean.

Ahmed visited the site of a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee, that had been burned down and vandalized with painted swastikas in 2008, while researching last year.

"The local tiny Muslim community was in a state of shock because most of them were born in America and had lived very happily in the small community," he says. "People say, 'Go back home,' and they say, 'Where do we go? This is our home.' "

NEXT-DAY UPDATE: Palin's Facebook post explaining her opposition to the mosque near the World Trade Center temporarily disappeared Thursday. Facebook is investigating whether the post was removed because users reported it as offensive "hate speech."

 

[Tom]

Such bigotry. How can they possibly justify their opposition of the mosque construction with reasons like "common moral sense," or "unnecessary provocation," or "it will stab hearts," when mosques are being burned down and vandalized with painted swastikas. That is just ridiculous. I am not surprised that her comments were reported as offensive hate speech, and if the Republican party wants to remain relevant, they have to get rid of all of the offensive, ignorant attitudes that seem to be pulsating from their base - or at least make sure it isn't coming from their joke of a former VP candidate.

 

[Jim Morrison]

America is so behind, we (used to) have this in Europe all the time.
Also, people are ******** so they will try to justify their actions whatever it is they did.

 

[SuperBowser]

What is the solution though? If you build the mosque, it increases tension. If you don't, the majority have successfully terrorized the minority. The muslim community cannot win.

There's been quite a huge opposition the construction of a mosque in London too. I remember when we got a pamphlet in election time from the Christian party. They wasted a whole sentence of their manifesto to say they would ensure such a mosque is never built.

It's hard to promote education and tolerance and expect it to help when people such as Palin perpetuate the problem themselves.

 

[Teran]

I'm not a big fan of muslims so all I can really say is haha.

I mean, if your reaction as a community to someone saying Islam is a violent religion is to drive-by nuns and blow up catholic churches, then obviously you're not that bright.

 

[Tom]

Both sides do dumb ****. Welcome to life. Lol.

 

[~N9NE~]

People should be entitled to their place of worship.

That said, Western and Islamic principles are completely at odds. While most Western countries advocate human rights and an attempt at equality for all, the concept of equality for all is alien to Sharia law exercised within Islamic countries.

Ahmed says the incidents of Americans turning to jihad is a reflection of a "failure in Muslim leadership." He says Muslim religious leaders should have to be trained and certified, since they are in positions of power, often over young congregations.

The concept of Jihad is fundamental to Islam, and I use the term fundamental as in it is an integral, instrinic aspect of Islam, not in the sense that it is extremist. Why would it be a "failure in Muslim leadership" if the Islamic texts propose it and throughout history the concept has been encouraged?

@SuperBowser - do you live in London? What borough?

when mosques are being burned down and vandalized with painted swastikas..

Can I get a link to this?

 

[Tom]

Its in the OP.

 

[~N9NE~]

Don't know how I missed that, thanks.

 

[El Nino]

The concept of Jihad is fundamental to Islam, and I use the term fundamental as in it is an integral, instrinic aspect of Islam, not in the sense that it is extremist. Why would it be a "failure in Muslim leadership" if the Islamic texts propose it and throughout history the concept has been encouraged?

Jihad refers to two different things. Traditionally, it is an internal struggle. More recently, it can also refer to the politics of fundamentalism.

He probably means that it is a failure of Muslim leadership in that they cannot stop people from becoming indoctrinated by the fundamentalists. The implication is that the Muslim world is at war with itself.

 

[SuperBowser]

@SuperBowser - do you live in London? What borough?

I live in the ironically named Whitechapel.


As El Nino said, the ''jihad'' being referred to here is very different to the ''jihad'' that is central to Islam. Context is important.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Bigotry at its finest. I hope that the community doesn't back down and proceeds with the plan to build the Mosque regardless.

 

[~N9NE~]

Jihad refers to two different things. Traditionally, it is an internal struggle. More recently, it can also refer to the politics of fundamentalism.

