Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Muslim Topic => Topic started by: Leonard James on April 25, 2016, 07:20:14 PM
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/25/bangladesh-lgbt-editor-xulhaz-mannan-hacked-to-death-in-brutal-attack/
-
Sadly, in God's eyes it is more evil to be gay than to hack somebody to death with a machete.
-
Sadly, in God's eyes it is more evil to be gay than to hack somebody to death with a machete.
How long is it going to take for these obstinate, cruel bastards to see the falsity of their beliefs? >:(
-
How long is it going to take for these obstinate, cruel bastards to see the falsity of their beliefs? >:(
Sadly, a very, very long time.
-
And meanwhile they are doing their very best to spread this pernicious ideology all over the world...... With some success it must be said.
-
They must be utterly destroyed like the stinking, filthy virus they are !!!!!
Nick
-
They must be utterly destroyed like the stinking, filthy virus they are !!!!!
Nick
Who needs to be utterly destroyed?
Muslims?
This isn't the Islamic state, this is India.
Yes it's wrong, but who are you recommending wiping out here?
-
IS Of course !!!!!
Whether we mentally change them or physically 'remove' them, either is fine with me !!!
-
This isn't the Islamic state, this is India.
I think you'll find its Bangladesh.
-
I think you'll find its Bangladesh.
Indian continent then :)
-
IS Of course !!!!!
Whether we mentally change them or physically 'remove' them, either is fine with me !!!
Is this in Bangladesh, the same group as the Islamic state? Or another group?
-
There are so many different extremist groups.
They are not all ISIS.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-terror-threat-isis-threaten-124838899.html
It is concerning, but I do think we do need to not lump them all under Isis because it gives Isis more power than they deserve ( not that they deserve any).
But it makes them sound more important than they are.
They are just one group.
-
Al qaeda
Who were the main enemy yesterday, don't seem to get on with the Islamic state for example
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/al-qaeda-declares-war-isis-6422015
To give the Islamic state credit for all anti western acts of terrorism is to make them even bigger and more influential than perhaps they are.
If they weren't fighting " the west" they would be fighting each other.
Just because Isis claims to be behind killings in Bangladesh, doesn't mean they are.
They just want people to think they are.
It suits their purposes.
There are many other groups it could be, IMO.
-
IS will claim responsibility for roadworks on the M1 to the fact it's snowing in April.
Although atrocities such as the Paris attacks come directly from IS many others are carried out by people inspired by them or who choose to identify with them.
-
If they weren't fighting " the west" they would be fighting each other.
Deal.
-
I'd settle for that.....but the Americans would probably want to send in troops.
-
What they actually do is try to out-compete each other in savagery. We don't hear so much of Al Qaeda these days, but it's there. It's partly why the twats who blow up themselves and other Muslims in various parts of the Arab world shout 'death to America' as they do it. They are playing to a particular audience.
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/25/bangladesh-lgbt-editor-xulhaz-mannan-hacked-to-death-in-brutal-attack/
When I first heard this news, it was being laid at the Taliban's feet. I may disagree with the ideas that Xulhaz was propounding, but I join all Baptists in arguing for his right to do so without forfeiting his life - whoever committed the atrocity.
-
What they actually do is try to out-compete each other in savagery. We don't hear so much of Al Qaeda these days, but it's there. It's partly why the twats who blow up themselves and other Muslims in various parts of the Arab world shout 'death to America' as they do it. They are playing to a particular audience.
Al-Qaeda hve been very active in places like the Yemen and that area of the Arab world.
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/25/bangladesh-lgbt-editor-xulhaz-mannan-hacked-to-death-in-brutal-attack/
That's horrible. AQIS (Al Qaeda in the Indian Sub-continent) have claimed responsibility.
AQIS claims to have targeted specific people who they deem to have "insulted the religion of Islam" but it seems the main reason is because it was the only way to shut them up.
In May 2015, AQIS leader Asim Umar, claimed responsibility for the murders of six people who were supposedly “blasphemers.” Umar claimed that his jihadists were responsible for killing Rajib Haider (a blogger murdered in February 2013), Muhammad Shakil Auj (who was the dean of Islamic Studies at the University of Karachi when he was shot in September 2014), Shafiul Islam (a professor at Rajshahi University who was killed in September 2014), Aniqa Naz (a Pakistani blogger), Avijit Roy (a prominent atheist blogger hacked to death in February 2015) and Washiqur Rahman (a blogger who was killed in March 2015).
