Religion of "peace" strikes again

Originally posted by Squirtle
Why are you unsure, please tell me:
How can we study an ideology?
Are they all the same?
If they are not the same, why? how do we know?

Relativism can only get you so far in the real world. Not all ideologies are the same, as not all religions are the same. Islam is unique in it's political and militant dimension.

Yes there is, recognizing the problem is the very first step for reforming and fixing it. You can't just ignore the reality behind "the religion of peace" and hope that... magically all will go well in the end, while piles of corpses keep growing and half of our species keeps being treated as subhuman sexmachines.

Your wishful thinking is well intended but ultimately futile as it ignores some important aspects:

-the ideological nature of islam, very unique and very different than all the others main religions.
-the political dimension of islam, again very very unique.

So, in +1400 years nothing has changed because of this ideology being written in stone, but you hope for magical change?

Can you read valmiki, lao tse, gautama, jesus teachings... compare them to the hadith and tell me they are on same moral ground for human values?
Even completely ignoring the theoretical aspects (why would we do that?) when studying an ideology, let's focus on empirical evidence: list all the terror groups based on their teachings (valmiki, lao tse, gautama, jesus) till this day, so we can make a list comparing that to islam based ones till this day.

To the first question, why I am unsure- that's what the rest of my post addresses. The issue is human nature and cultural development and I do not believe the evidence backs a fundamental difference. Islam is not fundamentally unique at all in its political and militant dimension- it's distinct that way now in some cases, but Christianity used to be the same (and there are elements that wish Christianity still was). In fact, I would say the Papacy represented a much more fundamental religious political power base than anything Islam ever had.

To your latter 'yes there is' point- well, no, you see, because what you are recognizing there is not ther actual problem at all. and all you will do is brick wall any attempt at progress. It is not Islam we should be targeting by default- it is unacceptable behaviour. You have to make a strong effort to dissociate these things else you widen the divide and create more resistance. Your way is not progressive; in fact, it brings us backwards. One of the significant causes of the modern day global political situation is how much the West demonised these cultures as 'other'. Fundamental Islam became a way for them to fight back; a monster we helped create.

Like I mentioned, Islam used to represent the more enlightened culture, so your 'nothing has changed in 1400 years' comment is simply untrue. There's nothing magical about the change I believe in- I think all human cultures have the potential for social progress.

Islam today definitely has a problem- no doubt there. But it's not a problem simply because of what Islam is- it is entirely possible for Islam to b a peaceful philosophy, much as it is possible- as it used to be- for Christianity to be a giant force of oppression and evil. It's a problem of cultural development and people trying to assert themselves in a world that shut them out. Recognising this is needed for progress.

You are still avoiding the main points. Let's start again from the begining:
Do you believe all ideologies are the same? yes/no

Also what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. Facts are relevant. I can believe in god or unicorns, but if I have don't have the evidence it means zero.

There is a fundamental difference between christianity and islam as showed in both: in the theoretical aspects (written texts and scholars interpretations), an the empirical aspects (life of muhammad, life under islamic law, islamic jihad).

Also please, quote for us the political and militant dimension of jesus teachings and his "kingdom of heaven" and his "render unto caesar the things that are caesar's, and unto god the things that are god's".

Tell us how jesus, or gautama or lao tse, or valmiki tried to rise an empire under their ideologies by unprovocally attacking, raping, pillaging and behading it's neightbors like muhammad (the most exemplar muslim to imitate) did. Tell us please, as they are all the same. Right?

PS: almost forgot, tell us more about this "Islam used to represent the more enlightened culture" so we can debate that too. I'll probably be able to reply in 7 hours when I return home.

No, I'm not avoiding any main points at all- I think you;re missing my points far more than anything else. Even your claim about irrelevance is in itself irrelevant, a complete non sequitur from what I was saying. When I say "I do not believe the evidence backs a fundamental difference", it should be pretty obvious that that is a considered position after looking at the evidence, and that I have just had to spell that out for you reflects either inadequate attention to me or bad faith on your part. I reject your argument of fundamental differences; my reasoning is already outlined in my previous posts, though I will pause just to mention that one of your empirical points- life under Islamic law- backs precisely what I say, because in the medieval period, life under Islamic law was considerably more tolerant than life under Christian law, and in an awkward irony, Islamic rule used to be the place where Jews fled to avoid religious persecution. Meanwhile, put Jihad up against the Crusades and see who wins the brutality war.

