Slashdot Mirror


Anti-Education Attack Poisons 150 Afghan Schoolgirls

An anonymous reader writes "The water at a high school in Afghanistan was contaminated today, poisoning roughly 150 girls in attendance. Afghan officials say this was a deliberate attack: 'We are 100 percent sure that the water they drunk inside their classes was poisoned. This is either the work of those who are against girls' education or irresponsible armed individuals.' From the article: 'Some of the 150 girls, who suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said. They said they knew the water had been poisoned because a larger tank used to fill the affected water jugs was not contaminated. ... None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.'"

92 of 707 comments (clear)

  1. And that, ladies and gentlemen by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is what happens when you coddle and religious groups extreme behavior and the myth that they have a right to tell governments what to do.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, at least in the U.S. the attack on education by conservatives is nonviolent. Thank goodness for small favors, I guess.

    2. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by Scutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that they have a right to tell governments what to do.

      I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound this way, but in case you did, who do you think DOES have the right to tell governments what to do if not the people they govern?

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Religion != people religion has no right to dictate directly to governments, people do. In a lot of ways I would love to see the separation of church and state run both ways, the state does not mess with churches and churches stay out of politics. The state should never implement church doctrine as law, rather implement the minimal set of laws that are required for civil society. That would let the church go back to working on morals and the state out of enforcing them.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    4. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Aren't you for 'democracy', which means rule of the majority or basically mobocracy? If the majority consists of religious fanatics, wouldn't it just mean democracy can be used to give power to Taliban just as well?

      As say: democracy does not ensure freedom, it is actually a gateway towards tyranny.

      HOWEVER, where does it say even in TFA that it's Taliban that is responsible? Here is what TFA says:

      The Afghan government said last year that the Taliban, which has been trying to adopt a more moderate face to advance exploratory peace talks, had dropped its opposition to female education.

      AFAIC it could be anybody poisoning those girls, from Taliban, to USA military contractors, who stand to lose a sweet contract if US goes home.

    5. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by Nemesisghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just so you know, not all of us conservatives are anti-education. I find the fact that people are rewritting history and forcing religious view points on people just as abhorrent as the most ardent atheist. Oh, and did I mention I'm Mormon & even served a mission? Or how about the fact that I'm not the only one? How's this food for thought: There are plenty in the scientific community that not only believe in God, but also think this kind of crap is the stupidest thing they've ever heard?
      Next time instead of attacking what you don't agree with, try to understand it. Otherwise, all you are doing is giving these idiots reasons to further their agenda.

    6. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I understand there are exceptions. In fact, I'm willing to believe people like you are the majority amongst conservatives and the anti-science, anti-education sect of conservatives are actually the exceptions. The problem is voices like yours are increasingly drowned out by people who want to do stupid shit like "teach the controversy", and more and more conservatives are perfectly willing to go along with it and vote for candidates who openly dismiss evolution or think it's an unresolved issue. And that seems to be the overall trend in Republican candidates lately, even though they've ended up with the relatively innocuous (if offensively delusional about his status as an everyman) Romney.
       
      As an aside: from what I've read most scientists believe in God, but they also tend to be liberal. I'm not certain whether the majority of of God-fearing scientists are liberal, but I think so. Not particularly important, but I thought I'd mention it.

    7. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Tyranny of majority is tyranny nevertheless, that's why USA was formed as a Republic, but hey, you'd just do as told anyway, mindcontrolled.

    8. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How's this food for thought: There are plenty in the scientific community that not only believe in God, but also think this kind of crap is the stupidest thing they've ever heard?

      Just out of curiosity, why aren't those people making their voices heard?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      My 'handlers'? :) Unlike some of us, whose 'minds are controlled', I don't need anybody to tell me what to think.

      As to democracy vs republic, it never gets tired, to look at this herd, that believes it should be able to run policy as a mob, while even believing that it is supposed to be that way in their own system of government.

    10. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by BakaHoushi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that this kind of dialogue is common not just here on the Internet but EVERYWHERE.

      I have an uncle and every god damn problem in this country is the fault of those evil, liberal teachers brain washing our kids. All liberals want to make everyone step in line to their creed, you know. Because there was once this story about a really stupid liberal guy who said something like that.

      Similarly I've met people who know that Conservatives want to elect Jesus as president, know that He supports their right to carry an M-60 in their local supermarket and shoot anyone who's skin looks Islamic. They know this because of that story from last year where that crazy guy did that thing.

      We need to stop this.
      There are stupid, opinionated liberals. There are also well-informed, open-minded liberals.
      There are stupid, opinionated conservatives. There are also well-informed, open-minded conservatives.
      Beginning a statement by saying ALL members of group X are such and such isn't just wrong, it hurts actual discussion. No, that story in the paper about that one liberal/conservative group/politician/whatever being an idiot or an asshole does not, in fact, discredit everyone on that side of the political spectrum. People on the opposite side of the aisle are never going to listen a word you say if the first words out of your mouth are insulting to their entire group.

      Problems can't get fixed until we actually discuss what needs to be fixed and how, and we can't have a decent discussion until we learn to stop insulting everyone.

    11. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by w_dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they're the norm, so they're not newsworthy. It's far easier for a raving idiot to make the news than an average person.

    12. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Have you ever READ my comments? The collective, the mob is a herd, and you ARE being treated just like a herd.