Journalists being hacked to death is one of the risks of a very dangerous profession in many of these countries where violence and political corruption and knives and machetes are part of everyday life. Journalists were hacked to death in Sri Lanka for being critical of the government. In other countries journalists are more commonly shot or blown up with high tech weapons rather than knifed.
Openly disagreeing with someone and trying to sway public opinion are seen as hostile acts and there are criminal elements who will do whatever it takes to shut those voices up. They presumably want to create fear to try to dissuade other vocal critics - also, being feared makes some people feel powerful and effective as fear can be used to control the actions of others.
-
That's horrible. AQIS (Al Qaeda in the Indian Sub-continent) have claimed responsibility.
AQIS claims to have targeted specific people who they deem to have "insulted the religion of Islam" but it seems the main reason is because it was the only way to shut them up.
Journalists being hacked to death is one of the risks of a very dangerous profession in many of these countries where violence and political corruption and knives and machetes are part of everyday life. Journalists were hacked to death in Sri Lanka for being critical of the government. In other countries journalists are more commonly shot or blown up with high tech weapons rather than knifed.
Openly disagreeing with someone and trying to sway public opinion are seen as hostile acts and there are criminal elements who will do whatever it takes to shut those voices up. They presumably want to create fear to try to dissuade other vocal critics - also, being feared makes some people feel powerful and effective as fear can be used to control the actions of others.
It's all so gut-wrenchingly sad. Let's hope we can grow out of it.
-
Nice pipe dream and you say that a lot but not sure what you are basing this hope on that somehow humans will outgrow human behaviour.
Personally, I think it is unrealistic to expect there will be no criminal behaviour - the higher the stakes, the more likely it is that there will be some people who will resort to criminal or unethical behaviour to protect their interests, even if that means killing lots of people through wars or killing individual people. It seems to be part of the natural variations in human behaviour.
-
Nice pipe dream and you say that a lot but not sure what you are basing this hope on that somehow humans will outgrow human behaviour.
Personally, I think it is unrealistic to expect there will be no criminal behaviour - the higher the stakes, the more likely it is that there will be some people who will resort to criminal or unethical behaviour to protect their interests, even if that means killing lots of people through wars or killing individual people. It seems to be part of the natural variations in human behaviour.
We can never hope for nature or evolution to rid us of the scourge of killing others at will, so we have to try to achieve it ourselves. My hope is that eventually humans can be educated to realise the futility of such behaviour and outlaw it universally. Pipe dream it may be, but it is all we can do.
-
Good luck with that bit of wishful thinking for spontaneous world peace - otherwise ,who would enforce it in the event that disputes are not resolved through diplomacy due to unequal economic and military power?
Greed, fear, laziness and killing people who try to get in the way has prompted a lot of discoveries, innovations, and inventions throughout history. Migration seems to be a natural human behaviour but it doesn't look like education has helped people to realise the futility of trying to stop human migration.
One consequence of education and progress is that people are living longer, which leads to more people fighting for control of resources.
-
World peace and unity will not come spontaneously, but by small, difficult steps. The ignorance of dividing humanity into groups will be overcome by education.
-
Educated people gave always believed, Len. What we need is to make the labels we give ourselves secondary to our common humanity. Not that I think that likely to ever happen.
-
I get Len's point that education might help us over-rule some basic evolved self-preservation instincts to see ourselves as tribes or groups.
But the reality is that we're not sponges soaking up the "wisdom" of some benevolent force for "good" floating around us, and then acting on it in preference to our instincts. Morals are subjective, therefore despite education we won't take in refugee children in Calais because we are more worried about more children making the journey if they think they will be taken into the Uk than we are about the abuse / harm they might suffer as unaccompanied minors living in a camp.
Also, we are divided into groups as a result of education - they are called nation states, and within them there are smaller groups called families and they seem to be shrinking in size in educated countries. Also individualism has replaced community so not sure where this commonality is going to spring from or why Len has an unevidenced belief that education will solve all problems including finding untapped resources to share amongst nations to eliminate fear or want or greed.
-
Hi Gabriella,
We can only find our way united ... divided we fall.
We are progressing slowly along the path. We have moved from being small warring tribes, by uniting to become much larger warring countries.
Hopefully, recognition of our silly situation will carry us further and unite us into one, world-wide group.
