Another honor killing.

[ogibillm]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Wrong, numskull. You have a Constitutional right to live. You don't have a Constitutional right to have a business serve you or provide you with birth control.

so we have a constitutional right to healthcare?

 

[FJO]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

So, if I kill someone with a gun, you would not object, because my rights are protected by the Second Amendment?

 

[FJO]

I am a simple man, so forgive me if I dare say that killing and honor are mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you are a savage, Muslim (pardon the redundancy) or otherwise.

 

[ogibillm]

another honor killing
Married Police Officers Charged With Killing Daughter’s Black Boyfriend

 

[Pogo]

I am a simple man, so forgive me if I dare say that killing and honor are mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you are a savage, Muslim (pardon the redundancy) or otherwise.

As we've already established here like 23 times, Islam forbids it. So do Sikhism, Hinduism and Christianism. That none of them succeed in eradicating the practice indicates the religious proscriptions are simply not strong enough to compete with culturally ingrained social-structure practices.

But yes, killing and honor are indeed mutually exclusive and the practice is indeed savage. But it also has the same relationship with Islam as it does with Christianism, Sikhism or Hinduism --- none.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Wrong, numskull. You have a Constitutional right to live. You don't have a Constitutional right to have a business serve you or provide you with birth control.

so we have a constitutional right to healthcare?

The right to live means you have a right not to be killed. It doesn't mean you can force someone else to pay your bills.

 

[FJO]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

Pfft, Islam isn't a religion to them, only Christianity is.

Islam is a hybrid political-cultural-legal system, disingenuously cloaked in the guise of religion... a warrior's creed... saturated with bloodlust and permissions to wage war and to commit violence against un-believers and those who breach the faith... and... unfortunately for its victims... its ancient practices are still all-too alive-and-well today.

Islam is a cancer - entirely incompatible with Western culture and ideals and spirituality, and should be rejected by its transplanted Western hosts like the disease that it is.

Islam picks up the cruel, savage, bloodthirsty, antiquated and barbarous tenets that Judaism and Christianity have left behind even before the murderous pedophile managed to turn them into a "religion" and revel in them to his black heart's content to the delight of his misguided followers.

How can a woman in her right mind EVER willingly be a Muslim? Well, maybe a mutilated clitoris. Or maybe with a brain bashed in. Or maybe under the delusion that she is partially sane.

 

[bripat9643]

I am a simple man, so forgive me if I dare say that killing and honor are mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you are a savage, Muslim (pardon the redundancy) or otherwise.

As we've already established here like 23 times, Islam forbids it. So do Sikhism, Hinduism and Christianism. That none of them succeed in eradicating the practice indicates the religious proscriptions are simply not strong enough to compete with culturally ingrained social-structure practices.

All that proves is that those other religions also endorse honor killings. It says nothing about culture. Your attempt to separate culture from Religion is laughable. As I have already pointed out, the two things are inseparable.

But yes, killing and honor are indeed mutually exclusive and the practice is indeed savage. But it also has the same relationship with Islam as it does with Christianism, Sikhism or Hinduism --- none.

ROFL! When was the last time a Christian practiced an honor killing? Oh yeah . . . . never.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

Pfft, Islam isn't a religion to them, only Christianity is.

Islam is a hybrid political-cultural-legal system, disingenuously cloaked in the guise of religion... a warrior's creed... saturated with bloodlust and permissions to wage war and to commit violence against un-believers and those who breach the faith... and... unfortunately for its victims... its ancient practices are still all-too alive-and-well today.

Islam is a cancer - entirely incompatible with Western culture and ideals and spirituality, and should be rejected by its transplanted Western hosts like the disease that it is.

Islam picks up the cruel, savage, bloodthirsty, antiquated and barbarous tenets that Judaism and Christianity have left behind even before the murderous pedophile managed to turn them into a "religion" and revel in them to his black heart's content to the delight of his misguided followers.

How can a woman in her right mind EVER willingly be a Muslim? Well, maybe a mutilated clitoris. Or maybe with a brain bashed in. Or maybe under the delusion that she is partially sane.

"Mutilated clitoris" is another ancient cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion. Like "honor killing" it's rooted in hyperpatriarchy and controlling women. In Mecca it's considered "pagan and barbaric".

And we've done all this before too, while you were going

 

[FJO]

Okay so, constitutionally speaking, according to some of you RW'ers,

1. You can't kill someone even though you claim it's a part of your religion, but,

2. you can refuse service to a gay person or a black person, etc., by claiming it's part of your religion.