      Individuals are important, mob is not. In this very story about Afghanistan - the collective, the mob was all for that war. In case of Iraq, the collective, the mob, the herd was lead into that war. While the Iraqies and Afghans were slaughtered literally, the Americans and many others were slaughtered figuratively speaking. Their freedoms were taken away, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, all the other nonsense, the economy being crashed by the collective wanting the bread and circuses and being lead by the Federal reserve and Treasury and every politician out there.

      By the way, if you find somebody who would like to be a 'handler' given my positions.... please, send me a contact.

    13. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by chill · · Score: 2

      As long as that theocracy provides for a way to it to be later changed or removed if that is the will of the people. Otherwise it is just another form of autocratic oppression.

      For example, see Iran, Cuba, China and many other regimes where they fervently defend "the Revolution". Specifically THEIR revolution, not the next one people are trying to bring about because the last one wasn't as great as promised.

      "Viva la revolucion" really should be "Viva mi revolucion".

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    14. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by tqk · · Score: 2

      Now that you have conceded that "conservatives" are in the majority, and one of the objectives of the left is to increase "democracy", then you recognize that conservative views are the ones that should be emphasized.

      I wish both conservatives and progressives would take a moment to step back and look at what they're espousing. I'm not in the US, so I don't have any sticks in your fire. Take this as merely an observation.

      Conservative means preferring the status quo, or even going back to some previous state when things were (presumably) better. I have the utmost respect for your Founding Fathers, or at least some of them. They were revolutionary for their time; progressive even.

      Progressives want to go forward, assuming forward means leaving behind ignorance or naive ways. Huxley's "Brave New World" was progressive. Was it better? I wouldn't say so. /. is lousy with people who wish NASA was still trying to get us to the stars somehow. That's progressive. Those people back in the Apollo days who got you to the Moon were conservative Cold Warriors who were trying to teach those bastard Soviets "we" were right, not "them."

      How to sum this up, ... You're not that different from each other as you might think, if you stop to think about it. I wish you could stop hating each other over minutia, and agree to disagree and get on with the job. Fundamentally, you both want the same things, and generally speaking despise the same things.

      Find common ground. You just might regain that precious liberty you both say you hold so dear.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:And that, ladies and gentlemen by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      An individual is most likely a human, a mob, on the other hand, is more akin to a brainless tsunami of destruction.

  2. Re:Islam by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And occasionally blowing up a building full of innocent people, but that is the absolute limit.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  3. Why is this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The comment is absolutely on the mark.

    1. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, like a wandering band of Shinto Priests did this?

    2. Re:Why is this moderated down? by TheMathemagician · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it isn't. It's the most intellectually lazy way of criticising Muslims imaginable. Americans predominantly espouse Christianity but it doesn't seem to stop them invading countries like Iraq and killing 100,000 people. Extremists responsible for this attack represent Muslims about as accurately as McVeigh represents Christians.

    3. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Khashishi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last sentence: "Education for women was outlawed by the Taliban government from 1996-2001 as un-Islamic."

    4. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding. It's too bad mental retardation runs so rampant in the politically correct.

    5. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, because weekly hundreds of McVeighs gear up for roadside bombings and suicide missions in the name of Christianity and whack job right-wing conspiracy theories. It's every bit as prominent as Muslim terrorism, but it's never, ever, mentioned in the news.
      I don't know why the fuck we're in Iraq anymore but it's not due to Christianity.

    6. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How to tell the difference between a peaceful religion and a non-peaceful religion.

      A peaceful religion - like Buddhism - is where adherents are invited to attend, learn, discuss, and ultimately choose whether or not to accept the tenets and philosophy of the faith. A member of a peaceful religion may set himself on fire in protest of the mistreatment of others, but will not actively attempt to harm another person.

      A non-peaceful religion - like Islam - is where adherents are told to convert or die, have their heads cut off if they don't convert, subjects members of other religions to derogatory and humiliating extra taxes and second-class legal status or worse, sentences people to death for converting away from it, and starts wars of conquest to enlarge the areas in which they can practice barbarism openly. They may also be religions that were founded by hyper-polygynists who may or may not have been pedophiles (remind you of anyone else?)

      In short:
      - A buddhist will set himself on fire to protest your mistreatment of other people.
      - A muslim will set your kids on fire to protest your open practice of another religion if you live in a Muslim country.

      Difference not difficult to determine.

    7. Re:Why is this moderated down? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets keep in mind the whole context. i.e. not teaching women; which has a religious foundation in that part of the world.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last sentence: "Education for women was outlawed by the Taliban government from 1996-2001 as un-Islamic."

      As opposed to Tennessee, where teaching of science to children of any gender is considered un-Christian.

      Oh, wait, you say the Christian fundamentalists are just a bunch of loons who contort and abuse their religion to justify pre-existing cultural and political biases, eh? I wonder, maybe, just maybe, if that could possible apply to fundamentalists in general, Islam included. You think?

    9. Re:Why is this moderated down? by darrellm · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about because the article mentions no religion?