-
Hi Gabriella,
We can only find our way united ... divided we fall.
We are progressing slowly along the path. We have moved from being small warring tribes, by uniting to become much larger warring countries.
Hopefully, recognition of our silly situation will carry us further and unite us into one, world-wide group.
Hi Len
I think there is too much variation in humans and in the geography of natural resources for them all to be united in one group but we could have more knowledge, understanding or tolerance of the differences.
Is this world-wide group a bit like the EU but bigger - sounds like an administrative nightmare to me.
-
Hi Len
I think there is too much variation in humans and in the geography of natural resources for them all to be united in one group but we could have more knowledge, understanding or tolerance of the differences.
Is this world-wide group a bit like the EU but bigger - sounds like an administrative nightmare to me.
Quite, but I don't think it's beyond our grasp, in fact I am convinced we will get there eventually.
The two hardest steps are going to be to share the world's wealth equally among all people, and getting them to accept that we all have the same rights and responsibilities.
-
I agree with what Gabriella says above.
Len, there will always be individuals and distinct groups of people who have customs and interests in common. I wouldn't want it any other way and don't like the idea of us all being one. There are dangers in that and we wouldn't be 'one' anyway because some would be unscrupulous and power hungry, regardless of education. Think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Yes, I know it is an extreme conspiracy theory but who knows?
What I believe to be an ideal to aim for is for all sections of society in the world to be united with common humanitarian values, such as respect and mutual support, whilst retaining their individuality.
-
I agree with what Gabriella says above.
Len, there will always be individuals and distinct groups of people who have customs and interests in common. I wouldn't want it any other way and don't like the idea of us all being one. There are dangers in that and we wouldn't be 'one' anyway because some would be unscrupulous and power hungry, regardless of education. Think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Yes, I know it is an extreme conspiracy theory but who knows?
What I believe to be an ideal to aim for is for all sections of society in the world to be united with common humanitarian values, such as respect and mutual support, whilst retaining their individuality.
Yes, of course ... we can't expect everybody to be identical. But a common moral code is essential.
-
Moral codes aren't enforceable but laws are, if there is a body with sufficient military power to enforce them - which sounds dangerous.
I haven't seen any evidence that a common moral code works in practical terms to eliminate cruelty in humans - it's an idealistic belief - bit like believing in a supreme being and objective morality - nice idea but no evidence it actually works in any useful way to eliminate the world's problems.
-
'I haven't seen any evidence that a common moral code works in practical terms to eliminate cruelty in humans - it's an idealistic belief - bit like believing in a supreme being and objective morality - nice idea but no evidence it actually works in any useful way to eliminate the world's problems.'
INDEED! Does this include ALL religions too?
Nick
-
Moral codes aren't enforceable but laws are, if there is a body with sufficient military power to enforce them - which sounds dangerous.
I haven't seen any evidence that a common moral code works in practical terms to eliminate cruelty in humans - it's an idealistic belief - bit like believing in a supreme being and objective morality - nice idea but no evidence it actually works in any useful way to eliminate the world's problems.
The law should be based on the moral code.
-
'I haven't seen any evidence that a common moral code works in practical terms to eliminate cruelty in humans - it's an idealistic belief - bit like believing in a supreme being and objective morality - nice idea but no evidence it actually works in any useful way to eliminate the world's problems.'
INDEED! Does this include ALL religions too?
Nick
You tell me - are you about to give us examples of any religions or moral codes that have succeeded in eliminating cruelty in the human race?
Len seems to foresee the emergence of a single moral code with magical properties that eliminates cruelty, no feelings of rejection - everyone one big happy family. I have come across a similar concept called "heaven".
-
You tell me - are you about to give us examples of any religions or moral codes that have succeeded in eliminating cruelty in the human race?
Len seems to foresee the emergence of a single moral code with magical properties that eliminates cruelty, no feelings of rejection - everyone one big happy family. I have come across a similar concept called "heaven".
If the hippies could form such communities in the 1960s, I'm sure we can do it eventually. Greed is the main opponent.
-
Len, the hippy communities had endless problems; power hungry 'leaders', abuse including the abuse of children, please don't idealise them. There are still some communities described as 'hippy' to this day, occasionally a group gets into the papers because something like that mentioned above has happened. Communities have secrets, Len. This isn't me being cynical, it's a fact.
