The Syrian rebels have continued their crusade to bring Islamic law to rural areas of that country. In the latest atrocity, a Syrian spokesman narrated an amputation of a hand by a man that the rebels said asked to punished for theft “in order to cleanse his sins.” In the twisted mind of these extremists, the video was supposed to show the purity and righteousness of Islam as a sword is used to sever the hand of the man.
The blind-folded thief required four hits to do the job and the rebels then rejoiced as his severed hand and bloodied arm lay across the table.
The rebels then posted the video. Twitter took the video down after the posting from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). You may recall the rebels as the scary clowns who cut off the head of a wounded captured soldier and then danced around with it in celebration until someone mentioned that he had one of their own soldiers.
Other rebel groups have declared war on ISIS (and Al Qaeda has disassociated itself from the group). Yet, young Islamic fighters still find scenes like this to be an a true expression of morality.
Then there is the question of the “voluntary” amputation. One would think that such a religious epiphany would precede the theft. This particular religious epiphany seemed to happen after the ASIS captured the man.
Source: Washington Post
Anonymously Yours
It’s the culture they live in…. Shame…. And now he has to eat with the same hand he wipes…..
===============
Like the Jewish comedienne said to Jimmy Fallon on the opening of this new Late Night gig, “remember to wipe from front to back.”
have fun. do you start with the pilgrims or just the early 19th century or something else?
It is an interesting subject or so it seems from my perspective. Is there a particular area you are investigating?
Bron,
I have to finish a 20,000 word essay by next Wednesday concerning the immigration history of this country, so I really can’t contribute much more to this thread.
Peace.
Bron,
And does this “philosophical tone” between the DOI and the Constitution bridge the gap of, “all men are created equal . . . ,” with the 3/5’s value of the human chattel owned by the slavers?
The law in this country starts with the Constitution, it is a simple fact.
gbk:
how can it have no impact on our laws? The DOI is, in my opinion, one of if not the most important document of our founding. It sets the philosophical “tone” for our society and the interaction of government and law with individuals.
Certainly it isnt law but it is the philosophical basis of our country.
Bron,
You can disagree all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that the DOI does not constitute the beginnings of the law in this country, the Constitution does.
Take an intoductory law class; this is discussed very quickly. To say the DOI has no “informing” impact would be misleading, but the law starts with the Constitution, not the DOI.
gbk:
I disagree, in my opinion the DOI is to inform the Constitution. The Constitution is just a guide for doing the work of government. You can interpret it any way you please, as has been shown for many years now. But if it is taken along with the DOI there is only one way to interpret it, through a lens of individual rights and political freedom and economic freedom.
Davidm2575,
“I pointed out before how it [the constitution] mentions the Lord at the end of the document. It also makes exception for the Christian holy day. Most importantly, it dates itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, showing the DOI to be its founding document.”
The reference to “Lord” is in dating. The DOI has no impact on law.
At no place in the Constitution is your god mentioned. End of subject.
As I pointed out to you previously, article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (passed unanimously by Congress) quite clearly states “…As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
“There are a lot of believers in charge in Congress, and some believers even serve in the highest court we have: the U.S. Supreme Court.”
That’s precisely why “….the anti-theistic concepts are quickly eroding and destroying these liberties by mandating a godless society upon all of us….”
And the sooner the better.
“President Barack Obama and he has firmly stated that he is a believer….”
I never suggested believers cannot or should not hold political office. That’s the kind of thing theists promote. In fact even after the signing of the Constitution some states in New England both required that office holders be members of a certain Christian sect and forbade members of other Christian sects as well as non-Christians from holding office. I said they shouldn’t be trying to infect the general public and our laws with their private beliefs. That’s what houses of worship are for; not the houses of government. Religious views have NO place in the discussion of same-sex marriage or abortion for instance.
“…This is the same concept expressed by Marxists and communists….”
………and capitalists and the US Constitution.
rcampbell wrote: “At no place in the Constitution is your god mentioned. End of subject.”
