The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

[dssdnt]

dssdnt how on earth did you get that from gek-opel's statement?

when gek-opel says "be they fundamentalist Islamic or Christian"
you say igek-opel is "tell[ing] us what Islamic followers worldwide actually believe"

I found the following quotes to be generalizations:

Gek-opel: "but how many of these people (be they fundamentalist Islamic or Christian) have a functional understanding of their religion as we would conceive of it...?

Most of them take it as an identity, constituted in terms which have little to do with religion)"

What western euro-americans cognize as 'fundamentalist' is in reality a highly diverse and mobile category (and thus probably no category at all - continuum is more like it), and not easily assimilable to a quick and easy reduction to 'an identity constituted in terms which have little to do with religion.' At the ground level 'religion' (as a phenomenon in question, in need of further analysis at the level of practice and belief) is indeed an essential part of the picture, no matter how much someone may want to reduce all to politics. To subsume all varieties of fundamentalism under one description, and to tell us what "most take as an identity" --- so as to get the discussion away from the anthropologico-socio-theological specifics of individual cultural formations into a tidy category of 'politics' where suddently everyone is an expert (sorry for the cyncism but that's how i took the post initially) --- was a suggestion that I took to be less than helpful. Analyses of fundamentalism require as much care, and critique, as other phenomena, especially given the crises wrought today by US aggression. I was probably being overly sensitive though (re-reading the two gek-oppel posts clarified that.)

 

[crackerjack]

If youre going to make sarcastic comments about the political myopia of others then you should try not to be guilty of it yourself.

Both 'lashes' cases are horrific, but why is it that the less extreme example is headline news around the world for a week (and counting) and the other only garners a couple of paragraphs on page 13 for 1 day?

One involves a British citizen, the other doesn't. I also think the Saudi case received slightly more attention than you make out, though not enough, I agree.

But since Tea's point was never that our Muslims are better than their Muslims, I still don't see what your point is.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Both 'lashes' cases are horrific

Agreed.

but why is it that the less extreme example is headline news around the world for a week (and counting) and the other only garners a couple of paragraphs on page 13 for 1 day?

The fact that Sky News carried the story you linked to suggests that it must have got some international coverage.

I would suggest that the teddy bear case recieved greater attention in 'Western' media (your claim not mine) because it involved a 'Western' person.... i live in the UK and this has been a big story - Why?- because Gillian Gibbons is English and therefore her situation is deemed by the British media to be of significant interest.

Edit: Didn't mean to reiterate what crackerjack said - he just beat me to it

 

[noel emits]

Both 'lashes' cases are horrific, but why is it that the less extreme example is headline news around the world for a week (and counting) and the other only garners a couple of paragraphs on page 13 for 1 day?

I think you should be open to the possibility that it might be at least partly because people find it easier (or prefer) to talk and think about schoolteachers and teddy bears than about gang rape.

Or what BoShambles just said, which is pretty much what I said upthread.

 

[Gavin]

This is exactly it. I'm being made to feel in this thread that, as a white atheist, the only people I'm 'allowed' to criticize are other white atheists, or of course white Christians (Westerners, in other words), and that for me to criticize anyone else is racist by definition - regardless of how of bonkers or barbaric the beliefs or deeds of those people may be. It's the old pseudo-liberal mantra: It's their culture, we have no right to criticize it; if you don't like something, it's because you're ignorant; we do stuff that's just as bad...

Criticize all you want, but it's not in a vaccuum. The received analyses that you and crackerjack (not a theologist, but an expert on how Muslims are violent hotheads -- more teevee anthropologee) parrot not only have no merit as far as reducing fundamentalist violence, but they shore up justifications for Western aggression whether that is your intention or not. I'm trying to contextualize your criticism. Argue with me, disagree with me, but make your point. Plead ignorance if you like, but admit that it is ignorance.

