Which Civilization has been the biggest bunch of bastards throughout history?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
AmerIndian?

edit: If so, I'd say the way they've been treated has been horrible. I disagree with the reservation system, AmerIndians should be given full rights that the rest of the citizenry enjoys.

They DO have EVERY right the rest of America has. Any time the move off them they are have exactly the same rights and privelages as anyone else in America. While there they are subject to tribal laws and regulations as much as US laws. In some senses the reservations are foreign lands.

People live on reservations by choice these days. The past is past.

Hell, if Israel fomally annexed the WB and Gaza, and gave the Palestinians the same rights as Jews in Israel (voting, court privileges, etc), then I'd have no beef with Israel. It is the fact that Israel is treating the WB and Gaza as their colonies where they can kick around Pals is disgusting.

Not a colony. Occupied territory. If someone wages war and refuses peace they stay occupied till they learn better. It would be stupid for Israel to leave the occupied lands without a peace treaty now wouldn't it?

The attempt by some fantic Israelies to create Jewish enclaves in the occupied lands is wrong but that is another subject. One which Israel gets no support on by any nation.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
AmerIndian?

edit: If so, I'd say the way they've been treated has been horrible. I disagree with the reservation system, AmerIndians should be given full rights that the rest of the citizenry enjoys.

The Indians in NA got a very mixed treatment by the Europeans. My forebearers were considered 'civilized', and quickly learned to farm etc. All we got was a forced march to Oklahoma. Others were forced into much less hospitable lands, massacred, swindled. The vast majority of casualties were unintentional.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hell, if Israel fomally annexed the WB and Gaza, and gave the Palestinians the same rights as Jews in Israel (voting, court privileges, etc), then I'd have no beef with Israel. It is the fact that Israel is treating the WB and Gaza as their colonies where they can kick around Pals is disgusting.

It pales in comparison to the murder of civilians. The Palestinian tactics are abhorrent on their face, the fact that these tactics doom their own innocents to a life filled with poverty, hatred, ignorance and violence is an even greater crime.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They are called laws of the state. We subject people to laws that come from our 'Judeo-Christian' backround as well, whether they agree or don't. Sodomy laws which were on the books until very recently fit that mark.

They are religious laws. Call them what you want its still religous laws and you know it.

And Europeans think that execution for anything is murder. Your point?

Europeans are wrong on that assuming any actually think that way. Murderers have chosen to make things life or death. When the state chooses to make something punishable by death that did not involve taking life that state is no longer dealing from a postion of the punishment fitting the crime.

No, I'm thinking of the pre-colonial societies in sub-Saharan Africa. They did not involve state politics and were basically run by villages. Very decentralized, not because they couldn't form a state, but their culture was for that decentralization. Learn some history, you dolt!

How about you learn some manners ignoramous.

Iceland started that way. Villages are states in that case. Its is not stateless it is merely a case of very local economies without the means to support a larger level of organization.

And, btw, Somalia isn't a Muslim nation-state.

Only because its not a nation-state. Its a mess of local warlords mostly Islamic.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Europeans are wrong on that assuming any actually think that way.

I certainly believe that execution is murder, and I am not wrong.

Murderers have chosen to make things life or death. When the state chooses to make something punishable by death that did not involve taking life that state is no longer dealing from a postion of the punishment fitting the crime.

So you believe that the criminal should be punished by doing the same thing to him? So should rapists be raped? Should war criminals who torture their victims be tortured themselves? What about manslaughter - should the perpitrators be 'accidentally' killed? I notice that the French citizen who is being charged with being involved with the WTC attacks is also facing the death penalty even although he was in custody on 11/9. Should the pilot of the F-16 (or whatever) who killed the canadian soldiers be executed?

The fact of the matter is, you are drawing a line as to what continutes a 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Those societies who execute people for adultary are just drawing the line in a different place. I am sure that many people who support the death penalty would also support it for child rapists... You have no claim to morallity on this issue!

[SlowwHand]

"I certainly believe that execution is murder, and I am not wrong."



That's your opinion, which doesn't count as fact.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I certainly believe that execution is murder, and I am not wrong.

You are wrong though. Its the criminal that decided to make things life or death. Killing a killer is justifiable. It may not be the best answer but it is a legititmate answer.

So you believe that the criminal should be punished by doing the same thing to him?

