That’s not the point. @JoeLaughon is right. Discussion of opposed parties regarding the subject of ecclesiastical administration doesn’t belong in the same sentence (or the same paragraph) as rightful condemnation of the Taliban. The real world is far too complex to form a compelling ideology around one or two ‘key’ issues (and independently of lived experience), but it is just as misguided to oppose such discourse with a counter-ideology consisting of negations of the original one. The question has to be, ‘What are these institutions for, and how can we help them to fulfill their proper purpose for the communities they serve?’ Any community that poses such questions seriously will find that all ideologies at some point or another are inadequate to the task at hand. The other problem is that religious membership is voluntary in an important sense that being subject to the laws of a country is not. Women who do not agree with an anti-WO stance do not have to attend those churches that endorse it if they don’t want to. That’s a choice the unfortunate women of Afghanistan do not have. So it simply isn’t accurate to look at the issue as consisting of two instances of ‘compulsion’ that are merely at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I think perhaps its time here to remind ourselves of the actual question posed. Is the Taliban right to support absolutely, even more enthusiastically, 1 Cor. 14:34. 1 Cor. 14:34"women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says". If there actually IS a law that can be found in Holy scripture, demanding silence and subordination of women, what actually IS IT, WHERE is it, and should this 'LAW ' still apply to women in all 'Christian' congregations? This question does not call for comparisons to be made between the Taliban, (murderers who throw acid in women's faces, assault girls and murder women in the most gruesome ways), and people who disagree with women's ordination, (a consistent stance through the years by faithful Christians). Such observations are a straw man designed to avoid dealing with the actual question. "Where IS this silencing LAW to be found?" The question is whether there IS a LAW somewhere, anywhere, which would justify its imposition by 'male, legalists' of any religion, specifically silencing women in all religious assemblies. So far in this thread, no one, either for or against this supposed law's imposition, has been able to quote either the specific law itself or where this law may be found within the sacred texts of any religion. .
Does anyone who considers 1 Cor. 14:34 to be expressing a binding law upon women in church, think this also is not extreme? .
Might extending the principle behind the supposed -'Law'- mentioned at 1 Cor. 14:35 end up by encouraging extremist legislation similar, in principle, to this? .