Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Because nothing says, "I'm secure in my faith" like, "Kill the atheists!"

Sorry.

I just can't respect anyone who would support this or excuse it by saying, "well, it's their country, their right."

Those people are barbaric.  There's no other way to describe them.  (and, by "them", I mean those who are calling for the deaths of atheists or anyone who would speak out against religion or simply and vocally support separation of church and state) 

This really sickens me.

Answer Question
 
jsbenkert

Asked by jsbenkert at 10:48 PM on Apr. 9, 2013 in Religious Debate

Level 37 (88,274 Credits)
Answers (22)
  • It's very easy to demand moral intervention when OUR morals are the ones being imposed unto others. But what if it's the other way around? What if there's a shift in the majority's morality and suddenly Islam or China become the dominant force? Would they have the same right you claim you have now to impose their morality on you then? Because if you're saying that your morality should be imposed unto others because their actions are despicable (and I agree they are, but you and me share a common moral parameter, as does the majority of the world) you have to accept the slippery slope that brings and that others that find OUR actions despicable also have the right to try to impose themselves
    momto2boys973

    Answer by momto2boys973 at 11:08 AM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • I can be disgusted and outrged by what people do in other places to their land, animals, water, children, people......

    The fact still remains that I have no authority/ power to do anything about their country. It is theirs to run as they choose.

    Everyone wants the US to stop sticking our noses in everyone else's business; we need to stop sending our military in to solve other people's problems. It is said that we need to stop trying to force our ideas on other people.

    Well, you have to make up your mind. Is it right to interfere in anothercountry or culture when you have not been invited to do so?
    Dardenella

    Answer by Dardenella at 2:38 PM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • No, I don't support it and yes, it's sickening. But it is their country and they create their own laws. I'm sure none of is would want other countries interfering with our laws, we shouldn't do it to them, even if it's appalling and sickening for us. It's not like they're pretending they have freedom of speech and then coming after unsuspecting Atheists. I commend them for standing firm and trying to change things, but that's a choice they made knowing the risks.
    momto2boys973

    Answer by momto2boys973 at 12:21 AM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • Sadly without a big monetary incentive to help these people, most countries will do nothing to try to protect them. If Bangladesh were slaughtering Christians, it would be a different story.

    This is sickening. The world so often turns a blind eye to the murder of thousands of minorities because they don't want to be involved in other people's politics.
    anng.atlanta

    Answer by anng.atlanta at 9:41 AM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • "I'm discouraged by most of these comments. Human rights aren't our business? The last time I checked, this was a nation of humans, in a world of humans. How can anyone sit back and say, "well, they can kill whomever they want . . . it's their business." If we had done that during WWII, would that be forgivable? After all, Germany is it's own country with its own laws . . . so if they want to kill the Jews, shouldn't we let them?"

    Actually... The world did precisely that during WWII. Anyone thinking the war had anything to do with protecting the people Hitler was murdering in very naive. No one really cared what Hitler was doing to its own people, they cared about forcing Germany to fulfill the Treaty of Versailles, they cared about Germany's intention of expansion, but that was pretty much it.

    But as much as I understand your sentiment, turn it around and make it valid.
    Continued....
    momto2boys973

    Answer by momto2boys973 at 10:59 AM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • "I am sorely disappointed with the attitudes of people who aren't outraged by these violations of human rights. Whether homosexuals, gays, women, or any other minority group, to suggest that their rights aren't worthy of protection because their country has the right to do with them as they choose . . . no. I'm not disappointed. I'm disgusted."

    And I can be very outraged... And still realize what possibilities open up by claiming my right to intervene.
    You do know that human rights in the legal sense are voluntary, right? Not all countries have agreed to respect the charter of human rights. And they haven't been forced to because of the principle of self-determination, a fundamental principle of international law. So basically, we can be very outraged, disgusted, angry, you name it. Bit that doesn't give us a right to intervene in another culture/country self-determination.
    momto2boys973

    Answer by momto2boys973 at 11:14 AM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • "We're talking about HUMAN LIVES, here. Nations can't impose "self-determination" on individuals, or where are the individuals' rights to self-determination? This is wrong, and there's no way to make it sound right, or make it sound like we have no responsibility to other human beings."

    I'm with you and I share your indignation, but again, if you can impose your morality on another group, what will prevent other group to impose their morality on you if they become strong enough, KWIM? Just as you NOW feel the "responsibility to intervene", thy can feel it too, so if you can, why shouldn't they?
    Again, it is outrageous, appalling and disgusting, but you must think of the slippery slope you can unleash by intervening. If you're willing to take the risk and accept the consequences that may come, then by all means.
    momto2boys973

    Answer by momto2boys973 at 6:15 PM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • "Perhaps that's the difference between secular humanism and other belief systems - we don't put religious or political dogma above human rights"

    It's really not about that. Bit of you honestly can't leave your emotions out to think rationally about the consequences, I really can't help you there. International affairs are way more complicated than "hey! That's just wrong! Let's do something!" It sounds noble and good, but ultimately it opens up possibilities that are far more disturbing.
    momto2boys973

    Answer by momto2boys973 at 6:18 PM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • Oh and self determination is a right of NATIONS, not individuals. The individuals have a right to fight their government if they're in satisfied, to try to bring change to their country. But having the right to try doesn't mean a right to succeed.
    momto2boys973

    Answer by momto2boys973 at 6:30 PM on Apr. 10, 2013

  • its sad and sickening. sometimes we take for granted the freedoms we have in America. sure, its difficult to be anything but Christian in America, but at least ppl arent tracking non-Christians down via the internet and murdering them...with no punishment from the govt.

    as for not stepping into other countries business...America does it EVERY freaking day! we meddle in the affairs of pretty much every country on this planet! if someone doesnt step in and say "hey, killing ppl for their religious beliefs is a violation of human rights" then things will never change. if the ppl of Bangladesh just sit there and let the country dictate their beliefs, the country will never change.

    but i guess since Bangladesh isnt Communist we dont need to interfere...
    okmanders

    Answer by okmanders at 12:36 AM on Apr. 10, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.