Pakistan mob burns man to death for 'blasphemy'

[Balerion]

To summarize: our instincts do NOT tell us "Don't hurt people." They tell us "Don't hurt our pack-mates." It's up to our elders and our social institutions to help us define our "pack" with as large a scope as possible.

And yet we feel more than a tinge of sickness in our stomachs when we see a defenseless person being attacked, or a child being beaten, with no consideration for who they are or for whatever designation society has placed upon them.

I don't claim that ethical guidelines don't play a role. Just the opposite, in fact. But to say that we are innately aggressive and violent toward people not of our "pack" is absurd, and proven incorrect every day. The reason your cave-folk died violently was not because our instinct is to treat every outsider as a threat to our resources, but because they actually were threats to our resources. Though it isn't always evident, humans are capable of rational thought, and our decisions are not merely governed by base instincts. That isn't to say we can't be delusional, just that these cave-folk you speak of weren't dying because our "modern brain" hadn't switched on yet, but rather because resources were limited and competition was fierce.

 

[Xotica]

The process of accepting/embracing the unacceptable - which can occur in any human subset - is commonly termed "normalization". This phenomena can be observed in religious subgroups, or in non-religious subgroups such as the Nazi personel at the death camps, or the Wall Street manipulators of today.

 

[Bells]

And yet we feel more than a tinge of sickness in our stomachs when we see a defenseless person being attacked, or a child being beaten, with no consideration for who they are or for whatever designation society has placed upon them.

I don't claim that ethical guidelines don't play a role. Just the opposite, in fact. But to say that we are innately aggressive and violent toward people not of our "pack" is absurd, and proven incorrect every day. The reason your cave-folk died violently was not because our instinct is to treat every outsider as a threat to our resources, but because they actually were threats to our resources. Though it isn't always evident, humans are capable of rational thought, and our decisions are not merely governed by base instincts. That isn't to say we can't be delusional, just that these cave-folk you speak of weren't dying because our "modern brain" hadn't switched on yet, but rather because resources were limited and competition was fierce.

Tell that to the victims of the Holocaust who were killed by ordinary folks and victims of the Rwandan Genocide or the Pol Pot regime.

Given the right motivation and being blasted with the evils of the other side, ordinary people can and do turn on their neighbours in the most violent and sickening ways, regardless of the age or sex of said neighbour.

 

[quadraphonics]

And yet we feel more than a tinge of sickness in our stomachs when we see a defenseless person being attacked, or a child being beaten, with no consideration for who they are or for whatever designation society has placed upon them.

And then, if and when we are informed that said strangers are members of a designated out-group, that twinge of sickness subsides dramatically, even entirely. The more aggressive members of the in-group will have no problem inflicting exactly the damage in question, in such scenarios.

But that's not the right category for this situation: this guy wasn't killed for being an "outsider" who was a "threat to resources." He was something far, far worse: an insider who betrayed the pack. Such types attract ferocious responses, as they represent systemic threats to the identity politic itself, and call its very viability and righteousness into question.

But to say that we are innately aggressive and violent toward people not of our "pack" is absurd, and proven incorrect every day.

What planet are you living on? The only thing that's silly about that statement is that the identity groups have expanded up from the "pack" scale to the "nation" scale.

The reason your cave-folk died violently was not because our instinct is to treat every outsider as a threat to our resources, but because they actually were threats to our resources.

It's strange that you'd phrase that as some kind of refutation of his statement. It isn't. It's a very strong argument for the validity of the statement in question, and just as applicable to nation-states today as to stone age groups.

Though it isn't always evident, humans are capable of rational thought, and our decisions are not merely governed by base instincts.

There's nothing "irrational" about banding together into a big identity politic so that you can resist encroachment by others, displace and exploit smaller groups, etc. "Unenlightened," sure, but not "irrational." These systems of competition and organization wouldn't have proliferated throughout human history if they weren't rational, effective ways to advance various material interests.

That isn't to say we can't be delusional, just that these cave-folk you speak of weren't dying because our "modern brain" hadn't switched on yet, but rather because resources were limited and competition was fierce.

