Don't Believe the Hype: This is What Secularists are really Defending.

[kakargirl]

reminds me of mustached afghan communists like najibullah who would curse the arabs and pakis for interference in the country while conveniently ignoring the 150,000 russians in the country that killed 1 million plus afghans.

wrora 2 million were killed and najibullah was with the russians thats what he wanted in the country he wasn't ignouring them he was a part of them i cant stand that man .

[Roshina]

Pa khair, ScimitarXEdge!

Ahh - just when I was starting to see you as a reasonable and intelligent person. I take my thoughts back for the following reasons.

Firstly, consider this list of many other notables who oppose the occupation and atrocities of the American war-machine, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine:

Noam Chomsky
Gore Vidal
Richard Dawkins
Commander Robert Fisk
Edward Said (Khwdey de ubakhee!)
Norman Finkelstein
Amy Goodman
... and the list doesn't end.

Secondly, To equate secular thought with being on the American bandwagon is not ignorance but dishonesty. Secularism unbiasedly opposes and dismisses American foreign-policy excesses and human rights violations without resorting to tit-for-tat tactics - "You attacked my country, now I'll suicide-bomb your discotheque". That is the way; this form of opposition always has the moral high-ground. It is merely your assumption - and nothing more - that "secularists" are "Americanists".

Thirdly (and MOST importantly), what exactly does a person's belief that state should impose a certain religion (or that religious law should be imposed or enforced by the state) have to do with oppression and injustice? One need not be against secularism to know that the videos you've shared, that what's being done to Afghans, is beyond inhumane and unfair and must be dealt with properly and justly. It's cruel, and it'd ache any human with a soul, whether this soul happens to be a secularist or anti-secularist. One also need not be pro-secularism or a secularist to feel no emotions upon seeing this. Sure, blame it on secularism--what's new? That's what every other person with a severely lacking understanding of secularism does already anyway; we're used to it, and we expect nothing better from such people. In fact, I'd be very surprised, even shocked, to ever read a comment even remotely similar to "Just because a certain secularist does something doesn't mean it's the teaching of secularism itself" from someone who hates secularism or doesn't support it. Unfortunately, this is what a strong unwillingness to learn and study does to us: it blindens us so deeply that we become biased, and OUR view becomes the only possible correct view in history and in all of humanity.

Fourthly, your taunting comments, your "challenge" to secularists to come forward and speak against what you have spoken against are more than enough to repel any human with a sense of sanity and reason. What exactly do you hope to achieve with such taunting and such lame challenges? I decided to respond only because I got too many requests from others to do so. What, you think secularists should share their views just because you want them to, just because you think they're always wrong, just because you don't think they'll find disturbing and unjust what you find disturbing and unjust? Clearly, you need some secularist friends!

I won't lecture you on the basics of secularism, as I've done that quite enough already on this exact same forum. I'm happy to refer you to the threads in which secularism has been discussed and unsuccessfully challenged. I do, however, urge you to read up on secularism, read books/articles about secularism BY secularists themselves, in addition to those written against secularism by impartial non-secularists. There are pros and cons to everything, and no one who denies this is worth a read, so I'd caution you against reading something written by someone full of rage, bias, and emotions. Scholars are supposed to keep their emotions and personal biases away from their research, works, books, etc., and on something like secularism, you shouldn't read anything unless written by a scholar--whether pro-secularism or anti-secularism.

Now, you keep on creating all these hate-filled threads on secularism, as if you know anything about it at all or as if you know all about it and are here to "expose" the "truth about secularism," but you should try to review the millions of threads already created; tons of them are already dedicated to secularism (secularism and Islam and Islamic law, secularism and politics, secularism and atheism, secularism and Pashtuns, and so on). Lemme make the task easier for you and give you links to some of 'em. I advise you to read over those before making any new ones. Every single thing you've said about secularism has been said by others already, so it's not really contributing to the discourse on secularism. In turn, every single thing secularists are going to say in response to you has been said by them already in those other threads I mentioned. Experience has taught me that we get nowhere with repetition in discussions in which neither party is willing to understand the other, so I won't repeat anything here at all. This thread is gonna be buried within a few days, and another anti-secularism person will join the forum in, say, a month or two or more, and create more threads on secularism and how destructive it is to Muslims and Islam and Pashtuns. It's too annoying and frustrating when folks don't read over the past threads to see if their thread is a repetition, so lemme go ahead and link you up to some of them below.

