You may know the true cost of war, but war =/= freedom. A thousand military bases around the world, a million civilian deaths, drones leveling buildings with a 90% civilian death rate, military check points for lawful citizens, house to house searches for resistance fighters--none of this protects freedom.

War protects freedom from enemies whose only solution is violence, and who recognize no one's rights but their own. Thanks to wars promoting and defending Western Civ, this matter at the JM was partially settled by civil disobedience, with the rest settled by trying a stupid, micromanaging law in the court of public opinion. It was not settled by gunfights between roving gangs or SS thugs.

The only way to protect freedom is to fight those that encroach on the natural rights of individuals.

Such as jihadist a$$hole$.

War works.

Did you even read my comment?

These people aren't protesting because they are oppressed. They are protesting for fun. To try and paint these people as modern day Rosa Parks and MLKs is dumb. They don't even know how to do the civil disobedience thing correctly. Rule #1: Don't resist arrest, because getting arrested is the entire point of civil disobedience.

@Opus_Moderandi Agreed. I think one thing that needs to be considered is that the Boston Tea Party happened after all other legal recourse had been taken to try to get Britain to not only repeal the tea tax but also get representation in Parliament for the colonies. In other words, they had exhausted all other possible options. Civil disobedience is great for when you've exhausted all other possible options.

What options did these people exhaust? Did they petition to get the law changed? Did they write their representatives in government to demand it be changed? Did they try to raise awareness (through leaflet distribution, billboards, commercials, web campaigns, etc.) of the problem? Did they offer to run for election themselves to try to get the law changed?

No. They said "F*ck all that, it sounds like too much work. I'll just take a few hours to inconvenience everyone who wants to reflect quietly at the memorial and pretend I'm a hero fighting for justice."

@dystopianfuturetoday Slacktivism. Never heard that word until today, but it is the most awesome and apt description of what is happening here.

When civil disobedience is your first choice for reforming laws you disagree with, you've lost all perspective of how democracy and freedom work. When you think your rights or freedom are being violated because you cannot dance everywhere and anywhere, other people be damned, you've lost all perspective on what the words "rights" and "freedom" mean.

EDIT: Spelled dystopianfuturetoday's name wrong

EDIT 2: For a great read about the philosophy of civil disobedience (including a rationale for why civil disobedience should be a means of last resort) see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

>> ^dag:

Yes, and when gay marriage is legalised, everyone's going to marry their toaster. You're going to keep all the crows away with that straw man.
>> ^smooman:
should we also be allowed to have sex in front of the lincoln memorial? we wouldnt be hurting anyone.......you mean theres a law against that? REVOLUTION



my point being, the ordinance in question, that is, no dancing in the jefferson memorial, is there for a reason. maybe some disagree with that reason, but anyone who would argue that the reason is to suppress civil liberties, i'd say you need a damn reality check. in that way, it is NO different than public indecency laws, or being disarmed by the government (gasp!) inside federal buildings despite our 2nd amendment rights.

so to put this act of civil disobedience on par with the civil rights movement of the 60's or something, is laughable at best and just plain offensive at worst.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

yes, it's very important to be respectful at the mausoleums of our dead leaders. Rules must be adhered to. You can't dance in front of Dear Leader's shrine in N.K. either. Those guys were really on to something.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^blankfist:
Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".

Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?
And I really don't see how they are "innocent people", the cop very plainly said "Don't dance here." What did they do? They became belligerent, petulant little weasels, "You can't tell me not to dance here!" stomp, stomp, stomp. So the cop arrested them. How does that make the cop the bad guy? Sure, it's a stupid law but, it's still a law. Sure, it was a peaceful demonstration, until they decided to goad the cops by doing exactly what he told them not to do.
Lastly, my apologies to you and @GenjiKilpatrick (and anyone else) if my comments instigated this rage-fest. I just do not understand your point of view. I have total and utter lack of understanding of anyone that thinks this incident is a step (small or otherwise) forward for democracy or humankind. I leave you in peace.

>> ^blankfist:

Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".


Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?

And I really don't see how they are "innocent people", the cop very plainly said "Don't dance here." What did they do? They became belligerent, petulant little weasels, "You can't tell me not to dance here!" stomp, stomp, stomp. So the cop arrested them. How does that make the cop the bad guy? Sure, it's a stupid law but, it's still a law. Sure, it was a peaceful demonstration, until they decided to goad the cops by doing exactly what he told them not to do.

Lastly, my apologies to you and @GenjiKilpatrick (and anyone else) if my comments instigated this rage-fest. I just do not understand your point of view. I have total and utter lack of understanding of anyone that thinks this incident is a step (small or otherwise) forward for democracy or humankind. I leave you in peace.

LOUD NOISES!

But seriously, this is why this protest is important to me. I don't know if anyone can claim these guys are all libertarians, first off. That label tends to be bandied about freely whenever someone or a group of people exercise civil disobedience.