Resources are still limited and competition is still fierce. Only difference is that it all happens on a larger scale, now.

 

[Tiassa]

Something About "Incomplete"

But Ethics is a formal study and therefor it's not subject to the mere whims of human culture, time or location. It can not be subject to religious decree or market force.

I believe your consideration is incomplete. In the abstract, I very nearly agree entirely with your proposition. In practice, however, ethics are, in fact, subject to a process similar to market forces.

We might ridicule the "excuse" offered by some slave-owners that it would have been unkind to teach slaves to read. But regardless of how pathetic we find that excuse, at least some genuinely believed it.

We might point out the obvious hitch in Lord Acton's rhetorical support for the Confederacy, but we can be reasonably certain that he genuinely believed it.

We might, in the present era, suggest that an economic scheme requiring a large and growing class of workers living in poverty around the world is unethical, but, presently, it would seem that notions of free market would disagree, and those notions would seem to be popular enough that one might be considered anti-business or, in the case of our society, anti-American for making such an argument.

Meanwhile, circumstances continue to occur that one or another person, or group of people, finds unethical. This is reality. If we juxtapose unethical outcomes with the notion of disease, one might suggest that it would be better to treat the underlying malady instead of merely tending to the symptoms.

Wilde's proposition, for instance, that, "The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible", is attractive enough, but the details of how to do so are thin, and reality in this context proves a formidable obstacle.

(Indeed, Wilde's concomitant assertion that, "Charity creates a multitude of sins", is reflected in a Philadelphia initiative to criminalize feeding the homeless in public: "I believe that people, regardless of their station in life," explained Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter, "should be able to actually sit down, at a table, to a meal inside, away from the heat and the cold, the rain and the snow, the vehicle exhaust and all the other distractions of everyday city life." But I digress.)

I sort of put this in the Ethics subforum under the assumption there was some sort of formalized debate in this forum? I mean, Ethics is centered around rational thought, it's like Science. spidergoat, as I mentioned, used the Socratic method to provide a counter example. Through that method we're supposed to either accept or reject the premise. As it stands, your counter argument must be rejected or you must show where spidergoat's logic is faulty.

Spidergoat's logic is not faulty, merely incomplete. What is happening in Saudi Arabia is an ethical phenomenon reflecting something much akin to market forces.

My Ethical 'argument' from an moral stance would be that the rule: Do not initiate force against another person was violated. I mean, I'm pretty sure this debate was had around 2500 years ago? But, I would like to see what the Ethic's moderator thinks. AND when we are able to agree that YES killing the man was immoral -or- NO killing the man was moral.

To the one, your "ethical 'argument' from a moral stance" is one that the marketplace is constantly seeking and crafting exceptions to. I think it's a fine ethical argument, and a fine moral stance. But just as you find taxes a form of violence, others find similar force and offense in other living experiences. That we might denigrate these perceptions of offense as foolish according to moral and ethical tenets is our prerogative, and one that I would even argue worthy.

However, reality continues—and will continue—to intervene. Or, to put it simply: Bad shit happens.

Condemning religious people in general, or a religion in particular, or even more specifically denouncing particular aspects of religions in general—or one religion compared to another—might well feel good, but what does it get us? To impugn an evolutionary outcome—i.e., the propensity toward the figurative, such as religion—as a disease is not a constructive invitation to dialogue. Whining about religious idiots does nothing to treat the underlying disease. As you are well aware, one can easily elevate state to the equivalent of God. And, in truth, there are atheistic hockey and baseball fans, and yes, they, too, have their superstitions.

What happened at Bahawalpur is an abomination; one need not make excuses for the perpetrators. But one must, at some point, recognize reality.

Bad shit happens. Ethical consideration must acknowledge this, else its formulation is incomplete.

If one should happen to discover a way to change the terms of reality, I think all of humanity from that day forward will be greatly thankful. But just as Wilde's prescription sounds nice, the formula is still a mystery.

(And if "incomplete" sounds something like a mantra at present, well, we are human, after all. Our brains and lives are finite; no individual can formulate a ... um ... er ... yeah—"final solution" that will liberate humanity from its basic, animal reality. Together, perhaps we can break those bonds, but not alone as individuals. Almost anything we undertake individually is necessarily incomplete.)

