Anti Mosque Protests On The Rise

[Fallen_Horse]

Fallen_Horse:

Let me know when you can come with something other than projecting your values onto another civilization, that absolutely does not have the same values. Cultural anthropologists always say that a given society can only think in its own terms and concepts and transpose these concepts to other societies when analyzing them. All your doing is accusing me of racism because you cannot handle what Islam really entails and accept it in your mind. Or telling me not to discriminate, but the whole muslim world-view is based on discriminating between believers that form the community of the faithful, called ummah, who are to mitigate against the unbeliever infidels until Islam has full dominion over the world as ordained in the Koran.

 

You can't demonstrate that you know anything about Islam. Or why it is not the same as the Christianity you are probably used to.

You sir, were the one raised Orthodox Christian. I have been agnostic for over 10 years now (and Buddhism is a great way to be, don't get me wrong), and I personally know many American Muslim youth (I go to a university with a large Muslim student foreign exchange rate). The majority of the Muslims I personally know value personal freedoms, and peoples' right to choose the faith they wish to choose. I do not know these close-minded Muslims you speak of. My long-term girlfriend is Muslim, and one of the most humble people I have ever known. I attend an Islamic studies class once a week at a local mosque, and I have attended Jehovah's Witness meetings, Mormon youth group meetings, and 'modern faith' Christian church groups. So please do not accuse me of being uneducated about Islam and religion.

 

Again I will repeat, your claims have a base of truth, but they CANNOT be generalized to a billion and a half people. Also I think this conversation is now straying far from the OP's topic, which was not my intention at the beginning of this. Nicholas, do you have problems with the mosque being built?

 

Some reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Modern_perspectives_on_Sharia

[NicholasV]

That is really funny that you claim to be so knowledgeable and cite arguments from authority via attending Islamic studies and interacting with so many muslims. Even funnier that after allegedly having all that exposure that you have no knowledge that Islam is not comparable to Christianity, Judaism or any religion, as such, because it is not mere religion. Further you know what muslims are like as a tiny and rather puny few million minority in the 310 million USA, where they cannot mitigate for the Sharia provisions of their total system that encompasses every facet of life. You do not know what it is like countries with muslim majority populations that have full or semi-sharia where non-muslims are second class, scorned citizens.

 

Islam is millenarian, militant and power seeking. Yyou could build a government from mosques, Islamic source texts and a body of faithful, there are many Islamic Republics. I do not support more new mosques being built which will serve as centers of lawfare, warfare, centers for the enslavement of women, among other retrograde things supported in Islam. Islam is stuck in the 7th Century CE when it was created because the source texts like the Koran and Sahih Bukhari, Shahih Muslim are considered immutable and constantly being referred to -- keeping Islamic societies trapped in a time warp with little evolution(except the externally imposed). Further a mosque which mitigates for the propagation of Sharia by its very nature also implies the Sharia provisions of inequality for non-muslims. I am not keen on muslim lawfare pushing for special rights exclusively for muslims on the route for more small victories over the unbelievers.

[Ducati]

To give perspective my family is all from Greece and they tried to raise me Greek Orthodox, but failed and I went atheist for a bit before turning Buddhist.

 

This is one of the most ironic things I have ever heard. Buddha would laugh.

[Ducati]

Islam is millenarian, militant and power seeking.

 

And Christianity is not?

[Fallen_Horse]

That is really funny that you claim to be so knowledgeable and cite arguments from authority via attending Islamic studies and interacting with so many muslims. Even funnier that after allegedly having all that exposure that you have no knowledge that Islam is not comparable to Christianity, Judaism or any religion, as such, because it is not mere religion. Further you know what muslims are like as a tiny and rather puny few million minority in the 310 million USA, where they cannot mitigate for the Sharia provisions of their total system that encompasses every facet of life. You do not know what it is like countries with muslim majority populations that have full or semi-sharia where non-muslims are second class, scorned citizens.

 

Islam is millenarian, militant and power seeking. Yyou could build a government from mosques, Islamic source texts and a body of faithful, there are many Islamic Republics. I do not support more new mosques being built which will serve as centers of lawfare, warfare, centers for the enslavement of women, among other retrograde things supported in Islam. Islam is stuck in the 7th Century CE when it was created because the source texts like the Koran and Sahih Bukhari, Shahih Muslim are considered immutable and constantly being referred to -- keeping Islamic societies trapped in a time warp with little evolution(except the externally imposed). Further a mosque which mitigates for the propagation of Sharia by its very nature also implies the Sharia provisions of inequality for non-muslims. I am not keen on muslim lawfare pushing for special rights exclusively for muslims on the route for more small victories over the unbelievers.

