Apparently my reference to the non-existence or the religious prophets and to the lack of evidence for supernatural beings indicates my "ignorance of religion". Presumably this also applies to my reference to the contents of the Koran as being the determinants of Taliban policy. What I observe is an emotional reaction by those who cannot accept their irrational beliefs being challenged.

Dear John Perkins,

Your ignorance of religion has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of this or that prophet and/or supernatural being: your ignorance, in summary, is in referring to certain social behaviours as "religion".

Don't you agree that such cruel and selfish behaviours, take the Taliban for example, do not come from God and do not lead to God?!

Why then do you buy their version of reality?
They claim that what they do constitutes a religion - what nonsense... and you believe those idiots?

I say that religion is real, that it has a reality, thus mere claiming "I am religious" or "God told me/us" or citing creation myths, is insufficient to establish that as fact, that to be considered religious, one has to as a fact follow and seek God, not just as a fantasy.

On the other side of the coin, there are people who never claimed to be religious, never speak of God or the supernatural or some theory of creation, yet are more religious than most of us, in the sense that the way the live their life brings them closer to God faster than any church/mosque/synagogue/temple/etc goers.

You do not need to agree with me, of course: as an atheist you may perhaps wish to claim that religion does not exist, that all claims of "religion" are false without exception, that since there is no God there is no way to approach God either. Fine, I could take on such discussion, but that is completely unlike what you wrote in your article.

Agree, John, religion has a lot to answer for, including the Christian religion! The blind tribal faith of Christian fanaticists is every bit as misguided and dangerous as that of any Islamist. Religion however is not the reason for Afghanistan's sad descent into chaos.

The Afghan people overthrew the Dawd dictatorship in 1978 and installed a secular modernist government which had wide popular support. Its policies were progressive and well received and there was no Islamic uprising. The big problem for Afghanistan however was that the US perceived its new government to be socialist and as it's done in so many other places around the world it decided to bring it down.

To do this, it bribed and armed religious zealots, the mujahedin, to oppose and undermine the new government. It was this newly-created jihadist threat that neighbouring Russia responded to in 1979. The US continued to arm the mujahedin to fight against the Russians, a fight which lasted 10 years. The progressive Afghan government was overthrown in 1992 and its popular leader hung on a lamp post. It was at this time that the Taliban emerged and it too began to resist US interference. It took over government in 1996.

There was no need for the US to invade Afghanistan in 2001. It could have waited and taken out Bin Laden with the same surgical precision it's used to kill others. The Taliban offered to surrender, but the US wasn't interested. 9/11 was just the cover it needed to invade the country and take strategic control of the region and its resources.

Very naturally, the Taliban have resisted the US occupation of their land. They've been ruthless and brutal, but their determination to free themselves from foreign invaders is to be expected. Unlike the US, the Taliban haven't had access to billions of dollars worth of fighter jets and modern weaponry. They've had little, but sheer brute force. They were not fighting for their religion. They were fighting for the return of their land. It is the US and not religion which has created the mess in today's Afghanistan.

Dear Bronwyn,

«religion has a lot to answer for, including the Christian religion!»

There you fall into the same trap as the author: his whole argument depends on the assumption that Islam, or Christianity for that matter, were indeed religions.

For some, rather a minority, Islam and Christianity are indeed used as religions, but for most it is only a social identity-thing, packed with beliefs taken out of context.

Otherwise an interesting analysis. Nationalism of any kind is a terrible thing, but it has nothing to do with religion except for cynically quoting it out of context for its own ends.