Afghani Eject Computer Experts

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Beerina wrote:

It is interesting you brought up this commandment and tied it to capital punishment. That's because the Ten Commandments merely says Thou Shalt Not Kill. It DOES NOT specify punishment, capital or otherwise.

On the other hand some here are arguing that the Code of Hammurabi, for example, says "thou shalt not kill" before the ten commandments did but these folks may not have read the code of Hammurabi thoroughly enough to realize that it DOES NOT say "Thou Shalt Not Kill." But it does specify capital punishment for killing and a lot of other things. It presumes that people will kill but does not specifically make a statement to prohibit killing. It presumes people will steal and specifies punishment for that, and so on.

Here's an example directly from an authorized translation of the Code of Hammurabi:




There are 282 "crimes" for which punishments are listed so this is a small but representative example. Review the rest at:


http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

#8 above applies to day. It's called celebrity or rich man's justice.

You are talking around the issue, Steve.

You claimed that:

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Three of the commandments clearly predate secular laws against killing, stealing and perjury.

You have seen evidence that this is not correct.

Do you admit that you were wrong, yes or no?

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

There you have it, the Prologue to the Code of Hammurabi which seems to involve deities as well:

So what? Most primitive socierties justify their moral codes with their religion, true secularism is a new idea. It isn't a religious code though, and in either case it doesn't change the fact that we have a legal code predating the ten commandments by a significant period of time, which contains all 3 of the ten commandments which are clearly and close to fully part of modern secular laws.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Of the more 200 "crimes" spelled out in Hammurabi, many specifiy death sentences for what we would consider non-capital crimes.

The point of this being? The Old Testament is unduly hash by modern standards as well.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

In fact the Code seems not so much to prohibit certain acts as it is a an early version of rather harsh sentencing guidelines.

The very fact that a hash sentence is proscriped for an act, obviously means it's forbidden.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

So what? Most primitive socierties justify their moral codes with their religion, true secularism is a new idea. It isn't a religious code though, and in either case it doesn't change the fact that we have a legal code predating the ten commandments by a significant period of time, which contains all 3 of the ten commandments which are clearly and close to fully part of modern secular laws.

The Code of Hammurabi, which, when discovered was carbon dated to around 1900 BC is around 1000 years older than the Ten Commandments.

However: it does not state Thou Shalt Not Kill. It does not state Killing Shall be Prohibited. It does not state stealing shall be prohibited except by people rich enough to pay up to a 30 fold fine based on the value of what was stolen. It is not the Ten Commandments, it doesn't say what is in the ten commandments. It is irrelevant to this argument.

Quote:

The point of this being? The Old Testament is unduly hash by modern standards as well.

The Ten Commandments in Exodus is not. But the point is that the Code of Hammurabi was found in 1901 and therefore could not predate the Ten commandments used to formulate the the earliest American laws. If you think so I will have to accuse you of revisionism. What's the punishment for that? Remember "context" which our friend conveniently leaves out of his quotes, making them misattributions.

Quote:

The very fact that a hash sentence is proscriped for an act, obviously means it's forbidden.

If you think stealing a goat or an ass deserves the death penalty remind me not to visit your neck of the woods. There is a reason for sentencing guidelines. Hammurabi is sentencing guidelines, the ten comandments is not.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The Ten Commandments in Exodus is not.

Not "harsh"? Have you even bothered to read Exodus?

Quote:

5 thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: Ex. 34.17 · Lev. 19.4 ; 26.1 · Deut. 4.15-18 ; 27.15 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

7 ¶ Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: Lev. 19.12 for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Source

Can you show me any current legislation that holds people responsible for what their ancestors four generations back did?

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The Code of Hammurabi, which, when discovered was carbon dated to around 1900 BC is around 1000 years older than the Ten Commandments.

However: it does not state Thou Shalt Not Kill. It does not state Killing Shall be Prohibited. It does not state stealing shall be prohibited except by people rich enough to pay up to a 30 fold fine based on the value of what was stolen.

That's because it's a legal code. Legal codes don't contain general and unclear commandments.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

It is not the Ten Commandments

No **** Sherlock?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

t doesn't say what is in the ten commandments. It is irrelevant to this argument.