You wish to know what the Ethics moderator thinks? The Ethics moderator thinks reality is an unfortunate pain in the ass that must be dealt with; merely enduring reality guarantees a "marketplace" demand for greater endurance.

There must be some way out of here.

We gotta get out of this place.

And so on.
____________________

Notes:

Wilde, Oscar. "The Soul of Man under Socialism". 1891. Marxists.org. July 6, 2012. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm

Beeler, Carolyn. "Laws That Target Homeless Imperil Programs That Feed Them Outdoors". Morning Edition. July 6, 2012. NPR.org. July 6, 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...a-bans-serving-food-to-the-homeless-in-public

 

[Balerion]

Tell that to the victims of the Holocaust who were killed by ordinary folks and victims of the Rwandan Genocide or the Pol Pot regime.

Given the right motivation and being blasted with the evils of the other side, ordinary people can and do turn on their neighbours in the most violent and sickening ways, regardless of the age or sex of said neighbour.

Oh absolutely. But the "justification" for the Holocaust was found in centuries of the dehumanization of European Jews. When you are made to believe the people you're hurting aren't people at all, you're less prone to feel empathy for them. That said, not all Nazis carried out their duties with a smile on their face, I'm sure.

 

[Michael]

I believe your consideration is incomplete. In the abstract, I very nearly agree entirely with your proposition. In practice, however, ethics are, in fact, subject to a process similar to market forces.

Your very first premise is IMO incorrect. FMPOV Ethics are not subject to market forces. Ethics are eternal truths. It's be like saying gravity is subject to market forces. Slavery doesn't go from being moral to not being moral. It was always immoral. You don't get to vote (free-market) and make rape moral. Rape is always immoral. People either act morally or they don't.

Ethics studies of those actions.

So, until this is cleared up, I don't see how we're able to communicate. What's the moderator say?

Spidergoat's logic is not faulty, merely incomplete. What is happening in Saudi Arabia is an ethical phenomenon reflecting something much akin to market forces.

Spidergoat is only required to present a situation that disproves your premise and KSA was that situation and so your premise was disproved. People in KSA are highly literate (not to mention Iran).

AND, I'd add, not to mention the USA. We are the ones conducting the War of.... errrr on Terror.

To the one, your "ethical 'argument' from a moral stance" is one that the marketplace is constantly seeking and crafting exceptions to. I think it's a fine ethical argument, and a fine moral stance. But just as you find taxes a form of violence, others find similar force and offense in other living experiences. That we might denigrate these perceptions of offense as foolish according to moral and ethical tenets is our prerogative, and one that I would even argue worthy.

The Market is bound by the Law. No one can create a Market in Kidney's by abducting people, cutting a kidney out and selling them in said Market. I'm not suggesting we live without Rules (it's without Rulers that's the ideal).

If someone did pass a Law and this Law did allow you to take people's kidneys' (by force) we'd still like to think this is immoral. That's because it WOULD be immoral! How we know this is not by the free-market, not be the Law, not even by the will of the people - but by Ethical consideration.

Initiation of force is immoral.

However, reality continues—and will continue—to intervene. Or, to put it simply: Bad shit happens.

Bad shit happening is still up for ethical consideration. Someone sneered at me (bad shit), I punch him (immoral bad shit).

Condemning religious people in general, or a religion in particular, or even more specifically denouncing particular aspects of religions in general—or one religion compared to another—might well feel good, but what does it get us? To impugn an evolutionary outcome—i.e., the propensity toward the figurative, such as religion—as a disease is not a constructive invitation to dialogue. Whining about religious idiots does nothing to treat the underlying disease. As you are well aware, one can easily elevate state to the equivalent of God. And, in truth, there are atheistic hockey and baseball fans, and yes, they, too, have their superstitions.

I havn't really touched upon the religion other than to suggest Mennonites are an example of peaceful parenting and the resulting moral society it's created for them.

What happened at Bahawalpur is an abomination; one need not make excuses for the perpetrators. But one must, at some point, recognize reality

It's an abomination, but it's also immoral. The question, how do we KNOW it was immoral?