I'm aware of the concept of Jihad as an internal struggle, but I think it is clear this was not the Jihad being referred to in the article. 'Turning to Jihad' highlights we're talking about the external, physical aspect of the term.

There is nothing recent about the physical, confrontational aspect of Jihad. Branding it as recent is a form of rhetoric being implemented by Islamic advocates who wish to present Islam to a new audience. This is not a recent issue at all, it has just become more prominent as a global issue over the last decade.

He probably means that it is a failure of Muslim leadership in that they cannot stop people from becoming indoctrinated by the fundamentalists. The implication is that the Muslim world is at war with itself.

My question again is, why is it deemed a failure, if it has been proposed throughout Islamic history, starting with the most authoritative leader within Islam itself, Muhammed? Muhammed would not brand Jihad today a failure of Islamic leadership, but a success. Branding them as fundamentalists is erroneous in my opinion. There is no ambiguity, Muhammed advocated such behaviour and decreed that the Islamic world is always in a perpetual struggle against the Non Muslim world.

 

[UberMario]

I'm sure most New Yorkers wouldn't have a problem with the mosque if it was on the outskirts of the city, rather than being planned only a few blocks away from the WTC site.

 

[Grandeza]

I'm sure most New Yorkers wouldn't have a problem with the mosque if it was on the outskirts of the city, rather than being planned only a few blocks away from the WTC site.

Not true. Mosques are being protested in all of New York and not just this one by Ground Zero.

 

[Jim Morrison]

It's a bit dickish to build a mosque there though. I think I would oppose building one on that specific place, but I don't mind the others.

 

[walsh]

It's a bit dickish to build a mosque there though. I think I would oppose building one on that specific place, but I don't mind the others.

Why is it "dickish"? I don't understand this?

Are all muslims terrorists? Did I miss that memo?

I think all Christians should be judged by the actions of Westboro Baptist Church using this same logic.

 

[El Nino]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I recall reading that that piece of property is actually privately owned. By U.S. law, government has no say in what gets built on private land, as long as it does not house illegal activity or otherwise interfere with the law.

My question again is, why is it deemed a failure, if it has been proposed throughout Islamic history, starting with the most authoritative leader within Islam itself, Muhammed?

Probably because the people currently practicing the religion have interpreted the text in another way. Probably because religions, like cultures, are capable of evolving over time. Probably because not everyone takes religious texts literally. Probably because every religion is a product of a culture, a society, a place, and a time. And every religion is a reflection of those elements in its most fundamental aspects.

But that does not mean that it cannot change over time as circumstances shape it, as new practitioners interpret and re-interpret the same old text in light of the world in which they currently live. Religion would have no meaning at all, would not survive the test of time, if newer generations were unable to re-evaluate it as the world continues to change.

 

[~N9NE~]

I appreciate your sentiments but I feel you are over-emphasizing Islam's willingness to 're-evaluate [itself] as the world continues to change.'

 

[SuperBowser]

Islam is not static. No major religion in the world today is. It's not like Christianity's past is all rainbows and sunshine.

Do you have any muslim friends? How can you claim Islam stands for something that the vast majority of muslims will tell you it does not? Does someone who reads the Qu'ran everyday not have the knowledge to say what is and is not a failure of their own community? There is more than one interpretation and you are listening to the minority.

In the last year a Christian shot an obstetrician dead because that doctor performed abortions. He too could find passages in the Bible to justify his actions. But that doesn't mean his actions ever spoke for the Christian community.

 

[Shadic]

In the last year a Christian shot an obstetrician dead because that doctor performed abortions. He too could find passages in the Bible to justify his actions. But that doesn't mean his actions ever spoke for the Christian community.

Exactly. Should all Churches be forced to be x miles away from any Planed Parenthood these days, because George Tiller was shot by a Christian fanatic? I think not.

Freedom involves the right to be offended, you know.

 

[~N9NE~]

Islam is not static. No major religion in the world today is. It's not like Christianity's past is all rainbows and sunshine.

