No this is just Japan's government (and Japan's people's) way of doing things.
They ask what they want politely, VERY politely (and violations of the (very) strict protocol are dealt with... euhm... swiftly). However this should NOT be mistaken for an indication that "no" is an acceptable answer.
Let's first complete the question, since the "death in 6 months" is also far from 100% chance. We all know stories of patients that "were given 6 months" and survived another 20 years.
So a patient has 75% chance of not surviving the next 6 months if nothing is done. If something is done the chance of death at the moment something is done is 75%, with a 25% of surviving the next 5 years (that is generally the method).
Mathematically the correct action, given that you prefer life obviously, and that these figures are correct, is to wait 6 months, then do the surgery (they're not correct, which changes the situation, nevertheless let's assume we actually *know* the correct numbers).
An ethical assumption made in Christianity (and Judaism) is that action always beats inaction, if the intent is good. Since there is a cost associated with the operation and the intent is to preserve life, the operation is good, regardless of the outcome. In practice, inaction leads to evil, in this case it leads to death. In many cases, even though progressives like to say that inaction is morally neutral, it is not. Inaction is morally reprehensible (obviously taking count of the fact that one is limited and cannot support every cause, nevertheless not supporting any cause, being "apolitical" is not morally neutral (it's not even apolitical, since it clearly defends one party)).
Islam makes the opposite assumption, that inaction ("inchallah") allways beats action. (fortunately most of the shi'ites disagree, and thank God -the real one- for that), as a result shi'ite hospitals, while not quite up to catholic or jewish standards, beat the crap out of sunni ones.
First of all there are a number of medical functions in the execution process. You start by making the assumption of good faith, on the part of the justice system (which is obviously an assumption).
So if it orders an execution, this execution is just.
During the carrying out of the physical execution there are a number of medical functions that are not questionable at all:
-> confirming death of the convicted -> preventing accidents (this includes stuff like advising and checking the dosage of any chemical that is to be administered, advising what the result of administering said dose will be, and monitoring the process)
These are controversial, but only among the loony left sections of docters.
That leaves: -> actually starting the process
Now the reasoning is that the docter is not actually the party carrying out the termination of life (that would be illegal), it is the justice system that is initiating the process. So the reasoning goes, even though a docter is physically starting the process of termination, he did not start this process "in the real world", it was not started by the justice system either, but as a conscious choice on the part of the convicted. In other words : it is not at all the docter that is "the cause of his death", but rather the choices made by the convicted individual.
The hippocratic oath, itself being an extralegal oath, also calls attention to the difference between malum in se (a moral crime) and malum prohibitum (a crime that is merely against man-made law, say, not fastening your seatbelt). Death penalty is the better of 2 evils, never a good deed in itself.
Now obviously the death penalty, being a law, can never be malum prohibitum. So what is the moral angle ? The death penalty is not good, nobody's arguing that one, but the death penalty is the lesser of 2 evils. Remember that refusing to choose is also a choice (in this case it's knowingly exposing others to potentially lethal violence, that has been known to have been lethal at least once in the past).
So the real question is simply of who do you protect ? The innocent or the guilty ? You kill no matter which choice you make (and the argument "but there's a chance" holds no water, since you're to accept the ruling of the court, not merely your own. It is arrogant beyond belief that you're capable of better moral judgement than the justice apparatus, and it is illegal to act on that belief).
All the arguments against it are going to try to treat the death penalty as a malum prohibitum (literally following the words) issue, for the simple reason that if they treat is as malum in se (like it was always treated) they have 2600 years of history speaking against them.
If you're a believer : Jesus Christ himself was asked whether the (secular, separate from religion) law gets to use violence : his answer was short, and very clear : yes. Believing Christians have therefore the full permission of God himself to use violence to defend the state. Later on he willingly accepted the verdict of the death penalty made by the state upon himself, which one can interpret as showing the validity of the punishment (in addition to it's primary meaning obviously), at the very least it confirms that using violence against a state official trying to carry out the death penalty is morally reprehensible. (again here he made a choice between 2 alternatives : the results of both choices were known to him, and he chose to undergo the death penalty, he chose the lesser of 2 evils, and walked with certainty to his fate)
And if you're a muslim, your "prophet" executed over 10000 people directly, most (over 6000) for disagreeing with him, over 2000 for first agreeing with him and then leaving islam. The wars he started would eventually take over 300 million deaths (and those are the low estimates). He was NOT trying to protect anyone like Jesus Christ was, he was trying to destroy their lives, and the wars he started would eventually result in at least 300 million religio
It is telling that stating the actual content of the hippocratic oath gets labeled "flamebait".
Obviously, to a "democrat party supporter" (as in member of the democrat party of america, which is obviously not at all the same as someone who is in favor of democracy), really helping people out of principle, like the hippocratic oath demands, IS a flamebait.
Hippocratic oath = completely illiberaldemocrat (for again the democratic party of america's definition of liberal), and VERY liberal (dictionary definition : allowing ALL people to be free to live their lives as they choose, which obviously prohibits abortion, and upon close examination also prohibits euthanasia).
It does not in the hippocratic oath, perhaps you should read it.
(Human) life is valued above all else, and specifically it is valued OVER comfort.
Therefore it is a VERY stretched interpretation that you'll need to allow passive euthanasia. Abortion : terminating one human life for the comfort of another is a definite, loud NO for the hippocratic oath.
As is active (and let's be honest, passive too) euthanasia.
Here's the text (which you haven't read) : ...
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
Note that this leaves one thing open that you're going to disagree with : it indeed allows doctors to carry out the death penalty (even in cases where they do not necessarily agree with the verdict).
Still in favor of the hippocratic oath ? I know I am though.
So you're saying we should replace the hippocratic oath with a pretty picture ?
Perhaps we simply need criminal sentences for breaking any part of the hippocratic oath. There are obviously problems with that : the democrats will never agree. You cannot take the hippocratic oath and do an abortion or euthanasia, it's out of the question. So that would, by itself, criminalize (and I believe that in the original interpretation would make executing either abortion or euthanasia punishable by death by poisoning, at least that was the ancient Greek way of dealing with violations of the Hippocratic oath)
Basically the problem is that today's scientists feel totalitarian : they feel entitled to push their view on the data. Obviously both abortion and euthanasia harm patients. You could perhaps defend stopping a treatment, ie disconnecting life-giving equipment as compliant with the hippocratic oath, but euthanasia by actively terminating someone's life does not qualify as "doing no harm".