 

Well I guess we are really not getting anywhere. You have your experiences and I have mine. I do think you should take a look at the below links, which show that less than half of all nations with a Muslim majority population (49 nations total) use ANY form of governmental sharia law. So yeah, you can say that half of Muslim nations are pro-Sharia at the government level, but half of them aren't. Again you are grouping millions of people into categories they don't belong in....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

[vivalasvegans]

Don't forget about all those countries whose governments are tied into some christian (often catholic but also orthodox too!) political machine that have laws about abortion, marital infidelity, prostitution, homosexuality etc.

[VeganEssentials]

Nope, sorry buddy. You've got me pegged as some peace-nick. Military defense of the country is an important function of any government. However, acts of aggression like pretty much every one commuted by the United States post WW2 should not be confused with defense. They have been militaristic acts promoting an imperialist agenda. It's that simple.

 

I did not disagree that many of the things that the US military has gotten into were not for the greater good. But again, you seem to overlook the fact that the military has assisted in peacekeeping, human aid post-disaster and during conflict in other nations (do you think that assisting with aid and peacekeeping attempts in nations that have suffered through religious genocide is imperialist agenda, such as airlifting Rwandan refugees to safe zones?) and such. You imply that the overall agenda is simply imperialism while forgetting that it is simultaneously used in things for the greater good as well. Do I doubt that it's been used for some very visible imperialism in this past century? Of course not, and I don't agree with those situations. However, I'm not short-sighted to where I'll focus only on the bad while ignoring what good it has been used for and has the potential for in the future.

 

Again, you're conveniently focusing only on that which you don't like (not that there's plenty to be upset about regarding US foreign policy), without bothering to consider anything good about US policy in regard to foreign aid, peacekeeping, etc. If we're so terrible for what we do wrong while ignoring the good we've done, then you should hold contempt for those who chose NOT to get involved where we worked for the greater good while others stood by and did nothing. It's a two-way street, my man, and again, not so black-and-white as you're making it out to be.

[Fallen_Horse]

It's a two-way street, my man, and again, not so black-and-white as you're making it out to be.

Boy it's like we are having two simultaneous conversations with the same message!

[VeganEssentials]

You may want to ask Lt-Gen Romeo Daillaire where the UN airlifts were when he helplessly watched 800,000 Rwandans get slaughtered and couldn't get any help from the UN or the United States.

 

It's unfortunate that so many did not make it out alive. However, does that negate the US' role in helping to evacuate around 62,000 civilians who may have otherwise been killed? I'm not giving the US a massive pat on the back, but where, oh where, were so many other nations who could have also helped intervene and save lives? That's all I'm saying, we did help (not anywhere near what was necessary, but still did assist), but again, it all comes back to the bad and ignores what good has been done. Shall we also say that going vegan doesn't matter, since the bulk of animals are still being killed daily? We can draw plenty of comparisons if we really want to - I'm just making a point that we can seek the bad in everything and use it to fuel our hatred of what we DON'T like about something, or, we can acknowledge that maybe the things we think we detest sometimes do perform actions we find commendable and aren't always as terrible and flawed as we want to believe.

 

A rule of thumb for western peace keeping missions is that there is generally a western economic interest at stake. Even so could be peacekeeping used effectively is your question I guess. I'm not entirely sure to be honest. I think in a lot of instances the foreign presence does more harm than good.

 

If the assistance is being done solely to protect our interests, then I agree, it could do more harm than good. However, when nation X is at war with itself and is effectively killing and starving out a large segment of its own population, do you feel it is best to deny assistance completely if we cannot be 100% impartial in our actions and may have some vested interests? How do we determine what causes are worthy of getting involved in while ignoring others? And, when things DO go wrong and we don't step up, we get a massive chunk of the populace clamoring that we need to get in there and help out. It's a big mess, no doubt, and one that doesn't have an answer that will appease everyone. Your sentiments on what justifies involvement in another's affairs will not be the same as mine, which won't be the same as that of someone else. Perhaps, just perhaps, sometimes we get into matters where we might actually not be doing more harm than good. But, if we sit and philosophize about it vs. taking action when assistance is needed, we never really know, will we?

 

I used to use arguments similar to yours with people. The more I've learned about the world, the less I do.

 

Ah, the inference of "someday you'll know better than to say such things!" Can't wrap up a good debate without one of those

[Ducati]

Don't forget about all those countries whose governments are tied into some christian (often catholic but also orthodox too!) political machine that have laws about abortion, marital infidelity, prostitution, homosexuality etc.

