View Thread

Atheists Today » Religion » Islam
Who is here? 2 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Honour Killings in the West
neilmarr
Here's an article about religiously motivated honour killings in the UK from a British website called stophonourkillings.com: http://www.stopho...e&sid=3172

I post it a) because we should be aware of honour killings being carried out on our doorsteps, Cool because the article and the research behind it does, again, seem to suggest that authorities can't see the wood for politically correct trees.

It's all well and good to complain that there's 'religiophobia' afoot and that characters like me can blow isolated incidents out of proportion ... but just how many isolated incidents does it take to make an issue?

It does appear to me that those authorities responsible for enforcing the laws of Western states are hindered by the niceties of political correctness when infringements involve a religious facet -- Islamic, Christian, Jewish or Mormon.

Such reluctance to act, though, does currently seem to be most evident in the face of Islam. I feel that our governments, legal systems, social services and police are much more guilty of Islamaphobia (fear of Islam) than I could ever be.

Neil
 
JDHURF
Outrageous. It's heinous shit like this that makes me sway on my opposition to the death penalty.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
JohnH
A small comment. The opening paragraph alludes to connections to terrorist groups. Nothing in the article indicates any connection to terrorist groups. Any problem with the muslim community must contain terrorism. A psychological problem that effects much western thought about islam and one that is indicative of our own minds more than theirs.

I wonder if what is going on here is the same thing that goes on in american ghettos. So what if a couple of "niggers" got into a knife fight and one died. One less "nigger" to think about.

Please understand the above was said to make a point and in no way reflects my personal beliefs. When I first typed it I was not going to use the word I did because of fear that someone might make an erroneous assumption. I then decided that when I discus this sort of thing with people I am familiar with I use that word with the understanding that they know my intent. My apologies to anyone who found my word choice offensive.

edited due to Skeeve's appropriate comment below.
Edited by JohnH on 11/13/2008 18:55
 
catman
Regarding Asian girls who disappear:

"And if they've been whisked away to Pakistan or wherever, I think they have to be brought back."

Fat chance.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Skeeve
Sheesh, I've typed and backspaced four times now, trying to say something that I can't get out right.

My fifth attempt:

JohnH: While I see what you were doing with your example, I think more of an attempt to show that it was an example might be prudent. I'm not exactly sure how...quote blocks maybe? Typing, "They might say..." or something. I would hate to have someone stumble upon that and think you were racist and, we by accepting it, were racist as well.

Bartcop has run into this problem also. By repeating racist comments to point out their hate, he was accused of being racist because he didn't really make it obvious he was quoting.

I know what you meant, and I'm sure others here knew what you meant, but I would just like it known that it's not what someone else might think it is.

But maybe, with this long ass post about it, anyone reading this would understand.

Heh, do you see why I had to type and start over four times?? I still don't think I'm saying this the right way. Maybe someone else can say it better.
Edited by Skeeve on 11/13/2008 18:35
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
derF
I have gone round and round with other members here on various facets of this topic. I am still of the opinion that Islam is a backwards and violent religion in it's own right without having to make it seem like just a lunatic fringe of fundamentalists (aka terrorists) are solely to blame for all the violence and death. And now it seems some countries are turning a blind eye to these so called honor killing because they fear inflaming their now quite large Muslim populations. One could argue that the Muslims are continuing their struggle to rule the world but are just using a far more subtle tactic. (derF immediately ducks for cover to await backlash)
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
neilmarr
Words in themselves are innocent, Skeeve. It's intent that counts and it's up to those writing (speaking) to be clear in that intent, as JD has been here.

Of course, we must rely upon a certain intelligence in readers (listeners) to interpret properly. I remember a case when someone got into very hot water and felt obliged to resign his job for using the word 'niggardly' and being crassly misunderstood.

In fact, I've just found reference to the story, showing how some folks can be so wildly over-sensitive to political correctness that they will read in racial slurs where they patently don't exist and even stick to their guns when their ignorance has been pointed out beyond the shadow of a doubt.

http://en.wikiped...ggardly%22

Even more depressing, I think, is that the man who used the word later said that he had been wrong to choose it. So the vocabulary suffers at the hands of the POCO Nazis (no offence -- see our grammar nazi section ... shoot -- what am I saying?!)