The problem is a lot more simple : it is simply not possible to agree on a moral standard with people who have no morals. Until we fix that "little issue", no oath, and certainly no pretty picture, will help.
Nobody ever gets all the facts... so let's choose for them.
You should be euthanized... just google it, you'll find very positive reviews of this exiting new treatment ! It improves your dignity, and it makes people like you a whole lot more ! You'll be admired for years simply for following this simple little painless treatment ! We have a 100% satisfaction rate.
Are you game ?
Why, after all should we attempt to present people with the full facts... or at least balanced facts ? No use in that now is there...
Oh and Obama is a demagogue. The only things going faster into oblivion than the American people will go if he's elected are his campaign promises...
I won't speak to the other groups, because I don't personally know any Muslims and I don't feel qualified to say anything in that regard, but what I do know is that there are Muslim groups in which education is highly valued, particularly in the realm of science, believe it or not. Much of what we know about science and math today comes from the ancient Muslims -- ever heard of 'Arabic numerals'?
Yes, unfortunately they're not arabic at all. They're hindu. You know they killed 300 million hindus once they started expanding into the east.
But they also took slaves amongst them. And those slaves somehow found contact (probably as refugees) in the Christian Byzantium, which embraced them. (Yes you're going to find that that's italy, but it really is as simple as that, the Byzantines, who lived in present-day turkey, had their main battleground with the muslims in Sicily, Southern Italy (after an "let's let muslims immigrate" experiment ended in something called jihad, they were driven first from Italy, later from Sicily. You're not going to believe just how bad the terror the muslims subjected the proto-Italians to was, they actually kidnapped 2000 of those italians, put them on rafts on a spike, so that they were mortally hurt, but still screaming, they did this to children, women, old men, anybody they could find that they didn't like, and drove all those rafts into an italian port, needless to say, after that little event every italian started actively seeking out muslims and killing them)
But those Indian slaves, kidnapped by muslim jihadi's, some of them actually managed to get into Byzantium, present-day Italy, and managed to pass on the knowledge of the hindu numerals (and the equally hindu concept of "zero") onto a few monks, who passed it to the emperor and to the pope, who spread it over Western Europe.
Muslim cruelty provided the motivation that drove Hindus into Europe, but the numerals are by no means arabic.
The problem with muslim history is simple, the good things you hear about it, with very few exceptions, are falsifications that don't stand up to even basic scrutiny.
To take one example : the crusades. Here's the actual history of the crusades (not a good source, but hey):
Read the first paragraph. Compare with most people's preconceived notions of the crusades being expansionist wars. In reality they were defensive, in reaction to muslim warfare against eastern Christians. Oops.
All muslim jihad's (and there have been a LOT) WERE expansionist wars, a fact that the whole "militants" and the "anti-opression" activists will deny with every fiber in their body despite it being obvious historical truth. But somehow the notion's been reversed:
Crusades : were not "holy wars", but defensive wars. Muslims attacked a Christian nation, and through the pope some Europeans were rallied to help Constantinopel out Reconquista (or it's most well-known institution : the inquisition) : defensive war against muslims in Spain, Portugal, started in Catalunya. Jihad : was an actual "holy" war (the concept is defined in the quran but is absent in the bible) (quran 2:217 : muslims are always at war, quran 9:111 : muslims are slaves, and allah orders them to kill, even if it costs them their lives, quran 3:7 this is to be implemented LITERALLY, and this is just an example, the prophet, who is the example of every muslim, started 11 wars, muslims only claim 1 of them to be defensive. Several were started out of feelings of revenge)
So please, don't reward the muslim slave trade and the muslim massacres in India : call it the "hindu" numerals, and correct people who call them arabic. The arabs attempted to kill that knowledge, they did not create it, nor did they even keep it alive. And they attempted to kill it with such cruelty, and such utter and complete disregard for human life that their reputation is still known in today's english language :
That Obama is the anti-christ, so I'm sure there are a few books out there.
Actually his OWN site has a few blogs that could make one think that way.
(blogs on the obama site are moderated, so Obama at least passively agrees with these blogs)
(note that stuff there tends to disappear faster than Obama's campaign promises* once media link to it)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/adamroberts/C2Qm/commentary The Neo-proleatarian is now the bearer of the Revolution. Thats why I support Obama. He helps destroy the paradigm of bourgeoisie government, which is best for the Proletariat. In the end, this will only hasten the Revolution even if the Revolution must come as a massive goverment reform...
We are a group that supports social justice for our oppressed Muslim brothers all over the world. We support Barack Obama for President because he is sympathetic to the plight of Muslims. He is a man of integrity, who will not be bullied by the neo-cons and the zionists. He will stand up for our oppressed palestinian brothers and sisters, whose land is being illegally occupied by that evil zionist entity whose name I just hate to even write.
* using military force for an undivided Israeli Jerusalem for example, but obviously Obama "didn't know what he was saying". What sort of an excuse is that if you want to become president ?
But don't worry... that this sort of stuff appears on MODERATED blogs on Obama's site obviously means that (I'm not kidding) :
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/michaelpugliese/gG5Gyt/commentary It's all planted by fascist right wingers
It's democrats that currently control the laws, in case anyone's forgotten. This is therefore, their fault. And by extention, Obama's. Obama is a demagogue : he hates government power, EXCEPT WHEN HE'S THE GOVERNMENT
How can anyone seriously be stupid enough to fall for this guy ?
Actually just about the entirety of Northern Europe does the same. Until very recently it was cheaper to heat with oil (and now only natural gas is *slightly* cheaper than the -much more flexible- electrical heating).
I do prefer electrical heating -a lot- over central oil heating though.
The only nation that really heats homes using renewable energy is Israel. It's almost funny when you look at Jerusalem from a distance, and you'll immediately ask yourself... what's with all the white and black tanks on all the rooftops. Well those provide heating and cooling. There about $200, but I doubt you'd get much heating out of them in more northern regions.
