Christian convert faces death penalty in Afghanistan

[Epee_Pox]

This attack on the Christian faith has shocked and outraged people the world over. The act is so much more offensive and threatening than the mere publication of editorial cartoons lampooning a faith.

But where are the violent protests, burnings, killings, and other mass demonstrations of physical outrage? I guess it's only the religion of peace that reacts with violence to those who disagree with them.

Yay, ethical relativism!

[Morion]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

This attack on the Christian faith has shocked and outraged people the world over. The act is so much more offensive and threatening than the mere publication of editorial cartoons lampooning a faith.

But where are the violent protests, burnings, killings, and other mass demonstrations of physical outrage? I guess it's only the religion of peace that reacts with violence to those who disagree with them.

Yay, ethical relativism!

That is a flame invite if I ever saw one.

I am appalled by the situation given in that article. My gut feeling is that these people are barbarians and that we have no business supporting them. However are we being given a true picture or just the outpouring of a few zealots?

[JARS]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

How would your church react if one of its members started coming to church toting a Satanic bible?

Well, we would probably raise an objection and have a debate. Disagree with him and try argue with him we would do, but the last thing we would do is advocate his execution. We would not kick him out. Some people would probably shun him I will grant you that, but at my church we would not respond with violence. There are churches that would and I would feel the same way about them as I do about the Musliums in Afganistan wanting to act violently towards this man.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Not necessarily. They might end up doing what they think is the right thing for the foreigners in their land, or what they think is the right thing for their neighbours, which is kind of my concern. What will happen in Afghanistan if they do something that isn't the right thing for them?

James.

Whatever they decide to do will be the correct choice for them because they create the world they live in by either making choices or shunning away from making choices. It is unimportant to me what they do since I cannot help their culture. I am not from their culture.

What is important is not allowing a dysfuctional individual to contaminate the group with harmful ideas. I would say that a more humane thng to do would just be to banish him from the land but as long as they don't send him to North America since we don't need his dysfuncionality either.

I myself, would just love it if they just wacked his a$$ according the laws of their civilization. That way what they will be doing is giving direct affirmation to the fact that we and them are completely different and have no business mingling.

I also believe that Bin Laden is long gone dead and the only reason the Bush administration won't confirm it is because it would mean their immediate withrawal would be demaded.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by JARS

Well, we would probably raise an objection and have a debate. Disagree with him and try argue with him we would do, but the last thing we would do is advocate his execution. We would not kick him out. Some people would probably shun him I will grant you that, but at my church we would not respond with violence. There are churches that would and I would feel the same way about them as I do about the Musliums in Afganistan wanting to act violently towards this man.

This is not about heresy. It is about a dysfuctional arab bringing in a harmful foreign idoelogy that could infect and destroy his culture if left unchecked. What if one of your church members decided to come to church in a full 3 piece suit and tie but no pants or underwear on? Would you allow him to stay there?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Whatever they decide to do will be the correct choice for them because they create the world they live in by either making choices or shunning away from making choices. It is unimportant to me what they do since I cannot help their culture. I am not from their culture.

That's a pretty fatalistic determination of correct. I prefer to think that the most beneficial choice is the "correct" one.

What is important is not allowing a dysfuctional individual to contaminate the group with harmful ideas. I would say that a more humane thng to do would just be to banish him from the land but as long as they don't send him to North America since we don't need his dysfuncionality either.

Yes and no. No idea is harmful. Only actions. Banishment in this case would be viewed as a reward since someone would consent to take him in. I'm not sure why you think he is dysfunctional though, merely because he chooses to hold a position divergent from the community he is a member of.

I myself, would just love it if they just wacked his a$$ according the laws of their civilization. That way what they will be doing is giving direct affirmation to the fact that we and them are completely different and have no business mingling.

I was thinking that he might have to die simply to prevent any widespread belief in the idea that the government of Afghanistan is seperate from the people of Afghanistan.

I also believe that Bin Laden is long gone dead and the only reason the Bush administration won't confirm it is because it would mean their immediate withrawal would be demaded.

Interesting supposition but there is no public evidence either way.

James.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by jBirch

That's a pretty fatalistic determination of correct. I prefer to think that the most beneficial choice is the "correct" one.

[The correct and beneficial thing to do is whatever it is that their culture demands in order to sustain itself.]

Yes and no. No idea is harmful. Only actions. Banishment in this case would be viewed as a reward since someone would consent to take him in. I'm not sure why you think he is dysfunctional though, merely because he chooses to hold a position divergent from the community he is a member of.

