Pakistan’s sickening massacre isn’t about religion – it’s about intimidation

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/pakistan-sickening-massacre-not-religion-intimidation

To survive as a country Pakistan needs to map out a road to peace, with the army, politicians and the people rallying under a unifying cause

Bina Shah
theguardian.com, Tuesday 16 December 2014 13.38 GMT


Schoolchildren rescued by the army leave following an attack at a school in Peshawar, Pakistan. ‘Those killed are of the same religion as the attackers claim to follow.’ Photograph: Bilawal Arbab/EPA

Last week I wept with pride as Malala Yousafzai collected her Nobel Peace prize in Oslo, next to Kailash Satyarthi. The world stopped to listen as she gave her acceptance speech, in which she said:

“It is time to take action so it becomes the last time, the last time, so it becomes the last time that we see a child deprived of education … Let us become the first generation to decide to be the last, let us become the first generation that decides to be the last that sees empty classrooms, lost childhoods, and wasted potentials.”

We watched as Malala received the award and raised it high, able to smile with only half her face but all of her heart. She announced later that she intended to return to Pakistan in 2015, yet another marker of her triumph over the terrorists that tried to deprive her not just of education, but of her life.

We then saw a photograph of Malala as she toured the Nobel museum: when she saw her blood-spattered uniform, the one she was wearing when she was shot by the Taliban, she burst into tears. Kailash, who she calls a second father, had to comfort her as she buried her head in his shoulder.

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. The author makes the assumption

that it can't be both.

[MellowDem]

2. Yep....

And it sure looks like both. Religion has been in the intimidation business a long time.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. In fact the Taliban in Pakistan is attempting to destroy

the relatively secular Pakistani state in order to impose a theocracy, and this attack was part of that. Claiming that this is not about religion is nonsense.

[rug]

76. That's refreshing. You usually say it's one.

[trotsky]

3. Of course, because it's NEVER about religion.

A lot of us think there are many factors, INCLUDING religion. Extremists like the author of this piece are disturbing.

"The children who were killed are of the same religion as the attackers claim to follow."

The attackers would not say the people they kill are following the same religion as them. Why does this author lump all Muslims together?

[skepticscott]

4. Yeah, Sunni MUSLIMS would never kill Shiite MUSLIMS

Protestant CHRISTIANS would never, ever, ever kill Catholic CHRISTIANS.

Sheesh, where do people find these brain-dead hacks?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. The taliban has no problem killng sunni muslims who are not behaving

according to their extreme interpretation of their religion.

[trotsky]

7. It's not about religion SO STOP SAYING THAT!!! n/t

[rug]

78. Neither does the CIA.

[trotsky]

19. Equality of women and homosexuals is just an "accepted liberty in the West"?

Shouldn't we view those as fundamental human rights?

[trotsky]

34. I reserve the right to judge ANY society or religion...

that does not view all human beings as equal.

[trotsky]

73. Sorry, I have nothing to say to someone who thinks that

Native Americans are "little removed from savagery."

[Warren Stupidity]

36. I have no idea what that word salad meant.

But you seem to be continuing your apologetics for denying people fundamental rights based on cultural relativism.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. "I tend to to be sympathetic to Muslims because their societies clearly work" - wtf?

This has got to be the most fucked up example of cultural relativism I've seen on DU. Oh and by the way "slaughter like this" was routine throughout history and not some by-product of western civilization.

[trotsky]

21. Yeah, they "work" great.

As long as you're not a woman. Or gay. We really shouldn't judge. Unless they're atheists, we can definitely judge them. DAWKSIN!!!111 said something sexist, that proves atheists have a sexism problem. But the society that subjugates women as part of their official holy law? Mustn't judge!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Seeing someone claim 'You have not got the ability to judge objectively your own culture' is like

watching a snake trying to eat its own tail.

[okasha]

69. I wish we could rec individual posts.

I'd rec this one.

You're speaking of Muslims, but you've also just stated very clearly what most whites do not get about Native Americans. Thank you.