It seems to me that most democrat policies don't agree with this - at all. If what you say is truly the basis for policy, there is no possible justification for "positive" discrimination policies. Therefore I submit that it is *not* the basis for policy.
It gets worse once you start to involve statistics on ethnic and religious groups, because with equality of opportunity, an average white has double (in years) the education of the average black person. Given the same income, the same... the same everything. You can whine about this. On the other hand the chances of a caucasion winning the 100m sprint have been reduced from slim to none in the past few years.
Men still outperform women in e.g. the exact sciences, despite the utter laughability of there still being a difference in treatment. In fact if I may say so at my university it's easier for women to pass, and it is LOADS easier for a woman to get hired into an informatica position, as we all know.
And then you have the difference in philosophical outlook on life. Muslim children have barely 5% chance of getting into college at all - every study says that this is due to their parents' value system, but God forbid that someone actually thinks that. The same is true for some of the more lunatic Christian cults, but in islam you can take the whole heap of them. This is actually also true in muslim-majority nations.
Denying this positive discrimination has become forced part of any policy. Since those children don't want to go to college (boring etc) there is nothing that you can really do, except pestering the other groups until there's also only 5% of them going to college, thereby massively damaging everyone.
It has also another result : if a muslim (blacks have a similar issue) passes a university grade, he's may have been let through for his minority status. Every employer knows this, and therefore doesn't hire any muslims into positions that require knowledge, as they know the diploma means nothing in their case. This is not the result of discrimination on the part of the employer, but the result of "positive" discrimination on the part of the university. The main effect is that muslims who actually do study and integrate are attacked from all sides, the way I'm sure everybody here remembers geeks are attacked in high school, *and* they get attacked by university officials, for making the rest of their minority look bad, or for integrating into "white" society, *and* by employers, who don't want to take the risks this stupid policy is forcing them to make.
Striving for an equal opportunity society has long given way to striving for the statistics to be equal. And it's been that way for a long, long time now. In the 80's yes, you'd have been right, but those policies are now actually being recinded.
You could, for example, require that all public documents and technology (like, say, the internet) where provided in alternate, accessible media (WAI-validated pages, Braille, audio streams). This way, it really doesn't matter whether you have eyes or not, you can access those documents.
How exactly does that let blind people see ? If it doesn't let them enjoy a nice sunset on a whim like the rest of us then they're still not equal.
The only option is to blind everyone. Your documents can never, ever replace the sight of a person. So the only equal that the blind can be made is by sticking the eyes out from everyone else.
That is obviously what taxes are being used for by the democrats. Example : Obama's going to increase taxes for everyone, not because it's responsible fiscal policy, but because it will make people "more equal". It will indeed. It will make everyone more miserable.
You know who exactly are poor, right ? It's the 10% lowest earners.
And in a total surprise, everybody is totally shocked and utterly amazed... ~10% of people are poor.
Now think : if everybody made 10x the wage of donald trump, had a planet to him/herself and an army of robot servants to comply with his/her every whim, would obviously still be 10% "poor" people.
Socialists started doing this since even the poorest people alive (in America) in 2007 have better lives, more money, more options, more entertainment than even the president had in 1940. Just about everything except the size of the appartment compares favorably.
But when people start equalizing society, I always think of the blind. Some people, you see are blind. Now this is clearly a disadvantage. And with some the problems are so severe that they cannot ever be fixed (e.g. myelin problems on the optic nerve, there won't be a treatment for at least 200 years for that one), so how do you create equality ?
There is only one option : stick everybody's eyes out. That'd be equal.
Long live equality, right ? The only equality on this world is equal misery.
Instead, if we can somehow munster the necessary intelligence anywhere near congress, let's just STRICTLY limit ourselves to equality before law, nothing more (and this means starting by throwing out any and all "positive discrimination" practices).
by not referring to the self I mean it does mean submission, however :
it does NOT mean submit yourself, in fact by specifically not using the form that means submit yourself, the word draws attention to the fact that it means to submit others
It is also an active verb. Which means it means to go out and submit someone (not to the will of God, but to God). Again this by itself indicates some measure of force is to be used.
So yes it means submission. It does NOT mean to submit yourself to God (as you would take it), it means to go out and make others submit to God. It's more or less an imperative form of the verb.
It also specifically does NOT mean voluntary submission (you'd use -again- another form for that). Islam doesn't even pretend that people are free to believe, like Christianity and Judaism do. One thing all muslims agree on is the need to murder everyone who leaves islam, and this is something their prophet did numerous times (well he murdered over 10.000 people, A few thousand for were murdered for leaving him. Most were murdered for refusing to join the muslims).
So in summary Islam = submission. Yes technically true, but you're aiming your translation so that it WILL be misinterpreted.
Like saying "boeing" in french means "vehicle". It's not incorrect per se. But you're dropping 99% of the meaning of the word.
islam means "going out and submitting people to the will of God". And yes in imperative interpretation of "submission" coupled with the fact that the absent person in a sentence is God (which is theoretically true in English as well, but I've yet to hear it used once), could make a linguist say that "submission" in English is a similar form. But it's not very clear. At the very least "submitting" would be a better translation. But military domination certainly is a correct translation.
The practice of hisbah, repeated tons of times in the quran clarifies the method for doing this ("islam"), and specifies that while a non-violent way should be considered, violence is the method used to do this. (and this was generally taken to mean that the non-violent way was forcing the opponent to comply and convert using threats) (muslims divide the world in dar-al-islam and dar-al-harb, all inhabitants of dar-al-harb ("the place of war") are enemies, including any muslims that may live there, and should be killed or at the very least they should submit)
All semitic languages are like latin, but much more word and verb forms than latin. In hebrew and arabic (and latin and greek) you can say in 1 word what would take 10 english words to say, and since a lot of words can be mollified to mean the same thing. In enlish you have basically the genitive form of a word. Well Hebrew and arabic have 16 basic word forms, some of which can be combined. Therefore the exact form of a word that's used carries a lot of meaning, and since some can be combined with others, leaving them out is also meaningful.
islam is neither passive, nor self-referential. So why don't you tell me what it means, because, fair enough Hebrew (the language that is the basis for arabic) works by classifying verbs.
islam means submission, however -> not of the self, in other words you should NOT submit YOURSELF, but someone else (which is repeated hundreds of times in the quran, so often this repetition got a separate name "hisbah") -> it is an active verb (it means to go out and make something happen)
So please, feel free to post your translation. That's where the translation of military domination comes from, because that's two words that I think you'd interpret in the same way.
