View Thread

Atheists Today » Religion » Islam
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Honour Killings in the West
JohnH
I want to use quotes but I am not going to trouble myself with learning to do so. It is beneficial when one approaches the age of 62 to not worry about that which is more bother then it is worth.

willie your first quote contains two sentences. The first referred to the fact that I was going to scold you and accepted that it might raise your ire. The second referred to the fact, that to the extent I understood, you felt that in the current environment islam was being falsely accused of being more violent than other religions.

The second quote you understood what I intended to say if I did not make it clear myself.

The third quote you correctly point out that I do not know you. But I think I know how what you write reads like. It does on occasion read as if it was angry. You may point out factual inaccuracies. That does not deserve that someone be compared to the BNP. I personally consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist, oddly enough that puts me in league with the libertarians more often than any other political entity. I would not ever accept that as a explanation for what I am. Although there was a very cute libertarian women I would have made an exception for a few months ago.

edited for an excess of correctness.
Edited by JohnH on 11/20/2008 02:20
 
catman
JohnH wrote:I want to use quotes but I am not going to trouble myself with learning to do so. It is beneficial when one approaches the age of 62 to not worry about that which is more bother then it is worth.

JohnH: I don't mean to derail the thread, but I would like to say that I'm already 62 and quotes are easy to use. As computer-challenged as I am, if I can do it, anyone can! Play with the quote function and you'll figure it out.[/quote]
Edited by catman on 11/20/2008 01:44
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
JohnH
catman wrote:
JohnH wrote:I want to use quotes but I am not going to trouble myself with learning to do so. It is beneficial when one approaches the age of 62 to not worry about that which is more bother then it is worth.

JohnH: I don't mean to derail the thread, but I would like to say that I'm already 62 and quotes are easy to use. As computer-challenged as I am, if I can do it, anyone can! Play with the quote function and you'll figure it out.


Bleep you with all due respect.

edited to explain that this was meant as a joke on myself and a thank you to catman.
Edited by JohnH on 11/20/2008 02:27
 
seeker
derF wrote:
We should change Seekers title to Administrator/Diplomat.


I think you just very diplomatically called me an arselick.GrinGrinGrinGrinGrin
 
willie
catman wrote:
willie: We atheists may know that "religious text and dogma is irrelevant, good or bad". The problem is that theists don't consider it irrelevant and attempt to put it into practice.


Theists only consider certain creeds or parts of religious text and dogma to be relevant, as I know you agree. That is the point. There is no god and no divine scripture or rule. Religion is what mortal individuals make it, by picking and choosing. In the main this is fairly harmless, albeit irrational.

Far more sinister is when this cherry picking warps reality excessively... I know you know this, bear with me... barbaric acts are perpetrated not only with cherry picked justification, just as crucially, barbaric acts are perpetrated because of warped perception of others values. Atheists are just as capable of warping the perception of others values as anyone, and perpetrating barbaric acts.

The MAT, being best placed within their communities, are trying to address these issues Neil raises. Yet a warped perception has grown around their values. If the campaign and petition is successful (thankfully I doubt it will), those efforts will be stopped, people will suffer. In this community Neil has perpetuated that warped perception. This religion bashing above common humanist goals is just as appalling to me.

Sorry to bounce this off you catman, but you responded, those I should be addressing didn't. I get the impression we have no real argument.
 
willie
Yes derf, I was joking. If I was being mean I would have pointed out that catmans lucid and viable post actually contradicted yours. Wink

But now we've cleared that up you can proceed with your long post of quotes and rejoinders. I'm particularly interested in how you differentiate between religion and the religious.

BTW, had I been purposefully offensive, the thing to do would be to rise above it and slaughter me with superior debate; not walk away in a huff.

seeker wrote:
I don't think willie was trying to be offensive but sometimes humor doesn't come across well in discussions like this one.
Note to all. Assume humour unless otherwise stated. I expect to be taken seriously, but an argument is really not that important.

derF wrote:
We should change Seekers title to Administrator/Diplomat.

Brown nose... Come on you must have seen that coming. Grin
 
willie
JohnH wrote:
...The second referred to the fact, that to the extent I understood, you felt that in the current environment islam was being falsely accused of being more violent than other religions.
Well... That has never been my argument, although others would like to pretend it is. But... In the current environment I do think islam is being accused of being more violent. But I don't know if this is 'false' in relation to other religions as I think all actions are the result of many factors and thus any single factor is impossible to quantify. I would no more claim Iraqis are 'shaped' solely by religion than they are by politics or that religion can be seen as 'one size fits all' -- That is my point. The relative merits/crimes of various religions is not an issue for me because...

My argument has always been that, at the most basic level, religion is irrelevant --There is no god-- As such, the deeds of man are the deeds of man only. Each individual can only be judged on their own deeds.