If we don't treat Ethics like science, then it's really a wasted 2500 years IMO. A flimsy whimsy bunch of nonesense with little value to society. IOWs, a waste of time. IF we DO attempt to treat Ethics like science, then like Science we may find some interesting and unexpected answers to some of societies more pressing questions.

 

[seagypsy]

I lived in Pakistan for a year. I lived in Rawalpindi, as a female civilian wife. I witnessed all sorts of behavior there. Yes, there are those that would burn an "infidel" to death just for being. But as many people are appalled at that same behavior. However, they have a society of taboos. Reputation is everything there. Your entire ability to sustain yourself can be destroyed if you speak up against those who are bold enough to physically force their beliefs on others. If you have any opinion against what they perceive to be Islam then the bad ones can and will, legally, kill you. The laws do not offer free speech and they are so ruled by their religiosity that the bad people use it to control those who genuinely just want to be good. And the genuinely good ones are too fearful to stand up and define what is right for themselves.

As much abuse as I withstood there, it still bothers me when people blame Islam for the behavior of the bad ones. People constantly claim that the Qur'an supports their behavior but I never see any actual quotes from the Qur'an supporting murder offered. My observation of Pakistani culture is that they follow a bastardized version of Islam. They maintain the basic tenets but add so much crap to it that it is insane. The family I had been married into violated the Qur'an constantly and when I pointed it out to them they justified their behavior with Hadiths. Hadiths are something added to the religion even though the Qur'an clearly states that nothing is to be added to or taken away from the religion. The Qur'an also says there is to be no compulsion in religion. Burning a man alive for hating Islam would fall under compulsion.

I am not Muslim, but it really bothers me when people put blame in the wrong place. I am atheist, but I do not believe that religions, as they are written in the actual texts, are to be blamed for all the ills in the world. I blame human nature. HUMANS take that which is sacred to one another and use it as a means to control each other and hurt each other. They use it to make themselves feel powerful. Sometimes it is faith, other times it is possessions, sometimes it is our pride or insecurities. Humans are hateful. Humans are loving. We are equally capable of all sorts of things. If religion were gone, we'd find some other excuse to exert power over one another.

One famous example of hadithary that is added to Islam but is no where to be found in Islam: "You get 72 virgins if you die as a martyr." The Qur'an does not say this. It is hadith and not truly part of Islam. Too many Muslims practice hadith, not Islam. If anything other than human nature at its worst is to be blamed here, it is the existence of Hadith. Not the Qur'an.

 

[GeoffP]

Just once I'd like to see these assholes try to bore someone to death. This betrayer has to die? Okay. So bore him to death. God is on your side, so it should be achievable.

 

[Michael]

As much abuse as I withstood there, it still bothers me when people blame Islam for the behavior of the bad ones.

Why? I mean, why does blaming Islam bother you? Islam is just an ideology. You're not religious so you're open to criticism of any and all ideologies if the criticism is logical and coherent.

Islam is a superstition and it seems like that in and of itself is worthy of criticism. For many people the word Islam encompasses more than the Qur'an but also the culture, the hadiths, superstition, etc... But, even if you only thought of the Qur'an, well, I still think the Qur'an is itself bad as it reinforces superstitious thinking processes. That is bad. And I'm of the mind that the Qur'an is a Bible. A later rendition, but, still a Bible. And as such it perpetuates superstitious thinking over rational dialogue. You can see how hard it is to have a rational debate as it is, no sense layering onto this a blankets infected with god-virus thinking.




It seems everyone here agrees killing the Infidel is immoral, but I'm still not sure WHY more people thinking it's immoral.

 

[spidergoat]

I lived in Pakistan for a year. I lived in Rawalpindi, as a female civilian wife. I witnessed all sorts of behavior there. Yes, there are those that would burn an "infidel" to death just for being. But as many people are appalled at that same behavior. However, they have a society of taboos. Reputation is everything there. Your entire ability to sustain yourself can be destroyed if you speak up against those who are bold enough to physically force their beliefs on others. If you have any opinion against what they perceive to be Islam then the bad ones can and will, legally, kill you. The laws do not offer free speech and they are so ruled by their religiosity that the bad people use it to control those who genuinely just want to be good. And the genuinely good ones are too fearful to stand up and define what is right for themselves.