If you've got a different suggestion, taking into account the 2 caveats stated above, then by all means give it up.
And let's see again about not being integer. How about not respecting a negotiated peace treaty because "allah said so" ? Would you consider that "honest" ? Well :
If the talmud, written 3500 years before the bible claims Jesus Christ walked this earth talks about Christians, you know then it probably *is* from God.
For the record it doesn't say -at all- (not that you'll let this stop you) to kill gentiles. In fact it states the exact opposite. Jews are to protect and "present a shining example" to the gentiles.
However if (whatever faction of) gentiles overpower a Jewish city, the talmud states to eradicate said city.
The bible, the new testament, states not to do this, but to abandon said city (and claims the original message in the talmud is the same). After all Christianity is the truth, and without Christianity, that city will fall off it's own.
The problem the Jews have here (it's not a problem, everybody ignores the reason for this), is Moses Maimonides. A Jew of the Caliphate of Cordoba. He was part of the muslim government of Cordoba (that regularly sent out massacring armies into the Christian mainland, especially into Catalonia), and he was driven out of Spain, upon pain of death, for his faith.
Despite this, his books specifically states that the Christians did what was morally right. He went on to write a series of books (in Istanbul) that denounced "the old" Judaism, including the rule you specified (and that specific rule he denounced for being too islamic).
Now what does this have to do with everything ? Well : every contemporary rabbi follows the writings of Maimonides. They're considered the correct way to look at the talmud. Maimonides is to Jews a sort of Christ who didn't claim to be the son of God (or G-d).
Although every Jew will deny this, his writings carry (today) greater weight in Judaism than the Talmud itself (in the same way as Christians will deny the authority of the New Testament over the Old Testament).
"most people realize religions are more of an allegory"
You project your own feelings upon vast regions of the earth without even a shred of proof. I can start by assuring you that people who consider their religion "more of an allegory" are vastly in the minority world-wide. Just because they seem not to be in the center of New York city seems to be a poor indicator.
Also, please keep in mind that many religions and other ideologies (because for all practical purpose communism for example, or even some people's view of capitalism can be considered religious) do not see themselves as dependant on reason. In fact they do not.
Especially the assumptions that religions "color in" are held by a VAST majority in even the most "atheistic" of nations:
-> something, some unitary entity (or conspiracy) controls the world. I do not say whether this means Bush's "cronies" or "the mossad", or God, G-d, Allah or Shiva. The large majority of people believe this. The main difference between God, G-d, Shiva and most of the other "gods" are simply that God is good -> this entity can be influenced by practicing a certain set of rules. (e.g. if you believe in capitalism this assumption would translate into "get a job" if you're out of money, which is obviously an assumption : there may not be any jobs, employers may be prejudiced against you, of
you may not have any worthwile qualifications, or...)
Note how while this seems like a trivial matter, but in reality permeates just about every last action you take. Every interaction you have with the world would play differently if you switched belief system. Try it once, react to strangers as if they are totally trustworthy, like Christ demands, and see what happens. Then try the muslim technique of steadily increasing agressiveness (just don't step up to terror) against someone you meet when they refuse to share your viewpoint.
If you're calling muslims more cultured you're a lunatic, and it's telling that you don't give any examples.
The culture of the middle ages permeates the west. In every city there is at least something you can see. Their languages, Latin and a Latin-French
Abandon the rule of law, honour and integrity and you are the enemy and you become the terrorists.
That's stupid. The terrorists are doing exactly what the prophet of a certain religion did.
They did not -at all- abandon the rule of law - quite the opposite. You will find the terrorists law a *lot* stricter than the current American law.
Honour and integrity are Christian concepts (at least that's how they were passed into America in the first place). If you're a muslim, you don't have them.
Honour in islam is nothing personal. You can do nothing to gain honor, you can only do things to lose it (especially as a woman). It has nothing to do with personal strength of character.
And integrity. I'll just let muhammad do the talking about integrity in islam. Muhammad the prophet actually states that he lies and doesn't respect promises :
'By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' (Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427, but a trivial search for only these words immediately yields over 20 references)
Do you seriously think "the rule of law" is the problem with the terrorists ? Sure they don't follow their own laws, but neither did their prophet.
Islam, the name says it by itself, means military domination in arabic (submission would be astaslama). The first and foremost duty of any muslim is "hisbah". Which can be translated into forcing sharia onto others, without violence should be considered, but with violence is the normal option.
The islamic prophet fought over 11 wars. Even muslims only claim a single one of them to be defensive.
And this is how he fought : sending out killers in the night, murdering a mother in front of her children :
Do you seriously think anything about the behavior of these terrorists violates any reasonable interpretation of islam ? (besides islam is meant literally, according to quran 3:7, and so killing means killing, and every muslim is a slave with orders to kill (9:111 in the quran)).
The enemy is not terrorism, the enemy is islam. Not muslims, they can be saved (I don't mean converted, I mean they don't have to be killed), but islam has to die if you want to stop terror.
Slashdot Mirror
No this is just Japan's government (and Japan's people's) way of doing things.
They ask what they want politely, VERY politely (and violations of the (very) strict protocol are dealt with ... euhm ... swiftly). However this should NOT be mistaken for an indication that "no" is an acceptable answer.
Let's not change the subject
Hey I've watched a few OBM speeches, and I'm a quick study.
Now if only someone could point out where the "hope" and/or the "change" is located in that man's speeches, because that I didn't learn.
Let's first complete the question, since the "death in 6 months" is also far from 100% chance. We all know stories of patients that "were given 6 months" and survived another 20 years.
So a patient has 75% chance of not surviving the next 6 months if nothing is done. If something is done the chance of death at the moment something is done is 75%, with a 25% of surviving the next 5 years (that is generally the method).
Mathematically the correct action, given that you prefer life obviously, and that these figures are correct, is to wait 6 months, then do the surgery (they're not correct, which changes the situation, nevertheless let's assume we actually *know* the correct numbers).