Welcome to DU. And please feel welcome in the Interfaith Group, too.

[trotsky]

70. Sorry your new friend got a post deleted for insulting Native Americans.

But you're right, he probably would be welcome in your private club.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Did you read his hidden post, the one where he called native americans "savages"?

Where he said this: "I worked with native Americans and grew up with them when these people were in fact, little removed from savagery".

Still want to rec this individual's posts?

[rug]

79. I'd rather read the alert message you sent.

[okasha]

102. So would I.

Sweeney understands cultural imperialism and how devastating it can be to a people.

This one-- no comment.

[rug]

104. His lack of understanding does not prevent him from using it to his purposes.

[trotsky]

41. Damn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Your assertion that indigenous people were "little removed from savagery"

in your lifetime is an astoundingly bigoted statement that, to me, indicates that you do not belong here.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. "Muslims in particular" are indeed slaughtering each other with abandon right now.

In case you hadn't noticed. But that was not my point, other than to note that this slaughter is not a by-product of western technology, which was your other ridiculous assertion upthread.

No my primary objection was to your astounding rejection of basic human rights in favor of cultural relativistic apologetics. You appear to have doubled-down on that nonsense, although you seem to have TL;DR strategy.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. "World status" is mindless nationalistic noise to me.

Christians are indeed fucking with our politics, but less so as time goes on, and we have tools like our court systems for redress, so no, I'd completely reject this claim.

When a Christian asshole shoots Dr. Tiller, he is still arrested and prosecuted for murder, even in our christen-dominated, heavily right-wing anti-abortion society.

So, given a choice, I'd live here, not there. Thanks. (Not to say there aren't other countries in the world, that are better at protecting the rights of the citizens, than the US, just on a strict comparison between the US and the nations you are referring to.)

[Leontius]

82. You broke my bullshit meter

[truebrit71]

11. Of course it's about religion....

The Taliban are using these cowardly tactics of intimidation to impose their religious beliefs onto others...

They aren't massacring innocent children in an attempt to force them to stop watching Barnie the fucking dinosaur for crying out loud..

[rug]

77. Wel, now, let's hear about those "many factors".

Because if you acknowlledge that, harping on only one, as you do throughout this thread, is intellectually dishonest.

[pinto]

8. Also heard it called an act of desperation this morning. Targeting school children.

The very definition of soft target, in a literal & physical sense.

The speaker was a journalist well known for covering the region and the various groups vying for control there - forget his name.

[cbayer]

9. I have no words for these monsters.

This is how religion is used as a tool to justify madness, but it is only madness.

If anyone still thinks this is about religion, and not a political struggle with the barest patina of religion as justification for this war, they need only come to Peshawar to attend the funerals of the children, who will be buried before the sun goes down, in the Islamic tradition. They have only to hear what their parents will say, the customary response to the news of a Muslim’s death: to Him we belong and to Him we will return. The children who were killed are of the same religion as the attackers claim to follow. This is not about religion: this is about power, intimidation and revenge.

[skepticscott]

10. Religion has been at the heart of "political" struggles

for many centuries. People want political control as a means to impose religious dictates. What this dope is trying to peddle is just as ridiculous as saying that religion has nothing to do with motivating political behavior in the United States.

Of course it does.

Please, find an author with a brain wave next time, not just one mindlessly stumping for your agenda.

And stop trying to conflate religion and mental illness. You go ballistic any time anyone else here does that, so try being an example.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It can't be about religion because it is madness.

And as we know any association of mental illness with religion is an act of extreme bigotry. Therefore any religious act that "is madness", to quote a professional in the field of psychology, can't be religious.

[skepticscott]

16. It's an act of extreme bigotry

Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

except, apparently, when folks from the yacht club and their cronies do it. Then it's just their opinion, and as valid as anyone else's.

No doubt we can expect a lot of rationalizations for the definition of "madness" now. In direct and hypocritical contradiction to the rules that were laid down for the use of the word "delusional" by the yacht clubbers and truffle lovers.

