Islam (Religion)
David; " I'm just as tolerant as I can be, but just what kind of accommodation are you proposing for the 5% radical Muslims who follow Wahabism and want to take the world back to the 7th Century? Religions have fostered all sorts of wars in the past, and they are still doing it. Moderate Muslims, whom we can certainly tolerate as part of our society, cannot control their fringe elements, but Muslim governments that foster terrorism should be held accountable." There are about 1.5 billion Muslims. If we killed 150 million, we would just make the other 90% really angry. Obviously, violence is not a solution. The kind of accommodation I am proposing is to avoid things that radicalize them, such as cartoons ridiculing the prophet and trying to tell the Wahabis how to run their own country. Allow them an opt-out sharia law where it does not conflict with basic laws and rights of the host country. Respect their daily prayers where possible. Allow them to wear the type of clothing they choose. Don't serve them pork. I am as distressed as you at the primitive ideas some of them have, but good example and friendly persuasion are the best techniques to change them. If they are not faced with a false choice of Ben Laden or westernization, they will gradually adopt more western thinking. And they probably have some ideas that the West would do well to adopt. We did it during the Crusades. Public pressure at the top levels of their government can stop some of the most egregious practices, such as child execution. As far as other executions, the US only differs in the method of execution, needle rather than stone or sword. If a significant minority of Muslims agreed with Ben Laden, we would already be in great trouble because of their numbers. Our challenge is to get them to work with us (which they are already doing) to fight terror, and avoid radicalizing the impressive youths. As far as the Middle East, although the conflict is split along religious lines, it is really a political conflict. The peace between Israel and Egypt has held, although there is still no love lost. A way needs to be found to repeat that process with the remainder of the Arabs.
Islam
by David Turell 
, Thursday, September 18, 2008, 00:00 (5911 days ago) @ Carl
David: " Muslim governments that foster terrorism should be held accountable." - > There are about 1.5 billion Muslims. If we killed 150 million, we would just make the other 90% really angry. Obviously, violence is not a solution. > Allow them an opt-out sharia law where it does not conflict with basic laws and rights of the host country. Public pressure at the top levels of their government can stop some of the most egregious practices, such as child execution. > Our challenge is to get them to work with us (which they are already doing) to fight terror, and avoid radicalizing the impressive youths. - > As far as the Middle East, although the conflict is split along religious lines, it is really a political conflict. The peace between Israel and Egypt has held, although there is still no love lost. A way needs to be found to repeat that process with the remainder of the Arabs. - I did not propose killing 150,000,000 Muslims. Note I said hold those Muslim governments accountable who foster terrorism. Violence is not a solution, but if they bring terrorism against us, (remember the Towers) there should be a violent response. - In regard to Sharia law, if they want to live in my country they must follow our laws. On the other hand if there is a legal contest between two Muslims that does not affect our basic societal rules and does not affect non-Muslims those religious laws can apply, but this arangement needs to be clearly specified. - As far as'egregious practices' in Muslim countries, I would tell you that is none of our business, any more than the World Court in Brussels trying to tell Texas not to execute a proven murderer. (recently) - We certainly should encourage Muslim governments to work with the Western World to reduce the radicalization of their youth. - In regard to the tenuous peace between Israel and Egypt (and by the way Jordan), the major reason is the power of the Israeli Defense Force. "The way to repeat that [peace] process" is through strength; the lack of response in the Clinton administration to the first Tower bombings, the Cole, etc., made bin Laden feel we were a weak paper tigers and lead directly to the second Tower bombings.
Islam
The point of the 150,000,000 was to show the absurdity of violence as a solution, not that you had proposed violence on such a scale. There are an enormous number of Muslims, and they are very cohesive when faced with any non-Muslim threat. When you have a specific enemy, such as Ben Laden, then by all means attack him directly. But al-Qaida is an idea more than a group of people. You have to fight ideas with ideas. It will expand or contract in proportion to the attractiveness of the idea. So far, the idea is not so popular. Muslims agree with pushing back against the West, but not with Ben Laden's tactics. I visualize Sharia law working something very much like binding arbitration with some small tweaks. I consider revenge murder or rape of women and children egregious enough to justify diplomatic intervention no matter where it happens. At some point, the international community must devise a way of forceful intervention in situations such as Dafur. Humanity is better than that. As far as US executions, they reduce our moral standing in the world, but it is still our right. "The lack of response in the Clinton administration to the first Tower bombings, the Cole, etc., made bin Laden feel we were a weak paper tigers and lead directly to the second Tower bombings." I share your frustration that Clinton fired .5 billion dollars of cruise missiles at Afghanistan and blew up some mud huts and considered it closed. But the reason Bin Laden attacked again is because a clever man spotted a hole in our security you could fly a 747 through. Americans were so impatient that they would not tolerate decent security practices, and the prohibition of communication between the CIA and FBI goes back to Watergate. Unanticipated consequences. Ben Laden was coming at us any way he could no matter what Clinton did. The Israel/Palestinian struggle is a tragedy viewed from any direction. What is needed is a truly wise person to devise a mutually acceptable solution. Some times a stronger defense just raises the ante. Diplomacy is the solution.
