Christian convert faces death penalty in Afghanistan

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Since RL seems to prefer to make noise with the blade rather than fence, let's cut to the chase.

What is there to talk about since you don't see the insanity in that a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

If one applies the "might makes right" standard that RL has stated to other present day situations, then Israel would be ethically justified in solving its Palestinian problem by genocide and Bush would be morally correct in nuking the rest of the world and shooting the Democrats.

We can do whatever we want since there are always consequenses to what we choose and what we shun away from choosing.

If RL is willing to accept what happened in Germany, Russia, Arminia, Bosnia, Rawanda, etc. as justified, it is hard to see where he would have any room to object to either of the above scenarios.

I completely accept what is reality. Every region and culture has its own solutions to its own problems. I am not concerned with the regions that do not concern me. What is important though is that those people who are part of those regions feel the solutions are just.

That, however, is about as far as I can take it. At the end of the day, without a God, there isn't any possibility of ethics.

Your Jewish insight is appreciated, but not everyone in the world is from Jerusalem or in need of your Jewish god.

To know reality better than others is our greatest advantage over the delusional Judeo-Christian mindset. If they choose to sumbit to an imaginary being and wage war against imaginary forces then let them. May the gap widen as we build the future while the ignorant continue to dig their living graves

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Try:

Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810(1948)

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

You ought to know that this is NOT considered international law, as the Universal Declaration was conceived as nothing more than a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments. It is merely a "wouldn't it be nice if" document that is primarily used in an attempt to shame states that violate the Declaration’s principles.

For the record, it is not a treaty, there are no signatories to the document, and it is not considered international law.

And any international-law expert will agree with what I (only half-snarkily) said above about international law. Treaties are only binding so long as one wishes to continue to be bound by them. Everything else is negotiation. This is why diplomacy continues to be so important.

[Elkhansaa]

People have to take into consideration how different the rest of the world is especially in afghanistan.They dress,eat,sleep,live differently.You cannot just go into their country and propose to them how they should live and not expect them to be against it.No one likes change.Not even us in the U.S.Its easy for us (as a country)to tell people what to do but we would never abandon our own ways for someone else's.Same thing with Afghanistan they just can not change that fast.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by Elkhansaa

Same thing with Afghanistan they just can not change that fast.

Why do you need them to change? They are living in accordance with their nature and culture.

[Elkhansaa]

True but that is supposedly the reason why the U.S. is there.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

You ought to know that this is NOT considered international law, as the Universal Declaration was conceived as nothing more than a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments. It is merely a "wouldn't it be nice if" document that is primarily used in an attempt to shame states that violate the Declaration’s principles.

For the record, it is not a treaty, there are no signatories to the document, and it is not considered international law.

And any international-law expert will agree with what I (only half-snarkily) said above about international law. Treaties are only binding so long as one wishes to continue to be bound by them. Everything else is negotiation. This is why diplomacy continues to be so important.

You are correct. I was wrong. Poor research on my part.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not considered international law. The implementation of the portions of the Universal Declaration into international law was in Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), acceded to by Afghanistan on 24 Jan 1983.

Epee_Pox, I suspect that we probably really do agree in our view of the role of international law. As my fumbled attempt to interact with international legal literature shows, I tend not to interact much with it--mostly because one can't put alot of weight on it. I do recognize, however, that many in Europe hold great stock in it when it support their position (and seem to ignore it when it doesn't).

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by dcmdale

At the end of the day, without a God, there isn't any possibility of ethics.

Here I think that you are fundamentally wrong. There have been several ethics systems proposed specifically without any religious involvement, though I do not have the links right now. Philosophers have dealt with the issue, google it if you do not believe me. But that is a topic for a thread of its own.

Another thing: I just read (BBC web, other news sources) that the Judge handling this case has returned it to the DA, citing technical and judicial errors and omissions. President Karzai has also reportedly talked to the judicial branch in order to wiggle out of the situation. Others have suggested that the defendant should not stand trial due to mental incompetency, and therefore not be punished. Talk about political meddling in the judicial process! Not a good precedent to set - at all - but here I happen to agree with the intended outcome, if not with the process.

Seems as if his fate in not yet sealed by a long shot, as Dcmdale so grimly predicted.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




Here I think that you are fundamentally wrong. There have been several ethics systems proposed specifically without any religious involvement, though I do not have the links right now. Philosophers have dealt with the issue, google it if you do not believe me. But that is a topic for a thread of its own.

Another thing: I just read (BBC web, other news sources) that the Judge handling this case has returned it to the DA, citing technical and judicial errors and omissions. President Karzai has also reportedly talked to the judicial branch in order to wiggle out of the situation. Others have suggested that the defendant should not stand trial due to mental incompetency, and therefore not be punished. Talk about political meddling in the judicial process! Not a good precedent to set - at all - but here I happen to agree with the intended outcome, if not with the process.

Seems as if his fate in not yet sealed by a long shot, as Dcmdale so grimly predicted.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Maybe it starts but it does not survived.We have examples on this matter.

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Yes, you are absolutely right. I see your point. America was never founded as a "melting pot" for the world's needy garbage, but instead was founded by Europeans for people of European descent.



Do you really think that Democracy and Capitalism will last forever? It's only been 200 odd years and it has already broke down to a point beyond repair. Capitalism/Democracy is pure selfish, ignorant opportunism without regard for the larger social consequences of personal action.

The only great civilization of the past still alive today is the Chinese Civilization. It is alive because it never died, unlike the Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians, romans etc.