It goes without saying that corporal punishment for naming a teddy bear is a gross overreaction -- without saying. I fail to see how gleefully pointing it out without any effort to contextualize your criticism is interesting or compelling.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

y'know, the ones calling for decapitation, the others burning foreign embassies - have overreacted just a teensy bit.

But the illegal invasions of defenceless countries previously rendered so by years of war - Iraq and Afghanistan - the mass slaughter of over a million people; that's not 'just a teensy bit' of an over-reaction (and to a totally unrelated event), of course.

My solution to what? Nutters carrying placards threatening another 7/7? Simple, arrest them, charge them with incitement and sling them in jail. Like what happened.

And what about the nutters threatening to actually invade yet another country, those resisting such nutters being labelled 'fundamentalist terrorists,' of course.

But the record of those few theocratic regimes (Iran, Sudan, pre-9/11 Afghanistan) is just as bad (though Iran, certainly, is better than the US-backed but also very theocratic Saudi Arabia) .

Your exclusion of Israel from the list above of 'those few theocratic regimes' is noted (not to mention that both Bush and Blair justified all their war crimes because 'God told them to do it').

... The interesting element then is not the religious at all, but the political. Which is all the less convenient for those of an even vaguely neoconservative bent as any analysis of the political demonstrates repeated Western partial culpability (in terms of acts and omissions). Not that this "lets the bad guys (sic) off the hook" but rather that it explicates the messiness and complexity of situations which many are all too happy to paint in big primary colours, like a toddlers drawing of geopolitics- grotesque simplification and demonisation of the irrational other. Rather than seeing them in precisely the same terms as ourselves, under similar conditions. This does not necessarily equal equivelance, but rather a commonality, instead of what amounts to prejudice no matter what one terms it... (ie- whether it is racism or religious prejudice or xenophobia is a matter of legalistic taxonomy, not a mater of morality).

Yes, exactly. And isn't it also the case that the foreclosing of the political under late capitalism is precisely what has given rise to the post-modern racism? Just when The End of History was arrogantly announced - following the collapse of the Soviet Union - and the final triumph of the liberal ideology was declared, with its abandonment of all the "immature" and "irrational" political commitments (the regime of the properly political: social antagonisms, class struggle, injustices, inequalities, and other "out-dated" divisive antagonisms), to be instantly replaced by the post-politicall "mature" pragmatic realm of 'commonsensical' management and 'negotiated' agreement, for the dispassionate, 'reasonable' administration of all economic and social matters — just when this was occurring, the abject repression of the political is immediately reversed in its most archaic form: as racist hatred of the Other (on both sides, needless to say: it's an inter-exciting fundamentalist hyperspiral), so rendering powerless the secular position of rational tolerance and politicized analysis.

"In this precise sense, the contemporary "postmodern" racism is the symptom of the multiculturalist late capitalism, bringing to the light the inherent contradiction of the liberal-democratic ideological project. Liberal "tolerance" condones the folklorist Other deprived of its substance (like the multitude of "ethnic cuisines" in a contemporary megalopolis) — any "real" Other is instantly denounced for its "fundamentalism", since the kernel of Otherness resides in the regulation of its jouissance, i.e. the "real Other" is by definition "patriarchal", "violent", never the Other of ethereal wisdom and charming customs. One is tempted to reactualize here the old Marcusean notion of "repressive tolerance", reconceiving it as the tolerance of the Other in its aseptized, benign form, which forecloses the dimension of the Real of the Other's jouissance."---Zizek

 

[Mr. Tea]

Or the 'Big Bad West's' friends...

Saudi Gang Rape Victim Gets 200 Lashes

You'll notice that repeated mention has been made in this thread, by me and others, of the support lent by America to many very horrible regimes. No-one's trying to gloss it over or pretend it's not happening.