[Leontius]

84. Well I guess that word salad would make sense if religious belief gave imunity

from individuals having a mental illness but no one claims it does.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. To quote a superior intellect amongst us:

"This is how religion is used as a tool to justify madness, but it is only madness."

[Sweeney]

18. If you cannot convince the mind

kill the body. And yes, from our perspective it is certainly mad. And though the people may love their children and follow them with hope, life is cheap, and everyone knows it. The worse life becomes for believers the more the look with envy at the dead. And I agree it is about politics and power, but I hope it steels the resolve of those people fighting against these monsters. Who can make a deal with such people. Who can be certain enough to turn a back to them. The taliban may be hardy and determined fighters. Will they ever be able to give up the fight enough to sit back and settle down.

Sweeney

[cbayer]

40. As long as there is a pool of desperate individuals with nothing to live for,

they will have recruits. I don't foresee them giving up the fight, sitting back or settling down.

[Sweeney]

49. Perhaps they each see their life as pre-life,

And see their after life as preferable in every sense to the hell they live. Even in this outrage they do not so attack the dead as they attack the living. They can send the wicked to hell, but to deny the Just Paradise is not within their power. I can imagine that they thought they did the dead no injury what so ever, and that their injury was aimed solely at the living.

Sweeney

[cbayer]

51. The most consistently strong correlation is between economic level

and religiosity.

The poorer and more marginalized, the greater the religiousness.

As you say, when your life on earth is unbearable, it's not surprising that one would hope for another life.

But it's a really hard stretch for me to make to reach the conclusion that they may have thought they were doing these children no harm.

Really hard.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. I'm going to have to start bookmarking these disgusting fucking posts

for the next time some mealy-mouthed hand-waving master in deflection starts crying about how 'nobody ever says religion had nothing to do with XYZ, links pls.', and we're being assholes for suggesting anyone would say such a thing..

[edhopper]

14. The Taliban want a religious state

They are so devout they think their religion should dominate every aspect of life.
All laws and institutions subservient to their idea of Islam.
So did they disregard their religion completely when they did this, or do they believe they were acting in complete compliance to the God they follow?

[edhopper]

15. It wasn't about slavery,

It was about States' Rights.

Yup.

[cbayer]

23. I first heard this when I moved to the south and was shocked by how the story

was so different.

What I finally concluded was that it was about money, and slavery was the source of the money.

Things like this are often very complicated and can't be dismissed as just about one thing and not about other things.

[trotsky]

24. "can't be dismissed as just about one thing"

NO ONE IS DOING THAT.

The author of the piece that you obviously liked and posted, is claiming to know that religion is NOT, in ANY way, a factor in this.

Everyone who has posted on this thread that they disagree has indicated that they believe religion WAS a factor. Not the ONLY factor, as you are insisting your straw man says.

Can you please at least stop with the straw men?

[edhopper]

25. It was about slavery

the States' Rights bullshit is a way for Antebellum apologists to make it sound like a noble cause.

That one of the most fundamentalist Muslim groups in the world did this and religion was not involved is absurd.

[cbayer]

26. I just said is was about slavery. Why are you arguing with me?

Some groups are cloaked in religion but driven by other things. These were muslims killing muslims and it was about revenge and the taliban is about much more than religion. Sorry if you think my POV on this is "absurd".

Nice to see you today. Ramping up with the insults right away, I see.

Perhaps I will let you be. Not interested in helping you score points.

bye.

[edhopper]

28. I didn't get that from your post

my bad for misreading that you agreed it was about slavery.

I was responding to the article in the OP who does say religion has nothing to do with it, that is absurd.

I am not sure if you have said you agree with that or not, but I was replying to the article, not you.

[trotsky]

37. As the group responsible said themselves, religion was a factor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/pakistan-premier-lifts-death-penalty-moratorium-following-school-massacre.html

Muhammad Khurasani, the Taliban spokesman, said the school had been selected for the attack because it serves predominantly children of military personnel.