I never claimed that about Christian history. The history of both Christianity and Islam is littered with atrocities claimed to be done with the best of intentions. I'm not ignorant to this and I sincerely hope I didn't come across in that fashion.

Do you have any muslim friends?

Actually, I was born in Iraq. My family lived there their whole lives amongst Muslim people until we came to London during the first Gulf War. A lot of their friends and associates were Muslim. Even here in London we still have a vast network of Muslim friends. My father works within a predominantly Muslim environment, one of our closest family friends is a Muslim family from Yemen whose children have grown up with me and my siblings, at times in the same accommodation. One of my closest friends during and after university was Muslim. I have several other Muslim friends. Islamic and Arab culture has had a heavy influence on my family and we were persecuted for our faith in Iraq.

Due to the nature of my upbringing I've grown up with a greater interest in Islamic-Christian relations. I'm not someone who was totally alien to the religion before this recent global infatuation with Islamic principles. I urge you to not jump to conclusions.

However, regardless of whether I have Muslim friends or not, I think none of that holds any relevance to this discussion.

How can you claim Islam stands for something that the vast majority of muslims will tell you it does not? Does someone who reads the Qu'ran everyday not have the knowledge to say what is and is not a failure of their own community? There is more than one interpretation and you are listening to the minority.

Just to clear any ambiguity; not once in my posts have I criticized the actions of an individual Muslim or Muslims in general. I fear you or others in this thread may have misjudged my intentions. By no means am I branding all Muslims as terrorists, this is a conclusion people jump to way too eagerly whenever someone criticizes Islam. I recognize that peaceful Muslims do exist just as violent Christians exist. I have never stated anything contrary to that. There is no way anyone can treat Muslims as a homogeneous group, it would be a stark error of judgement.

When I look at religions, I tend not to focus on the actions of the followers. This is because you're always going to have a spectrum, from lay followers to extremists. Instead I like to look at the dogma of the religion, the foundations, the teachings it is based on and judge that. That is solely what I am judging.

The common rhetoric we hear in the West is that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is being hijacked by those with political motives and desires in an attempt to manipulate others to wage a supposed clash of civilizations. When I read the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and look into Muhammad's life after his divine revelations, I find no peace in his actions. If we look at Muhammad, we look at a man who after his divine revelations became a political leader concerned with warfare against the indigenous Jewish tribes and pagan Arabs of his area, the capture of treasure of warfare and spreading Islam through the use of violence and advocating that his followers do the same. This is not opinion or what I claim Islam stands for. This is documented in the Qu'ran and Hadiths. When Islam then deems Muhammed the pinnacle of human nature and that all Muslims should replicate his actions, my natural conclusion is that this will breed further violence.

Furthermore, another defining aspect of Islam is the derogatory view of non Muslims, from when they had to pay jizya and subscribe to their dhimmi status as second class citizens or face death, to today in the Middle East where non Muslims are continually persecuted, such as the Coptics in Egypt or the Assyrians in Iraq. This is typical of the treatment of non Muslims within Islamic states. Sharia law deems non Muslims second class citizens, and they have little rights. This is not opinion or what I claim Islam stands for, this is just what has happened and is happening.

My question simply was how is Jihad deemed a failure by Muslims if Muhammed encouraged it and Islamic states continually state that the Islamic world is continually in a state of perpetual war against the non Muslim world?

Maybe you think I'm wrong and the vast majority of Muslims may disagree with me. But our opinions don't change what Muhammed actually did and what he encouraged. You say I'm listening to the minority, I fear the 'minority' are the ones truly doing as he said.

In the last year a Christian shot an obstetrician dead because that doctor performed abortions. He too could find passages in the Bible to justify his actions. But that doesn't mean his actions ever spoke for the Christian community.

I agree completely with your sentiments, Christianity should not be judged on his actions. Like I said, each religion has its spectrum of followers.