How you can not have seen the answer to your rather simplistic question "do you believe all ideologies are the same" is confusing to me as it is what my entire posting is about. No I do not think they are. I was discussing why they are not. For me, the reasons for the modern day difference are the issue. You saying it is fundamental to Islam's character is something I dispute on the grounds that Christianity has, in factual history, been at least as bad at times.

Your reference to Jesus and scripture is irrelevant; I am only interested in how organisations and ideologies have behaved. Christianity's brutal and evil legacy in history- in many cases specifically disavowed by modern Christian churches in order to distance themselves from such evil- is a matter of historical record and not appreciating that that represents either historical ignorance or, again, bad faith.

Christianity and Islam are both ultimately Abrahamic religions worshiping the omnibenevolent monotheistic Yahweh (or Allah, still ultimately the same thing though). The difference, IMO at least, only lies in how much it's followers are willing to disregard the undeniably-obsolete discriminatory dogmas (both religions have them) of their hundreds/thousand-year-old religious texts and adapt to contemporary secular human rights recognition. As shown in my above example with the Pope, it seems Christianity is having an easier time doing this (maybe due to the aforementioned wiggle room of interpreting Jesus as having retconned the OT), and it thus makes Islam seem barbaric in comparison.

[QUOTE=15141531]Originally posted by Lestov16
The difference, IMO at least, only lies in how much it's followers are willing to disregard the undeniably-obsolete discriminatory dogmas (both religions have them) of their hundreds/thousand-year-old religious texts and adapt to contemporary secular human rights recognition.

I agree, personally the government ought not recognize any marriage, why is that the governments business anyway? Just makes lawyers rich as far as I can see.

Guns and marriage, are of the same debate. Don't want it, it's all good, dont't have one then.

But if someone does, it's all good, go for it. Ultimately it's folks being a busybody pushing their agenda. That is always bad news. And people like that frequently are in charge and when that happens, absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

Makes me wonder when the SCOTUS later on this year makes gay marriage recogniton mandatory in all USA states, what the push back is going to be. I can hear it now, some people will say "they are pushing this down our throats". That would be rape, if that happened, and makes me wonder just what exactly is in their mouth. LOL.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's true Christians don't. However, the God the Christians worship is a mass murderer on a scale that dwarfs ANYONE human in history. This is a creep who floods an entire planet because the people were "bad".

To be fair, he totally DID spare one dude and some animals so..yeah. He just killed everyone because he loves people so much he wanted them to come straight to heaven right away. Except for Noah because f*ck that guy, dude is a party pooper.

LOL. I've already responded to blasphemous posts like this in the religion forum. God has never MURDERED anyone, dude. There is a huge difference between cleansing the earth of guilty sinners and starting over fresh and killing someone without cause. Killing does not automatically equal murder. Look up the definitions in the dictionary, moron.

I will not respond or even read anymore of your posts in this thread because it's obvious you just came in here to show your ignorance and bash God rather than stick to the topic at hand.

Piss the **** off.

Don't throw around straight flames like that. Star428. That final comment was completely unnecessary. Surtur is not off-topic and you are not entitled to act like that just because you disagree.

That said- Surtur, please watch it on the swearing

Looks like a mod is now breaking the rules of the forum and derailing a thread as well. Fabulous. How did this turn into a "know-it-all" atheists showing their ignorance thread? No, mr. moderator, the bible is not "mythology" but keep telling yourself that if it makes ya feel better, dude. We'll see how ya feel bout that stupid statement when your burning in Hell. I'm done with this ****ing thread since even moderators are breaking their own god**** rules now and going off topic. I guess it's ok for them to break the rules when it suits their purposes though. 🙄

You certainly are done in this thread- if you resort to childish and aggressive posting like that again you will be banned; that's your warning.

