Banaz Mahmod
Reuters – London – July 19, 2007:
A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an “honor killing” carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.
Her badly decomposed body was found in April 2006, three months after the killing.
Last month a jury found her father Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, guilty of murder after a three-month trial. Their associate Mohamad Hama, 30, had earlier admitted killing her.
62–Mr Mustard – – How can I take a position if I am asking a question?
It COULD be legal because people should be free to do what they want to do as long as it does not interfere with other people’s rights. Animals NOT included.
It COULD be legal because when a majority rules without regard to minority rights, then morality and preferences are made the law, and the minority can just lump it.
The only reason you have been pestered is because YOU REFUSE to engage the issue. Saying its wrong because its illegal is no engagement. Saying its wrong because its over the line is no engagement. So who is pestering whom?
BTW–as I’ve said, its mostly a cultural issue. Poor people’s sport. And how many poor people’s activities have been made illegal by the majority over the centuries??
Now, I do think dog fighting COULD be legitimately made illegal because being cruel to animals is only one step removed from being cruel to actual human beings, and being cruel to actual human beings is a no-no in my book. Its is though, atleast one step removed, so the restriction on human FREEDOM does bother me. One balance, I too take comfort that it is the majority view and against the law. But I wouldn’t be that distressed if it were legal, for the reasons stated above.
I apologize for not finding the rule that endlessly posting the same opinion was de riguer on this website and that asking questions was bad form. I learn something new every month or so. ((Sarcasm light is on!))
Keep swinging Mr. Mustard, you’ll tag me eventually.
>>The only reason you have been pestered is because YOU REFUSE
>>to engage the issue.
Jeez, Bobbo. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Are you sure you’re not a rabid dog?
>>Saying its wrong because its illegal is no engagement.
I don’t believe I’ve ever said that it is wrong because it is illegal. If anything, I said it is illegal because it is wrong. Ipsa res loquitur, as the ancient Romans used to say.
In any case Grasshopper, maybe you didn’t get the memo describing the organizational chart. You are not the teacher; I am not the student. One thing you ARE is persistent beyond the limits of most mortals to tolerate. Are you sure you’re not a pit bull?
If you have something to say, bring it on. More questions? I’ll be taking a nap.
If Mohammad could see what his grand idea has turned into, he’d roll over in his grave, or make the urn dance around or come back from the dead & start a zombie jihad against Islam
#49 [bobbo]
It seems that the fact that this is not a Muslim duty is beyond comprehension by few people here.
66. I’m absolutely convinced if the Last Prophet were alive today, he would be bringing out more revelation’s of God’s will to cover all the unanticpated and esoteric moral situations present in today’s modern world. I understand Muslms would insist that if you were to study the Qur’an close enough, all questions are, in fact, anticipated with answers provided.
RBG
IQ is going down and atheism is increasing, hmmm makes
sense to me. I find in the chat debates that I’ve had with
atheists that they just get really mad. I don’t think their
brains work right.
66 and 68: Mohammed was nailing so many wives he had a calendar drawn up to determine which day he’d nail which one on. At least one wife was prepubescent when he married her. Mohammed condemned at least one entire village to death and ordered the razing of hundreds of temples in Mecca. Mohammed would say that today’s Muslims aren’t killing enough by a long shot and women only exist for raping, bearing children and domestic chores.
69. “I find in the chat debates that I’ve had with atheists that they just get really mad.”
Yeah, it’s real frustrating when you debate a person and base it on reason, logic, and vast empirical evidence but yet a theists relies solely on unprovable dogma. You wouldn’t understand the frustration, but believe me, it’s palpable.
67–I think this goes to the fact that “He who writes the headlines, controls the discussion.” Escpecially when people are too busy to read the thread before they post. I do the same thing, rarely.
Hey, who wants to beat up on Kurds whey you got the Muslims in your crosshairs?