Islam
by David Turell , Saturday, September 20, 2008, 02:23 (5909 days ago) @ Carl
As far as US executions, they reduce our moral standing in the world, but it is still our right. - In terms of morality, it is important to point out that the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is not the proper tranlation of the Hebrew. It is 'Thou shalt not murder'. Quite a difference. - > The Israel/Palestinian struggle is a tragedy viewed from any direction. What is needed is a truly wise person to devise a mutually acceptable solution. Some times a stronger defense just raises the ante. Diplomacy is the solution. - I'm like Reagan: trust but verify, and negotiate from strength. Diplomacy is fine with those provisoes. I'd keep that set of rules as long as the Arabs in general want to remove Israel from the face of the Earth.
Islam
David says: "In terms of morality, it is important to point out that the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is not the proper translation of the Hebrew. It is 'Thou shalt not murder'. Quite a difference." This was in response to my statement that execution of prisoners reduces the moral standing of the US in the world. The Commandments don't persuade me. Most have to do with the Jew's relationship to Jehovah. Lying, stealing and murder are the only three that show up in our laws, and those are pretty generic for most religions. I missed out on the great source of morals debate on this site, but my feeling is that you can substitute the word "wise" for "moral" and make much more progress. Moral offenses on drugs, alcohol, sex, stealing, lying and murder are either unwise for the individual or unwise for the community. No one wants to live in a community where he is not secure in his safety and possessions. The only wise way to accomplish that is to prohibit activities that threaten them. If execution of prisoners in a world which is trying to get away from violent solutions to problems makes us appear primitive to our fellow nations, that could be seen as unwise. Granted, wisdom does not cover all cases. If the word "evil" has any meaning at all, it applies to Hitler, Stalin and the 9/11 terrorists. As I recall, part of the debate turned on the meaning of "human dignity". I would define that as the right of the individual to exercise his will without compulsion. Society removes that right in certain cases, such as students, military personnel, and prisoners. Earlier, the right was removed from slaves. Parents, in theory, extend that right to their offspring as they become wise. Execution certainly violates the right of human dignity. The morality of a society is determined by the wisdom with which it manages that right. Note: I will be offline for the next several days, but I shall return.
Islam
The discussion between David and Carl has revolved round what constitutes morality on a personal, national and international level. It has embraced such topics as the death penalty, Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, and the conflict between Israel and the Arab countries. Carl has suggested substituting the word "wise" for "moral", and he defines "human dignity" as the right of the individual to exercise his will without compulsion, this right being removed from certain members of society such as students, military personnel and prisoners, while parents gradually extend it to their children. - I think any definition has to incorporate the rights of individuals in relation to the rights not only of other individuals but also of other forms of life. Morality in my view is not served by the pollution of air and water, by the slaughter of elephants and whales, or by kicking a dog. Nor is it served by the execution of criminals, especially bearing in mind the many miscarriages of justice that keep coming to light (the Birmingham Six, for example). Even one such wrongful execution (think of Timothy Evans) makes the principle of the death penalty abhorrent. Nor is human dignity served by one set of humans oppressing another, or by one religious body attacking another for holding different beliefs. Perhaps as our basic principle, then, we might try something like this: morality consists in the right of all human beings to pursue happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life. - "Minimal" may be a weak link here, but I'm thinking of the morality behind meat-eating. This is a natural activity connected with survival, and I'm not convinced that vegetarianism should be made compulsory! The emphasis then would be on humane ways of killing animals for meat. As regards the death penalty, it would be abolished ... as it has been in the UK (for murder) since the 1960s ... because society does not need to kill criminals in order to protect itself. Religious or ideological terrorism would also be out of the question. We have the right to defend ourselves, but we do not have the right to attack others. - What about the Palestinian problem? Clearly, the Israelis are hindered in their pursuit of happiness if they are under constant threat from the Arab world. They must have their security. But equally clearly, the Palestinians must have the same right. This can only be achieved by mutual recognition. If one party is vastly stronger than the other, it is the strong that must make concessions (even if conditional), but the international community can also make moves: for instance, vast investment in the region, provided that the Arabs guarantee Israel's security. If each acknowledges the other's right to pursue happiness, there can be negotiations on a viable division of land ... perhaps with an international peace-keeping force to oversee the first phases and ease fears on both sides. Violence will never solve the problem. Recognition of shared human dignity, with the relief of poverty and suffering and an open road to happiness, is the only solution. - Of course it's all pie-in-the-sky idealism, because humans are too diverse to create a just world. There will always be leaders with ambition, there will always be greed, competition, the I-know-best and the holier-than-thou ideology, plus fear and poverty that act as equally strong motives for interfering in other people's lives. But that doesn't invalidate the concept or the aspiration.
