.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« "The action of the legendary Jesus no doubt rendered retaliation less aggressive and more in adequacy with the gravity of the crimes committed, but modern justice continues to represent a regression, in many respects, compared to restorative or reparative justice, due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice."

So you seem to suggest that he was promoting a punitive regime, just one that was more humane. He wasn't. »
.

No, I’m not suggesting Jesus was “promoting” any sort of regime. I simply observe that, despite his “encouragement” (as the preacher of the sermon qualifies Jesus’ action) to “resist an evildoer”, modern justice continues to represent a regression … due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice.

You will note that he preacher of the sermon does not suggest that Jesus was “promoting” any sort of regime either. He states that Jesus was simply “encouraging” his disciples (or whoever) to adopt a particular type of attitude in certain circumstances – which goes beyond “passive resistance” to what can only be described as “complicity” with the “evildoer”, as it consists in inviting him to double-up on his violence and giving him more than he takes or demands.

You then observed :

« Human societies tend to be retaliatory. Abrahamic religions are no more nor less than most others of the time. You didn't want to get on the wrong side of the Romans. And even in recent times there are plenty of tribal examples of retaliatory justice - look at the ritual spearings as punishment still occurring in some contemporary aboriginal communities, and bizarrely approved of by some judges in their judgments. »
.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The various phases in the timeline of the social development of humanity are not as clearly identifiable as they are in our biological development – and even in the latter, they are not identifiable with absolute precision either. The different phases tend to overlap, sometimes quite considerably from one point of the globe to the other.

Historically, morality, law and justice originated within the family unit. From there they extended to the tribe and continued their development within the village, the city and the nation/state, before culminating on the international level.

Offenses, in a family, are for the most part, normal, expected occurrences. Punishment is not something a child receives in isolation from the rest of his relationship to the family; nor is it something which presupposes or carries with it a change of status from 'child' to 'criminal child'. When a parent admonishes or punishes his child, both parent and child know that afterward they will go on living together as before. He is punished in his own unchanged capacity as a child with failings (like all other children) rather than as some kind of distinct and dangerous outsider.

The tribe is an extension of the family but with two major differences: the parents are no longer the sole authority and the relationships with non-family members of the tribe are not the same as with family members. Tribal justice may or may not be exercised in the same manner as family justice. It is a hybrid situation.

Hence, restorative or reparative justice developed originally as tribal justice. But that did not prevent tribes from performing human sacrifices and severe methods of punishment if circumstances (prolonged droughts and crimes such as murder, etc.) commanded.

Also, as I indicated previously, the adversarial form of retributive or punitive justice, practiced in most parts of the world today, was largely favoured and influenced by the Abrahamic religions. Roman law, which dates from the same period, also had an influence, as you seem to suggest.

I think we agree on the basic facts. Perhaps our perspectives are slightly different.

.

LEGO,

In general, I don't disagree with what you say. "Authoritarianism comes naturally to Islamic society as the religion itself is basically feudal" is basically true. But my point is that this authoritarianism pre-dates Islam by several thousand years. To be sure, Islam nurtures that authoritarianism but equally, in its formative stages, it absorbed and fed off that sentiment.

Equally, western civilisation's bias toward person freedom feds off its historic legacy going back to the Greeks. Pericles and Epaminondas would basically understand and concur with Mills and Burke. Demosthenese (the orator) would understand Churchill's fight for liberty. Likewise, Sargon, Cyrus and Xerxes would not feel entirely out of place in Iran or Saudi.

These are very different world-views that, over hundreds of generations, have become part of their society's DNA. Thinking that this legacy can be broken in a generation or two is historically naive.

When we import M-E Islamics, we also import M-E culture. Our surprise that second generation M-E migrants revert to type (sometimes) demonstrates our naivety and how much we misunderstand history. A clash of cultures isn't always inevitable, but a clash of these particular cultures is.

To AJ.

You respond to my reasoned arguments written in clear and concise paragraphs with your customary sarcastic sneery one liners, vague implications, and with disconnected and sometimes contradictory statements that I have to collate over time, and then splice together to get any idea of what your position is,(other than reflexively opposing everything I write) and then you have the unmitigated gall to come on here and accuse me of misunderstanding you?

Thank you for finally informing us of what this supposed "demonstrably false and harmful" belief is that that every single individual Nazi and Klansmen supposedly universally holds which you claim proves that every one of them is contemptible. Please tell us how you know that every Nazi and Klansmen believes in white superiority? Are you God? Has somebody conducted a poll and contacted every Nazi and neo Nazi who ever lived and discovered that every single one of them is a white supremacist?

