Sri Lankan woman faces beheading on witchcraft charge (in Saudi Arabia) (Buddhist, Muslim)

[Oleg Bach]

Any rulers that understand that their is no such thing as magic or witchcraft- yet they do not educate their people to that fact are in fact practicing a type of witchcraft themselves..just pure evil to divide and conquer your own nation through ignorance..yet we send them oil money-- gotta get rid of these so called princes---cut them off and imporverish them them...how can you respect an elite who abandon their Mercedes on a desert highway because some one spilled a coffee on the seat?

[squall-lionheart]

orogenicman
Someone else could have told her. There are rumour mills in every family. And unless you are a psychiatrist, you cannot say what her state of mind was. I suggested that she was depressed and despondant because her behavior as described by you suggests that she was.

Maby you were there not me !!!

My purpose was to highlight the plight of women who are victimized by stupid laws based on superstition and mythology.

Ooooh ...
You are a wonderful sensitive human being
Just out of curiosity
Is that magnificent sensitivity comprehensive or is it limted to specific race and religion ?

What about the little girl ?

Erm, what?

Nothing !!!
She is at a mental hospital but of course you couldn't care less !!!
There is no scandal here and that is all what you care about .

So it's guilty until proven innocent, is it? How friggin stupid is that???

The answer is No ...
Thus there is no need to comment on the second part of your qestion !!

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by squall-lionheart

Maby you were there not me !!!

Why would I have to be there? Depression and anxiety have definite symptoms.

Ooooh ...

You are a wonderful sensitive human being
Just out of curiosity
Is that magnificent sensitivity comprehensive or is it limted to specific race and religion ?

If you are asking me if I am sensitive towards people who write and enforce stupid laws based on 13th century mythology, the answer is no, not much.

Nothing !!!

She is at a mental hospital but of course you couldn't care less !!! There is no scandal here and that is all what you care about .

I'm sorry that she is having problems; a mental hospital is probably where she needs to be right now.

I believe the scandal here is that you appear to take every post here personally but have no problems at all with people being tried and beheaded for witchcraft.

The answer is No ...
Thus there is no need to comment on the second part of your qestion !![/quote]

And yet you seemed to be saying that as long as she can prove herself to be innocent, she has nothing to worry about. That would be the very definition of "guilty until proven innocent".

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by orogenicman

Fortunately, the laws of most western countries do agree with regard to superstitions such as witchcraft. And I think it is hi time that all countries put an end to the codifying superstitions as criminal offenses.

or codifying superstitions with special status or protections.

[truth_teller]

Originally Posted by orogenicman

My purpose was to highlight the plight of women who are victimized by stupid laws based on superstition and mythology.

What is the current confirmed status of the Sri Lankan woman?

[orogenicman]

The most recent report I've found online from a day ago adds nothing new to her case.

[squall-lionheart]

orogenicman
Why would I have to be there? Depression and anxiety have definite symptoms.

From what I know ...
She didn't have a clue about the threat...
But you said she does so maybe you were there not me !!!

If you are asking me if I am sensitive towards people who write and enforce stupid laws based on 13th century mythology, the answer is no, not much.

That was not my question !!!
Is that magnificent sensitivity comprehensive or is it limted to specific race and religion ?
^^^
That was my question .

I'm sorry that she is having problems; a mental hospital is probably where she needs to be right now.

I believe the scandal here is that you appear to take every post here personally but have no problems at all with people being tried and beheaded for witchcraft.

No ..
The real scandal is when you only post against certain religion and race !!
It calles " prior bad intentions" !!!
This in turn makes the credibility questioned !!
Why don't you post a topic about racism in American society which caused the killing of a Muslim woman at her home ?!!
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2012/...ia-hate-crime/
Why don't you post about that ?
Maybe your conscience & humanity disappear when it comes to stories like the above!!
All I ask from you is to be fair and equitable .
When you do that then I am willing to accept that kind of topics from you .

And yet you seemed to be saying that as long as she can prove herself to be innocent, she has nothing to worry about. That would be the very definition of "guilty until proven innocent".

The police may not arrest upon mere suspicion but only on 'probable cause .
It is something that done all over the world .
OK ?
Now the Point of contention is the type of the crime ...
We believe in wishcraft you don't ..
We have some clear cases to prove it you don't .
Don't judge on something you do not believe in or even understand .

The most recent report I've found online from a day ago adds nothing new to her case.

And do not expect from them to adds anything new unless there is something scandalous about it ... that's all what matters !!
These kind of stories (Topics) actually feeds more hatred towards Muslims .
That is the only purpose of posting them ...
They don't give a about the women or the girl !!
You too ...