      I believe you are acting deliberately dense in order to be politically correct. The Taliban and those with similar Islamist leanings have done scores of events like this in the past (bombing girls schools, poisonings, throwing acid in girls faces) and there is no reason not to have a high certainty that this was done by an Islamist. They feel that women should be in the home, married and not allowed out without a male relative. They are doing this because this is their interpretation of Islam. Saying that this is done by an Islamist does not mean that all Muslims feel this way. Probably most of the girls at the school were Muslim and the staff was probably Muslim. But there is a LARGE number of Muslims in Afghanistan who do feel this way - although is would only be a small but very powerful minority who would go to this violent extreme. But just trying to dodge this and say that this has no relationship to Islam or those who are just saying this is some aspect of Afghan culture are just ignoring reality. The perpetrators of these actions say they are doing this BECAUSE of their Islamic beliefs. So if someone says they are doing this because of Islam I see no reason not to take their reasons at face value.

    10. Re:Why is this moderated down? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Oh, like a wandering band of Shinto Priests did this?"

      Them Shinto are a stealthy bunch. Why do you think most of us ain't ever seen one?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Xiver · · Score: 3, Informative

      Under the Taliban regime, Sharia law was interpreted to forbid a wide variety of previously lawful activities in Afghanistan. One Taliban list of prohibitions included: pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards. They also got rid of employment, education, and sports for all women, dancing, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and characterizations of living things, no matter if they were drawings, paintings, photographs, stuffed animals, or dolls. Men had to have a fist size beard at the bottom of their chin. Conversely, they had to wear their head hair short. Men had to wear a head covering.

      from -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

      --
      10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
      20: GOTO 10
    12. Re:Why is this moderated down? by jythie · · Score: 2

      Not this time no, but this type of stuff happens in pretty much all the major religions at one point or one place. There are still stories out of Africa for instance of Christians using violence to stop girls from learning... and Shinto has plenty of darkness in its not to distant past.

      The problem is, this isn't a religious issue, religion is used as the excuse, but this type of behavior happens over and over and is much more related to political strife in a region. Crow, it wasn't all that long ago that Christians in the US were using violence to keep blacks and women out of schools, and things have improved here as things stabilized.

    13. Re:Why is this moderated down? by CCarrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets keep in mind the whole context. i.e. not teaching women; which has a political foundation in that part of the world.

      There, FTFY.

      The Qur'an does not state that women should not be educated (in fact, some would argue that it states the opposite). Certain passages, however, have been interpreted to mean that women are not to receive education, purely for political and societal gains by the 'interpreters' in question.

      Islamic teachings are not the problem. Doctrine set by self-serving radical fundamentalists is the problem.

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    14. Re:Why is this moderated down? by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have a point, a. coward; it's right on the top of your head.

      While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.

      Rational people will not excuse the misdeeds Christian fundamentalists, but neither will they excuse the much worse abuses perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    15. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A peaceful religion - like Buddhism - is where adherents are invited to attend, learn, discuss, and ultimately choose whether or not to accept the tenets and philosophy of the faith. A member of a peaceful religion may set himself on fire in protest of the mistreatment of others, but will not actively attempt to harm another person.

      So I guess a largely Buddhist country like Myanmar would be among the most peaceful on Earth, right?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    16. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have a point, a. coward; it's right on the top of your head.

      While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.

      Rational people will not excuse the misdeeds Christian fundamentalists, but neither will they excuse the much worse abuses perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists.

      Wait a sec... you say my example (Tennessee) isn't good enough to prove my point, so you provide a better example (doctor killers) which proves my point much more effectively... and then you still fail to get the point we both just proved, and instead think someone in these forums was trying to excuse these actions?!? I give up. Go ahead, keep thinking Islam is inherently bad and that Christianity is inherently good if you really insist on continuing to disagree with me.

    17. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "this isn't a religious issue" - of course it bloody is the problem.

      these "books" are the excuse for all this type of shit, if you believe in your god of that book, you have to do what he says. you obviously haven't read them. e.g. the God of the bible expects your to sacrifice your child for him, he'll only let you win wars if you kill every man, woman and child etc etc The religious and apologists for religion always skip those parts out.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    18. Re:Why is this moderated down? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Religion is defined by it's followers. You could spend a lifetime arguing over what the Koran does or doesn't mean, and a lot of people have done just that - but, even if an answer is possible, it doesn't matter. The important part is what the believers believe it says, and particually that segment of believers that has the conviction to back up their interpretation with political action or even violence.

      You could go out there and tell the fundamentalists that their interpretation of their holy text is wrong. Then they'd stone you as a heretic, and anyone else watching would probably be smart enough to keep their own views to themselves.

    19. Re:Why is this moderated down? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      A muslim will set your kids on fire to protest your open practice of another religion if you live in a Muslim country

      Rubbish. No one is setting kids on fire in Malaysia or Jordan.

    20. Re:Why is this moderated down? by wisty · · Score: 2

      There's violent bits in the Koran. There's violent bits in the Bible. Chinese Confucianism-Taoism-Buddhism has some objectionable bits.

      Even if any of it is the word of God, God doen't exactly stop people misinterpreting it, or just making shit up. Even other true believers are usually pretty accepting of really screwy interpretations.

      It's a myth that religions have any existential properties, because religions DO NOT EXIST. They are just words, and words can have a whole range of different meanings. They can have works associated with them (holy books), but those books can be so widely interpreted (just look at the shit some people think the Bible says) that the books have only a small influence on how people interpret the religions.