I also find myself getting madder than I should when associating at all with the religious types. In all other areas of life, I’ve become more moderated. I think maybe its because THEY are getting worse, and I’m just trying to stay even????????
Still, equanimity is the rule, unless overruled by circumstance, which is rarely present.
Attention All Readers – Some comments get caught in the spam catcher and we have to release them to the forum. When this happens, it puts them in order of time posted and royally screws up the numbers. When you answer another post, use the name of the poster, not the number.
OK
I see that this has morphed into one of the most thoughtful and well-considered threads I can remember reading here, which is, as a certain Polish domestic goddess has been heard to say, a Good Thing.
Ben, I see that our combined efforts have finally elicited a response from you that provides the clarification that was lacking. Spelled out, it can now be addressed properly, and we have been able to move past mere reflexive reiteration. Ex cellent!
I can now draw a specific bead on my rhetorical target, but I don’t want to skip any of the worthy contributions following my last post that haven’t been dealt with by others, so pls bear with me…
#34 – Ben W
And I respond: you validate my point in one sentence, then contradict it in the next, because you’re mixing objectivity and subjectivity here. The difference between a ‘scientific’ bridge and a ‘theological’ one is not a matter of viewpoint or opinion, it’s a matter of accordance to physical law. Objective. But whether Christ is the Savior, or Mohammed is Allah’s prophet is a difference of opinion.
I’ll agree with you that dismissing or denigrating another’s viewpoint – or opinion or judgment as stupid is indeed closed-minded. I mean, after all, de gustibus non disputandum, right? But a civil engineer who mocks a priest’s ‘divinely inspired’ design for a bridge which blatantly violates the laws of physics is not being closed-minded, he is pointing out, correctly, that the thing is, in a word, wrong. He is not improperly insisting on the validity of his subjective viewpoint, he is identifying objective, demonstrable error. BIG difference.
See, that’s where you go astray. Belief in the existence of the Christian deity (or whatever flavor you fancy) or other religious dogma is not covered by the respect accorded subjective opinion, like belief in, say, the superiority of Robert Fripp’s guitar artistry over Jerry Garcia’s would be; in stark contrast to a debatable viewpoint, it is instead a logically and factually insupportable assertion regarding the real world, one that may be rejected as readily as a belief that 2+2 = 7. Get my point? It’s not a matter of “My subjective opinion is the correct one, and your equally valid one is wrong.” It’s “No, 2+2 = 4, not 7, as anyone who passed 1st grade math knows. You are an idiot.”
#41 – Jerk-Face
If you feel there’s a possibility that some mysterious, inconceivable entity set the Universe into motion, I may say, “Hmm, that’s a thought; I rather doubt it, though.” Polite, respectful disagreement over a reasonable, unprovable subjective speculation.
But when you say, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet,” you’re asserting this ridiculous, primitive. man-made idiocy as an objective fact, which it most certainly is not, which means that (if you actually believe it) you’re an idiot – a fact which I will feel no guilt whatsoever in pointing out…
ª ª ª ª ª
I’m gonna break here and continue later, before I reach my customary absurd length…
#47 – mossimo,
I certainly agree that this is shocking and sad. However, it is not a wrong turn to be discussing religion here. It’s all Zoroastrianism. Whatever particular flavor of Zoroastrianism is unimportant. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion is singular. Some flavors and sects may be more virulent strains of the disease. But, the disease is religion.
#51 – Ben Waymark,
Science and religion are similar in that they are both methods of searching for the truth
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I don’t see religion searching for truth. Religion claims to have all the answers. People searching for the truth do NOT attempt to legislate against education.
#53 – bobbo,
Well said!!
#57 – Ben Waymark – yet again,
Other people understand the environment their are in through more abstract methods such as mysticism, prayer, story, mythology or whatever.
Actually no. No one gains a real understanding of their environment this way. Eastern religions actually do seem to encourage an increased knowledge of self and an improved state of health. But, no one gains any insight into physics, biology, chemistry, etc. this way.