But the funniest thing is, it does not even matter if you are right. Like all stereotypes, it does not need to be accurate, only accurate enough to form a judgement. Human beings form groups of like minded people. The groups can be politicians, Nazis, Catholics, Surfies, Bikies, street gang members, Muslims, or social justice warriors like yourself. And because we need to socially interact with people we need to form judgements of people. Since we can't personally know everybody on the planet,every one of us routinely judges individuals by their group associations. We prejudge.

Everybody does it. Your ridiculous premise is that when you do it to the groups of people you don't like, you are not really doing it. But when your opponents do it to the groups of people that you lefties protect, they are really doing it, and that is wrong.

Everybody reading this can understand the essential logic of what I have written. Except you. But please keep your ignorance, hypocrisy and double standards up. The stereotype I am trying to present to our readers is how stupid you lefties really are, and your posts are a great help.

I have already addressed your ‘sneery one-liners’ accusation, LEGO.

<<You respond to my reasoned arguments written in clear and concise paragraphs with your customary sarcastic sneery one-liners, vague implications, and with disconnected and sometimes contradictory …>>

I’d also add that you are yet to catch me making a vague implication or a contradictory statement.

<<… you have the unmitigated gall to come on here and accuse me of misunderstanding you?>>

Absolutely.

<<Thank you for finally informing us of what this supposed "demonstrably false and harmful" belief is that that every single individual Nazi and Klansmen supposedly universally holds which you claim proves that every one of them is contemptible.>>

You’re welcome. I’ve done so twice now, and you have the unmitigated gall to say “finally”?

Tsk, tsk.

<<Please tell us how you know that every Nazi and Klansmen believes in white superiority?>>

Through their membership.

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/AmRad/principlespurposesknights.pdf
http://www.nazism.net/about/nazi_ideology

<<But the funniest thing is, it does not even matter if you are right.>>

Oh?

<<Like all stereotypes, it does not need to be accurate, only accurate enough to form a judgement.>>

If one wanted to stereotype. Sure.

<<Human beings form groups of [like-minded] people.>>

Correct.

<<And because we need to socially interact with people we need to form judgements of people.>>

It certainly helps, yes.

<<Since we can't personally know everybody on the planet,every one of us routinely judges individuals by their group associations.>>

Correct.

<<We prejudge.>>

Not everyone. Some of us are careful enough to avoid hasty and overly simplistic generalisations.

We’ve been through all this before.

<<Your ridiculous premise is that when you do it to the groups of people you don't like, you are not really doing it.>>

Please point to where I have said, or even implied, this.

<<Everybody reading this can understand the essential logic of what I have written.>>

There goes that focus on the audience again. In true narcissistic fashion, you demonstrate that you are not interested in any sort of genuine discussion, only how good you can make yourself look to others.

Well, you’ve got a way to go yet before that happens.

Thank you, AJ. I forgot about how, whenever I paint you into a corner, and your are obliged to give an explanation for one of your stupid assertions, your customary "get out of jail free" card is to simply post up a link to some vague site. And reading back on your posts, I forgot that any statement that you do make is so qualified to death that you can always plausibly deny it.

Your entire method of "debating" is indicative of a person who knows that he is wrong, but he will never admit to it. The reason being, that you are an acolyte to some stupid "we can save the world" ideology which you can never admit, even to yourself, is completely potty. Better to prevaricate endlessly rather than concede that the Sacred Ideals of Equality are wanting.

As for me providing an example of your contradictions, how about he ones where you stated that low intelligence is not a major risk factor in crime, then it was a major factor?

AJ quote 1

However, I would be willing to say that low intelligence is indirectly a major risk factor.

AJ quote 2

But there is not enough evidence to say that it is a “major” factor.

And this after strenuously denying that IQ testing was even accurate. It is impossible to "debate" intelligently with a person like you who changes their position whenever the wind shifts.

Back on topic.

Muslims, Klansmen, Nazis, Trump supporters, and any other group of people loosely united under any belief system are simply groups of people. All groups of people can be examined for their demographic makeup, and the values, attitudes and beliefs which hold them together. No group of people united under any ideology can have universally held beliefs, although some may have core beliefs to which every member must believe in to be accepted within the group. But even there, schisms always appear because people are different. So if Nazis and Klansmen can be prejudged and stereotyped, Muslims can to. Especially since they are all dangerous organisations to somebody.