An important distinction (lost on a great deal of the West)* is that 'honour killing' is largely cultural, tradition, rather than religion. One might be able to make the argument, that, if their religion can't, or doesn't, change this culture, then it is either insufficient in itself, or not taken seriously enough**, but I don't know if many are prepared to argue this one way or the other.*** It would be easy enough to point out atrocities in any religion, and to likewise dismiss them as being perpetrated by nutjob heretics.
The most depressing statement in the article is when American soldiers are accused of raping and therefore causing the 'honour**** killing' of a number of women. Does this mean that the culture we bring over there is one in which we do not value women as much as they do? It's possible.
The main lesson anyone can take away from this whole sordid business is that it is extremely easy to separate ourselves from the unspeakably vile actions of our soldiers as they are presumably extremely rare***** and therefore not representative of our culture as a whole, while condemning an entire people because of the actions of a relative few.
~~
* I know, I said I'd stopped this sort of parenthesis, but a few will inevitably escape my iron grasp.
** I think Chesterton did, but I can't seem to find it anywhere now that I need it.
*** I'm certainly not going to.
**** I'm spelling 'honour' with a 'u', no matter what this spellcheck says.
***** Not nearly rare enough, it's disgustingly common-place, I'm afraid.
No comments:
Post a Comment