Shared moral values with laws to back them up could be summed up in the word 'love', as in ''all you need is love'', because love encompasses respect for others.
-
You tell me - are you about to give us examples of any religions or moral codes that have succeeded in eliminating cruelty in the human race?
Len seems to foresee the emergence of a single moral code with magical properties that eliminates cruelty, no feelings of rejection - everyone one big happy family. I have come across a similar concept called "heaven".
Totally agree which is why I asked that very question.!!! Your last statement is the very one I feel so many on earth hang on to when ALL religions fail them !
-
Len, the hippy communities had endless problems; power hungry 'leaders', abuse including the abuse of children, please don't idealise them. There are still some communities described as 'hippy' to this day, occasionally a group gets into the papers because something like that mentioned above has happened. Communities have secrets, Len. This isn't me being cynical, it's a fact.
I totally agree. I was not suggesting that hippies led perfect lives, I was simply referring to their sharing of material wealth. That is the key.
Shared moral values with laws to back them up could be summed up in the word 'love', as in ''all you need is love'', because love encompasses respect for others.
Agreement once again. There will always be selfish people, but the law must control and punish them.
-
Totally agree which is why I asked that very question.!!! Your last statement is the very one I feel so many on earth hang on to when ALL religions fail them !
I think a moral code will be as effective as religion in eliminating cruelty - people will not agree with each other, there will be different interpretations of what is just or fair in any given situation, judgements in legal proceedings will not be consistent and will change depending on who is deciding any given case and their subjective interpretation of the moral code. Disagreements will lead to conflict, as it does in religion.
-
EXACTLY !!!!!!
-
Len, the hippy communities had endless problems; power hungry 'leaders', abuse including the abuse of children, please don't idealise them. There are still some communities described as 'hippy' to this day, occasionally a group gets into the papers because something like that mentioned above has happened. Communities have secrets, Len. This isn't me being cynical, it's a fact.
Shared moral values with laws to back them up could be summed up in the word 'love', as in ''all you need is love'', because love encompasses respect for others.
If everyone loves each other but crops fail in one area due to a drought, and there is a shortage of food in that area, whilst other areas have food but the cost of transporting the food means there is not enough money for vital medical services for an aging population with multiple health issues such as intensive care units or beds for long-term care or drugs to treat the high rates of cancer in a population or neo-natal units for babies born very prematurely thanks to expensive pioneering techniques in modern medicine - how does love solve these problems? How does love decide who lives and who dies or when we should stop developing new expensive techniques to save lives or treat debilitating conditions? Who does the admin for all of this so resources go quickly and efficiently to where they are needed? Does everyone just love each other so they all work as hard as they can according to their skills but only get paid according to their needs?
Does one super-State entity control all resources and dole them out to the world's population in a spirit of love?
-
I think you misunderstood what I said in response to Len's post, Gabriella.
-
Maybe.
I'm just trying to figure out whether the concept of "love" is like the concept of "God" - there are as many different meanings of the word "love" as there are people and absolutely no way of pinning down any agreed upon definition of what "love" is.
So some people believe Love is the answer while other people believe God is the answer. And some people combine the two and say God's Love is the answer....
Which takes me back to your response - if people are denied vital services because they are too expensive, leading to them dying or living in deprivation or pain, do they still feel respected/ loved?
-
No they don't and it is up to others to help sort them out, that's what humanitarian aid is all about and it should not in any way be patronising; those who dispense the aid may find themselves in need of it at some stage. That's a type of love in action, a practical kind. It's never enough but it helps. There are those in this country who need it sometimes, scandalous though that is being as we are considered to be wealthy but the government does not always go to areas of greatest need and often wastes money, or stockpiles it. However I could go on all day (or all night being as it is just after 4am, everyone else sleeps zzzzz), which would not be very helpful or loving of me so I'll shut up :). See y'all later.
-
How do others help sort it out if there are limited resources and unlimited wants? It sounds like you are describing a mythical world you believe in where unlimited money and resources are available to meet all needs - at least I don't see any evidence of that world around me.
Treating every sickness in the world seems like an expensive business - what with people living longer or surviving at birth when previously they would have died - and medicine having the capability to treat more and more illnesses, which previously would have just killed people. Pioneering treatments through research, multiple tests, scans, the use of synthetic drugs, high-tech equipment and round the clock medical care is very expensive.
