Weird Afghan law

[foxholeatheist]

Okay.

No more so than the Catholic church played a part in the Crusades, or the Dark Ages.



And I see this as little different than how the Catholic church was like back in the day.



Out of curiosity, how do you justify Turkey and Tunisia? And do you recognize the Nizari branch of Islam?

I don't follow the reasoning. Just because one church did terrible things in the dark ages that means that it's cool for other religions to practice dark age practices in the modern age? Do they all get their required primitive brutality pass or something?

It was unacceptable then as it is unacceptable now.

 

[Sabrina]

I for one have to wonder if the previous law were ever enforced.

Not to delve deeply into female bodily functions, but the average length of a woman's menstrual cycle is five days. Most guys probably don't like the idea of shagging their wife/girlfriend/lover while she's still bleeding, in addition to the fact that it's rather unsanitary for both sexes. If women were required to have sex with their husband every four days, what did the men do during the menstrual cycle? Then too, what if the wife were ill? Did the requirement still stand?

That aside, I find the idea of spousal rape morally and physically repugnant, and I despise the sense of smug male superiority I get from fanatical proponents of the Islamic religion. I'd likely be one of the first women stoned to death if fundamentalist Islam were to ever take over the world; I like my freedoms a little too much to give them up without a fight. I do not understand why this law passed, I don't see it as an improvement over the previous law at all, and I hope it is quickly repealed and that women in Afghanistan recognize it as the transparent attempt at returning them to their subservient role it is.

Oh how I wish we could return to the days when women were revered as the bringers of life and were therefore never to be mistreated if at all possible. That's not to say I think women should be worshipped; I simply think that the whole idea of women as "chattel" and being "owned" by their husband/father/brother/significant male figure started because some man got his ego twinged over the fact that he couldn't force his woman to do what he wanted and he managed to get enough support to force women into this bogus "subservient" role as punishment for the perceived slight. Artifacts dug up from nearly prehistoric eras seem to indicate that humans worshipped a "Goddess", not a "God", and recognized that women were to be honored as the ones capable of bringing life to the world, while men were honored as the caregivers and providers. Why we dropped that view I will never understand; both sexes honored equally and given credit for their contributions to the world? Makes perfect sense to me!

 

[Skeptic]

Plus, that all sounds to me a bit like slavery, and we all learned that slaves do a half-arsed job compared to paid workers

Maybe that's not the best metaphor in this case...

 

[Skeptic]

No more so than the Catholic church played a part in the Crusades, or the Dark Ages.

Exactly.

The difference is, of course, that the west today is NOT using the same standards of morality it used in the barbaric and illiterate dark ages, while the Taliban & co. are.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't follow the reasoning. Just because one church did terrible things in the dark ages that means that it's cool for other religions to practice dark age practices in the modern age?

No.

Do they all get their required primitive brutality pass or something?

No.

It was unacceptable then as it is unacceptable now.

Yes.

If you notice, Randfan was positing that they (The Muslim Extremists) would not change, and furthermore would grow and grow. I have demonstrated that a similar organization -- the Catholic Church -- has changed over time. Please attempt to keep up with the conversation and see what, specifically, I am responding to. I also pointed out Tunisia, Turkey, and the Nizari branch of Islam to point out that there are very liberal Muslims out in the world, and that's not including the Muslim populations within secular societies, such as in the United States and Europe. If they exist, then why must I assume that they cannot?

And by the way, I'm not talking "The Dark Ages". I'm talking at a much more modern a time. I don't have to look very far back to see religious zealotry outside of the Islamic world. In fact, I can pull up genocides committed by Christians and Catholics just within the 20th century. Unless you consider that "The Dark Ages", in which case you would be off base with the majority of historians. It's actually rather telling that people have to reach back to "The Dark Ages" to pull out cases of Catholic or Christian horrors. I'd think people would be more studied up on their history than that.

I'd also add that one of the most infamous cases of Catholic torture and wholesale executions, The Spanish Inquisition, did not start until after the Dark Ages were over.