We should not simply dismiss anyone who doesn’t believe in the same things we believe in as stupid or unenlightened but accept that one person may see things one way, and another person another way.
We need not dismiss them for their opinions. However, we need not accept that this is a search for truth or a valid view of the way the world works either. In short, we need not accept it as science. We can respect it as philosophy or theology or mythology. But, it’s not science. It’s not an attempt to determine the predictability and underlying nature of the universe or any part of it. It’s something else entirely. And, if the claimant makes the statement that these ideas are Right and science is Wrong, we need not pay any attention.
Theology, which attempts to codify religion into consistent philosophies, often starts with a truth that cannot be contradicted, something along the lines of ‘God exists’
Um .. Did I miss something here?
I can contradict ‘God exists’ very easily. Repeat after me, ‘There is no need to give any credence to any statement that has not a single shred of supporting evidence.’ Therefore, god/tooth fairy/great pumpkin/flying spaghetti monster or any deity by any other name does not exist.
#59 – Mr. Mustard,
The overriding principle is that there are some things that are so far from any “line”, so far from any moral or legal ambiguity, so indefensible that there’s no sense even discussing them.
I agree. However, all of the flavors of Zoroastrianism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam have horrifically bad morals in them that are in this same line. Killing people for homosexuality, cross-dressing, and wearing a mix of cotton and wool, are among the ones in the bible, as is killing a sheep when a human rapes the sheep. Oh yeah, as is killing a rape victim as punishment for being raped, as specified in the bible. All of these are horrifically wrong. The morals of this religion are unconscionable.
#64 – bobbo,
It COULD be legal because people should be free to do what they want to do as long as it does not interfere with other people’s rights. Animals NOT included.
It COULD be legal because when a majority rules without regard to minority rights, then morality and preferences are made the law, and the minority can just lump it.
Sorry, I can’t agree with you here. Animals should be included. In fact, here’s a shock for you, humans are animals. The term is moral considerability. Many animals are certainly worthy of it through being conscious intelligent creatures. It may be difficult to draw the line at which animals. Or perhaps it is a sliding scale. But, we do have a moral responsibility to avoid treating animals badly for no reason, as with dog or cock fighting and the like.
Further, unless you are talking about laws in totalitarian regimes, a democracy has two parts. Part 1 is that majority rules. Part 2 is that the rights of the minority must be protected. Balancing these is often difficult. But, you cannot ignore part 2 and still call the system democratic.
#69 – Irv,
Atheism is increasing? Where? Tell me where you are seeing an increase in atheism. I want to move there.
70 Milo. Rather than argue why I don’t think you quite have that right, let me assume, for the sake of argument, you are correct and legitimately ask how you might compete with the imams who promote all that as truth and have access to followers 5 times a day for decades upon decades?
RBG
RBG: The truth beats any lie.
The truth is that Mohammed didn’t exist at all, at least as Muslims would have him but Mohammed the myth did all that according to Muslims themselves.
So being true to the myth makes Muslims barbarians by any standard and the actual truth makes them Arabs who would have been Christian and Jewish but couldn’t stand the thought of a humble prophet and so plagiarized existing religions to come up with an action hero prophet clumsily sewn together from existing parts. Great effort is expended by Islam all the time in trying to hold the seams together.
Misanthropic Scott:
“I can contradict ‘God exists’ very easily.”
Sorry… I wasn’t clear there, I didn’t mean that you can’t contradict the statement that ‘God Exists’ what I meant by that statement is that Theology starts with an absolute that cannot be contradicted without destroying the basis of the theological argument. So, if you start with the notion “God Exists” you can build a theological argument that stems from that. If you God does not exists, then there is no theological argument.
My point is only that Theology is a philosophical understanding of religion, but religion is not a philosophy its a belief in something, often something that is very difficult if not impossible to define.
