Hello? People? Those who are complaining that the Taliban were violating rights of free speech and free belief? This is not America. This is Afghanistan. There is no reason why the people of Afghanistan should expect free speech or free religion, since neither is promised to them. They aren’t the only countries - many don’t have free speech laws, or laws about religious freedom. Don’t go applying your country’s laws on other countries. You want to scream about rights? How about the right of a country to make it’s own laws, regardless of what an outsider thinks?
Once again, I will state - I don’t believe Christians should run around breaking “unjust” laws where ever they find them, where it involves traveling to a foreign country to do so. It’s one think to rise up against an unjust law made against you, but it’s a complete other to seek to be persecuted in order to rebel. I know many Americans think Australia’s gun laws are wrong, but any Christian who travels here in order to break that “unjust” law deserves to suffer the punishment decreed by the lawmakers of the land. We don’t have to honour your laws or constitution - we are a seperate country entitled to make our own laws.
Well, Jodi, I’m believing both in this case. Some aid workers deny it, but others admit it. The Taliban were telling the truth in this case.
Because of all the deceptions involved in doing their “secondary” goal. Because they put their “primary” goal at risk through their “secondary” goal. Because they lied to authorities in order to enter the country to do their “secondary” goal. Because they were guests in a foreign country, and they did not honour their side of the agreement that allowed them into the country. Because I consider lying, smuggling and deceiving to be very UN-Christian things to do. Did Jesus ever lie to spread his message?
Right you are, Jodi, because there’s no way they could have carried in food for the starving without concealing a few conversion video tapes and pamphlets in the local languages.
No, Jodi], I don’t think even the Taliban had a problem with them being Christian. The Taliban gave them permission to be there (knowing they were Christians), but forbade them from trying to spread their message. They agreed to this, while bringing in conversion materials. Way to make Christianity look good. I applaude them for feeding the starving, but what kind of Christians routinely lie in order to get their own way? Not to mention shielding themselves behind the locals by telling the Taliban they were asked for the information, and didn’t offer it. If they can lie in order to enter the country, why can’t they lie in order to protect the locals?
Hello cazzle?. So it is okay for the Taleban to hijack a country and the laws they subsequently impose should be honoured by other peace loving foreigners. Seems to me according to your code of conduct, that the north had no business taking on the confederacy either.
Hello? Cazzle? Do you understand the concept of universal rights? Do you understand the concept of a moral obligation to now follow laws you personally consider immoral, regardless of whether they are of your own country or of another? Does a country have an unfettered right to make whatever laws it wants? Guess the Taliban women are just SOL, huh?
Again, there is no indication that they went to Afghanistan with the primary purpose of breaking the law. They went to provide aid to people who desperately needed it. But it is clear at this point that you will persist in putting the worst possible construction upon their actions. I just can’t help wondering if you would be so bent on doing so if they were of some other religion besides Christianity.
How do you know that if at least some of the aid workers deny it?
“All” the deception? There is no indication they did anything deceptive except smuggle in materials – assuming all of them were equally guilty of that, which of course we cannot do. They are not required to check their religious beliefs at the door – especially when they are required by that very religion to testify when asked. You apparently wish them to choose to be secular (which they can’t), or stay home. And the Afghanis can just starve, right? They arguably are not obliged to “honor” laws they believe immoral. And Jesus may never have lied to spread His message, but I’d bet dollars to donuts these aid workers would say they have not either. Apparently, to you they are supposed to say nothing when asked about their faith. In their eyes, that would have been a bigger lie, and a far greater sin. But I see no indication you are interested in seeing things from their point of view, anyway. Not when you can paint them as nefarious evildoers.
CAZZLE, do you understand that to these evangelical Christians, leaving their beliefs at home was not an option? Assuming you can see that, would you like them to go – with all their baggage – or would you like them to stay home and leave the needy to die? Do you realize just how much no-strings-attached (that is, non-political, non-quid pro quo) aid is provided by religious organizations?