If however Christ detailed that you should shoot doctors dead if they perform abortion, then he would be doing no more than acting according to the respective figure of his religion. That is what I feel those that instigate Jihad are doing today, they are merely emulating Muhammed.

Again I am solely judging what the religion is built upon and what it states its followers should do, I am not judging people.

I apologise if my post was unnecessarily long and incoherent and if it detracted from the main issue of the thread. I also apologise if I've offended anyone, please understand that is not my intention.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Teran]

Freedom involves the right to be offended, you know.

Oh really?

Well I'm offended that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism believe I should be put to death for my sexuality, so I'm going to firebomb the entire Abrahamic religious trio and wipe them out.

Doesn't work well this freedom to being offended thing.

 

[Colonel Cuddles]

I still think this is a bad idea. Are all muslims terrorists? No. But is it still a bit unnecessary to build it near ground zero. Yes. Will it create contreversy? Yes. Could it make muslims look even worse? Yes.

 

[El Nino]

I appreciate your sentiments but I feel you are over-emphasizing Islam's willingness to 're-evaluate [itself] as the world continues to change.'

I think you are over-emphasizing the role of a religion in what is essentially a politically motivated conflict.

We've clashed over this topic before. You may have had a strong religious background that shaped your view, but for me, my background makes me view things politically, and nothing that I've seen suggests that religion is anything more than an accessory in this issue. Religion has a habit of taking the main focus because it has the power to trigger people emotionally, and for that reason alone it can't be underestimated, but that emotional reaction also has a way of obscuring the underlying motives of the key players in a conflict.

The Muslim world, with regards to the political jihad, is at war with itself. The failure of leadership here is the failure of leaders to stand up and defend their followers from things like oppression and bigotry. When there is a power vacuum and people feel persecuted, the stage is set for another party to step in and take command. And if that new leadership offers strength that the old one could not, people will follow the new leaders because these are the guys who will stand up for them. From that, people will be enlisted to carry out the new leadership's political agendas.

Edit: I don't think Islam will re-evaluate "itself," if by "itself" you are referring to the religious text itself. Texts evaluate nothing. People evaluate text, and as you said, there is a spectrum in every religion, and there is a spectrum among Muslims. What a religion is is what its practitioners take it to be. Here, the practitioners are divided.

 

[Wrath`]

I don't care that they want to build a Mosque, but it is a little distasteful to do so, close to ground zero.

And if it does get built, I am waiting for extremist Redneck A or passionate Catholic B to burn it down and then have an even bigger problem on our hands

 

[SuperBowser]

grrr I made a really long reply yesterday night but crashboards deleted all my post. I felt like I should try regurgitate some of it since you spent so long on your reply; I'll probably leave the topic from here on out to El Nino since he's clearly more knowledgeable.

...

Fair enough N9NE. It sucks your family had to go through that. I asked that question because it gives perspective to your posts

My question simply was how is Jihad deemed a failure by Muslims if Muhammed encouraged it and Islamic states continually state that the Islamic world is continually in a state of perpetual war against the non Muslim world?

Because the Qu'ran is a large book and context is important and it is therefore open to more than one (literal) interpretation.

God wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the Old Testament. Teran's post gives us one example: the Bible can and has been used to advocate the murder of gay people. This abhorrent crime has taken place in the past and continues taking place today under the veil of religion. Can we really say those who commit these acts did not follow their religious text? This explicit command is repeated more than once.

Do I agree with the teachings of Islam? No. Is it possible a greater proportion of Muslims hold ''extreme'' views than you will find in other religious groups? Sure. Is it perhaps easier to promote extremist views through the Qu'ran than many other religious texts? I believe so. I don't think our views differ so much. However, I do not think these statements change what I have stated so far, nor do I believe the actions you speak of can be solely attributed to the writings of one religious text.

The truth is, there are much more significant factors at play: human nature, political gains, socioeconomic hardship and (powerful) people with a personal bone to pick. It is so easy to blame religion for the faults in our world. I say this as somebody who isn't particularly religious.