“Our shura decided to target these enemies of Islam right in their homes so they can feel the pain of losing their children,” he said.

And once again, the only person seemingly obsessed with "scoring points" is you.

[skepticscott]

29. And yet, the headline of the article YOU posted does EXACTLY that

It says that the massacre is all about intimidation and not about religion at all.

If you actually think that, why do you post things that say exactly the opposite?

[Warren Stupidity]

35. The poster is at this point carefully avoiding a clear statement of support

for the position expressed in the OP she posted.

[longship]

44. The Religion Group is an open forum for any religious post.

And there are very many available. One can post just about anything relating to religion here, and many do.

But it would be wrong to infer that the person posting the OP agrees with the position of the author of the content. The extent that one interprets it that way is the extent to which one does not understand the purpose of the Religion Group.

Please do not reflect the opinion of the author on the person posting the article.

Also, to some here, stop making personal attacks. (Really? Yachts????) Childish rubbish.

[skepticscott]

50. Are you speaking for cbayer now?

Are you presuming to answer for her about why she posts an article with a premise that is diametrically opposed to what she claims is an important principle? Does she have no opinion of her own about it, other than "more at link"? And sorry, but when you post someone else's bullshit, it becomes your bullshit too, lame denials such as "I just put this out there for discussion" notwithstanding.

If you think something is a "personal attack", you're free to alert on it (I suspect someone already did and failed embarrassingly). We hear so many bogus complaints here about "personal attacks", "bullying", "harrassing" and "stalking" from the usual suspects that they're just background noise, and basically meaningless.

[longship]

54. I will stand by my post.

Discussion in the Religious group should be open to all opinions. And it would be wrong to infer a poster's opinion from the content of an OP. I would take the post as a point of discussion, while some seem to take it as another opportunity for personal attacks.

As to cbayer's behavior here. She will have to speak for that. And yes, I consider her a friend, as I do all who post here. I find it sad that not all reciprocate that feeling. IMHO, the Religion Group might be a much nicer place if we all took that attitude.

Disagreement does not mean disrespect, or an excuse for personal attack. And that goes for all of us, including my good friend, cbayer, and the many others here who I would call friend and respect whether we agree, or not. It would surprise some of you that I would include you in that category. As far as I am concerned, I have no enemies here.

But stalking, bullying, and above all, personal attacks are not something I can support here. It is not meaningless. If one has an argument, make it.

Admittedly, the DU jury system has its problems. But I support it as it is because I see DU as a self-policing forum. We tolerate bad behavior, but there is a line. MIRT is the backstop. Group and Forum hosts only enforce the group TOS. Here, that is fairly tolerant, which I wholly support. But that does not mean that I condone personal attacks, by anybody, including my friends here. And BTW the "yacht" label is just fucking childish.

Let's act like adults.

[skepticscott]

57. When I see you respond directly to cbayer

to scold her personally about an attack on someone else, then you'll have some crediblity on this topic. As it is, you're displaying a glaring double standard, for reasons which everyone knows, so it's frankly impossible to take you seriously.

I stand by my posts as well, and my opinions about what people here pretend to be.

[longship]

59. I think I responded to all here in my last post.

And I will never condone personal attacks here, from friends or foes.

Invitations by anybody for me to make a personal attack on another will be ignored by me. I think that is exactly what we all need to set aside. Wouldn't you agree?

I have nobody on ignore because I value everybody's opinion, even those who apparently do not like me very much. I do not judge people by those criteria.

For instance, your posts are very often right on target. At least, when you comment on content and not personality. I try to do only the former. But in this case, since the topic has come up, I am posting about the latter.

And no, I am not claiming to be perfect in this regard. But I try very hard to practice what I preach, so to speak.

I just see no justification for personal attacks here.

There was an absolutely awesome thread here the other day, with contributors from all sides. I read every single response. It was one of the best Religion group threads I had read in months.
Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218167923

That's what I want to see more of here.

As always,
My best regards.

