Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
In the Colosseum, Thoughts Turn to Death
At midnight on Thursday, I lay on my back in the Colosseum and looked at a pageant of stars above Rome. Where the lions tore into gladiators, and only a few metres from the cross marking the place of Saint Paul's crucifixion - "martyrdom", of course, has become an uneasy word in this age of the suicide bomber - I could only reflect on how a centre of cruelty could become one of the greatest tourist attractions of our time. An Italian television station had asked me to talk about capital punishment in the Middle East for a series on American executions and death row prisoners. Two generators had melted down in an attempt to flood the ancient arena with light. Hence, the moment of reflection.
Readers with serious money may also like to know that it costs £75,000 to hire the Colosseum for 24 hours, a cool £10,500 just for our little night under the stars. Yet who could not think of capital punishment in the Colosseum?
Watching the first episode of the Italian television series - which recounted the visits of an Italian man and woman to two Americans who had spent years on death row in Texas - I was struck by how both prisoners, who may or may not have remembered amid their drug-induced comas whether or not they murdered anyone, had clearly "reformed". Both deeply regretted their crimes, both prayed that one day they could return to live good lives, to care for their children, to go shopping, walk the dog. In other words, they were no longer the criminals they were when they were sentenced.
Given their predicament, I guess anyone would reform. But I suspect that guilt or innocence is not what the death sentence is about. My Dad was perfectly aware that the young Australian soldier he was ordered to execute in the First World War had killed a British military policeman in Paris, but the Australian promised to live "an upright and straightforward life" if pardoned. My father refused to kill the Australian. Someone else shot him instead. Capital punishment, for those who believe in it, is almost a passion. I rather think it is close to an addiction, something - like smoking or alcohol - which can be cured only by total abstinence. And no excuses for secret Japanese executions or lethal injections in Texas or head-chopping outside Saudi Arabian mosques. But how do you reach this stage when humanity is so obsessed with death in so barbaric a form?
Whenever the Iranians string up drug-dealers or rapists - and who knows their guilt or innocence - the cranes which hoist these unfortunates into the sky like dead thrushes are always surrounded by thousands of men and women, often chanting "God is Great". They did this even when a young woman was hanged.
Surely some of these people are against such terrible punishment. But there is, it seems, something primal in our desire for judicial killings. George Bernard Shaw once wrote that if Christians were thrown to the lions in the Royal Albert Hall, there would be a packed house every night. I'm sure he was right. Did not those thousands of Romans pack this very same, sinister Colosseum in which I was lying to watch just such carnage? Was not Saddam Hussein's execution part of our own attempt to distract the Iraqis with bread and circuses, the shrieking executioners on the mobile phone video the Baghdad equivalent of the gladiators putting their enemies to the sword? Nor, let us remember, is execution only the prerogative of states and presidents. The IRA practised capital punishment. The Taliban practises execution and so does al-Qa'ida. Osama bin Laden - and I heard this from him in person - believes in the "Islamic" punishment of head chopping.
I remember the crowds who lynched three Palestinian collaborators in Hebron in 2001, their near-naked bodies later swinging from electric pylons while small children threw stones at their torsos, the thousands who cheered when their carcasses were tossed with a roar of laughter into a garbage truck. I was so appalled that I could not write in my notebook and instead drew pictures of this obscenity. They are still in the pages of my notebook today, hanging upside down like Saint Paul, legs askew above their heads, their bodies punctured by cigarette burns.
The leading antagonists in the preposterous "war on terror" which we are all supposed to be fighting - Messrs Bush and bin Laden - are always talking about death and sacrifice although, in his latest videotape, the latter showed a touching faith in American democracy when he claimed the American people had voted for Bush's first presidency.
For bin Laden, 11 September 2001 was "punishment" for America's bloodshed in the Muslim world; indeed, more and more attacks by both guerrillas and orthodox soldiers are turning into revenge operations. Was not the first siege of Fallujah revenge for the killing and desecration of the bodies of American mercenaries? Wasn't Abu Ghraib part of "our" revenge for 11 September and for our failures in Iraq?
Many of the suicide attacks in the Middle East - in "Palestine", in Afghanistan, in Iraq - are specifically named after "martyrs" killed in previous operations. Al-Qa'ida in Iraq stated quite explicitly that it had "executed" US troops in retaliation for the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl south of Baghdad.
