Daniel Peterson wrote:The distinction between the government in Kabul and the Taliban ought to be clear enough from the fact that they're trying to kill one another. They're locked in a brutal war with each other. It hardly seems necessary to point out, in that light, that their visions of the future of Afghanistan differ somewhat.
I'm a bit fuzzy this morning, due to pain meds for the fibromyalgia, so I may not be articulating well what I'm trying to say on this post.
Catholics and Protestants in Ireland are generally locked in conflict too, and have been for generations, but they are both Christian. No one denies that they are both Christian. No one tries to make out like one is less Christian than the other. And they are both to blame for the war that has torn that country asunder for generations. They both feel they have equal claim to the country, and they probably don't remember the roots of the issue because it was so long ago, but initially (If I recall correctly) it was the Irish Catholics wanting to push the upstart English Protestants off the island. Holy war, with political shadings. A lot of similiarities with Afghanistan. Yet no one denies that religion (in this case, Christianity) is at the base of the problem.
The difference ought also to have been clear when I pointed out that, while the Muslim Taliban oppose the education of women, the Muslim government in Kabul is trying to educate women.
I don't disagree with this, and haven't since Page 2. You just choose to ignore that you confused the discussion, when on Page 4, you conflated the two brands of Islam with your comment that the government in Kabul is "just as Muslim as rural Afghanistan". So... the government, charged with educating Afgham women and achieving an amazing 87% illiteracy success rate so far, is
just as Muslim as rural Afghanistan. Rural Afghanistan is the Taliban. Ultra conservative, ultran patriarchal, ultra anti-women's education. And you said they are "just as Muslim" as the government in Kabul.
I'm sure you can see how this might not have been the most clarifying of statements. Instead of clarifying, you confused. No, let me take that back. I'm not at all sure you would ever admit that your statement confused the discussion and thus shoulder your share of the blame for the ensuing firestorm.
And yet, the bottom line is 87% of Afghan women are illiterate. Girls' schools are burned, teachers and girl students are murdered. And no matter what brand of Islam is to blame... the Taliban, for actively suppressing education for women... or the more mainstream government, for being systematically unable to complete their appointed mission in regards to educating women... it's all still Islam. So you cannot disregard religion... in this case Islam... as not a major factor in the problem, just as it would be foolish to disregard religion as a major factor in the Irish problem.
And the fact that I make a distinction between the Taliban and the Muslims of Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Indonesia, and etc., should have been clear from the way I contrasted them -- over and over and over again. It should have been obvious, too, from the fact, which I mentioned several times, that even the Islamic Republic of Iran denounced the treatment of women under the Taliban.
You have yet to disprove my point: the Taliban is Islam. Until you can disassociate the Taliban from Islam, my point remains. Thus, since the Taliban is what is keeping Afghan women from being educated, despite the best efforts of the also-Islamic government, Islam is at the foundation of the lack of education for Afghan women. What effect Islam, by whatever brand name, has on women's education in other countries obviously has no bearing on Afghan women's education. What effect Islam, by Taliban and Afghan government brand name, has on Afghan women's education is clear from the 87% illiteracy rate.
When I say that the Taliban and the government in Kabul are equally Muslim, you're supposed to have been able to understand that this means that Islam is not a single undifferentiated monolith.
They're both Islam. Therefore when I say the absymal education rate for women in Afghanistan can be laid at the door of Islam, it doesn't matter which brand of Islam is in charge, it's still Islam.
Poverty exists in every other country on your list. Rural areas exist that are far from major cities. Islam exists to an equally high degree in all those countries on your list. Yet they don't have the abysmal illiteracy rates in women. They have schools for girls in remote, poverty stricken areas. Their women are educated.
What is the deciding factor? The Taliban brand of Islam. It's still Islam though.
Methodists and Quakers are equally Christian, as are the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. But that doesn't mean that they're all the same. And it surely doesn't mean that you can generalize from Roman Catholic masses to Quaker masses, or from Roman Catholic priests to Quaker priests, or from the Catholic papacy to a Greek orthodox papacy.
No, but when conflicts based on religious differences occur within Christianity in a given country, no one blames poverty and geography. No one blames the generations long conflict in Ireland on poverty or geography; they blame it on the Irish Catholics trying to evict the Protestant English. It's political, yes... but it's religious at its base. We lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Christians, whether Catholic and/or Protestant.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
