Personally, I abhor it - I think this kind of so-called legal conduct is dehumanising.
Of course, I think the same of the death penalty. Nonetheless, it is a difficult subject. For many years, as a (still) convinced western European liberal, I was an uncritical advocate of the "multi-culti" view of civilised society. Developments in (non-) assimilation of (generally) moslem groups in the society in which I live (Germany) have made my views change somewhat on this issue. I see major basic compatability problems between conservative Islam and the values of secular western society, and consequently feel our societies have a right to expect a willingness from immigrants to accept and adhere to our basic values. If they are not prepared to do so, then they should strongly consider going somewhere else. But this refers to the society in which I live. With regard to other societies, it's more difficult. The so-called developed west has many major blemishes in the area of cultural imperialism. The example of the "white man's burden" in the 19th. Century comes to mind, as does the fact that, in the spread of the British Empire in Africa, the missionaries (like Livingstone) who went to campaign against slavery were the vanguard of expropriation, dispossession and oppression - as well as health, hygene and education. This can make comments from western countries in post- colonial areas problematic. At the very least, I would expect that civilised societies avail of their right to honestly express their genuine distaste for the way other countries do things. But then, of course, there's also the possibility that doing this will make the others react in an even more negative way [Obama's dilemma about commenting forcefully on Iran is a good example]. Application of interpretations of the Sharia which prescribe this sort of punishment are barbaric - so are other officially tolerated practices such as female genital mutilation - often attemptedly softened by the circumlocution, "circumcision". I think this is one area where an increase in dialogue leading to more internationally binding consensus (international agreements, binding UN resolutions) may be the only practical, long-term, imperfect, frustrating way forward. With no veto rights. Countries not signing such accords could then be internationally regarded as pariahs. So ... when will the international community take up the question of the USA and the death penalty???? Francis On 25 Jun., 20:45, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > As religious tolerance continues, what are we to think about this? > What are we to do about this? > What do you think?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8118306.stm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