    21. Re:Why is this moderated down? by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Islamic teachings? Teachings?

      Look, I 100% guarantee you that the attackers were 1) male 2) Muslims 3) were taught that women should not be educated in an Islamic school.

      You don't get to stand up on your hind legs here and state what Islamic teachings are, or if they are the problem or not. Just because you interpret the Qur'an that way does not make it "Islamic teaching". Trying to pass it off as a political problem is equally bogus. Define for me where politics ends and religion begins in places where any Religion is the official Religion, and Islamic law is the law of the land.

      There is no Central Authority in Islam. No Pope. There is, therefore no central and universally accepted authority on what constitutes Islam or its teachings. Which is precisely why the religion is so abused in so many places. Anyone can appoint themselves an Imam, and begin preaching virtually anything they want. There is really no one to hold them in check.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    22. Re:Why is this moderated down? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Religion is defined by it's followers.

      Ask a devout Christian or Jew if that's the case and see what he says.

      No, I'm not sure a religion is defined by its followers. You could say it's defined by people who do NOT believe in it, too. Mostly though, you could say it's defined by a very small number of elitists at the top who almost certainly have a political/social agenda.

      This is one reason why there absolutely should not be tax exemption for religions. None of them. Now, if they want to organize some specific social welfare program, then that could be tax exempt. Muslims want to start a hospital? Tax exempt. Catholics want to start a soup kitchen? Then that should be tax exempt. But there is no compelling interest in society for allowing churches to make money and not pay tax on it. Maybe I'm just thinking about taxes because I just wrote a check a few minutes ago and the Catholic Church doesn't have to pay a nickel on the money they use to hire lawyers to defend guys who rape children - not to mention the money they use for moving expenses for the child rapists to move to a new parish where they will be free to rape children. .

      Religious people can have a very positive effect on society. I see it around here every day. Religious institutions, on the other hand, should have to continually prove themselves though. They bear watching. They should not get special privileges just for existing.

      Now these sick muslims who would poison girls just for trying to get an education are an example of what can happen when religious extremism, especially in educating the young, is allowed to run wild. But there's no question that it's a spectrum. Before they got to the point where they're poisoning their daughters, they had to get to the point where they had control over the way society educates. And before they had control over the way society educates, they had influence in schools' curricula. And before they had control over schools' curricula, there had to be some holier-than-thou stroke like Rick Santorum, telling people what's right and what's wrong based upon his interpretation of what God wants (and in his case, not even what God wants, but what some extremist convert decades after Christ wrote that he had decided God really really wants despite the fact that Christ didn't mention anything about those things. And apparently, God wants women with entropic pregnancies to die horribly painful deaths).

      I'm not saying that Santorum is the same as guys who would poison little girls, but I'm saying that you don't get to guys poisoning little girls except by first having guys like Santorum. And it's fewer steps from one to the other than you might think.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Why is this moderated down? by jimmifett · · Score: 3, Informative

      Doctrine set by self-serving radical fundamentalists is the problem.

      By "radical", you mean "traditional". We westerners only consider them radical by our standards. That's perfectly normal to their standards.

      "Islamic Radicals" according to eastern Islamic societies are the blasphemers and infidels that dare to practice a western "liberalized" Islam, hence why they have fatwas and such issued against them by religious mainstays calling for their deaths.

    24. Re:Why is this moderated down? by GaratNW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, because the actions of a ruthless military junta to take over a 89% Buddhist country means those 89% are committing the violence. If other countries won't step in to help, how exactly do you overthrow a military regime with non-violence? Remember - they killed THOUSANDS in 1988 when people protested, and then in the first free elections, the junta refused to acknowledge the elections and kept power any way. I bet those non-ruling folks, mostly living in poverty, are incredibly peaceful. And of course, the ASEAN acknowledges that junta rule. So who exactly is to blame for the state of things in the country. Right.. continue blaming it on the Buddhists.

    25. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Tuidjy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, they are setting churches on fire, in their annual attacks on Christians around Christmas. Then some kids burn, and some firemen who come to fight the fire get shot at, but of course, no one gets punished. After all, non-believer public worship is illegal.

      Funny that you would mention Malaysia. The above paragraph happened there. Wanna guess at the AVERAGE number of Christians they kill for Christmas every year?

      As for Jordan, I have to admit that they do prosecute attacks on Christians. But now, given that the highest profile case was against people who tried TO BURN KIDS IN A CHURCH for disrespecting Mohamed... I think I have been trolled. Or you're a brainwashed ignoramus. It can go either way.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    26. Re:Why is this moderated down? by yurtinus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oooh this is fun. My turn!!

      A non-peaceful religion - like Christianity - is where adherents are told to convert or die, get burned at the stake if they don't agree, subjects members of other religions to derogatory and humiliating extra taxes and second-class legal status or worse, sentences people to death for converting away from it, and starts wars of conquest to enlarge the areas in which they can practice barbarism openly. They may also be religions that were founded by hyper-polygynists who may or may not have been pedophiles (remind you of anyone else?)

      You would be *damn* hard pressed to find a religion in the history of the planet responsible for more violence and death than Christianity. Is there more violence being caused by Muslims right now at this very moment? Perhaps, but there are just about as many peace loving practicers of Islam as there are of Christianity. Wacko fundamentalists transcend religious lines.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    27. Re:Why is this moderated down? by Requiem18th · · Score: 2

      Sort of, it's actually kind of complex.