I said it should fit the crime. That is not quite the same as your version of what I said.

So should rapists be raped?

No. They shouldn't be excecuted since they did not kill anyone. That was my point you seem to have missed it.

Should war criminals who torture their victims be tortured themselves?

Why bother? Kill them and be done with it. They chose that route themselves.

What about manslaughter - should the perpitrators be 'accidentally' killed?

They didn't commit a crime by killing someone. The crime was something else and the death was unintential. In the US many manslaughter cases are hit and run auto accidents. Its the running that made it a manslaughter case.

I notice that the French citizen who is being charged with being involved with the WTC attacks is also facing the death penalty even although he was in custody on 11/9. Should the pilot of the F-16 (or whatever) who killed the canadian soldiers be executed?

Why? It wasn't an criminal act it was an accident. Try thinking instead of inventing a position for me.

The fact of the matter is, you are drawing a line as to what continutes a 'cruel and unusual' punishment.

Yes I am. Such a line must be drawn eventually.

Those societies who execute people for adultary are just drawing the line in a different place.

A place that doesn't fit the crime at all. No one was killed. There is no justification of a life being taken.

I am sure that many people who support the death penalty would also support it for child rapists...

I am sure there are. I disagree with them. The punishment is disproportionate.

You have no claim to morallity on this issue!

Yes I do.

You invented my position. I do not have to accept a fabrication by you as mine.

[Rogan Josh]

We are getting somewhat off topic here but never mind...

Originally posted by Ethelred
You are wrong though. Its the criminal that decided to make things life or death. Killing a killer is justifiable. It may not be the best answer but it is a legititmate answer.

Look at it this way. Society is a group of people who come together for mutual benefit, and create laws that protect their moral values are their society. So that, for example, murder is illegal and punishable in various ways.

Now, some other society of people may have different moral values and disagree with the laws of the first society. For example, European society morally disagrees with US executions. That is a moral choice: I believe it is wrong to execute someone, period. This is irrespective of whether the state carries out the execution or some private individual (ie. murder). As Slowwhand pointed out, one moral position is as valid as any other (leaving God out of it).

So, if European laws were to be applied worldwide, US executions would be deemed imorral and illegal. Europeans do not believe that murder warrants the death penalty.

It is the same thing with adultery. Some societies may believe that it is so henious a crime that the death penalty is appropriate. We both obviously disagree but that is only our opinion on the morallity of the act, and we have as little right to change their laws as Europeans have to outlaw US executions.

[Ethelred]

Look at it this way. Society is a group of people who come together for mutual benefit, and create laws that protect their moral values are their society. So that, for example, murder is illegal and punishable in various ways.

That only holds true in SOME societies. Many governments exist to purely for the benifit of those that govern. Not just in kleptocracies either.

For example, European society morally disagrees with US executions. That is a moral choice: I believe it is wrong to execute someone, period.

I suspect much of European society doesn't agree with you. Enough agree that it shouldn't be done for whatever reason that they have decided to stop it. I am ambivalent on the death penalty myself in MOST instances. Not for moral reasons but for the same as many Americans and I am sure many Europeans as well. Its permanent.

As Slowwhand pointed out, one moral position is as valid as any other (leaving God out of it).

I disagree. Many moral positions are an attempt to force one persons morals on others even when no one is being harmed. Thats not an inherently valid position.

So, if European laws were to be applied worldwide, US executions would be deemed imorral and illegal. Europeans do not believe that murder warrants the death penalty.

I doubt that you are speaking for all Europeans. Maybe not even a majority. It would under those conditions be illegal but not necessarily immoral. You are mistaking a practical decision over a moral one. The death penalty is permanent. So it can't be undone. Morals needn't enter into that.

It is the same thing with adultery. Some societies may believe that it is so henious a crime that the death penalty is appropriate.

In the case in question its NOT society but a specific religious group that is forcing its will on those that members of other religious groups. Permanent solutions for temporary problems are ill concieved at best. Murder is a permanent crime. The victim is gone forever. Adultery is hardly in the same class.

We both obviously disagree but that is only our opinion on the morallity of the act, and we have as little right to change their laws as Europeans have to outlaw US executions.

Which ignores the fact the christians are not allowed to change those laws. They are religious laws and another religion's laws at that. They were NOT voted in. They were not chosen by elected representives. They were established by fiat by religious fanatics. It was NOT the act of a free society.