[skepticscott]

60. If you wanted to admonish EVERYONE in the group

about making what, in your personal opinion, are "attacks", you would have done it in an open post, instead of putting in a response directly to me. You would never have put such a scold in a post to cbayer, ever, and we both know that. Not only did you not have the forthrightness to address a complaint about me directly to me, you show your bias and lack of impartiality quite clearly.

If you're not presuming to speak for someone else, let them speak for themselves next time, unless they're instructing you to do otherwise.

[longship]

63. I apologize, Scott.

I certainly did not intend to make this about you. I thought I made it fairly clear that I was posting about the group as a whole. If I failed, mea culpa. Suffice it to say. I regret it if anybody took it that way.

In these forums, it is easy to post a response to the thread under another response. Again, I am sorry.

Best regards.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. I'm finding that hard to believe.

No offense but:

Also, to some here, stop making personal attacks. (Really? Yachts????) Childish rubbish.

and

I certainly did not intend to make this about you.

cannot be reconciled.

Please feel free to start an op about *everyone* making personal attacks, and please feel free to include examples from both sides of the endless war here. That would be a good way to address the group as a whole.

[longship]

67. Well, I think it would be best to not have a war at all.

Instead, have a vigorous discussion. And I did not intend to imply that *everyone* is making personal attacks. If you took it that way, my apologies.

As I posted above in this thread, this Religion Group post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218167923
is an example of respectful discussion, without personal attacks (at least when I posted to it).

Why can't we keep on doing things like that?

Why would anybody want to have it any other way?

Why would anybody want to make this about the person instead of the topic?

And one has to admit that the yacht comment was an exemplar of a personal attack, totally unconnected to the topic at hand. That is the kind of cheap shot I would expect of grade school, not an adult forum.

And the extent to which people here do not understand that... Well, let's just say that they might be mistaken.

I respect your opinion, but not if it defends personal attacks.

My regards.

[skepticscott]

71. As Warren so aptly pointed out

you absolutely did intend to make this about me, you just didn't quite have the gumption to do it directly. It would have been equally easy to post your scold in response to a post of cbayer's, but oddly enough, you deliberately chose me instead. No one here believes it was pure chance where your pointer landed.

As far as apologies, I don't put much stock in them, especially when people have obviously thought long and hard beforehand. I judge by behavior that is free of bias and hypocrisy, not by words. Sound like advice you've heard before?

[longship]

75. Well...

I suggest that if one has a disagreement here, one should address the topic, not the person.

What I find particularly bad here is not people's opinions, but their behavior, which is a bit shabby at times. And yes, we all tread over the line on occasion.

What's important is to pull back from the brink and not double down. The yacht comment was a despicable ad hominem. As a skeptic, I expect that you know what that is.

My regards.

[hrmjustin]

80. I think you do a great job as a host and have nothing to apologize for.

[longship]

81. I just wish people would get along better.

And not make stupid, barely veiled, ad hominem attacks. (As if they were fooling anybody.)

It is what hurts all of us.

And I thank you, Justin.

My best.

[hrmjustin]

83. most of the problems here are personality clashes and less to do with religion at times.

I put three here on ignore. I don't know how long I will keep them there for but i will not listen to people insult me anymore.

Remember that since the new jury system rules started this room has gotten worse.

I bite my tongue a lot because most jurors don't get the back history here.

It will not change.

[longship]

85. I have used ignore in the past, but only temporarily.

Just to cool things off. I have zero on ignore now, and as long as I am a host in the group I will maintain that status. But I would likely do the same even if I were not a host. I have no complaint with people just because we do not agree. That's my way.

What some here maybe do not understand is that I am a militant, lifelong atheist. But I am not an anti-theist. I don't give a fuck what people believe. What tells me about a person is how they behave, not what they think.

Why is it that I always seem to get my britches in a bunch here, not about beliefs, but about behavior?

Let's get along. It is much more fun that way. What could be better?