“Routinely”? Now they’re lying “routinely”? And your evidence of that is what, exactly?
Wait a sec – first you condemn them for lying and now you condemn them for not lying? They just can’t win with you, can they?
Jodi: *Do you understand the concept of universal rights? Do you understand the concept of a moral obligation to now [I assume this was meant to be “not”] follow laws you personally consider immoral, regardless of whether they are of your own country or of another? *
Whoa—this is a big claim. Is there really an individual moral obligation to violate the laws of other countries if individuals personally consider them immoral? Would we support other individuals’ treating our own laws that way? Do visitors to this country who are morally opposed to the slaughter of animals have a right to violate our property laws in stockyards and fur farms in order to rescue the animals there? Can abortion opponents violate laws against kidnapping in order to prevent a woman from getting an abortion?
I think if we’re going to maintain that personal moral convictions trump the laws of the land, we are going to have to think very carefully about how these obligations apply. On the face of it, it seems like a recipe for anarchy. I agree, as I said before, that civil disobedience is an important tool for social change, but I don’t think it’s the best tool to use in every case.
And I don’t agree that there can’t be a middle ground between breaking another country’s unjust and oppressive laws on the one hand, and simply shutting one’s eyes to oppression on the other. I do think Collounsbury is right in saying that true change ultimately comes from a society’s own citizens working for change. We can support that work in a lot of ways without resorting to high-stakes, high-profile violations of foreign laws.
For example, in the case of the rights of Afghan women, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan has been working for nearly 25 years to protect women’s rights, to help women suffering under repressive regimes in Afghanistan, and to advocate peace, democracy, and secular government. Helping them, IMHO, will do more real long-term good than any amount of civil disobedience of anti-proselytizing laws by Western aid workers.
Not only were they not leaving their beliefs at home, they had translated versions of their beliefs handy in case they could convert someone.
You seem to be implying that they can either go there to provide aid AND spread the gospel, or not go at all. Those are the only choices. What about providing aid only? That seems very Christian yet far safer for all involved. By saying either we go with all of this material or not at all doesn’t exactly sound like “no-strings attached” aid.
Actually I can’t recall ever correcting anyone having misspelled my name, either in reality or here. Perhaps I have forgotten something.
No, ethnocentrism.
I know in Jodi land racism and such things don’t actually exist, that self-righteous, self-centered fucks don’t exist, that self-serving people more interested in their narrow vision of religion than in genuine exchanges and aid don’t exist.
But in the world I’ve seen they do, and their indulgence in their self-righteousness puts others in danger and undermines others real work. I’ve known plenty of good, decent Xtian aid workers who knew enough to respect local mores because they understood that in the long run that is how real change is effected, not in indulging their self-congratulatory self-percieved moral superiority.
The people I respect are those whose convictions in their faith are deep enough to understand that respect for the other and respect for one’s status as a guest and all the things that implies in traditional societies are paramount for achieving real, long term change.
The people who bother to learn a bit of history and understand the damage past imperial impositions, of as Muslim friend of mine once put it (a white one, but the phrase fitted and fits), whiter than thou attitudes towards the benighted natives – they are the ones who do real good. Not self-indulgence in their “convinctions” which undermines real change.
But then I am sure your profound experiences in this realm inform your opinion.
I was specifically refering to people like you. All the easy arm-chair outrage.
You’re not a citizen are you, of that country? You know very well what rights non-citizens have even in this country.
I suppose that folks coming in from say Amsterdam have every right to engage in their moral obligation not to respect our benighted drug laws, eh no? Or perhaps Europeans in general should freely ignore our drinking age and possession laws.
The ban is in their culture, it is their business to change.
Not you as a foreigner. You as foreign are their GUEST. Their motherfucking guest. Of course I sure you understand the reciprocal obligations that implies in traditional cultures, the polite questions and so forth.
But it is your moral right to piss on their sensitivities.
Remind me never to travel with you. I’m sure you’ll go over quite well and just be brilliant success.