It proves that water is wet, if you are unable to accept this fact there's really nothing I can do about that.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The Ten Commandments in Exodus is not.

Congratulate you for finding all of 17 verses of the bible which were neither unduly hash *cough*for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me*cough* nor barbaric *cough*Slaves*cough,

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

But the point is that the Code of Hammurabi was found in 1901 and therefore could not predate the Ten commandments used to formulate the the earliest American laws.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

If you think so I will have to accuse you of revisionism.

Good thing that I didn't think that then wouldn't you say? If you think I did, I will have to accuse you of catastrophically poor reading conmprehension, and frankly a failure of grasping even the most simple logic.

QUOTE=SteveGrenard;1964291]If you think stealing a goat or an ass deserves the death penalty remind me not to visit your neck of the woods.[/quote]
Congratulations on a splendid non sequitor, yes, if only we could all live up to the standards of the good book, I'm sure our male slaves and female slaves would live much happier lives, as would the rest of us. Except for those who were being punished for the sins of their parents, grandparents, great grandparent and great, great grandparents.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

That's because it's a legal code. Legal codes don't contain general and unclear commandments.

I accept the fact that the Code of Hammurabi is legal code. The Ten Commandments are just laws then and as such meet the criteria I specified. For America the Ten Commandments were the first document, preceding all others, used to form the basis of our laws. There is also another reason for this: the founders/framers did not have the Code of Hammurabi which was not discovered until 1901.

Ergo they could not have used it. Ergo the laws they passed against killing, perjury, theft, adultery, holding the sabbath, swearing and parental obedience were based on the ten commandments.

Quote:

Congratulate you for finding all of 17 verses of the bible which were neither unduly hash *cough*for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me*cough* nor barbaric *cough*Slaves*cough,

Stay on topic. This is ONLY about the decalogue in exodus and its basis for early American law; the ten commandments and what they say. Including the rest of the book they are in is broadening the playing field. The Code of Hammurabi is in the Encyclopedia Brittanica so should we consider everything else in the encylopedia also?

The Ten Commandments and much of the bible if you want to include it allows only for god to sit in judgement and mete out punishment which, unless you are a devout religionist that believes the crap, is meaningless on the sentencing side. The Code of Hammurabi does not allow for their gods (and they had multiple apparently) to do this and instead executed people for trivial offenses in real terms. No punishment from god here.

Quote:

Congratulations on a splendid non sequitor, yes, if only we could all live up to the standards of the good book, I'm sure our male slaves and female slaves would live much happier lives, as would the rest of us. Except for those who were being punished for the sins of their parents, grandparents, great grandparent and great, great grandparents.

Slaves are well represented in the Code of Hammurabi, more so on multiple counts and are even selected for harsher punishments including death than rich people who could afford the fines and walk away. If God is going to punish me for the sins of my parents and their parents, I am quite willing to say "god give me your best shot." But if the King's executioner were going to mete out that punishment I am going to want a good lawyer.

I am amazed at some of skeptics on this board who are so deeply involved in their religion they actually start believing in it. If you are really worried about god punishing you for violating a commandment don't do it. Run along now and don't sin or god will get you.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

I accept the fact that the Code of Hammurabi is legal code. The Ten Commandments are just laws then and as such meet the criteria I specified.

You lost me there. What criteria?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

For America the Ten Commandments were the first document, preceding all others, used to form the basis of our laws.

A) Evidence?
B) documents are not the only souce of laws

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

There is also another reason for this: the founders/framers did not have the Code of Hammurabi which was not discovered until 1901.
Ergo they could not have used it. Ergo the laws they passed against killing, perjury, theft, adultery, holding the sabbath, swearing and parental obedience were based on the ten commandments.

False dilemma.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Stay on topic. This is ONLY about the decalogue in exodus and its basis for early American law; the ten commandments and what they say. Including the rest of the book they are in is broadening the playing field. The Code of Hammurabi is in the Encyclopedia Brittanica so should we consider everything else in the encylopedia also.

Now I could point of how hidiously tortured an anology it is to something that is at least offficially a single work about one thing (god) with a lexicon, But I think I'll just quote the 10 commandments in their totallity highlighting certain important passages:

Exodus 20:1-17, New Revised Standard Version.

