Communion only to Christians

And yet you cannot understand why people had such a low opinion of the Taliban when they destroyed the statues?

No I think I can understand why anyone whose child is dying of hunger or disease might be frustrated by priorities which spend millions on preserving rocks and nothing at all on his dying children. If it was my child who was dying of such neglect, I might feel the same way.
 
Different Sai Baba, that guy is just cashing in on the name

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

This one, even I like.

Oh! I was thinking it was the "Here, let me help you realign your root chakra!" guy with the afro hair.
How is he cashing in on the name, if you don't mind? I had never heard of the other guy before. Is the big hair dude really famous? What do people you know think of him.

I've always thought he was amusing.
 
No I think I can understand why anyone whose child is dying of hunger or disease might be frustrated by priorities which spend millions on preserving rocks and nothing at all on his dying children. If it was my child who was dying of such neglect, I might feel the same way.

And instead, the children continued to die and the statues were shattered.

Both sides lost, wouldn't you say?

I am sure the lower and middle class of RSA are just as happy that their Government did not waste millions on a pile of rocks, much like those in Afghanistan have.

*Sigh*

To think that this is what your style of debate has reduced me to.
 
I agree with the second statement, but, as to the first, I suppose it depends on who you talk to and what they think is "holy".

I missed this post. Nothing is holy in Mecca. Anything and everything can be replaced. The Saudis make a point of standing near all the monuments and pointing out that nothing is holy. Mecca is a place. Its appeal is that it is where Muslims congregate. Its simply a focal point. If there was an earthquake tomorrow and all the city was demolished, it would still be Mecca.

And instead, the children continued to die and the statues were shattered.

Both sides lost, wouldn't you say?

I am sure the lower and middle class of RSA are just as happy that their Government did not waste millions on a pile of rocks, much like those in Afghanistan have.

*Sigh*

To think that this is what your style of debate has reduced me to.

one of every three malnourished children in the world live in India. My style of debate has always been the same. Given a choice between a truckload of ORT and a statue of Buddha, I would always pick the truck load of ORT.

I'm sure there are attractions and knowledge in old bricks, none of which, to my mind, compare with or can compete with, children dying of neglect.
 
They destroyed all the old historical Muslim sites, ancient mausoleums and such because they considered them idolatorous. It was a "reform" movement initiated by Abdul Wahab [of Wahabbism fame]

Wow. They sound pretty dumb. Regardless of religion, what's wrong with having some reverence for historical sites in general? Especially of your OWN religion???
 
are you a protestant or go to a protestant church? the catholic church tends to forbid protestants from taking the sacraments in a catholic church. My grand parents church(not sure about others) allows people of the orthadox faiths, the polish national catholic church, and two others to take the sacraments in it.

It was Presbyterian.

I thought they only allowed other Catholics to take it. Are your grandparents Catholic?
 
Wow. They sound pretty dumb. Regardless of religion, what's wrong with having some reverence for historical sites in general? Especially of your OWN religion???

I don't think they are so much dumb as invested in impermanence. You have to recall they live in the endless desert, with everything becoming sand sooner or later. Its not an environment conducive to preservation.
 
It was Presbyterian.

I thought they only allowed other Catholics to take it.
no they do allow some others to. The main reason catholics don't allow protestants to take the sacraments is the denial of catholics as christians at least that how it was explained to me.
Are your grandparents Catholic?

yes
 
one of every three malnourished children in the world live in India. My style of debate has always been the same. Given a choice between a truckload of ORT and a statue of Buddha, I would always pick the truck load of ORT.

I'm sure there are attractions and knowledge in old bricks, none of which, to my mind, compare with or can compete with, children dying of neglect.

And yet, if given the opportunity, the children could probably have been saved also. But the Taliban was not a Government that allowed aid to flow into the country and chose to let their people starve and chose to arrest those who brought aid to those in need in Afghanistan.
 
And yet, if given the opportunity, the children could probably have been saved also. But the Taliban was not a Government that allowed aid to flow into the country and chose to let their people starve and chose to arrest those who brought aid to those in need in Afghanistan.

