Originally posted by Great King Rat If you wish to go back to what it strictly said in the OP, that's fine with me. But you were the one who brought up genital mutilation and it drifted from there.
Threatening children with the prospect of torture, genital mutilation, and chopping heads off are all related to religious beliefs.
Originally posted by FMF So if it involves the stuff you typed after "As I said..." (above) then it's "morally unsound" but if it's either hypothetical or done by someone mentally ill like the woman who killed her baby, it's "morally sound", fair summary?
I'm not sure I'd call the action of such a person "morally sound", rather I wouldn't deem her action "morally unsound". Wouldn't you agree we shouldn't label this person "immoral", but rather "insane"?
Originally posted by FMF Threatening children with the prospect of torture, genital mutilation, and chopping heads off are all related to religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Great King Rat I'm not sure I'd call the action of such a person "morally sound", rather I wouldn't deem her action "morally unsound". Wouldn't you agree we shouldn't label this person "immoral", but rather "insane"?
Well I certainly wouldn't hold someone who is without moral faculties - due to mental illness - morally responsible for their actions, no. But, although my own hyperbole threw in the notion of someone being "borderline insane" earlier, I regret that really because I think the mental health (or diminished responsibility) of the proselytizer is a bit beyond the remit of the specific issue I sought to discuss on this thread.
Originally posted by FMF Well I certainly wouldn't hold someone who is without moral faculties - due to mental illness - morally responsible for their actions, no. But, although my own hyperbole threw in the notion of someone being "borderline insane" earlier, I regret that really because I think the mental health (or diminished responsibility) of the proselytizer is a bit beyond the remit of the specific issue I sought to discuss on this thread.
That's fair. The point being though, you can't judge the morality of an action strictly on the basis of that action, without taking into account the motivation behind the action.
So to get back to the OP, if someone truly believes he is saving someone from hell by instilling fear into this person, that does not sound like morally unsound behaviour to me. And whether or not this "someone" is "vulnerable" or not, does not change that. The intent is the same.
Originally posted by FMF Threatening children with the prospect of torture, genital mutilation, and chopping heads off are all related to religious beliefs.
Not always. I would hardly call telling your child that Santa won't bring him presents if he is not a good boy 'a religious belief'. And a significant amount of genital mutilation is cultural not religious. As far as I know, only the Jewish religion includes genital mutilation as a religious act. Throughout Africa it has more to do with hazing ie coming of age ceremonies. The thing about hazing is people want the next group to suffer as much as they did or more and in their minds they were made stronger by it. In addition, genital mutilation of both boys and girls once embedded in the culture is a prerequisite to marriage - and nobody wants to be the first to break that tradition.
As for that great French tradition of chopping off heads - is that religious?
Originally posted by twhitehead Not always. I would hardly call telling your child that Santa won't bring him presents if he is not a good boy 'a religious belief'. And a significant amount of genital mutilation is cultural not religious. As far as I know, only the Jewish religion includes genital mutilation as a religious act. Throughout Africa it has more to do with hazing ie coming o ...[text shortened]... that tradition.
As for that great French tradition of chopping off heads - is that religious?
The reason that I mentioned those three things is because they are all related to religious beliefs and not because I think they are all only related to religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Great King Rat So to get back to the OP, if someone truly believes he is saving someone from hell by instilling fear into this person, that does not sound like morally unsound behaviour to me. And whether or not this "someone" is "vulnerable" or not, does not change that. The intent is the same.
We shall agree to disagree then. It has been a very interesting conversation. 😛
Originally posted by Great King Rat That's fair. The point being though, you can't judge the morality of an action strictly on the basis of that action, without taking into account the motivation behind the action.
So to get back to the OP, if someone truly believes he is saving someone from hell by instilling fear into this person, that does not sound like morally unsound behaviour ...[text shortened]... ther or not this "someone" is "vulnerable" or not, does not change that. The intent is the same.
"if someone truly believes he is saving someone from hell by instilling fear into this person, that does not sound like morally unsound behaviour to me."
If we use "morally sound" like we use "logically sound", then the premise that salvation can be had by the method chosen, has to be true, and the logical construct that uses the premise has to be valid. So the judgement of moral soundness is no more certain than the certainty that salvation can indeed be made available by what you intend to do to the person, and it also must be by the method, of those available, that does the least harm.
Originally posted by twhitehead I am sure I am not pissed at you.
My point - which you seem intent on missing - is that despite many people here saying they don't believe in thought crimes, the reality is that most governments do believe in thought crimes when it comes to terrorism. I don't agree with those governments stance.
I think I got your point now.
Thanks for the clarification
Originally posted by twhitehead Not always. I would hardly call telling your child that Santa won't bring him presents if he is not a good boy 'a religious belief'. And a significant amount of genital mutilation is cultural not religious. As far as I know, only the Jewish religion includes genital mutilation as a religious act. Throughout Africa it has more to do with hazing ie coming o ...[text shortened]... that tradition.
As for that great French tradition of chopping off heads - is that religious?
The French invented the guillotine to perform (more) humane deaths.
As for circumcision, it is genital mutilation, however you're not cutting of the head of the penis, only a piece of skin.(as opposed to the clitoris)
Originally posted by karoly aczel As for circumcision, it is genital mutilation, however you're not cutting of the head of the penis, only a piece of skin.(as opposed to the clitoris)
Yes, I know my biology.
Nevertheless, last year at least 24 young men died from it in South Africa alone.
09 Mar '17 17:491 edit
Proselytizing: sometimes morally unsound?
Back to Top