Ten Commandments
1Then God spoke all these words: 2I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3you shall have no other gods before me. 4You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. 8Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your [b]male or female slave[b], your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. 12Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. 13You shall not murder. 14You shall not commit adultery. 15You shall not steal. 16You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_commandments

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The Ten Commandments and much of the bible if you want to include it allows only for god to sit in judgement and mete out punishment

Where does it say that? The ten commnadments doesn't say that , and old testamential law explicitly mentions punishements to be carried out by humans.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The Code of Hammurabi does not allow for their gods (and they had multiple apparently) to do this and instead executed people for trivial offenses in real terms. No punishment from god here.

I don't see what the point of this observation is.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Slaves are well represented in the Code of Hammurabi, more so on multiple counts and are even selected for harsher punishments including death than rich people who could afford the fines and walk away. If God is going to punish me for the sins of my parents and their parents, I am quite willing to say "god give me your best shot." But if the King's executioner were going to mete out that punishment I am going to want a good lawyer.

none oh which has the slightest relevance to anything that has been discussed in this thread.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

I am amazed at some of skeptics on this board who are so deeply involved in their religion they actually start believing in it. If you are really worried about god punishing you for violating a commandment don't do it. Run along now and don't sin or god will get you.

I'm amazed at your apparently endless ability to construct strawmen out of thin air.

[SteveGrenard]

Quote:

1Then God spoke all these words: 2I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3you shall have no other gods before me. 4You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

These seven commandments are god related and god given punishments of a vague nature are imposed as opposed to being executed by human hand for
trivial offenses such as pig theft. I fail to see any statement in the commandments associated with any prohibited act that is punished by human hand. I also see commandments with no punishments at all listed.

If you wish to refer to other parts of the bible for such punishments, that isbroadening the playing field. This is about the very narrow issue of the ten commandments as used outside the bible as a basis for secular law. Context: America during the earliest settlements up to independance. Spain in 1500s in Florida, Virginia and Mass Bay Colonies for example.

The original argument in case you missed it way back involved the assertion that the ten commandments predate any laws in the Americas prohibiting killing, perjury and theft, and others. The premise is that America's earliest laws re these offenses were based on early settlers' knowledge of the ten commandments, and not any Babylonian tablets lost for a thousand years in Persia. Conversational remarks turned into semantic pedantry, of course, have been convoluted and twisted by certain poster per his usual m.o. It was especially twisted by abberviated quote taken without context.

Thank you for your comments. If you dont agree with the premise fine. A lot of people do; in fact it is the defense of the ten commandment public space exhibit controversies and ACLU lawsuits.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Since you have a hard time admitting you were wrong, and answering if there is any current legislation that holds people responsible for what their ancestors four generations back did, how about this:

Do you not consider holding people responsible for what their ancestors four generations back did (that is, rejecting God) "unduly harsh"?

You claim to be an atheist. That means that your great-great-grandchildren should be punished for what you have done (rejected God).

Do you really not find that "unduly harsh"?

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

These seven commandments are god related and god given punishments of a vague nature are imposed as opposed to being executed by human hand for
trivial offenses such as pig theft. I fail to see any statement in the commandments associated with any prohibited act that is punished by human hand. I also see commandments with no punishments at all listed.

I salute you ability to keep moving the goal posts every time you're proven wrong, but the fact is that the harshness of the Hamurabi Code, or the fact that it’s punishements do not involve a lightning bolt striking you down has no relevancy whatsoever to any part of this discussion. It is a code predating the ten commandments prohibiting murder theft and perjury, which was what you asked for.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

If you wish to refer to other parts of the bible for such punishments, that isbroadening the playing field.

No it would be introducing context that is very relevant for the discussion, ignoring context in order to avoid inconvenient conclusions made apparent by this context is intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The original argument in case you missed it way back involved the assertion that the ten commandments predate any laws in the Americas prohibiting killing, perjury and theft, and others.

I didn't miss it because that was never the assertion, anybody with a calendar knows that and it would hardly have sparked a discussion.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The premise is that America's earliest laws re these offenses were based on early settlers' knowledge of the ten commandments, and not any Babylonian tablets lost for a thousand years in Persia.

