DiscussMormonism.com

Calculus Crusader wrote:Then I see him as a victim of his time, which is a real shame, since he could have been another Aphrahat. (Or the Mazdean equivalent.)

LOL. You're serious?

Lots of people, myself emphatically included, would think that being an Avicenna was rather better than being an Aphrahat -- let alone a Magian Aphrahat.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Calculus Crusader wrote:Then I see him as a victim of his time, which is a real shame, since he could have been another Aphrahat. (Or the Mazdean equivalent.)

LOL. You're serious?

Lots of people, myself emphatically included, would think that being an Avicenna was rather better than being an Aphrahat -- let alone a Magian Aphrahat.

Yeah, I'm serious. I like Aphrahat. Even so, I was not suggesting that his impact was as great as that of Avicenna. Rather, I meant to say that it is a shame that he was not a Persian Christian (or Mazdean) instead of a Muslim.

Calculus Crusader wrote:Yeah, I'm serious. I like Aphrahat. Even so, I was not suggesting that his impact was as great as that of Avicenna. Rather, I meant to say that it is a shame that he was not a Persian Christian (or Mazdean) instead of a Muslim.

Well, I'm rather partial to Christianity, too. But not, I'm afraid, to Mazdeanism. Interesting, but not at all a live religious option for me. Nor even, it seems, to most Persians of the time.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Calculus Crusader wrote:Yeah, I'm serious. I like Aphrahat. Even so, I was not suggesting that his impact was as great as that of Avicenna. Rather, I meant to say that it is a shame that he was not a Persian Christian (or Mazdean) instead of a Muslim.

Well, I'm rather partial to Christianity, too. But not, I'm afraid, to Mazdeanism. Interesting, but not at all a live religious option for me. Nor even, it seems, to most Persians of the time.

Well, different strokes for different folks, but I much prefer Zarathushtra and Mazdeanism to Mahound and Islam. (Of course, I wouldn't trade Christianity for either.)

harmony wrote:Whatever helps you sleep at night, Daniel.

Afghanistan, by whatever faction is in control in any given moment on any given acre of land, has a 23% literacy rate for women. According to the same source, http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/, 30% of girls have access to education. That obviously translates to something different from what you've presented here.

Unless, of course, you're saying you know more about Afghan women than they know themselves.

The communists began to educate women and also bring universal health care to the population. It was a very progressive government but like most novices they went too fast, too quick and alienated the conservative element in society. Not to mention they put many people in jail.

But their goals were noble. However, the US government not wanting another communist government to deal with began to arm the opposition. This opposition were anticommunist and reactionary and conservative. The communist government fell in 1994 and the rest is history. In foreign policy terms it is called 'blowback' as the people who the USA supported turned against the USA.

One cannot blame Islam per se but what can blame ideology behind the Islamic movements. The soviet union was a progressive state that attempted to educate muslim women from the very beginning. Now, conservative elements are in place and women are beginning to become illiterate once more in certain postSoviet societies.

why me wrote:

harmony wrote:Whatever helps you sleep at night, Daniel.

Afghanistan, by whatever faction is in control in any given moment on any given acre of land, has a 23% literacy rate for women. According to the same source, http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/, 30% of girls have access to education. That obviously translates to something different from what you've presented here.

Unless, of course, you're saying you know more about Afghan women than they know themselves.

The communists began to educate women and also bring universal health care to the population. It was a very progressive government but like most novices they went too fast, too quick and alienated the conservative element in society. Not to mention they put many people in jail.

But their goals were noble. However, the US government not wanting another communist government to deal with began to arm the opposition. This opposition were anticommunist and reactionary and conservative. The communist government fell in 1994 and the rest is history. In foreign policy terms it is called 'blowback' as the people who the USA supported turned against the USA.

One cannot blame Islam per se but what can blame ideology behind the Islamic movements. The soviet union was a progressive state that attempted to educate muslim women from the very beginning. Now, conservative elements are in place and women are beginning to become illiterate once more in certain postSoviet societies.