Your definition of 'off-topic' needs serious work. The posts are all about Islam's status as a peaceful religion or otherwise and why that may or may not be; a comparison to Christianity is exceptionally appropriate in that regard. Again, it's not off-topic because you disagree. Be careful throwing that accusation around as well.

imho civility is impossible when the title/topic's purpose is to single out one abrahamic religion as evil while dismissing/defending the others.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Like I said, religion is ultimately a subjective interpretation. There are terrible Christians out there as well, such as the WBC or Cromwell. Ultimately though, no one individual's or groups actions and represent an entire ideology.

That being stated, in comparison to Christianity, it is far more difficult to forgive Islam for the violence done in it's name. The reason for this goes back to subjective interpretation. The reason that some Christians and even the Pope are able to support gay rights is because although the OT contains much homophobia and other terrible acts, it can be interpreted that Jesus retconned it with the NT, so it is easily more palatable to modern day human rights. Islam is the exact opposite. Whereas the Pope, arguably the most prominent representative of Christianity, can support gay rights, the most prominent representatives of Islam are known as terrible human rights violators who have people imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for even the slightest defiance of their beliefs or laws. Combined with the growing number of terror groups killing in it's name, some of which are allegedly funded by state officials, and it's no wonder that many are seeing Islam more of a cult than a religion.

Muslims are very quick to decry ISIS or Al Qaeda, but ask them about the human rights abuses of the Saudis and they'll try to give some kind of justification. Muslims need to stop ignoring this and start demanding international reformation on a government level to end the theocracies occurring in several nations, especially Saudi Arabia. Trying to strictly adhere to or justify the barbaric practices of the Koran all the time with no adaptation to modern human rights really paints the religion in a Jonestownian light.

NOTR: This is just my opinion based on personal experiences, including my dad, who is a Sufi Muslim

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
imho civility is impossible when the title/topic's purpose is to single out one abrahamic religion as evil while dismissing/defending the others.

Why? X is B, Y is B, so Y is X? 😕 why can't we single out one abrahamic religion "as evil" it the facts prove it is? why can't we dismiss the others if facts again say so? are we supposed to ignore evidence now? way to debate..

Originally posted by Squirtle
Why? X is B, Y is B, so Y is X? 😕 why can't we single out one abrahamic religion "as evil" it the facts prove it is? why can't we dismiss the others if facts again say so? are we supposed to ignore evidence now? way to debate..

Again, you could argue there is no point at all in argue about which religion is "better". From that stance, any debate in this subject is dishonest.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, I'm not avoiding any main points at all- I think you;re missing my points far more than anything else. Even your claim about irrelevance is in itself irrelevant, a complete non sequitur from what I was saying.

How is it a non sequitur? I said what you believe is irrelevant because we were comparing ideologies, and for that you have to disect it’s theoretical bases and core beliefs.

For example, if I want to study what X and Y says about dealing with the enemy, I go to the sources, and find that:

X says: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them.
Y says: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know.

If one of the most important commands to X followers is: Love your neighbor as yourself.
And one of the most important commands to Y followers is: Fight with them until there is no more fitna (unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah.

Then, if I’m not intellectually paralytic or dishonest, I must conclude their ideological principles are not similar at all, on this subject at least.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
When I say "I do not believe the evidence backs a fundamental difference", it should be pretty obvious that that is a considered position after looking at the evidence, and that I have just had to spell that out for you reflects either inadequate attention to me or bad faith on your part.

Nothing should be obvious, either you post evidence or you don’t. You haven’t exposed your case at all.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I reject your argument of fundamental differences; my reasoning is already outlined in my previous posts

No “reasoning” needed, just evidence. Post the big similarities in both ideological corpuses as written in their most important, influential and revered texts.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
though I will pause just to mention that one of your empirical points- life under Islamic law- backs precisely what I say, because in the medieval period, life under Islamic law was considerably more tolerant than life under Christian law

Tolerant to whom? I was talking mostly about significant, contemporary, verifiable life under islamic law of world muslims. Islamic sharia remains much the same after all. Anyways, I’ll tackle as briefly as possible your divergent point of rougly a three centuries oasis of “tolerant” life in +1400 years of madness.