>>BTW, where does scientology stand in all this?
They discourage grinding up placentas and using them as treatment for post-partum depression.
If God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. You can’t convince a believer of anything, their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.
LOL who knew there are *that* many idiots reading dvorak 😀
My God, you really believe in existence of God?! (pun intended) Dudes… LOL youre a fucking cavemen. Watch out, thunderstorms and hurricanes are coming! God will punish you LOL
#78 – Ben Waymark,
if you start with the notion “God Exists” you can build a theological argument that stems from that
I disagree. If you start with the notion that god exists and follow it through, the argument fails by its own logic. The statement god exists necessitates the statement that a god creator exists as does a god creator creator and a god creator creator creator. The logic fails. It fails in infinite recursion.
It also starts with a flawed premise. Quantum mechanics denies cause and effect and is one of the most proven theories we have. It’s up there with relativity, evolution, natural selection, and the big bang, to name a few others. This obviates the necessity of a prime cause, the strongest argument for the existence of a deity.
#45 – M. Scott
I can tell you how; there’s no mystery about it. A perfect example can be found in Francis Collins, who no one would deny is indeed a great and renowned scientist.
Collins, and those few others like him, are different from most top scientists in this respect: he, and they, are extremely skilled at understanding and applying scientific principles – i.e. impartial, objective logical thought – to their work. But their work is just that, work; it isn’t their lives. IOW, he is a regular person, generally as prone to normal human errors in thinking and in confounding emotional response with rational thought. He’s much like most people – except, when he addresses his work, he then applies rigorous scientific method. But you see, he doesn’t use that scientific logical rigor in his personal life; he does not integrate his life and his work.
OTOH, geniuses, a group which most of the greatest scientists belong, almost universally reject religion and religious belief because rigorous logic and scientific methodology is not a seperate aspect of their lives, used only at work. Instead, they fully integrate it into every aspect of life, applying the same standards of proof and logical validity to everything. This is a, if not the, principal factor that sets genius apart from the mass of humanity.
The few scientists that can be found who actually are religious (and not those who speculate philosophically on the subject – most highly intelligent people are prone to do that) are fundamentally ordinary people who just happen to be extremely good at their science work, which is seperate from their personal lives; the vast majority, though, are not “regular”, they’re exceptionally logical, scientifc people who just happen to do science research, since it comes so easily to them, having that rigorous super-rationality as a built-in part of their personalities.
But don’t take my word for it; the clear differences in worldview and thought processes between two great scientists, one an “ordinary person” and one a genius, can be found here and more about their debate in the current issue of Skeptic. Fascinating reading.
There are many cultures in which women and children, especially female children, are not considered equals or treated as full human beings. The violence that was meted out against this woman by her family stemmed from a cultural value system that does not believe women have the right to make their own decisions, exert their own will, or have and act on their own thoughts and feelings. There are Christians, Muslims, and others who use varying degrees of physical punishment, shunning and shaming, verbal attacks, threats, and other tactics to generate compliance. There are cultures that remove the genitalia of female children because it suits the desires of men. And, of course, there are many women within these societies who are complicit with harsh treatment, cruelty, and punishment. In cultures in which female circumcision is practiced, the procedure is done by women. In many North American and West Indian families, women use belts, sticks, and other instruments to punish their children. In fact, there are plenty of justifications–religious and otherwise–for the harsh and often murderous treatment of those who are vulnerable. My point is that mistreatment of children, young adults, women, girls, boys, men and anyone deemed “bad” or “threatening” or “deviant” goes back to the beginning of recorded time, and it will not change unless human beings are willing to realize that hurting other human beings, regardless of the religious and/or cultural excuses that justify it, is wrong.
Well, Dee==given your obvious expertise on the subject, you pose a real puzzler.
If the strong have been abusing the weak since time began, what exactly is going to change that?
An unsupported “unless things change” is spitting in the face of history and kind of a let down.