'Honour' Killings

[Polaris]

Yes, it is possible to end this situation, but first we need the government to agree with the changes. Which is something they aren't too happy to comply. If they choose to keep things the way it is, the only option left will be to force them to accept it (by violence or not. But I think they'd pretty much react with violence). That's why the situation is so complicated.

Oh jeez it's like you want to tame the savages or something. I really don't like what you're implying with this post.

Please explain to me how marching troops into a country is going to stop the crazy old man from lopping his daughter's head off with a sword if she marries for love?

The UN is absolutely powerless. Why would anyone "rebel" against a powerless political entity? And what would they rebel against, exactly? It's not like there's a UN "home base"; just a few embassies scattered around the place, which are often attacked anyway.

Let's break this down a little bit. First, there's a distinction between the ethical legitimacy of something, and the approach to fixing a violation of ethics. The bolded part above suggests that you agree with me about the absolute reprehensibility of honor killings, and about how "cultural tolerance" is not an acceptable stance to take. How we go about solving this problem, however, is an entirely different manner. I'm advocating that we take a hard-line stance in the Western world, but I'm more than open to alternative approaches (which you've yet to recommend, although the italicized portions tell me the hard-line stance isn't one you agree with). As for the underlined portion, no one, least of all myself, is saying that this problem is easy to solve; but it is easy to condemn, and I can't imagine you'd disagree with this.

He's not wrong though. Just recently, an actor called out the Khap government system on tv for promoting honour killings. They attacked him for twisting their statements.

"We are trying to safeguard social customs and traditions which are the backbone of any society,"

Just going for a hardline stance isn't going to work in this case, and the problem is far more complex than you're making it out to be.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Pandorakun

[Westbrick]

Just going for a hardline stance isn't going to work in this case, and the problem is far more complex than you're making it out to be.

I'm not sure I've "made it out to be" anything, really. Tell me if you disagree with any of this: honor killings have happened, and will continue to happen, in Western countries like America and Britain. When these attempted or successful killings happen, we should go beyond "respecting cultures" and take important steps like protecting potential victims or those in high-risk areas, severely punishing the offenders (I'd advocate the death penalty; maybe we can merge this topic with the capital punishment one!), and spreading social awareness about this injustice.

I've said little about how we handle this internationally or diplomatically, because you're absolutely right: it gets very tricky once you cross the Western hemisphere. Open to suggestions.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Westbrick

[Polaris]

At least in India, and I'm talking about India primarily because I live there, and I think I can provide a better perspective on the matter like that, the Supreme Court has advocated and awarded the death penalty to perpetrators of honour killings. There is a precedent, at least in India, for that level of punishment. The same goes for Pakistan, where the death penalty can be legally awarded.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ten-get-death-penalty-for-honour-killing/articleshow/8775586.cms

Just a thing to think about. It's not as though measures against the crime are completely non-existent.

[Westbrick]

At least in India, and I'm talking about India primarily because I live there, and I think I can provide a better perspective on the matter like that, the Supreme Court has advocated and awarded the death penalty to perpetrators of honour killings. There is a precedent, at least in India, for that level of punishment. The same goes for Pakistan, where the death penalty can be legally awarded.

http://timesofindia....how/8775586.cms

Just a thing to think about. It's not as though measures against the crime are completely non-existent.

Fascinating. Glad to know my views aren't entirely off-base then.

I suppose the second question is "Are these measures effective?" And I can't think of a way to tell. Do you know if any studies have been done about how influential these increased punishments have been?

[Sunwoo]

I'm advocating that we take a hard-line stance in the Western world, but I'm more than open to alternative approaches (which you've yet to recommend, although the italicized portions tell me the hard-line stance isn't one you agree with). As for the underlined portion, no one, least of all myself, is saying that this problem is easy to solve; but it is easy to condemn, and I can't imagine you'd disagree with this.

It "is" easy to condemn, but does that mean we "should"? Look, as much as I disagree with honor killings, I don't think outright condemning cultures that do practice them is going to work.

