Blahah Wrote:That has got nothing to do with the middle ages or with democracy. If that's what Egyptians support, they can democratically elect a leadership who will make it legal. That's democracy. People's attitude to punishment is irrelevant to the discussion. Why did you bring it up?

Blahah Wrote:Right but if that's what the majority of the country believes, a democracy will allow them to express that view and make it law.

I totally agree with you.

These statistics have nothing to do with democracy.

If these surveys are accurate, it just means that the people want to activate the second article of the Egyptian constitution which is already making the Sharia law the principal source of legislation.

Until 1870, to be hanged, drawn and quartered (chopped into four pieces!) was a penalty in England. Yet the country was a democracy, and these were not the Middle Ages. They were the Age of Englightenment, the Age of Reason, the Age of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Robert Hooke.

BTW, their Middle Ages were different from ours.

MSNBC: Christians protect Muslims during prayer in Cairo's dangerous Tahrir square

BBC: Egypt's Muslims and Christians join hands in protest





"Christians pray and Muslims defend them. It is a touching scene. Nothing can describe our feelings" - Michael Muneer, a Christian activist.

"By one o’clock PM, Christians started their Sunday Mass in Cairo's Tahrir Square as Muslim protesters formed a ring around them to protect them during the service."

"In return, Christians formed a ring around their fellow Muslims to protect them during prayers on Friday."

ahibba Wrote:"Christians pray and Muslims defend them. It is a touching scene. Nothing can describe our feelings" - Michael Muneer, a Christian activist.

"By one o’clock PM, Christians started their Sunday Mass in Cairo's Tahrir Square as Muslim protesters formed a ring around them to protect them during the service."

"In return, Christians formed a ring around their fellow Muslims to protect them during prayers on Friday."

Those quotes make me shed a tear in happiness.

On a recent post on his website, Robert Spencer wrote: "If I could have Mubarak’s ear, I would whisper just two words of wisdom: Tienanmen Square."

Why would any human call for shooting those beautiful people?

An Egyptian couple held their wedding ceremony in Tahrir Square in the middle of millions of protesters during the country's revolution against Mubarak

Couple Weds in Tahrir Square Amidst Protesters and Tanks!

MUST SEE: The Most Amazing Video about the Egyptian Revolution

Blahah Wrote:

Womacks23 Wrote:Sorry wasn't supposed to come back here but the full info on the survey, including the questions, is found here

http://pewglobal.org/files/2010/12/Pew-G...2-2010.pdf

There is not a sampling methodology in there, it just gives dates and then lots of results. Consider that if the organisation conducting the survey wants to produce results of any kind, all they have to do is target areas where they know extreme attitudes are more common. It's not a reliable source of information, and you shouldn't base your judgement of a nation on it.

I'm glad to see they acknowledge the unreliability of surveys:

Quote:In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Womacks actually cited their (rather sparse, but hey it does exist) sampling methodology description at the top of the third page, if you want something more detailed I guess you could look around on their website and/or e-mailing them about it.

I do agree with the view that the survey seems biased, especially when you consider the questions that have a very high focus on extremist aspects. It would definitely be nice to have a comparable alternative source (which I'm guessing there isn't since nestor hasn't posted one)

At the same time, I think womacks has a point in that there has been a change and there's a lot of potential but it's more important what happens in the long run. Everyone's saying it's been a historical event and yeah sure it will go in the history books, however when it comes to the daily lives of the Egyptians the slower processes will mean more... Let's hope the rest of the world continues to stay updated on what happens in Egypt instead of, as is so common in modern society, jumping right on to the next sensational event. Speaking of which, how's Tunisia doing?

ファブリス Wrote:I was so angry hearing Obama's talk a couple days ago. Why should the Egyptians even care what this sock puppet has to say?

I created this thread to invite others to celebrate with the Egyptians, for what it means and represents for the rest of the world.

Please keep your redneck views on Islam and Eastern countries out of this forum.

Good on you, ファブリス様. I was getting a headache

ahibba Wrote:If these surveys are accurate, it just means that the people want to activate the second article of the Egyptian constitution which is already making the Sharia law the principal source of legislation.

Until 1870, to be hanged, drawn and quartered (chopped into four pieces!) was a penalty in England. Yet the country was a democracy, and these were not the Middle Ages. They were the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the Age of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Robert Hooke.

