The Taliban

[Kelly]

To me it is the same difference between...

Islam, and Islamism....though Islamists will say that it is all about their religion, that is BS it is more about pushing their own version of their laws both in society as well as politically, and really has very little to do with the teachings of Islam, which if studied one would find that women are treated far better in the Quran than they are in the Old Testament.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It has everything to do with religion though. The politically correct thing to say is that it's not, but where are they getting this stuff from?

These people aren't born thinking that women's bodies are sinful. Someone had to teach them that. Where did that teaching originate? What authority do they stand on?

The Taliban are not using a religion to further their own ends. Their faith is their end. Those laws are their religion.

 

[Siby]

It has everything to do with religion though. The politically correct thing to say is that it's not, but where are they getting this stuff from?

These people aren't born thinking that women's bodies are sinful. Someone had to teach them that. Where did that teaching originate? What authority do they stand on?

The Taliban are not using a religion to further their own ends. Their faith is their end. Those laws are their religion.

It originates from lack of education in their subculture. Their teachers are the same uneducated people that were taught a certain type of belief, then they pass it down the line. That misguided belief is further strengthened by using the most common religion in the region which happens to be Islam. So the tribal elders and leaders of the Taliban use the religion to manipulate the impressionable and uneducated.

It's no different then what happens in the South. There is a lot of poverty, low level of education (if any beyond high school), and the dominant religion is Christianity. The impressionable, uneducated people then listen to the rhetoric of the religious authority. So now you have indoctrinated minds against abortion, homosexuals, ethnicity, and of late the menacing Muslims and Islam. An important factor in not having these people in America escalate to the level of the Taliban, apart from bombing clinics, killing individuals, and passing ridiculous laws, is that in America we don't have a foreign force occupying the country. Which stops them from becoming barbaric like the Taliban.

I have a vested interest in Afghanistan because I have a cousin serving there in the air force. He is a fighter pilot, graduated top of his class and we are all very proud of him. I also have a good friend in the Army who is serving there. I just want them and all the others to come back home safely.

 

[zeroapoc]

The Taliban is both a religious and political group.

Though they are rather exceptional, in their fanaticism. That's what I find interesting.

Psychologically, it's a fascinating group. It's one thing for one group to hate another group, but these people hate their own mothers, daughters, and sisters in a way that just defies evolutionary common sense.

Even Nazis loved their wives and daughters.

That's always perplexed me as well.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It originates from lack of education in their subculture. Their teachers are the same uneducated people that were taught a certain type of belief, then they pass it down the line. That misguided belief is further strengthened by using the most common religion in the region which happens to be Islam. So the tribal elders and leaders of the Taliban use the religion to manipulate the impressionable and uneducated.

It's no different then what happens in the South. There is a lot of poverty, low level of education (if any beyond high school), and the dominant religion is Christianity. The impressionable, uneducated people then listen to the rhetoric of the religious authority. So now you have indoctrinated minds against abortion, homosexuals, ethnicity, and of late the menacing Muslims and Islam. An important factor in not having these people in America escalate to the level of the Taliban, apart from bombing clinics, killing individuals, and passing ridiculous laws, is that in America we don't have a foreign force occupying the country. Which stops them from becoming barbaric like the Taliban.

I have a vested interest in Afghanistan because I have a cousin serving there in the air force. He is a fighter pilot, graduated top of his class and we are all very proud of him. I also have a good friend in the Army who is serving there. I just want them and all the others to come back home safely.

You make it sound like the South's beliefs don't in any way reflect their religion. Slavery is condoned in the bible, homosexuality is punishable by death... these people didn't just randomly adopt a religion. The religion molded them as much as they molded the religion. At the height of the Civil War, the Southern leaders (by and large, rich, educated men) prided themselves as land owners and slave owners, but above all else as Christians. Deo Vindice was the Confederacy's motto for a reason (look that up if you don't know Latin).

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's always perplexed me as well.

That's what sets the Taliban apart from me from the various other groups of villains in our long... villain-filled history.

And certainly the misogyny in Abrahamic religions helps bring about... misogyny, but the Taliban takes it to a degree I really haven't ever seen before.

 

[Siby]

You make it sound like the South's beliefs don't in any way reflect their religion. Slavery is condoned in the bible, homosexuality is punishable by death... these people didn't just randomly adopt a religion. The religion molded them as much as they molded the religion. At the height of the Civil War, the Southern leaders (by and large, rich, educated men) prided themselves as land owners and slave owners, but above all else as Christians. Deo Vindice was the Confederacy's motto for a reason (look that up if you don't know Latin).

Oh I'm sure you are correct that their belief does in some way stem from their religion. But my point was that it's not necessarily the religion that is bad but how influential people use religion to manipulate the impressionable to a particular agenda.