I believe I already pointed out that this is a false dilemma fallacy. In fact it is a false dilemma fallacy for a question based on a false premise, since Americas earliest laws where never made from scratch but based on the British common law - of which prohibitations against murder certainly origins from before the Brits where christianized, something we can deduce from the self evidenct fact that no socierty throughout time, has failed to have such prohibitation.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Thank you for your comments. If you dont agree with the premise fine. A lot of people do; in fact it is the defense of the ten commandment public space exhibit controversies and ACLU lawsuits.

Argument from popularity is a fallacy too.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

I salute you ability to keep moving the goal posts every time you're proven wrong, but the fact is that the harshness of the Hamurabi Code, or the fact that it’s punishements do not involve a lightning bolt striking you down has no relevancy whatsoever to any part of this discussion. It is a code predating the ten commandments prohibiting murder theft and perjury, which was what you asked for.

Please show me in black and white where in the Hammurabi Code it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Quote:

No it would be introducing context that is very relevant for the discussion, ignoring context in order to avoid inconvenient conclusions made apparent by this context is intellectually dishonest.

Indeed and my point exactly. The context in my premise has consistently been shuffled out of sight.
I shuffled it back into the light.

Quote:

I didn't miss it because that was never the assertion, anybody with a calendar knows that and it would hardly have sparked a discussion.

You apparently have no idea what would and would not spark a discussion when it comes to one particular person. Secondly it is my premise and assertion that was attacked and attacked out of context. You have NO standing whatsoever in defining these. If you want to start a new thread or a new assertion clearly state that elsewhere.

Kindly stay out of my assertion. If not, you are on my ignore list which has just one other person on it.
Make your own, start a new thread.

Quote:

I believe I already pointed out that this is a false dilemma fallacy. In fact it is a false dilemma fallacy for a question based on a false premise, since Americas earliest laws where never made from scratch but based on the British common law - of which prohibitations against murder certainly origins from before the Brits where christianized, something we can deduce from the self evidenct fact that no socierty throughout time, has failed to have such prohibitation.

Sorry, having a hard time accepting your assertion that the Spanish who founded St Augustine in 1565 or other settlements did so under English Common Law. I have never heard anything so absurd. Later
settlers came here for religious freedom they could not find in England and Europe and were anxious to embrace the ten commandments as the source for their laws against perjury, theft and murder.
But as I said before you are entitled to your opinion that the earliest settlers here did not bring their bibles with them and did not use the ten commandments to establish laws but as I also said an awful lot of people would disagree with you. You are free to revise history if you wish but I am free to call it revisionism. I have opinion as well. You would do well not to trample on my rights to have an opinion. Thank you. Again, have a nice day.

You are, of course, pereptrating the argument used by the ACLU to tear down renditions of the ten commandments in public spaces. I have no problem with a bunch of lawyers making a living doing this but I do not believe that the basis for their argument is correct on this level. Also I am not fond of paying them either. There are better reasons to remove the tablets from public spaces. Congress is trying to shut the lawyers down now by not allowing them to bill their fees to the defendents in their suits. As a taxpayer paying their egregious legal bills I am tempted to side with Congress which passed the legislation. As an atheist I could care less about the ten commandments on public property. It remains to be seen what happens in the Senate and on our president's desk.

See:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65109

Quote:

Argument from popularity is a fallacy too.

Whatever. I agree with those historians and descendents of the original settlers who believe that their ancestors' ten commandments formed the basis for their earliest laws, yes, along with the Magna Carta (in English colonies) on some issues (but not murder, theft and bearing false witness) and that an 8 foot high slab of stone lost in Persia for a millenium or more was not the source of the earliest American laws. It just didn't happen.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Since you have a hard time admitting you were wrong, and answering if there is any current legislation that holds people responsible for what their ancestors four generations back did, how about this:

Do you not consider holding people responsible for what their ancestors four generations back did (that is, rejecting God) "unduly harsh"?

You claim to be an atheist. That means that your great-great-grandchildren should be punished for what you have done (rejected God).

Do you really not find that "unduly harsh"?

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Please show me in black and white where in the Hammurabi Code it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Please show me in black and white where in US law it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Indeed and my point exactly. The context in my premise has consistently been shuffled out of sight.
I shuffled it back into the light.