 

[crackerjack]

Criticize all you want, but it's not in a vaccuum. The received analyses that you and crackerjack (not a theologist, but an expert on how Muslims are violent hotheads -- more teevee anthropologee) parrot not only have no merit as far as reducing fundamentalist violence, but they shore up justifications for Western aggression whether that is your intention or not.

Well, gee, I'm flattered you think I've so much influence but I think you're overstating it more than a little. Perhaps, though, you should be consistent and consider the possiblity that your mealy-mouthed equivocation about wrongs originating anywhere other than the white, western world - and constant efforts to re-direct the finger of blame back at them - may encourage brown-skinned theocratic human rights abusers to think they can get away with it.

How about if i criticised Muslim oversensitivity on religious matters (in the most generalised terms possible, obviously), but followed it, every time, by saying I don't believe we should invade Iran? Would that make it ok?

 

[Gavin]

How about if i criticised Muslim oversensitivity on religious matters (in the most generalised terms possible, obviously), but followed it, every time, by saying I don't believe we should invade Iran? Would that make it ok?

No.

YOU are the one guilty of what Tea has accused me of: emptying out the political space and blaming antagonism on "their culture" -- on religion.

 

[crackerjack]

No.

YOU are the one guilty of what Tea has accused me of: emptying out the political space and blaming antagonism on "their culture" -- on religion.

Pish. Your political space needs draining - you're incapable of attributing agency to anyone outside of your own selected enemies.

 

[bassnation]

Anyway, I have no desire to score points; if you don't care to respond to the content of what I've said, that's fine, I'm not going to argue with you. The posts stand for everyone else to read and I hope they aren't as willfully daft as you make yourself out to be.

tea is right. you don't live here, its one of the most ungodly countries on the planet. no-one gives a toss about religion except for a tiny, tiny, almost insignificant number of christians, oh and the muslims of course - who at some point will easily outnumber christians but still be dwarfed by the vast numbers of agnostics and atheists.

i do think that religion in terms of its influence is too big here though, and i'd like to see bishops, coe and islam stay the fuck out of politics, education and the rest.

 

[crackerjack]

i do think that religion in terms of its influence is too big here though, and i'd like to see bishops, coe and islam stay the fuck out of politics, education and the rest.

Lol. For a moment there I thought coe meant Seb - I mean, I know he's a Tory bastard an' that.

 

[bassnation]

Lol. For a moment there I thought coe meant Seb - I mean, I know he's a Tory bastard an' that.

yeah, and him too! damn my missing shift key.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Pish. Your political space needs draining - you're incapable of attributing agency to anyone outside of your own selected enemies.

Gavin and HMLT among others... you are guilty of this! believe it or not, people might do some pretty horrific stuff to other people somewhere in the world and it might not be directly relatable to the actions of people in the West *shock* *horror*. Other people have agency too!

Culture, politics, social relations, economics etc are all bound up in the social totality of human existence (NB, these false distinctions were drawn up by white western theorists in the 19thC). Exogenous factors (i.e. external influences/pressures) clearly affect the behaviour of groups of people but more importantly - i would argue - are the endogenous forces within a given society. What shapes the way we as individuals behave? Our perception of the world is based to a large degree on institutional conditioning (by instititions I mean both the formal rules which constrain behaviour in society - i.e. legal and constitutional; and the informal practices - i.e. conventions and codes of conduct as defined by religion, tradition and custom). As Geoff Hodgson has argued:

We are all individuals, and the totality of our knowledge and experience is unique, but the mechanisms of our perception and acquisition of knowledge are unavoidably social and unavoidably reflect social culture and practices.

So social evolution is path dependent - i.e. historically contingent. This does not mean however that all behaviour is relatively valid. Chopping peoples arms off, flogging them or any number of equally barbaric practices are deplorable and people should unite in trying to prevent such practices in the future.

 

[dHarry]

I'm not going to change my syllabus or lesson plans. I've no desire to go home
- Tom Berry
British teacher, Sudan

He says he has been approached by many Sudanese people who have apologised to him about the events.