1) Even if we DO condemn cultures that practice honor killings, are they going to give a damn? Will they care? Or will they see it as fuel as "OH LOOK THE WEST IS TELLING US THAT WE'RE INFERIOR AND PARADING AROUND LIKE KINGS OF THE WORLD" and just hate us more?

2) Such a method is just going to turn into a culture vs culture battle, which will NOT turn out well. It'll just fall into a "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND" type of battle.

In other words, I don't think condemning honor killings is really going to work other than be more antagonizing and isolating. I think that if the East wants to change, they need to have the mindset of wanting to change. I think that they need to make the first steps towards wanting to change. I cannot think of a way that will help put a stop to honor killings without antagonizing anyone, because honestly antagonizing anyone isn't going to help.

[Westbrick]

It "is" easy to condemn, but does that mean we "should"?

...Yes. Absolutely. Without question. Whether or not we should act on this condemnation is a complex question that involves many diplomatic variables which we've intimated already.

Look, as much as I disagree with honor killings, I don't think outright condemning cultures that do practice them is going to work.

1) Even if we DO condemn cultures that practice honor killings, are they going to give a damn? Will they care? Or will they see it as fuel as "OH LOOK THE WEST IS TELLING US THAT WE'RE INFERIOR AND PARADING AROUND LIKE KINGS OF THE WORLD" and just hate us more?

But any culture that condones honor killings is morally inferior. People are free to disagree, but then I don't mind saying that anyone who does is sick in the head. Just to be VERY CLEAR about this, something like India wouldn't count, since they are taking clear strides against this problem. That's fantastic. And I'm primarily interesting in condemning the individuals who promote or tolerate honor killings. But if an individual or nation tells me "I / We support honor killings," then I'm hardly going to "respect" this. Call it bigoted if you want.

2) Such a method is just going to turn into a culture vs culture battle, which will NOT turn out well. It'll just fall into a "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND" type of battle.

In other words, I don't think condemning honor killings is really going to work other than be more antagonizing and isolating. I think that if the East wants to change, they need to have the mindset of wanting to change. I think that they need to make the first steps towards wanting to change. I cannot think of a way that will help put a stop to honor killings without antagonizing anyone, because honestly antagonizing anyone isn't going to help.

First, there are reasons to do things that do not directly involve diplomatic benefits or costs. For example: we as a nation may find it worthwhile to issue a public condemnation of honor killings because it satisfies our moral need to do so. In other words, we can't help but condemn such a malevolent practice. I'd advocate this view on the grounds that this is the kind of America I'd prefer to live in: one with strong moral principles. Second, the "East needs to want to change" approach is far too passive for my tastes. I'm not saying the problem can be fixed in any major way, but that kind of passivity is weak. We *can* do big things domestically. We *can* do small things diplomatically. And frankly, I've yet to see a good reason not to, other than "It will offend some people!" (my response: great) and "It's not our job!" (my response: yes, it is) and "We can't entirely fix the problem!" (my response: true, but small progress is still worthwhile progress).

Edited July 1, 2012 by Westbrick

[Sunwoo]

I really think you're missing the point. You're like the character America from Hetalia. "I'm the hero!" and "America is always right!" I'm saying that openly condemning other cultures is just going to drive them further away. It's not going to make them want to change. It's going to make them hate us all the more, and less likely to listen to the West. Look, if openly condemning cultures that practice such behavior was easy, then we'd all do it and we would have gotten somewhere. But we haven't, have we? So, let's just openly condemn Eastern cultures. And what? I doubt the East is going to care what "those Westerners" think about us. Some of the extremists are going to use it as an excuse to say, "the West is trying to suppress again! Down with them all!" and maybe even open up the possibility of another September 11. Do you not see what I'm trying to say? Sure, we can openly condemn other cultures that practice atrocities like honor killings, but in doing so we're opening ourselves up to negative views of our own culture and perhaps justification for the rest of the world to hate us even more than they already do.