[I call him dysfuctional because he compromises the foundation of the group instead of adding to it. I guess your right about banishment. I still don't want any of those insane people coming to my land.]


I was thinking that he might have to die simply to prevent any widespread belief in the idea that the government of Afghanistan is seperate from the people of Afghanistan.

[He has to die because he replaced the angry teachings of Mohamed for the schrizophenic teachings of Jesus.]

Interesting supposition but there is no public evidence either way.

[There is to me. There hasn't been any video recordings of him since we bombed the caves, nor has any credit been given to him for all the little terrorist acts that have happened since.]

James.

I'm sorry but I dont know how to do the quote thingy at all. Perhaps you could teach me. And thank you.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

I'm sorry but I dont know how to do the quote thingy at all. Perhaps you could teach me. And thank you.

Just put [ QUOTE ] (without the spaces) in your post around the section you want to quote.

The correct and beneficial thing to do is whatever it is that their culture demands in order to sustain itself.

True, from a macro perspective. Though all decisions within the culture aren't necessarily beneificial to its survival. In this particular case, just because the current culture demands that the convert be put to death, does not mean that it this not an action that will eventually lead to the demise of the culture.

I call him dysfuctional because he compromises the foundation of the group instead of adding to it. I guess your right about banishment. I still don't want any of those insane people coming to my land.

LOL! We have enough wacko fundies without adding one more, eh?

He has to die because he replaced the angry teachings of Mohamed for the schrizophenic teachings of Jesus.

LOL! But Darwin repeatedly shows that stupidity is not an evolutionary roadblock. I'm on the fence about whether he should be killed by the state though. On the one hand, it is morally wrong for them to do this as the level of threat doesn't justify the punishment. On the other, the state not putting him down might substantially weaken the state as a whole, putting the rest of the populace in jeopardy. Tough call.

here is to me. There hasn't been any video recordings of him since we bombed the caves, nor has any credit been given to him for all the little terrorist acts that have happened since.

As we are so fond of saying in the water cooler: this is a fallacy. "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as it goes.

James.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Just put [ QUOTE ]
As we are so fond of saying in the water cooler: this is a fallacy. "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as it goes.

James.

Yes, you're right. So who do you think will turn up first? Jesus, Santa Claus or Bin Ladin?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Yes, you're right. So who do you think will turn up first? Jesus, Santa Claus or Bin Ladin?

LOL! Bin Laden.

The evidence for Jesus as a person is strong, but there is equally strong evidence that he's dead. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that he's dead. Santa Claus, unfortunatly, has little evidence supporting his initial existence as a person. Sadly, if he didn't exist, it's unlikely that he'll turn up anytime soon. Finally, there is strong evidence that Bin Laden was born but no evidence that he is dead. We would have to wait a while before the probability of his being dead would be great enough that we could say with certaintly that he's probably not going to turn up.

Until then though, I'd say of the three, Bin Laden is likely to turn up first.

James.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Morion

That is a flame invite if I ever saw one.

I am appalled by the situation given in that article. My gut feeling is that these people are barbarians and that we have no business supporting them. However are we being given a true picture or just the outpouring of a few zealots?

Why? Because it points out the double standard once again?

This is indeed the true picture.

[JARS]

Why is it that the Muslium religion is the only religion of any kind in the world that believes that if you don't have the same beliefs results in immediate capitol punishment.

What civilization is this guy threatening. Muslims in the middle east have no civilization they are simply an intollerent group of people who love killing, they have been doing it since ancient times.

If someone streaked walked in church do you seriously think that we would execute him Reverse Lunge?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by JARS

Why is it that the Muslium religion is the only religion of any kind in the world that believes that if you don't have the same beliefs results in immediate capitol punishment.

Probably because there's a lot of ignorant westerners.

What civilization is this guy threatening. Muslims in the middle east have no civilization they are simply an intollerent group of people who love killing, they have been doing it since ancient times.

The current tribal based civilisation in Afghanistan and the stability of the government. Essentially, he is provoking a conflict between the leaders of the barely civilised tribes (whom consider it an insult to submit to the rule of some extra-community law) and the "puppet" democratic government.

If someone streaked walked in church do you seriously think that we would execute him Reverse Lunge?

And do you suppose that all Muslim's execute anyone who converts from Islam and all Christians are tolerant, peaceful folk? How many Christian Priests are calling for the murder of Muslims?