 

You mean like the United States?

[VeganEssentials]

Don't forget about all those countries whose governments are tied into some christian (often catholic but also orthodox too!) political machine that have laws about abortion, marital infidelity, prostitution, homosexuality etc.

 

You mean like the United States?

 

Almost. You can still have an abortion while cheating on your spouse, however, you cannot marry your favorite homosexul prostitute (if you're both the same gender)...yet!

[Vegan Joe]

Due to the sensitivity of the site, it connection with radical Islam, and the displeasure of many of the people who lost loved one, we have decided to choose another less sensitive building site for our Mosque/ Cultural center.

[VeganEssentials]

And Joe returns!

[beforewisdom]

I've seen this issue get repeated often.

 

People don't want to admit that both sides are the truth. Without our military we would have some nasty people making our lives miserable, but, at the same time, our military is used as a tool to achieve goals many of us are not happy with.

[VeggieQueen]

I've seen this issue get repeated often.

 

People don't want to admit that both sides are the truth. Without our military we would have some nasty people making our lives miserable, but, at the same time, our military is used as a tool to achieve goals many of us are not happy with.

 

This reminds me of the episode of South Park called "I'm a Little Bit Country." Basically, the point of the episode is that America is confusing in terms of its politics. Americans are so adamant about going to war, yet they want to provide the image to other countries that they're not war mongers. If they're ANTI-WAR, they look weak, but if they're totally FOR the war, it makes them look like savages. In a way, democrats and republicans balance each other out. The quote often repeated in the episode is "Having your cake and eating it too."

 

Now...as for my opinion of the Mosque, it's very two sided. While I don't enjoy extremists going absolutely nuts, we need to respect those with different beliefs (at least the ones who aren't completely crazy).

[VeganEssentials]

You win, Jaleel. The US military has done nothing positive to assist in aid anywhere in its history, both home and abroad, it is only an imperialist tool to spread McDonalds to every nation on earth. I concede fully.

 

The main issue here is this - you're approaching everything from the stance of needing to be given some sort of 100% assurance that there could NEVER be any motive that's anything other than sheer altruism for US military actions to be anything other than imperialist in nature. Even a whiff of anything that could allude to protecting interests or whatever immediately means that you call BS on it and believe it to be nothing more than another chess move for domination. It's too bad that you're only looking with complete pessimism, but so be it, I can't change your mind to see anything in a way beyond what you want it to be, so there's little bearing on continuing this.

[Ducati]

Ryan,

 

You appear to approach this topic in the mindset that a couple of good deeds counter all the collateral murders, economic destruction, assassinations, and other imperialistic actions in which our government and military engage.

[VeganEssentials]

Ryan,

 

You appear to approach this topic in the mindset that a couple of good deeds counter all the collateral murders, economic destruction, assassinations, and other imperialistic actions in which our government and military engage.

 

Not at all, Ducati, not at all. Viewing in terms of avoiding absolutes and pointing out some good in a situation does not mean condoning the bad actions, and the continual attempts to force this on me is a complete cop-out.

 

I've simply tried to say that viewing the issue from a point of understanding that polarization often leads to a dead end, and this has been the case here. Many are taking these issues in 100% absolutes, and I hate to be the bearer of news, but that's not how life works. Many "bad" things have some good in them, and many "good" things have plenty of bad in them as well. It's simply faulty logic to infer that all work done by the US military is for imperialistic purposes, but somehow, that just can't be accepted by some. Regardless of one's polarized stance, it doesn't change the reality, but any attempts I've made to state this have gone by completely unnoticed (which is why I've been deemed some sort of apologist, because a few have chosen to pick a line they like to support their argument while ignoring the bulk of my statements). As of this time, I just can't afford to spend more time discussing when people are so entrenched in their current beliefs, nothing could shake them because they WANT to feel the way they do, and seek out information solely to back their positions. I've accepted that there's lots of bad with any good in the topic at hand, but that gets overlooked again and again because some here can't grasp that they might actually need to expand their viewpoints. My attempting to view from a neutral stance has put me in the opposing camp and I've become "the enemy" who somehow is made to be lacking in grasp, when I'm actually grasping the topic from all angles, unlike most who only want to view it from one. Life isn't us-vs-them in a team sports mentality, there's a much bigger picture, but that point has been lost again and again no matter how hard I've tried to state it.