Ethics
Poor Neil. Just about the time he gets us organized, we fly off on a new tangent. I decided to put this in an ethics discussion. Dhw speaks of "rights not only of other individuals but also of other forms of life." My equating ethics with wisdom does not address all aspects of ethics. This is such an area. Doubtless, there is wisdom in preserving our natural world. I think Global Warming highlights this. But there are areas in the treatment of fellow creatures that might be difficult to include in wisdom. Maybe we should create a category called "animal dignity" that would cover the ethical treatment of animals. Humane treatment of animals was seen by many up through the first half of the twentieth century as a luxury or indulgence, not really covered by ethics. But there has been a growing opinion that treatment of our fellow creatures is an important area of ethics. There is little objective basis in logic or western religion to justify this position, but it is something that an increasing number of people feel. This points up something about my use of wisdom as ethics. It is a pragmatic approach rather than an authoritarian approach to ethics, a revival of the "situational ethics" concept so condemned a few decades ago. Ethics change with culture and circumstance. I believe this is the proper approach to ethics for agnostics and atheists, and is also practiced by religious people in deciding to emphasize or deemphasize certain strictures, such as eating pork, drinking alcohol or sex outside wedlock. But this is consistent with use of wisdom as ethics, because what is seen as wise varies by culture and circumstance. Dhw speaks of the miscarriage of justice in execution of innocent people. Focusing only on executed persons in this way is too narrow. A innocent person who serves life in prison or even a year in prison is also a victim of the system. The issue of execution should not be combined with the issue of miscarried justice. The judicial system should be rigorous in its pursuit of justice, but it will never be 100%. Here is another area where absolute truth is not obtainable, and there can be terrible consequences of leaning to far toward the accused so that guilty people are freed to murder again. Both false positives and false negatives have bad consequences, and a balance must be struck to minimize both, because either way there will be innocent victims. Dhw mentions eating of meat as a problem area. I have equated the attitude of eating meat today to the attitude toward slavery in 1800. It is the closest comparison I can think of to illustrate the cultural ethics of slavery. People of that time did not envision a day when they would be viewed as evil and depraved for owning slaves, just as people now cannot imagine a time when they could be viewed as monsters for consuming flesh. But, if society moved to enforced vegetarianism, such a day would come. I stopped hunting while I was still a young man, and now I cannot conceive of taking pleasure in the killing of fellow creatures. But I have many friends and relatives who hunt, and today it is seen as a matter of personal conviction, much as slavery was in 1800. Dhw says morality is pursuit of happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life, but "humans are too diverse to create a just world." I agree that idea should be at least a strong component of a full definition of morality, but I am somewhat more optimistic about the just world. I think humanity has made tremendous strides in morality over the past two hundred years. Abolition of slavery, changes in acceptable reasons and methods in war, concern for our suffering brethren in other countries and many other areas have improved vastly. I am quite optimistic for the future, but the progress could be very fragile.
Ethics
by BBella , Wednesday, October 01, 2008, 08:07 (5898 days ago) @ Carl
Carl wrote: > Dhw speaks of the miscarriage of justice in execution of innocent people. Focusing only on executed persons in this way is too narrow. A innocent person who serves life in prison or even a year in prison is also a victim of the system. The issue of execution should not be combined with the issue of miscarried justice. The judicial system should be rigorous in its pursuit of justice, but it will never be 100%. Here is another area where absolute truth is not obtainable, and there can be terrible consequences of leaning to far toward the accused so that guilty people are freed to murder again. Both false positives and false negatives have bad consequences, and a balance must be struck to minimize both, because either way there will be innocent victims.> - I choose to think, that in life, where ever or whatever it is, there are no innocent victims. To think that way just doesn't seem to fit what is actually happening. It seems to me, that by all the information afforded mankind to know, karma seems to fit best our situation. No matter how far out it might seem to some...it makes the most reasonable sense to me. It explains to me, without explaining exactly how it is so, just how things work with the least complications. Of course, this thinking relieves me of all responsibility in trying to change my world to match up to my own idea of justice...and that's not a bad thing to me. My shoulders no longer feel so heavy believing this! This of course, does not relieve me of my personal responsibilities afforded me at any given time...after all, there is karma to take into account. - > Dhw says morality is pursuit of happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life, but "humans are too diverse to create a just world."> - It seems to me, if I would leave justice solely in human hands, I would one day leave this world with a little hope things might one day become somehow even "more" just than it is has already become...especially for the innocent...and this feels like a hopeless feeling. Yet, if there is such thing as karma, then it seems so much easier to live somewhat more peacefully now, trusting in that which I cannot know, rather than that which I do, to regulate justice to all....not just now, but always, to all things. This karmic "action" could be considered by some "God" and this trust, faith. Is there any proof that there is such a thing as karma? Only if you seek proof.
Ethics
Some extracts (my numbering) from an article in the Guardian, reporting on research done by psychologists, at least one of whom is based at the University of British Columbia, Canada: - 1) "Religion makes people more helpful, honest and generous but only when they think it will enhance their reputation or when they think about the possibility of a god..." - 2) "The study...supports the notion that in early societies religion helped foster social cohesion...by encouraging cooperation." - 3) "Religion appears to foster trust between people". - 4) "Religious people also profess to be more charitable than non-religious folk. But a 'Good Samaritan' experiment found religious and non-religious participants were equally likely to stop and offer help." - One wonders how extensive the study was, but since it offers scope for discussion, I thought a few comments might be in order. - 1) You don't need religion to motivate you if you think your actions will enhance your reputation. The "possibility of a god" argument is directly contradicted by 4). - 2) Of course religion would help foster social cohesion. Any group activity would do the same by encouraging cooperation. - 3) People are social animals, and that entails belonging to a group, whether religious, social, tribal, national, racial etc. It's natural to trust your group more than other groups ... if you didn't, you wouldn't belong. However, does religion foster trust between, say, Christians and Muslims? - 4) You don't need religion to empathize with your fellow humans. - On a different subject, may I correct a slight misinterpretation by Carl (quoted by BBella) of my attitude towards capital punishment. In the context of causing "minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life", I wrote that in my view morality was "not served by the execution of criminals, especially bearing in mind the many miscarriages of justice that keep coming to light." Carl wrote: "Focusing only on executed persons in this way is too narrow....The issue of execution should not be combined with the issue of miscarried justice." The reference to innocent parties being executed was not meant as a focal point, but only as an additional (nightmarish) argument. As I wrote later in the same posting, "society does not need to kill criminals in order to protect itself", and so in my view, and in the context of my "minimal harm" precept, there is absolutely no ethical justification for the death penalty.