This is both off topic and false so I am going to ignore it. The Taliban cannot simultaneously block aid and blow up statues because they are not receiving any. They were under sanctions by the west. Food and medicines were blocked to the refugee camps. They achieved the highest infant mortality rate in the world.
 
This is both off topic and false so I am going to ignore it. The Taliban cannot simultaneously block aid and blow up statues because they are not receiving any. They were under sanctions by the west. Food and medicines were blocked to the refugee camps. They achieved the highest infant mortality rate in the world.

One would imagine, when faced with the highest infant mortality rate, that they would have allowed something to be done..

A major issue during the Taliban's reign was its relations with the United Nations (UN) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Twenty years of continuous warfare, first with the Soviets and then between mujahideen, had devastated Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy. There was no running water, little electricity, few telephones, motorable roads or regular energy supplies. Basic necessities like water, food and housing and others were in desperately short supply. In addition, the clan and family structure that provided Afghans with a social/economic safety net was also badly damaged.[56][114] Afghanistan's infant mortality was the highest in the world. A full quarter of all children died before they reached their fifth birthday, a rate several times higher than most other developing countries.[115]

Consequently international charitable and/or development organisations (NGOs) were extremely important to the supply of food, employment, reconstruction, and other services in Afghanistan. With one million plus deaths during the years of war, the number of families headed by widows had reached 98,000 by 1998.[116] Thus Taliban restrictions on women were sometime a matter not only of human rights, but of life and death. In Kabul, where vast portions of the city had been devastated from rocket attacks, more than half of its 1.2 million people benefited in some way from NGO charity, even for water to drink.[117] The civil war and its refugee-creation processes continued during the entire time the Taliban were in power. During that time, more than three-quarters of a million civilians were displaced by new Taliban offensives in the north around Mazar, on the Herat front, and in the fertile Shomali valley around Kabul. The offensives used "scorched-earth" tactics to prevent civilians from supplying the enemy with aid.[118]

Despite the receipt of UN and NGO aid, the Taliban's attitude toward the UN and NGOs was often one of suspicion, not gratitude or even tolerance. The UN operates on the basis of international law, not Islamic Sharia, and the UN did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Additionally, most of the foreign donors and aid workers, who had tried to persuade the Taliban to change its strict policies and allow women more freedom, were non-Muslims.

As the Taliban's Attorney General Maulvi Jalil-ullah Maulvizada put it:

Let us state what sort of education the UN wants. This is a big infidel policy which gives such obscene freedom to women which would lead to adultery and herald the destruction of Islam. In any Islamic country where adultery becomes common, that country is destroyed and enters the domination of the infidels because their men become like women and women cannot defend themselves. Anyone who talks to us should do so within Islam's framework. The Holy Koran cannot adjust itself to other people's requirements, people should adjust themselves to the requirements of the Holy Koran.[119]​

Frustrations of aid agencies were numerous. Taliban decision-makers, particularly Mullah Omar, seldom if ever talked directly to non-Muslim foreigners, so aid providers had to deal with intermediaries whose approvals and agreements were often reversed by Taliban higher-ups.[52] Around September 1997 the heads of three UN agencies in Kandahar were expelled from the country after protesting over a female lawyer for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees being forced to talk to Taliban officials from behind a curtain so her face would not be visible.[120]

When the UN increased the number of Muslim women staff to satisfy Taliban demands for Muslim staff, the Taliban then insisted "all female Muslim UN staff traveling to Afghanistan to be chaperoned by a mahram or a blood relative."[121] In July 1998, the Taliban closed down "all NGO offices" by force after those organization refused to move to a bombed-out former Polytechnic College as ordered.[122] One month later the UN offices were also shut down.[123]

As food prices rose and conditions deteriorated, the Taliban Planning Minister Qari Din Mohammed explained the Taliban's indifference to the loss of humanitarian aid:

We Muslims believe God the Almighty will feed everybody one way or another. If the foreign NGOs leave then it is their decision. We have not expelled them.​


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Relations_with_the_United_Nations_and_aid_agencies
 
No I think I can understand why anyone whose child is dying of hunger or disease might be frustrated by priorities which spend millions on preserving rocks and nothing at all on his dying children. If it was my child who was dying of such neglect, I might feel the same way.

Just for reference, blowing up statues is not the same as "not preserving them". If you don't want to "spend millions on preserving rocks" (like say this rock?)

