[vyper]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4823874.stm

An Afghan man is being tried in a court in the capital, Kabul, for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could face the death sentence under Sharia law unless he recants.

[Kosh]

Don't you just love it when backward religious laws end up becoming national criminal law?

[Kie99]

"We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance."

Words fail me.

[Rictor]

Afghanistan has survived unchanged despite invasions by pretty much every great empire of the 20th century. I never expected them to about-face just because of a few American suddenly showed up.

[an0n]

See, this is precisely why I advocate genocide.

If you overthrow the government then butcher the population, there's no-one left to reform the same stupid government once you're gone.

[Kosh]

Afghanistan has survived unchanged despite invasions by pretty much every great empire of the 20th century. I never expected them to about-face just because of a few American suddenly showed up.

Hence its backwardness. Every civilization has two choices: Change or be left behind. Islamism hasn't changed at all ever since it was founded, and look at where the Islamist countries are today. Even though they are very weak and many are either unstable (Iraq) or borderline unstable (Saudia Arabia), Islamic society still refuses to change. If anything, it continues to become even more backward.

Compare this with the chinese civilization. It got left behind because it wouldn't change to meet the times, but now it is and is changing very quickly. Now China is becoming a leading power, especially in East Asia. Why? Because it is changing. The "ancient culture" that people talk about when they refer to China is pretty much dead, especially amoung the young people.

[Rictor]

First of all, you can't begin to compare China and Afghanistan. Afganistan has no chance of being a great power, ever. Their only prospect to have the population more fed or less fed, better educated or less educated, and that's about it. They can't win the game, so why try. The same stands true for most countries, aside for a few superpowers. Canada, for example, will be a vague memory three hundred years from now. Should it bend over backwards for the potential to last three hundred and ten years?

Hell, at least Afganistan backwardness is noble. Futile, yes. Harsh, yes. But the sheer stuborness with which the ancient, tribal ways cling to society is heroic in a way.

I'm glad you brought up China, because it's a pretty good example of the opposite. Take the phrase "China has adapted in order to have access to more power, wealth etc". So, China does A in order to accomplish B. However, if you take "China" to mean more than just the geographical location, and take it to mean the sum of the culture, heritage, history, religion, architecutre, social order and so on of the Chinese civilization, then much of "China" has been destroyed or forgotten in the process of modernization. In that case, A did B to accomplish C, but in the process A is no longer A, so the whole equation is meaningless, and A has failed to accomplish its end because of its means. Get it? The world's oldest civilization swallows itself up in order to build more identical skyscrapers and luxury cars by German and Italian designers. Yeah, great trade-off.

Though I'm not so certain about China's break with its history. There's a good chance that what happened in Russia will happen in China. Communism loses its appeal, both practically and as a world view, so something must fill the gap. When the USSR collapsed, people flocked to the Russian Orthodox Church which had not exactly been popular during the days of socialism. They embraced their heritage as a nation because the socialist outlook, the "Worker's Utopia" and "Worldwide Revolution" had lost their appeal. China is, in practice, a capitalist counrty, and in order to maintain social cohesion in the mid to long term, the Chinese government may find that nationalism is a better motivator and uniter than socialism. China has a rich, vast history to fall back on, and is one of the few places on Earth that can claim both a glorious past and a (potentially) glorious future.

[Fury]

The "ancient culture" that people talk about when they refer to China is pretty much dead, especially amoung the young people.

Slightly off topic, but it is kind of a shame when young generations are forgetting the culture of older generations. Personally I think each culture should be remembered and protected to the extent it won't completely disappear. As I am an european myself, I find asian cultures to be quite exotic and interesting, it is a sad day indeed when those cultures exists only in museums, which seems likely to happen at this rate.

[Kosh]

So, China does A in order to accomplish B. However, if you take "China" to mean more than just the geographical location, and take it to mean the sum of the culture, heritage, history, religion, architecutre, social order and so on of the Chinese civilization, then much of "China" has been destroyed or forgotten in the process of modernization. In that case, A did B to accomplish C, but in the process A is no longer A, so the whole equation is meaningless, and A has failed to accomplish its end because of its means.

Not completly true. What is happening with the youth is that they are not only becoming westernized, but they are also making something unique too. The "ancient culture" is not completly lost, it is altered into something new.

First of all, you can't begin to compare China and Afghanistan. Afganistan has no chance of being a great power, ever. Their only prospect to have the population more fed or less fed, better educated or less educated, and that's about it. They can't win the game, so why try.

Winning isn't everything. This isn't Sid Meier's Civ. South Korea (and the whole of Korea for that matter) has never been a major power in its history. Yet South Korea opened itself up, let itself adjust to new ideas, and in doing so became a rich country with a well educated populace. It might never be a superpower, it might never rule the world, but does that really matter? No.

Though I'm not so certain about China's break with its history. There's a good chance that what happened in Russia will happen in China. Communism loses its appeal, both practically and as a world view, so something must fill the gap. When the USSR collapsed, people flocked to the Russian Orthodox Church which had not exactly been popular during the days of socialism.

Communism lost its appeal in China before I was even born.

China is, in practice, a capitalist counrty, and in order to maintain social cohesion in the mid to long term, the Chinese government may find that nationalism is a better motivator and uniter than socialism.