As much abuse as I withstood there, it still bothers me when people blame Islam for the behavior of the bad ones. People constantly claim that the Qur'an supports their behavior but I never see any actual quotes from the Qur'an supporting murder offered. My observation of Pakistani culture is that they follow a bastardized version of Islam. They maintain the basic tenets but add so much crap to it that it is insane. The family I had been married into violated the Qur'an constantly and when I pointed it out to them they justified their behavior with Hadiths. Hadiths are something added to the religion even though the Qur'an clearly states that nothing is to be added to or taken away from the religion. The Qur'an also says there is to be no compulsion in religion. Burning a man alive for hating Islam would fall under compulsion.

I am not Muslim, but it really bothers me when people put blame in the wrong place. I am atheist, but I do not believe that religions, as they are written in the actual texts, are to be blamed for all the ills in the world. I blame human nature. HUMANS take that which is sacred to one another and use it as a means to control each other and hurt each other. They use it to make themselves feel powerful. Sometimes it is faith, other times it is possessions, sometimes it is our pride or insecurities. Humans are hateful. Humans are loving. We are equally capable of all sorts of things. If religion were gone, we'd find some other excuse to exert power over one another.

One famous example of hadithary that is added to Islam but is no where to be found in Islam: "You get 72 virgins if you die as a martyr." The Qur'an does not say this. It is hadith and not truly part of Islam. Too many Muslims practice hadith, not Islam. If anything other than human nature at its worst is to be blamed here, it is the existence of Hadith. Not the Qur'an.

The Hadith are considered as valid as the Quran. In any case I object to your characterization of the worst aspects of Islam as bad actors who simply don't follow the letter of the book. The Quran is full of violent imagery and arrogant attitudes towards non-believers. Islam consists of the reality of Islam as practiced by human beings, not merely the book, divorced from any human interpretation.

 

[Asguard]

So is the bible liviticous for example and I'm sure I remember a passage about a girl sleeping with a guy from another village so the girls village crept in, slaughtered all the men and raped all the women and god looked on this as the right course of action.

Of course on the other side of the coin non religious people commit atrocities too, I believe the perpetrators of the Bosnian massacre were non religious and the targets Muslim so no one is really free from the tribal bullshit

 

[kx000]

Pakistan mob burns man to death for 'blasphemy'

SO people infected with the God Virus dragged a mentally ill man out of the jail after bashing the police officers, poured gasoline on him, and burned him alive.

Is this moral?

The people evidently think so. He supposedly burned a Qu'ran (and he probably did) and so they burned him to death. To them, what they did is moral. To most sane people of the world, what they did was immoral.

How do we know which group is correct? What does Ethics have to say about this case?

Seems like they are all heathens, to this faithful.

See how religion is dangerous? Morality is absent from this situation.

 

[seagypsy]

Why? I mean, why does blaming Islam bother you? Islam is just an ideology. You're not religious so you're open to criticism of any and all ideologies if the criticism is logical and coherent.

Islam is a superstition and it seems like that in and of itself is worthy of criticism. For many people the word Islam encompasses more than the Qur'an but also the culture, the hadiths, superstition, etc... But, even if you only thought of the Qur'an, well, I still think the Qur'an is itself bad as it reinforces superstitious thinking processes. That is bad. And I'm of the mind that the Qur'an is a Bible. A later rendition, but, still a Bible. And as such it perpetuates superstitious thinking over rational dialogue. You can see how hard it is to have a rational debate as it is, no sense layering onto this a blankets infected with god-virus thinking.




It seems everyone here agrees killing the Infidel is immoral, but I'm still not sure WHY more people thinking it's immoral.