      Many Shinto and Buddhist men have commited attrocities, and a lot of nice guys self identify as muslims.

      The truth is that Islam has many teachings that could be considered peaceful as well as many violent ones. Same could be said about Judaism, and even Christianity isn't perfect (in fact it's horrible, it just seems good in comparison). However it doesn't really matter much how violent is your religion if you manage to reinterpret it and selectively learn it to minimise the bad parts. After all most jews today don't recur to animal sacrifices when sick.

      The question is not why are so many muslims violent, but why are so many muslims following more violent interpretations of Islam. Of course more violent interpretations are closer to the original intent, no need to stress that, but that doesn't explain why jews refuse to murder people for working on sabat, and the answer is that jews are actually just europeans of hebrew descent. Israel is a middle-eastern country but its culture is closer to European culture.

      I think that's the point of the multiculturalist movement, they want to retain the good parts of Islam and broom the bad parts under the rug. And in many ways that is the best solution, because you can't argue people out of their religion and genocide is too harsh of an option.

      It's being said that you can change an opinion that people didn't arrive at themselves, the solution is to tame Islam with the ideals of kindness, truth, rationality and peace, just like we tamed Christianity, Judaism, and most other religions.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    28. Re:Why is this moderated down? by canadian_right · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By "radical", you mean "traditional". We westerners only consider them radical by our standards. That's perfectly normal to their standards.

      Which shows why moral relativism is morally bankrupt. Some cultures are simply evil. Some cultures are actually better than others when judged on criteria like: freedom, health, education, general happiness, and equality. All cultures, ours included, should be striving to improve. Trying to justify an action by authority or tradition just doesn't hold water for any rational person.

      And let's set the bar a bit higher than being better than the worst.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  4. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.'"

    Bad guys do bad things and people are afraid to even name them for doing the said bad things... I think the bad guys might be winning.

  5. Re:RoP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Religion of Peace. We should be tolerant of their views.

    Show me in the Koran where it prohibits educating girls?

    It's a cultural thing. Traditional (read patriarcal) societies that treat women as second class citiczens or as property all do horrible things like this.

    And it's not right at all. Any culture that values males more than females is a backwards culture. In varying degrees, India, China, Japan, the Arab nations, Persians, most of the African countries, you names them - all backwards cultures. And most of them are paying a very heavy price for it. And in just about all cases, religion is used as an excuse for their deplorable behavior - it's not the cause.

  6. If Afghanistan hadn't been so neglected... by dryriver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There were many, many opportunities during the 20th Century to deliver sorely needed aid to Afghanistan, and put some money into helping the country modernize and industrialize. Under Western Cold War Political Doctrine, however, that simply wasn't seen as being "necessary" or a "priority". So after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan by the Western-armed Afghan Mujahedeen, Afghanistan was left to its own devices (= the country was left to rot in abject poverty). With the bone-crunching poverty, and political-abandonment by the Developed World came support for the Taliban. With the Taliban came a particularly hateful, denigrating view of women (women should cover at all times, girls should not go to school, girls should be married to older men by arranged-marriage). ----- Here we are many decades later, wondering why Afghanistan is an underdeveloped s__thole of place, where someone can so pissed at girls being educated, that he poisons their drinking water. Afghanistan should have been helped decades ago. The West, at the time, was too cheap to commit money to such a project. And now we have a genuinely "failed state" to deal with. "You reap what you sow", as they say.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:If Afghanistan hadn't been so neglected... by dyingtolive · · Score: 2

      The problem lies in the assumption that those with the capability to make the world a better place genuinely have interest in doing so.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    2. Re:If Afghanistan hadn't been so neglected... by slew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you simplify this too much. It wasn't the "west's" opportunity after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan. Iran, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan were the major players in Afghanistan in the post Peshawar Accords. If the British (or the US) would have just gone in there (even to "help"), how do you think things would have gone differently? Would the Afghanis have just completely forgotten the first 3 anglo-afgan wars? Not so sure that was the best course of action.

      Perhaps, we should have perhaps been rooting for Ahmad Shah Massoud and the United Islamic Front. They weren't saints, but were still anti-Taliban. Instead, the west was lobbying for them to surrendar to the Taliban to stabilize the region as the west was more aligned with Pakistan at the time (and Pakistan was one of the big supporter of the Taliban).

      How did history unfold? Well, Mr Massoud was eventually assasinated and then Sept 11th occured. I don't think it was about the west being too cheap, it was more about picking the wrong side.

    3. Re:If Afghanistan hadn't been so neglected... by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Help doesn't always help.

      If we tried to help, who is to say it would have turned out better or turned out like many African and Latin American countries that did receive help. Symptoms may get treated, but that can make the issues worse.

      America is evil for trying to impose it's will on other countries.

      America is evil for not trying to impose it's will on other countries.

      In a no-win situation doing nothing is often the best course of action.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:If Afghanistan hadn't been so neglected... by slew · · Score: 2

      > after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan. Were they defeated? I do not think so.
      I guess that depends on your point of view... From the Soviet and Najibullah point of view, it was certainly a withdraw. From the mujahideen point of view, hard to say.... What does it mean when a guerella force outlasts an imperialist power's desire to occupy? Maybe the word withdraw is more to you liking...