 

[Lonewulf]

Exactly.

The difference is, of course, that the west today is NOT using the same standards of morality it used in the barbaric and illiterate dark ages, while the Taliban & co. are.

Yes. The Srebrenica massacre was well into "the barbaric and illiterate dark ages". . . 1995. A time long forgotten by humanity.

 

[foxholeatheist]

Sorry, I aint as bright as you is. I'll try and keep up from now on, promise!

I don't see why the moderate Muslims should speak for Islam any more than the radical Muslims have been. Muslims in Secular countries... like these?



Surely, that's not what you mean.

I guess when I say "dark ages" I am not really specifically referring to a specific period of time beginning in year X and ending in year Y but yeah... I guess I could have worded myself differently had I known how anal you would take it. Oh, that came out all wrong. But you know, you brought up the Dark Ages. So there.

Randfan never said they wouldn't change; he asked if there was any reason to believe they would. But you know, I have a hard time with all these big words and stuff.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, I aint as bright as you is. I'll try and keep up from now on, promise!

That's nice. I wouldn't have been so snippy if you didn't directly accuse me of saying that we should "just ignore" atrocities. That was insulting to an extreme degree; at no point have I ever suggested that we should ignore atrocities.

I don't see why the moderate Muslims should speak for Islam any more than the radical Muslims have been. Muslims in Secular countries... like these?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_320584a8b29fb53ef2.jpg[/qimg]

Surely, that's not what you mean.

Oh wow! A random picture of Muslims holding up violent signs! That's totally a new and original debate style!

Their existence totally means that all Muslims are bad and will all eventually become extremist!

I guess when I say "dark ages" I am not really specifically referring to a specific period of time beginning in year X and ending in year Y but yeah... I guess I could have worded myself differently had I known how anal you would take it. Oh, that came out all wrong. But you know, you brought up the Dark Ages. So there.

Yes, alright. My mistake. I apologize.

Is it really "anal" to not think of 1995 as "The Dark Ages"? I'm sorry, I thought that was common sense. Wasn't The Enlightenment supposed to cure the whole dark thing? I apologize and will attempt to stop being anal in the future; anything before August 18, 2009 is "The Dark Ages". I'll keep a note of that.

Randfan never said they wouldn't change; he asked if there was any reason to believe they would.

Yes. Which I provided.

But you know, I have a hard time with all these big words and stuff.

Look, let's just go our ways. You believe that the Muslims will not change at all, and will spread their evil ways and eat babies. That's fine. You can hold onto that belief. Just don't expect me to take it seriously.

Obviously, images of violent riots is good for painting an accurate picture of a total of 1 billion people. I'm sure if I pulled out a few images of violent riots within the United States, it would totally show what 300 million people in its borders are all like.

 

[Darat]

I don't follow the reasoning. Just because one church did terrible things in the dark ages that means that it's cool for other religions to practice dark age practices in the modern age? Do they all get their required primitive brutality pass or something?

It was unacceptable then as it is unacceptable now.

I think you are missing something - it was not unacceptable then, it was in those countries quite acceptable. The world is not on a time-line dictated by where "we" are on some absolute scale of what is "right and proper".

Of course this does not mean that "we" can't criticize and attempt to get people to change and adopt "our" version of what is considered "right and proper" (well as long as it doesn't include the barbarism the USA still retains i.e. doesn't have universal health care.... I hope my tongue in cheek example is not lost on you ).

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/sa/721.htm

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

...

The Taliban ruled strictly in areas that it controlled, establishing ad hoc and rudimentary judicial systems, based on its understanding of Islamic justice. Taliban courts imposed their extreme interpretation of Islamic law and punishments following swift summary trials. Murderers were subjected to public executions, a punishment that at times was inflicted by the victims' families. Thieves were subjected to public amputations of either one hand, one foot, or both. Adulterers were stoned to death or publicly given 100 lashes. On September 26, a man convicted of adultery was publicly stoned in Maymana in Fariab province. The woman with whom he was convicted of engaging in adultery was sentenced to 100 lashes, but the sentence was postponed because she was pregnant. A second woman, who was convicted of arranging this adultery, was sentenced to 39 lashes. The punishment for those found guilty of homosexual acts is to have walls toppled over them. Although there were no known instances of such punishment during the year, this punishment was carried out on at least one occasion in 1999, and seven times in 1998 (resulting in five deaths).