People say never discuss religion or politics. I'd very much like to prove them wrong. Who is with me?

[hrmjustin]

88. Your sin is you a friendly and defend a certain poster here.

Your sin is you don't like bullying and when you see it you stand up for people.

I have seen you stand up for others on this board who never post in here.


As for this room certain people eill not get along and there are bitter feelings. It is so bitter that people respond to people here daily even though they know the other one has them on ignore.

Yes I know two of the people I don't get along with have me on ignore and I once ansd awhile respond to them but not on a daily basis. I never got the logic to constantly responding to someone when they know the poster has them on ignore.

I took a 2 month break from this room after the whole religious privilege debate in this room. And I no longer post ops here but I will not allow people to drive me completely away. The ignore function works and I no longer have to read one of my biggest detractors in this room.

Since I am host of interfaith I can't put all I don't get along with on ignore but I can put some on ignore. We will see how long I last this time.


You do a great job and don't let anyone get you down.

[longship]

89. I take your support as a compliment.

Especially since my position is not so friendly to theists, which I know you are. But, as I say, what people believe is not as important as how they act. And you act a whole lot better than many of my brethren, I am sad to say.

Just don't get uppity and start with the theism promotes ethics rubbish.

[hrmjustin]

90. I am used to criticism on my faith.

My biggest critics are my parents.

[longship]

91. ROFL! Baptism by fire? nt

[hrmjustin]

92. My parents are not believers.

They have no defined beliefs but are clearly anti-organized religion and do not believe i. The docrtines of tge RCC of ehich they were born into.

[okasha]

99. What Justin said.

And totally OT--

I had dinner this evening with friends at a Mexican vegetarian restaurant, and they had out-of-this-world delicious tamales with cheese and spinach. If you can find them up there in the frozen north, you will love them.

[longship]

100. I love tamales.

My twin sister brought me some from Grand Rapids, MI on a recent visit here, only these were pork. And boy were they authentic and yummy, however a bit bland. (I had to smother them in Cholula. )

Thank you.

[okasha]

101. I remember your post on Thanksgiving.

Last edited Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:18 AM - Edit history (1)

A little salsa brightens these up, too.

[skepticscott]

93. OMG, that's too funny

First you say:

What's important is to pull back from the brink and not double down

And then what do you do, in the very next sentence?? DOUBLE DOWN!:

The yacht comment was a despicable ad hominem



Now answer honestly: Did that statement increase or decrease acrimony?

At least you're no longer pretending that this isn't about me. And in fact, nothing about yachts is anything but a harmless jibe that causes no one any harm or distress that you can cite. But keep it coming, dude...we're glad to see the real you exposed for all to see.

[longship]

95. The yacht comment is part of what this all about, SkepticScott.

It was a sleazy ad hominem and the person who posted it knows damned well that it was precisely that and nothing more.

I have no use for those who would do that instead of rational argument. And there is far too much of that bullshit here.

Again, this DU thread illustrates how to have reasoned discussion in spite of disagreements, even in the Religion Group. (On edit: On top of that, it is a very informative discussion.)

I just wish some here would learn simple manners. One can disagree without maligning the person with whom one disagrees. It is called respectful disagreement, just like I am doing with you.

And yes, I am pissed about this. But I will get over it. The question is... Will people learn to respect others here, in spite of difference of opinions? I hope so. It's not about opinions. It's about behavior. And no, I do not claim to be a white lily. But I try damned hard to be reasonable with everybody.

I've spoken my peace.

My regards.

[longship]

98. No, I will not relent.

Harmless jibe? Hardly.

A personal attack, don't you mean? And my scorn goes to such activities.

It is what makes this place suck.

[NYC_SKP]

103. Well.

The jury has spoken. Usually I don't vote to hide, but...

[Warren Stupidity]

105. So are you going to go over to this post and admonish the poster?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=170262

The only intention of that post was to start a fight. Please do show that you are concerned about all the bullshit being flung here.