This does not deny that some people do terrible things in the name of religion, or that people do great things in the name of religion. I do deny 'religion' is responsible, rather than the person/s.

JohnH wrote:
The second quote you understood what I intended to say if I did not make it clear myself.
Most importantly, it's now clear we agree.

JohnH wrote:
The third quote you correctly point out that I do not know you. But I think I know how what you write reads like. It does on occasion read as if it was angry. You may point out factual inaccuracies. That does not deserve that someone be compared to the BNP.
As I said to derF, how I choose to act is not important. Anyone is welcome to step up and crucify me with superior logic. It would be a welcome change to straw men ad nauseum. I think I deserve the respect of being challenged on the points I've made. I think there is a good reason why some would rather focus on anything other than the points I've made. Will Neil address the points I raised about him denigrating the MAT and acting against solutions to tackle forced marriages and honour killings? Or will he sulk for a bit then open a new thread and claim societies are accommodating the barbaric practise religion because of fear?

There is another issue here, the issue of bailing out of one debate and then regurgitating the same views in new threads. That is dishonest.

The BNP reference does exactly what I intended. It makes the point that it is invalid to denigrate others with the actions of extremist (and because such actions happen at all), simply because both share a common belief .
Edited by willie on 11/20/2008 15:46
 
JDHURF
No one is disputing the wrongness of honor killings derF. I was disputing your following claim:

derF wrote:One could argue that the Muslims are continuing their struggle to rule the world but are just using a far more subtle tactic


That's, at best, just plain ridiculous.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
JDHURF
willie wrote: Putting people to death, in cases of murder that involve a cultural element, should definitely be part of our culture.


Not when every year thousands of innocent people are put to death and later exonerated through DNA evidence.

willie wrote: 'Neutral vessel' I've not heard before, I like it. The term succinctly sums up my feelings on the subject.


Right on.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Cynic
I agree with Derf.

People are products of their environments. As all environments are not the same, it would take an extraordinary co-incidence for the outcome to come up balanced across the board. Derf has observed that honor killings occur more often in Muslim societies. On the scale we're talking about we cannot assume such a trend to be a statistical fluke.
 
willie
JDHURF wrote:
willie wrote: Putting people to death, in cases of murder that involve a cultural element, should definitely be part of our culture.


Not when every year thousands of innocent people are put to death and later exonerated through DNA evidence.
Spoilsport.

Cynic wrote:
I agree with Derf.
You're just after a slice of the sycophancy.
Cynic wrote:
People are products of their environments. As all environments are not the same, it would take an extraordinary co-incidence for the outcome to come up balanced across the board. Derf has observed that honor killings occur more often in Muslim societies. On the scale we're talking about we cannot assume such a trend to be a statistical fluke.
I don't think anyone is denying this particular brand of crime happens predominantly in muslim cultures. The question is whether 'religion' is the cause, or people.

And whether societies can be said to condone such crimes because they happen.
Edited by willie on 11/20/2008 18:03
 
JDHURF
Cynic wrote:
I agree with Derf.

People are products of their environments.


No one familiar with evolutionary theory, especially evolutionary psychology, would come any where near a claim such as this. No one argues for nurture over nature anymore because it's so very clearly a combination, hence epigenetic theory.

People are not simply products of their environments.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
JDHURF
willie wrote: I don't think anyone is denying this particular brand of crime happens predominantly in muslim cultures. The question is whether 'religion' is the cause, or people.


Exactly. Honor killing is a product of Arab patriarchy, not Islam. Scott Atran goes over this elsewhere.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Nails3Jesus0
JDHURF wrote:
willie wrote: I don't think anyone is denying this particular brand of crime happens predominantly in muslim cultures. The question is whether 'religion' is the cause, or people.


Exactly. Honor killing is a product of Arab patriarchy, not Islam. Scott Atran goes over this elsewhere.


Sorry to butt in JD, but do honor killings happen in non-arab muslim cultures? or is it isolated to arab based Islamic countries?
Edited by Nails3Jesus0 on 11/20/2008 20:24
 
Bob of QF
Nails3Jesus0 wrote:
JDHURF wrote:
willie wrote: I don't think anyone is denying this particular brand of crime happens predominantly in muslim cultures. The question is whether 'religion' is the cause, or people.


Exactly. Honor killing is a product of Arab patriarchy, not Islam. Scott Atran goes over this elsewhere.


Sorry to butt in JD, but does honor killing happen in non-arab muslim cultures? or is it isolated to arab based Islamic countries?


There's a sort of suicide cult in India, if I recall correctly. That is, if a male dies, his wive(s) are expected to throw themselves into his funeral pyre and die, too.