What's the thinking behind that punishment?

In the past, there have been credible reports that Taliban forces threatened and beat women for what they considered immodest dress. They threatened and beat men for immodest dress and for incorrect beard length. There were no such credible reports this year.

...

Sounds like members of the Taliban would fit in perfectly at posh golf clubs in the UK.

 

[Darat]

As I've said a few times, all such practices are barbaric and I totally and utterly condemn them however that does not mean I can't try to understand the culture/society/nation in which they occur.

What you have with Afghanistan is a country that has not moved out of feudalism, it has never had what we would consider to be a government, let alone a representative government. "The" Taliban was never in control of Afghanistan as we would recognise a government in "developed" world to be.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'd have thought walls that were still standing in Afghanistan would have been considered a prized resource, to precious to waste on a homosexual.

 

[Beerina]

It's certainly barbaric, but then the country has had barbaric/backward governments (what there has been of it) for a long time so I'm not surprised there is stuff crap like this making it through.

It's a different culture. It's equally arbitrary as ours, and thus equally as valid. The women there just don't wanna have to obey the laws. That's all it is.

 

[Almo]

It's a different culture. It's equally arbitrary as ours, and thus equally as valid. The women there just don't wanna have to obey the laws. That's all it is.

If you're serious here, I disagree. Making a law allowing someone to starve his spouse for such a small transgression has crossed a line and entered legalized abuse territory, in my opinion.

 

[Darat]

If you're serious here, I disagree. Making a law allowing someone to starve his spouse for such a small transgression has crossed a line and entered legalized abuse territory, in my opinion.

It appears to be nothing bar a cynical attempt to gain support from a minority group in the on-going elections.

What I really object to is the support we (UK) give to the government that has passed this law; whilst they are of course entitled to pass their own laws there is no reason we can't say "Pass it and we'll withdraw X".

At the moment UK citizens are directly supporting the system of government that has allowed this law - that is terrible.

 

[GreNME]

Oh how I wish we could return to the days when women were revered as the bringers of life and were therefore never to be mistreated if at all possible.

Unfortunately there was never such a time.

 

[Whiplash]

That report was probably about Iraq not Iran (not that such things haven't been reported as happening in Iran) and it of course makes no difference to the barbarism of the acts.

I'm positive it was about Iran. It was on Monday the 17th of August, at about 9:30AM central standard time. CNN.

 

[Darat]

I'm positive it was about Iran. It was on Monday the 17th of August, at about 9:30AM central standard time. CNN.

The BBC was reporting this story on 17th August:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8204853.stm

...snip...

Gay Iraqi men are being murdered in what appears to be a co-ordinated campaign involving militia forces, the group Human Rights Watch says.

...snip...

CNN was also running this storuy on the 17th August:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/17/iraq.homosexual.killings/index.html

...snip...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Hundreds of gay men have been tortured and killed in Iraq in recent months, some by the nation's security forces, Human Rights Watch said Monday.


...snip...

I can't find anything on the CNN website that mentions homosexuals and Iran anytime in the few couple of weeks.

 

[Whiplash]

I stand corrected, again. I tell you, I was certain I heard Iran, several times. But it must have been Iraq.

Mea culpa.

 

[Darat]

As I said it's not a big deal and doesn't change the point you were making, it was only because I'd also heard the same reports I mentioned it.

Come to think of it it probably strengthens the point in regards to what I consider the central issue of this thread - which is that "we" (UK/USA/EU) are providing huge levels of financial and other kinds of support for regimes that implement such barbaric policies.