Ethics
by David Turell , Saturday, October 04, 2008, 16:21 (5894 days ago) @ dhw
. As I wrote later in the same posting, "society does not need to kill criminals in order to protect itself", and so in my view, and in the context of my "minimal harm" precept, there is absolutely no ethical justification for the death penalty. - I cannot accept a blanket rule that that all murderers escape death. I can understand murder that occurs under extreme emotional strain. I come upon someone raping my wife and I kill him on the spot. But cold premeditated murder is another issue. Should serial killers be incarcerated for life? Should someone who carefully plans a murder that has no justifing issues be in prison for life? Not in my way of thinking. Some murders require execution. But I do have one other solution: a new Devil's Island, run as a world's prison, patrolled on the sea by the world's navies to prevent escape. A self-sufficient island where all the condemned murders can live together, support themselves, and live or kill each other, no guards present. Why should I pay taxes to support a premeditated murderer? And that gives time for exoneration if contradictory evidence finally appears to reverse a sentence. To be condemned to the island I envision an impartial committee from many international police departments to review the forensic evidence and approve it.
Ethics
Dhw previous post discussed the effects of religion on morality and society. I am aware of "faith based" charities, but I have never heard of an "atheist based" or "agnostic based" charity. Organized religion can help people of good will leverage their generosity. I am a strong supporter of the Salvation Army, even though it's motivation is pure Christianity. Whether religion actually causes people to be more generous or merely facilitates it is a question. The idea that Jesus is watching has to be a motivator for some. Religion increases group cohesion within the group, but increases feelings of alienation with other religious groups. I have lost good friends who became born-again Christians and were told they should avoid social contact with heathens, as it would hinder their spiritual growth. In my ideal world, a persons religious affiliation would be like membership in a social organization, but that's not what religion is. Secularists like myself have to fight the insidious suspicion that religious folk are just pretending for public appearance and don't really believe what they profess. That, of course, is not true. On a social level, religion enforces homogeneity within the group and a territorial attitude toward others, an attitude suited to survival of the fittest. Dhw and I are in agreement on opposition to capital punishment, but my opposition is not to the effect on the criminal ( though that is profound), but rather the effect on society. It does not move us in the direction we need to go. World society should move toward less violence of all forms, and toward more human dignity and individual freedom. When people surrender their right for personal revenge to the state, the state assumes an obligation to pursue that revenge in the form of justice. So the victims and survivors have a right to some type of justice. Also, punishment for bad deeds still seems appropriate to most of us, even if psychologists tell us that a child killer is just a good person who did a bad thing. But execution coarsens society by holding that violence is the proper response to violence, rather than holding that the elimination of violence is the objective. The objective of society should be to minimize the use of violence to that necessary to ensure human freedom and dignity. A prime example of this is the war on drugs. Violence is met with violence, and here in the U.S. the violence on our Mexican border over the drug trade has escalated to open military weapon battles between cartels and the law. Billions of dollars in illegal drug money is being funneled into organization run by the cartel rulers, the most vicious and depraved of the vicious and depraved. It will do nothing but escalate. Considering the amassing of enormous fortunes by our most violent criminals, the corruption of our justice systems by this money and the havoc wrecked on the lives of families unfortunate enough to have a member caught up in illegal drugs, a legalized, controlled, taxed, violence free drug system would be far better. I do not use drugs, and I am not a fan of the drug culture, but I feel that the damage to individuals and society at large would be greatly reduced by a controlled drug system with a strong anti-drug education and treatment program. It'll never happen.
Ethics
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Saturday, October 04, 2008, 21:44 (5894 days ago) @ Carl
edited by unknown, Saturday, October 04, 2008, 21:53
Carl wrote: I am aware of "faith based" charities, but I have never heard of an "atheist based" or "agnostic based" charity. - Almost all of the big charity organisations, certainly in the UK, are professionally run secular organisations. For example, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Word Wildlife Fund, RNIB, RNLI, RSPB, RSPCC, RSPCA, Oxfam, Medicin sans frontieres, etc. etc. These are just ones that immediately come to mind. - The Red Cross incidentally gets its symbol from the reversal of the Swiss flag, signifying neutrality in war, and originated in the First World War. It is not a religious organisation, although its symbol is Christian. In Muslim countries it becomes the Red Crescent of course. - EDIT: In fact it goes back to 1859, long before WWI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross - On Ethics. I'm currently reading "The Secular Conscience" by Austin Dacey, and can thoroughly recommend it.
