157 replies to this topic

[Westbrick]

There are really only two practical options to doing away with Honour Killings. The first one is to do nothing and hope for psychotic Muslims to come to their senses (bad idea since it's not going to be happening in the near future) or to use force to change their ideas (even worse since the last thing that this area needs is a full scale war). In the choice of the lesser of the two evils, I take the first. I could choose the second (mostly because I personally actually have the means too) but only when it happens in front of my face.

If these were the only two options available, then I'd say your judgment is sound. There are, however, grey areas. Consider honor killings that happen within the Western world. Naturally, these are already covered to a degree because of laws against murder, but why stop there? Why not go to the root of the problem when honor killings happen, i.e. spread information and education regarding the issue, protect endangered individuals, etc. (I've outlined this in greater detail in some earlier posts, but this is the gist)? We may end up isolating ourselves from certain subcultures, but I'd consider this a reasonable price to pay. I can especially see this being a problem in places like London, where hotbeds of Islamic fanaticism are common. We can't necessarily control Iran (although I still think diplomatic options are available; call it naive), but then what's your stance on instances in the West?

[Tricky Dick]

If these were the only two options available, then I'd say your judgment is sound. There are, however, grey areas. Consider honor killings that happen within the Western world. Naturally, these are already covered to a degree because of laws against murder, but why stop there? Why not go to the root of the problem when honor killings happen, i.e. spread information and education regarding the issue, protect endangered individuals, etc. (I've outlined this in greater detail in some earlier posts, but this is the gist)? We may end up isolating ourselves from certain subcultures, but I'd consider this a reasonable price to pay. I can especially see this being a problem in places like London, where hotbeds of Islamic fanaticism are common. We can't necessarily control Iran (although I still think diplomatic options are available; call it naive), but then what's your stance on instances in the West?

The problem with your plan is that you're now infringing on the freedom of religion.

Murder and rape are against the law. Not really that negotiable. But to actually try to restrict Islam's views on it (with regards to honour killings) is going to be a mess because the "how long will it be until we just straight up ban Islam for being an evil religion" mentality is going to start showing up.

It's really hard to put the idea into words because I'm kinda sure that I'll miss-word my argument and you'll pounce on that. But honestly, what the West has going is fine. If an Islam family wants to disown their daughter because she was raped, go ahead. That's fine by me since it's more of a family dispute. Murder is not. But the more we mess around with laws targeting a specific religion and culture, the worse the results.

[Westbrick]

The problem with your plan is that you're now infringing on the freedom of religion.

Murder and rape are against the law. Not really that negotiable. But to actually try to restrict Islam's views on it (with regards to honour killings) is going to be a mess because the "how long will it be until we just straight up ban Islam for being an evil religion" mentality is going to start showing up.

It's really hard to put the idea into words because I'm kinda sure that I'll miss-word my argument and you'll pounce on that. But honestly, what the West has going is fine. If an Islam family wants to disown their daughter because she was raped, go ahead. That's fine by me since it's more of a family dispute. Murder is not. But the more we mess around with laws targeting a specific religion and culture, the worse the results.

Speaking of being "naive," I feel obligated to point out that you don't seem aware of the Western world's position on this. Religion is a safeguard against a number of things, but even in America (much less England and other less socially-tolerant nations), it has limitations. Drug use, for example, is traditionally practiced by many Native American tribes, but the the Supreme Court ruled that "cultural autonomy" didn't present a compelling interest against that of the state. Check Employment Division vs. Smith.


I find the bolded portion hard to understand, much less justify. Why wouldn't you get involved to go above-and-beyond when it comes to victims of honor killings? Does "cultural autonomy" mean that much to you?

Edited by Westbrick, 12 July 2012 - 10:41 PM.

[Tricky Dick]

Speaking of being "naive," I feel obligated to point out that you don't seem aware of the Western world's position on this.

Because you clearly don't know, I feel obligated to point out that I grew up in Canada for a good 19 years of my life. I'm 20. Pretty sure I'm aware of the Western World's position on honour killings. In fact, until I opened my eyes and started to think for myself, I was the dictionary definition of a Canadian/American who "cares" about this shit.

Remember the Kony 2012 incident? Posts on Facebook for about a week (not even) and now, nobody even remembers it. The Western World views issues like these as a fad. Interesting for 48 hours and then... nothing.

Religion is a safeguard against a number of things, but even in America (much less England and other less socially-tolerant nations), it has limitations. Drug use, for example, is traditionally practiced by many Native American tribes, but the the Supreme Court ruled that "cultural autonomy" didn't present a compelling interest against that of the state. Check Employment Division vs. Smith.

There is a fine line between religious persecution and proper laws for the betterment of society. The problem is that very few communities understand how to toe this line. I'm pretty sure you understand this idea too.