[quote
The argument further is that if the ban is in place by a regime that itself engages in human rights outrages against it’s own people, perhaps there is again reason not to respect it. Claro?
[/quote]
No, not claro, the ban itself has nothing per se to do with the Taleban. It’s not legal to proslytize in Morocco, its not in Oman, nor even in Tunis. It’s their decision, their business to change it. So long as a person has the general freedom of belief, it is their business to set the rules for helping various communities to get along. And not a GUEST’s role to come in and violate their norms and rules.
A culture changes on its own terms, if it is to change truly and for the best. My stand on the freedom of ideas is one thing, my stand on the best way to promote a healthy evolution of others towards greater tolerance is another. See, I happen to have had real experience here, I happen to know the history and have a sense of how deep the wounds run from the last time the old holier than thou route was tried. I also have a sense of things that bring lasting change, and those that bring backlash and resentment.
I also know the role of a guest in a place, and understand that when people abuse that role, it hurts future guests and future relations.
Further, I happen to know that most Muslims whole fucking better idea of Xtianity that vice-versa (although this is a dim standard indeed). I’ve found from personal experience from meeting these clowns come to bring the word of their “personal” Christ have fairly bigoted understandings of Islam.
Totally non-responsive? Save your lawyer lingo.
A weak argument? Well, I suppose your deep personal experience in cultural change and engaging other cultures gives you some idea of what you’re actually talking about?
Or that you have thought through what you actually mean by local laws, customs and mores must be challenged means. Taht it is not in fact a hypocritical, self-serving and indulgent double-standard, because we all know our own mores, customs and laws really are defensible, yes? One couldn’t imagine the concept that as a foreigner you’re a guest subject to the laws of the land.
No, the analogy doesn’t work. The ban on working and leaving the home is one which the locals clearly were against, which they, THEY were struggling against. That is their decision. The bans of proslytization are not something only the Taleban have. As I said, it is a different problem. And it is an Afghan decision.
AFAIK indeed. But my point was rather different. Your analogy was between something offensive to and not general most Muslims --physical violence is condemned on by all people that I know-- to something rather more general. Apples and oranges, the structure of your little non-relevant analogy was precisely that of when did you stop beating your wife. Attempting to imply something rather similar.
Intentionally distorting? Bah. I’ll make it explicit, yes you’re indulding in easy, ignorant ethnocentrism with little to no clue as to how real things get done.
There isn’t a local Xtian community because to my knowldge there never was one. Not because the Taleban won’t “allow” it. As far as I know, the Xtians of the region are found towards Gujarat, and are left over Nestorians from a quite ancient period. I noted the other religions to indcate that perhaps your feeble knowledge of the region might prove a hindrance to getting a grasp on the subject. There are minority religions --by the way, I meant Hindu rather than Bhuddist-- and they were allowed to practice their religion. The matter of proslytization that is in question.
Where does that leave me? That leave me in support of the local opposition to such practices. As a foreigner I obey the laws of the land to the best of my ability and give whatever support to locally rooted people who will be the real agents of change.
As for the idea of universal human rights, a wonderful concept. It’s for locals, not outsiders to apply.
I simply don’t feel moved to say much more to someone so clearly denying the obvious. Afghan langauge bibles, religious videos etc. I’ve run into these kinds of fucks before and I have nothing but contempt for them. Indulgent fucks who make those whose real charity work and convinctions and respect for the role in the host society life harder. And undermine the chance of positive relationships that will lead to real change.
To fundamentalist or evangelical Christians? Yes. There is. If you have a religious obligation to testify about your faith, and you are barred from doing so by the laws of a clearly unjust regime, I can certainly see that some would consider there to be an obligation to disregard those laws. And no, it is unlikely any government passing such laws would appreciate them being broken. But we as individuals might understand or at least recognize the legitimate personal motivation for breaking them, and respect that as well – if the people we were talking about were not Christians.
Please realize that this is not my claim but rather perhaps one that would offer some rationalization for the actions in queston. I have never said, and do not believe, that civil disobedience is “the best tool in every case” – though it seems to me a person’s recourse under a regime such as the Taliban would be severely limited.