Ethics
Carl: "Dhw and I are in agreement on opposition to capital punishment, but my opposition is not to the effect on the criminal (though that is profound) but rather the effect on society." I see no difference between us, although I do have one objection to your terminology. You state that society has an obligation to pursue revenge in the form of justice. Revenge creates a never-ending cycle of violence at all levels (think of vendettas), and if that is the ethic behind human justice, it sets the worst possible example, as epitomized by the death penalty. Revenge to me suggests an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. I believe society's motive should be self-protection (with as much help as possible given to the families of the victims). But then you say: "The objective of society should be to minimize the use of violence to that necessary to ensure human freedom and dignity." Precisely. The two arguments I posted were: "Morality consists in the right of all human beings to pursue happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life", plus "society does not need to kill criminals in order to protect itself". I think we're on the same side for the same reasons. - David asks: "Why should I pay taxes to support a premeditated murderer?" Economics before ethics? I accept your argument that there are different types of murder, and I am not saying let's be soft on the child-killers, the cold-blooded planners, the serial murderers. But if you asked me cold-bloodedly and with premeditation to stick in the needle or pull the lever or fire the shot that would kill them, I would not be able to do it, and I would not ask anyone else to do it in my name. I think I have a more practical solution than your Devil's Island. Why not lock them up in existing, supervised, secure institutions for the rest of their days, to ensure they never harm society again? Let's call it "life imprisonment".
Ethics
Dhw says in response to my post on capital punishment, "You state that society has an obligation to pursue revenge in the form of justice. Revenge creates a never-ending cycle of violence at all levels (think of vendettas), and if that is the ethic behind human justice, it sets the worst possible example, as epitomized by the death penalty. Revenge to me suggests an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. I believe society's motive should be self-protection (with as much help as possible given to the families of the victims)." When a high publicity trial ends, one of the standard news segments is the interview with the family of the victim to see if they are satisfied with the verdict and sentence. Good prosecutors work with victims and families over charges and plea bargains. Families follow cases for decades, even through the parole hearings, to continue to seek justice. Imagine if your child had been killed by a drunk driver. If your attitude was simply that it was important to get the offender into rehab, you would be truly "turning the other cheek." You would probably want to see some punishment. In primitive sections of Pakistan and Afghanistan, revenge killings and honor killings are part of the justice system. Any adequate judicial system must recognize the human urge for vengeance and make some effort to satisfy it. Otherwise, society members will go back to seeking their own vengeance. Humans are not yet ready to view all criminals as simple mental health cases that need treatment. Society can satisfy it's need for self protection and the family's need for justice at the same time. Justice is just a compromise form of vengeance. Perhaps someday the practice of imprisonment will be totally replaced with mental therapy, but both society and humans will have to change before that day comes. An additional thought on government violence, I do not consider imprisonment as violence in the same sense that I do execution. Imprisonment deprives a person of their human dignity, but it does not have to be physically violent. Corporal punishment would be violence.
Ethics
In the context of my opposition to capital punishment, I wrote that in my view "society's aim should be self-protection (with as much help as possible given to the families of the victims)." I expressed my dislike of the term "revenge". - Carl wrote: "Imagine if your child had been killed by a drunk driver: If your attitude was simply that it was important to get the offender into rehab, you would be truly "turning the other cheek". You would probably want to see some punishment." And later: "Any adequate justice system must recognize the human urge for vengeance and make some effort to satisfy it. Otherwise, society members will go back to seeking their own vengeance. Humans are not yet ready to view all criminals as simple mental health cases that need treatment." - Not guilty, m'lud! I have never once mentioned rehab, anything that could be remotely interpreted as 'turning the other cheek', mental health, or indeed how prisoners should be treated. All I said was that I was against capital punishment because I am against all unnecessary violence, and I think state-sponsored violence sets a bad example to society. I therefore want to see murderers imprisoned for life, but not executed. What should be done with them is an entirely different subject. - As for "revenge", you are right that it is a human urge, and much of our legal system is actually devoted, for the good of society, to controlling human urges. I'd say "justice" is a better and less emotive term for what we're after. But so long as you confine the vengeance concept to satisfying the psychological needs of the survivors (as opposed to making it a social and legal objective), I think we can bury this little hatchet.
Ethics
An article in yesterday's Guardian reported that five countries (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US) were responsible for 88% of state executions in 2007. In Europe, only Belarus has retained the death penalty. China is the world's No. 1 executioner, and there are approx. 7500 people including children on Pakistan's death row. There are seven states that apply the death penalty for consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex, and capital offences in Iran include "cursing the Prophet", adultery and drinking alcohol. - All of this seems to me to raise two wider questions. Firstly, where should one draw the line between individual freedom and society's right to protect itself? I suggested in an earlier post that morality consisted in "the right of all human beings to pursue happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life." But the facts listed above beg the question of who should decide what is harmful, i.e. what society needs protection against. Such decisions are in the hands of the law-makers and/or religious bodies, who frequently have an agenda of their own that can lead to oppression and tyranny. We in the West may see ourselves as liberal-minded, but in eastern eyes we may seem degenerate. God doesn't provide the answer, since different believers hear different messages. Can anyone come up with a formula? - My second question goes back to the death penalty, and it arose during a discussion between Carl and myself. Just what should we do with criminals when we've caught them? W.S. Gilbert's Mikado reckoned he had the answer: "My object all sublime I shall achieve in time ... To let the punishment fit the crime ... The punishment fit the crime." But what punishment fits what crime? And is justice only about punishment?
