Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Honour killings are a tradition in many places around the world and, apparently becoming a problem here as immigrants bring the "old world" ways with them to our shores.
Just yesterday a jury sentenced an immigrant from India to prison to having his daughter in law killed. Like most honour killings, this involved the man's son marrying somebody other than the wife (from India) that the family had selected for him. And worse yet the daughter in law was black which enraged the family. So the father had her killed.
Now what I don't get it is- most of the honour killings I have heard about usually involve the family killing the person that brought the shame on the family and NOT the person they married. Who was most at fault here? The daughter in law was not raised in an environment where family honour is paramont and where marriages are arranged between people. The son was raised in that environment and knew the consequences of his action. So why did the father kill HER and not HIM?
Honour killings are a tradition in many places around the world and, apparently becoming a problem here as immigrants bring the "old world" ways with them to our shores.
Just yesterday a jury sentenced an immigrant from India to prison to having his daughter in law killed. Like most honour killings, this involved the man's son marrying somebody other than the wife (from India) that the family had selected for him. And worse yet the daughter in law was black which enraged the family. So the father had her killed.
Now what I don't get it is- most of the honour killings I have heard about usually involve the family killing the person that brought the shame on the family and NOT the person they married. Who was most at fault here? The daughter in law was not raised in an environment where family honour is paramont and where marriages are arranged between people. The son was raised in that environment and knew the consequences of his action. So why did the father kill HER and not HIM?
Because these ignorant, backwards, stupid, brain dead customs are created to punish women....I truly believe that if you kill someone or have them killed because of your religion or your quaint old customs....you should be put to death.
Honour killings are a tradition in many places around the world and, apparently becoming a problem here as immigrants bring the "old world" ways with them to our shores.
Just yesterday a jury sentenced an immigrant from India to prison to having his daughter in law killed. Like most honour killings, this involved the man's son marrying somebody other than the wife (from India) that the family had selected for him. And worse yet the daughter in law was black which enraged the family. So the father had her killed.
Now what I don't get it is- most of the honour killings I have heard about usually involve the family killing the person that brought the shame on the family and NOT the person they married. Who was most at fault here? The daughter in law was not raised in an environment where family honour is paramont and where marriages are arranged between people. The son was raised in that environment and knew the consequences of his action. So why did the father kill HER and not HIM?
Obviously only the father commited a crime.
I can see why he would be reluctant to change his customs in the US when we bend over bass ackwards to accommodate other Ethnicities & their customs.
But, murder is murder. He should, if convicted face capital punishment.
Because these ignorant, backwards, stupid, brain dead customs are created to punish women....I truly believe that if you kill someone or have them killed because of your religion or your quaint old customs....you should be put to death.
Just interested to know. Do you believe in Cultural relativity or rather more specific "moral relativity"? That is, are all cultures equally valid? Only reason I say is that if this is considered "wrong", than there has to be a "right" and what determines that "right" and validates it as an absolute truth over another's belief without supporting the aspect of ethnocentrism?
Just interested to know. Do you believe in Cultural relativity or rather more specific "moral relativity"? That is, are all cultures equally valid? Only reason I say is that if this is considered "wrong", than there has to be a "right" and what determines that "right" and validates it as an absolute truth over another's belief without supporting the aspect of ethnocentrism?
Relativly speaking murder is wrong and if some "ethnicity" thinks it's OK then they're wrong...very simple and not as complicated as you make it sound.
Relativly speaking murder is wrong and if some "ethnicity" thinks it's OK then they're wrong...very simple and not as complicated as you make it sound.
You misunderstand my intent. You see, the topic I am speaking of is a growing claim to denounce those who would protest different moral behaviors. They use an ideal called "relativism" which states there are "no absolutes" (I know what you might be thinking, its very statement is a contradiction to itself, but I didn't create it *chuckle*), more specifically, there is no right and there is no wrong, merely what a culture identifies with and it in the aspect of defining ethnocentrism claim that all systems are equally valid and to claim one is more superior (or right) over another is subscribing to that prejudice.
So if one can prescribe to this ideal, then by denouncing a culture who has different moral directions would essentially be at odds with that very ideal as to do so would be stating an "absolute truth" when there can be none.
Now you can say that you believe morals or cultures that subscribe to a certain standard are wrong and that some are right, but then you wouldn't be in a position to claim relativism and would have to justify why you think your system of belief is more valid than theres.
This ultimately brings us to a big problem. Who is right and who is wrong? Why are they right and what makes them more right than another? What gives one the authority to dictate that over another? Is it merely an issue of majority thought and control? If that is the case, and might is always right, then can an injustice occur if the majority does not see it as one?
The only reason I bring this up is that many people claim relativistic subservience, yet do not truly prescribe to it as they violate their own claimed belief in the actions they take and support. I am not saying this is the case with you, but it is an interesting issue when we begin to judge the merit of another culture or belief.
edit:
Just to give you an idea of my perspective. I do not subscribe to "relativism" as it is a logical fallacy. Now I do think there is "cultural relativism", but that delves more into the subjective realm where absolutes are irrelevant. I think a right exists and a wrong exists, more specifically that there are moral ideals out there that are invalid which lends to the cultures support of it being invalid as well. Its an ethnocentric position to be sure as I do believe some cultures prescribe to severe violations of these truths.
Oh an one thing, I am not using ethnocentrism directly as a "race" relation, but more in respect to a cultural one which may not always contain a standard of race.
To answer the first question...yes, it is the person that has dishonored the family that is killed..as long as that person is female. Occasionally men, but not often.
To answer the second question on moral/ethnic relativism.....personally, I think that it is impossible to embrace all cultures equally, as some will be in direct opposition to our own. The only 'fair' way to deal with cultural, religious and ethnic differences in a country such as our own is to accept said differences unless and until one of our laws are broken. Honor killings may be acceptable in Pakistan, but they are not acceptable in the US. The same would go for female genital mutilation, and sacrificing animals in religous ceremonies. Immigration is great, but adhere to the laws of your new country.
What's the big deal? We want to be 'multicultural', don't we? Isn't this just a case of someone following the dictates of his culture? Who are WE to judge? I thought all cultures were pretty much the same....now you're complaining? Are we ALL supposed to eat Hot Dogs and watch Baseball? I just don't get it, I guess.
2 questions in your post. who was most guilty. answer the one who committed murder. he brought the most dishonor to the family by far. when he committed murder he lost any sense of honor. question why did he kill the woman not the son. bek she was seen as responsible for involving and controlling the man to go against the family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
murder is wrong and if some "ethnicity" thinks it's OK then they're wrong...very simple and not as complicated as you make it sound.
