Alternet: Keeping Tabs on the Peaceniks Wow, this is bizzare. Food Not Bombs is on the FBI's terrorism watch list? They do things like go dumpster diving and help feed homeless people! We are living in strange times.
Wikipedia: First they came...
Wikipedia: First they came...
7 comments:
Food Not Bombs does a bit more than dumpster dive...they are an important anti-poverty advocacy group. And in many areas of the country they not only "feed" people, but are engaged in exposing how both city hall, and traditional charity groups don't address root causes of homelessness.
The group is not just about "charity" but about helping people organize to advocate for themselves.
I think the more relevant quote here might be:
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." –Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop (died Aug. 27th, 1999)"
This post brings to mind the paradox that muslims in the states are now faced with.
Do we side with the conservatives, who even though they agree with us morally hate us for our beliefs? or do with side with the liberals who support our belief yet call us to support theirs?(many of which are in clear contrast to Islam and its moral grounding)
What would these years have been like had not the Muslims supposedly tipped the vote for Mr. Arbusto and instead Gore having won?
But with the failure of anywhere else in the world to present something feasible for the muslims, I guess we 'gotta do what we gotta do'.
Yes, I appreciate the correction. What I wrote really wasn't meant to be a fair description of what Food not bombs does. (Although there is more info if you follow the link) What I meant to get across was just that they definitely aren't a terrorist group. After all, they have "...not bombs" right in their name.
If the government is looking for terrorists they should look at the militia groups, or the people with gunracks on their pick-ups with confederate flag bumper stickers. They shouldn't go after groups like Food not bombs.
hood raises some ineresting questions. In some ways, it is a recurring question which the blog has been wrestling with. What I would suggest is that the question has no easy pat answer besides saying "It depends" .
In any given election, vote for the best candidates. Also, a useful guideline might be to think about the position the candidates are running for and what would be the consequence of their victory? If someone is running for mayor, do I need to put alot of consideration into their views on foreign policy for instance?
Hood: I've been involved on and off with food not bombs for about ten years. While I would not deny most members are left leaning, it's not a horribly political affair to feed the hungry and ask why they aren't getting fed. The Qu'ran is chock full of injunctions towards making sure everyone is taking care of, so if doing that is liberal/left so is Islam. I would not argue that the conservatives agree with Islam morally unless our morality is based on screwing the poor and bombing third world countries. We may agree with them superficially on a few social issues, and that's about it.
Abdul-Halim:
I definitely agree with you that "it depends"
As for voting than who to vote for? it seems as if both parties are bought out by big business (and that is why I refrained from making my comment one of Rep vs. Dem)
With the announcement today of "Today we protest, tommorrow we vote" by the Latino community, as well as the sheer amazing numbers that came out for the protests, I wonder that if with the changing socio-economic-ethic makeup of the country we also need a change in party representation. This is not a bi-party system here as some may think others have come and gone (the whigs), maybe there will be a new voice for the new america that will be (and that the present power structure is definitely afraid of)
Da:
I wasnt speaking in specific about Food not bombs, and you are right in your observations. I guess my point is you can liken the two groups to the Ahl-al-Kitab and the Mushrikin at the time of the Prophet. Both were wrong but had thier merits, and even though the Prophet dealt with both on thier individual merits, there still was the base tie-in with the ahlal kitab because of thier previous books.
inspite of this the prophet still encouraged working with all those that support social justice when he spoke about the Hilf al Fudhul, the pact that protected the disenfranchised and the weak of the time
"If I was called in Islam to make a similar pact, then I would do so"
I found your blog from one of your posts at Dervish, and had to comment since I, too, am a member of this dangerous terrorist organization. It really highlights like nothing else that COINTELPRO is still with us.
The justifications for it in a news article I was reading in the LA Times were just precious, including that it made sense to include even peaceful anarchist and leftist groups, because they could have members who would, in the words of the officer who delivered the lecture, "go south". I wonder why they weren't infiltrating the Republican National Committee, since they have a high-profile affiliate named Peter Waldron who is under indictment on terrorism charges in Uganda.
I'd also point out that having the words "not bombs" doesn't make the government any less worried. Just look at Iraq. America invaded over a major non-arsenal of not-bombs. In fact, one can say that its recent dealings with India shows that's far more concerned about not-bombs than real nukes.
Post a Comment