Ethics
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 01:37 (5885 days ago) @ dhw
There are seven states that apply the death penalty for consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex, and capital offences in Iran include "cursing the Prophet", adultery and drinking alcohol. These are moral judgment acts, made criminal by theocracies. - > All of this seems to me to raise two wider questions. Firstly, where should one draw the line between individual freedom and society's right to protect itself? God doesn't provide the answer, since different believers hear different messages. Can anyone come up with a formula? - The Torah and the New Testament both have an answer about God and about a formula. God provides the Ten Commandments for Christian and Jew, and both the Torah and the NT teach equivalently "do unto others." There is always a tension between a smoothly running society and individual rights. In the most advanced governments there is a definite separation of church and state, and safeguards follow democratic discussion. - > But what punishment fits what crime? And is justice only about punishment? - Again democratic discussion decides upon penalties that fit the acts against the state. Justice is also about rehabilitation, but Pedophiliacs have close to a 100% recidivism rate, and generally cannot be rehabbed. Life imprisonment for one act is fine and for repeated acts, death; perfectly reasonable. This shows society has to go crime by crime.
Ethics
by David Turell , Sunday, October 05, 2008, 16:39 (5893 days ago) @ dhw
David asks: "Why should I pay taxes to support a premeditated murderer?" Economics before ethics? I accept your argument that there are different types of murder, and I am not saying let's be soft on the child-killers, the cold-blooded planners, the serial murderers. But if you asked me cold-bloodedly and with premeditation to stick in the needle or pull the lever or fire the shot that would kill them, I would not be able to do it, and I would not ask anyone else to do it in my name. - Because most of us have ethical sensitivites, we use a firing squad or several people to pull several levers for chemical or electrical death, so no one can feel he alone is responsible, for no one knows who has the lethal lever. As for economics before ethics, I do follow the rule of 'do unto others' Rabbi Hillel's and Jesus' lesson. But the premeditated murderer can not claim be a human 'other'. He is sub-human and does not claim my ethical consideration. I do not hunt any animal except by camera. I know animals are natural murderers, but they do not have our human consciousness or conscience. They deserve my ethics, so I will continue to take pictures.
Ethics
Here is a quote form an ABC news article on the current U.S. economic chaos. "A study a few years ago by Cornell psychologist David Dunning found that incompetent people are generally not aware of their own incompetence. Part of the explanation, Dunning wrote, is that the skills that constitute competence are often the very ones needed to recognize incompetence." This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion, but I thought it was to true not to pass along.
Ethics
Carl quoted a study by David Dunning, which found that "incompetent people are generally not aware of their own incompetence." He goes on to say: "...the skills that constitute competence are often the very ones needed to recognize incompetence." - Thank you for passing this on. It seems to me very relevant to many of the topics we've been discussing, if we simply extend the principle to matters of belief. One might say that prejudiced people are generally not aware of their own prejudice. Once a belief is firm, for whatever reason, people are often reluctant to seriously consider any evidence that requires them to shift their attitude. - David Turell has frequently pointed out that science is not just a matter of investigation but also of interpretation, and the forces that influence that interpretation need not be rational. There are huge gaps in our knowledge, and since we can't fill them with facts, we fill them with suppositions, hopes, probabilities, possibilities etc. The atheist is no more and no less dependent on this procedure than the theist, and even the agnostic may be just as liable unconsciously to select the evidence in accordance with what best suits his lack of commitment. One might say the skills that constitute objectivity are often the very ones needed to recognize subjectivity, and I wonder how many of us have them.
Ethics
by David Turell , Thursday, October 09, 2008, 19:48 (5889 days ago) @ dhw
One might say the skills that constitute objectivity are often the very ones needed to recognize subjectivity, and I wonder how many of us have them. - What dhw is really saying is that keeping an open mind vs. closed takes introspective work, and I think most folks will not work at keeping the mind open. Sitting with a final decision is much easier than continuing to read all sides of the issue and continuing to mull things over. Being comfortable with how you think an issue should be considered is fine, but the true solution might pass you by unless you keep researching. Think of Antony Flew.
Ethics
by Mark , Thursday, October 09, 2008, 22:27 (5889 days ago) @ David Turell
Though, of course, we should keep an open mind on whether we should keep an open mind!
Ethics
by David Turell , Friday, October 10, 2008, 03:22 (5889 days ago) @ Mark
Though, of course, we should keep an open mind on whether we should keep an open mind! - I didn't mean to imply that those with an open mind have a hole in their head.
Islam
by xris , Monday, October 20, 2008, 19:35 (5878 days ago) @ Carl
For me who has inhabited muslim forums the so called moderate muslim never or hardly ever respond to the extremists in their midst's...The problem is the basic teachings and islamic history is one of hate, dislike and down right violence towards non believers..The fundamentalists have scripture on their side it cant be denied Islam is a violent unforgiving belief..We see slaves are acceptable ,rape of slaves is acceptable, war against unbelievers is acceptable, child marriages are acceptable, stoning of adulterers is acceptable..etc ..etc ..the scriptures are there it cant be denied..
Islam
xris says about Islam, "The problem is the basic teachings and islamic history is one of hate, dislike and down right violence towards non believers.. it cant be denied Islam is a violent unforgiving belief..We see slaves are acceptable ,rape of slaves is acceptable, war against unbelievers is acceptable, child marriages are acceptable, stoning of adulterers is acceptable.." Xris, this is nonsense. Spain under the Moors was much more tolerant than under the Christians. Many countries in the Middle East had (before the violence of the last sixty years) blended societies of Muslim, Jew and Christians, and they co-existed peaceably, though there were some areas of discrimination. The mores of Islam are based on the Arab culture of 700 AD, and as a result are somewhat primitive, but modern Muslim are able to do the same thing modern Christians do, make the cultural adjustment to the twenty first century and keep on going. There are almost 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and if even a small minority of them rose up in violence, it would be disastrous. They are mostly moderates, although they should speak out more forcefully against the atrocities of the violent few.