Many Western countries are still barbaric in that the death penalty continues to be used as a form of punishment and believe prisons should be a place of justice. Rather than for the treatment of the mental illnesses that would cause a person to commit serious crime, and to protect society from those who suffer from those illnesses.

Having said that, if the Egyptian constitution now makes Sharia law the principal source of legislation, MAJOR changes need to be made. Anyone who thinks those types of punishments are acceptable needs to examine whether they have any humanity in them at all.

"Being human" is a relative concept that humanist discourse misrepresents by universal and essentialist claims. Humans have been practicing such laws for thousands of years, and they are still humans.

Some punishments appear harsh to us, but is it worse to lose a hand or to spend 20 years of one's life in a prison? Both are harsh. The Western penalty may appear less violent, but we cannot say it is less harsh.

I think part of the confusion comes from the difference between our cultures. In our countries, laws are written by elected representatives of the people themselves. If enough people feel a law is unjust or unnecessary, or that a punishment is too harsh, they can work to have it changed. We have shaped our tradition of law, and modified it to reflect our changing values. So it is all about feelings, there is no universal rule telling us what is harsh and what is not.

Clearly the punishments that we use aren't working. In Illinois they spend more each year on convicts than they do on school children. People in prison get 3 meals, a roof over their head and many times cable. For you to have this, you have to work over 50 hours a week.

If they lived in a perfect world they wouldn't need harsh rules. The truth is that they do and harsher punishment might change a few people's minds about committing a crime. The way it stands, you have people that will commit a crime specifically to go back to prison. They find it easier to deal with than the outside world. When you have that sort of mindset, there is definitely something wrong with the world.

Human experience shows that if a punishment was to act as "deterrent", then it has to be severe and exemplary. "Life cannot be safe if the habitual criminals are left unfinished" and it is better to be severe to one and save many than to be unnecessarily lenient and thereby destroy many and put the lives of millions of others at risk.

Sometimes you have to be cruel in order to be kind.

[ファブリス]

ahibba Wrote:Human experience shows that if a punishment was to act as "deterrent", then it has to be severe and exemplary. "Life cannot be safe if the habitual criminals are left unfinished" and it is better to be severe to one and save many than to be unnecessarily lenient and thereby destroy many and put the lives of millions of others at risk.

Only until we will know better.

Without wanting to derail the thread, the first part of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is all about how our society is itself the cause for disruptive behaviours, and how we fail to address them.

In other words, I disagree. Punition is only a temporary solution.

There are no punishments in the West for converting away from the dominant religion of the region. Nor is the death penalty enforced for adultery. Though, the divorce settlement may feel like it to some. Rarely does one spend 20 years in prison for theft, much less have a hand chopped off. These are just the eye catching punishments that people take notice of. I read the Wikipedia page on Sharia law and it was disturbing to say the least. I hate to be intolerant toward a religion, but I can't ignore what looks to be an immoral code of ethics either.

Sharia law is disgusting, it only means you're intolerant of injustice to point out an obvious truth such as that.

ファブリス Wrote:Only until we will know better.

Until then, let people decide for themselves and choose the laws they want to live by.

BTW, thank you for the link.

bodhisamaya Wrote:....I can't ignore what looks to be an immoral code of ethics either.

What is the definition of "immorality"?

There is no correct definition of right behavior, and morality can only be judged with respect to the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts.

Also as far as I know, there is no verse in the Koran about killing apostates or stoning. The claim that there was a verse in the Koran for stoning and was later removed is so problematic that the apologists had to actually invent the concept of abrogation to fit it in.

ahibba Wrote:What is the definition of "immorality"?

Do your actions cause happiness or suffering in yourself and others?
There is no need for religious law to tell one what accomplishes either.

ahibba Wrote:There is no correct definition of right behavior, and morality can only be judged with respect to the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts.

It is illogical to impose such harsh penalties if there is no correct definition of right behavior. If one personally finds following those laws beneficial, then by all means incorporate them into life. To legally punish others for not following archaic religious laws is insanity.

ahibba Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:....I can't ignore what looks to be an immoral code of ethics either.

What is the definition of "immorality"?

There is no correct definition of right behavior, and morality can only be judged with respect to the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts.