An ethical assumption made in Christianity (and Judaism) is that action always beats inaction, if the intent is good. Since there is a cost associated with the operation and the intent is to preserve life, the operation is good, regardless of the outcome. In practice, inaction leads to evil, in this case it leads to death. In many cases, even though progressives like to say that inaction is morally neutral, it is not. Inaction is morally reprehensible (obviously taking count of the fact that one is limited and cannot support every cause, nevertheless not supporting any cause, being "apolitical" is not morally neutral (it's not even apolitical, since it clearly defends one party)).
Islam makes the opposite assumption, that inaction ("inchallah") allways beats action. (fortunately most of the shi'ites disagree, and thank God -the real one- for that), as a result shi'ite hospitals, while not quite up to catholic or jewish standards, beat the crap out of sunni ones.
Nevertheless docters carried out the death penalty in ancient greece, and ever since.
The question only became loaded after WWII, and it's not a loaded question in many parts of the world.
First of all there are a number of medical functions in the execution process. You start by making the assumption of good faith, on the part of the justice system (which is obviously an assumption).
So if it orders an execution, this execution is just.
During the carrying out of the physical execution there are a number of medical functions that are not questionable at all :
-> confirming death of the convicted
-> preventing accidents (this includes stuff like advising and checking the dosage of any chemical that is to be administered, advising what the result of administering said dose will be, and monitoring the process)
These are controversial, but only among the loony left sections of docters.
That leaves :
-> actually starting the process
Now the reasoning is that the docter is not actually the party carrying out the termination of life (that would be illegal), it is the justice system that is initiating the process. So the reasoning goes, even though a docter is physically starting the process of termination, he did not start this process "in the real world", it was not started by the justice system either, but as a conscious choice on the part of the convicted. In other words : it is not at all the docter that is "the cause of his death", but rather the choices made by the convicted individual.
The hippocratic oath, itself being an extralegal oath, also calls attention to the difference between malum in se (a moral crime) and malum prohibitum (a crime that is merely against man-made law, say, not fastening your seatbelt). Death penalty is the better of 2 evils, never a good deed in itself.
Now obviously the death penalty, being a law, can never be malum prohibitum. So what is the moral angle ? The death penalty is not good, nobody's arguing that one, but the death penalty is the lesser of 2 evils. Remember that refusing to choose is also a choice (in this case it's knowingly exposing others to potentially lethal violence, that has been known to have been lethal at least once in the past).
So the real question is simply of who do you protect ? The innocent or the guilty ? You kill no matter which choice you make (and the argument "but there's a chance" holds no water, since you're to accept the ruling of the court, not merely your own. It is arrogant beyond belief that you're capable of better moral judgement than the justice apparatus, and it is illegal to act on that belief).
All the arguments against it are going to try to treat the death penalty as a malum prohibitum (literally following the words) issue, for the simple reason that if they treat is as malum in se (like it was always treated) they have 2600 years of history speaking against them.
If you're a believer : Jesus Christ himself was asked whether the (secular, separate from religion) law gets to use violence : his answer was short, and very clear : yes. Believing Christians have therefore the full permission of God himself to use violence to defend the state. Later on he willingly accepted the verdict of the death penalty made by the state upon himself, which one can interpret as showing the validity of the punishment (in addition to it's primary meaning obviously), at the very least it confirms that using violence against a state official trying to carry out the death penalty is morally reprehensible. (again here he made a choice between 2 alternatives : the results of both choices were known to him, and he chose to undergo the death penalty, he chose the lesser of 2 evils, and walked with certainty to his fate)
And if you're a muslim, your "prophet" executed over 10000 people directly, most (over 6000) for disagreeing with him, over 2000 for first agreeing with him and then leaving islam. The wars he started would eventually take over 300 million deaths (and those are the low estimates). He was NOT trying to protect anyone like Jesus Christ was, he was trying to destroy their lives, and the wars he started would eventually result in at least 300 million religio
It is telling that stating the actual content of the hippocratic oath gets labeled "flamebait".
Obviously, to a "democrat party supporter" (as in member of the democrat party of america, which is obviously not at all the same as someone who is in favor of democracy), really helping people out of principle, like the hippocratic oath demands, IS a flamebait.
Hippocratic oath = completely illiberaldemocrat (for again the democratic party of america's definition of liberal), and VERY liberal (dictionary definition : allowing ALL people to be free to live their lives as they choose, which obviously prohibits abortion, and upon close examination also prohibits euthanasia).
It does not in the hippocratic oath, perhaps you should read it.
(Human) life is valued above all else, and specifically it is valued OVER comfort.
Therefore it is a VERY stretched interpretation that you'll need to allow passive euthanasia. Abortion : terminating one human life for the comfort of another is a definite, loud NO for the hippocratic oath.
As is active (and let's be honest, passive too) euthanasia.
Here's the text (which you haven't read) :
...
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
Note that this leaves one thing open that you're going to disagree with : it indeed allows doctors to carry out the death penalty (even in cases where they do not necessarily agree with the verdict).
Still in favor of the hippocratic oath ? I know I am though.
In case you haven't noticed, there is hardly any journalistic (ie. neutral) story in papers like the new york times anymore.
This is not a local problem at all. Apparently news = politically correct opinion wich may or may not have facts behind it.
Just one egrerious example, the court case of Charles Enderlin in France :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys
Just watch the movie, give it 2 minutes. It's not exactly subtle, and unfortunately it's the truth.
So you're saying we should replace the hippocratic oath with a pretty picture ?
Perhaps we simply need criminal sentences for breaking any part of the hippocratic oath. There are obviously problems with that : the democrats will never agree. You cannot take the hippocratic oath and do an abortion or euthanasia, it's out of the question. So that would, by itself, criminalize (and I believe that in the original interpretation would make executing either abortion or euthanasia punishable by death by poisoning, at least that was the ancient Greek way of dealing with violations of the Hippocratic oath)
Basically the problem is that today's scientists feel totalitarian : they feel entitled to push their view on the data. Obviously both abortion and euthanasia harm patients. You could perhaps defend stopping a treatment, ie disconnecting life-giving equipment as compliant with the hippocratic oath, but euthanasia by actively terminating someone's life does not qualify as "doing no harm".