Christian churches along the border with Byzantine territory were demolished:
https://archive.org/details/histoiredesmusul01dozyuoft
“All the churches in that city had been destroyed except the cathedral, dedicated to Saint Vincent, but the possession of this fane had been guaranteed by treaty. For several years the treaty was observed; but when the population of Cordova was increased by the arrival of Syrian Arabs, the mosques did not provide sufficient accommodation for the newcomers, and the Syrians considered it would be well for them to adopt the plan which had been carried out at Damascus of appropriating half of the cathedral and using it as a mosque. The Muslim Government having approved of the scheme, the Christians were compelled to hand over half of the edifice.

Jews and christian had to wear distinguishing patches in common places (sounds familiar?): apes for jews, pigs for christians.

Btw this was the doctrine ruling in medieval islamic “golden age” on those territories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki all very tolerant.

On slavery: medieval monasteries provided the theological rationale for abolishing slavery, actually it was abolished in the medieval west, while “Demand from the Islamic world dominated slave trade in medieval times.” After all life was not so great and tolerant in medieval period for slaves under islam, than under "christian law".

On arts: music, and the arts flourished in medieval west. Islam: “Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress”
They weren't (aren't) very tolerant with painters either...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
and in an awkward irony, Islamic rule used to be the place where Jews fled to avoid religious persecution.

Antisemitism is a different beast altogether, we can discuss it elsewere, but I say this: yet even during this short oasis of “tolerance” jews were massacred (1011, 1066) and expeled from muslim lands (I.E morocco). Also Jew population was confined to segregated quarters (mellahs). Muslims in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews “leaving only 11 alive”. Of course antisemitism was growing in the west too, it's undeniable, but like I said, antisemitism is a huge issue on itself, a beast for another thread.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile, put Jihad up against the Crusades and see who wins the brutality war.

War is war, was, is and will ever be brutal and horrible, none “wins” in brutality in war. Also, crusades were isolated, deeply political incidents, only nominally linked to christian ideology, an in no shape or form actually part of that ideology.
That’s why it was denounced and never happened again after those ages. That's why the Inquisition of Toulouse forbid laymen of the crusade to read the Bible.

Jihad instead is a perpetual fight against infidels till allah rules all. It is hardcoded in islam. That’s why jihad is endorsed by many influential muslim scholars till this day, that’s why is still happening. In muhammads words:
“wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”

And let’s not forget that the crusades weren’t unprovoked, as in the eleventh century Islam had violently conquered two-thirds of the christian world and the muslims were increasingly oppressing christians on their lands.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
How you can not have seen the answer to your rather simplistic question "do you believe all ideologies are the same" is confusing to me as it is what my entire posting is about. No I do not think they are. I was discussing why they are not. For me, the reasons for the modern day difference are the issue. You saying it is fundamental to Islam's character is something I dispute on the grounds that Christianity has, in factual history, been at least as bad at times.

Your reference to Jesus and scripture is irrelevant; I am only interested in how organisations and ideologies have behaved.

Your whole argument is irrelevant then, because all started with me claiming that islamic ideology is dangerous, supremacist, violent, mysoginist and just plain crazy and inhuman. And to support/dismiss that claim we must study the theoric sources... you know, those scriptures you don’t care about?

And it is important because if we know and understand the ideology we can pretty safe say: this IS islamic, or this ISN’T islamic. This IS christian, this ISN’T christian. The same way we can say this is/isn’t socialist, this is/isn’t marxist, and so on. And we can say it with certainty because we know how facts correlate (or don’t) with theory (your "irrelevant" scriptures/hadith quran).

-If jesus said “love your neighbor”. And after reading that I go kill my neighbor because I don’t like him, I can’t say my action was ideologically christian. Or rather I can, but it wouldn’t be just because I say so, as it completely contradicts the written ideological christian body.

