Thursday, August 17, 2017

Religious Fanatics

The Buddhas of Bamiyan were 4th- and 5th-century monumental statues of standing buddha carved into the side of a cliff in the Bamyan valley in the Hazarajat region of central Afghanistan, 230 kilometres (140 mi) northwest of Kabul at an elevation of 2,500 metres (8,200 ft). Built in 507 CE (smaller) and 554 CE (larger), the statues represented the classic blended style of Gandhara art. They were 35 and 53 meters tall, respectively.

They were dynamited and destroyed in March 2001 by the Taliban, on orders from leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, after the Taliban government declared that they were idols.

Information and Culture Minister Qadratullah Jamal told Associated Press of a decision by 400 religious clerics from across Afghanistan declaring the Buddhist statues against the tenets of Islam. "They came out with a consensus that the statues were against Islam," said Jamal.



  1. Property rights issue: government owns the statues so can do as they please.

    Also, local culture issue. I assume the big, progressive city and state governments will remove and deplorable places will keep them. They will be cultural markers in that respect.

    Did Afghan government own the Buddhas?

    1. VfP,

      Who "owns" the corpse of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

      The pig system will do what it will do because it has power. Property rights are a meaningless concept here. Memorials are for memory. The memory is that of the sons of the South. It belongs to them and them alone. The invasive parasites are trying to destroy a memory so that people cannot know themselves. They are doing violence on a metaphysical level. Legalistic concepts like property don't even scratch the surface of the crime.

    2. "Did Afghan government own the Buddhas?"

      I could take the NAP purist approach and say that the government does not and cannot legitimately "own" anything. The government is in possession of stolen goods; in this case, the only proper action for the government to take is to be a good steward of the goods.

      Or I could respond as UC did.

      Either response I find perfectly applicable and solid: one, perfectly legalistic, the other, cultural.

    3. I personally (Eric Morris) agree with both. However, just a way to point out property rights are important to culture, and government by "exercising" them to force its cultural norms is demonstrating the importance of them. A slight battlefield victory in this cultural war.

      This may be somewhat a double post, speaking of "curious and curiouser". Google kicked me off while trying to submit.

    4. VfPI, only one post came through. Just FYI.

  2. The rot began long ago. While cruising the Intracoastal waterway in 1983 I docked briefly in Savanna, GA. In the course of strolling through the city center I encountered a Confederate memorial explaining the occupation of the city in 1864 by the US general William T Sherman, known affectionately to his marauding troopers as "Uncle Billie." Some years later (2005 I believe) all Confederate memorials in that city had been replaced by statues in tribute to black slaves.

  3. The Free Market's Solution to Statues of Confederate Generals
    There is endless hullabaloo about removing statues of Confederate generals in public parks in the south.

    The reason there is a hullabaloo is simple: there is really no skin in the game. (Sorry; I could not resist.)

  4. "VFPI, only one post came through, FYI"
    I'm a member of the FB group NC League of the South. It was just banned by FB after 7 years of operation.
    I'm afraid the information war is only now beginning in earnest.

    1. We are reaching levels of shut it down previously thought to be impossible.