Many people now and throughout history have believed themselves to be devout followers of their religion. But that does not mean that they are correct in their interpretation of the religion.

My assertion is that the deeds of Man are the burden of Man.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You can't excuse a religion or a holy book when bad men use its bad teachings to do bad things. Even if those bad men are being disingenuous - which I think we can agree, they're not. They actually believe those bad teachings.

Now, if you had a Bible that said nothing but love your neighbor, and all that other good stuff you hear people quote, then, maybe I'd give the religion a pass, at least in this department.

But this notion that people are taking religion, and completely corrupting (or misrepresenting) its teachings to suit their purposes is just not accurate. Theologically speaking, the Confederates were true Christians. Everything they believed, is in the Bible (slavery is a-okay, for example).

 

[Siby]

I see your point about the Confederates being true Christians because they were following what was in the Bible.

When I look at religion though, I view it from a historical point of view. I always try and understand the message in the book by looking at it from the context of the people in that time. "What was their understanding of the natural world?" "What types of stressors were they under?"

I think you can have both realities be true. It is accurate to state that people corrupt religious teaching for their own personal gain. It is also accurate to say that people who follow the holy books to the letter are "true" followers. The problem with the second statement is that humans by nature are fallible and prone to self-interest. So hypothetically if a religion only taught to love thy neighbor humans would still find a way to corrupt it because we have minds to think with. There are several billion unique minds on the planet, we will all think, and are motivated differently.

I think the core of the problem is that modern society and religious teaching are out of sync. Since we in the West are not religious states we have laws and norms based on factors such as equality or whatever is accepted by the society. By having this disconnect we judge the content of the holy books with the modern eye. With the loss of context we lose understanding and in turn meaning of what is written in those books. For example, in modern times the word virgin means a person that hasn't has sex. In biblical times it meant any female who was unmarried. By knowing the context of the word the meaning and understanding totally changes. Now looking at the virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus is no different than unmarried teenagers today. Is it really that hard to believe that people behaved so differently then as we do now. Hardly, because no matter how much society and religion try to mold our natures it cannot overrule the programming of millions of years of our physiology.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

But this notion that people are taking religion, and completely corrupting (or misrepresenting) its teachings to suit their purposes is just not accurate. Theologically speaking, the Confederates were true Christians. Everything they believed, is in the Bible (slavery is a-okay, for example).

Where in the Quran does it allow for suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians?

Where in the Quran does it say that beating a woman viciously (like the Taliban do) is allowed?

Where in the Quran does it say that innocent Christians and Jews (ie. People of the Divine Books) should be slaughtered without provocation?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Muslim reply during Oxford Debate on whether Islam is an inherently violent Religion

(The Muslim side won the debate 286-168)



Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9tNyp03M0

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wouldn't label any of the Abrahamic religions as particularly peaceful or tolerant.

I judge a religion by its acts, not its words (though I can certainly find you some words, if you'd like).

See how peaceful it is if your are an atheist.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Islam has pretty specific rules when it comes to violence. I'd like to see you take a verse out that describes violence...in it's context and tell me if this one verse makes the entire religion inherently violent. (ie. Religion of war, violence, and death).

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, and I notice a lot of them apply to "unbelievers".

But I'm really not in the mood to play this game. There are entire websites dedicated to such verses, and I don't care for apologetics.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Those websites are derived from scholarly work? Or are they just websites that have a very biased agenda without explaining the entire context the verse was originally put in?

You should watch the video I posted, the three Anti-Islam speakers were all Athiests, and their videos follow and precede the one I posted.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, I've actually seen the first fellow before, he got in a "debate" with Richard Dawkins (actually I believe it was supposed to be an interview, but it devolved into a debate quickly). It was rather embarrassing for him. In one speech he called atheists animals and "cattle" (though he was channeling the Quran, apparently), that got him in a little bit of trouble. Hard to imagine why so many atheists have issues with Islam.

As for the websites it depends. Some do, some show the quotes without any context (not that they all need it). Since I can only imagine that they're made by atheists and Christians, I assume they're fairly biased. Though some have the entire text surround the excerpt, which makes the bias rather irrelevant.

But again, I really don't feel like going into that kind of debate here. So I'm going to stop now. But feel free to PM for a real religious debate sometime.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Hard to imagine why so many atheists have issues with Islam.

So you're implying that there are God believing religions that Athiests do not have issues with?

As for the websites it depends. Some do, some show the quotes without any context (not that they all need it). Since I can only imagine that they're made by atheists and Christians, I assume they're fairly biased. Though some have the entire text surround the excerpt, which makes the bias rather irrelevant.

That actually still makes a bias. The Quran is not written in chronological order; and many of the verses have interpretations written by multiple scholars and usually are in the footnotes. An English version I have (print edition) (not from the Islamophobic Internet) has very long descriptions of what each verse means. No Quran is considered authentic if it is in any other language other than Arabic, so a real Quran translation must have Arabic next to it.