"They tell me they feel so embarrassed and ashamed about what's happened, I really feel for them."

He said that he believed that out of a country of five million people, just a tiny minority of 400 protested and called for Mrs Gibbons to face tougher punishment.

"No-one else is really thinking like this minority," he said.

He believes the majority are "unbelievably horrified" by what happened and hope that they can now move on.

But he said the events had certainly got people talking.

"One or two are suggesting the Sudanese government has used the case of Gillian Gibbons as a way of to frighten off Westerners and their influence," he suggested.

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7126529.stm

 

[Mr. Tea]

Gawd bless the ole Currant Bun: their headline today is LIBERATED.

 

[Gavin]

Gavin and HMLT among others... you are guilty of this! believe it or not, people might do some pretty horrific stuff to other people somewhere in the world and it might not be directly relatable to the actions of people in the West *shock* *horror*. Other people have agency too!

Of course other people have agency. That's why only a few hundred people protested out of the millions living in the Sudan. It's important to understand why, though. Agency doesn't mean behavior isn't influenced by other factors -- people don't spontaneously decide to hold a media spectacle, it is organized and orchestrated by larger forces.

Culture, politics, social relations, economics etc are all bound up in the social totality of human existence (NB, these false distinctions were drawn up by white western theorists in the 19thC). Exogenous factors (i.e. external influences/pressures) clearly affect the behaviour of groups of people but more importantly - i would argue - are the endogenous forces within a given society. What shapes the way we as individuals behave? Our perception of the world is based to a large degree on institutional conditioning (by instititions I mean both the formal rules which constrain behaviour in society - i.e. legal and constitutional; and the informal practices - i.e. conventions and codes of conduct as defined by religion, tradition and custom). As Geoff Hodgson has argued:

We are all individuals, and the totality of our knowledge and experience is unique, but the mechanisms of our perception and acquisition of knowledge are unavoidably social and unavoidably reflect social culture and practices.

So social evolution is path dependent - i.e. historically contingent. This does not mean however that all behaviour is relative. Chopping peoples arms off, flogging them or any number of equally barbaric practices are deplorable and people should unite in trying to prevent such practices in the future.

None of this contradicts anything that I said, nor is it very interesting. When did I suggest this was "relative"? When was chopping arms off even discussed? How exactly should people "unite" to prevent "such practices"? Manufacturing cluster bombs? Calling for the starvation of an impoverished nation because the Daily Mail ran pictures of a guy with a sword? Self-righteous rage on a messageboard?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Chopping peoples arms off, flogging them or any number of equally barbaric practices are deplorable.

Why? The only thing that stops me indulging my chopping habit is the possibility of being flogged.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Of course other people have agency. That's why only a few hundred people protested out of the millions living in the Sudan. It's important to understand why, though. Agency doesn't mean behavior isn't influenced by other factors -- people don't spontaneously decide to hold a media spectacle, it is organized and orchestrated by larger forces.

So what were these ‘larger forces’ you refer to? From what I hear the Sudanese govt is made of various elite factions, some more fundamentalist in their approach to religion than others. The fact that only 400 people protested in favour of more severe punishment suggests that there was not widespread support for this position. But perhaps more interestingly why did some of the “unbelievably horrified” majority in Sudan (as stated in the BBC article DHarry linked to) not protest against the initial verdict and punishment?

Too scared perhaps of what the response from the government would be? Or perhaps because a severe form of Islam has become institutionalised to some degree within Sudanese society (particularly within Khartoum at the centre of the regimes power). Harsh punishments are regularly meted out by the Islamic courts in Sudan operating under sharia law. Punishments which in some cases as you well know include stoning to death, amputations of hands/feet, flogging etc.