So, violating the rights of others can be legal by invoking one's religious freedom, but only in some cases.

The question is, how much violation of another person's rights is too much, when you're playing your religious rights special privilege card?

What SHOULD BE unconstitutional is that I have to serve everyone in my business, the business that I built, run and maintain.
It is the constitutional right of everyone to find alternate accommodation if unsatisfied with current one or not accommodated by it. It takes a miserable jerk to make this an issue. There are ALWAYS others who would be happy to have your business. If I can refuse service to a person with no shirt, shoes or pants, does it matter if he is white, black, yellow or purple? And if you think of it, why can't my perfectly clean and house trained dog can't sit next to me on the floor, you know, on the same floor that some drunk liberal is liable to puke on after a small mild alcoholic beverage?

BTW, remind me when was the last time you read, seen, heard of an honor killing done by a Methodist? Catholic? Hindu? Mormon? Buddhist? Even bloody atheist like you? No, you know fully well it is the exclusive purview of your and Obama's beloved Muslims who have not had the brains to change in the last 1000 years..

 

[Pogo]

I am a simple man, so forgive me if I dare say that killing and honor are mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you are a savage, Muslim (pardon the redundancy) or otherwise.

As we've already established here like 23 times, Islam forbids it. So do Sikhism, Hinduism and Christianism. That none of them succeed in eradicating the practice indicates the religious proscriptions are simply not strong enough to compete with culturally ingrained social-structure practices.

All that proves is that those other religions also endorse honor killings. It says nothing about culture. Your attempt to separate culture from Religion is laughable. As I have already pointed out, the two things are inseparable.

Yyyyyeah umm... the word "forbid" actually doesn't mean "endorse". It means the opposite.
Obviously if the two were "inseperable" they would have to agree on the practice of "honor killing". And as already documented, none of them do, whether Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or other. In short, every time an honor killing is perpetrated by somebody who claims to be an adherent of one of the said religions, he does so in spite of, and in opposition to, that religion's edict.

But yes, killing and honor are indeed mutually exclusive and the practice is indeed savage. But it also has the same relationship with Islam as it does with Christianism, Sikhism or Hinduism --- none.

ROFL! When was the last time a Christian practiced an honor killing? Oh yeah . . . . never.

There's an entry just posted above, post 84. Is that guy a Chrisitian? I don't know. It's still irrelevant.
As I just said -- the relationship between them is "none".

You do understand "none" do you not?

Why did Italy have a law on the books about it as late as the 1980s? What do you suppose the predominant religion in Italy is? Shinto?

 

[bripat9643]

I am a simple man, so forgive me if I dare say that killing and honor are mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you are a savage, Muslim (pardon the redundancy) or otherwise.

As we've already established here like 23 times, Islam forbids it. So do Sikhism, Hinduism and Christianism. That none of them succeed in eradicating the practice indicates the religious proscriptions are simply not strong enough to compete with culturally ingrained social-structure practices.

All that proves is that those other religions also endorse honor killings. It says nothing about culture. Your attempt to separate culture from Religion is laughable. As I have already pointed out, the two things are inseparable.

Yyyyyeah umm... the word "forbid" actually doesn't mean "endorse". It means the opposite.
Obviously if the two were "inseperable" they would have to agree on the practice of "honor killing". And as already documented, none of them do, whether Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or other. In short, every time an honor killing is perpetrated by somebody who claims to be an adherent of one of the said religions, he does so in spite of, and in opposition to, that religion's edict.

ROFL! Show us where Muslim clerics have said Islam forbids honor killings.

They do agree on the practice of honor killing. Any disagreement, especially in India is fairly recent and only came about because of civlizing influence of the British occupation.

But yes, killing and honor are indeed mutually exclusive and the practice is indeed savage. But it also has the same relationship with Islam as it does with Christianism, Sikhism or Hinduism --- none.

ROFL! When was the last time a Christian practiced an honor killing? Oh yeah . . . . never.

There's an entry just posted above, post 84. Is that guy a Chrisitian? I don't know. It's still irrelevant.
As I just said -- the relationship between them is "none".

You do understand "none" do you not?

Why did Italy have a law on the books about it as late as the 1980s? What do you suppose the predominant religion in Italy is? Shinto?

Post #84 doesn't refer to an honor killing. It's just another ordinary murder among family members. The article doesn't even mention a motive. It's only the leftwing media that wants to paint this incident as an "honor killing."