Chinese Civilization is alive and still going on because of the Confucian value system. Unlike the other great civilizations whose philosophies were about constantly moving forward and endless advancement, Confucius taught that only by strictly preserving the values of past can the future exist. The Chinese are amazing record keepers and they are speaking the same language that they have been speaking for 5500 years. Most of the culture and knowledge from the other ancient civilizations have been lost since those people were so busy digging their own graves with such advanced ideas as democracy and enlightenment. I'm sure this must sound even stupider then the things I have said before.

The solution is to tie this guy up and throw him into the river and be done with him. No need to even speak about him again.

Hold on. Who say so that Greek civilization is dead?
Who say so that Roman Civilization is dead?
Tranformed to Greek- Roman and we have the samy custom and culture till now.
The Chinese Civilization offcourse exist but is not as the original. They had fall many times. Mongols, Japanees etc conquer their land. And the Chinese people something took from them and something give.
That is the only law of Civilization. To go advance you have to contact with other cultures, otherwise you stay like a swamp.

But after all this not the matter here. All goes out from this discution. The point is that one man should be killed for his faith. For the eyes of an European or an American this could be murder. For the eyes of a 'fanatic' muslim is act of justice. Who is wrong? This law exist there form many years and it is difficult to change.
My opinion is that this man must live.
All man has the free will to worship any God he likes.

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Yes. Every region has its own solutions. What they do is none of my concern. Their beliefs also have nothing to do with me since they weren't created by my people for me and with me in mind. I say this out of respect since I don't want anyone coming to my house and telling me what I should do.

The Afghanis have the right to do whatever they want to their own people in their own country.

So with this logic if you go for example to a place where live canibals and they took your brother to eat him you will not react...I do not think so.

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I think those are all Old Testament strictures. You may not have noticed, but Christians don't follow the laws of Moses and the other old-timers, even though those books in the Bible tell them to. The New Testament rules, which are much more forgiving and reject the ancient tendency to violence, tend to trump the old-time religion for most Christians.

Exactly.

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Atheism is also a foreign religion that is based in the acceptance of Judeo-Middle Eastern theology. It is ineffective and fruitless to use logic to try to prove Judeo-Christianity wrong because Judeo-Middle Eastern theology is illogical. You must understand the history of Judeo-Christianity and it's ignoble roots in order to expose its lies. You cannot use logic to disprove blind faith.

The god of Abraham was invented as a quick fix to tame and control the desert slave workforce, to rob them of their potential. The Jewish slave masters who created this quick fix anticipated on being proved wrong, so Judeo-Middle Eastern theology evades all logic by making claims about a supernatural world, invisible forces, an omniscient and omnipotent cosmic entity, and a variety of effects and spiritual outcomes that are indemonstrable.

True spirituality is one's connection to life and the totality of all things. Reality.

But atheims is not religion. They belive to nothing....

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by Aqua_volans

atheism is not a religion. its a rejection of religion.

It is not a solution.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not considered international law. The implementation of the portions of the Universal Declaration into international law was in Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), acceded to by Afghanistan on 24 Jan 1983.

Epee_Pox, I suspect that we probably really do agree in our view of the role of international law.

I think we probably do agree.

Even so, I ought to point out that Afghanistan signed that covenant in 1983, but does not appear to have ratified it. Which makes it non-binding on any successor state. The current Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, one could say, became in 2004 a successor state to the successor state that replaced the Afghanistan that signed the covenant. This may well be a compelling argument should the present administration claim that it is not bound.

But even if there was no such argument to be made, Afghanistan can still assert that it is not bound. The UN has taken a position that successor states are bound by this covenant regardless of circumstance. However, whenever this has come up (South America, usually), the successor state typically thumbs its nose at the UN, states the obvious fact that the UN is not a governing body with sovereign authority over anyone, and maintains its assertion that it is not bound by the covenant.

The European and UN approach to enforcing international law, often, is like Robin Williams' characterization of unarmed police: "Stop, in the name of the law! Or I'll say 'stop' again!"

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Here I think that you are fundamentally wrong. There have been several ethics systems proposed specifically without any religious involvement, though I do not have the links right now. Philosophers have dealt with the issue, google it if you do not believe me. But that is a topic for a thread of its own.

I completely agree that this is a topic of its own. However...

Obviously there are many proposed ethical systems that do not involve God or a god: various forms of hedonism, utilitarianism, social contract theory, etc. That doesn't mean that they hold any water. Look at ReverseLunge: his notion that might makes right and justification of Hitler, Mao, Armenia, etc. is anathema to virtually any seriously held ethical system, but try pinioning him to the wall using any of those systems. You will quickly find the weaknesses in their underlying premises. If you keep asking, "why?" within any of those systems, you quickly get to a frustrated "because I said so!" Try it with an ethics professor sometime--its fun as long as you don't get bonked in the nose.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Seems as if his fate in not yet sealed by a long shot, as Dcmdale so grimly predicted.

It wouldn't bother me at all to be wrong on this one; however, let's touch base on this in a year or two.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

{snip} You will quickly find the weaknesses in their underlying premises. If you keep asking, "why?" within any of those systems, you quickly get to a frustrated "because I said so!"
{snip}

On the other hand, if you keep asking "why?" within a religious system, you quickly get to a frustated "because God said so!"

--Philistine

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Philistine

On the other hand, if you keep asking "why?" within a religious system, you quickly get to a frustated "because God said so!"

To which, of course, the appropriate reply is "sez who?"

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Philistine

On the other hand, if you keep asking "why?" within a religious system, you quickly get to a frustated "because God said so!"

Valid comment that could lead to interesting discussion, but probably belongs in a topic dedicated to that discussion.

[latenight]

God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown--Nietzsche

I am morality itself, and nothing besides is morality