      In any case, my original point was that from the Afghani's point of view, the chaos that ensued after the Soviets *left* was likely not a missed opportunity for the west to help with aid. At least the US signed away that opportunity when they did the 1988 Geneva Accords and the civil war that ensued was not a situation where anyone could have probably just funneled in some aid (as posited by the OP) w/o getting involved in the civil war (of which the Taliban was party) and mixing it up with Pakistan in the process.

      I also made the case that we may have picked the wrong side in that conflict. Don't know, if there was a "right" side, but sometimes you can't help even if you want to.

  7. Re:poisoned with what by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    ...able to go home almost immediately aka insta-antidote is kind of odd/unusual.

    Perhaps the contaminant was a strong emetic or diuretic causing extreme dehydration, which explains the headache.
    In the cases where they could go simply home after "treatment in the hospital", perhaps those girls didn't drink as much of the tainted water (duh).

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  8. This is not Islam by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember that crap like this is carried out by a fundamentalist extremists. Don't start a witch-hunt on religion just because the wack-jobs killing people claim to be religious.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:This is not Islam by robot_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      And yet it is religion which justifies these actions. Please consider reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith", which outlines in detail why the continued survival of our species can no longer tolerate attitudes such as your own.

      --
      .there is enough of everything for everyone.
    2. Re:This is not Islam by isorox · · Score: 2

      And yet it is religion which justifies these actions.

      The interpretation is what gets twisted. You can find twisted interpretations in any religion or elitist mentality. Even atheism. If you're going to hate, don't be selective.

      Trouble is, the majority of mainstream religions tend to keep nutjobs under control.

    3. Re:This is not Islam by misexistentialist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Atrocities are just as easily committed in the name of atheist socialism. The "survival of our species" has always depended on violent power structures. Theocracy is almost cute in comparison to the potential horrors of mechanistic collectivism.

  9. Re:RoP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah, so Republicans' desire to outlaw birth control is cultural, not religious. Poor backward Republicans.

  10. Re:poisoned with what by fermat1313 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aside from that, its an excellent example of why multiculturalism should not exist. My daughter gains nothing by the existence of that culture. Let american consumerism steamroll it out of existence, no substantial loss.

    Right, because the American culture is the One True Culture. Your ridiculous statement implies a false choice: American culture vs. poisoning girls who want to go to school. This is, in fact, a great argument for multiculturalism. If Afghanistan were more of an educated multi-cultural society, these nutjobs would have a harder time getting a following. As it is, when everyone only sees one culture (their own), treating women like this is the only "normal" they know.

  11. Re:RoP by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was just watching a talk by NDT on "Intelligent Design". In that, he made an excellent observation about how, for a 300 year period, the Arab world was the center of intellectual progress in the world. 2/3 of all stars with names have Arabic names. They discovered 0, they gave us algebra.

    Then... a new religious philosophy arose that taught that mathematics was the work of the Devil. This wasn't Mohamed.... it wasn't there in the beginings of Islam. For many years, these problems didn't exist.

    The sobering thought there is... as he points out.... this period of advancement ended with the rise of this anti-scientific ideology. Just think, there are a Billion Muslims, and only a handful of Muslim/Arab nobel prize winners. If they hadn't ended their period of advancement hundreds of years before Europe became the new center of intellectual progress... where would we be today? How much raw talent just went totally unused because of these ideologies.

    Honestly.... I have little doubt that there would be people posting comments from Lunar or martian colonies by now if not for this terrible ideology.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  12. Re:RoP by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2

    I agree, I heard that in India, a man set his wife on fire for THINKING she was having an affair, and he got off with a slap on the wrist, even though she may or may not have been cheating, as he had no real proof.
    I hate any cheater, but come on....that is just sick!

  13. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by fermat1313 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who said that Slashdot was only about technology news? "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." This matters.

  14. You know a government is inneffective when... by DaneM · · Score: 2

    ...they're afraid to accuse people whom they think poisoned over a hundred schoolgirls, for fear that they'll tick the criminals off (and have trouble as a result). Sure, angering terrorists (or whatever they're calling these scoundrels--if anything) is likely to provoke them to try other acts of terrorism. What are you going to do, though, let them get away with it? I can't see how that won't encourage further acts of terror just as thoroughly (if not necessarily as quickly).

    Side note: yes, Afghanistan is strongly Muslim, and yes there are some extremists who utterly pervert and abuse that faith; but unless there's some mention in TFA about religious motivations, let's please not jump to inflammatory conclusions about this being faith-motivated. In point of fact, this sort of thing has happened here in the USA, as recently as in the 20th century, so let's not throw stones based on our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty) being somehow superior to theirs. Horrible people exist in all countries, and infest all religions, as you should all well know.

  15. Re:RoP by daem0n1x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate any cheater, but come on....that is just sick!

    Why would you hate someone for doing something that doesn't affect you, for reasons you have no idea of?

  16. Re:RoP by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a cultural thing.

    It's a conservative thing. Conservatives everywhere attack education. Whether it's literacy for women in Afghanistan, or sex ed and evolution in the United States, conservatives are anti-education.

    Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be. There is a positive correlation between education and liberalism for a reason.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  17. Re:What's the rationale behind this? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2

    It's just the "teaching girls" part. Free-thinking women are harder to control.