[Westbrick]

I really think you're missing the point. You're like the character America from Hetalia. "I'm the hero!" and "America is always right!" I'm saying that openly condemning other cultures is just going to drive them further away. It's not going to make them want to change. It's going to make them hate us all the more, and less likely to listen to the West. Look, if openly condemning cultures that practice such behavior was easy, then we'd all do it and we would have gotten somewhere. But we haven't, have we? So, let's just openly condemn Eastern cultures. And what? I doubt the East is going to care what "those Westerners" think about us. Some of the extremists are going to use it as an excuse to say, "the West is trying to suppress again! Down with them all!" and maybe even open up the possibility of another September 11. Do you not see what I'm trying to say? Sure, we can openly condemn other cultures that practice atrocities like honor killings, but in doing so we're opening ourselves up to negative views of our own culture and perhaps justification for the rest of the world to hate us even more than they already do.

I swear that I've already responded to everything in here already, but to recap:

1) There's a difference between condemning, publicly (i.e. the national government) condemning, and acting on condemnation. The third one is tricky, but there are basic steps to be taken domestically (steps that India's already taken, for example). The second one is reasonable, and I wouldn't be surprised if we already do condemn such practices diplomatically. The first should be an absolute, 100% no-brainer.

2) Maintaining "good relations" isn't the only goal here, and can actually be a sign of weakness if clung to too tightly. I'm not overly concerned if some Islamic sub-culture wants to criticize the West for taking steps against honor killings, and I'm also not at all interested in bringing them "closer together." Much rather weed them out.

3) It's foolish to pretend that diplomatic action like this would somehow be the final straw that leads to a terrorist attack. Those who want to topple the West already have centuries of material on-hand, most of which is obviously distorted.

EDIT: Oh, and

4) To be clear here, what is your solution? To do nothing?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Westbrick

[Sunwoo]

You know what, I don't even know what to say to you anymore. Why am I even bothering? Clearly, you're not going to listen to me and I'm not going to be convinced by you either. I don't know if this is something that we can even have a "solution" to. Not everything has a solution. All we can do is try to change the mindsets of the cultures that practice or condone honor killings. How can we do that? Try to improve the status of women in those places is a good start. But we can't do that. The people of those countries have to do that themselves.

It may seem like we're "doing nothing", and I don't like it either. But how did the U.S. change its ways? How did we advance from having slavery and treating women and minorities as "second-class citizens"? The people stood up. The people changed the culture themselves by protesting. I suppose that is what I'm saying. We the West cannot change the East. The people of the East must decide that they want to change and change themselves and their culture.

[Westbrick]

You know what, I don't even know what to say to you anymore. Why am I even bothering? Clearly, you're not going to listen to me and I'm not going to be convinced by you either.

This is such a convo-stopping answer, and it's rather immature. What gives you the idea that I'm not listening? We're just at a point of strong disagreement.

I don't know if this is something that we can even have a "solution" to. Not everything has a solution. All we can do is try to change the mindsets of the cultures that practice or condone honor killings. How can we do that? Try to improve the status of women in those places is a good start. But we can't do that. The people of those countries have to do that themselves.

Interesting how that bolded part is, in fact, a proposed solution. What you seem to be saying is that the only way to fix the problem is to change the mindsets of the people... but we can't do that, for some reason. May I ask why? Why we can't push through a concentrated diplomatic effort? Why we can't eradicate this problem, rare as it is, from the Western world if not the Eastern world? At base, why can't we get involved? Does cultural autonomy really take precedent over protecting women?

It may seem like we're "doing nothing", and I don't like it either. But how did the U.S. change its ways? How did we advance from having slavery and treating women and minorities as "second-class citizens"? The people stood up. The people changed the culture themselves by protesting. I suppose that is what I'm saying. We the West cannot change the East. The people of the East must decide that they want to change and change themselves and their culture.

What's funny is that you've actually provided an example where cultural pressures did influence a major social change. Have you ever stopped to consider why the Warren Court opted to strike down separate-but-equal? In large part, it was due to the Eastern powers pointing to segregation as the epitome of Western decadence, and striking down this policy helped rebuild our moral credibility. These things happen, especially since the world has become more interconnected in the past hundred or so years.

And again, why should we let countries help themselves? I'm not saying we go in and invade, but what exactly is preventing us from taking small steps in the right direction? Why be completely still?