Cheers. Neil
Edited by neilmarr on 11/14/2008 02:02
 
catman
That is stultifyingly stupid. I suppose the lovely beer known as Negro Modelo should not be imported into the States either?
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
neilmarr
If you read the whole article on 'niggardly', Cat, you'll come across this near the end:

"The word's new lease of life is probably among manufacturers and retailers of sophomoric humor", wrote John Derbyshire, a conservative commentator, in 2002. "I bet that even as I write, some adolescent boys, in the stairwell of some high school somewhere in America, are accusing each other of being niggardly, and sniggering at their own outrageous wit. I bet ... Wait a minute. 'Sniggering'? Oh, my God...."***

That's what I mean ... where does it end? Must we think every time we use a word that it could cause (popularly justifiable) offence by sounding like something folks don't want to hear? Must we avoid slimy, taffee, jockstrap and paddyfield, because the words might -- respectively -- offend Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsman and Irishmen?

And I apologise for my use of 'men' in these national identities, I do, of course, use it in its neurtral sense. The male/neuter is used in several languages, I notice, including Froggy.

Neil
 
JohnH
There is a part of me that agrees with derF that islam is more violent then the other standard religions. At least I think that is what he was saying.

I will not defend the treatment of women. I will not defend the rather draconian treatment of transgression. I will not defend the willingness to die for the furtherance of the religion. That is why I tend to agree with the premise. I think though that some thought should be given to putting it into context.

Like the israeli jews, muslims see themselves as threatened and therefore given some license. This license, in both their minds, allows them to commit acts that are rightfully condemned by international law.

For the better part of the last two centuries most of the muslim world has been dominated by colonial powers. This has a tendency to retard social development. Imagine what havoc african nations might cause if they had the power of oil wealth.

The muslim world can rightfully make the claim that over time more violence has been perpetrated against them then they have against the rest of the world. Hardly an excuse for the internal violence but certainly an explanation for the external violence.

Isolated and insular communities often can come to accept both internal and external violence. An easy example in the US is the groups that have advocated and in some cases committed murder of abortion doctors.

Almost all generalizations contain a grain of truth. Understanding the whole truth may not negate the generalization. But the whole truth must be considered no matter how uncomfortable that might be to the person making the generalization.
Edited by JohnH on 11/14/2008 11:56
 
catman
JohnH: Excellent and thoughtful post, but their licenses should be revoked. I would say that through history, the Muslims have given as well as they have gotten when it comes to ill treatment, and likewise for the Jews (although I can understand the Holocaust being an ever-present incitement to paranoia and revenge). We have to start with a clean slate sooner or later, rather than toting up all the wrongs throughout histroy to find out who owes who.

Neil: It will not end until the allure for some people of making stupid and offensive remarks wears off, and the penchannt of some people to search for statements that they can possibly be offended by ends. In other words, it will never end.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
JDHURF
derF wrote:
I have gone round and round with other members here on various facets of this topic. I am still of the opinion that Islam is a backwards and violent religion in it's own right without having to make it seem like just a lunatic fringe of fundamentalists (aka terrorists) are solely to blame for all the violence and death. And now it seems some countries are turning a blind eye to these so called honor killing because they fear inflaming their now quite large Muslim populations. One could argue that the Muslims are continuing their struggle to rule the world but are just using a far more subtle tactic. (derF immediately ducks for cover to await backlash)


You're simply wrong derF and it's stunning how wrong you are.

There are somewhere around one and a half billion Muslims worldwide. If I really have to point out to you that they are not all terrorists, or violent extremists, I actually feel sorry for you.

It's the same sort of fevered hatred and ignorant fear that was manifested in the campaign and which Colin Powell beautifully refuted by reference to the Muslim tombstone in Arlington Cemetary.

If you have the audacity to call my deeply American Muslim brothers and sisters in this video violent extremists you and I are going to have a problem:

http://www.youtub...re=channel

http://www.youtub...re=channel

(Please actually watch those videos, if anything, at least watch the first video from 8.25 to the end).

btw - you're argument that the entire global population of Muslims want to dominate the Earth has been spewed before with relation to the Jews: we all know how that ended.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that you are a bad person derF - you're alright by me - but what you are posting is highly dubious, potentially dangerous and very, very disturbing.
Edited by JDHURF on 11/15/2008 05:50
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
JohnH
JDHURF, Wonderfully sweet video. It is one of the reasons I will always be an american. We can for the most part adsorb all sorts without losing our basic sense.