The problem is a lot more simple : it is simply not possible to agree on a moral standard with people who have no morals. Until we fix that "little issue", no oath, and certainly no pretty picture, will help.
facts get in the way of a good bit of sensationalism.
Nobody ever gets all the facts ... so let's choose for them.
You should be euthanized ... just google it, you'll find very positive reviews of this exiting new treatment ! It improves your dignity, and it makes people like you a whole lot more ! You'll be admired for years simply for following this simple little painless treatment ! We have a 100% satisfaction rate.
Are you game ?
Why, after all should we attempt to present people with the full facts ... or at least balanced facts ? No use in that now is there ...
Oh and Obama is a demagogue. The only things going faster into oblivion than the American people will go if he's elected are his campaign promises ...
I won't speak to the other groups, because I don't personally know any Muslims and I don't feel qualified to say anything in that regard, but what I do know is that there are Muslim groups in which education is highly valued, particularly in the realm of science, believe it or not. Much of what we know about science and math today comes from the ancient Muslims -- ever heard of 'Arabic numerals'?
Yes, unfortunately they're not arabic at all. They're hindu. You know they killed 300 million hindus once they started expanding into the east.
But they also took slaves amongst them. And those slaves somehow found contact (probably as refugees) in the Christian Byzantium, which embraced them. (Yes you're going to find that that's italy, but it really is as simple as that, the Byzantines, who lived in present-day turkey, had their main battleground with the muslims in Sicily, Southern Italy (after an "let's let muslims immigrate" experiment ended in something called jihad, they were driven first from Italy, later from Sicily. You're not going to believe just how bad the terror the muslims subjected the proto-Italians to was, they actually kidnapped 2000 of those italians, put them on rafts on a spike, so that they were mortally hurt, but still screaming, they did this to children, women, old men, anybody they could find that they didn't like, and drove all those rafts into an italian port, needless to say, after that little event every italian started actively seeking out muslims and killing them)
But those Indian slaves, kidnapped by muslim jihadi's, some of them actually managed to get into Byzantium, present-day Italy, and managed to pass on the knowledge of the hindu numerals (and the equally hindu concept of "zero") onto a few monks, who passed it to the emperor and to the pope, who spread it over Western Europe.
Muslim cruelty provided the motivation that drove Hindus into Europe, but the numerals are by no means arabic.
The problem with muslim history is simple, the good things you hear about it, with very few exceptions, are falsifications that don't stand up to even basic scrutiny.
To take one example : the crusades. Here's the actual history of the crusades (not a good source, but hey) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
Read the first paragraph. Compare with most people's preconceived notions of the crusades being expansionist wars. In reality they were defensive, in reaction to muslim warfare against eastern Christians. Oops.
All muslim jihad's (and there have been a LOT) WERE expansionist wars, a fact that the whole "militants" and the "anti-opression" activists will deny with every fiber in their body despite it being obvious historical truth. But somehow the notion's been reversed :
Crusades : were not "holy wars", but defensive wars. Muslims attacked a Christian nation, and through the pope some Europeans were rallied to help Constantinopel out
Reconquista (or it's most well-known institution : the inquisition) : defensive war against muslims in Spain, Portugal, started in Catalunya.
Jihad : was an actual "holy" war (the concept is defined in the quran but is absent in the bible) (quran 2:217 : muslims are always at war, quran 9:111 : muslims are slaves, and allah orders them to kill, even if it costs them their lives, quran 3:7 this is to be implemented LITERALLY, and this is just an example, the prophet, who is the example of every muslim, started 11 wars, muslims only claim 1 of them to be defensive. Several were started out of feelings of revenge)
So please, don't reward the muslim slave trade and the muslim massacres in India : call it the "hindu" numerals, and correct people who call them arabic. The arabs attempted to kill that knowledge, they did not create it, nor did they even keep it alive. And they attempted to kill it with such cruelty, and such utter and complete disregard for human life that their reputation is still known in today's english language :
That Obama is the anti-christ, so I'm sure there are a few books out there.
Actually his OWN site has a few blogs that could make one think that way.(blogs on the obama site are moderated, so Obama at least passively agrees with these blogs)
(note that stuff there tends to disappear faster than Obama's campaign promises* once media link to it)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama ...
This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/adamroberts/C2Qm/commentary
The Neo-proleatarian is now the bearer of the Revolution. Thats why I support Obama. He helps destroy the paradigm of bourgeoisie government, which is best for the Proletariat. In the end, this will only hasten the Revolution even if the Revolution must come as a massive goverment reform...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/jemaahislamiyahforobama
Jemaah Islamiyah For Obama
We are a group that supports social justice for our oppressed Muslim brothers all over the world. We support Barack Obama for President because he is sympathetic to the plight of Muslims. He is a man of integrity, who will not be bullied by the neo-cons and the zionists. He will stand up for our oppressed palestinian brothers and sisters, whose land is being illegally occupied by that evil zionist entity whose name I just hate to even write.
Who is Jemaah Islamaya you ask ? Well :
Self-proclaimed killers of 202 people for "being infidels"
* using military force for an undivided Israeli Jerusalem for example, but obviously Obama "didn't know what he was saying". What sort of an excuse is that if you want to become president ?
But don't worry ... that this sort of stuff appears on MODERATED blogs on Obama's site obviously means that (I'm not kidding) :
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/michaelpugliese/gG5Gyt/commentary
It's all planted by fascist right wingers
It's democrats that currently control the laws, in case anyone's forgotten. This is therefore, their fault. And by extention, Obama's. Obama is a demagogue : he hates government power, EXCEPT WHEN HE'S THE GOVERNMENT
How can anyone seriously be stupid enough to fall for this guy ?
You know you could just drive this argument to it's logical extreme ...
The second law of thermodynamics is quite clear : there does not exist ANY renewable energy. Not a single watt. Not one.
Actually just about the entirety of Northern Europe does the same. Until very recently it was cheaper to heat with oil (and now only natural gas is *slightly* cheaper than the -much more flexible- electrical heating).
... what's with all the white and black tanks on all the rooftops. Well those provide heating and cooling. There about $200, but I doubt you'd get much heating out of them in more northern regions.
I do prefer electrical heating -a lot- over central oil heating though.
