According to "Brunei Introduces Tough Islamic Penal Code" (2014), there has been opposition both domestically and internationally to the Sultan of Brunei's introduction, as of May 1, of traditional Islamic punishments for crimes, with many concerned that the draconian treatment might be applied not only to Moslems but also to others in the oil rich state.
When I first read this news a couple of days ago, I was horrified to think that anyone who pretends to be civilized or rational could even think of doing what the Sultan of Brunei is doing. His excuse, of course, is that it's what the Koran, the holy book of Islam, commands. And he is perfectly right. That is exactly what the holy texts of Islam say. But that a religion and its god, in this case Allah, teach that thieves should have their hands chopped off, that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death, and so on, does not make those punishments morally right or just. On the contrary, it only proves that the religion, its teachings and its god have many false beliefs and are immoral.
Sadly, Christianity and its Bible are just as bad as Islam and its Koran. But this is not surprising, since Christianity is the daughter of Judaism, and Islam is the daughter of Christianity and Judaism. All three world religions came from the same primitive, tribal cultures of the Near East, and all have the same despotic command way of thinking built into their teachings. When Christianity rose to power in the West through murder, war and bloody repression, it brought a dark age that lasted for about 1,400 years. Thankfully, developed Western nations started to recover a few centuries ago, and the rise of strong, secular states started to bring religions under control and force them and their popes, bishops and priests to behave in morally decent ways, and to stop suppressing free speech to enforce ignorance. It is, for example, only with the rise of reason and moral awareness that the ugly Christian teachings about homosexuality have been replaced in the last 50 years by legal recognition of the basic human rights of gay and lesbian people, and, quite amazing, the legality of same sex marriage in many countries around the world. Just 40 years ago, I would never have thought these social norms could change so dramatically in so short a period.
Naturally, there is no same-sex marriage in countries still under the control of Christianity, Islam and such like. I doubt that the Sultan of Brunei will be respecting the rights of his gay and lesbian citizens to marry, or even to show their love for each other, any time soon.
__________
Reference
As Ball (I hope my memory is right) noticed last week in my post "Bear's paws or dog's paws for lunch?", there are actually two sources cited, but only one reference citation in the list of references. And this response post does the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIn the introduction, I cite an idea from Plato, and tell you exactly where to find that idea. But there is no reference citation. The reason is that major classical works are available in many editions, and have their own special reference systems, so are not normally included in references lists. If you look up Plato's Euthyphro and go to 10a in any edition, the idea I've cited will be there.
Naturally, my citing the BBC News article in the summary means that I must include the reference citation for that source in my list of references, which is a very short list.
I'll see if I can find a more cheerful article to respond to tomorrow so that you have another example to look at in preparation for your doing the same thing next week.