Now, to protest to the building of mosques ANYWHERE in the United States (as if I'm reading the article correctly, is happening) is absurd. Quite honestly this is one of the worst things that can be done for Islam-America relations. It is very common in Islam to play the "everybody is ignorant" card and the "we are victims of persecution" card. While 99% of the time they are not in fact victims or anything like that, by putting a ban on mosques in America, they will in fact be victims of persecution and that will only divide us all more.

I am sure there are many instances where the victim card is unnecessarily played. However, we have quite a contradiction here. Here we have a nationwide protest to the construction of any mosque. Would it be so absurd to believe Muslims actually suffer bigotry on a regular, wider and more systemic scale than most of us would like to admit?

 

[Shadic]

Oh really?

Well I'm offended that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism believe I should be put to death for my sexuality, so I'm going to firebomb the entire Abrahamic religious trio and wipe them out.

Doesn't work well this freedom to being offended thing.

Except your right to be offended ends where another's freedom begins. If you can't see the difference between disliking something and wanting to blow it up, I pity you.

 

[El Nino]

I'll probably leave the topic from here on out to El Nino since he's clearly more knowledgeable.

No. Nino is a busy grown up person now, with busy grown up person problems. You all must carry on without me.

Onward, keyboard warriors.

Opposing to the Mosque very close to ground zero is reasonable.

Well, in the U.S., no religious buildings can be built on government owned land. The property the mosque is proposed to be built on is privately owned. The government has no say in what gets built on privately owned land as long as it conforms with building codes and other things of that nature..

People can still protest, but they have to be standing in a public area when they do it, like a public sidewalk. Political figures like Sarah Palin can speak out against it as private citizens, but as politicians, they can't do anything about it.

The problem is, when politicians speak out against it, it seems to give people the impression that the government is within its rights to decide when in fact it doesn't have any say.

Edit: Building a mosque close to Ground Zero may serve as a testament to the adage: "An attack on one is an attack on all," and it may help remind people that no one is spared from such attacks on the basis of their religious affiliation.

My question simply was how is Jihad deemed a failure by Muslims if Muhammed encouraged it and Islamic states continually state that the Islamic world is continually in a state of perpetual war against the non Muslim world?

I am not a theologist, but certain details do slip through even in political reading. What I gather is that Muhammed is revered for his leadership and charisma, and these traits are valued highly in Islamic culture. It does not have to be expressed in political ways, though, because only a fraction out of any population anywhere is ever interested in being directly involved in politics. However, even in politics, the struggle against the non Muslim world does not necessarily have to take the form of terrorism.

The "failure in leadership" expressed in the article may be a comment on the failure of moderate Muslims to produce a charismatic leader to be the face of reform or anti-conservatism. Radicalism (in any doctrine) almost always coincides with charisma, so it is easier for extremists to appear as strong leaders. If moderate Muslims could produce a leader with enough charisma to motivate people, however, I can see how such a leader might also be viewed as emulating Muhammed.

Similarly, if the Western world were to be perceived as being open to Islam, then it may lose the brand of being anti-Muslim. The fuel for the fundamentalist doctrine as it applies to politics is rooted in Western foreign relations and policy. If those policies are viewed as being inhumane or oppressive, then those nations enforcing such policies are viewed as being against Islam.

Of course, it isn't easy to change policy, but my point is that the war or the struggle doesn't necessarily lead logically to terrorist methods. One can struggle against perceived injustices without those methods.

 

[Teran]

Except your right to be offended ends where another's freedom begins. If you can't see the difference between disliking something and wanting to blow it up, I pity you.

Pity the muslims then.

Also, I don't see why we're even arguing in terms of freedom and rights. These things do not exist, they are arbritrary concepts we made up and don't even follow.

If the majority in a community doesn't want a mosque, then **** it don't build one there, it's only going to cause trouble.