[trotsky]

106. A legitimate theological question. An opportunity for discussion.

Attacked out of the gate as "flamebait." How rude! Why I'm sure noble longship will jump right over there to publicly berate and admonish that individual. Since he's stated he wants respectful discussion, that is.

[longship]

107. Thread was locked because of the many personal attacks.

By many. So action was taken.

[Warren Stupidity]

108. Right. What A Fucking Farce.

I note this flamefest here is unlocked.

Since when are hosts, who are supposed to lock off topic posts, and for some forums ban people, now supposed to monitor threads and lock based on discussions within an op? That is some serious host bullshit going on.

Still waiting for you to admonish cbayer for her endless personal attacks on anyone who posts something she disapproves of.

[longship]

110. I am not going to take that bait, my friend. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

111. Perhaps you and your fellow self appointed mods should lock this divisive thread too.

[longship]

112. I had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

I was mostly offline this afternoon reading a book.

I did not read the PM about it until the post was already locked.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. wait WHAT?

This was not a consensus act? What the flying fuck. I'm very sorry. I assumed, foolish me, that this was the consensus of the religion hosts. As a host you need to do something about THAT.

[longship]

114. I will bring it up, but all hosts are not always available.

Sometimes a decision is made on the basis of a consensus of available hosts. That's just the practical way to do it.

[Warren Stupidity]

115. Look there hasn't been a locked op in this forum in ages.

The fact that this op was locked for reasons other than being off topic is way beyond host authority. It is disturbing, to say the least, and as it stinks of partisanship it is doing just the opposite of its alleged intentions.

[pokerfan]

116. Not according to the message

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by pinto (a host of the Religion group).

(emphasis mine)

[longship]

117. Well, I think...

I think the off-topic thing happens automatically when a host locks a thread.

That is why it is standard procedure for the locking host to post a locking thread message in the thread just before it is locked, which was apparently done.

It is the last post in the thread.

[pokerfan]

118. So we're back to having moderators, I guess. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Then you are wrong.

"This is how religion is used as a tool to justify madness, but it is only madness."

Even if we ONLY used the OP as a starting point for discussion, that little deflection/apologia was dropped upthread, outside the OP, so said poster has indeed staked out a position on a hill that looks precarious to defend.

The source documentation for the religion under current discussion, contains institutionalized exhortations to such behavior. Good luck pretending it is 'madness' rather than actual expression of some codified elements of a religion, even if not all adherents to said religion engage in it.

[longship]

61. Well then argue the point!

There are many OPs here which I disagree with. And others which I find outright offensive.

But I never attribute the opinion of the person who wrote the linked article to the person who posted it. Again, I see the DU Religion Group as a place to discuss religion, or the lack thereof, without any limits on allowable topics, as long as it abides by the group's TOS which, in case people have not read it recently, is quite broad.

So there will inevitably be OPs here which one will find disagreeable. But the purpose of this group is to discuss these things, not to malign people for posting them. If one has an argument, make it. But leave personality out of it. After all, this isn't grade school playground.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. This thread fork did start with arguing the point.

And the negative commentary is informed by the excerpt I just posted, as it was posted fully yesterday. It reads as a clear statement that the poster agrees with the content of the OP, personally.


That said, I think you responded upthread in the wrong area, because the upthread post chain didn't contain any personal attacks about yachts that I saw.

[longship]

65. Well, as I recently posted here, I am responding to the thread in general, not any individual.

I am on an iPhone, so scrolling through the thread is problematic. I apologize if that is a problem. Mea culpa. No broadband here in the national forest of west Michigan. We barely have cell towers.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. No worries, that makes sense.

I only mentioned it, in case you weren't aware that it was posted there.

[longship]

68. Thank you, my friend.

I just want there to be more discussion and fewer personal attacks here. The former is stimulating; the latter serves absolutely no purpose, IMHO.

When I disagree here, I do so respectfully. Or, at least I try to do as such. And if I slip, I am very willing to make amends and do a mea culpa.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. No personal attacks is ideal.

