I’m saying cultural tradition doesn’t justify it – it stands or falls on its own. The issue of whether it stands or falls is another thread’s topic.
Daniel
Your cultural tradition ends where my spousal abuse and first degree murder begins.
To extend (snicker) the analogy, circumcision is more like elective cosmetic surgery. There might be informed consent issues. I don’t see any connection with honor killings except that Jews and Muslims are in the news a lot.
To drag this thread back on topic, an “honor killing” should be seen no differently from the religiously motivated murder of a doctor who performs abortions. Or a klan lynching. Or a baby sacrified by some demon-worship cult. It all amounts to the same thing.
When it comes down to a decision between adhering to custom/religion or obeying the law of the land, the law wins in a secular society. Particularly when adhering to said custom/religion violates another person’s rights.
The concepts of equal protection under law and the separation of church and state mean that the government cannot arbitrarily dictate that people of x ethnicity/creed are exempt from homocide laws. If that were the case, any wacko who blows up a plane or opens fire on a crowded street could simply claim that “God” made him do it and go unpunished.
I’d agree, based on the lockstep Republicanism (referring to the modern Frankenstein version espoused by the Bushistas, not the more respectable classical version that seems to have been eclipsed by the moral-outrage types lately) displayed by the poster up to this point. It seems clear that he doesn’t believe at all that a culture justifying revenge and honor killings should be morally equable with a Western human-rights-based culture; he’s just saying so, and in an obnoxious manner, to tweak the liberals’ noses and stir shit up. :rolleyes:
Here is where your misunderstanding begins. In most (if not all) Muslim countries, “honor killing” is, quite simply, murder, and it is against the laws of those countries.
In many instances, unfortunately, the law in not enforced in instances of “honor killing.” That does not mean, however, that honor killing is legal; instead it means that in those instances the duly constituted police/prosecutors fail to do their job.
As for whether prosecuting acts that are legal pursuant to a particular religion is a violation of freedom of religion, the answer is ‘no way’. Pravnik accurately stated the law; it is not a violation of freedom of religion to ban religious practices, so long as the law is not directed at the particular practice, but instead is generally applied.
Sua
So if we don’t allow culture to be our yardstick, how do we determine what is acceptable? Should we even have the concepts of “acceptable” and “unacceptable”?
I can’t believe the OP is being serious. As others have said, I certain hope not. That type of moral relativism would simply lead to the lowest common denominator and no laws at all. You can find some crackpot “culture” in which almost anything could be condoned.
A better example than circumcision would be the use of peyote by a Native American tribe (Hopi Indians, IIRC) for religious purposes. Or the practice of the wiwanyag wacipi (Sun Dance), which involves self mutilation, by the Dakota/Lakota tribe. Both of which, I believe, were at one time declared illegal but have since then been allowed under certain restrictions. (Although the type of self mutilation involved in the Sun Dance seems pretty tame compared to what some people do with piercings and “body modifications” these days.:))
There must be no yardstick. All practices are equally acceptable. We must all be relativists and place no single standard above any other. To do anything less, is to be unenlightened bigots.
If cultural relativism is right, then it is immediately wrong.
Can I be a jerk for a minute? Good. 
Perhaps this is an overdramatic argument, but it’s an extension of the same idea. There are apparently people who’ve come to America who think it’s alright to kill thousands of Americans for cultural/religious reasons. If they plot the murders of thousands of people, are we supposed to refrain from prosecuting them in the name of tolerance? Of course not. What you think to yourself is your own business, but once you harm or attempt to harm others, society is allowed to act to stop you. That’s a precedent that’s accepted in any society.
Perhaps I’m being dumb to address the question seriously. If Cervaise is right about the intentions of the thread, however, I would argue that nobody is arguing murder - regardless of its causes - should be culturally protected. Simply carrying a cultural relativist argument to absurdity does not, by itself, invalidate cultural relativism. I would say the appropriate level of tolerance for practices would be something like “I’ll deal with it if you’re not violating someone else’s human rights.”
Okay – so what are the human rights? What constitutes harm?
I think human rights as enumerated in the Geneva Convention would probably do just fine. Perhaps adding “or hurting them physically or emotionally” would have to be added, or perhaps it would already be covered. And I didn’t say ‘harm,’ I said violating. To abridge those rights (prevent people from exercising or enjoying them freely as they are entitled to) is to violate them.
But why should we accept the Geneva Convention?
Well, if we’re talking about the US, then I’d look at the constitution for rights, not the Geneva Convention. And I’d go with physical harm or physically denying the exercise of rights. I’d have to hear an explanation of what “emotional harm” is before I’d buy into that.
It’d have to be defined precisely, but I think if you look at the law today, this is treated as a very complex and variable subject - which is probably how it has to be. You’d agree that it’s possible to harm someone a great deal without hurting them physically, right?
What I was saying is that, while I’d have to re-read the convention on human rights to be precise, the definitions put forth there are acceptable definitions to me as I understand them.
Back atcha, bub: given that you clearly don’t allow culture to be your yardstick (viz. your arguments against circumcision), how do YOU determine what is acceptable? Do you believe in such concepts yourself?
Feel free to acknowledge that there’s no simple, one-post answer to such a question, and that at best it’s the topic for a new thread; it’s basically asking you to describe your entire ethical system from the ground up, and wrestle with the difficult questions raised by postmodernism in the latter half of the twentieth century, all in one go.
The important question here is whether culture is a yardstick for morality. If you agree that it’s not, then there’s not a debate in this here thread; if you think it is, I’d be interested in hearing your reasons for thinking so.
Daniel
Yes, I would agree that it’s possible to harm someone a great deal w/o harming them physically. I’m having trouble thinking of a situation where I would want to make that action illegal, though. The closest I can come is libel, but the basis for making that illegal is that it also causes physical harm (potential loss of income).
Is this what you mean? It’s pretty good, although it contains a few “economic rights” (article 25) that are a lot broader than what the US constitution would allow.
TVAA
Give it up; DanielWithrow nailed it. No argument here because circumcision is legal. Murder is not.
And to rise to the original bait, bri** (you still with us?), I have heard and read of accounts of Muslims who decry our “Western” values and culture.
How come your moral relativism only seems to work on a one-way basis?
That’s not a valid criticism. Why don’t we just legalize honor killings?
I’m not sure I can quite buy this, Daniel. There is a strong Muslim tradition of support for honor killings in some countries, apparently. Here’s a cite about a recent horrific killing in Jordan:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030911-072615-7378r.htm
The article indicates there is conflict in Jordan on this issue, but that conflict also implies a strong base of support – in the U.S. or the U.K. there’d be damned little support and the brothers would be almost universally regarded as murderous fiends.
So I do not at all buy your notion that honor killings are not widely supported among Muslims.
Furthermore, short of honor killings there are honor beatings. I personally knew a woman whose sister married a Muslim man and had to go on the lam after she separated from him and learned that her cousins would be looking for her to beat her up fro doing so. I tend to wonder how much violence against women goes on behind closed doors in Muslim countries.
Lotta sickness out there in the Muslim community, along with a lot of people who reject it. Denying it leaves your arguments subject to attack by a brutal gang of facts.