The only nation that really heats homes using renewable energy is Israel. It's almost funny when you look at Jerusalem from a distance, and you'll immediately ask yourself
Did you know that alaska (and even New York, has the same problem, a bit less though), is also part of the United states ?
With the possible exception of massive solar panels in orbit, solar is no solution to the energy needs of the entire united states.
Texas won't have any issues, but as you go up, more and more will creep up on you.
It seems to me that most democrat policies don't agree with this - at all. If what you say is truly the basis for policy, there is no possible justification for "positive" discrimination policies. Therefore I submit that it is *not* the basis for policy.
... the same everything. You can whine about this. On the other hand the chances of a caucasion winning the 100m sprint have been reduced from slim to none in the past few years.
It gets worse once you start to involve statistics on ethnic and religious groups, because with equality of opportunity, an average white has double (in years) the education of the average black person. Given the same income, the same
Men still outperform women in e.g. the exact sciences, despite the utter laughability of there still being a difference in treatment. In fact if I may say so at my university it's easier for women to pass, and it is LOADS easier for a woman to get hired into an informatica position, as we all know.
And then you have the difference in philosophical outlook on life. Muslim children have barely 5% chance of getting into college at all - every study says that this is due to their parents' value system, but God forbid that someone actually thinks that. The same is true for some of the more lunatic Christian cults, but in islam you can take the whole heap of them. This is actually also true in muslim-majority nations.
Denying this positive discrimination has become forced part of any policy. Since those children don't want to go to college (boring etc) there is nothing that you can really do, except pestering the other groups until there's also only 5% of them going to college, thereby massively damaging everyone.
It has also another result : if a muslim (blacks have a similar issue) passes a university grade, he's may have been let through for his minority status. Every employer knows this, and therefore doesn't hire any muslims into positions that require knowledge, as they know the diploma means nothing in their case. This is not the result of discrimination on the part of the employer, but the result of "positive" discrimination on the part of the university. The main effect is that muslims who actually do study and integrate are attacked from all sides, the way I'm sure everybody here remembers geeks are attacked in high school, *and* they get attacked by university officials, for making the rest of their minority look bad, or for integrating into "white" society, *and* by employers, who don't want to take the risks this stupid policy is forcing them to make.
Striving for an equal opportunity society has long given way to striving for the statistics to be equal. And it's been that way for a long, long time now. In the 80's yes, you'd have been right, but those policies are now actually being recinded.
How is said quality of life defined ? "not in the lowest x%" or something like that ?
WHO is poor according to the Swedish government ? Can you be more precise ?
You could, for example, require that all public documents and technology (like, say, the internet) where provided in alternate, accessible media (WAI-validated pages, Braille, audio streams). This way, it really doesn't matter whether you have eyes or not, you can access those documents.
How exactly does that let blind people see ? If it doesn't let them enjoy a nice sunset on a whim like the rest of us then they're still not equal.
The only option is to blind everyone. Your documents can never, ever replace the sight of a person. So the only equal that the blind can be made is by sticking the eyes out from everyone else.
That is obviously what taxes are being used for by the democrats. Example : Obama's going to increase taxes for everyone, not because it's responsible fiscal policy, but because it will make people "more equal". It will indeed. It will make everyone more miserable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M81s4bZf6es
The only equal that exists in this world is equally miserable.
It's just the same with the poor ...
... ~10% of people are poor.
You know who exactly are poor, right ? It's the 10% lowest earners.
And in a total surprise, everybody is totally shocked and utterly amazed
Now think : if everybody made 10x the wage of donald trump, had a planet to him/herself and an army of robot servants to comply with his/her every whim, would obviously still be 10% "poor" people.
Socialists started doing this since even the poorest people alive (in America) in 2007 have better lives, more money, more options, more entertainment than even the president had in 1940. Just about everything except the size of the appartment compares favorably.
But when people start equalizing society, I always think of the blind. Some people, you see are blind. Now this is clearly a disadvantage. And with some the problems are so severe that they cannot ever be fixed (e.g. myelin problems on the optic nerve, there won't be a treatment for at least 200 years for that one), so how do you create equality ?
There is only one option : stick everybody's eyes out. That'd be equal.
Long live equality, right ? The only equality on this world is equal misery.
Instead, if we can somehow munster the necessary intelligence anywhere near congress, let's just STRICTLY limit ourselves to equality before law, nothing more (and this means starting by throwing out any and all "positive discrimination" practices).
by not referring to the self I mean it does mean submission, however :
it does NOT mean submit yourself, in fact by specifically not using the form that means submit yourself, the word draws attention to the fact that it means to submit others
It is also an active verb. Which means it means to go out and submit someone (not to the will of God, but to God). Again this by itself indicates some measure of force is to be used.
So yes it means submission. It does NOT mean to submit yourself to God (as you would take it), it means to go out and make others submit to God. It's more or less an imperative form of the verb.
It also specifically does NOT mean voluntary submission (you'd use -again- another form for that). Islam doesn't even pretend that people are free to believe, like Christianity and Judaism do. One thing all muslims agree on is the need to murder everyone who leaves islam, and this is something their prophet did numerous times (well he murdered over 10.000 people, A few thousand for were murdered for leaving him. Most were murdered for refusing to join the muslims).
So in summary Islam = submission. Yes technically true, but you're aiming your translation so that it WILL be misinterpreted.
Like saying "boeing" in french means "vehicle". It's not incorrect per se. But you're dropping 99% of the meaning of the word.
islam means "going out and submitting people to the will of God". And yes in imperative interpretation of "submission" coupled with the fact that the absent person in a sentence is God (which is theoretically true in English as well, but I've yet to hear it used once), could make a linguist say that "submission" in English is a similar form. But it's not very clear. At the very least "submitting" would be a better translation. But military domination certainly is a correct translation.
The practice of hisbah, repeated tons of times in the quran clarifies the method for doing this ("islam"), and specifies that while a non-violent way should be considered, violence is the method used to do this. (and this was generally taken to mean that the non-violent way was forcing the opponent to comply and convert using threats) (muslims divide the world in dar-al-islam and dar-al-harb, all inhabitants of dar-al-harb ("the place of war") are enemies, including any muslims that may live there, and should be killed or at the very least they should submit)
All semitic languages are like latin, but much more word and verb forms than latin. In hebrew and arabic (and latin and greek) you can say in 1 word what would take 10 english words to say, and since a lot of words can be mollified to mean the same thing. In enlish you have basically the genitive form of a word. Well Hebrew and arabic have 16 basic word forms, some of which can be combined. Therefore the exact form of a word that's used carries a lot of meaning, and since some can be combined with others, leaving them out is also meaningful.