James.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The current tribal based civilisation in Afghanistan and the stability of the government. Essentially, he is provoking a conflict between the leaders of the barely civilised tribes (whom consider it an insult to submit to the rule of some extra-community law) and the "puppet" democratic government.

You must be joking. An individual who decides that he believes in a common world religion that happens to be different from the majority religion of the nation in which he resides, poses no more threat to that society than a smallish brine shrimp.

It is a trait of savage, uncivilized societies to react to the "different" with violence and death -- whether by an unofficial mob, or through official governmental procedure.

Afghanistan isn't alone; there are a lot of countries around the world that have a long way to go before they can be considered grown-up enough to join the rest of us who create and improve. Transparent, effective government and productive economies, in stable societies run not by the strongest thugs but by fair and perrmanent institutions, are what such countries need to achieve.

Rule by religious laws one would have expected in a stone-age culture, rather than by laws that protect basic freedoms of the individual, is something to be railed against, not apologized for.

And it is especially outrageous that apologists in the West, who justify or shrug their shoulders at what the Afghans are doing, are often the same people who loudly decry any capital punishment for those who commit truly horrific crimes. Such hypocrisy is unfathomable in those who would be voices of morality. And to reply "well, we can't hold them to the same standards" is a racist response, essentially saying "they're not as good as we are, and cannot be." Which is even more outrageous coming from the "ethical" westerner.

Originally Posted by jBirch

And do you suppose that all Muslim's execute anyone who converts from Islam and all Christians are tolerant, peaceful folk? How many Christian Priests are calling for the murder of Muslims?

Of course not all Muslims execute converts. But this is different. This is a governmental action under a form of Islamic law. Nobody is generalizing to all individual believers in Islam. But it is safe to say that Islam is the source of this particular outrage.

Of course not all Christians are tolerant, peaceful folk. Has anyone said they are? Honestly. Are you arguing that because people can be rotten, whatever their stated faith, that therefore we should excuse insanely cruel governmental acts done in the name of religion?

And how many Christian priests ARE calling for the murder of Muslims? I am unaware of any. If you can present evidence that this is being done by any significant number of Christian priests -- and I'm not talking about the random wingnut outliers, but real priests -- then please enlighten me. But in the meantime, there are a hugely significant number of mullahs calling for violence against non-muslims (and indeed, against fellow muslims of slightly different sects) routinely and often.

Not sure what point you were trying to make, really.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

You must be joking.

Not at all.

An individual who decides that he believes in a common world religion that happens to be different from the majority religion of the nation in which he resides, poses no more threat to that society than a smallish brine shrimp.

It has nothing to do with the substance of the belief. Your analysis of threat, I think, is wrong because you remove the concept of current state from the equation. The threat in this case comes from the fact that this man's actions are against the law. If he is released, then the rule of law does not apply to Christians. If he is killed, then the rule of law applies to everyone, regardless of religion.

It is a trait of savage, uncivilized societies to react to the "different" with violence and death -- whether by an unofficial mob, or through official governmental procedure.

No, it is a trait of fearful uneducated individuals. Civilisation (or its lack) is usually defined by education and actions based on the scientific principal. It is a further trait of enlightened societies to enforce laws equally and always.

Rule by religious laws one would have expected in a stone-age culture, rather than by laws that protect basic freedoms of the individual, is something to be railed against, not apologized for.

Absolutely. But where such laws exist they must changed in a manner that causes the least strife in transition and the people brought convinced that the rule of law is really the best solution. Ultimately, every state operates on the rule of the gun and to imagine otherwise is delusional.

We, in the west, believe that the law is both just and must be obeyed. We believe the law must be obeyed because as individuals we are powerless (relatively) to resist it. We believe that the law is just because we have a hand in the formation of that law through our elected officials. The state has a number of impartial (relatively) institutions who police the policy makers so that power struggles take economic rather then violent forms. In other lands, the economic disparity is so marked that the only legitimate way to influence the law is to create and defend your own laws within lands you can physically (and violently) control.

And it is especially outrageous that apologists in the West, who justify or shrug their shoulders at what the Afghans are doing, are often the same people who loudly decry any capital punishment for those who commit truly horrific crimes.

What is an "apologist"?

Such hypocrisy is unfathomable in those who would be voices of morality. And to reply "well, we can't hold them to the same standards" is a racist response, essentially saying "they're not as good as we are, and cannot be." Which is even more outrageous coming from the "ethical" westerner.