They know that, and they have been using nationalism as a motivator for 15 years now. But getting rich is easily the biggest motivator.

I don't really believe that the Chinese economy will completly collapse anytime soon. People have been saying "it's going to collapse anytime now" for many years now, and it hasn't. They said it would collapse when it joined the WTO, it didn't. Of course there is always the possibility that the government will mishandle some huge issue, but for now I just don't see a USSR style break up/collapse anytime soon.

[an0n]

Hence its backwardness. Every civilization has two choices: Change or be left behind. Islamism hasn't changed at all ever since it was founded, and look at where the Islamist countries are today. Even though they are very weak and many are either unstable (Iraq) or borderline unstable (Saudia Arabia), Islamic society still refuses to change. If anything, it continues to become even more backward.

Christianity didn't even being to change for 1600 years and it did fine.

And it's not Islam that keeps the Arab nations ****ed, it's the US and EU meddling in their affairs. It suits our needs to have the Arab nations in turmoil and oppressing people as it prevents them from capitalising on their natural resources and allows them to exploit cheap labour which drives down the price of gas in the US and Europe. So we send in 'human rights' organizations to stir up trouble, whining about women's rights and social equality so the governments are always having to divert half their attention to internal bickering.

It's basically a process whereby we ensure there's enough infighting that no Arab nation can ever divert it's resources to conquest or a regional consolidation of power - which keeps oil cheap, security agencies in high demand and Arab armies disorganized.

[Kosh]

Christianity didn't even being to change for 1600 years and it did fine.

And it wasn't until the church loosened its grip on Europe that allowed it to progress and practically rule the world.

[an0n]

Uh, no.

If anything, the drive to spread Christianity to the heathens is what made Europe so ****ing awesome.

Well, that and the British Empire conquering every mother****er who crossed our path.

[Kosh]

Personally I think each culture should be remembered and protected to the extent it won't completely disappear.

Remembered, yes. Protected, no. The "old ways" are dieing or are already dead with good reason. Many traditions just have no place in the 21st century. One of the best examples of ones that should die, but are still holding on is the caste system in India. In that system, you are born into your caste and you can't change your caste. Do you really want such things to continue?

If anything, the drive to spread Christianity to the heathens is what made Europe so ****ing awesome.

But that drive wasn't possible until technological and later socialogical progress was made AFTER the church stopped trying to strangle science in Europe. Of course they were still religious, but the attitudes regarding what roles religion played in life did change. In Islam and in Confucianism it didn't change, and that is why the Islamic countries are unstable/failed and Confucianism is dead.

[an0n]

All the 'unrest' in Britain, Spain and France only came about when the Monarchs decided they didn't like having the Church telling them what to do.

Change causes disruption. The US and EU introducing social changes to the Arab nations is what's ****ing them up.

[Rictor]

Remembered, yes. Protected, no. The "old ways" are dieing or are already dead with good reason. Many traditions just have no place in the 21st century. One of the best examples of ones that should die, but are still holding on is the caste system in India. In that system, you are born into your caste and you can't change your caste. Do you really want such things to continue?

So you're one of those people, eh? Might as well throw traditions and history to the wayside. After all, we've got a bright, shiny future ahead of us, and all those crumbling bits of rock and ancient people mumbling about superstitions are just dead weight and obstacles in the path of progress. Time to leave such absurdity behind.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. See, all those silly superstitions and irrationality, the injustice, the petty tribalism and intolerance, the inherited wisdom, the warlike and bloodthirsty disposition and everything else , all those are part of what it is to be human. Change too much of that, even for the better, and what you have can no longer properly be called "man".

[Kosh]

Change too much of that, even for the better, and what you have can no longer properly be called "man

And is that really such a bad thing?

[an0n]

In a philosophical sense - not really.

In a Darwinian sense - very much so.

While a lot of the **** people do is stupid and serves no immediate purpose, it comes in mighty handy when the facade of civilization crumbles and they're left alone, without modern convenience or the restrictions of social morality.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you remove Mankind's bloodlust, we'd be totally ****ed if civilization ever fell.

[Flipside]

Actually, christianity did change as it grew, the cross, the symbol of 'suffering for your religion' was the replacement for the Fish, which was the original symbol of Christ (possibly denoting the miracle of loaves and fish, though I'm not sure, but if so, it was a symbol of helping thoe had nothing). That whole change was bought about by the church for a specific reason. Also, there was always strife in religion between what the church wanted and what the monarchy wanted, whilst most monarchs were religious, there were frequent disagreements between church and state. It was those disagreements that eventually led to the Schism between Catholics and Protestants,

In many ways, alas, Fundamental Islam is much like Christianty was in the 14-15th century, written in a language for the 'Elite' which common people cannot understand and interpret, and therefore twisted to suit the cirumstances. But the thing about Islam as practised in Afghanistan is that it is virtually impossible for the state to disagree with the church, often because they are both one and the same, it is this, in part, that makes me concerned about the mingling of church and state which is occuring in some Christian countries.

 Remember, the first English civil war was, to a fairly large degree, because one group wanted to move a table.

[Ghostavo]

I'm with Kosh on this one, people should remember other cultures, not "protect" them.

Trying to protect culture is like trying to protect religion. And you don't see people in the street going "Remember Zeus!", don't you?

[an0n]

I'd be out spreading the word of Odin if I wasn't so lazy.