'DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES'

[Ian]

I used a translator and this is what it came up with:

You are DoubleX very pleasant. Leave me to know what you think if you reads it. I think that you pleasently will be surprised. Enjoyment!

I meant to say something like:

You're very welcome, let me know what you think of them when you read them.

Or something along those lines. Anyway, its the last time I type in Spanish.

[TNRighty]

I read a good book last month by Tammy Bruce, "The Death of Right and Wrong." Its more of a political book than a religious book. She doesn't really defend Christianity per se, but she comes to the defense of Christians who are being demonized by the far left. Anyways, the title about says it all. She attacks the phenomenon of moral relativism and explores the reasons behind it. Great read.

[Ian]

I'll check it out TN thanks.

[lisa]

MO, the guys seem to like to take things off topic. This is a great article! I have looked at blogs and found some bloggers I like and have been reading them lately. This is along the lines of the most recent blog I am poking around on.
My oldest is almost 15. He is starting to ask this very same thing. I will let him read this article to give him some food for thought.
Glad you posted it! Thanks!

[UncleVinny]

Changing and expressing values is a difficult process, because it so easily generates a lot of pain.

I see laying out of a belief system as threatening to people, and to show them a system of behavior that is undermining to their beliefs is truly disconcerting, and would generate a lot of pain. It's like ridiculing someone's religion - beliefs they have held dear, but are not working. If you believed in the old "eye for an eye" moral structure, and I could show you with patience and care that this new moral code of forgiveness and brotherhood was far superior to the old system, and this new system generated a lot more peace and civil behavior, the I think being a wise person you would soon embrace the new philosophy.

But on a forum like this, with hardcore adherents to the old eye-for-eye values, there is little chance of being patient and caring, so the least painful way of awakening some of the old hard-liners is to show the hipocricy, show how connecting the dots just doesn't work in the old system, as we end up with a lot of blind people, then maybe with reflection, insight , and honest evaluation of the old value system, we might make some progress. I can see how forcing values or changing values then would be difficult.

[Patriot]

Vinny,

Speaking of an 'eye for an eye' moral structure, what's your opinion on the Islamic practice to burn a married woman who cheats with another man? Or a girl who has sex before getting married? Should we "tolerate" that? Apparently yes, we should, in Vinny's world. Open your arms to Islam, because it's no worse than any other religion. A few extremists don't speak for a whole religion, right? Wrong. Consult the Koran.

Jesus taught a message of forgiveness, seventy times seven. He taught his followers to leave judgment up to God, who alone will deal with sinners. Jesus never told his Apostles to directly kill those who committed fornication or adultery. To the contrary he said that "it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick". He also said that "the son of man has come to seek and save that which was lost".

Here's an article, written by a former Muslim, from the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society:

_____________

Yes, It is Islamic Don't Apologize for It!

By Azam Kamguian

In the last few weeks, the Swedish society has been touched by the brutal and calculated murder of Fadima Sahindal; a young courageous woman who chose to live according to her will and paid the price by her life. In the last two months, two other young women in Denmark and Britain were killed by their fathers because of the honor of the family. Honor of men and the family took their lives. Honor killing is a tribal and Islamic practice prevalent in Islam- ridden countries and Muslim inhabited communities in the West. Being killed deliberately and brutally is, in fact, a price that victims pay to practice their minimal human rights such as how to dress, talk to men other than their male family members, live, work and study independently, and marry at will, or have voluntary sexual relations.

Hundreds of women get shot, burned, strangled, stoned, poisoned, beheaded or stabbed every year in Islam ridden countries because their male relatives believe their actions have soiled the family name. They die, so family honor may survive. According to this tribal and religious practice, woman is a man's possession and a reflection of his honor. It is the man's honor that gets tarnished if a woman is 'loose'. The murderers and their defenders refer to this verse of the Koran that allows husbands to beat their wives: "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill - conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them". [Koran, chapter 4, verse 34]. Honor killing is a tribal practice that has been incorporated in the religion of Islam, because of its anti - women nature and misogynist philosophy. And the law is usually on the man's side, not only in the Middle Eastern and the Central Asian countries, but shamefully, in the Western countries too. They often let murderers go unpunished or with a light sentence.

According to this Islamic concept and tradition, from the early childhood, girls are taught about "eib", which means shame, and "sharaf", which means honor. And everywhere girls go are reminders that their most important mission in life is to remain virgin until they marry. Boys are also taught to have "ghayrat", meaning to be ardent. All these concepts are Islamic concepts, and that is why the killers always defend their acts of murder by these Islamic concepts. According to the UN statistics, the majority of these murders occur in the Islam - ridden countries and Muslim inhabited communities in the West.

Though, honor killing may seem not much surprising in societies such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, its occurrence is indeed shocking and shameful in the heart of Europe in the 21st Century. And that is where the reactionary idea of Cultural Relativism is put into practice to justify women's victimization by excusing Islam and backward traditions. Unfortunately, until recently which some measures were implemented by the Swedish government, this government not only neglected to protect the lives and the rights of these women, but also justified their murders under the name of respecting 'other' people's religion and culture. While the murderers have repeatedly and openly defend their act by referring to Islam and the Koran, the majority of feminists, the mainstream media and intellectuals try to explain these murders as the prevalent patterns of domestic violence against women in the Western societies. While the murderers, whether in the Middle Eastern countries or in the Muslim inhabited communities in the West, openly state that their act of murder are "crimes of honor", and that they are merely following the directions set down in their religious beliefs in the Koran, the apologetic Western intellectuals repeatedly assure us that it is not Islam and the backward traditions, it is the common pattern of violence that is happening to the Western women too.