Really. And remind me – how’s that been going so far?
[qupte]You seem to be implying that they can either go there to provide aid AND spread the gospel, or not go at all. Those are the only choices. What about providing aid only? That seems very Christian yet far safer for all involved.
[/quote]
For evangelical, not to say fundamentalist, Christians, testifying about your faith is a religious obligation. Even if your primary goal is to provide humanitarian aid, keeping silent about your faith when asked is not an option. This is not to say that aid is contingent on being preached to first – and despite the implicit and explicit assertions to the contrary, there is no indication this was the case – but rather that a Christian who takes seriously (and literally) the exhortation to go forth and spread the word of God would naturally not be dissuaded from doing so by a law he or she considered unjust.
Jodi: *“Helping [RAWA], IMHO, will do more real long-term good than any amount of civil disobedience of anti-proselytizing laws by Western aid workers.”
Really. And remind me – how’s that been going so far?*
Jodi:But we as individuals might understand or at least recognize the legitimate personal motivation for breaking them, and respect that as well – if the people we were talking about were not Christians.
I think we all do recognize, and to some extent even respect, that personal motivation. (Which IMHO is about all that can be expected: no personal moral conviction is going to achieve wholehearted universal respect if it essentially requires telling strangers that their religious convictions are wrong and yours are right.) I think the chief criticism here is that a legitimate motivation is not the same thing as a legitimate justification for violating foreign laws, especially in a particularly hazardous and difficult situation.
And no, I don’t think that this criticism is inspired by plain old Christian-bashing. I think any other attempts at illegal proselytizing would provoke similar criticisms (the Communist agitators bothered many people in just this way back when they were evangelizing).
Jodi: *If you have a religious obligation to testify about your faith, and you are barred from doing so by the laws of a clearly unjust regime, I can certainly see that some would consider there to be an obligation to disregard those laws. *
This sounds like a potential reason for Western governments to deny visas for visiting countries with anti-proselytizing laws to members of such evangelical or fundamentalist groups. After all, when you seek permission to enter another country, you’re implicitly (and in some cases, explicitly) promising to abide by its laws. If your religion does not permit you to make such a promise sincerely, perhaps you ought not to go there.
Btw, I realized that my first post in this cluster was kind of a glib brush-off of your question about RAWA: here’s some fuller information about how their work is going.
There’s certainly a lot yet to be done, and they could certainly use some more help and more funding, but they do achieve quite a lot. And their work will have much more important and positive long-term effects, I would venture to say, than religious conversion efforts by Western visitors will.
Glad to see you all had a nice weekend. I was spring-cleaning my flat. Stubborn carpet stains!
My head hurts from reading this horrible thread. I come to the Pit to get away from those mind-numbing point by point refutation posts. Ggeaaaah!
Jodi, I said God bless you without any reservation or rolling my eyes. I’m stunned that you continue to be so unfriendly and unpleasant on behalf of christianity. I don’t believe in your God, but I know you do, and I sincerely want you to feel blessed; that is, aware of being loved and valued by a higher power, happy with the world and your place in it, and meeting others with warmth and christian love. No sarcasm, no rolly-eyes. I really would like your life to be better and you to feel blessed.
I don’t know why I feel this way, but I just do and I warn you others, the offer is limited to Jodi. So far.
And of course the Taliban should have let freedom of speech happen, and their arrest of these people was wrong.
[quote]
I know in Jodi land racism and such things don’t actually exist, that self-righteous, self-centered fucks don’t exist, that self-serving people more interested in their narrow vision of religion than in genuine exchanges and aid don’t exist.
[quote]
As we both know, you know fuck-all about Jodi land.
Unlike these guys, right? With their self-congratulation and their moralsuperiority. And we know that’s how they felt because – refresh my memory again: How do we know how they felt?
How does one have respect for laws one considers unjust? I asked you this before, but I note you omitted to answer it.