Is it me, or does this post seem thoroughly retarded? I think so. I guess we should forget that the "progressive" Soviet Union would murder entire towns? I guess we should forget the "progressive" Soviet Union starved millions of its own citizens? Didn't have a free press? Jailed political dissidents?

How very progressive. JESUS.

antishock8 wrote:
Is it me, or does this post seem thoroughly retarded? I think so. I guess we should forget that the "progressive" Soviet Union would murder entire towns? I guess we should forget the "progressive" Soviet Union starved millions of its own citizens? Didn't have a free press? Jailed political dissidents?

How very progressive. JESUS.

At least they educated the women. They may have been wrong about everything else, but at least they educated the women.

harmony wrote:

antishock8 wrote:
Is it me, or does this post seem thoroughly retarded? I think so. I guess we should forget that the "progressive" Soviet Union would murder entire towns? I guess we should forget the "progressive" Soviet Union starved millions of its own citizens? Didn't have a free press? Jailed political dissidents?

How very progressive. JESUS.

At least they educated the women. They may have been wrong about everything else, but at least they educated the women.

Yeah. At least the trains ran on time.

antishock8 wrote:Yeah. At least the trains ran on time.

Touché

Daniel Peterson wrote:Prejudice against women in rural areas doesn't mean that absolutely no women receive any education at all in those areas. And the fact that the central government in Kabul believes in the education of women doesn't mean that all women in Kabul receive educations. I don't believe in such a black-and-white absurdity, and asserted no such thing. Besides which, I've been around the Third World enough to know what government schools tend to be like even in the capital city.

You said in rural areas, which is what most of the country is comprised of, it's the backward men who keep their women and girls from being educated. Now what religion rules Afghanistan, and is especially entrenched in rural Afghanistan? Oh yes. Islam. What drives how people interact with each other in rural Afghanistan? Oh yes. Very traditional Islam. What most influences the men in power in rural Afghanistan? Oh yes. Very patriarchal Islam.

I see it as no stretch to put Islam at the base of the problem of 87% of Afghan women being illiterate and 70% of Afghan girls never attending school, since Islam is what drives Afghan men. While remoteness may contribute to the issue, and poverty is definitely in the mix, to deny that Islam, a conservative, traditional, patriarchal Islam, but no one would confuse it with any other religion, is at the base is simply willful blindness.

If the leaders, all Islamic and faithful, were truly living their religion (if you are to be believed), we'd see women's literacy rates at least the equivalent of men's, across the country. But we don't. We'd see schools of girls sprouting up across the country, instead of being burned down. We'd see all young girls being encouraged to gain an education. But we don't. We'd see 90% of young girls attending school, instead of a miserable 30%. We'd see 87% of women as literate, not 87% as illiterate.

Your friend, the Minister of Education, is doing a piss poor job, Daniel. And he's a Muslim.

Perhaps it would be most correct to say that traditional conservative patriarchal Islam, which holds power in certain sections of the globe, including most of Afghanistan, does not allow education for women and girls. That way, your more progressive friends can be held blameless for the appalling literacy rates in much of Afghanistan, the burned schools become not their problem, the girls killed for attending school become not their problem. And you don't have to acknowledge the plight of Afghan women either. A win-win for you and your Islamic friends! Of course, 87% of Afghan women are still illiterate, but your Islamic friends can wash their hands of the situation and never worry about blaming their conservative, traditional, patriarchal religious counterparts.

Stay away, far away, from a career in social justice, Daniel. You're much better suited for academia or politics.

Incidentally, in your earlier post you said that 23% of Afghan women are literate. Please decide which it is.

My source says 87% of Afghan women are illiterate. You do the math.

harmony wrote:Did I mention that I wasn't born yesterday?

Yes, as a matter of fact. If I'm not mistaken, you've indicated that you're really, really old.

Yeah, I'm your age.