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I think one of the main issues in such discourse is that so many people want / need morality to be some kind of external thing which we can discover objectively and definitively find things to be "right" or "wrong". When they think something is "wrong" they very much want that to be more than just their own opinion. They want it to actually BE wrong. People go to great length... including inventing gods who almost always just happen to hold the same moral code as they do... in order to achieve it.

Yet despite this need I have yet to see a single shred of any evidence for such an external morality. Essentially morality appears to be just as subjective as ones taste in food.

Obviously taste in food is constrained by aspects of the human condition however. The vast majority of us respond positively to sweet things and so sugar water beverages from Fanta to Coca Cola are massively popular because their attributes are such that aspects of the human condition positively bias us towards liking them. Contrast that to Brussel Sprouts however where opinion on their status as a delicacy is massively divided. So while taste in food is subjective... it is not subjective to the point of being entirely baseless and random either. We get a continuum with mass consensus on some food stuffs and entirely divergent opinion on others.

Morality is much the same. There are aspects of the human condition that lead us to mass consensus on many moral issues. Few of us want our loved ones harmed or killed and therefore our morality reflects this with mass consensus as we call violence and murder "wrong". Yet not all morality tends towards mass consensus... especially when the moral position in question is not so constrained by the human condition. One need only look at how divided opinions on homosexuality and abortion are to see the Brussel Sprouts in that analogy. Again it is a continuum.

So who essentially should be deciding what is right and wrong? We all should be... democratically and together as a species. Morality is... after all... for the most part related to how we as people live and act with other people. If much of morality is essentially related to each other then "each other" will always be the best resource we have for answering moral questions. Just like in a relationship there is no "right" way to be. The couple itself decide how their relationship will work. Society is just like a relationship in this regard. We need to decide together how the relationship will work.

I doubt a "perfect" standard will ever be achieved no matter how enlightened our species becomes but we can at least hope that we will continue a trend towards such a standard.... and I imagine executing people for displaying powers no one actually has.... condemning two hearts for loving each other simply because those two hearts send blood to the same sexual organ type.... jailing people for blasphemy... or watching ones own beloved children die from easy to treat illnesses because such treatments are an affront to god.... or selling "treatments" to people at high prices that are essentially just water and nothing else.... are all not likely to be in it.

I wrote more on this here if you are interested.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply and the link (I shall have to check it out)! Your suggestion that morality be determined by a democratic means, essentially, has much to reccomend itself. But I wonder, if majority opinion is always the best way to go? It has resulted in some pretty abhorent ways of thinking and acting in the past (just ask any group holding some sort of minority view). It's this unfortunate outcome of democratic thinking that makes that "perfect standard" you mention, of complete consensus morality, a difficult endeavor, and a changing one, as the hearts and minds of people change.

It would be nice if a democratic view could be reached by complete and utter agreement, rather than as the idea of the many verses the few - if the entire world could reach a consensus agreement on morality, then I might favor the idea of a "democratic" morality more highly.

Am I misreading your suggestion, and taking it the wrong way?
Perhaps I'm too jaded by what majority opinion has produced in the past heh heh! Perhaps we still need some guiding principle to shape and manuever such an idea of group morality?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is a minimum standard that relies on the universal human desire to avoid being harmed. John Stuart Mill ensconced it in his "harm principle" . . . but it has deeper roots in the Pagan rede ""An it harm none, do as ye will" (ironically part of the practice of witchcraft). Whatever else we might find to argue about or dispute . . . this minimum standard must be honored (and enforced if possible). Cultural ignorance, superstition and barbarity are no excuse in a civilized world. As a corollary, the harm must be real . . . not imagined . . . and the cause must be substantiated.

Thanks for the reply, Mystic - at last we have a definite answer concerning a reasoned principle for morality. Perhaps it can be used in conjunction with Nozzferrahhtoo's post above, and my reservations about it?

Ha ha - it is ironic that your principle is found in Wicca, given the subject of this thread. It is also found, if I remember correctly, in Lavey's humanism-dressed-in-the-garb-of-religion-and-ritual Satanic Bible.

So we have a principle, as given by Mill, and found in previous ethical codes (as you pointed out) - would it be safe to call it a form of the "Golden Rule"? Or IS it basically the "Golden Rule" rephrased?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Your suggestion that morality be determined by a democratic means, essentially, has much to reccomend itself. But I wonder, if majority opinion is always the best way to go?

As I said we will never find a "perfect" solution... despite the theists among us who want to declare their god based one "perfect" by definition.