It bothers me because it is a fallible argument if you do not back it up. Too many people make claims about what religious texts say, but they never provide quotes. It makes me wonder if the one making claims about what is said in the texts has ever actually read the text. Or do they make claims because they hear others make claims. "if so many people believe the Quran grants 72 virgins then it must be true so I will repeat it as if I know for a fact that it says that." Do you see the problem. Its like if someone is arguing that the world is round and their evidence is because the fsm said so. Believing something to be true does not make it true. This applies to all things, including believing that a particular religious text condones specific horrible acts.

Humanity is to blame for the atrocities that humanity commits. Religion is a symptom of human imperfection. It is a creation of humanity. Perhaps intended for good but used for evil. Some people use religion badly others use it as a positive force.

If you want to talk about morality, well I'm sorry to say, there is no concrete definition of what is moral and what isn't. What is moral in one culture is immoral in another. I do not condone what they did to that guy. But I have seen people in America become equally violent when someone burns an American Flag. But our culture of speaking up against irrational acts of violence usually stops the flag burner from meeting a terrible end. Their culture does not encourage tolerance at any level. So even those who would prefer to ignore the Quran burner's transgression will speak out against him and cheer on the mob so that suspicious eyes don't turn on them. They have a society of fear not freedom.

It is something that can happen just as easily in an atheist society. It's simply the way human brains are wired.

Also, not being religious, does not mean that I condone blindly attacking a belief system with inaccurate claims. I don't think fighting ignorance with ignorance is productive. I find it appalling.

 

[seagypsy]

Sorry for double posting, above I wanted to answer a question directed at me, and this post is separate from that.

This is sura 109 from the Quran:

109: The Disbelievers

1 Say: O disbelievers!
2 I worship not that which ye worship;
3 Nor worship ye that which I worship.
4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

A quote from the Quran that many people say gives justification for killing non believers is from Sura 4:89

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

However if you read the very next verse you can see that it is stating not to kill anyone that is peaceful with them.

4:90 Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.

Hadith may be generally accepted by Muslims, but it is not accepted by the Quran.

Sura 45
[45:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[45:1] H. M.

[45:2] The revelation of this scripture is from GOD, the Almighty, Most Wise.

[45:3] The heavens and the earth are full of proofs for the believers.

[45:4] Also in your creation, and the creation of all the animals, there are proofs for people who are certain.

[45:5] Also, the alternation of the night and the day, and the provisions that GOD sends down from the sky to revive dead lands, and the manipulation of the winds; all these are proofs for people who understand.

[45:6] These are GOD's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than GOD and His revelations do they believe?

[45:7] Woe to every fabricator, guilty.

So is religion defined by the people who claim to practice it or the text that birthed it? Very few faithful actually read the text that dictates the true tenets of their religion. Most people do what they want to do and hope that when they say their religion supports it, that no one will question it. Odds are no one will, because lets face it, religious texts are boring reads and the average layman doesn't want to put forth the effort to read it so they let everyone make it up as they go and question nothing until the religion is a distorted blur of what it was originally intended to be.

We Americans hold on to our constitution and fight to keep it valid by the letter because when you let people twist it into saying something it doesn't then horrible things start to happen.

There is a saying among Muslims. "If you were to stand trial for the crime of being Muslim and your actions were compared to what the Qur'an commands would you be convicted?" They say this because there are those who acknowledge that few Muslims know what the Qur'an says and therefore they do what grandpa tells them rather than reading for themselves. and they follow tradition rather than the religion.

 

[Tiassa]

Humanity at its best and worst

Hadith may be generally accepted by Muslims, but it is not accepted by the Quran.

I think part of the problem is that Westerners raised amid the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition often lack a comprehensible comparison for the relationship between the ahadith and Qur'an.

It was centuries ago that Christianity declared a plethora of alleged Gospels heretical. Many were erased entirely from the world. Those that remain are generally fragmented and thus incomplete. The Thunder, Perfect Mind, for instance, is an astounding bit of poetry for its day. Not only is it incomplete, though, it is also non-canoncial. If Christianity in general, or, perhaps, major sects thereof, accepted such records as authentic—The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene], The Apocryphon of John, and many others—it would be a far different religious paradigm we see today. Still, though, the relevant point would be that these tales are not attended by canonical Christians.

Neither do the various catechisms of Christianity make an easy comparison; indeed, I would assert these formulations of faith are something different compared to a hadith.