 

Now, please allow me to exit gracefully so I can slam my forehead onto my desk. Nobody seems to actually want to consider what I've been saying for what it was intended to mean. A guy can only take people twisting context and making false assumptions for so long before it's time to call it a day.

 

I imagine that beforewisdom is having a good chuckle about this one right now in relation to a certain post he made recently

[Ducati]

Ryan,

 

No one here is saying that some of the actions of the government and military resulted in some good or benefited people in need. However, the motivations behind those actions are always self serving.

 

You state you are attempting to view it from a neutral stance, but I don't see that. My take on your stance is that we must accept a certain amount of evil. That is a very dangerous road in my opinion.

 

Imagine that instead of using the defense budget on weapons of war, we used it to finance a massive assistance force that would be available to anyone in the world who requires the need. Natural disasters, famine, refugees, etc. Would we need to worry about being attacked? Not likely, because most of the world's countries would have a high regard for our capabilities, they wouldn't want the bad press, and they might find them attacked by other nations who just so happen to like us. Why couldn't that work? Why do we have to kill people to help others? Why is dominating people the only way to win there respect?

[Vegan Joe]

Ryan,

 

No one here is saying that some of the actions of the government and military resulted in some good or benefited people in need. However, the motivations behind those actions are always self serving.

 

You state you are attempting to view it from a neutral stance, but I don't see that. My take on your stance is that we must accept a certain amount of evil. That is a very dangerous road in my opinion.

 

Imagine that instead of using the defense budget on weapons of war, we used it to finance a massive assistance force that would be available to anyone in the world who requires the need. Natural disasters, famine, refugees, etc. Would we need to worry about being attacked? Not likely, because most of the world's countries would have a high regard for our capabilities, they wouldn't want the bad press, and they might find them attacked by other nations who just so happen to like us. Why couldn't that work? Why do we have to kill people to help others? Why is dominating people the only way to win there respect?

Paraphrased: Have others do our killing for us.

 

 

 

 

Utopia is dead.

[VeganEssentials]

Baited into coming back once more, I must be a glutton for punishment

 

Ryan,

 

No one here is saying that some of the actions of the government and military resulted in some good or benefited people in need. However, the motivations behind those actions are always self serving.

 

True altruism among nations has not existed in a very, very long time. I hate to be the bearer of news, but that's the case. That's why I agree, there may be some degree of self serving purpose in where the US chooses to get involved, but it's not always going to 100% be for the reasons that seem to be implied here. And, while I get chastized for people implying that I'm making excuses for the bad that comes with the good, conversely, people are ignoring the good because they want to find fault in it due to anything they perceive as bad. It's a permanent stalemate in an argument like this when objectivity is overshadowed by a feeling that something is morally correct (and that in itself is debatable) or that it is evil to the core. I don't know how many times this can be said in different ways, but hopefully this time it'll sink in because I don't have many ways left to rephrase this.

 

You state you are attempting to view it from a neutral stance, but I don't see that. My take on your stance is that we must accept a certain amount of evil. That is a very dangerous road in my opinion.

 

There will always be bad. That's reality. It will NEVER change. Do I want to see less true evil in the world? OF COURSE. Do most people, even those who disagree with you in many ways, want the same thing? YES. Humanity is pretty f'ed up, but there's still enough good out there to where we don't have the bulk of the populace wanting war just so they can watch death tolls increase daily. I can guarantee you, if you were to look into each and every person's heart, you'd find the overwheming majority want peace, but there's no easy path. Which is why we are where we are.

 

I don't WANT to have to accept that there's a certain amount of evil that will always exist, but I'm not delusional to believe that we're civilized enough to ever make it go away completely. And, believing that there will always be some bad does not mean that I'm actively working to contribute to it - I do what I can for the sake of good, even if I don't believe pure good itself will ever be the sole force in this world. It's simply acceptance, just like I know one day my number is coming up and I won't be here any longer. Not accepting the inevitable truths does not make one stronger, it only overlooks the facts and makes one susceptible to assumptions and misinformation, which are not necessarily in line with reality. Sometimes, excessive optimism keeps people going in their mission and gives them a reason to get out of bed, but the truth that the goal may never be attained in this lifetime (or, existence of humanity) must always be understood to keep one's self grounded in reality.

 

Imagine that instead of using the defense budget on weapons of war, we used it to finance a massive assistance force that would be available to anyone in the world who requires the need. Natural disasters, famine, refugees, etc.

