Skip to main content

Pardon Pervez Kambakhsh

I am sure most of you know about the case of the young student journalist Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, sentenced to death by courts in Afghanistan for distributing literature supporting women's rights (which amounts to "blasphemy"). The sentence was reduced to 20 years.

The Independent is fighting Pevez's corner.

There is a facebook group to join here.

Will the President of Afghanistan issue a pardon?

Comments

The Atheist Missionary said…
If you want to get an insightful (though politically incorrect) commentary on what we are doing in Afghanistan, check out Dan Carlin's podcast Common Sense (free on iTunes) - show 147 entitled A Little Less Evil. Carlin is brilliant, entertaining and his Hardcore History podcast (also available on iTunes) is nothing short of addictive.
March 14, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Mr. Hamtastic said…
I want to know what a relativist would say about this...
March 15, 2009 at 3:07 AM
Unknown said…
Sometimes it's really hard for me to accept that people can so completely abandon all reason like this.

They're punishing this kid out of threatening and challenging baseless, dogmatic bullshit.
March 16, 2009 at 1:44 AM
anticant said…
People who have been indoctrinated from childhood with religious twaddle - Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or any other - have no understanding of what reason is. That is why they are such a menace to world peace and prosperity.
March 16, 2009 at 7:52 AM
Mr. Hamtastic said…
no anticant. It's not just those indoctrinated with "religious twaddle". Anyone with a closed mind is a threat. Or would you say that Stalin's purges were justified because they were not based in religion?

I wonder-people have asked me recently if we are doing the wrong thing in westernizing tribes in Africa... Is this not perhaps the same thing? How can we say that they have done something "wrong" when to them we are the "wrong" ones?

Was this person unaware of the local laws and customs before he began his crusade? Did he not recognize the danger? If he did, is he unprepared to suffer the consequences he knew would come?

If a man began handing out literature in your town about the benefits of pedophilia, would you support him in this? How about if he was giving it to children? With pictures? What is the difference here?

I suggest that reason itself is subjective, and thus you have no justification for your claim.
March 16, 2009 at 7:03 PM
anticant said…
OK Mr H, so reasoning is a Western-style method of thinking with its own formal rules [induction, logic etc.] which is not universally accepted by other cultures and to that extent is subjective.

So what? Does that make it any less valid and useful in solving problems and interpreting the nature of reality?

"Anyone with a closed mind is a threat". Agreed. Fanatical belief in any doctrine, whether religious or political - such as the Stalinist faux-Marxism which excused the purges by asserting that the end justifies the means - is religious twaddle in the sense that I was using the term.

'How can we say that they have done something "wrong" when to them we are the "wrong" ones?'

If you are going to indulge in value-free relativism of this type, there is really no point in pursuing a discussion with you.
March 16, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
159 comments
Read more

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist
49 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o
151 comments
Read more