If you knew there was a treatment that could save your child and thousands of other children but there was only enough equipment, drugs, people to save a few children - is it possible to feel loved and respected if you are one of the parents denied treatment because of lack of resources or cost?
Maybe - I guess it depends on each person's definition of love and respect.
-
How do others help sort it out if there are limited resources and unlimited wants?
By sharing the burden equally and not just leaving it to other people to make the sacrifice needed.
-
By sharing the burden equally and not just leaving it to other people to make the sacrifice needed.
Who decides if it is equally shared? What is the criteria? For example if country A has a free health service paid for by the tax payers, while country B doesn't so individuals have to pay for their own health care, what is the formula for deciding how many migrants go to country A and how many go to country B?
If country B has a better free education service than country A, how do you adjust the numbers then? What if country A feels they are being burdened unfairly - who decides whether they are or aren't?
-
Who decides if it is equally shared? What is the criteria? For example if country A has a free health service paid for by the tax payers, while country B doesn't so individuals have to pay for their own health care, what is the formula for deciding how many migrants go to country A and how many go to country B?
If country B has a better free education service than country A, how do you adjust the numbers then? What if country A feels they are being burdened unfairly - who decides whether they are or aren't?
Education and health service should be equally available and free in both countries, and the citizens of each country taxed to ensure that it is so. If one country has the advantage of better natural resources to create wealth than the other, it should share accordingly.
-
Education and health service should be equally available and free in both countries, and the citizens of each country taxed to ensure that it is so. If one country has the advantage of better natural resources to create wealth than the other, it should share accordingly.
Who decides if the formula used for all this sharing is fair?
-
I cannot see how equality will be achieved, Len, as one country may have more natural problems and disasters than the other, such as floods, droughts, resulting in famine, etc. A country with reasonably stable weather conditions, good water supply etc, will be better off and can afford to help others but there will never be sufficient to make them equal. I agree both should have a free health care and education, that is an ideal but it is up to the population of the country concerned to vote for those who are prepared to implement such services. As we know, even the USA doesn't have free health care.
We have to work towards eradicating poverty but I doubt it will ever be achieved. However, bettering the lives of other people as much as possible is something we can do.
Can we trust those in government to distribute wealth in a fair and just manner?
-
Who decides if the formula used for all this sharing is fair?
A committee that check the standard of living in each country.
-
I cannot see how equality will be achieved, Len, as one country may have more natural problems and disasters than the other, such as floods, droughts, resulting in famine, etc. A country with reasonably stable weather conditions, good water supply etc, will be better off and can afford to help others but there will never be sufficient to make them equal. I agree both should have a free health care and education, that is an ideal but it is up to the population of the country concerned to vote for those who are prepared to implement such services. As we know, even the USA doesn't have free health care.
We have to work towards eradicating poverty but I doubt it will ever be achieved. However, bettering the lives of other people as much as possible is something we can do.
The very fact that we can see these problems is enough to make us think how to solve them.
Can we trust those in government to distribute wealth in a fair and just manner?
No! An international supervising body would have to do that.
I know this all sounds idealistic and unattainable, but that mustn't stop us working to try to bring it about.
-
You mean an international supervising body like the UN - where all the diverse nations come together and negotiate and argue about stuff and there are lots of things they don't reach agreement on because they are so diverse?
Or decisions either get vetoed by one or two powerful countries because it could pose a risk to their strategic interests;
Or there is no way of enforcing agreed recommendations because sanctions, wile the less costly option, hurt the civilian population - and not just the civilians in the country under sanction but UK civilians as well because it leads to resentment and violent conflict and terrorism;
Or enforcing rulings through military action hurts the civilian population (and not just the civilians in other countries but UK civilians as well) which leads to resentment and violent conflict and terrorism plus countries don't like seeing their soldiers getting killed or injured on UN missions or the huge cost of military action.
Or are you thinking more along the lines of something similar to a world theocracy, except instead of the governing body implementing the will of God by indoctrinating children throughout the world, you have the governing body implementing the will of the Governing Body by indoctrinating children with The Moral Code.
-
Hi Gabriela,
I see no point in continuing this exchange, because obviously you are just going to find all the negative points.
I shall continue to think positively and strive towards justice and equality for everybody.
-
Don't religions 'indoctrinate children' around the world???
-
I mentioned religious indoctrination in my response to Len. To some extent everyone indoctrinates their children with values - religion doesn't even need to come into it.
-
Agreed !!!