Yet I fear the real problem goes beyond the individual act of killing, judicial or otherwise. In a weird, frightening way, we believe in violent death. We regard it as a policy option, as much to do with self-preservation on a national scale as punishment for named and individual wrongdoers. We believe in war. For what is aggression - the invasion of Iraq in 2003, for example - except capital punishment on a mass scale? We "civilised" nations - like the dark armies we believe we are fighting - are convinced that the infliction of death on an awesome scale can be morally justified.
And that's the problem, I'm afraid. When we go to war, we are all putting on hoods and pulling the hangman's lever. And as long as we send our armies on the rampage - whatever the justification - we will go on stringing up and shooting and chopping off the heads of our "criminals" and "murderers" with the same enthusiasm as the Romans cheered on the men of blood in the Colosseum 2,000 years ago.
© 2007 The Independent

44 Comments so far
Show AllBravo to Fisk, again he hits the nail on the head. I suspect that capital punishment is also intended to induce fear in some supposed enemy. Perhaps it is a projection of the executioner's own fear of execution for his own misdeeds.
ken, that's why I said MAY, otherwise am 100% against.
I've always wondered what kind of disincentive capital punishment id for buddhists who beleive in reincarnation, or christian & muslims who beleive in heaven?
seems to me keeping them here and delaying their glorious appointment with jesus/allah, or in the case of buddhists, there new life as a rich kid, would be the greater punishment
Beautifully put! We have become what we claim we are trying to stop. We are now the terrorists. Our government will torture, kill, and f**k up anyone they dam well feel like, period. And if you disagree or protest they will come and lock you away! We are now the enemy and will pay a price grater then 911, sooner rather then latter I would bet. We make enemy's faster then we can kill them, or invade their country and take over their oil!
Fiskie once again is passionately right-on against the cruelty of human violence masquerading as jusified as redemption for secular policies.
We must see that history has blood-shot eyes blinded by power and a false sense of duty.
Seeing can lead to washing clean the blood by actions of solidarity and peace, with rational forms of dialogue against the murderers in our midst.
I had the great pleasure and honor, several years ago, of spending an evening with Sr. Helen Frejean, the woman who wrote the book: "Dead Man Walking". Her amazing compassion for an end to capitial punishment was very enlightening.
This barbaric act of state revenge must stop !
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are alive and well in all the lands.
Mr. Fisk makes a good point. I believe it is about overcoming our instincts of fear and our desire for revenge which is a difficult thing to do. Years ago there was an excellent article in Rolling Stone about a man forgiving another man for killing his son. I'm sure it was very difficult for the man to forgive but he did. Overcoming these instincts and desires is like dealing with an addiction. One has to deal with it day to day, minute to minute. Most religions preach this but a lot of the followers don't practice it. Some view this as being weak or soft but in reality it is far more difficult to control ones self than to merely react.
Some view [not seeking revenge] as being weak or soft but in reality it is far more difficult to control ones self than to merely react.
Amen.
Here are some comments by a man who stood by Gandhi - Badshah Khan, who led a 100,000 person army of non-violent Pashtuns from the Khyber pass region. He was a Pashtun (Afghan) political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule during the final years of the Empire on the Indian sub-continent. He was a lifelong pacifist and a devout Muslim. He was known as Badshah Khan (sometimes written as Bacha Khan), the `King of Chiefs', and `Frontier Gandhi'.
"To me nonviolence has come to represent a panacea for all the evils that surround my people. Therefore I am devoting all my energies toward the establishment of a society that would be based on its principles of truth and peace." –
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
"Today's world is traveling in some strange direction. You see that the world is going toward destruction and violence. And the specialty of violence is to create hatred among people and to create fear. I am a believer in nonviolence and I say that no peace or tranquility will descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced, because nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people." – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to an interviewer in 1985
His story is contained in 'Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man To Match His Mountains', by Eknath Easwaran (Published by Nilgiri Press).
Also see NPR highlights:
http://www.npr.org/programs/musings/2003/jan/khan.html?sc=emaf
Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for decapitation.
'Cutting off the head' seems a good idea, especially when that head is a venomous one.