Islam
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 01:29 (5878 days ago) @ Carl
xris is not quoting nonsense. That stuff is on the Koran, but Carl, you are right. Most Arab societies in the past understood how to handle minorities. The Turkish Empire followed Sharia law, but most regions were semi-autonomous, and left to their own way of doing things as long as the taxes were properly sent to Constantinople.
Islam
Xris has drawn our attention to the hatred and violence incorporated in the basic teachings of Islam, and informs us that on Muslim forums, moderates "never or hardly ever respond to the extremists in their midst". - My thanks to Xris for what I believe is the first post on this website from someone with direct experience of Muslim forums. - Sadly, the point you make is borne out by even a cursory glance at the Koran. Here are three quotes found after just five minutes' research: - 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them." - 9:73 "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them." - 47:4 "When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads." - Carl is right when he points out that the moderates live at peace with their neighbours, and have done so for centuries, but the exhortation to violence is in the Koran itself and is a terrible reminder of how dependence on ancient texts, possibly on inaccurate translations and subjective interpretations, can create havoc. No doubt the failure of moderates to respond to fundamentalists is the result of fear. I too would be reluctant to argue with someone who believes he has divine authority to cut off my head.
Islam
I don't know if the context of the Koran quotes would change their implication, but I don't think you can make a special case for the Koran being violent. Here is a quote from the King James version of the Bible. Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Old religious texts trend to the violent and bloody. During the sack of Jericho, a man took treasure which was supposed to go to the priests. His entire family was stoned and burned to death. This is the book that the Christians use. The point is that you can't look at the old texts. You have to look at the modern reality. There are nut fringes in Islam just as there are in Christianity, but they do not define the religion. Current history shows that Jews and Christians are just a capable of dealing out mass violence as the Muslims.
Islam
An afterthought. dhw says of Muslims, "No doubt the failure of moderates to respond to fundamentalists is the result of fear. I too would be reluctant to argue with someone who believes he has divine authority to cut off my head." I disagree with that. I think it is because of a misplaced religious solidarity, a variation of the "My country, right or wrong" thinking. I think if there is anything in Islam we have to fear, it is their tendency to side with a Muslim they know is wrong against a Christian they know is right. The howls of protest over Abu Ghraib vs the stone silence when a suicide bombers kills Muslim children gathered around an American soldier passing out candy is an example. I think all religions do that. I can't believe that all Jews approve of all acts by the government of Israel. I don't think you can fault their courage. I am constantly stunned by their willingness to die by suicide or attacking heavy weapons with small arms and RPGs.
Islam
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 16:06 (5877 days ago) @ Carl
. > dhw says of Muslims, "No doubt the failure of moderates to respond to fundamentalists is the result of fear. I too would be reluctant to argue with someone who believes he has divine authority to cut off my head." > I disagree with that. I think it is because of a misplaced religious solidarity, a variation of the "My country, right or wrong" thinking. I think if there is anything in Islam we have to fear, it is their tendency to side with a Muslim they know is wrong against a Christian they know is right. - I disagree. Just think of Salman Rushdi, and the fatwah on his head.
Islam
David says of my defense of Islam: "I disagree. Just think of Salman Rushdi, and the fatwah on his head." A fatwah issued by a nation run by borderline psychotics to keep the citizens worked up against the west. And, Rushdi's error was breaking Muslim solidarity and criticizing Islam in public. I am not aware of any attempt by any Muslim to carry out the fatwah. Certainly there are examples of rhetorical excess in Muslim countries just as there are in Christian countries. For example, W. Bush and his "Axis of Evil". Again, if 1.5 billion Muslims had gone after Rushdi, they would have got him. I believe the most immediate threat to peace is Pakistan, because they already have the bomb, have missals to deliver it, military leader that are in sympathy with Islamic radicals and an extremely unstable domestic situation.
Islam
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 19:57 (5877 days ago) @ Carl
A fatwah issued by a nation run by borderline psychotics to keep the citizens worked up against the west. And, Rushdi's error was breaking Muslim solidarity and criticizing Islam in public. I am not aware of any attempt by any Muslim to carry out the fatwah. - If the Rushdie fatwah is so unimportant, why did he rush to the protection of England?
Islam
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 23:48 (5877 days ago) @ David Turell
According to wikipedia there was a failed assassination attempt on Rushdie: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#The_failed_assassination_attempt_and_Hezbol... - This article reports attacks on and deaths of other people associated with Rushdie: - http://kirjasto.sci.fi/rushdie.htm - "In 1993 Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was wounded in an attack outside his house. In 1997 the reward was doubled, and the next year the highest Iranian state prosecutor Morteza Moqtadale renewed the death sentence. During this period of fatwa violent protest in India, Pakistan, and Egypt caused several deaths."
Islam
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 01:17 (5877 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Thank you, George. You made my point. Carl,, I think you are doing alot of wishful thinking about the goodness of people around the world. It is safest for this country to remember that the world is a tough and dangerous place. That doesn't mean that our country should stop doing charitable work and stop encouraging democracy everywhere. We simply need to relate to the world with our eyes and our hearts open, and negotiate and verify.