 

I never disagreed that I'd much rather see the military used primarily for such purposes, but that's what's been implied because my stance has again, made me the enemy for not being copletely against the existence the military in general. You could probably poll the bulk of the far right, and I assure you, most (if not all) would say that they'd prefer to not go to war ever again and would be far happier to see a purpose such as what you've illustrated above. We want the SAME THING, but somehow, the little bullshit in between keeps us divided and instead of all agreeing on such a thing, we prefer to pick each other's stances apart at every opportunity over the small parts of the whole equation.

 

Would we need to worry about being attacked?

 

Without a means of actual physical defense, yes, we would still need to worry about being attacked. Simply because the US would choose to lay down its guns and help everyone else would NOT be reason enough to sway every other nation. In this era, it's just not possible. To some, it would be perceived as a sign of opportunity to use violence against us, but, to many, it would do as you believe and be a way to come together. Though, perfection in a situation like this is unfortunately unattainable. Hence my not seeing it in a sense of eliminating military power as being the key to peace unless there was a way to enforce it across EVERY nation without chance of failure. And we know how well that would work, since the honor system is not exactly a system that governments across the globe are known for.

 

Why couldn't that work?

 

See above, it's wonderful in theory, but practice and theory are two very, very different creatures. There simply will never be enough trust among all nations to see this happen successfully.

 

Why do we have to kill people to help others?

 

We shouldn't have to, I agree. But again, not every act of good comes rolled into a package full of smart missile airstrikes and scorched earth. And, for one final time, I do not support the bulk of US military actions, but I won't condemn everything that's ever been done as evil or imperialistic, either. I can't say it more simply than that, but assumptions have been made even when I've stated this sentiment previously with critical parts being ignored.

 

Why is dominating people the only way to win their respect?

 

I don't believe it does earn respect. Bullying perpetuates fear and hatred, and if all we did was dominate and colonize, put in puppet dictators, etc. as has been inferred with marginal good, then I'd expect we'd have had a scenario similar to the movie Red Dawn by now, with every other nation wanting to see us obliterated. Which, of course hasn't happened yet, so perhaps there is a smidgen of truth to the fact that some nations do respect us for the good we do/try to do instead of solely focusing on every bad thing they can tally and ignoring the rest (despite some people here doing that exact thing! ) But, I'll await a respose that says that our allies in the world are as "evil" as we are, or that we simply bribe our way into the hearts of those who don't detest us, etc. It's what I've come to expect from this - one more extreme that will likely rear its head and stir the pot once more.

 

However, that truly is it. I did what I could to clarify my stance, it can be taken for what it is or twisted to make me out to be something I'm not. That, of course, is up to the reader to figure out how they want to interpret it based on a like or dislike for me, because ultimately, you'll see what you want no matter how many times I clarify, rephrase, specify, and continue being overly verbose in my statements to try and get the point across. Either way, my conscience is not heavy for being what I am, which is just one more vegan who does what he can, but is not always in line with the expected beliefs of the movement. Guess I've found that I don't fit in with the crowd any more as I near 40 than I did when I was 10 and actually cared what people thought of me and my opinions.

 

As of this point, if you need any final clarifications on my stance, feel free to shoot me a PM. This thread needs to be buried, as I've become a broken record in rephrasing things over and over. Nothing positive is going to come out of dragging this thing on.

[Ducati]

Ryan,

 

Have you ever of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? A great deal could be learned about his tactics in defeating an armed empire without violence.

 

Supporting the military is similar to supporting the meat industry. The meat industry does some good as well. It provides jobs for people. But in the end, you are just paying someone to do your killing for you if you support them.

 

The first step to peace is to stop aggression.

[Vegan Joe]

 

The first step to peace is to stop aggression.

and so your answer is the lotus position?

[Fallen_Horse]

Stopping really bad people (Hitler) = good

Stopping regular bad people (Hussein) = uncertain

 

Do the ends justify the means. That's the tough question with war. And it's HIGHLY dependent on which war you are talking about. I don't think we can just say 'US is bad' or 'US is good' without narrowing down a specific action or war or conflict. The US has done some terrible crap, yeah, but we also helped win WW2, which was terrifically important for the safety and health of the world. Nobody argues against defeating Hitler. So look at a specific conflict, then choose a side. Blindly siding one way or the other never gets us anywhere (I'm talking to everyone )

[Ducati]

Fallen_Horse,

 

That is easy to say in hindsight, but you have to consider that a large portion of our country supported fascism and the Nazi's.

 

The Holocaust was almost completely unknown by US citizens at this time.

 

Many US banks and corporations helped Germany create their "War Machine".

 

It wasn't until Germany declared war on the US after the Pearl Harbor attack that we joined the war against Hitler.