I forget the name of the "ritual".
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Nails3Jesus0
Yes, I've heard of that "ritual" also. Isn't it a Hindu thing? I was asking about Islamic cultures that are not arab based, such as in Indonesia (I think). Can someone here enlighten us?
 
derF
willie wrote:
Yes derf, I was joking. If I was being mean I would have pointed out that catmans lucid and viable post actually contradicted yours. Wink

But now we've cleared that up you can proceed with your long post of quotes and rejoinders. I'm particularly interested in how you differentiate between religion and the religious.

BTW, had I been purposefully offensive, the thing to do would be to rise above it and slaughter me with superior debate; not walk away in a huff.



Willy when religion acts as the government in a given country it takes on a dual role. If those leaders hide behind their religion to perpetrate or allow violence and crime then the religion becomes complicit in the outcome. I know you think otherwise. I don't. They are in effect hijacking the religion for their own ends. Look at it in any light you care to but religion is still playing a role. Religion and the religious are not the same thing. Some who describe themselves as religious use the religion as a spiritual guide others as a tool for material gain.

Religion may or may not be the reason for such atrocities but it is being used as the excuse to commit them.

You also nailed why I don't really care to debate with you. To you it's an argument a verbal conflict.

Unlike you, Willie, I am not perfectly convinced that my views are absolutely correct and leave myself open for a change of opinion. I don't feel that you are of the same mind.

*edited quote tags
Edited by Skeeve on 11/21/2008 03:38
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Cynic
So let me get this straight:

1. No True Scientist argues nurture over nature anymore, but honor killings occur in certain cultures, not across the entire spectrum of human society.

2. Honor killings are a product of Abab culture (not the Muslim religion), yet also occur with great frequency among Indian Muslims.

Is this what we're working with?

Above an beyond the tortured and incompatible thoughts in points 1 and 2, why are we arbitrarily separating "culture" and "religion"? Both are "culture". Obviously there's a complex threshold interaction at work, where specific levels of certain cultural aspects are required to produce the behavior. That we can tease some of those aspects out and give them a name doesn't exonerate any of them.

It's like the link between lung cancer and smoking. Given a certain combination of genes and certain level of exposure of smoke, you're likely to get cancer. Eliminate the smoke and the genes don't matter. Don't have the genes, the level of smoke expose doesn't matter. So is cigarette smoking bad? Depends on your genes. If you're in the lucky 10%, puff away -- just mind the people around you 'cause they're probably not as fortunate.

If we suggest a "baseline" culture as being akin to genes, and religion as akin to smoking cigarettes, what can we say? If honor killings could be shown to occur only in Arab cultures, we could conclude that it's the genes, not the smoking, or that it's the combination of the genes and the smoking. We'd need more data to determine which.

But it doesn't. It also occurs in Indian-Muslim cultures. We can suggest that perhaps baseline Arab and baseline Indian culture are both predisposed to honor killings. Or we could suggest that maybe both cultures produce honor killings, but only in the presence of a religion that also supports it (Muslim and Hindi, for instance). Perhaps both cultures are susceptible, but only in the presence of one or the other brand of cigarettes. It's a mess.

Much like that lucky 10% of cancer-free chain smokers, we need to look at honor-killing free culture/religion combinations to figure it out. Are there Arab or Indian societies in which honor killings do not occur? Are there examples of significantly Muslim or Hindi practicioners who participate in honor killings despite living under conditions where the prevailing cultures do not?

Anyone familiar with the history of Christianity knows that Christianity has a horrible, horrible past that, as much as we bitch about it now, is much better now. It would be easy to look at that fact and assume that it's the cultural corrections underlying current Christian societies that determines the level of horror, not Christianity itself. But again, there are no clean divisions -- they are both "culture", not genes and smoke.

If you agree with the sentiment found in my signature below, consider that it has always been, and the current reality of Muslim nations is as much the fault of their practice of smoking as it is their genes -- they develop in tandem. Religion in western society has been tamed by culture, but no more so than culture has been influenced by religion. They are one and the same on a very important level. Were that not the case, the signature would make no sense. Pointing at culture and not religion doesn't make any more sense than pointing at religion and not culture or pointing at culture and not genes, or at genes and not culture.
 
derF
Bravo to a well thought out reply. I couldn't agree more with the conclusion. Best wished to the finalists.
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
willie
Before we go on I think all all this needs to be put into context. The context of the original posts in these threads come from a person who believes there is no such thing as a moderate theist. A person who goes beyond being simply A -Theist into anti-religionist, who goes beyond the simple irrational ism of religion to professing to detest all religion. Most of the debate since those OP's have stemmed from my, and others, objection to that polemic representation of religion --which I believe to be a neutral vessel.

Does anyone agree theists can not be considered moderate simply because they are theist?

Does anyone dispute that religion is a neutral vessel?

I think most of the 'argument' comes from a perceived heresy of going against the atheist line. If that is the case that would be terrible.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Boston and West, Texas The Rant Room 4 04/29/2013 18:30