Problematic though, in this venue. Trade lesser barbs with someone you disagree with long enough, and it grows into something much bigger, and then an enduring grudge match. Especially given the severity and contentious nature of this particular subject, and the incredibly varied worldviews from which we approach the subject.

There are certainly people here that I have no remaining patience for. When I perceive someone, over a span of time and threads, as being intentionally deceptive, I drop all veneer of civility, and let rip.

Honestly, I should use ignore to enforce a cooling off period, but I didn't, and now outright hostilities exist. Each person who posts here has a different array of posters they might not get along with anymore. There's some overlap, I suppose.

[longship]

96. I get what you posted.

I am with you 100%.

About ignore... I have nobody on ignore. There's no point in it. If some people don't like me, that's their issue, not mine. I don't dislike anybody here, so my ignore list is empty. In the past I have used the ignore list briefly as a very temporary cooling off. I prefer to sort things out in the forum.

But that's me. YMMV.

And there's a reason why people say never discuss religion or politics. A religion group within a partisan political forum? Oy vey! Are we ever in trouble!?




I will persevere, nonetheless. Hopefully, friendly.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. I'm just curious if you are going to admonish cbayer for her endless

personal attacks on anyone she believes has violated her rules for proper discussion here. Please let me know when that will be happening.

[trotsky]

72. Don't hold your breath, Warren.

At least the double standard couldn't be clearer.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. I don't think you even heard the whooshing sound of that point going over your head.

[skepticscott]

22. Funny, isn't it

How people who claim to want meaningful discussion abandon a thread without a word when the discussion doesn't take the direction that suits their agenda.

[MADem]

27. I think it was revenge--an eye for an eye.

There were certainly other motivators in play, but they wanted to play the "You be mean to me, I be mean to you" game. Thing is, though, the Taliban hide behind women, children and the elderly, they use them as de facto human shields. The Taliban weren't attacking the Army and hit the children as collateral damage, they went to the school where the children were being educated and deliberately killed those kids.

I don't think the Taliban counted on the international sense of revulsion their actions have engendered, though. They're starting to figure it out.

[cbayer]

30. I also think it was about revenge and cowardly.

They chose these children because many of them are the children of local police.

[MADem]

31. No, those children were mostly the kids of Army officer and enlisted personnel.

That was the school on the military base in Peshawar. The kids left their homes in military housing and went to their "neighborhood" (i.e. "on base&quot school.

Those kids were targeted because they were the children of the military.

?resize=624%2C530

[cbayer]

32. Sorry, I read that incorrectly.

You are right.

[okasha]

86. Oh, snap.

Got it in one.

For those who don't get it, these killings directly disobey Muhammad's prohibition on killing women, children and elderly persons. The extent to which they are fighting "the enemies of Islam" is the precise extent to which the Taliban are fighting their own enemies.

[longship]

39. The extent to which one claims that this isn't about religion...

...is the extent to which one is blind and deaf to what is going on.

I suggest people who think that way consult with Malala.

Hope you are doing well, my friend.

[cbayer]

42. That author, who seems qualified to speak to this, says there is a "patina"

of religion.

Pakistan is probably the most rigidly religious country in the region. I can't get much more Muslim. While there are shiites in the country, the majority are Sunni, just like the taliban.

They are at war with the government and say themselves that this was about revenge.

While I do not argue that the taliban are religiously driven, this particular event is about more than that.

Here is the statement from Malala, btw:

“Innocent children in their school have no place in horror such as this,” said Yousafzai, who is now studying in Britain after her long recovery from wounds inflicted by a Taliban gunman in 2012 in Pakistan’s Swat Valley. “I condemn these atrocious and cowardly acts.”

“I am heartbroken by this senseless and cold blooded act of terror in Peshawar that is unfolding before us … I condemn these atrocious and cowardly acts and stand united with the government and armed forces of Pakistan,” she added.

Hope you are well as well.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. Hey hosts why is this flamefest of bad feelings with multiple hides not locked?

Huh?

Why is that?