Then point us to the videoconference ... where is it ... who verified it ? How ?
islam is neither passive, nor self-referential. So why don't you tell me what it means, because, fair enough Hebrew (the language that is the basis for arabic) works by classifying verbs.
islam means submission, however
-> not of the self, in other words you should NOT submit YOURSELF, but someone else (which is repeated hundreds of times in the quran, so often this repetition got a separate name "hisbah")
-> it is an active verb (it means to go out and make something happen)
So please, feel free to post your translation. That's where the translation of military domination comes from, because that's two words that I think you'd interpret in the same way.
If you've got a different suggestion, taking into account the 2 caveats stated above, then by all means give it up.
And let's see again about not being integer. How about not respecting a negotiated peace treaty because "allah said so" ? Would you consider that "honest" ? Well :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyya#Controversy
Good luck explaining that little "event" with "oh it's a little exception".
For freedom of opinion in islam, google "Asma bint marwan". That should be clear enough for anyone.
If the talmud, written 3500 years before the bible claims Jesus Christ walked this earth talks about Christians, you know then it probably *is* from God.
:
...)
For the record it doesn't say -at all- (not that you'll let this stop you) to kill gentiles. In fact it states the exact opposite. Jews are to protect and "present a shining example" to the gentiles.
However if (whatever faction of) gentiles overpower a Jewish city, the talmud states to eradicate said city.
The bible, the new testament, states not to do this, but to abandon said city (and claims the original message in the talmud is the same). After all Christianity is the truth, and without Christianity, that city will fall off it's own.
The problem the Jews have here (it's not a problem, everybody ignores the reason for this), is Moses Maimonides. A Jew of the Caliphate of Cordoba. He was part of the muslim government of Cordoba (that regularly sent out massacring armies into the Christian mainland, especially into Catalonia), and he was driven out of Spain, upon pain of death, for his faith.
Despite this, his books specifically states that the Christians did what was morally right. He went on to write a series of books (in Istanbul) that denounced "the old" Judaism, including the rule you specified (and that specific rule he denounced for being too islamic).
Now what does this have to do with everything ? Well : every contemporary rabbi follows the writings of Maimonides. They're considered the correct way to look at the talmud. Maimonides is to Jews a sort of Christ who didn't claim to be the son of God (or G-d).
Although every Jew will deny this, his writings carry (today) greater weight in Judaism than the Talmud itself (in the same way as Christians will deny the authority of the New Testament over the Old Testament).
"most people realize religions are more of an allegory"
You project your own feelings upon vast regions of the earth without even a shred of proof. I can start by assuring you that people who consider their religion "more of an allegory" are vastly in the minority world-wide. Just because they seem not to be in the center of New York city seems to be a poor indicator.
Also, please keep in mind that many religions and other ideologies (because for all practical purpose communism for example, or even some people's view of capitalism can be considered religious) do not see themselves as dependant on reason. In fact they do not.
Especially the assumptions that religions "color in" are held by a VAST majority in even the most "atheistic" of nations
-> something, some unitary entity (or conspiracy) controls the world. I do not say whether this means Bush's "cronies" or "the mossad", or God, G-d, Allah or Shiva. The large majority of people believe this. The main difference between God, G-d, Shiva and most of the other "gods" are simply that God is good
-> this entity can be influenced by practicing a certain set of rules. (e.g. if you believe in capitalism this assumption would translate into "get a job" if you're out of money, which is obviously an assumption : there may not be any jobs, employers may be prejudiced against you, of
you may not have any worthwile qualifications, or
Note how while this seems like a trivial matter, but in reality permeates just about every last action you take. Every interaction you have with the world would play differently if you switched belief system. Try it once, react to strangers as if they are totally trustworthy, like Christ demands, and see what happens. Then try the muslim technique of steadily increasing agressiveness (just don't step up to terror) against someone you meet when they refuse to share your viewpoint.
If you're calling muslims more cultured you're a lunatic, and it's telling that you don't give any examples.
The culture of the middle ages permeates the west. In every city there is at least something you can see. Their languages, Latin and a Latin-French
Abandon the rule of law, honour and integrity and you are the enemy and you become the terrorists.
That's stupid. The terrorists are doing exactly what the prophet of a certain religion did.
They did not -at all- abandon the rule of law - quite the opposite. You will find the terrorists law a *lot* stricter than the current American law.
Honour and integrity are Christian concepts (at least that's how they were passed into America in the first place). If you're a muslim, you don't have them.
Honour in islam is nothing personal. You can do nothing to gain honor, you can only do things to lose it (especially as a woman). It has nothing to do with personal strength of character.
And integrity. I'll just let muhammad do the talking about integrity in islam. Muhammad the prophet actually states that he lies and doesn't respect promises :
'By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' (Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427, but a trivial search for only these words immediately yields over 20 references)
Well in islam it isn't a sin to lie and go back on promises, in fact it's a virtue :
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/015.smt.html#015.4052
Do you seriously think "the rule of law" is the problem with the terrorists ? Sure they don't follow their own laws, but neither did their prophet.
Islam, the name says it by itself, means military domination in arabic (submission would be astaslama). The first and foremost duty of any muslim is "hisbah". Which can be translated into forcing sharia onto others, without violence should be considered, but with violence is the normal option.
The islamic prophet fought over 11 wars. Even muslims only claim a single one of them to be defensive.
And this is how he fought : sending out killers in the night, murdering a mother in front of her children :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_bint_Marwan
Do you seriously think anything about the behavior of these terrorists violates any reasonable interpretation of islam ? (besides islam is meant literally, according to quran 3:7, and so killing means killing, and every muslim is a slave with orders to kill (9:111 in the quran)).
The enemy is not terrorism, the enemy is islam. Not muslims, they can be saved (I don't mean converted, I mean they don't have to be killed), but islam has to die if you want to stop terror.