I find the bolded portion hard to understand, much less justify. Why wouldn't you get involved to go above-and-beyond when it comes to victims of honor killings? Does "cultural autonomy" mean that much to you?

I see no reason to interject myself into a family dispute as long as no laws are broken. It might be a good idea for you to reread some John Locke. Laws don't exist to be impartial, no matter how good the reason is. Laws exist to keep a society functioning properly.

Not to mention that when I see Arabs killing each other over this shit, I personally can't help thinking "well at least they're not killing Israelis". Pardon me if that seems harsh but that's my world.

[1st Mate Bob]

There is a fine line between religious persecution and proper laws for the betterment of society. The problem is that very few communities understand how to toe this line. I'm pretty sure you understand this idea too.

From my understanding, the way it works in the United States is that if a law is broken (we'll use Westbrick's drug use law as an example) the court is unable to pardon the accused even if they were breaking the law because of religious practices. This doesn't mean there's "religious persecution," just that they're keeping the concept of separation of church and state. The government is not allowed to hold one religion higher than the other.

Does it always happen? I can't say. Maybe religious persecution happens, but the courts tend to do a good job keeping everything even, I think.

I see no reason to interject myself into a family dispute as long as no laws are broken. It might be a good idea for you to reread some John Locke. Laws don't exist to be impartial, no matter how good the reason is. Laws exist to keep a society functioning properly.

But over here, disownment is most often regarded as child abandonment, which is illegal, regardless of reason. Do you not agree, or do you really think it's nothing more than just a family dispute? (I'm asking earnestly, not trying to sound condescending)

[Westbrick]

...Did Life Admiral really just tell me to "read some John Locke"? Wow. I'd recommend you read some Supreme Court cases, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, James Madison, and other political philosophers who had a tangible impact on the American landscape beyond "respect property!" Because if you actually read Locke, his proposals are radical and rather ridiculous. He's only remembered because he eschewed very general pro-liberal sentiments that were popular with the Founders in a nice, catchy way.

Anyway, I think we're done here. You posts continue to lack substance, and they're getting rather predictable. "You're naive," "I live in the middle east," "lol hey man do you like my tough guy routine," "*insert paragraph that doesn't address the question here*". You've yet to demonstrate why the US shouldn't take proactive measures to crack down especially tough on honor killings. Feel free to try again, but I'm pessimistic this discussion goes anywhere productive.

Edited by Westbrick, 13 July 2012 - 04:06 AM.

[Tricky Dick]

Anyway, I think we're done here. You posts continue to lack substance, and they're getting rather predictable. "You're naive," "I live in the middle east," "lol hey man do you like my tough guy routine," "*insert paragraph that doesn't address the question here*". You've yet to demonstrate why the US shouldn't take proactive measures to crack down especially tough on honor killings. Feel free to try again, but I'm pessimistic this discussion goes anywhere productive.

Yeah, we are. You honestly believe that fanatics listen to the word of "infidels" and care about them even though the current state of the world proves otherwise. You are an idealist and while it's wonderful that this world has them, idealists don't really do anything productive anymore.

The US has about as much power against the religion of Islam as a strand of wet spaghetti does against a rifle. If the US wants to crack down on honour killings within the 50 states, they may go ahead since any legal crimes there happen on US soil under US Federal Law. But as for cases in the Middle East? Forget it.

It's hilariously funny that you actually believe that basic logic and rational thinking applies in this area. Now, try living here for more than 6 months. Your opinion might just change.

From my understanding, the way it works in the United States is that if a law is broken (we'll use Westbrick's drug use law as an example) the court is unable to pardon the accused even if they were breaking the law because of religious practices. This doesn't mean there's "religious persecution," just that they're keeping the concept of separation of church and state. The government is not allowed to hold one religion higher than the other.

Does it always happen? I can't say. Maybe religious persecution happens, but the courts tend to do a good job keeping everything even, I think.

Which corresponds to my point. Very few communities understand how to toe the line between terrible religion based laws and religious persecution. France is a very good example of the latter. Look at all of the legal battles over Muslim women and the hijab.

But over here, disownment is most often regarded as child abandonment, which is illegal, regardless of reason. Do you not agree, or do you really think it's nothing more than just a family dispute? (I'm asking earnestly, not trying to sound condescending)

Depends on the case. Very rarely, the child is beneath the age of being able to work legally (or even make a living illegally). If we're talking about a 10 year old girl, I'm not heartless. But an 18 year old? She can make a new life for herself without help from her parents. It sounds pretty cold but compared to the alternative (the removal of her head from the neck), I'll take that.

Edited by Life Admiral, 13 July 2012 - 04:24 AM.

[CrashGordon94]

Feel free to try again, but I'm pessimistic this discussion goes anywhere productive.

