5 ms·

It's interesting to see one commonality not mentioned by both the article and (so far) commenters. Boko Haram, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and Iran differ in al

by chroma 12y ago

It's interesting to see one commonality not mentioned by both the article and (so far) commenters. Boko Haram, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and Iran differ in almost every way one can compare: wealth, nationality, race, language, political views, and more. But they do share one thing besides the oppression of women. Have you guessed it yet? There are no Taoists throwing acid in the faces of women. There are no Buddhists massacring students. There are no Hindu dictatorships refusing to let women drive, or decreeing their testimony to be worth half that of a man's even in the case of rape. No Zoroastrian state punishes thieves with amputation. Some of these religions have had their share of atrocities in the past, but they are rather tame now. Many of them have adherents who are ignorant, poor, and oppressed (especially the Tibetan Buddhists), but the doctrines and traditions surrounding them seem less prone to cause violence and unnecessary suffering than a book endorsed by every group mentioned in the article. I truly wish it were otherwise.

vorador 12y ago
I'm glad you asked this question. The answer is probably not the one you're expecting though. Boko Haram, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia all share the same islamic doctrine: wahabism. Basically, Saudi Arabia bankrolled the spread of wahabism in the world in a bet to increase its influence. Iran is something else altogether, and I think that will see a lot more progress in the coming years. Everything is more complex than it appears initially. One last thing. There are no Buddhists massacring students. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-ma...
- chroma 12y ago
  Thank you for the counterexample. It sounds like you know more about this subject than I do. I was actually hesitant to mention Buddhism, since it was partially responsible for the kamikaze and other horrific acts. Still, it does seem that different religions inspire different practices when it comes to violence and human rights. Parts of Islam (specifically Wahhabism and Salafism) are particularly bad these days. The US certainly hasn't helped the situation, but getting attacked by Predator drones is no reason to stone adulterers to death. Lastly, I feel bad after commenting on this article. I don't think this article has much to contribute to HN, nor do I think HN will contribute much to the dialogue. Sexism + politics is a mix that few can discuss with civility. Now I've injected religion into the mix. I apologize.
  - Klapaucius 12y ago
    "I was actually hesitant to mention Buddhism, since it was partially responsible for the kamikaze and other horrific acts." Kamikaze has nothing to do with buddhism whatsoever. If you want to stick it to a religion, it would have to be shintoism, an animistic, purely Japanese religion.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
lotsofcows 12y ago
I get what you're saying but it's a bit unPC to slag off Christians in these days of oppression.
seanccox 12y ago
I have the distinct impression you are more interested in clinging to a racist narrative of history than you are in investigating the facts. Try this: enter the religion of your choice into a search field, followed by the victim of your choice, with "attack" in between. In this specific case, try "Buddhist attack women"; or "Hindu attack women". The results will refute your veiled Islamophobia.
- chroma 12y ago
  > I have the distinct impression you are more interested in clinging to a racist narrative of history than you are in investigating the facts. Since when is talking about religion racist? It is the epitome of hypocrisy to accuse someone of racism while assuming that everyone who looks the same must believe the same thing. Moreover, I'm indistinguishable from most members of two of the groups mentioned. > Try this: enter the religion of your choice into a search field, followed by the victim of your choice, with "attack" in between. I have no doubt that in a world of 7+ billion people, people of every creed (or lack of) do horrible things to each other. I think you and others have misconstrued my view. The argument I'm making is this: Religions significantly affect how their adherents behave. They change the treatment of women and children. They change propensities to violence. And judging from the examples mentioned in the article, they seem to be a significant factor in the difference in women's education. I'm certainly not saying any religion is evil or that certain religions should be banned. I think it's fine if people believe whatever they want. (And wear whatever they want, including veils or burkas.)
  - seanccox 12y ago
    You are correct: Rather than racist, the view you express is more accurately xenophobic. I want to address your assertion that I and others have misconstrued your view, because we have not. You draw a clear link between Islam and gender-based violence, even to the point of finding exceptions (contra-factual as they are). This approach to thinking about the world is essentially prejudiced, indicative either of both belligerent ignorance and the entitlement to pass judgement without examining facts. Furthermore, rather than exploring the reality of gender-based violence, you contemptuously use its existence as a bludgeon against specific parties. Your new thesis, that "religions significantly affect how their adherents behave", is undergraduate at best. The topic at hand is gender-based violence, which happens all over the world in many varied cultures and religions. Rather than using this article as an opportunity to take a cheap shot at Islam, you could examine the commonalities between the groups mentioned and other instances of gender-based violence. Consider that one-third of female US service personnel are raped by their colleagues. Does that have anything to do with Islam? Or religion? I think you should also reflect on the male privilege that is required to regard the subject of gender-based violence as an opportunity to make sweeping judgements about people and religions.
