Afghan clerics threaten trouble over convert Sun Apr 2, 2006 MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Afghan clerics and their followers threatened violence against the government on Sunday over the release of a Christian convert, saying he had to be brought back from Italy and put on trial. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that this is the most violent religion ever in a long line of violent religions in the history of this species...
Hey, good thing we put so much effort into freeing their people, it did alot of good. Like they say, you can bring a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. F these people man, they have no hope.
I second that and ask: How long will it take for other regions to follow suit? I myself lost two American friends in Pakistan a year ago. They were missionaries from texas and shot during a service in church amongs others.
Some people say they do so because they are suffering from poverty, but that isn't true since similar cases have happened in UAE. It's all about attitude and free will.
Gee, I'd have to argue that the Crusades still top that heap. This is simply indicative of all organized religions, they're not truly about the prophets, they're about the ambitions and agendas of the men who rise as leaders within them and use people's faith to further their own causes. It's sad really, because I personally believe that feeling a connection to some higher power/God/prophet/meaning/etc., leads to a more rewarding life for most people; but organized religion is a dangerous tool used by men to exploit people's faiths and beliefs.
Nor do the Crusades (a point in time when Christians fought back) present a moral equivalence argument. Nor is killing a man for converting to a religion of his choice indicative of all organized religions. This is indicative of islam.
It's a shame that the kids in the school learn something completly else. I remember my history lesson where both the teacher and the book said that the crusades began because of fundamentalistic ideas by the Pope in Rome. You are lucky to live in a country in where the history isn't manipulated by foreign interests.
Correct, the Crusades isn't a religion. They're a real life example supporting my entire point on the dangerous nature of organized religions. GTech, I'm not being goaded into a debate on the reasons behind them. If you believe they were purely an act of fighting back I'll only suggest you objectively look over the history again. Specifically the Albigensian and Northern Crusades. In-fact, the Albigensian was absolutely nothing but a Christian campaign to slaughter French people who had converted to another religion. A more recent (and possibly more appropriate) example in American history would be those who, under the guidance of their Church leaders, burned 'witches' at the stake. It was "God's will", as defined by man. Still, I'm not (and wasn't) suggesting that spirituality is bad in any way. I believe the opposite as I stated earlier. My point was that all organized religions have a hierarchal structure that unfortunately allows the influence of man to lead the lives of followers. When the top men are or become corrupt, so go the followers. Scott
So let's throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some webmasters do unethical, even dishonest, things. So let's tar all webmasters (or organized religions, or...) with the same brush because some are bad.
Religion and ignorance always go hand in hand. Without ignorance religion can not exist. There is no good religion because religion by it's nature always needs to stop the enlightenment of the society.
Scott everything I've read from you in Politics section of DP has been level headed and respectable. Thanks for joining the small group of reasonable people we have here.
I'm not sure I buy into something that happened 750-1000 years ago is a good example to draw a moral equivalence argument for muslims calling for a trial and execution of a Christian convert. If you are going to suggest they have a moral equivalence to what happened with Abdur Rahman and that they are your entire point for how dangerous organized religion is, I think it's a fair call. No need to look over history again, I'm familiar with eight Crusades and why they were started and I would choose to look at the whole, not pick out one or two. It was Christians fighting heretical Christians and it was started after the Pope sent Pierre de Castelnau to meet with Count Raymond and Pierre was killed the following day. Europe on Europe. The Crusades were started as a defensive measure against muslims. But the Crusades have no bearing on what happened with Abdur Rahman in Afghanistan. Considering the times, one might also say Europe on Europe. History. A long time ago. While the rest of the world has progressed with the times, it is clear islam hasn't. I find it comforting to go so far back in history to seek moral equivalence to justify the actions of what happened with Abdur Rahman. My point is, that this is not indicative of all organized religions. It might be fair to say that every religion has a history, some good, some not-so-good, but that what happened with Abdur Rahman is indicative of all organized religions is painting an inaccurate broad picture of many religions that simply do not practice such measures. This may be why we do not see headlines such as "Christians call for trial and execution of former Christian who converted to Shintoism." Or "Jews call for trial and execution of former Jew who converted to Sikhism."
I love the "two wrongs make a right" argument from the Christian bashers. It makes me feel like I'm in Kindergarten again. Whatever you can say about the behavior of long-dead people is irrelevant. Murdering someone because they decide to leave the religion they were born into is wrong.