Also as true as there are muslims who would kill a woman because she was raped.

The few muslims I know reasonably well are very nice and for the most part talented people. I would trust them as I hope they would trust me.

Balance is required. Which is what I had hoped to convey in my previous post.

One can find christians who find in christianity the call to preserve and protect the earth. Their bible teaches that, it also teaches the willful domination of the earth. Which is correct and which should we celebrate.
 
JDHURF
I grew up with several good Muslim friends - from elementary all the way through high school - and one of them has been a life long friend. He's no different than any other American, I actually didn't realize he was Muslim until about middle school when he practiced Ramadan during the school day by not eating and so on, and it's simply bigotry to argue otherwise.

Religions cross the spectrum, it's a rather neutral vessel all in all.

I'm fond of quoting Chomsky on this matter:

Religion crosses the spectrum. You know I am totally secular. But I had absolutely no hesitation living in the Jesuit house when I visited Nicaragua in the 1980's.We didn't agree abut a lot of things, but there was a broad area of agreement that it didn't matter to me if they were praying or whatever they were doing. On the other hand when I was growing up as a child, I had a visceral fear of Catholics that took me decades to get over because we were one of the only Jewish families in a Catholic neighborhood , which was violently anti-Semitic, and the local kids went to the Jesuit school and came put raving anti-Semites. So you know, for me, Catholics were something you run away from. Religion can be almost anything you want - all over the place. And it is very often mobilized for very ugly purposes, and sometimes for very humane purposes, like liberation theology. Or you can have a mixture, take say Hamas or Hezbollah. You can't deny the reasons for their support amongst the population. You could say the same things about secular forces. What was Nazi Germany? It was both secular and deeply religious. It developed a demonic form of messianic Christianity. The German church was a grotesque from certain points of view.

Edited by JDHURF on 11/15/2008 06:10
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
JohnH
JDHURF, I think I should take exception to the use of the word neutral. I will agree that people's behavior is more a reflection of themselves than their religion. My problem is that religion can be used to justify all kinds of behavior. This is one of my central reasons for rejecting god and all religion.

Neutral implies no effect. I would suggest a better word is mutable. Religion can justify all kinds of behavior, some positive, some negative.
Edited by JohnH on 11/15/2008 16:37
 
JDHURF
Neutral vessel implies just what you said, which I agree with, that "people's behavior is more a reflection of themselves than their religion."

Religion acts as a neutral vessel in and of itself, it is the person who embraces religion who makes it either positive or negative.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
JohnH
Ah, "neutral vessel", I focused on the single word not the phrase. I think we should now engage in a long winded and boring disagreement on the subtlety of word meaning just to piss everyone else off.
Edited by JohnH on 11/15/2008 16:41
 
schmoo
Please do...I'll prepare my incensed caps lock functions.
 
JohnH
I said an argument no where did I suggest that weapons were allowed.
 
derF
JDHURF wrote:[/b]
You're simply wrong derF and it's stunning how wrong you are.There are somewhere around one and a half billion Muslims worldwide. If I really have to point out to you that they are not all terrorists, or violent extremists, I actually feel sorry for you.


No JD I didn't say anything about all Muslims being violent or evil. Reread the post. Unless I am losing command of the language my wording was very clear. I said that I thought the religion promotes violence. Most of these honor killings are committed by normal non radical Muslims. They see it as their duty and act accordingly. And what is worse is that they are perpetrated on completely innocent young women who had no control over the situation. Oh, and I reiterate that the Muslim religion and even the Christian ones also condone treating their women like livestock. A quick search on the net will land you hundreds of incidents from all over the world where both have occurred. Here is an article from the National Geographic. Not the sort of publication that has an anti religious vendetta.

http://news.natio...lling.html

The article states that the Koran does not specifically condone honor killings but the religious leaders are complicit in that the practice is considered acceptable in Muslim society. You will notice that honor killings are mentioned happening in India as part of the Hindu culture when dowry's are not considered sufficient. (a topic for another thread) Cultures may be the culprit but in Muslim countries the clerics are considered the final word. Rarely do you hear or read about high ranking Muslim clerics speaking out against honor killings. Hence my opinion that the Muslim religion condones or at least does little to stop honor killings. AKA violence.

I am not against the Muslim people. I am against the murder of innocent young women. Period.
Edited by derF on 11/16/2008 16:18
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

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