  18. Re:RoP by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Culture and Religion are very intertwined.

    The Catholic Church while a Unified church, operate rather differently cross different cultures. Even with them following the same rules, the importance of the rules they follow are prioritized differently.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  19. Re:RoP by slapout · · Score: 3, Informative

    Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  20. Re:RoP by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why? Its a fucking health service. Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare. Its a religious objection, flat out.

    --
    Good-bye
  21. Re:RoP by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Informative

    They got zero from India, and the Babylonians had a placeholder for it back before 1000 B.C.

  22. Re:RoP by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that we have a religious culture that encourages extremely high levels of obedience, faithfulness and passion. And this is not necessarily going to cause problems, but....

    But it's unstable, like a dictatorship. Your first dictator might be a fine Wise Benevolent Leader, and everybody's happy. But then his son takes over, and he's maybe something more on the Cackling Lunatic Leader side of thing. You're trapped in a system that doesn't regulate itself. As long as you're shackled to the ideologies attached to a name, rather than the rationale behind the ideologies themselves, something horrible can go wrong.

    And it has.

    --
    Would you like a slice of toast?
  23. Re:RoP by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By this line of reasoning, we need 2 more bills before Congress:

    1 - Doctors and hospitals are absolved of blame in refusing to tread non-paying patients, and are permitted to eject them.

    2 - We need a public health organization to collect and cremate uncollected bodies found on public property, or upon request uncollected bodies found on private property. This is of course subject to finding that the death was natural and not the result of foul play. This is necessary to safeguard the water supply, and because trained personnel are required to safely handle such bodies.

    EITHER !!!

    You are going to be compassionate about medical care, in which case you'd better be as efficient about it as possible. In which case paying for birth control is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying for emergency childbirth care.

    OR !!!

    You have to adopt the, "Go away and die," model. There is very little in-between. Health care as practiced in the US today is one of the lease efficient ways to run it. There is effectively universal emergency care, but no universal preventive care. That pretty much guarantees that some portion of the population will require expensive medical care.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  24. Re:RoP by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sarcasm detected. Yes, Republicans are a cultural movement, not religious. They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.

    They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA? Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?

    Yes, it is cultural, yes religion is used as an excuse. Same as Taliban extremists - they have their views, including outlawing education for women for a few years, and they use religion to back it up.

    Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands. Most Christians understand that contextually, but a few take it literally and frequently out of context. Every culture, every religion has people who do this, and it is not tied to the religion. It is an interpretation used as a convenient excuse to impose what some people believe on others.

  25. Re:RoP by i_ate_god · · Score: 2

    Well, the middle east is going through it's own version of the Dark Ages, nothing more nothing less.

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
  26. Best Option: Allow them to leave the country by ewieling · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let these girls and their families (and other females who are attacked for wanting an education) have asylum in the USA or other country where girls don't get killed for wanting an education.

    --
    I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
  27. Re:RoP by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quick question... Which do you think costs more in the long run? Government covering costs of birth control to help reduce unwanted pregnancies, the cost to government and society that result from unwanted parenthood? These unwanted children will incur additional costs in welfare, education, and (statistically speaking) increases in crime.

    A party complaining about "welfare mothers" doesn't have a lot of room to complain about making birth control more accessible.

  28. Re:don't be fooled by couchslug · · Score: 2

    "Not even religious fanatics are stupid enough to think this helps their cause."

    Who are you to speak for them?

    Also, they are winning.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  29. Re:RoP by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Republicans just don't want to have to pay for someone else's birth control, you troll

    They do, however, want someone else to pay for their hardons.

    Also, if you honestly believe a group referred to as the "Religious Right" does not use religion as their motivation, well, I've got this bridge in NY state you may be interested in purchasing...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  30. Re:RoP by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're either uninformed or plain old lying.

    Here's the bill in virginia that makes the pill illegal: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+HB1

    passed the republican controlled house and senate with ease.

    And all the current candidates bar Romney have gone on record agreeing with it explicitely for religious reasons: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-republican-presidential-candidate-pledge

    Of course Romney flip-flops back and forth but here he is saing he "absolutely" agrees too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrOt9Qposg#t=5m25s

    Part if the mechanism of the pill is to prevent fertilized eggs from impanting - that's after conception has occured. It's not the only mechanism, but it's part of the package. So all those republicans are trying to outlaw the pill. Not just not pay for it.

  31. The women prepare the food in that society right? by Marrow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe they should have thought of that before targeting women with poison.
    Idiots.

  32. Re:RoP by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not aware of any philosophy that claimed that. The most common philosophy that is blamed for wrecking the Muslim's worlds scientific progress was that espoused by Al-Ghazali in his highly influential book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers. The most damaging thing in that philosophy was the idea that there were no actual laws of the universe, only things occurring the way Allah decided to. So for example if one lit a piece of cloth with a candle, the cloth catches fire not from any property of the cloth but because Allah has decided in this particular instance for the cloth to catch fire. And according to Al-Ghazali, asserting otherwise was essentially heresy. This sort of view of things is extremely inimical to discovering or codifying laws of the universe. There were other problems that happened about the same time such governments becoming more intertwined with religion in much of the Muslim world. But I suspect that is the philosophy that Neil deGrasse Tyson was talking about.