Where does real change come from if no one is entitled to challenge existing injustice? I’m curious how that works. And I’m curious just what the parameters of “imperialism” are – any change not desired by the regime in charge? That’s mighty handy for despots and fascists.
Oh, right. Because you know just how I’ve felt about the issue for the past six months and before. You know exactly how much (or how little) I know about the Taliban and their oppression, and you know exactly what I’ve done about it. No, Mr. Expert, you don’t. See above re: knowing fuck-all about Jodi land. But then it is apparently totally in character for you to make assumptions about what I do or do not know (apparently nothing) and what I does or does not motivate me (apparently ethnocentricism). After all, that’s exactly what you’re doing to the aid workers as well. Well, don’t let a little thing like ignorance of the truth stop you.
If it were in their minds a matter of moral obligation, and they felt the law was unjust, they might well do it. Happened all the time during Vietnam, for people who refused to register for the draft or to fight because they felt the war was unjust. I didn’t agree with them either, but I can at least respect the courage of making that choice (misguided though I might find it), and I can at least see what motivated them.
And one assumes that goes for human rights abuses as well, so long as they are sanctioned by law, yes? If not, why not?
But, of course, we are not talking about Morocco, or Oman, or Tunisia. And you realize that in your statement “So long as a person has the general freedom of belief, it is their business to set the rules,” the conclusions “it is their business to set the rules” is dependent on the predicate “so long as a person has the general freedom of belief.” You are not seriously arguing that is (was) the case under the Taliban.
And how do you reconcile the former with the latter? How do you encourage “greater tolerance” without “freedome of ideas”?
My lawyer lingo? I do beg your pardon. I did not mean to derail the conversation by introducing such archaic terms of art as “totally” and “non-responsive.” I promise to try to do better.
I suppose you think that “deep personal experience” is the only way to catch a clue about anything? Because lord knows that the ability to read, research, listen, discuss, and reason mean nothing. There is a world of play between the blessed few who know everything, such as yourself, and knowing nothing at all.
I said:
To which you reply:
Perfect! Here’s your chance to show how ignorant I am. I assume by your “as far as you know, indeed” comment that I am wrong and it is *not[/i legal under Islamic law as intepreted by Wahabis (and, therefore, legal in Wahabist Saudi Arabia) for a man to put to death a wife (for adultery) or a daughter (for unchastiy), and do so by whatever means he chooses.
What is it with people inferring things I pretty clearly never said? “It is legal under the Taliban for a man to beat a woman to death” does not equal “all/most/lots of Muslims beat their women.” It doesn’t even say that all/most/lots of Afghanis beat their women, let alone to death; it merely points out that, if the man feels it is justified, he legally may do so. Again, the point in this regard is that our duty as guests includes blind respect for local laws and customs, then obviously we must repect them all, no matter how unjust. I continue to fail to see why you cannot see that why some people would disagree with that.
And you know exactly what motivates my opinions and exactly what I know and don’t know because . . . well, you don’t.
That was stupid ol’ uninformed me’s knowledge as well. Which is why I found your comment “If there is some Afghan Xtian community which needs support, I am for its rights” rather odd, seeing as how you knew all along none existed. You must have been talking about some hypothetical rights of some hypothetical community. But it does seem to me a bit facile to say “the reason there’s no Christian community there is because there never has been, and not because the current regime has totally forbidden it.” Doesn’t the latter lead to the former?
How disappointed you must have been, then, to find that my knowledge is not quite so feeble as to take your word for the existence of a Christian community where none in fact exists. Perhaps I will be more feeble next time.
Ah, yes, the fortunate Hindus, allowed to practice their religion – so long as they wear yellow badges proclaiming to all the world that they are not Muslim, and therefore may be harrassed and intimidated with impunity.
And if the “local opposition” is itself so disempowered as to be totally ineffectual, as was the case regarding women’s rights under the Taliban, what then? What would your reaction have been to the Holocaust? After all, most of the Germans were for it.
