Originally posted by Diseria
However, one person complaining or railing against something does not automatically mean that John Q. Public will immediately, automatically, take
I agree, but we aren't talking about one guy railing to all the John Q. Public's on the street from behind a sandwhich board. We're talking about a
spiritual authority speaking to 500 followers who have gathered for instruction, and preaching a doctrine upon which honor killings are based.
Suppose that you were the pastor of a church, and you got up in the pulpit and you told your congregation that the gas companies' gouging is killing
the church at the collection plate, taking what's rightfully God's, and quoted verses from the Old Testament relating to the war for the Promised
Land, implicitly giving religious instruction
that it was proper to carry out a violent campaign against the owners of gas stations?
It is reasonably akin to the man who wears a sandwich that proclamates the end of the world, implores people to repent, and so
That same man would find his butt in jail the split second he stopped saying repent and started making any implicit or explicit threat or instruction
of violence. Try it. Go out on the street with a sandwhich board and go tell everyone who's got it coming and who its OK to kill.
I sincerely hope that they are more reasonable than (apparently) expected
My point exactly. The expectation is the legal test. Given trends in Islam, a reasonable person would not necessarily expect the congregation to hear
this and, to the man, continue to carry on peacefully. The odds are that if the situation arises, some of those people would kill a woman based on
You went wrong with "automatically, unthinkingly". The law does not require speech to display hypnotic power or mind control ability to qualify as
disturbing the peace.
In current times, I hope you realize how entirely impossible such an action would be.
How is the mufti getting his clock cleaned not possible in current times? Is the current Mufti a black-belt?
(Aside from the fact that the idea of a 'real man' is entirely subjective and has changed over time and per culture...)
Granted. If it didn't vary with culture we wouldn't be having this discussion. In civilized nations the expectation of a man is that he will respect
women. In Islam on the other hand, the expectation is that he will do what the Mufti says, even if the mufti says to abandon and/or murder his sister
for getting raped. Forgive me if I'm minimally concerned with objectivity when it comes to the question of whether or not basic human rights can be
quieted in deference to cultural differences.
Some things simply aren't negotiable. Rule on this earth is and always has been predicated on force in one form or another. Human interaction in
general is essentially a fragile and often broken ceasefire in the midst of a global conflict between some 6 billion participants, because we all want
stuff and we all get it at one another's expense now and then, be it a parking spot, a dollar, or an oil field. In this case we're dealing with a
coalition (the individual believers in Islam) that wants women to be objects for their enjoyment, opposed by a coalition which believes in certain
inalienable human rights (the individual members of western civilization). Western civilization isn't going to back off of its demands. If Islam
won't either, there's going to be a clash. This clash has already manifested on an international level, and it can also manifest on the personal
level either in the form of individuals or law enforcement imposing our terms on people like the Mufti in whatever way is appropriate to the
In such a line of logic, if there's been a real citizen anywhere in the US, that person would have taken a stand against all the atrocities
being committed at the hands of our elected puppets.
Setting aside for a moment the ever so slight nuance between murdering a fifteen year old rape victim and fighting a war against people whose goal is
to spread such barbarism world wide, you're still on pretty thin ice thanks to your blatant selective amnesia. 59,026,111 people took a stand against
George W Bush in 2004.
There is a definate contrast here. No vote is taken on the Islamic policy of killing 15 year old rape victims. For want of a political/diplomatic
sollution, we are left with pure force. America on the other hand sorts out its internal moral debates through political force.
The heart of my response however goes back to the basis of all rule in force. Your response assumes that I suggest moral absolutes. I understand how
you would take it this way because I do not generally go into extreme depth on philosophy whenever I assert my opinion. I do not pose moral absolutes.
Morals are subjective and arbitrary, and matter only as personal motivation for the application of force. The rule in the west is that you can't kill
people for having sex, especially for being raped. That's a rule because we arbitrarily decided it and backed it up with muscle. It applies to the
war in Iraq only when muscle is brought to bear in Iraq. My personal policy is infact against certain aspects of the war in Iraq, though not all of
them across the board, and I will be flexing my political muscle on this issue yet again next month, but I acknowledge that my opinion there is
arbitrary and won't be worth spit until my side wins.
However, it's not happening because of the current social context; it is frowned upon to question the motives and general integrity of one's
Selective amnesia again, but you're correct that that side's thoughts are not having an impact. This goes to show that in the end its all about
Meanwhile, most of the citizens know that the actions being taken are wrong and immoral... yet, for all intents and purposes, we do
Though I don't particularly object to this statement because I see morals as arbitrary and basically irrelevant I will note something about your
tactics. You have kept away from specifics so as not to be engaged on anything such as Abu Ghraib or Gitmo: you are keeping the issue vage and large
so that Iraq as a whole is the subject. Unpopular wars make great cudgels when you're defending a fringe position, particularly defending the moral
courage of men who are cool with the Mufti defending the rape and murder of their daughters. Clever tactic, seriously, but a little dirty. At the end
of the day we are still talking about whether or not Western civilization is going to stand for people defending rapists and implicitly advocating
"honor killings", and not the war in Iraq.
If you'd like, you and I can get technical in a million different ways and address moral relativism, just war theory, state of nature, theories of
government, centuries of world history, and god knows what else in the process of testing general principles against other examples. At the end of the
day though, the subject is the statements made by the mufti, and as I've said, it's not negotiable, and the West isn't going to change its position
just because we're not perfect. We have decided that certain things aren't to be done and when they are done or when there is conspiracy to do them,
we apply punishments.
Reasonably, I expect that the people may have silently nodded at the mufti's words, a passive agreement to the inherent evil. I do not reasonably
expect that they would have openly applauded or boo'd.
Such is the society that we humans have built for ourselves.
Jesus had it right: Blessed are the destitute -- because they are not passively complicit in the evils of society.