I haven't been involved in this but can I just interject?
It seems like the discussion hasn't been going anywhere for quite a while, probably since about the first page or not, it kinda looks like everybody's repeating themselves and has been since before I first posted.
In fact, someone already pointed that out before.

[Westbrick]

Yeah, we are. You honestly believe that fanatics listen to the word of "infidels" and care about them even though the current state of the world proves otherwise. You are an idealist and while it's wonderful that this world has them, idealists don't really do anything productive anymore.

The US has about as much power against the religion of Islam as a strand of wet spaghetti does against a rifle. If the US wants to crack down on honour killings within the 50 states, they may go ahead since any legal crimes there happen on US soil under US Federal Law. But as for cases in the Middle East? Forget it.

That bolded part tells me we agree a lot more than you're giving the situation credit for. I understand that you live in the Middle East, so this is a personal issue for you and you'll likely remain stationary no matter what I say. I'm glad we can at least agree about domestic policy.

P.S. I'm hardly an "idealist." Have you been reading my posts?

[Tricky Dick]

That bolded part tells me we agree a lot more than you're giving the situation credit for. I understand that you live in the Middle East, so this is a personal issue for you and you'll likely remain stationary no matter what I say. I'm glad we can at least agree about domestic policy.

P.S. I'm hardly an "idealist." Have you been reading my posts?

Let's see where we agree and where we disagree.

We agree on the fact that honour killings are terrible things. We agree that something should be done. But we disagree on how. You believe that the Western World has the power to change the Arab World's opinion through diplomacy. I am telling you that what you suggest is 150~200% impossible since it is religion driven and as we all know, religion drives wars (Crusades is a nice obvious example).

I call you an idealist because you still believe that diplomacy works when talking to religious fanatics. Hint: It doesn't.

[Westbrick]

Let's see where we agree and where we disagree.

We agree on the fact that honour killings are terrible things. We agree that something should be done. But we disagree on how. You believe that the Western World has the power to change the Arab World's opinion through diplomacy. I am telling you that what you suggest is 150~200% impossible since it is religion driven and as we all know, religion drives wars (Crusades is a nice obvious example).

I call you an idealist because you still believe that diplomacy works when talking to religious fanatics. Hint: It doesn't.

Not entirely right. I believe that the Western world has the problem to help the problem in the East, not necessarily cure it. The people to target, by the way, aren't the religious fanatics, because, as you point out, they're beyond convincing. It's the people in power, who can provide protective care etc., who should be targeted diplomatically.

[Kopfjager]

Not entirely right. I believe that the Western world has the problem to help the problem in the East, not necessarily cure it. The people to target, by the way, aren't the religious fanatics, because, as you point out, they're beyond convincing. It's the people in power, who can provide protective care etc., who should be targeted diplomatically.

Except that, more often than not, The people in power are ALSO part of the "Religious Fanatic" group.

[Tricky Dick]

Except that, more often than not, The people in power are ALSO part of the "Religious Fanatic" group.

Yeah. That. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Kopfjager]

Yeah. That. Thanks for pointing that out.

You're welcome. My country isn't as crazy as your neighbors... but we have our spells every now and then as well.

[CrashGordon94]

Except that, more often than not, The people in power are ALSO part of the "Religious Fanatic" group.

Did you really have to revive this thing to say that?

[Tricky Dick]

Did you really have to revive this thing to say that?

Yes Crash. He did.

Wen makes an excellent point, judging that he also lives in a country where honour killings actually exist on a daily basis.

[Kopfjager]

Well, not really daily, but you hear about it happening every few months.

The reaction to it tends to differ.

In some parts (the more fanatical ones) nothing happens. If you even hear anything about it.

In other parts you sometimes get a mob that pulls some street justice on the rapist, and oftentimes, on the one doing the honor-killing.

Idiocy in the name of religion happens everywhere, and not just by one religion, just saying.

[nflchamp]

I read this topic because it was interesting and I'd like to add a point.

We all find honor killings abhorrent because we believe they go against basic human rights to life. However, and I know someone was bringing this point up before, these human rights are ideas of the west. In "The East" there could easily be a different idea to what basic human rights there are. We think that a right to life is one of the most important - if not the most important - rights we have by simply being human. "The East" doesn't have to think that though. Protecting one's honor could be considered the most important human right with life being lower in the list. So, no matter how insane we think it is, the man killing a victim of rape could be considered permitted to do so because of his human rights. He is not violating another person's rights, he is practicing his own by protecting his (and likely that of the rape victim's) honor.



Now, being a western thinker, I think that such an idea is just a cultural phenomenon that could be so pervasive as to be misinterpreted by "Eastern" thinkers as a human right. It's such a thing that changes once that part of the culture is questioned hard enough.




Final note: East is quoted because I don't think the idea is prevalent enough to be blanketed over the entire part of the world. It is simply an easy to use identifier.