Secondly, civil disobedience is extremely important to stave off tyranny early. If you wait until the brownshirts are kicking in your door, then it's too late. You have to start early and often.

And third, let's keep this in perspective. These people are dancing in a public place. If you're justifying the actions of the cops and legislators who want the Memorial to be 'dance free' then you have to ask yourself why. It's dancing. It's never been a problem at the Memorial (or any of the tourist locations in DC) in the history of it being built, so why now do we need a law banning it? Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".

@burdturgler & @bareboards2

[Edit: Please note that the following is sarcasm intended to ridicule the faulty logic of disparaging protestors, when you yourself "believe" or would engagement in civil disobedience for a particular cause.]

Again, you're both dumb hypocritical assholes for sayin' that shit.

Burd, you for bein' whiny cause someone on the int3rwebz called you a nigger.
[Seriously. You ever been to the internet before?]

And you bare, for whinin' about sexism and trollin'.
~~~

Remember "A protest is an expression of objection.."

You both obviously should have just shut the fuck up.

All your drama ruined another day for new visitors who came to the Sift.

You're lucky Dag and the others are so well trained as to not have Instabanned you two for non-compliance.

We have policies in place to prevent those types of disturbances, you know.

@marbles

I mean we never see what they are getting in trouble for, the very start of the video has the officer already walking towards them and we never see what the offending action was.

As a quick side note, can I do whatever I want as an "act of civil disobedience?" And that's honestly not a facetious question, I'm genuinely curious. Isn't that the same thing as doing something illegal because you don't personally agree with it?

If they really cared so much, why not organize a legal protest instead of showing up to make a scene and make an already difficult job for police even more difficult

All I see is a bunch of assholes who want to stir shit up instead of going through proper channels to get the law they dislike repealed. You know, like the guy in the memorial wants you to do!

Civil disobedience is for the lazy and the stupid.

@residue

No, they were dancing in an act of civil disobedience against the ordinance. It's not another issue, that is the issue.

And I'm not sure what you are referring to "before the cops showed up".

Hmm. I wonder what Jefferson would say...

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

I believe that Thomas Jefferson would have felt honored that this peaceful display of civil disobedience took place on his monument. In fact, I can think of no better place for people who believe that they are living in a police state to make their stand than at the Jefferson memorial, the patron saint of 'inalienable rights'.

I was saying that the police officers behaved badly. You know that, right?

I wasn't "scrutinizing" -- I asked a simple question. What happened?

We have been here before, mr blank. We approach the world differently. I want all the facts. I want the whole story. I am not interested in propaganda, no matter what the source. I try to be intellectually honest in all my dealings, even if it is uncomfortable for me personally.

And I just don't dehumanize these public safety officers (who risk their lives daily) so utterly as to think that they will behave perfectly in all situations.

Something happened, don't you think? Why did the park cops go talk to them in the first place? Something happened and we don't know what it is.

I have no idea of how it started. It ended badly. I think it is likely that this will be used in training vids in the future, of how not to react when you, as a public safety officer, feel ... what? Disrespected? Disrespected is not a reason to arrest someone.

We're all on a learning curve. I believe cheap accessible video cameras are going to be the most democraticizing force in the world. With those cameras will come some costs that we aren't going to like, but there are some great benefits. Keeping cops honest is number one on the list.

And I think we all agree, being a smart ass is not a reason to arrest someone. Good thing, huh, blankie? (that was meant as a gentle joke, sweetie.)

>> ^blankfist:

I'm always curious why we scrutinize those engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, no matter how benign and disinteresting, when it's the laws that are the problem not the protest itself.

I'm always curious why we scrutinize those engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, no matter how benign and disinteresting, when it's the laws that are the problem not the protest itself.

I reread every comment you made in this thread, and at no point until now did you assert that the peasant is the king's servant, much less his slave as you have now suggested. Not until I suggested that the peasant is in fact free to think as well as act did you suggest that the peasant was a slave. Even if we assume that the peasant is in fact a slave, you have still not demonstrated that his mental condition is in any way relevant to his ability to "perform his job", or "provide for his family", which I have proposed as his motivation for working, irrespective of his belief in an actual king.

You could have tried reading the original comment, which stated:

Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

The peasants life is intrinsically tied to the King. The peasant is not just working to earn a wage, but to be freed from his obligation..to be freed from slavery basically..not only that but to attain what he could never attain on his own, for himself and his family: a future. Without the reward, the peasant would have to eke out a subsistance existence until he died. His motivation is not a living wage, it is freedom from having to produce. The only way he can do this is by living a life pleasing to the King. The King expects obedience, ie the peasant has to work. The King expects results, ie the work has to be satisfactory and yield a good harvest. The King expects gratitude, ie the work is not proportional to the reward.