Also as far as I know, there is no verse in the Koran about killing apostates or stoning. The claim that there was a verse in the Koran for stoning and was later removed is so problematic that the apologists had to actually invent the concept of abrogation to fit it in.

Ethics is hard.

It always reminds me of music taste. I have a real problem with the notion that some music can be objectively better than other music. Yet I also have a problem whenever I hear someone say something like "James Shaffer (the guitarist from Korn) is the greatest guitarist who ever lived." (I actually heard someone say that once)

It's true that Qu'ran Alone muslims, and many other groups, don't support death for apostasy. But many other groups of Muslims do. I view killing people for apostasy as immoral. There might be no grounds for one ethical system being better than another, but there can be grounds for determining whether a factual claim is true or not. And the truth is that Gabriel never appeared and talked to Muhammad. Muhammad made that story up, or his followers did. To kill someone when they stop believing in something that's not true seems morally wrong to me, even if I'm also inclined to admit that cultural relativism does have a lot of pull in my mind.

Gabriel never spoke to Muhammad, Mary wasn't a virgin, the Buddha didn't sprout from his mother's side, etc. There's an immodesty here--just with those three statements I'm saying that I'm right and almost three billion people are wrong. But I think that's the case. If you kill people for failing to believe such things, it seems so ridiculous to me.

Ethics and religion should always be kept apart.
You can take some ethics from religion, but as soon as you use religion as the groundwork for ethics, you've got a serious problem.
Ethics are a constantly changing set of ideas that require skeptical analysis and logical argument, not the ideas of some 'infallible' ancient doctrines with little relation to modern society.

Religion should be a process of efficiently examining ethics, under ideal environments with the aid of tutors who can offer advice on the best ways to approach it. Inflexible laws with severe punishment for breaking religious law of course make this impossible.

ファブリス Wrote:Without wanting to derail the thread, the first part of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

Just finished the film. Very intelligently done. It should be shown in every economics department around the world.

Edit: Just watched the original film now as well.
I actually saw almost exactly the same information on a film called The Naked Truth 20 years ago. It was what got me interested in philosophy again after leaving the Christian church at age 16.

So you think that every religion should constantly examine their moral beliefs. Okay.
Not exactly sure how you'd get Christians to agree upon a modern 'revised' version of the Bible though

I think religion should offer advice on how to live a happier life and be a better human being based on the past experiences of others, but not lay down inflexible beliefs. How one ultimately acts or believes should be investigated on an individual basis.

Jesus Wrote:The Sabath (or religion) was created for man. Not man for the Sabath.

Okay, but I see no reason why you can't do that far easier absent of religion.

Religion should defer to science what can be measured as far as the material world goes. What can not be measured with their tools needs to be approached through contemplation. Religion can fill that role through those who have spent their lives in monastic environments without distraction reasoning what unprovable ideas are most likely to be truth.

Each to their own.
All of the values and ideas I consider important I've discovered outside of religion, so while I think some religions (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism) have valuable ideas, I don't bother with it anymore.

Contemplation is one thing.

Making up random stuff and hoping it's true is another.

bodhisamaya Wrote:On a related note, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is now blocking international access to his shows.
Luckily (sarcasm) for the world, Fox News still has their slant freely available at their website

Access was restored :-)

Whatever Western views on other cultures may be, I don't think they have a say in who gets to run the country. If a secular law system similar to the current system is put in place, great, if they vote for a strict Islamic government, tough.

Egypt has never had lots of executions for conversion, stonings, hand amputation and whatnot anyway... it's not like they're going to descend into barbarity on account of a new administration.

ahibba: thanks for the post you made, it was really amazing to hear from someone who was there!!!
this video you posted is beautiful
MUST SEE: The Most Amazing Video about the Egyptian Revolution

congratulations to Egyptians & Tunisians!!!

sickkkk whats happening in Bahrain... and Libya. i wouldn't like to protest in Libya...

as for the debate... what's wrong with the Egyptians deciding their own future?

Surreal Wrote:Let's hope the rest of the world continues to stay updated on what happens in Egypt instead of, as is so common in modern society, jumping right on to the next sensational event. Speaking of which, how's Tunisia doing?

... this is a really good point!

does anyone know a really good site where i can read more of the background to the protests across north africa & the middle east? i've read all the bbc, but i'm looking for something a little more detailed. (something balanced though).