[Sunwoo]

This is such a convo-stopping answer, and it's rather immature. What gives you the idea that I'm not listening? We're just at a point of strong disagreement.

We're both repeating the same points over and over again. We're not going to be able to see each other's points, or at the very least come to an agreement about this. There's no point. You got your views, I got mine, and we're not changing each other's views.

Interesting how that bolded part is, in fact, a proposed solution. What you seem to be saying is that the only way to fix the problem is to change the mindsets of the people... but we can't do that, for some reason. May I ask why? Why we can't push through a concentrated diplomatic effort? Why we can't eradicate this problem, rare as it is, from the Western world if not the Eastern world? At base, why can't we get involved? Does cultural autonomy really take precedent over protecting women?

Well, then, what IS your "concentrated diplomatic effort"? Because openly condemning other cultures is definitely not going to help. The point is not whether their culture is wrong or that we're right to condemn them. You seem to think I'm overreacting when I say that they're going to hate us even more and "who cares if they hate us more". That attitude is not okay.

What's funny is that you've actually provided an example where cultural pressures did influence a major social change. Have you ever stopped to consider why the Warren Court opted to strike down separate-but-equal? In large part, it was due to the Eastern powers pointing to segregation as the epitome of Western decadence, and striking down this policy helped rebuild our moral credibility. These things happen, especially since the world has become more interconnected in the past hundred or so years.

And again, why should we let countries help themselves? I'm not saying we go in and invade, but what exactly is preventing us from taking small steps in the right direction? Why be completely still?

"Why should we let countries help themselves"? Do you have any idea how arrogant that is? So ... other countries are "so misguided and stupid that we have to help them"? Do you realize that the U.S. government has interfered so much in other governments, especially during the Cold War, and the negative impact this has had on those countries that we took over? If the West changed for the better partly because of the Eastern powers, well then that shows that the West can listen (sometimes). But what are you going to do when people DON'T want to listen to us?

Small steps in the right direction are a good idea. However, I do not like the arrogance that you seem to give off.

[Westbrick]

We're both repeating the same points over and over again. We're not going to be able to see each other's points, or at the very least come to an agreement about this. There's no point. You got your views, I got mine, and we're not changing each other's views.

Speak for yourself. I'm understanding your points fine. If you're still confused, by all means, let me know so I can hold your hand a little.

EDIT: The above sounded unintentionally condescending. I mean that honestly: if I'm not at all clear somewhere, let me try and be clearer.

Well, then, what IS your "concentrated diplomatic effort"? Because openly condemning other cultures is definitely not going to help. The point is not whether their culture is wrong or that we're right to condemn them. You seem to think I'm overreacting when I say that they're going to hate us even more and "who cares if they hate us more". That attitude is not okay.

A "concentrated diplomatic effort" would be one that doesn't paint things as America-versus-the-world. It would involve some combination of awareness programs, protection, assistance money, and economic benefits (increased foreign aid, etc.) for those nations that participate, as well as more basic diplomatic pressures (UN talks, non-binding resolutions, and the like). What it does not involve is sitting around or thumb-twiddling.

"Why should we let countries help themselves"? Do you have any idea how arrogant that is? So ... other countries are "so misguided and stupid that we have to help them"? Do you realize that the U.S. government has interfered so much in other governments, especially during the Cold War, and the negative impact this has had on those countries that we took over? If the West changed for the better partly because of the Eastern powers, well then that shows that the West can listen (sometimes). But what are you going to do when people DON'T want to listen to us?

Small steps in the right direction are a good idea. However, I do not like the arrogance that you seem to give off.

America was at its cultural peak back when "approval" was towards the bottom of its priority list. It did some pretty terrible stuff, especially with regards to the CIA's involvement in Latin American nations, and rightfully deserves some condemnation for it. Really, the entirety of the post-Industrial Revolution West has been a story of exploiting less developed nations for economic or political resources. Hardly admirable. Fortunately or unfortunately, those things are no longer a problem; honor killings are still a problem and should be dealt with. You can continue to preach that it's "arrogant" to want to help combat honor killings, but I'd rather be the arrogant nation who makes some kind of impact than the modest nation who does nothing at all.