prof_hobart 12y ago
Or rather, ones from other groups tend not to get reported, like the Christian ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the CAR[1], or the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda[2], or the various Hindu terrorist groups [3] in India, or Buddhists in Myanmar[4}, etc, etc [1] http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/central-african-republic-ethnic-cleansing-sectarian-violence-2014-02-12 http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/central-african-republic-ethn... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army [3] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/19/india-hindu-terrorism-threat http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/19/... [4] http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/meiktila-report-may-2013.html http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/meiktila...
audunw 12y ago
What about christian states going back 100++ years? Consider that the US felt fine about interfering with Iran when they felt they had a too socialist leadership, but has not interfered much with e.g. Norway. Is it perhaps that the religion, skin-color and culture in these countries are different enough that westerner citizens don't complain when their government meddle with these places? Are we confusing correlation with causation? I must say, I too find it easy to draw conclusions, but considering the big perspective I'm not convinced this book you're hinting to is the root of the issue. And what solution are you getting at? Should we ban this book? Kill everyone who endorse it maybe?
xerophtye 12y ago
>But they do share one thing besides the oppression of women. Have you guessed it yet? Yep, they use islam as an excuse to justify their actions, but I am guessing what you want to say is: Islam is bad. It's the only religion/tradition that actually encourages this sort of behavior. I like that you admit that other religions/cultures also have bad histories, but then you pull this: >but the doctrines and traditions surrounding them seem less prone to cause violence and unnecessary suffering than a book endorsed by every group mentioned in the article. Now I am confused why you are actually believing a group of cruel, illiterate, barbaric militants on what a religion is about and choose to ignore what most other Muslims will tell you. >no Taoists throwing acid in the faces of women Do you really think that is a religious practice? Or that a religion would say "If you get angry at your wife, you get should throw acid in her face" ? This is just a social problem like any other (like drug addicts, street crime) that has nothing to do with the religion of the abusers. (I assume you are pointing to "Saving Face" that won the Oscar. Well i don't remember any of the abusers citing religion as a defense in that Documentary). As for Bomb blasts, Islamic law actually states very clearly that even in the state of war, soldiers may not harm civilians or burn down crops etc. In fact if an enemy soldier surrenders, the law requires that he must be ESCORTED to safety. As for women oppressing, and being against women education (and driving), that's a load of Bullshit too. Islamic has tons of provisions for women. For example, as far as i understand, western law states that when two people get married, their wealth is legally combined into one, right? And that when they divorce, they split up this total. Now in islamic law, not only does the husband not even get to TOUCH any of the woman's assets (yes she has right of personal wealth) but he may not take back any gift he gave her during their marriage. The law forbids it. Oh and the law obligates the husband to give the woman a wedding gift of her choice (she gets to set the worth as well) before consummating said marriage). And that's just one example. But i do admit that legally, a woman counts as half a witness (but do note, accusing of rape is different than giving testimony of seeing a rape). Oh and if you lie about a woman sleeping with someone, the legal penalty is 90 lashes. And that incident where a woman got flogged because her husband thought she was cheating on him, was actually illegal and legally he has to provide 4 male witnesses (with perfect track records) to get her convicted. And if not proven, the accusers get flogged. So it's not that Islam is against women or anything, it's just there are a lot of people that use it as a bullshit excuse. For example, in somalia the local militant regime decreed that Islam prohibits wearing of women undergarments as it "conceals her true form". Yeah, they were deriving this from the commandment "thou shall not lie". So i hope you'd refrain from pointing fingers again. (I know, a fool's hope)
DanBC 12y ago
Your comment shows remarkable ignorance of religious violence. "Honour killings" and acid attacks are not restricted to muslims. Burmese Buddhists: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25866350 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25866350 Christians killed their pwn god - that seems pretty violent to me. Most violent terrorist attacks in the US are by pseudo-Christian groups.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  > Christians killed their pwn[sic] god Hardly. Jews that did not believe that Jesus was the Christ condemned him; Romans that did not believe that he was the Christ executed him. In fact, the quoted comment is so far off the mark that it almost seems like deliberate misunderstanding rather than mere ignorance.
matt__rose 12y ago
Buddhist Massacre: Look up the end of the Civil War in Sri Lanka, where the Buddhist government pushed hundreds of thousands of Tamil refugees onto the Jaffna peninsula, and then bombed it to smithereens. Hindus denying rights to women and allowing atrocities like rape and honor killings? Basically the BJP platform in India. Oh, and mass killings of Moslems in the 80s thrown in for good measure. There is no Zoroastrian or Taoist state, but I'm sure if there was, there would be atrocities there. Oh, and before anyone says that this is just an anti-religious rant: Pol Pot killed millions, and he was a nominal atheist. People can and will kill and subjugate people for pretty much any reason. Usually they call it "The Greater Good"