This is particularly ego-centric. That because we allow some other state to set their own laws that they are somehow "less" then you is pretty much the root of the problem.

In the US, you execute murderers which we Canadians think is repugnant. Come to think of it, maybe I just made your point for you: Americans are NOT as good as we are and can not be. You may have something there. *grin*

Of course not all Muslims execute converts. But this is different. This is a governmental action under a form of Islamic law.

So it would be alright if it were Christian law?

Nobody is generalizing to all individual believers in Islam. But it is safe to say that Islam is the source of this particular outrage.

That's like saying that Christianity is the source of polygamy. Laws enacted under the Taliban, who believed in a fundamental version of Islam, is the source. Not Islam proper. A characteristic of a sub-group does not apply to all members of the super-group. All humans are animals but not all animals are human. To conjecture otherwise is evidence of weak minded thinking.

Are you arguing that because people can be rotten, whatever their stated faith, that therefore we should excuse insanely cruel governmental acts done in the name of religion?

Not at all. My point here is a philosophical one: if this man is put to death, does that not mean that the law of the land, however inhumane and barbaic, is applied to all citizens regardless of their faith?

And how many Christian priests ARE calling for the murder of Muslims? I am unaware of any. If you can present evidence that this is being done by any significant number of Christian priests -- and I'm not talking about the random wingnut outliers, but real priests -- then please enlighten me. But in the meantime, there are a hugely significant number of mullahs calling for violence against non-muslims (and indeed, against fellow muslims of slightly different sects) routinely and often.

It is precisely the "wingnut outliers" that you seem to think are representitive of the entire religion. You're essentially saying that Pat Robertson is representitive of all Christians.

Not sure what point you were trying to make, really.

The point I was trying to make, again, is a philosophical one.

If killing this man brings peace to Afghanistan and setting him free brings war then:

1) He should die.
2) He should live.

Putting this question to myself, I find myself thinking that maybe it is better that he be killed so that the rest of the people of Afghanistan have a chance to move forward in peace. I come to this thought based on the belief in the rule of law: that no-one is above the law and there are legitimate mechanisms to change the law with time. That the law is considered "wrong" by outsiders makes no matter to whether the rule of law is followed or not.

Now, ideally there is slack within the law to accomodate a punishment less severe then death. If there is not, then either the law of Afghanistan is uppermost or the opinions of the west are uppermost. I think it is bad for peace in Afghanistan if the opinions of the West are paramount and not what Afghanis think is right.

James.

[dcmdale]

In the Western world, the belief that government was responsible for the moral and religious well-being of its people was almost universally held until the 1700's. You see the intertwining of religion and government in nearly all parts of Europe / Mediterranean. The Caesars' role as Pontifex Maximus gave the responsibility to protect paganism from the atheists (aka Christians). The Pontifex Maximus role was "inherited" by the Roman bishops (still one of the titles of the Pope, I believe) and constituted part of the authority under which they consigned the souls of the heretics (protestants) to hell and commanded all Christian princes to see that they got there swiftly. It was the same philosophy that set Protestant and Catholic rulers after each other in Europe during the Reformation, that sparked the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, that caused the Puritans to execute witches and Baptists, and countless other acts of religious cruelty.

In passing, a favorite religious jab that the Quakers used to do to the Puritans during this timeframe was to have teenage girls walk into church, drop their clothes at the alter, and parade out naked--just to get the horrified reaction. I am not aware that this resulted in any criminal actions, much less executions. I suspect that it was actually good for attendance.

The notion that the government is not responsible for the religious well-being of it citizens is really part and parcel of the rise of American style notions of freedom and democracy. Such a large part of the population was here to get away from established churches that a government "of the people" needed to reflect that diversity: both of those who were more serious about their religion that most and those that didn't want religion or its restrictions at all.

As we push western ideals through the world, we almost take for granted that notions like the right to believe what you want, to say what you want, to print what you want are part of the package. Contrary to what the current administration believes, Western democracy is not just in holding elections.

Originally Posted by jBirch

And do you suppose that all Muslim's execute anyone who converts from Islam and all Christians are tolerant, peaceful folk? How many Christian Priests are calling for the murder of Muslims?
James.

None in my experience, but who knows what weirdness exists out there. On the other hand, I can't think of any country today where if a Christian converted to Islam, they would face death.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

...I can't think of