 

[Pogo]

Okay so, constitutionally speaking, according to some of you RW'ers,

1. You can't kill someone even though you claim it's a part of your religion, but,

2. you can refuse service to a gay person or a black person, etc., by claiming it's part of your religion.

So, violating the rights of others can be legal by invoking one's religious freedom, but only in some cases.

The question is, how much violation of another person's rights is too much, when you're playing your religious rights special privilege card?

What SHOULD BE unconstitutional is that I have to serve everyone in my business, the business that I built, run and maintain.
It is the constitutional right of everyone to find alternate accommodation if unsatisfied with current one or not accommodated by it. It takes a miserable jerk to make this an issue. There are ALWAYS others who would be happy to have your business. If I can refuse service to a person with no shirt, shoes or pants, does it matter if he is white, black, yellow or purple? And if you think of it, why can't my perfectly clean and house trained dog can't sit next to me on the floor, you know, on the same floor that some drunk liberal is liable to puke on after a small mild alcoholic beverage?

BTW, remind me when was the last time you read, seen, heard of an honor killing done by a Methodist? Catholic? Hindu? Mormon? Buddhist? Even bloody atheist like you? No, you know fully well it is the exclusive purview of your and Obama's beloved Muslims who have not had the brains to change in the last 1000 years..

What size rock do you live under to remain this degree of Ignorant?

>> An Indian couple was lynched and set on fire in the eastern state of Bihar in a suspected case of “honor killing” on Wednesday, according to local media reports. A case has been registered by the local police against six people, of whom one has been arrested so far.

A 36-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl reportedly eloped three days ago from a village in Bihar’s Gaya district, but were located by the girl’s family and brought back to the village of Amaitha, about 65 miles south of the state’s capital Patna. The village council had held a meeting to resolve the issue, but the girl’s family refused to settle the situation and killed the couple, BBC reported. << --- IBTimes​

There's no reference in the article to anyone's religion -- just as there's no reference to anyone's astrological sign or who might be lefthanded -- as these are not a factor in the act. However it does go into what IS a factor:

>> Honor killings, which are typically the result of two young people marrying without the consent of their families and often across caste barriers -- hence bringing "dishonor" on the family -- are widespread in India, among all ethnic groups and religions, but especially in rural regions of the north and northwest.

In 2011, India's Supreme Court warned that those who kill for "honor" should face death penalty. <<
​

"Family". "Caste". "Social status". NONE of these are aspects of religion, whether Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian or anything else. These are social status matters, which is exactly what we've been noting all along. It is simply NOT RELATED TO RELIGION, and to suggest it is comprises a fatal Cum Hoc fallacy. Nor have any of you bigots presented one shred of evidence that the religion created it. ANY of them.

It was used in the fucking Roman Empire fer Chrissake, and they didn't invent it either.


Then there's ...

>> According to statistics from the United Nations, one in five cases of honour killing internationally every year comes from India. Of the 5000 cases reported internationally, 1000 are from India. Non-governmental organisations put the number at four times this figure. They claim it is around 20,000 cases globally every year.

While traditionally occuring in villages and smaller towns in India, the cases of 'honour killing' have been on the rise and are reported sporadically in the media. The double murder of a 14-year-old school girl and a 50-year-old domestic help in a New Delhi suburb with its 'honour killing' sub text has received unprecedented attention, and is perhaps urban India's most hyped alleged 'honour killing'.

Although the Talwars, the parents of the girl, were charged with the murders of their daughter, Aarushi and their domestic help, Hemraj, the 'motive' for the murders has always been attributed to 'honour killing'. Special CBI Judge Shyam Lal, while convicting the parents earlier this week, said that the dentist couple had found their daughter and the help in an "objectionable position".
...
Cases piling up

Some gruesome cases that have been reported in the media in recent times from different regions in the country include that of 23 year old Dharmender Barak and 18 year old Nidhi Barak, who paid a heavy price for defying their families and falling in love.

The couple, from a village in Rohtak district in Harayana, were tortured, mutilated and killed by the girl’s father and their relatives when they tried to run away and marry. A friend whom the couple had confided in, leaked their plans to the girl’s parents, who lured them back with assurances, only to allegedly kill them in the most cruel manner. The police is treating the ‘double murder’ as a ‘honour crime’.

In September 2013, the Haryana police arrested a police sub-inspector in connection with the killing of a 19 year old girl from Panipat. Meenakshi had eloped with her lover and the cop had tracked her down and handed her over to her family, who then allegedly murdered her.