You point was that ignoring everything in the bible except for the ten commandments even for the purposes of understanding the ten Commandments is deebly dishonest? I'm glad we agree

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Secondly it is my premise and assertion that was attacked and attacked out of context. You have NO standing whatsoever in defining these. If you want to start a new thread or a new assertion clearly state that elsewhere.

As it happens I can read and understand English which gives me the amazing ability to decipher what people write in said language. You did nor say and are still not saying simply that the 10 commandments predate the discovery of America.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Kindly stay out of my assertion. If not, you are on my ignore list which has just one other person on it.

You ignore list is yours to manage as you choose.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Sorry, having a hard time accepting your assertion that the Spanish who founded St Augustine in 1565 or other settlements did so under English Common Law. I have never heard anything so absurd.

Ignoring you deliberate misunderstanding I'll just point out that Spanish law around 1565 probably did not permit murder theft and perjury either.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Later settlers came here for religious freedom they could not find in England and Europe and were anxious to embrace the ten commandments as the source for their laws against perjury, theft and murder.

People who looked for religious freedom embraced a set of commandments of which the very first explicitly outlaws religious freedom? People are funny.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

But as I said before you are entitled to your opinion that the earliest settlers here did not bring their bibles with them and did not use the ten commandments to establish laws but as I also said an awful lot of people would disagree with you. You are free to revise history if you wish but I am free to call it revisionism. I have opinion as well. You would do well not to trample on my rights to have an opinion. Thank you. Again, have a nice day.

Yuou are free to invent fictional posistions and attribute them to me while simoultaniously complaining that I do not accept what you claim to have said earlier, but I'm free to call you a hypocrite and intelectually dishonest.

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for Steve Grenard.

[Antiquehunter]

Back to the OP - I was in country (Afghanistan) when this happened and I can provide an extensive history of the security / intel reports about the group in question.

There was never any mention of them being computer experts - they were evangelical Christians - busloads of 'em - travelling with lots of women and children, holding Xtian rallies in major cities throughout Afghanistan, distributing literature etc...

Kabul was essentially locked down for a couple of days for internationals because of the risk of reprisal and protests, organized by the Imams and Mullahs against what they perceived to be an aggressive conversion campaign.

At the last minute, just as the Korean missionaries were arriving in Kabul (about 60 of 'em moved into a house across the street from where I live) they were deported on the basis of misrepresenting their VISA applications.

-AH.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

Back to the OP - I was in country (Afghanistan) when this happened and I can provide an extensive history of the security / intel reports about the group in question.

There was never any mention of them being computer experts - they were evangelical Christians - busloads of 'em - travelling with lots of women and children, holding Xtian rallies in major cities throughout Afghanistan, distributing literature etc...

Kabul was essentially locked down for a couple of days for internationals because of the risk of reprisal and protests, organized by the Imams and Mullahs against what they perceived to be an aggressive conversion campaign.

At the last minute, just as the Korean missionaries were arriving in Kabul (about 60 of 'em moved into a house across the street from where I live) they were deported on the basis of misrepresenting their VISA applications.

-AH.

This revelation about the computer experts is very interesting.

If the muslims in Afghanistan were confident in the ability of their own religion to retain its members they would not be opposed to attempts by missonaries to convert them. Clearly muslims are not sufficiently confident in their religionwhich is why they enforce a religious law against apostasy, or conversion from muslim to non-muslim. This is an offense that can carry the death penalty as recent threats of a case in Afghanistan proved. So if you convert you run the risk of dying, probably by the sword .... beheaded in the public square. This is a pretty barbaric and stiff penalty which should insure muslims against apostasy but even still they fear missionaries so much they would deport them. Fascinating.

Their action in this case also supports a charge of religious intolerance on their part. They expect their religion to be tolerated wherever they go but they do not respect or tolerate the religion of others in return.

[Antiquehunter]

Well I'm not sure you can safely make the extrapolations you've made there about Muslims or about the confidence the Muslims in Afghanstan have in their faith, Steve.

Firstly - the Koreans were granted admittance as tourists - they were NOT tourists - they were there with an agenda and had what could very easily be considered 'work' materials with them (literature, signs, PA equipment and pamphlets to hand out).