Nothing the peasant could ever do in his entire life could earn that reward. Upon receiving the reward, the peasant will certainly be grateful. If he didn't believe the reward existed though, he would simply hate the King for having to work for him. He would desire to flee the Kings authority and live for himself. He would seek out the company of people who felt the same way about the King and form conspiracies against Him. He would recruit other people and say the King was unjust, that there was no reward.

Now say the King had mercy on these peasants who were rebelling against him. He was a good King and cared about his subjects. He only wanted to reward them ultimately, but neither could he force them to believe his promise. So, for a time he let the peasants have a piece of his land to cultivate. They constantly gave him problems, either by raiding his stocks (because they could not sustain production for themselves), or encouraging others into disobedience. He was occassionally forced to kill some of the worst offenders, for the sake of the stability of the Kingdom.

His plan was to ultimately move everyone onto His land, after enough was stored up so no one had to work any longer. He would send emissaries into the places of rebellion, to encourage the peasants to return. He offered complete forgiveness for their crimes, if they would only work again for the sake of the Kingdom (which was in their own self-interest). Some listened, but others did not want to give up their freedom and killed the emissaries or drove them out.

Eventually it came time to pass that the Kings plan came to fruition. All the peasants who obeyed the King lived with Him on his land in harmony with one another, with enough to last them the rest of their days. The rebellious peasants could no longer raid the Kings stocks because they were completely shut out. They begged to be let in, because they were now starving, but it was too late..the King was neither going to take from the reward of those who earned it, to give to those who didn't, and who were presented every opportunity to change their ways, nor was he going to pollute the harmony he had cultivated (harmony based on gratitude for the reward and his justness)..for the rebellious peasants were neither grateful nor did they think the King was just. For them, it was here today and gone tomorrow..that is how they lived and that is how they died.

People have certainly been argued into believing in Jesus is their savior. They are typically called children. But, to get to the crux of your argument, until I can believe in god, I can't believe in god. Or rather, until I believe in god, I will have no reason to do so. That is about as circular as you can get.....

No, I am saying that until you feel that you need to be saved, for whatever reason, then you won't come near Jesus. You have to feel you need a savior before you look for one. Curiousity might get you near, but it won't make you follow Him. It is useless to argue someone into knowing Jesus..Jesus Himself predicted the kind of Christians that would produce in the parable of the sower: A weak one the devil will come steal away in times of hardship.

Your arrogance truly knows no bounds, does it? First off, you're about 2 decades off in your estimation. Second, as I quite clearly noted in parens, my interest in knowing the lawmakers in DC has nothing to do with whether or not I accept the rules of society. I am in fact deeply interested in the persons that would rule us. Let me ask you - can you name more than 50% of the 535 elected representatives in Congress, and more than 50% of their aides? I deeply care who our elected officials are, what they are doing, why they run, and their ultimate goals (so far as they may be elucidated), but my reasons for doing so have absolutely nothing to do with acceptance of their "authority over me". I think it is you that needs to reread this discussion and find the truth of what was written. You "know" that I have not searched for a god? What incredible presumptuousness. Are you now claiming not only to know God's love, but also when and where He will demonstrate it? Are you the arbiter of God's will????

Don't know don't care pretty much spells it out doesn't it? Seems like that is pride in being uninformed to me. This is the comment that made me think you were young, because that kind of apathy is very common among youth. Generation Emo doesn't give a shit, doesn't want to work, does everything based on feelings, and hasn't thought too deeply about anything because they want instant answers to everything. I concede its possible you have honestly looked, and perhaps God will lead you to Him later, if there is something in your heart that desires to know Him. Whatever it was though, it wasn't good enough. Have you ever tried doing the things that are pleasing to God first, before jumping up and down in his throne room and demanding He dance for you like a court jester? Yes, I do know Gods love. That's why I am here.

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question.
Not valid for you. Take off your blinders. You do not get to determine what is or is not valid for everyone else's intellectual endeavors.

I accept [that] people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.
This question, as with all questions, has as many answers as individuals as are willing to answer it. If you refuse to accept an answer as "valid", you must logically provide evidence why that is so.

Come on..this issue has been deliberately complicated to an extreme..when it is quite simple. The question of whether the Universe was created is entirely valid and relevant, though atheists will try to make it seem ridiculous, because they want to avoid the simple truth that there are only 3 answers to that question, because if they answer truly they have a burden of proof. I think if you're going to be an atheist, have the balls to admit it and stop playing these childish games with semantics. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe the Universe was created by God(s), period.


Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?
I will glady entertain this question, but I do fear that this poor thread is terribly off course. You or I should create a new talk post in the religion or philosophy talk page to continue this. I'll gladly do that if you want.

I think it's doing just fine..however it may be necessary because of the broken comments system..the page is already freezing a bit. I'll get back to you if you don't want to continue on here.