Faithful Jews might well have a closer analogue. Judaism is rife with holy writings such as the midrash, mishnah, and even the zohar. The degree to which these affect the outlook of any individual Jewish person varies greatly, but even in the case of those well educated in these writings, to what degree are such traditions definitive of the faith? And to what degree are those influences known to the greater mass of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition?

That is to say, one raised according to Lutheran standards, such as I was, is not conditioned to consider these aspects the way a Jew or Muslim might be. And with so many generically Christian churches dotting, for instance, the American landscape—many of which insist on very specific interpretations of the Bible as the only holy scripture—one can expect the relationship between Qur'an and ahadith to be obscured even more.

My "political" two cents, as such, would look to your closing paragraph—

There is a saying among Muslims. "If you were to stand trial for the crime of being Muslim and your actions were compared to what the Qur'an commands would you be convicted?" They say this because there are those who acknowledge that few Muslims know what the Qur'an says and therefore they do what grandpa tells them rather than reading for themselves. and they follow tradition rather than the religion.

—and note that many who accuse acute anti-Islamism of dehumanization suggest the critics are failing to grant Muslims the same regard as they would their fellow Christian, Jew, or cultural compatriot.

As in: Yeah, we get it. Plenty of Christians are non-canonical; plenty of Jews are non-observant. And just as they learned the traditions through family and community, so do Muslims. And when a Muslim believes what his grandfather told him instead of the Qur'an, he is just being human, as humans tend to be.

Insofar as that might pertain to your concern that people blame Islam for strange or brutal actions of individuals within the faith, the method of such blame is to pretend that Muslims are behaving any differently than human beings.

I think psychology and anthropology will explain those strange or brutal actions much more accurately than any hatred some might show toward Islam in general. In that aspect, it is something akin to discovering the facts versus tailoring the facts to fit a preconceived assertion.

And, yes, that too is human.

 

[seagypsy]

I think psychology and anthropology will explain those strange or brutal actions much more accurately than any hatred some might show toward Islam in general. In that aspect, it is something akin to discovering the facts versus tailoring the facts to fit a preconceived assertion.

And, yes, that too is human.

I agree, thank you for more clearly stating what I was trying to say. I'm glad at least one person understood me.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Is this moral?

Morality doesn't objectively exist, so to ask the question in a manner that assumes it is makes it a really poor question.

The people evidently think so. He supposedly burned a Qu'ran (and he probably did) and so they burned him to death. To them, what they did is moral. To most sane people of the world, what they did was immoral.

How do we know which group is correct? What does Ethics have to say about this case?

Again, you are asking about objective correctness in an utterly subjective situation. It's a poor question.

 

[Michael]

Seems like they are all heathens, to this faithful.

See how religion is dangerous? Morality is absent from this situation.

I'm not sure if I understand your reply. I agree Religion can be immoral, but, if it follows ethics I see no reason why religion couldn't be moral?

The problem with religion is it reinforces superstitious thinking which I maintain is, in the long run, a big problem. Particularly when we should be able to understand morality (whether we agree to it's relative nature or not) and act accordingly.

 

[Michael]

Morality doesn't objectively exist, so to ask the question in a manner that assumes it is makes it a really poor question.



Again, you are asking about objective correctness in an utterly subjective situation. It's a poor question.

That's interesting. So, you're of the mind that morals are relative?

I'm not, and think they do objectively exist. Is there a thread on objective versus relative morality?

From StrongAtheism.com: The Case for Objective Morality

Short version:

The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. “we need to eat because otherwise we die”), and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism).

The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly.

By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system – we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail. There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it’s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive.

To take another, more Scientific approach regarding moral objectivity:

(1) Morality is the concern with the welfare of conscious beings.
(2) The welfare of a conscious being exists.
(3) Consciousness exists in the physical properties of the brain.
(4) The physical properties of the brain can be observed and measured.

It seems to me that it should be possible to find objective morals do exist in the modern human brain. Consciousness is a product of the brain, which is a physical substrate. Thus there is a physical bases for making the claim objective morals do exist.

What do you think?