Secondly - Afghanistan is an Islamic state, with atraditional laws that don't read as Western laws. Its entirely plausible that the Koreans were breaking the law by actively engaging in religious discourse - I'm not sure, and I'm not an Afghan civil rights legal expert. I know their TAX and CUSTOMS laws inside out, but that's it.

Finally - what they were doing was actively causing a security issue within the country. Several threats were made that the Muslim community (segments thereof only I'm sure) were planning demonstrations and were potentially going to clash with the Koreans if they held a demonstration in Kabul. I'm pretty confident that if a religious group was causing a security scare / disruption in North America, they would be handled rather swiftly, and ejection from the country would be a consideration.

Don't get me wrong - I couldn't give a fig if a religious group decided to tour Vancouver, sing songs, wave signs and hand out leaflets. But this ain't Vancouver, honey.

But its a bit of a leap to suggest religious intolerance and a lack of faith from these actions - this is a weird country, and its simply not prepared to deal with the Korean version of the Billy Graham Crusade.

-AH.

[SteveGrenard]

Quote:

Firstly - the Koreans were granted admittance as tourists - they were NOT tourists - they were there with an agenda and had what could very easily be considered 'work' materials with them (literature, signs, PA equipment and pamphlets to hand out).

Well if these are the same people who were ejected in the OP that we are taking about, press accounts indicated they were admitted as computer
experts. Perhaps there were different groups.

Quote:

Secondly - Afghanistan is an Islamic state, with atraditional laws that don't read as Western laws. Its entirely plausible that the Koreans were breaking the law by actively engaging in religious discourse - I'm not sure, and I'm not an Afghan civil rights legal expert. I know their TAX and CUSTOMS laws inside out, but that's it.

Of course they were breaking the law if they were caught having non-Muslim religious discourse since while Islam demands tolerance from others they do not extend it in return.

Quote:

Finally - what they were doing was actively causing a security issue within the country. Several threats were made that the Muslim community (segments thereof only I'm sure) were planning demonstrations and were potentially going to clash with the Koreans if they held a demonstration in Kabul. I'm pretty confident that if a religious group was causing a security scare / disruption in North America, they would be handled rather swiftly, and ejection from the country would be a consideration.

I am pretty sure that we have religious freedom in North America and that any member of any religion is free to prosleytize or obtain converts if they
can. I am also pretty sure that if any muslims in North America hold violent demonstrations against such persons or take violent action against them
they will be arrested and charged. From time to time there are peaceful non-Muslim demonstrations that have been violent in the past and such demonstrators including those using violence at abortion clinics, for example, were swiftly dealt with by law enforcement.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong - I couldn't give a fig if a religious group decided to tour Vancouver, sing songs, wave signs and hand out leaflets. But this ain't Vancouver, honey.

Of course you don't. And of course BC is not Afghanistan. But it's just not Afghanistan, it's Islam and what you describe as happening in Afghanistan
can and does happen elsewhere where Islam holds sway. The religion needs to embrace religious freedom and tolerance which it demands for itself.
While Bush and company are trying allegedly trying to instil democracy in Afghanistan and in Iraq, what they have overlooked and where they are failing is that they should first have negotiated religious reform. Without that any such attempts are doomed to failure.

Quote:

But its a bit of a leap to suggest religious intolerance and a lack of faith from these actions - this is a weird country, and its simply not prepared to deal with the Korean version of the Billy Graham Crusade.

Religious intolerance is a hallmark of Islam and especially so islamic states. The fruits of that intolerance can be seen in the Horn of Africa where 100s of 1000s of non-muslims have been slaughtered by moslem militias. I appreciate
the arguments that hundreds, even a thousand years ago Christianity engaged in violence. But its been a long time since the inquisition and
the crusades yet muslims still suffer the historical paranoia of believing crusaders are attacking them.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

But its a bit of a leap to suggest religious intolerance and a lack of faith from these actions - this is a weird country, and its simply not prepared to deal with the Korean version of the Billy Graham Crusade.

-AH.

I suspect it is, with gunfire -- particularly in the south. This less dire response strikes me as most moderate, given the context.

DR