-If mohammad said: “when you meet those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them” and I go kill my atheist neighbor’s family because of reading that, my actions were ideologically islamic. Funny thing: islamic jihadist clearly claim their actions are indeed islamic, but we are suposed to deny rational thinking and evidence and don’t believe them.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Christianity's brutal and evil legacy in history- in many cases specifically disavowed by modern Christian churches in order to distance themselves from such evil- is a matter of historical record and not appreciating that that represents either historical ignorance or, again, bad faith.

Well, we have the opposite of islam here, roughly three centuries of “christian” scholar sponsored violence in +2000 years. But like I said way back, none of them had nothing to do with actual christian ideology (jesus teachings) but politics and power.

Catholic/protestant wars: in fact a struggle between germanic princes against emperor Charles V, in practice church was always at service of the monarchs not the other way.

Americas natives: Alberico Gentili, a humanist, a secularist, supported the apropiation of their lands. https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=bntCSupRlO4C&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=alberico+gentili+lands&source=bl&ots=BbYpsxGd7n&sig=WMAQnmj2er7jK8B3wbYoOE51JVY&hl=es&sa=X&ei=B7kkVfohzJk2m8CAoAo&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=alberico%20gentili%20lands&f=false
John Locke, another humanist and secularist (yes, THE john Locke, the most influential figure in Voltaire and the most important thinker of enlightenment) considered desirable that settlers would appropriate lands in order to use them more rationally and effectively than the natives.
Church once again, rolled with the zeitgeist of the time and its own political interest. But even then, factual christians actually died trying to protect the natives. Jesuits protected the natives against both: portuguese slave traders, and spanish landowners.
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1992/2/92.02.06.x.html#e

Inquisition: heresy was a crime against the state, roman law made it a capital offense. Kings saw heretics as traitors who questioned their authority. Pope Lucius III actually established the Inquisition in a crapy attempt to avoid abuses.
…remember, for secular authorities, heretics deserved instant death, church tried to give them fair trials (as “fair” as the zeitgeist of the time and the kings would allow anyways). In reality, most people accused of heresy were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities.

And most important and relevant on this: don’t forget that possesing a bible was forbbiden like I said before. First by Pope Innocent III, later by the Council of Toulouse. Even later by The Council of Tarragona: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.”

Heck, the bones of the first translator were exhumed and publicly burned.

Why all of this? why no letting crusaders read the bible? and why after that? Because church had little to do with christian ideology most of the time (as evidenced by reading jesus teachings from the bible) but with monarchic power connections. If people had access to jesus ideology, to actual christian ideology, the church, and the “divine right” of monarchy would have lose power (as it later happened).

jihadist on the other hand, merrily distribute free quran/hadith copies...

why do you think is that? Because, like evidenced in those texts, their actions are endorsed by and part of islamic quran/hadith,
MUHAMMAD himself did similar actions.

Conclusion: you can be a self-called muslim and be a supreme moral being, and you can be a self-called christian and be a scum serial killer, it has nothing to do with my points: we are debating ideologies not personal human behavior. There were supreme moral nazis, does it makes NAZISM moral?

Originally posted by Bentley
Again, you could argue there is no point at all in argue about which religion is "better". From that stance, any debate in this subject is dishonest.

Why? why there is no point on debating if socialist ideology is better than maoist?
Why there is no point on debating if radical sects are better than budhism?
What's the difference? an idea could be debated to see how good or bad it is, religious ideologies are ideas corpuses and frameworks and can be debated the same way.

From which stance? from objectively going to the sources and analysing the core beliefs? that is "dishonest"? really??

...anyways, I'm not able to invest more time on this thread, hope the information I've posted was interesting at least, cheers!

Originally posted by Squirtle
Why? X is B, Y is B, so Y is X? 😕 why can't we single out one abrahamic religion "as evil" it the facts prove it is? why can't we dismiss the others if facts again say so? are we supposed to ignore evidence now? way to debate..

more like x committed an act and y committed an act, but we'll ignore y and focus on x exclusively. not only that but y is completely innocent even though historical fact says otherwise. its a fallacious sham.