[Tolls]

"It was NOT the act of a free society."

In which case your argument has nothing to do with Islam per se, but with unrepresentative governments.

You are accusing Islam of things that have more to do with the way it is interpreted by a group...similarly christianity could be attacked for the fundamentalist interpretations placed on it by certain sections even now, but that does not mean that christianity at its core is somehow evil!

Fundamentalism is a problem in almost all major religions, and is frequently used as a political tool...that does not mean that the blame should lie with the religion.

That there are laws in the Sharia regarding the death penalty for adultery is of little consequence...there are similar laws in the Old Testament. It is that the powers that be in some of these countries choose to implement them.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I disagree. Many moral positions are an attempt to force one persons morals on others even when no one is being harmed. Thats not an inherently valid position.

Well, our democratic societies have many laws of this sort too. I am inclined to agree with you that laws should not force moral values on others but there are again lines to be drawn. For example, at which stage does a child become responsible for his or her own decisions? Should gambling be regulated to protect people from unscrupulous individuals or corporations. Should smoking be banned in public places? Should one be allowed to make offensive remarks in public?

In the case in question its NOT society but a specific religious group that is forcing its will on those that members of other religious groups.

So are you saying that it is OK to enforce such laws on someone if they are of the same religion as the government? Surely what religion those people are makes no difference. If someone belongs to a religion where child sacrifice is permitted, it should still be illegal for them to do it in the US, irrespective that their religion differs from that of the government.

Which ignores the fact the christians are not allowed to change those laws. They are religious laws and another religion's laws at that.

Just as the child sacrificer is not allowed to change the laws in the US.

They were NOT voted in. They were not chosen by elected representives. They were established by fiat by religious fanatics. It was NOT the act of a free society.

An interesting point here, is the question: is democracy a moral system of government? People may wat to live in a society which is undemocratic. What happens if you forcably set up elections in a fundamentalist country and the people vote in an undemocratic fundamentalist government? Do you disallow their choice, and if you do, is it truely democratic? And what about someone who believes in democracy who lives in such a country?

Really you have to specify somehow that there are inalienable human rights which should not be violated, and the right to vote would be one of them. But you have to come up with this list of rights somehow, and people will disagree on how to do that, and what rights the list should contain. Indeed, which rights it contains is a moral decision.

[Ethelred]

In which case your argument has nothing to do with Islam per se, but with unrepresentative governments.

Evasion. Its Islamic laws we are talking about. Not government laws but laws that were written down by Mohammed and are enforced by religious leaders.

You are accusing Islam of things that have more to do with the way it is interpreted by a group...

Who cares? I am critisizing what IS not some theory that isn't seen in the real world.

similarly christianity could be attacked for the fundamentalist interpretations placed on it by certain sections even now,

Could be. What does that have to do with anything I said?

I have this little bit of news for you. I am not a christian. See the Creationism threads.

but that does not mean that christianity at its core is somehow evil!

I NEVER said that about Islam. Try dealing with what I said not with what Chris said.

However since you brought it up, I think Islams sucks. Which is not quite the same as calling it evil.

That there are laws in the Sharia regarding the death penalty for adultery is of little consequence...there are similar laws in the Old Testament.

Woud you care to tell that to a certain Saudi princess. Oh I am sorry she has been very hard of hearing since her head was taken off by a sword.

The laws in the old testament are not enforced by local priests. Nor does any christian expect them to be these days. Yet in many Islamic states it is not only expected, it is done.

[Tolls]

"Its Islamic laws we are talking about. Not government laws but laws that were written down by Mohammed and are enforced by religious leaders. "

Not quite...they are largely laws which are interpretations of the actions and sayings of Muhammed...the only sura that deal with adultery is:

[4:15] Those who commit adultery among your women, you must have four witnesses against them, from among you. If they do bear witness, then you shall keep such women in their homes until they die, or until GOD creates an exit for them.

(an exit would be someone agreeing to marry her).

Stoning plays no part and was a later addition.

"Who cares? I am critisizing what IS not some theory that isn't seen in the real world. "

But what is seen in the real world is a mix of interpretations of the Sharia...just as there are (and have been) differences of interpretation in other religions.

Apologies for using evil...

"Yet in many Islamic states it is not only expected, it is done."

Which brings us to Chris's point about them being backward...which as I said cannot be placed entirely on the shoulders of Islam.