If muslims hate the bigotry in America, move to a muslim country. They're at least free to do that.

People are going to fight before they get along, so they might as well just isolate their clashing cultures so that this nonsensical tension doesn't occur.

 

[El Nino]

Also, I don't see why we're even arguing in terms of freedom and rights.

It's a part of the social contract, and it comes with living in a democratic society. We need to talk about these things specifically because they are arbitrary concepts that we've made up. If they were natural laws that we did not make up, there'd be nothing we could do about them.

Because we've entered into an agreement to live together as a society, we have to talk about the rules. Anything we lay down in law, we are committed to follow; rights are everyone's business within a self-governed society.

That is the theory, though the reality is far from it.

People are going to fight before they get along, so they might as well just isolate their clashing cultures so that this nonsensical tension doesn't occur.

We have inter-continental ballistic missiles that can reach any location on the planet. At this point, we have no choice but to live together. There's no escape from ourselves or from each other; there's nowhere else to run to. There is only this one planet, and every country on it has a flawed system of government. If you spend your life looking for the right one, you'll never find it.

You're going to have to build it yourself.

So we try to fix our own. There isn't anything else to do. We have to live in the world that we construct.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I should have noticed this was a religion thread earlier. I'll be back tomorrow talking about atheism and how it is nearly flawless to follow.

 

[Teran]

It's a part of the social contract, and it comes with living in a democratic society. We need to talk about these things specifically because they are arbitrary concepts that we've made up. If they were natural laws that we did not make up, there'd be nothing we could do about them.

Because we've entered into an agreement to live together as a society, we have to talk about the rules. Anything we lay down in law, we are committed to follow; rights are everyone's business within a self-governed society.

That is the theory, though the reality is far from it.



We have inter-continental ballistic missiles that can reach any location on the planet. At this point, we have no choice but to live together. There's no escape from ourselves or from each other; there's nowhere else to run to. There is only this one planet, and every country on it has a flawed system of government. If you spend your life looking for the right one, you'll never find it.

You're going to have to build it yourself.

So we try to fix our own. There isn't anything else to do. We have to live in the world that we construct.

Yeah, but if we don't live in each others' immediate presence, we won't want to fire said missiles.

Do you know what would bring peace?

If one country conquered the world and forced their beliefs down everyone's throats, and I mean every single corner of the globe.

It may be brutal but it'd work and you know it.

 

[El Nino]

Yeah, but if we don't live in each others' immediate presence, we won't want to fire said missiles.

We'd still be bound together through trade. And economics is the basis for a lot of conflict.

If one country conquered the world and forced their beliefs down everyone's throats, and I mean every single corner of the globe.

It may be brutal but it'd work and you know it.

Only if I get to rule as supreme dictator. Turn this rathole into something decent. Cigarettes, middle fingers, and ghey p0rn for everyone.

 

[trousersuggs]

UGG Sandals
UGGS For Cheap
Kids UGGS
UGGS Kids
Baby UGGS
UGG Kids
Black UGGS

 

[Teran]

Only if I get to rule as supreme dictator. Turn this rathole into something decent. Cigarettes, middle fingers, and ghey p0rn for everyone.

You know I think we'd get along if you were in charge.

 

[Shadic]

People are going to fight before they get along, so they might as well just isolate their clashing cultures so that this nonsensical tension doesn't occur.

Cool. We should have kicked out all the Irish back in the late nineteenth century then? Or all of them pesky black people after we decided that slavery wasn't okay, but that they were still barely people and shouldn't be given equal rights?

 

[Teran]

Well if you had a problem with it then yeah.

The premise is very simple, act upon your problems rather than sitting there and complaining.

In any case, rights are set by those in power. Ultimately, we are all equally worthless until we have something that THE MAN wants.

And dat right dere, dat be truth.

 

[Rici]

You're disappointing me Teran.


Also, I'm completely FOR the building of it and right now I'm way to tired to formulate a normal post why I think so. bbl