Mariwan Halabjayee flees fatwa

  • Thread starter Thread starter cestusdei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
pro_universal:
No, what I am doing is pointing out that, just as individual beliefs that you may find barbaric do not make the individuals who hold them entirely barbaric (you recognize this with Aquinas), individuals who do barbaric things should not stain an entire religion.

So, can we agree that the fact that there are bad people in Afghanistan doesn’t mean Islam is evil, and also, the fact that Islam permits capital punishment does not make Islam evil?
If what we are talking about is the opinions of a person (Aquinas) then that’s one thing.
If what we are talking about are the policies of a nation (Saudi Arabia, the Taliban government in Afghanistan) then that’s another thing.
And if what we are talking about is sanctioned, even commanded by a religion (Islam) then that’s yet ANOTHER thing, eh?

I’m not debating who or what is evil; I’m debating who or what is barbaric. Everything proceeds (hopefully) from less developed to more developed; from barbarianism towards civilization. On this scale a religion that permits hand amputations for theft is not, in my opinion, as far forwards on the progress towards civilization as one that forbids such punishments.
In a similar example, Elizabethan England had not only public beheadings, but public draw-and-quartering of criminals. These things are now forbidden in England. From my point of view England has, in this regard, progressed from barbarianism further towards civilization. Saudi Arabia needs to make the same progress in its punishment of criminals. Saudi Arabia gets the idea of hand amputation for theft from Sharia Law, ne-ce 'pas? So ultimately, a government based on Sharia Law is not going to be as far up the scale towards civlization and away from barbarianism unless it eschews punishments like hand amputation. .
 
40.png
Ella:
If what we are talking about is the opinions of a person (Aquinas) then that’s one thing.
If what we are talking about are the policies of a nation (Saudi Arabia, the Taliban government in Afghanistan) then that’s another thing.
And if what we are talking about is sanctioned, even commanded by a religion (Islam) then that’s yet ANOTHER thing, eh?

I’m not debating who or what is evil; I’m debating who or what is barbaric. Everything proceeds (hopefully) from less developed to more developed; from barbarianism towards civilization. On this scale a religion that permits hand amputations for theft is not, in my opinion, as far forwards on the progress towards civilization as one that forbids such punishments.
In a similar example, Elizabethan England had not only public beheadings, but public draw-and-quartering of criminals. These things are now forbidden in England. From my point of view England has, in this regard, progressed from barbarianism further towards civilization. Saudi Arabia needs to make the same progress in its punishment of criminals. Saudi Arabia gets the idea of hand amputation for theft from Sharia Law, ne-ce 'pas? So ultimately, a government based on Sharia Law is not going to be as far up the scale towards civlization and away from barbarianism unless it eschews punishments like hand amputation. .
Here’s the problem with this argument:

Aquinas certainly thought he was speaking based on the teachings of Christianity. The governments of his time certainly followed this rule…so there you have a Christian scholar, including the death penalty in a work on Christian theology, sitting on a continent where Christian governments executed people regularly.

Do you believe that the Church has eternal truth? If the truth is eternal, then the same argument you are making now against muslims could be made against the Church of Aquinas’s time…does that mean the Church used to be wrong, but now is okay?

A defender of Aquinas could easily say: “Aquinas was a greater Christian theologian than any alive today. By rejecting the death penalty for heretics, we reject the teachings of Jesus…”…and if it’s true that individuals and governments do get to speak for the whole religion, what answer will you have?
 
Some of my favorite saints also encouraged wars against heretics and Muslims. In fact the crusades involved some saints. Wow pro and I agree. Deus Vult.
 
40.png
cestusdei:
Some of my favorite saints also encouraged wars against heretics and Muslims. In fact the crusades involved some saints. Wow pro and I agree. Deus Vult.
We clearly do not. I do not understand why you continue to post in threads where it’s clear you don’t want to discuss anything.

There was a point there I’d sure be happy to discuss, if you’re willing to actually read what I posted.
 
I thought you were defending capital punishment. But maybe you were only when muslims inflict it. You are quick to condemn me. Why are you so quick to excuse beheadings? Or if you claim you don’t excuse them then go after the muslims here who say they are fine.
 
40.png
cestusdei:
I thought you were defending capital punishment. But maybe you were only when muslims inflict it. You are quick to condemn me. Why are you so quick to excuse beheadings? Or if you claim you don’t excuse them then go after the muslims here who say they are fine.
The only solution to your clear misunderstanding above is to reread my posts.