400px-Kaaba_at_night.jpg


then it hardly follows that you need to blow them up. Just a point.
 
One would imagine, when faced with the highest infant mortality rate, that they would have allowed something to be done..

They were constantly and consistently requesting humanitarian aid. The situation in the interior was very dire and children were dropping like flies. The UN did not send aid because the government was not recognised by the west and was under severe sanctions. They kept setting conditions for aid, as they did in Iraq. The final straw I think came when the Japanese government said they would provide aid if the Afghans allowed them to move the statues to Japan. At the time tens of people were dying per day, most of them children under the age of five. So they just blew them up. I don't agree with the way they were thinking, but I can understand the frustration.

As journalist Hebia Abdulla wrote:
There was no 'worldwide horror' or 'international outrage' when UN officials announced Friday that more than 260 people have died in displacement camps in northern Afghanistan, where an additional 117,000 people are living in miserable conditions. … Perhaps the only consolation in all of this is that these refugees may never know how much the world cared for two statues and how little it cared for them

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15032001/Art22.htm
 
Last edited:
no they do allow some others to. The main reason catholics don't allow protestants to take the sacraments is the denial of catholics as christians at least that how it was explained to me.

yes

I see. Yes, Southern Baptists tend to think the world of Catholics!
 
I don't think they are so much dumb as invested in impermanence. You have to recall they live in the endless desert, with everything becoming sand sooner or later. Its not an environment conducive to preservation.

Granted, but actively destroying the grave of Mohammed's mother and other such stuff isn't really non-preservation, it's just outright destructive, and disdainful of an historical object, especially one that is important to many of their own religion.

They sound like Christian fundamentalists who hate everything that isn't exactly the way they say it should be...
 
Granted, but actively destroying the grave of Mohammed's mother and other such stuff isn't really non-preservation, it's just outright destructive, and disdainful of an historical object, especially one that is important to many of their own religion.

They sound like Christian fundamentalists who hate everything that isn't exactly the way they say it should be...

I used to think like that too, but I have seen them treating their own dead like disposables, so I think it is simply a different kind of attitude towards life. Not everyone is the same, but for most of them, the sky and the sand is the only permanent thing about life.
 
Just for reference, blowing up statues is not the same as "not preserving them". If you don't want to "spend millions on preserving rocks" (like say this rock?)

then it hardly follows that you need to blow them up. Just a point.

Yeah, I'm not sure what destroying them has to do with saving children.

I always just figured, being the Taliban and all, that it was a competing religion, and they being fundies, were just not going to tolerate that other religion's idols. Knowing how people like that work, you give em a country to run, and don't get your expectations up...

Certain Christians would do the same thing. Dominionism is that branch, or at least one of the names for like-minded people.
 
I used to think like that too, but I have seen them treating their own dead like disposables, so I think it is simply a different kind of attitude towards life. Not everyone is the same, but for most of them, the sky and the sand is the only permanent thing about life.

Ah, but bodies ARE disposables in a way. I guess I don't think of a landmark of historical significance quite the same as a corpse. The grave, however, is a different story.

But, oh well. It's they're country in the end. They can build it or ruin it or whatever!
 
Yeah, I'm not sure what destroying them has to do with saving children.

Those who are the Taliban today grew up in these refugee camps. This is all they have ever known, poverty, hunger and disease. Perhaps the notion that people were willing to send millions to restore the statues while blocking essential food and medicines to them, was what created the frustration. They blew up the statues because they did not want the money to be spent on them. They wanted the money to be spent on food and medicines for their children instead. They could not comprehend that money set aside for restoring the statues could not be diverted to food and medicines for them.
 
Those who are the Taliban today grew up in these refugee camps. This is all they have ever known, poverty, hunger and disease. Perhaps the notion that people were willing to send millions to restore the statues while blocking essential food and medicines to them, was what created the frustration. They blew up the statues because they did not want the money to be spent on them. They wanted the money to be spent on food and medicines for their children instead.

I was not exactly aware of that. what is the story behind that if you have a decent link.

If true, that's pretty dumb. Were they "Piss Christ" liberal yuppies fronting the money??? :p
 
Back
Top