by chroma 12y ago

vorador 12y ago

I'm glad you asked this question. The answer is probably not the one you're expecting though. Boko Haram, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia all share the same islamic doctrine: wahabism. Basically, Saudi Arabia bankrolled the spread of wahabism in the world in a bet to increase its influence. Iran is something else altogether, and I think that will see a lot more progress in the coming years. Everything is more complex than it appears initially. One last thing. There are no Buddhists massacring students. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-ma...

chroma 12y ago
Thank you for the counterexample. It sounds like you know more about this subject than I do. I was actually hesitant to mention Buddhism, since it was partially responsible for the kamikaze and other horrific acts. Still, it does seem that different religions inspire different practices when it comes to violence and human rights. Parts of Islam (specifically Wahhabism and Salafism) are particularly bad these days. The US certainly hasn't helped the situation, but getting attacked by Predator drones is no reason to stone adulterers to death. Lastly, I feel bad after commenting on this article. I don't think this article has much to contribute to HN, nor do I think HN will contribute much to the dialogue. Sexism + politics is a mix that few can discuss with civility. Now I've injected religion into the mix. I apologize.
- Klapaucius 12y ago
  "I was actually hesitant to mention Buddhism, since it was partially responsible for the kamikaze and other horrific acts." Kamikaze has nothing to do with buddhism whatsoever. If you want to stick it to a religion, it would have to be shintoism, an animistic, purely Japanese religion.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

lotsofcows 12y ago

I get what you're saying but it's a bit unPC to slag off Christians in these days of oppression.

seanccox 12y ago

I have the distinct impression you are more interested in clinging to a racist narrative of history than you are in investigating the facts. Try this: enter the religion of your choice into a search field, followed by the victim of your choice, with "attack" in between. In this specific case, try "Buddhist attack women"; or "Hindu attack women". The results will refute your veiled Islamophobia.

chroma 12y ago
> I have the distinct impression you are more interested in clinging to a racist narrative of history than you are in investigating the facts. Since when is talking about religion racist? It is the epitome of hypocrisy to accuse someone of racism while assuming that everyone who looks the same must believe the same thing. Moreover, I'm indistinguishable from most members of two of the groups mentioned. > Try this: enter the religion of your choice into a search field, followed by the victim of your choice, with "attack" in between. I have no doubt that in a world of 7+ billion people, people of every creed (or lack of) do horrible things to each other. I think you and others have misconstrued my view. The argument I'm making is this: Religions significantly affect how their adherents behave. They change the treatment of women and children. They change propensities to violence. And judging from the examples mentioned in the article, they seem to be a significant factor in the difference in women's education. I'm certainly not saying any religion is evil or that certain religions should be banned. I think it's fine if people believe whatever they want. (And wear whatever they want, including veils or burkas.)
- seanccox 12y ago
  You are correct: Rather than racist, the view you express is more accurately xenophobic. I want to address your assertion that I and others have misconstrued your view, because we have not. You draw a clear link between Islam and gender-based violence, even to the point of finding exceptions (contra-factual as they are). This approach to thinking about the world is essentially prejudiced, indicative either of both belligerent ignorance and the entitlement to pass judgement without examining facts. Furthermore, rather than exploring the reality of gender-based violence, you contemptuously use its existence as a bludgeon against specific parties. Your new thesis, that "religions significantly affect how their adherents behave", is undergraduate at best. The topic at hand is gender-based violence, which happens all over the world in many varied cultures and religions. Rather than using this article as an opportunity to take a cheap shot at Islam, you could examine the commonalities between the groups mentioned and other instances of gender-based violence. Consider that one-third of female US service personnel are raped by their colleagues. Does that have anything to do with Islam? Or religion? I think you should also reflect on the male privilege that is required to regard the subject of gender-based violence as an opportunity to make sweeping judgements about people and religions.

prof_hobart 12y ago

Or rather, ones from other groups tend not to get reported, like the Christian ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the CAR[1], or the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda[2], or the various Hindu terrorist groups [3] in India, or Buddhists in Myanmar[4}, etc, etc [1] http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/central-african-republic-ethnic-cleansing-sectarian-violence-2014-02-12 http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/central-african-republic-ethn... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army [3] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/19/india-hindu-terrorism-threat http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/19/... [4] http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/meiktila-report-may-2013.html http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/meiktila...