I have not once defended capital punishment, nor have I excused beheadings. What I have pointed out is that belief in capital punishment doesn’t make a person, country, or religion inherently evil. If it did, the Church and its greatest theologians in history would’ve been evil/barbaric for most of its lifespan. So, because I do not want people pointing to my Church and saying “see, it wasn’t always good…it supported evil, therefore it is evil”, I oppose doing the same thing to other faiths.
 
40.png
pro_universal:
Here’s the problem with this argument:

Aquinas certainly thought he was speaking based on the teachings of Christianity.
Hence the necessity of the Magiserium of the Catholic Church. A doctor of the church isn’t infallible, Pro. Nor do the writings of doctors of the church possess infallibility. I figured you’d know that seeing as you are Catholic.
40.png
pro_universal:
The governments of his time certainly followed this rule…so there you have a Christian scholar, including the death penalty in a work on Christian theology, sitting on a continent where Christian governments executed people regularly.
You’re forgetting the pesky fact that Sharia law clearly dictates capitol punishment and hand amputations as just things. If there is a point of view, school, or what ever the term is, in Islam about these things, that says that beheadings, hand amputations, firing squads, and other creative ways to publicly mutiliate or kill criminals are all wrong, then I’m willing to listen to it.
40.png
pro_universal:
Do you believe that the Church has eternal truth? If the truth is eternal, then the same argument you are making now against muslims could be made against the Church of Aquinas’s time…does that mean the Church used to be wrong, but now is okay?
I believe the Church has eternal truth entrusted to it by Christ and administered through the Sacraments. I believe the Church has been used as the justification of many sins over the centuries. The Church is made up of human beings, and we sin. But the barque of Peter is still floating because Jesus said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. I believe these things. Don’t you?
40.png
pro_universal:
A defender of Aquinas could easily say: “Aquinas was a greater Christian theologian than any alive today. By rejecting the death penalty for heretics, we reject the teachings of Jesus…”…and if it’s true that individuals and governments do get to speak for the whole religion, what answer will you have?
A defender of Aquinas can say anything he or she wants to. It don’t make it so, dude.

I am really surprised you would tend to argue in this direction since you are Catholic. Surely you understand that Aquinas is not the Magisterium and not infallible.

A more logical argument would be to point out that the Catholic Church does not forbid capitol punishment in all cases. I believe all capitol punishment is wrong, but this is my point of view, not the official view of the Church. But I do believe, as do many others in the Church, that there is a growing understanding in the Church that there is no justification for executing criminals. For me this is tied into Humanae Vitae and having grown up in the midst of the abortion ‘rights’ movement and its consequences.

Barbarians, Pro. People who chop off the hands of thieves and behead people in public are definitely on the barbarian side of that sliding scale.
 
40.png
Ella:
Hence the necessity of the Magiserium of the Catholic Church. A doctor of the church isn’t infallible, Pro. Nor do the writings of doctors of the church possess infallibility. I figured you’d know that seeing as you are Catholic.
Here is the crux of the argument. Yes, I agree the Church is infallible…however:

Councils of the Church have been wrong and barbaric

Popes have been wrong and taught barbaric things

Doctors of the Church have been wrong and taught barbaric things.

So, while the whole Church will prevail, it is most certainly the case that all the extensions of the Church are subject to human fallibility in one way or another. The only way to have a comprehensive teaching that deals with life is to admit the possibility that such teaching may, in significant ways, be in error.

In light of this, did you consider that you, Ella, might be wrong about capital punishment? I certainly don’t think we are…but then again, for most of the history of the Church, people who were as Catholic and as learned as we thought otherwise.

That possibility, that you are wrong and didn’t grasp the eternal truth at issue here, is why you should not be so quick to condemn other faiths for beliefs that have long histories in our own Church.
40.png
Ella:
You’re forgetting the pesky fact that Sharia law clearly dictates capitol punishment and hand amputations as just things. If there is a point of view, school, or what ever the term is, in Islam about these things, that says that beheadings, hand amputations, firing squads, and other creative ways to publicly mutiliate or kill criminals are all wrong, then I’m willing to listen to it.
I don’t know of any that will claim it is outright wrong to execute criminals, but certainly it is not required. There is no reason why Muslims cannot live and participate in a modern secular state that chooses not to execute people. Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, head of the Italian Muslim Association, has a good explanation of this. See: www.amislam.com.
40.png
Ella:
I believe the Church has eternal truth entrusted to it by Christ and administered through the Sacraments. I believe the Church has been used as the justification of many sins over the centuries. The Church is made up of human beings, and we sin. But the barque of Peter is still floating because Jesus said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. I believe these things. Don’t you?
Yes, I do, but certainly, believing that hell will not prevail against it does not require me to believe that it could never be the case that almost every single individual member of the Church has the eternal truth wrong in some significant way. If I were required to believe that, I’d have to make sense of a long series of councils banishing Jews, anathematizing heretics, and prescribing otherwise barbaric things by modern standards.
40.png
Ella:
Barbarians, Pro. People who chop off the hands of thieves and behead people in public are definitely on the barbarian side of that sliding scale.
Then certainly, most of our illustrious scholars of the Church are barbarians, as are most Popes, the participants in most Councils, and generally every last government that embraced the Catholic church throughout history.