So no I do not think any one thing will "always be the best way to go". We can only do the best thing we can do... to put it crassly and even majority opinion on some things will probably end up being the bad choice.

I would hope however that such situations would be exceedingly rare, especially if those forming such opinions were doing it in a realistic and informed manner. Alas we live in a world where people invent gods, afterlives, ghosts and pseudo science so the ideal of the informed opinion really is just an ideal on paper, not in reality.

Some checks and balances can always be built into such a system to try and avoid some of the bad effects. For example opinion, majority or otherwise, should be irrelevant in cases where no one is actually affected. Take homosexuality for example. Even if 98% of people wanted it illegal I would still be quick to point out that what two consenting adults do alone in a bedroom in a way that affects no one else should not be subject to anyones opinion or law, let alone the majority one.

The link I gave which you did not yet read also espouses some thoughts on what I jokingly call "A socio democratic application of the golden rule".

At this juncture I would also heartily recommend the recent talks... of which there are many... by Sam Harris on the role he feels Science can play in constructing the continuum on which we can move when considering Ethical Dilemas. While he is not saying that science can tell us what is right and wrong per se, he says much about how science can help form the "Moral Landscape" in which we can make such moves.

The analogy he uses is that science is like the rules of Chess. The rules of chess do not tell YOU how to play but it places constraints on how you can play. The rules also dictate "rules of thumb" such as "It is good never to lose your Queen" but also admit of exceptions to those rules to the point not only is losing your Queen sometimes a good move, it is sometimes actually a GREAT move.

In other words Science does not tell us what is "right" and "wrong" but when moving around the board of right or wrong it can help dictate how those moves can be made and give us rules of thumb on when some moral choices are usually bad but admit of exceptions and more.

Massively interesting stuff in my opinion. Example link to one of those talks here which I recommend but if you find time is limited... and only if you find it limited... there is a condensed version of his talk here but it is short and misses some of the better arguments and analogies that he employs. There are 5 or 6 other version of the same talk given in different locations too.

So yes, to answer your question in short, such a system is not perfect, but none are and it will not always get it right and of course some checks and balances can be created to constrain such negative effects.

At the end of the day however it still remains a system where if we as people want to live together then it is we as people that have to work out together how best to do it.

What many people, and there are tones of this in your own post, seem to want is a "perfect" system but I regret to say that I doubt any such thing has been or ever will be suggested.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by squall-lionheart

From what I know ...
She didn't have a clue about the threat...
But you said she does so maybe you were there not me !!!

I doubt that she didn't find out.

That was not my question !!!

Is that magnificent sensitivity comprehensive or is it limted to specific race and religion ?
^^^
That was my question .

I don't respond to stupid questions. Now you know.

No ..

The real scandal is when you only post against certain religion and race !!
It calles " prior bad intentions" !!!

If any race or religion condones beheadings for any reason, but particularly as an attack on women in order to support 13th century mythology, then yes I will oppose it. Don't like it? Sue me.

This in turn makes the credibility questioned !!

Why don't you post a topic about racism in American society which caused the killing of a Muslim woman at her home ?!!
Muslim Woman Brutally Murdered in California Hate Crime | IMAGINE 2050

Because that case is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about a different case. I don't see where you posted a thread about that case, so have at it (in another thread).

All I ask from you is to be fair and equitable .

Alll I ask is that you post on topic. If you can't do that, then please leave the thread.

The police may not arrest upon mere suspicion but only on 'probable cause .

In Saudi Arabia? Not true.

It is something that done all over the world .

OK ?

Beheadings as a punishment for witchcraft (or any punishment at all for witchcraft) are not done all over the world. They are only done in a handful of very barbaric, podunk countries. And no it is not okay.

Now the Point of contention is the type of the crime ...

We believe in wishcraft you don't ..
We have some clear cases to prove it you don't .
Don't judge on something you do not believe in or even understand.

I suspect that I have far more understanding of it than you do. Whether you believe in it or not is not an excuse to treat other human beings like lambs to the slaughter. It is just another excuse for people to act like animals towards one another. Such heinous legal practices are a violation of international law.

And do not expect from them to

adds anything new u

nless there is something scandalous about it ... that's all what matters !!
These kind of stories (Topics) actually feeds more hatred towards Muslims .

I hate to break it to you, but not all Muslims act this way, and nowhere have I ever suggested that all Muslims do. This is a specific case about specific legal actions taken in a specific country. If it involved Catholics or Buddhists or any other group, I would respond with the same level of incredulity and indignation.