audunw 12y ago

What about christian states going back 100++ years? Consider that the US felt fine about interfering with Iran when they felt they had a too socialist leadership, but has not interfered much with e.g. Norway. Is it perhaps that the religion, skin-color and culture in these countries are different enough that westerner citizens don't complain when their government meddle with these places? Are we confusing correlation with causation? I must say, I too find it easy to draw conclusions, but considering the big perspective I'm not convinced this book you're hinting to is the root of the issue. And what solution are you getting at? Should we ban this book? Kill everyone who endorse it maybe?

xerophtye 12y ago

>But they do share one thing besides the oppression of women. Have you guessed it yet? Yep, they use islam as an excuse to justify their actions, but I am guessing what you want to say is: Islam is bad. It's the only religion/tradition that actually encourages this sort of behavior. I like that you admit that other religions/cultures also have bad histories, but then you pull this: >but the doctrines and traditions surrounding them seem less prone to cause violence and unnecessary suffering than a book endorsed by every group mentioned in the article. Now I am confused why you are actually believing a group of cruel, illiterate, barbaric militants on what a religion is about and choose to ignore what most other Muslims will tell you. >no Taoists throwing acid in the faces of women Do you really think that is a religious practice? Or that a religion would say "If you get angry at your wife, you get should throw acid in her face" ? This is just a social problem like any other (like drug addicts, street crime) that has nothing to do with the religion of the abusers. (I assume you are pointing to "Saving Face" that won the Oscar. Well i don't remember any of the abusers citing religion as a defense in that Documentary). As for Bomb blasts, Islamic law actually states very clearly that even in the state of war, soldiers may not harm civilians or burn down crops etc. In fact if an enemy soldier surrenders, the law requires that he must be ESCORTED to safety. As for women oppressing, and being against women education (and driving), that's a load of Bullshit too. Islamic has tons of provisions for women. For example, as far as i understand, western law states that when two people get married, their wealth is legally combined into one, right? And that when they divorce, they split up this total. Now in islamic law, not only does the husband not even get to TOUCH any of the woman's assets (yes she has right of personal wealth) but he may not take back any gift he gave her during their marriage. The law forbids it. Oh and the law obligates the husband to give the woman a wedding gift of her choice (she gets to set the worth as well) before consummating said marriage). And that's just one example. But i do admit that legally, a woman counts as half a witness (but do note, accusing of rape is different than giving testimony of seeing a rape). Oh and if you lie about a woman sleeping with someone, the legal penalty is 90 lashes. And that incident where a woman got flogged because her husband thought she was cheating on him, was actually illegal and legally he has to provide 4 male witnesses (with perfect track records) to get her convicted. And if not proven, the accusers get flogged. So it's not that Islam is against women or anything, it's just there are a lot of people that use it as a bullshit excuse. For example, in somalia the local militant regime decreed that Islam prohibits wearing of women undergarments as it "conceals her true form". Yeah, they were deriving this from the commandment "thou shall not lie". So i hope you'd refrain from pointing fingers again. (I know, a fool's hope)

DanBC 12y ago

Your comment shows remarkable ignorance of religious violence. "Honour killings" and acid attacks are not restricted to muslims. Burmese Buddhists: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25866350 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25866350 Christians killed their pwn god - that seems pretty violent to me. Most violent terrorist attacks in the US are by pseudo-Christian groups.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
> Christians killed their pwn[sic] god Hardly. Jews that did not believe that Jesus was the Christ condemned him; Romans that did not believe that he was the Christ executed him. In fact, the quoted comment is so far off the mark that it almost seems like deliberate misunderstanding rather than mere ignorance.

matt__rose 12y ago

Buddhist Massacre: Look up the end of the Civil War in Sri Lanka, where the Buddhist government pushed hundreds of thousands of Tamil refugees onto the Jaffna peninsula, and then bombed it to smithereens. Hindus denying rights to women and allowing atrocities like rape and honor killings? Basically the BJP platform in India. Oh, and mass killings of Moslems in the 80s thrown in for good measure. There is no Zoroastrian or Taoist state, but I'm sure if there was, there would be atrocities there. Oh, and before anyone says that this is just an anti-religious rant: Pol Pot killed millions, and he was a nominal atheist. People can and will kill and subjugate people for pretty much any reason. Usually they call it "The Greater Good"