I'll ask again: does cultural autonomy really take precedence over protecting women?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Westbrick

[Zanarkin]

I am wondering something here.... Would a child receive the same treatment as a woman if they too were raped?

[1st Mate Bob]

I am wondering something here.... Would a child receive the same treatment as a woman if they too were raped?

By the simple definitions of honor killings that Google provides me, I would say yes.

As I am not part of a culture that experiences honor killings first hand, I'm not sure if circumstances would be different. It probably depends on the culture. What one culture finds dishonorable, another might not.

[Life]

Ran off for a 14 day close. Regila coming up soon so that I'm here for 10 days. Haven't read the rest of the topic, will do in a bit.

I've got a solution for you, Life Admiral: how about you tone down the condescension a little? I'd love to have a civil discussion here, but my biggest pet peeve in life is unwarranted arrogance. Politics is a passion of mine, and I plan to go into law having taken several classes on foreign affairs and diplomacy; while I'm hardly an expert by any stretch, I'm well-read and reasonable, and willing to change my mind if compelling evidence is put before me. What you need to do is back off a bit, apologize, and then we can continue.

Look, you need to understand some things. Before we start this argument again.

First of all, I am completely arrogant and full of myself and even more importantly, I accept that fact. However, that does not mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. I completely understand the Middle East because, once again, I live there. So my opinion suddenly becomes that much more valuable since I live this life on a daily basis (in case you didn't know, I'm a combat soldier in the IDF). Understood? Good.

Secondly, I laughed at your ideas because they are naive. I also put forth reasons for why each one is (if you check my response) but most of your argument based on the fact that countries like Syria and Iran actually give two figs about what the rest of the world thinks. That's where you're wrong.

Take Syria for instance. It's in the middle of a civil war due to the country trying to go democratic (which we all know isn't going to happen no matter who wins). Pretty sure Obama (leader of the free world and all) has personally condemned Assad for the killing of civilians. And yet, Assad doesn't really care. He does have Russian backing and all but at the end of the day, all he wants is power and he knows that the USA or most of the rest of the world isn't going to do anything about it aside from trade restrictions and embargoes. That being said, Syria is already a country that still lives in the Middle Ages so... yeah.

Iran is an even better example (once again, sorry Nightmare). Remember the naval exercise that Ahmadinejad was raving about a couple months ago? Nobody did anything about it. He constantly threatens to destroy Israel and whatnot and even with the HEAVY (because they are that heavy without being sarcastic) trade restrictions, he continues to spew garbage about Jews and Israel all over the place while having his nuclear weapons created. Him and his master (the Ayatollah) constantly proclaim the West (the Western World) as infidels. This country is ruled by an evil and twisted version of Islam and no amount of diplomatic talks are going to get Iran to change its mind. It really is that pig-headed.

These are two modern day examples of how the Middle East couldn't care less about its representation in the eyes of the world. Hence why your ideas are naive.

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.

The joke in Israel is that we protect the Palestinian women and children better than the Palestinians do. The sad part is that it's actually true.

EDIT: I just looked over the thread again and I have to say, Crash, you really are ignorant of others (on top of being a hypocrite).

First off all, you made a comment along the lines of "Just because they don't want to change it doesn't mean they shouldn't change it". Which is... safe to say, the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Post number #65.

Crash, since when is your way of thinking the only correct one? You're claiming that it's against human rights to kill the victim (which it is and nobody has denied that fact) but to then state that people have to conform only to your way of thinking? What are you, stupid? Why should they change the laws? Because you declared it wrong? Well, in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, it is not JUST culture but also LAW. The law protects the man after the killing. Give me a proper reason why Iran MUST conform to your line of logic and not just "because it's wrong".

In addition, I got a kick out of you claiming that Harpoon is being racist or whatever you claimed (that he slings around racial slurs).

That's what you've just done.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Life Admiral

[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?

[Life]

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 July 13, 2012 by Westbrick

[Life]

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 July 13, 2012 by Westbrick

[Life]

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 July 13, 2012 by Life Admiral

[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?

[Life]

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.