Clearly the government in Sudan (or at least powerful factions within it) are responsible for some pretty fucked up shit. A jihad against the Christian population of the South; the brutal repression of armed uprisings in the Darfur region leading to the death or displacement of 100,000’s of people with regular reports of systematic raping and brutalising of the population to boot; and the introduction of a severe form of sharia law leading to barbarous practices. When religion and politics become bound as ideology of this fundamentalist kind it is a recipe for all manner of horrors.

How should 'we' (as the international community) act? I think 'we' certainly should do something in Sudan. UN peacekeepers are due to go sometime in the New Year although tellingly the Sudanese government are doing all they can to prevent or delay this process.

What do you think 'we' should do? Stand by and allow powerful factions within Sudan continue to commit atrocities against the wider population? I suppose its none of our business right? And anyway, the 'West' is probably to blame in some way...:slanted:

 

[zhao]

lots of good stuff in this thread. hard to pick but this:

Right- but how many of these people (be they fundamentalist Islamic or Christian) have a functional understanding of their religion as we would conceive of it...?

Most of them take it as an identity, constituted in terms which have little to do with religion, (or at least on obviously selective and politicised readings) and as such how useful is it to criticise on the basis of religion? Rather it would be better to talk of a specific group under specific social and political conditions. ... The interesting element then is not the religious at all, but the political. Which is all the less convenient for those of an even vaguely neoconservative bent as any analysis of the political demonstrates repeated Western partial culpability (in terms of acts and omissions). Not that this "lets the bad guys (sic) off the hook" but rather that it explicates the messiness and complexity of situations which many are all too happy to paint in big primary colours, like a toddlers drawing of geopolitics- grotesque simplification and demonisation of the irrational other. Rather than seeing them in precisely the same terms as ourselves, under similar conditions. This does not necessarily equal equivelance, but rather a commonality, instead of what amounts to prejudice no matter what one terms it... (ie- whether it is racism or religious prejudice or xenophobia is a matter of legalistic taxonomy, not a mater of morality)

Respek for the Gek. well put.

and this:

Yes, exactly. And isn't it also the case that the foreclosing of the political under late capitalism is precisely what has given rise to the post-modern racism? ... the abject repression of the political is immediately reversed in its most archaic form: as racist hatred of the Other (on both sides, needless to say: it's an inter-exciting fundamentalist hyperspiral), so rendering powerless the secular position of rational tolerance and politicized analysis.

for the vast majority it's far too difficult and scary to have a real look at the political events which lead up to current situations. and much easier to "paint in primary numbers". to who ever was saying that i was unjust to force Tea into a defensive position -- this "paint by numbers" was my initial problem with Tea posting the link -- it was a leap of assumption on my part, but based on previous experience, and his did turn out to be exactly what i assumed his position would be (before the tune was somewhat changed).

anyway...

i've been digging in a history of Islam by Karen Armstrong. and i recommend it to people that are quick to criticize the Islamic faith itself, rather than the grotesque distortions it has assumed under extreme circumstances, or its repeated use by political forces, or the many many other ways with which it is misunderstood and misrepresented. i'm only into the first chapter, and already tons of good stuff.

for example, a few fun facts:

Muhammed was a liberator of women from previous barbaric practices. he did not make them wear veils or stay in a special part of the house. he was against segregation, and pro equality. it is not until several generations later that his followers started imitating the christians at the time, and started these practices.

Islam started as a very practical way of life, which frowned upon self indulgence in contemplating too much purely abstract theocratic ideas -- it stressed that the most important thing was Jihad, or living according to the way God intended for us to live, which is giving to the needy and protecting the weak, which was with justice, peace, and compassion.

Muhammed also stressed respect for the older faiths (that he knew about), namely Judaism and Christianity, for these older traditions are founded on the same divine truths that Islam is based on. and that it was not until after the establishment of Israel in mid 20th century, and war crimes were repeatedly committed against Palestinians, that Muslims started hating jews.

i encourage people to find out about what a thing has meant to millions of people world wide for 1400 years before making childish umbrella statements about it based on what they saw on TV about it last week.