On October 24, 2013, in another case from Haryana, a 15 year old Muslim girl from Muzzafarnagar was banished to her uncle’s house to prevent her from seeing the boy she was in love with. Her uncle allegedly murdered her and buried her in Panchkula District in Haryana.

... In July 2013, Arun Bandu Irkal from Yerwada in Maharashtra was served with a life sentence by a sessions judge. In 2002, the accused had reportedly assaulted his 17 year old daughter, Yashodha, 48 times with a pair of scissors for having an affair with a boy from another caste. She did not survive the attack.

The accused surrendered, then fled bail and was finally re-arrested in 2011. The court convicted him for murdering his daughter this year. The court said ‘honour’ was the motive behind the murder.

On November 1, 2013, in Bhopal, a lower court announced a life term for 10 men in a case of 'honour killing'. The men were accused of killing Amar Singh, the elder brother of Sawar Singh who had allegedly eloped with Hema, the wife of Balbir Singh, one of the accused men.

....
Voices have also been raised to reign in the 'khap panchayats', self-elected village councils comprising male village elders who perpetuate values that, in turn, covertly endorse these killings in the name of saving the 'family's honour'.

Like the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the khaps have attained notoriety by issuing diktats on dress code for women and demanding a ban on the use of cell phones by young girls and women.

In rural India and middle class urban India, the onus for upholding the family morality falls on the women in the family - the daughter, daughter-in-law, wife and mother. By daring to choose a life partner, other than the one chosen for her by her family or by committing adultery, she violates the family’s honour. Both she and her lover face death as a consequence.

Recently, a group of khap panchayats filed a document before the country’s highest court saying they had been wrongly charged for encouraging honour killings in rural India. Earlier, a women’s rights group, Shakti Vahini, had petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the government to be more proactive when ‘honour killings’ are carried out.

They blamed the khap panchayats for endorsing patriarchy, which reinforced the subjugation of women in society and the resultant ‘honour killings’.

Retribution for bringing shame

The court summoned 67 representatives of the khap panchayats to explain their role in ‘honour killings’. They did that in a written reply, saying it is not they who are responsible for such killings but the families who fail to prevent their daughters and sisters and wives from interacting with men, which results in shame and ostracisation by the community.

They argued that women who feared their male relatives never committed such acts and therefore never had to face such consequences. In short, the khap panchayat representatives overtly defended ‘honour killings’.

According to UN statistics, the United Kingdom has 12 cases of honour killings every year, the majority of them from the Asian and west Asian diaspora. Will countries abroad have to also legislate on 'honour killing' if South Asian men and those from west Asia carry their patriarchy to foreign shores and murder women who break the so-called ‘cultural norms’?
....
'Cancer of patriachy'

Banaz’s Iraqi Kurd father and relatives felt she had brought shame to her family and community by leaving her husband who was abusive and an alleged rapist. Banaz had fallen in love with another man and had to pay with her life for that. She was raped, strangled to death and her body was put in a suitcase.

.... Recently a case was reported where, after a long battle with the Australian Immigration and Refugee Authorities, a couple, a Sikh and a backward caste Hindu who had married secretly in India in 2007, were granted asylum in the country. The couple had said their lives would be in danger if they had to return to India as they feared ‘honour killing’ for having defied the caste system.

Even as the dust settles on the verdict of the Talwars in Delhi, it will be a while before Indian society really begins to digest the cancer of patriarchy manifested through ‘honour killings’. Like all social evils, unless society shuns these practices, the police and judiciary alone cannot save women who want to break free from arranged and abusive marriages. --- Honor Killings: India's Crying Shame
​

Now then Gummo.... exactly how many of these cases even make a reference to religion? I make it three: one Hindu, one Muslim, one Sikh, all three of which are mentioned as incidental adjectives. In how many of those does religion play any role at all in the act? ZERO. How many of the motivations -- which I put in bold for you slow readers -- have any kind of religious basis at all, from any religion at all? ZERO.

On the other hand --- how many references do we see to family and social "caste" status, control of women, patriarchy, and activism against it by women's groups -- you'll note, not religious groups but women's groups? Every damn one of them.

Still want to go on with this abject ignoramitude?


In case you misplaced your script, your line here is
-- but I'm sure you have it memorized by now.

 

[Clementine]

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

People shouldn't be forced to act against their religion. On the other hand, they cannot act in a way that breaks the laws.

People having to cater or photograph weddings is forcing them to act against their beliefs. Killing people is clearly in violation of our laws.

While laws need to be upheld, it should never include forcing people to serve others if they don't want to.