"way to debate"? at which point was i debating? do you know what 'debate' even means? now get madder and school me with more irrelevant pseudo-logic.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
more like x committed an act and y committed an act, but we'll ignore y and focus on x exclusively. not only that but y is completely innocent even though historical fact says otherwise. its a fallacious sham.

"way to debate"? at which point was i debating? do you know what 'debate' even means? now get madder and school me with more irrelevant pseudo-logic.

For now, Squirtle seems to have said his "goodbye"s to this thread.
More's the pity, for he made arguably the best contributions to it, and perhaps none better than the following, which I've yet to see actually countered:

Originally posted by Squirtle

if we know and understand the ideology we can pretty safe say:
this IS islamic, or this ISN’T islamic. This IS christian, this ISN’T christian.

The same way we can say
this is/isn’t socialist, this is/isn’t marxist, and so on ...

-If jesus said “love your neighbor”. And after reading that I go kill my neighbor because I don’t like him, I can’t say my action was ideologically christian. Or rather I can, but it wouldn’t be just because I say so, as it completely contradicts the written ideological christian body.

-If mohammad said: “when you meet those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them” and I go kill my atheist neighbor’s family because of reading that, my actions were ideologically islamic.

It's all a matter of the subjective interpretation and morality of the individual. "Love thy neighbor" can mean anything. Those 3 words don't absolutely retcon the barbarism of the OT, but it can be interpreted that way to allow moral flexibility in our world's ever-evolving regard for human rights. But people don't have to interpret it that way and there are many Christians who don't and instead interpret it in a way that justifies and/or induces their hatreds, prejudices, and violence under the guise of dogma.

Ultimately though it all goes back to the only thing that ever really matters in this world: public image
-The horrors of the Catholic Church of medieval times is largely forgiven, but certainly not forgotten, as taking place in an ignorant and uneducated time when our knowledge of the world and value of human life was still in it's metaphorical infancy. Today though, such practices would have no excuse, which is why the Pope, who is arguably the world representative of the Christian religion, and many Christians have used "love thy neighbor" as a modernist adaptation to our world of human rights.

-Meanwhile, the opposite seems to be occurring with Islam. While there are those who interpret in a peaceful way, there seem to be a lot who interpret in a way that justifies hatred, prejudice, and violence. The problem here lies within the public image. The Pope is known as a beacon of kindness and good will to all. There are certainly countries who interpret the Bible in a way that inspire hatred, but ultimately, if the Pope, effectively the posterboy of Christianity, says gays and human rights are okay, that is how the mass public will interpret it. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, it is ruled by a brutal near-totalitarian theocracy in which the slightest infractions will get you imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed. So when Al Qaeda commit a mass murder, and Muslims say Islam is not that violent, people turn their heads to Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam and see the brutality taking place, and it's extremely hard not to be skeptical. Islam's public image is in the phucking toilet, and many Muslims think it's simply because of the terrorist groups but it's really stemming from the fact that the Saudi family, effectively the posterboys of Islam, perpetrate brutal state-run terrorism/human rights violations on it's citizens.

Islam is no different in Christianity in terms of it's dogmas, as both were written in a time where brutality was the norm, but Christianity (in terms of the Pope) shed it's dogmas to adapt to the modern world, whereas Islam (in terms of the Saudi family) refuses to stray from it's strict dogmas (especially regarding homophobia, misogyny, and general intolerance of freedom of choice/belief), causing the mass public to view it as an obsolete doomsday cult instead of a spiritual religion.

Islam has the potential to be recognized just like Christianity as a religion of love and joy, but until it's leaders begin adapting to the new world of human rights like The Pope, it will be vilified as a dangerous hatred-breeding ideology because that's exactly WTF it looks like from an outside observer, and it's nigh impossible to blame them.

ultimately though, as Ush said, the continuous evolution of human intelligence and thus empathy and human rights will eventually trump our hatreds, but it's going to be a long and VERY agonizing progression.

.