[Messer Niccolò]

Japan.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It pales in comparison to the murder of civilians.

And look at the casulty rates for both sides. Turns out almost 3 times as many Palestinians have been killed since 2000.

They are religious laws. Call them what you want its still religous laws and you know it.

So? Laws of the state have to come from somewhere, and in some societies they originated from religion (like, say, the US).

Europeans are wrong on that assuming any actually think that way. Murderers have chosen to make things life or death. When the state chooses to make something punishable by death that did not involve taking life that state is no longer dealing from a postion of the punishment fitting the crime.

You think they are wrong because you believe in eye for an eye. Europeans would counter with the statement, an eye for an eye leaves a society blind.

The death penalty has also been put upon rapists, and not to far in the past, 'uppity' blacks.

Its is not stateless it is merely a case of very local economies without the means to support a larger level of organization.

Um... no. It is stateless because they chose not to organize in states. They chose to live in village society, when they could have organized more, if they chose.

Like I said before, learn some history.

Why bother? Kill them and be done with it. They chose that route themselves.

Um... you just totally contradicted yourself... seeing as you said, in the statement JUST before this one:

They shouldn't be excecuted since they did not kill anyone. That was my point you seem to have missed it.

So, try again.

A place that doesn't fit the crime at all. No one was killed. There is no justification of a life being taken.

But you want to kill people that torture. Please try to be consistant here.

I doubt that you are speaking for all Europeans. Maybe not even a majority.

I'd say he's speaking for at least 80% of Europeans. Only a very few Europeans don't disagree morally with the DP, from what I've seen.

It was NOT the act of a free society

Plenty of our laws in the US come from English Common Law, which could say wasn't a free society either.

The laws in the old testament are not enforced by local priests. Nor does any christian expect them to be these days. Yet in many Islamic states it is not only expected, it is done.

It's been 1300 years (about) since Islam was founded... I don't remember much enlightened democracy in Europe in 1300 AD.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
For example, at which stage does a child become responsible for his or her own decisions?

Fuzzy decision. A specific line has to be drawn but it inherently depends on the society. Under thirty and over ten I would suppose could be considered a fairly reasonable area for the line to be drawn within.

Should gambling be regulated to protect people from unscrupulous individuals or corporations.

Why yes. Regulation is not the same as making it illegal you know.

Should smoking be banned in public places?

Yes depending on the place of course. Its not something without victims.

Should one be allowed to make offensive remarks in public?

Well in the US the answer is mostly yes. Who is to decide what is offensive after all. I found former Secretary of the Interior Watt to be wholly and completely offensive every time he opened that oriface in his face that simulated a mouth. Still, he had the right to do so.

So are you saying that it is OK to enforce such laws on someone if they are of the same religion as the government?

No. The laws were religous laws. They aren't being enforced by the government in many cases. Saudi Arabia is one of the few cases where the government is actively enforcing relgious law. In most Islamic nations it the relgious leaders that are doing that.

What I did say that if people CONSENT to the laws of their religion that is entirely different than when the religious laws are being used on people that of entirely different beliefs.

Surely what religion those people are makes no difference.

Surely it does.

And don't call me shirley.

If someone belongs to a religion where child sacrifice is permitted, it should still be illegal for them to do it in the US, irrespective that their religion differs from that of the government.

Quite. The US does not permit religous laws. What I have been talking about is other nations where the religious laws are permited.

By the way the US government has no religion. Except thou shalt pay thy taxes.

An interesting point here, is the question: is democracy a moral system of government? People may wat to live in a society which is undemocratic.

How would you know? Without an open democratic government there is NO WAY to know the wishes of a society.

What happens if you forcably set up elections in a fundamentalist country and the people vote in an undemocratic fundamentalist government? Do you disallow their choice, and if you do, is it truely democratic?

Ask the Algerians. From my point of view it isn't democratic. Its denying people the opportunity to change their minds later. Now a people could decide to vote in an fundamentlist government and STILL have elections afterwards. That would at least have a chance of being democratic should the society discover its mistake.

And what about someone who believes in democracy who lives in such a country?

Time to vote with their feet. The ultimate freedom.

Really you have to specify somehow that there are inalienable human rights which should not be violated, and the right to vote would be one of them.

I don't have to do any such a thing to discuss the unjust actions of Islamic radicals.