You keep sticking your head in the sand on this. I pointed out before how it mentions the Lord at the end of the document. It also makes exception for the Christian holy day. Most importantly, it dates itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, showing the DOI to be its founding document. That document clearly mentions a Creator, God, and makes an appeal to God as Providence.
rcampbell wrote: “As I pointed out to you previously, article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (passed unanimously by Congress) quite clearly states “…As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
And I pointed out to you previously the context of this phrase and the dubious value it holds for what you are trying to make it say. Nevertheless, my case is not that our nation was founded on the Christian religion (though many do make a case for such), but rather founded upon an acknowledgement of God. Christians might make the case that it is their God, and Jews might make the case that it is their God, and some people might claim it is the same God.
rcampbell wrote: “Religious views have NO place in the discussion of same-sex marriage or abortion for instance.”
Why not? Religion makes arguments about a wide range of issues. What gives you the right to censor religious arguments for subjects like marriage and abortion? The whole point of separating church and state is to allow church to use the art of persuasion without threats of discrimination and fines and imprisonment. You have to be more clear about why you think it is correct to discriminate against religious views.
The U.S. Constitution argues the opposite of your position. Please read the First Amendment, where it says Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Freedom of religion and the press is paramount. Free speech is paramount. You can’t have free speech if you have your way and discriminate against religious speech. You have to completely rewrite the Constitution to get your way.
davidm
The enslavement and/or annihilation of native Arawaks, Caribs, Aztecs, etc. in the “New World” does not fit your better Christians theory. Nor does the brutality and barbarism of Inquisition.
I do strongly endorse ridding our government of all vestiges of the destructive influences of religion. Our country is one nation under the US Constitution. We do not trust our nation’s future to any gods. We are self-governing and we trust only in man’s intellect and the rule of law.
I do not, however, suggest a godless society. That is a founding principle of our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation. I have no problem with people believing in their unicorns as long as the believers keep their unicorns inside their respective stables (church, synagogue, mosque, etc.) and quit trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us or trying to cull out separate rules just for themselves. Believers are NOT in charge of America.
rcampbell wrote: “I do strongly endorse ridding our government of all vestiges of the destructive influences of religion. Our country is one nation under the US Constitution. We do not trust our nation’s future to any gods. We are self-governing and we trust only in man’s intellect and the rule of law.”
I understand that this is your perspective, but your idea is a novel one for our country. It has been put into practice by the atheist state of North Korea, and also in the Soviet Union under Lenin, and in China under Mao Zedong, but it was not the perspective of our founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson.
Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that we trust only in man’s intellect and the rule of law. Rather, the Constitution refers us to the founding document of the Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence, we find a very clear foundation of our country being established under God. The entire basis for our founding is based upon individuals being created equal, with rights given not by any Constitution, but rights given to us by our Creator. For anyone to argue that we are not a nation founded under God, they are violating the rule of law established by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
rcampbell wrote: “I have no problem with people believing in their unicorns as long as the believers keep their unicorns inside their respective stables (church, synagogue, mosque, etc.) and quit trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us or trying to cull out separate rules just for themselves.”
Yes, I understand. This is the same concept expressed by Marxists and communists. We have seen the sad fruit of countries which attempted to establish themselves upon these bad principles of government.
rcampbell wrote: “Believers are NOT in charge of America.”
Sorry to break this to you, but the top guy in charge? His name is President Barack Obama and he has firmly stated that he is a believer. I think you would have a hard time arguing that he is not in charge of America. There are a lot of believers in charge in Congress, and some believers even serve in the highest court we have: the U.S. Supreme Court.
Apparently your belief that “believers are not in charge of America” is about as fanciful as believing in unicorns. By your own edict, perhaps you should keep this belief to yourself and not force it upon the rest of us. 🙂
david
you have it backwards. The theists are the ones who started those wars. The better Christians didn’t win out, the immense loss of men and money stopped the Christians from attacking the Muslims. The separation of church and state was not a theistic idea. It was necessary to prevent theists who controlled both their religion and the government from making their religion the “national” religion. I am not buying your claim that anti-theistic concepts are quickly eroding our liberties. It is the fundamentalist Christians that are trying to bring their religious beliefs into the government.
rafflaw wrote: “The better Christians didn’t win out, the immense loss of men and money stopped the Christians from attacking the Muslims.”
You are confusing the earlier Crusades with the subject rcampbell brought up. rcampbell spoke of “The religious civil wars and persecutions in England, the Spanish Inquisition…”. Read some history to understand the Christian conflict at that time. There was much written at that time about how the corruption in Christianity happened when Constantine embraced Christianity. Remember that England separated from the Catholics and established their own national religion because King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife Catherine which the Catholic church was not allowing. At this time certain Christians embraced a theology of the Divine Right of Kings, with many Christians like John Locke opposing the doctrine. The teaching prevalent at the time was that the church itself had no power in these inquisitions except to declare someone a heretic. It took the secular power of government to lead from this condemnation of heresy to execution, such as burning someone at the stake.