Islam
Xris drew our attention to the problems that arise from Muslim fundamentalism based on the Koran, which explicitly incites the faithful to commit violence against non-believers. In reply to my supporting post, Carl cites violent episodes in the Bible, and goes on to say: "The point is that you can't look at the old texts. You have to look at the modern reality. There are nut fringes in Islam just as there are in Christianity, but they do not define the religion. Current history shows that Jews and Christians are just as capable of dealing out mass violence as the Muslims." - We are talking at cross purposes. Abhorrence at the violence of Muslim extremists is not an attack on the moderates, and is not a defence of other religions. The point is that people do look at the old texts, and the purpose of my post was to emphasize that "dependence on ancient texts, possibly on inaccurate translations and subjective interpretations, can create havoc" That applies as much to the Bible as it does to the Koran. In any case, you can hardly defend one religion by saying others are just as bad. - In your afterthought, you suggest that the moderates keep quiet out of "misplaced religious solidarity". I'm pleased to say that in the UK many leading Muslim clerics have spoken out emphatically against all acts of terrorism. - As George and David have pointed out, your comment on the fatwa against Salman Rushdie is disingenuous. Of course the 1.5 billion Muslims were not out to get him, but we are not talking of the moderates, we are talking of the extremists, and the threat was real. In addition to the attacks mentioned by George, the Japanese translator of Satanic Verses was murdered, the Italian translator was stabbed, there were bombing attacks on a large number of bookshops, especially in the UK, and Rushdie himself was forced to live in hiding for ten years. This is not "rhetorical excess". You are right that we mustn't condemn Islam because of its extremists, just as we should not condemn Christianity or Judaism because of theirs. But when xris says that the Koranic scriptures encourage violence against non-believers, he is stating a fact, and the consequences are real and dangerous.
Islam
Now I am aware Rushdie had an assassination attempt, although it doesn't sound as if Iran sent in its first team. But this is just a distraction, a single instance which proves nothing, like the slaughter of Croatian Muslims by Christian Serbs does not prove all Christians are evil. I vaguely recall from my college philosophy class a logic error to the effect "Socrates is a man. Socrates is wise. Therefore, all men are wise." In this case it would be "Iran is an Islamic nation. Iran is evil. Therefore, all Islamic nations are evil." My desire is to avoid tarring all Muslims with the same brush that is used to paint the Iranian leaders and Osama bin Laden. To put an ethical spin to it, it is unwise. It makes more difficult the inevitable blending of cultures between Islam and the West. As to the Koran verses, I recall a verse from the NT where Jesus admonishes his followers to pluck out their eye if it looks upon a woman with lust, but I don't see that many one-eyed Christian men walking around. The enemy is not the Koran, but the primitive ignorance of some of the backward cultures which makes them interpret it literally. They can be educated, as can the Christians, that texts written by primitive cultures cannot be interpreted literally in a modern world. It appears this is a topic upon which, to the extent there is disagreement, we will have to agree to disagree.
Islam
Carl writes: "It appears this is a topic upon which, to the extent there is disagreement, we will have to agree to disagree." - I'd agree to disagree if I thought there was any disagreement! - You: My desire is to avoid tarring all Muslims with the same brush that is used to paint the Iranian leaders and Osama Bin Laden. Me: You are right that we mustn't condemn Islam because of its extremists. - No disagreement there. - You: The enemy is not the Koran, but the primitive ignorance of some of the backward cultures which makes them interpret it literally. Me: Dependence on ancient texts, possibly on inaccurate translations and subjective interpretations, can create havoc." - No disagreement there. - The mini-wrangle over Rushdie was only because you dismissed the case as one of "rhetorical excess" as you obviously didn't know the facts. But although George and I provided you with the relevant information, at no time did we use it to suggest that all Muslims were evil! So shall we shake hands and move on?
Islam
Agreed. Let us move on.
Islam
by xris , Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 19:59 (5870 days ago) @ Carl
I can not be so sacrosanct, sorry but how you can compare christianity and Islam is beyond my comprehension...I can not believe that Spain is being shown as a good example of Islam in power...read its history of the abuse of its slaves..When and where does Christianity request the use of war to expand christianity like Islam has given muslims the authority through Jihad..A conservative allowance of 80 million Hindus..Pagans..over three centuries where massacred by muslims...10,000 Buddhists in Afghanistan where wiped out by invading muslims..The history of Islam is covered in the blood of its vanquished and those who did not die where taken as legitimate slaves..Modern muslims draw on the same teachings and they are required by there faith to jihad...The christian crusades was a violent response to Islamic aggression not sanctioned by scriptures. Im no christian and do not defend it wholeheartedly but do me favour dont compare christian values with the barbarity of Islams teachings and history..
Islam
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, May 10, 2009, 19:27 (5676 days ago) @ Carl
I'd just like to draw attention to this excellent article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim woman, on the awful situation of women in Islamic states, and the lack of protest from many Muslim women in this country. - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibr... - "Female oppression in Islamic countries is manifestly getting worse. Islam, as practiced by millions today, has lost its compassion and integrity and is entering one of the darkest of dark ages." - "There have been enlightened times when some Muslim civilisations honoured and cherished females. This is not one of them. Across the West ... for a host of reasons ... millions of Muslims are embracing backward practices."
--
GPJ