  33. Sliiight correction there... by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be.

    Not all conservatives have religious or anti-educational ideas and motivations.

    BUT... What they all DO have is a very strong preference for the status quo. THAT is why they can't accept new ideas, or find them threatening.
    To them it's good as it is. Perfect in fact.
    To fundamentalists among them, ANY change is a tantamount to an attack on their entire way of life.

    Those girls weren't being taught to be atheists, feminists, witches or whatever the fundamentalists would find undermining to their religious beliefs.
    In fact, they probably had religious studies at school as well.

    They were simply girls, being taught.
    That's the idea that breaks the status quo world of the(se) fundamentalists.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  34. Re:Posion the water or posion the sociery... by Barsteward · · Score: 2

    he was a fucking hypocrite then, is he still flying around on his cart with flying horses? All religions are full of this shit, say one thing and then contradict it later and then forget about the contradiction.

    its time all priests were outlawed and people allowed to "worship" in their own personal space and don't bother anyone else with their delusions. Priests and imams are the major problem as they think they have a line to their imaginary god

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  35. Re:RoP by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as nobody tries to take away their boner pills.

    It seems they voted THEMSELVES a pretty nice health plan.

  36. Islam is Quran + Hadith by Quila · · Score: 5, Informative

    Quran-only Muslims are a small minority, and their rejection of Hadith is heavily criticized by mainstream Muslims. So saying "The Quran does not state" really has no weight for the vast majority of Muslims. If it's in Hadith, it's part of the religion.

  37. They know it was poison? by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So because the water in the tank wasn't contaminated, they know it was poison?

    Afghanistan isn't especially well known for it's hygiene standards. The symptoms of headaches, Nausea and vomiting match up pretty well with salmonella or e-coli poisoning. It's obviously in a public official best interests to blame evil terrorists rather than lax health standards. Put your water jugs in a messy kitchen where meat it prepared, it could easily be contaminated.

  38. Re:RoP by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sarcasm detected. Yes, Republicans are a cultural movement, not religious. They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.

    That's just wrong. Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals; they also donate more blood and time. Paying taxes and sinking this country into a fiscal debt crisis is not "charity." If you are not making the decision, it's not "charity" and it's not "magnanimous" on your part. If you believe in Jesus then you must believe did NOT support not giving people the choice... you have to be judged on your OWN actions, not what you were forced to do. (for the record, I'm not religious, and I use this very same argument against religious people who want to control my life, too)

    Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.

    They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?

    I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.

    Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?

    You're right about one thing, it's not based on religion that they do this... it's based on what's written in the constitution; based on the failure of our educational system despite the wanton amounts of money we throw at it (BTW, Bush increased educational spending more than anyone else in the previous four decades... what did he get for it? The disdain of the left, of course.). As far as military spending - you're right. I'm not a republican, I think they've been terrible leaders since Bush's election... but I also think democrats seem to have been inspired to one-up the terribleness.

    Think what you want - I won't change your mind, I realize that the people asking the most for open mindedness are typically the most closed minded of all. But between the way liberals want to destroy this country and the way the republicans want to destroy this country, the republicans are much less "bad," even if they're not good.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  39. Re:And people wonder why we're having a hard time by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

    We were going to submit the nazis totally and absolutely and a part of that was the 1200 calories a day we allowed them. It's hard to maintain your fighting spirit and think of maintaining the ole Sig Heil when you're living amongst rubble and so mal-nourished and hungry you can barely stand. ......
    Little Boy and Fat Man had the same effect on Imperial Japan. It wasn't about winning the war, it was about the psychological conversion of the population through REAL shock and awe, a total and absolute devastation and final full on shit-fuck invalidation of the poisoned government that population had permitted to arise.

    Then why didn't your benevolent "shit-fucking" work in Russia during the 1990s, or in Vietnam in the 1960s? Could it be because in the cases of Germany and Japan, the allies (eventually) offered an alternative way of life under democracy to their defeated opponents? That the US actually engaged in real nation rebuilding at that time and effectively created two of the most successful post war countries as a result? A pity no such long term planning has been applied or indeed even contemplated in either modern Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Bombs and tanks wont he battles, but it was the Marshall Plan won the war, and the subsequent Cold war besides. The US and her allies in the present have created no such legacy, for all their costly foreign expeditions.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  40. Re:RoP by Soporific · · Score: 2

    I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons, but I don't really get a choice in that do I?

    ~S

  41. Re:RoP by andydread · · Score: 2

    Jesus on Taxes.
    "For truly I say upon to you... Render on to Ceasar what is Caesar's...Render on to the father what is his."

    Jesus on the rich.
    A rich man approached Jesus. "Teacher how can I enter heaven."
    Jesus: "Sell everything you own and give all the money to the poor and the needy. Then you can enter the kingdom of god"
    Jesus re-affirms : "For truly I say upon to you. It is much easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle that it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god"

    I think Jesus was very very adamant about helping the poor and about the ability for anyone to enter the "kingdom of god" without selling all their riches and giving the proceeds to the poor.

  42. Re:RoP by hey! · · Score: 2

    It's a cultural thing.

    I've heard exactly this position from a local imam (a liberal Turkish Sunni and Sufi too). People associate "old time religion" with whatever their local cultural traditions are.

    Same thing happened with Christianity in the Middle Ages.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.