1. http://www.pashtunforums.com/politic...pashtuns-3440/
2. http://www.pashtunforums.com/politic...phy-laws-5777/
3. http://www.pashtunforums.com/politic...possible-5559/
4. http://www.pashtunforums.com/religio...l-choice-5175/
5. http://www.pashtunforums.com/politic...onalists-8450/

And at least ten more others that I remember participating in myself. Now I realize that since it's always the exact same arguments, the exact same rebuttals, the exact same responses--what's the point of entertaining them anymore, when all's been said? It is quite obvious that we're not here to learn but only to "prove others" wrong. Well, I recently discovered one of the most wisest sayings ever, by the wise Paulo Coelho: "To believe in your choice, you don't need to prove other people's choices wrong."

So, as I've said, it's getting too old, too repetitive, too boring to attract my attention any longer, and perhaps that's why no "secularists" are wishing to entertain this miserable thread. Remind me: What's the point of this thread?

Manana for your time!

Sincerely,
A Secular Pashtun Muslim Woman

P.S. I apologize if I sound rude. I don't mean to come off as such at all--but I do admit I'm a bit too frustrated and bored with the same old stuff from people of the same old mentality who refuse to do a little searching here and there

P.P.S. I'm also half-sorry for highlighting certain sentences/points of mine above. I do realize the depth of my immaturity in doing this, but thanks for your understanding!

[ScimitarXEdge]

You don't sound rude, just confused, meandering and divergent.

Now when we're speaking of secularists;please understand this is in context of Asia and the Middle East.

the Secularists you mention are in conflict with their respective Secular States (defacto or nomial that's another issue). Although Richard Dawkins should definitely not be in the list. Chomsky and Said should be, but I never read him espousing secularism, neither has Robert Fisk either come to think of it.

Don't worry you don't need to educate me on secularism; I'm very well of it's arguments and it's background. If I want to know about secularism I'll pick up one of several books on my shelf.

As for "repelling any human with a sense of sanity and reason" is as Paradoxical as it is ridiculous; because Sanity and Reason dictates that one would be the first to respond to such issues.

However even now you skirted past the main subject, the plight of the ecology and well being of Afghans due to radioactive genocide; and instead went to just run to the defense of secularism. The highlighting of secularism is due to the fact that Secularists on this forum have been vocal in their support of military invasion of Afghanistan on pretexts of fighting Taliban and AlQaeda; and yet seem to feel no moral urgency regarding something which would outshine the damage done by both forces combined.

YOur change in your opinion of me is more to do with bruised ego, less to do with any intellectually honest concerns.

Sincerely

Rationalist Pan Islam Pashtoon Male.

[ډګروال]

YOur change in your opinion of me is more to do with bruised ego, less to do with any intellectually honest concerns.

Sincerely

Rationalist Pan Islam Pashtoon Male.

da pekey la bela

[RevolutionThroughReason]

da pekey la bela

why do you keep obessing about older threads ...you seriously live on this forum

get a job , and stop being a social failure.

[ډګروال]

why do you keep obessing about older threads ...you seriously live on this forum

get a job , and stop being a social failure.

the biggest failoure is you who is 24/7 on this forum and other forums.:P

i like these threads,why do you feel uncomfortable?

dont believe the hype

[RevolutionThroughReason]

If I was on this foruim 24/7 ./...then why are you the one constantly searching old threads ...that takes a LOT of time to run through the entire archives to find threads like that. If you had a job you wouldn't do that.

[faye]

scimitar, how come you only found out this stuff, about d.u. in 2011?
'afghanistan after democracy', was written around 2006, from what i recall.
this was old news, when you put this article up

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Because I joined this site in 2011 ....doh.

[faye]

your join date says, 2010, but it sounds as though you had only just discovered what is being done, with the creation of your beloved scientists.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

"sounds as though" is that what you're trying to do to save your blunder


This computer which you use without a second thought, is also the creation of our "beloved" scientists.....why are you relying on the fruits of science?

[faye]

oooo, big red herring for me.
what has me using the computer got to do with the negative creation of depleted uranium?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

they're made by scientists and you're a huge hypocrite if you're condemning science and scientists for one thing and yet relying on their fruits.

[faye]

am i? how is that?
are scientists beyond condemnation, like some kind of gods? everything they do is ok with you?
would that not make you the hypocrite since you are the one putting an article up, complaining about their creation being used for genocide?

[DaZahroJaam.]

you are going to condemn the entire field of science because some people choose to take advantage of it?? Should we stone you to death because someone cartoonists mock the prophet by drawing him up?? How do you get to be so narrow minded?'?