Swedish intellectuals should show the honesty that is required and expected from intellectuals, by telling the truth, by siding with those innocent young women who were victimized and continue to be brutally victimized because of the Islamic and backward tradition. It is not acceptable to apologize for Islam and backwardness.

And as far as the Swedish government is concerned, there shouldn't be a different basis for people's right in the one and same society; in the Swedish society. All should be considered as Swedish citizens and equal before the law. The Swedish society is duty bound to safe guard and protect the rights of women and girls from Muslim origins. This could be done only by abolishing all the respective discriminatory laws against these girls and women. This could be done only when there is no respect, excuse and legal interpretation for the misogynist Islamic and traditional beliefs and practices.

Email: [e-mail]


See: www.secularislam.org/women/dont.htm

[UncleVinny]

I yes, I KNOW there are plenty of attrocities attributable to Islam, and I don't condone them, of course.
What I'm saying is that perhaps the Christian values of brotherhood and forgiveness are superior to both the Islamic traditions and the eye-for-an-eye tradition.

In the West, we had a great French philosopher (Rosseau?) who came up with the idea of the "Social Contract" which says, in effect, if you want to live in a civilized society, you have to give up certain rights - - "Rights" such as killing your neighbor if you don't like him, killing your wife if she cheats, etc. The primitive people in rural Islamic countries were never exposed to the likes of a Rosseau in their midst, and you can see that the concept of the social contract has not caught on there. And you can see they are still living a live close to that of the cave man. In fact the great offenders, such as Bin Laden are STILL in caves.

Now I've said this before: The good teacher does not go into first grade and yell at the students because they cannot read. Instead, we start with the A, B, Cs.

Now answer me: Do you see a good teacher there?
Or do you see men with guns and bombs from the West?
No, there are not good (Christian) teachers there!
Wouldn't it be best if the society with the superior moral code used its infuence to teach the benefits of that social system to the primatives, and bring them a chance for peace and prosperity? Or would you fall back on the lame "he hit me first" arguement?

PLEASE - let's put aside the acrimony and see if you can find a flaw in the arguement I just presented.

[Patriot]

Vinny,

I daresay that post of yours begins to ring of sound logic!


^{What I'm saying is that perhaps the Christian values of brotherhood and forgiveness are superior to both the Islamic traditions and the eye-for-an-eye tradition.}


I agree.

[UncleVinny]

Well I am pleasantly surprised to hear that, Patriot.
Makes me regret some of the mean things I've said.
In that spirit of cooperation I will see if I can stiffle myself a bit and not post such inflamatory comments, which means I will most likely not be able to post at all. That should make some happy.

[americanfirst]

Would you like some very good reasons why you should cancel your subscription to the Washington Times and never click on their website?

[Ian]

UncleVinny said:

That should make some happy.

We have always welcomed an informed debate.

Would you like some very good reasons why you should cancel your subscription to the Washington Times and never click on their website?

We're waiting... Please don't use two posts for a topic which only requires one.

[americanfirst]

More than a dozen lawmakers attended a congressional reception this year honoring the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in which Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons."

At the March 23 ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) wore white gloves and carried a pillow holding an ornate crown that was placed on Moon's head. The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was "sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."

The event's co-sponsors were the Washington Times Foundation, the United Press International Foundation, the American Family Coalition, the American Clergy Leadership Conference and the Women's Federation for World Peace, according to the invitation. Stallings, a former Roman Catholic priest who was married in Moon's church, said Moon's association with those organizations is well known.

"You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not know that any event that is sponsored by the Washington Times . . . could involve the influence, or the potential presence, of the Reverend Moon," he said.

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61932-2004Jun22?language=printer

You did know that the Rev Looney Mooney owns the Washington Times? You should read the whole aritcle the Republicans were not left out. Every subscription and every click on the website enables him to gain the ear of those in Washington all the way to the President.

There's ton's more if you'd like.

[MO]

I knew that he owned it. So what?

[Paraconsistency]

The man who wrote the op-ed has an interesting interpretation of what lawmaking is supposed to be.

However, in terms of how the philosophers from which our forefathers drew their influence and knowledge from saw it, the actual answer is much different.

By being born into any sort of organized society as a rational agent, one accepts an implicit social contract that binds them to a system of justice as fairness.

The measure of justice in a free society is its fairness to all non-destructive rational agents in society; law exists for the maintanence of order between these agents, and nothing more.

By trying to impose the individual moral views of only a few into law, one is violating this principle which, coincidentally, is the very cornerstone of an ordered democratic society.

In fact, it is the violation of this principle that creates the constant inequities of law and its constant inefficiency. If lawmakers were to have stayed true to the political foundation of our country, we would not have the problems we have today. The value of law and the moral values of the individual should remain separate--that is the only way justice in its truest sense can persist.

Thanks for reading a long post, and I hope for civil replies.

[Paraconsistency]

Or none...alas...