This information is gathered, authenticated by a council of scholars who go through very rigorous methods to authenticate sayings or rulings of their prophet. There is actually a whole science to it, you can find more info here:

http://www.iqrasense.com/hadith/authenticating-hadith-sayings-of-the-prophet-an-overview.html

Cherry-picking verses to interpret doesn't help solve or understanding anything.

--

But again, I really don't feel like going into that kind of debate here. So I'm going to stop now. But feel free to PM for a real religious debate sometime.

If the debate is whether Islam is solely a religion of violence and hatred, you will lose any debate, guaranteed. Using the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, or some failed state, or Al Qaeda as your examples is as silly as saying Stalin's Russia represents Athiests.

 

[SV Fan]

So you're implying that there are God believing religions that Athiests do not have issues with?

I don't think Atheists have any issues with God Believing religions, they just take issue with some of the people who follow them

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Of course, it is easy to wind up with the view also that atheism automatically makes for a superior society, when in fact basing it as a core part of your identity can also have wrong effects. Anti-theism has certainly caused the deaths of enormous swathes of people in the 20th century. It is one of the reasons that that aphorism "Only religion makes good people commit evil acts" always struck me as intellectually disingenuous, when a cursory glance at history reveals that ideology of any kind can do much the same, theist or no.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

The paranoia, the hatred, the ignorance that people have against Muslims is strikingly similar to the way the German-Americans were treated during WWI (Watch out for the Huns!), and Japanese were treated in WWII.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Then:

Now:

How Germans were portrayed during WWI:

 

[Feenix]

Of course, it is easy to wind up with the view also that atheism automatically makes for a superior society, when in fact basing it as a core part of your identity can also have wrong effects. Anti-theism has certainly caused the deaths of enormous swathes of people in the 20th century. It is one of the reasons that that aphorism "Only religion makes good people commit evil acts" always struck me as intellectually disingenuous, when a cursory glance at history reveals that ideology of any kind can do much the same, theist or no.

Incorrect. No one has ever been killed in the name of atheism. Hitler was a Christian and Stalin worshipped the state, so in that sense, he wasn't atheist at all because he saw himself as a god. The "arguments" that the religious use to try and put the blame on atheists for the millions of people killed in the 20th century are intellectually dishonest and flat out wrong.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Incorrect. No one has ever been killed in the name of atheism. Hitler was a Christian and Stalin worshipped the state, so in that sense, he wasn't atheist at all because he saw himself as a god. The "arguments" that the religious use to try and put the blame on atheists for the millions of people killed in the 20th century are intellectually dishonest and flat out wrong.

[Religion] in its very essence is the mortal enemy of Communism. —Leon Trotskii, Pravda, June 24, 1923

“Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism.” (attributed to Vladimir I. Lenin)

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” (V.I. Lenin)

“We do not fight against believers and not even clergymen. WE FIGHT AGAINST GOD to snatch believers from Him.” (Vechernaia Moskva, a Soviet newspaper)


Quite a large number of people have been killed in the name of atheism, to deny so is to ignore countless clergy, believers, and church members that were specifically targeted by the anti-religious policies of the Soviet Union and Communist China, not to mention many other countries that had policies of State Atheism.

I never mentioned Hitler, so bringing him up is irrelevant.

And Stalin did not worship the state nor himself, nor believe he was a God. You may call him fanatical, ruthless, an ideologue, but there is no evidence that he held religious views in the supernatural, nor that he worshipped the state or himself. Unless of course, as I suspect you are doing deliberately, you are obtusely stretching the meaning of words in order to make Stalin religious so he fits nicely within your preconceived notions that anti-theism has never killed anyone. Words DO have meanings however - to be religious is to believe in a ritualised supernatural and divine force, which Stalin did not, and to worship is a religious act towards a supernatural force, usually a deity, which Stalin could not do as he was an atheist.

I am also not religious, so to assume so in your argument once again shows that you are using preconceived notions rather than actual arguments. Atheism is a neutral position to be sure, but anti-theism is not. Millions have been killed under State Atheist policies for refusing to give up worshipping their chosen deity. The Soviet Union alone had policies of systematic extermination of clergymen and noted worshippers and proselytisers of faith.

If you would like to read further on the repercussions of state atheism, I would recommend starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

The section has many links to the anti-religious campaigns of the Soviet Union, and China likewise has a good wiki page with a lot of good links. I would also recommend historian Steven Merritt Miner's book Stalin's Holy War, if you wish for a heftier read. He goes into the unusual role religion played under Stalin's regime - being persecuted and killed, but also having this relaxed during WW2 to give greater cause for the fight, before being made illegal again afterwards.