The Christian philosophers articulated much about separating the civil authority from the religious authority. The idea of separating institutions dealing with opinions (religion, philosophy, education) from institutions dealing with punishment of crimes (government) influenced our founding fathers to design a government with a separation of church and state powers. This separation of powers was entirely a Christian idea born out of Christians being burned at the stake by the Catholic inquisitions. Many of the ones who fled to America were fleeing this type of religious persecution. They were themselves ardent advocates of the Christian religion. These were not atheists or secularists. Notably, I know of no atheists or secularists who died for their philosophy of separating church and state at the time. I know of none who even advocated for separation of church and state. Do you?
I don’t have time right now to search out links for you, but if you take time to read George Foxe’s historical work (Actes and Monuments or Foxe’s Book of Martyrs) published in the mid 1500’s, you will see time and again this perspective of separation of church and state. This was from the perspective of those sympathetic toward the many Christians being killed for their faith. The inquisition had to turn the guilty over to the secular powers in order to carry out their executions. It was government, not the church, who did the executions. It was the unholy alliance between church and state that led to these atrocities. John Locke wrote much about this concept later in the mid 1600’s. It was Locke who was one of the three favorites of Thomas Jefferson. Locke argued that the religious prevent civil unrest, and that the civil unrest happens when government attempts to prevent certain religious groups from practicing their religion. His goal was to distinguish between the business of civil government from that of religion. These he said were two institutions with different goals. Government dealt with the external and religion with the internal aspect of man. Read John Locke’s work, “A Letter Concerning Toleration.”
It’s the culture they live in…. Shame…. And now he has to eat with the same hand he wipes…..
Culture + amygdala∞ = cultural amygdala.
Tough love?
These guys would be a perfect target for the new and improved US military to practice on. A couple teams of seals, SAS, whatever, and in the morning a few dozen believers are frolicking with thousands of virgins at the right hand of their god.
That man’s request for atonement punishment is based in his deeply held religious belief. He apparently holds his beliefs in the demands of the God of Abraham (Allah) as fervently as any Christian. Islam as a religion was founded in the 7th century, so it’s about 600 years behind Christianity in its development. Let’s see, what enlightened things were Christians involved in 600 years ago? The religious civil wars and persecutions in England, the Spanish Inquisition, forced conversions, systematic annihilation of Caribbean, Mexican and South American civilizations in the name of Christian salvation and subservience. This makes no sense to me. The hypocrisy of believers of one brand of religion criticizing the strange beliefs of a different brand is like arguing which group’s unicorns are more beautiful. Muslims don’t believe in invisible beings impregnating teen age virgins. That strikes them as a pretty strange assertion.
rcampbell – Wars are easier to make sense of than volunteering the loss of your hand as a celebration of law. In the atrocities you mention, they are not restricted to just the religious. In the end, the better views of the better Christians being killed by the other Christians triumphed. Such resulted in principles of freedom and liberty, such as the concept of separation of church and state that led to our own Declaration of Independence. These principles of freedom moved us away from the barbarisms of the past. We should be thankful for the theistic concepts that led to this greater freedom that we have all enjoyed. Unfortunately, the anti-theistic concepts are quickly eroding and destroying these liberties by mandating a godless society upon all of us.
doglover, I don’t know any American who has gone to President Obama and asked him to drop a bomb on his own home because he was bad.
Because this is based upon religion, I must make a religious comment. Events like this make me appreciate the teaching of forgiveness and mercy of Jesus Christ. It resonates so much better in regards to civility than this behavior. I understand the judgment part of what they are doing, but I do not understand the self-atonement aspect. How can this man atone for his own sin of stealing by asking for his hand to be cut off? This makes no sense to me.
Shouldn’t we just ‘melt’ them, and be done with it?????
Why is it considered worse to amputate a hand with a sword or decapitate someone than to blow up body parts with drones and bombs? All of those actions are based on a lust for carnage, misguided thinking, lack of compassion, and lack of humanity. US taxpayers are forced to pay$$ billions for the carnage by drones and bombs. The hand and head amputations are much less expensive with generally the same result but with less overall damage.