If you’re prepared to admit we’re the product of 2000 years of barbarism, please feel free to label any religion today barbaric. Otherwise, the more humble and appropriate position is to recognize that we are fallible and make mistakes too, and to spend your time contending with our own small but vocal violence-prone members, including Priests and other “Christians” who advocate using nuclear weapons.
 
40.png
pro_universal:
Here is the crux of the argument. Yes, I agree the Church is infallible…however:

So, while the whole Church will prevail, it is most certainly the case that all the extensions of the Church are subject to human fallibility in one way or another.

In light of this, did you consider that you, Ella, might be wrong about capital punishment?

That possibility, that you are wrong and didn’t grasp the eternal truth at issue here, is why you should not be so quick to condemn other faiths for beliefs that have long histories in our own Church.
So maybe we are also wrong for believing Jews should not be massacred? At what point does one get the ‘right’ to condemn evil? After they’ve dug through history just to make sure their religion has never sinned in that regard?

I don’t agree, Pro. I could go into the Moral Law and moral relativism but that stuff deserves a thread of its own. I am operating here not as a Catholic looking at Islam - but as a modern person living in the United States in 2006 looking at the policy of chopping off hands and heads, often in public, for punishing criminals. I am concluding that those who do so or approve of doing so, are barbarians. I don’t care if they worship Zoroaster, L.Ron Hubbard, or Christ. If Islam condones these punishments, then it is barbaric, and if there are dissenting factions in Islam in these matters, then I’d say those dissenters are going up the scale away from barbarianism and towards civlization.
40.png
pro_universal:
I don’t know of any that will claim it is outright wrong to execute criminals, but certainly it is not required. There is no reason why Muslims cannot live and participate in a modern secular state that chooses not to execute people.
Well, great - as long as its understood that I am not interested in trading in a secular state for the sharia law. Some Muslims, particularly on here, seem to thing that’s a great idea. Well, @#$% that.
40.png
pro_universal:
Yes, I do, but certainly, believing that hell will not prevail against it does not require me to believe that it could never be the case that almost every single individual member of the Church has the eternal truth wrong in some significant way. If I were required to believe that, I’d have to make sense of a long series of councils banishing Jews, anathematizing heretics, and prescribing otherwise barbaric things by modern standards.
Yes, that’s why I’m all about those modern standards. I think Islam needs to grow up, frankly, and join the modern world. No more dhimmis, no more forbidding women the vote, no more forbidding women to drive. No public executions, no executions at all. No lopping off hands, heads, or other appendages. No enforcing women to veil.
40.png
pro_universal:
If you’re prepared to admit we’re the product of 2000 years of barbarism, please feel free to label any religion today barbaric. Otherwise, the more humble and appropriate position is to recognize that we are fallible and make mistakes too, and to spend your time contending with our own small but vocal violence-prone members, including Priests and other “Christians” who advocate using nuclear weapons.
OF COURSE we’re the product of 2000 years of barbarianism.
We still are barbarians in many ways! Look at the abortion advocates in this country!

As for Cest and nuclear weapons, he’s free to* say *(or rather, write) whatever he wants. But if he starts funding the flying of planes into buildings in my country, then I’ll worry about him.

Actions DO matter, Pro. I’ve not been impressed with the Muslims on here wiggling around the human rights issues in many Islamic countries. Only the poster ‘Muslim’ came out and said that the clerics calling for the death of Abdul Rahmen were sick freaks. And one thing about the dhimmitude. I still can’t believe you used the argument that the Jews preferred dhimmitude to Byzantine rule as a justification for it. I think dhimmitude sucks. Freedom of religion is one of the pillars of this country and I believe it should be a freedom all over the world. We’ve gotten our boots so mucked up in the quagmire of historical arguments that we forget the present - now - that these things are happening now -and they are wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top