This does not answer the question of what you would do when the locally rooted people are not or cannot be an effect agent of change.
Then they’re not universal, are they?
By which, of course, you mean obvious to you.
KIMSTU –
You don’t need to direct me to the RAWA site. I am very familiar with it, and, surprising as others might find it, have been for quite some time.
REDBOSS – I owe you an apology and I only regret I have neglected to post it until now, being caught up with the substance of the discussion, which actually is less important. First, I never claimed to be a very good Christian – my temper at least would indicate that I am not. But then I do not feel obliged to act any particular way “on behalf of” Christianity. Second, and I offer this not as an excuse but a reason, I have not been sleeping well (or much), as you will see if you look at the time of this post, do the math to the west coast of the U.S., and see that it is now 3:30 in the morning. The lack of sleep has shortened my temper.
I appreciate your kind words, and I hope you will accept my apology.
And I hope a mod will drop by and fix my coding abominations in my last post.
Jodi:How do you encourage “greater tolerance” without “freedome of ideas”?
You can’t, really. That’s why (as I now know you know) RAWA, for one, is working so hard to keep some kind of exchange of ideas going. A basic level of human rights is indeed necessary to help prevent the sort of immiseration that’s been going on in Afghanistan.
However, that does not mean that anything a foreign visitor does to promote freedom of ideas is necessarily going to help the situation. I sympathize with your frustration with the difficulty the Afghan people have been having in achieving basic rights and stability. But I don’t see how illegal proselytizing by Western aid workers achieves anything either; in fact, it seems very likely to make things worse, by creating an extremely touchy international incident.
I don’t think we can use the slow pace of internal change as a justification for deliberately violating another country’s laws. After all, Northern Ireland was also stuck in a cycle of violence and terror (although not as disastrous for its people) for decades, and foreigners who got involved in illegal activities out of a desire to “do something” about it were not ultimately a help, IMHO.
I do respect people’s desire to “do something” about a terrible situation, and also their desire to obey their own religious consciences. However, if that requires them to violate the laws of the host country and place themselves and others in danger—well, I may respect the motive, but I can’t condone the action. It does come off as somewhat shortsighted at best, and even selfish and arrogant at worst.
Certainly, you don’t have to feel respect for unjust and oppressive laws, even in a foreign country. But being willing to “respect” their laws, in the sense of abiding by them, is an important part of showing respect for their people. Refusing to do that may be intended as a noble adherence to principle and commitment to human rights, but I’m afraid it tends to come across as just another case of swaggering Westerners (especially Americans) believing that everybody else’s rules don’t apply to them.
I can see that, of course, I just object to the idea that these people were doing something intentionally nefarious, as opposed to misguided, and to the implication that their idiocy (if indeed idiocy it is) and their arrogance (if indeed etc.) is uniquely “Christian” – an idea supported by the very people who in the same breath say “well, not all Muslims are like that, you shouldn’t generalize about what Muslims do.”
I am more interested as an intellectual matter in where the rubber of “respect for local customs” meets the “road of implicitly sanctioning human rights abuses.” I fully appreciate that there is a great deal of tension there. I think that is one of the dilemmas facing the women of Afghanistan – and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other countries – women so thoroughly disempowered, and so much under the thumb of their oppressors, that the idea that “the locals should be left to work things out” is on its face unworkable, when one have of the locals (the men) are disinclined to change things (why should they?) and the other have (the women) cannot do so, being without voice and without representation – and, of course, the whole thing has the seal of approval of their version of Islam. How do the locals work that out? Or do we just say to the women of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Yemen – “Sucks to be you; honor crimes are one of your society’s mores.”
And allow me to correct myself before He Who Knows Everything Because By God He’s Had Personal Experience has a chance to:
Men apparently do not have an absolute right under Shari’a to kill their wives or daughters for so-called honor crimes.
They just won’t get in much trouble if they do.
I do beg your pardon. I did not mean to derail the conversation by introducing such archaic terms of art as “totally” and “non-responsive.” I promise to try to do better.