Of course, ~seeing I am 100% against humans acting like brutes (and thus don't endorse the barbarism of state murder) I'm not talking about *interpersonal* violence, but instead refer to the decapitating of the STATE!
Right now, given the anti-life maniacs who reside in The Gray House and The Pentagon, 'cutting off the head' of this corrupt state seems a wholly good thing! ;)
Some voters might get fearful if such rotten heads were removed, and cry out: "Oh, but who will replace our dear leaders?"
Answer: *WE* would replace them!
- after all, being as the thugs in power have made such a complete and utter MESS of things, could we not do a little better? - I think so.
And first up, I'd like to suggest Mr Robert Fisk as the new Minister for Information. Now he is someone I *could* trust to tell the truth! - and he has a compassionate heart to go with that wise head, -a perfect combination and necessary perquisite for anyone joining OUR new, and radically reformed government system.
~ Viva la difference!
Thanks Robert. Once again, you've invited us all to wake up, throw the hoods from our eyes, and take notice of what's really going on. We might not like what we see, but your insight and knowledge gives us a guide. The US is a nation of sheep, for the most part. Following the lemmings over the cliff is certainly a possibility. Thanks to you, a detour is in sight.
Peace.....Bill
Senator Joe Lieberman knows what to do with wimpy pacifists like you, Fisk. On to Teheran. Off with their heads.
As "Greencat" said, this has to do with fear, and our irrational belief that fear and danger can be eliminated by cutting short the life of another being. Revenge is only another drug to quell the fear. The real solution to being fearful, and to seeking revenge, is to offer the practice of ahimsa, the buddhist practice of avoiding ANY harm to any other being.
There is a relevant comment by Treefrog under the article "UN Adopts Historic Statement on Native Rights". The comments starts with "WOLVES WITHIN". It reminded me of something I read about the eastern concept of ahimsa (meaning non-violence). Reading about it I saw where every action even thoughts should be compassionate. When doing so, eventually violent actions and thoughts will no longer exist within us. In Treefrog's comment, the wolf who is full of anger should not be fed. Can we really rid ourselves of this or is it something that will always be lurking there but shouldn't be fed? Is it something that will have to eventually fade away due to evolution?
http://agenciesofgrace.blogspot.com/ Robert Fisk is indeed the dean of Western journalists, one of a handful of Western writers who truly seem to understand the divide between Eastern and Western worldviews.
Hey Gerald: What a surprising message. Joe Liberman can't find his privates with both hands. To think he'd know what to do with a "wimpy" pacifist is, simply, a big hoot. Not only can't Joe decide what side of his mouth to speak from, all he seems to say these days sounds like pure bullshit. Joe isn't really a senator...he only wants to think he is. He's really just another whore for those interests he wants us to believe mean something.
"The spectacle is the acme of ideology because it fully exposes and manifests the essence of all ideological systems: the impoverishment, enslavement and negation of real life. The spectacle is the material "expression of the separation and estrangement between man and man." The "new power of deception" concentrated in it is based on the production system in which "as the mass of objects increases, so do the alien powers to which man is subjected." This is the supreme stage of an expansion that has turned need against life. "The need for money is thus the real need created by the modern economic system, and the only need it creates" (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts). Hegel's characterization of money as "the self-moving life of what is dead" (Jenenser Realphilosophie) has now been extended by the spectacle to all social life."
Guy Debord-The Society of the Spectacle - Ch9 'Ideology Materialized' /215
In Treefrog's comment, the wolf who is full of anger should not be fed. Can we really rid ourselves of this or is it something that will always be lurking there but shouldn't be fed? Is it something that will have to eventually fade away due to evolution?
**i think the mistake is to think that a violent nature is primitive. Wolves are very well behaved creatures. I used to think that roosters naturally would fight each other to the death-but apparently that isnt so. they only do it when they are put together in a closed pen by ..humans. And fitted with metal spurs of course.
Why do we assume that our bad nature is some sort of ancient evolutionary thing, and not something that developed because of evolution?
I dont see sharks causing any problems.
I once had a discussion with someone who said: art is what separates humans from the animals.
I mock such a childish notion. I think taking pleasure from causing pain and mental cruelty is what really separates humans from other animals. A cat may play with a mouse, but we have absolutely zero proof that a cat knows he is causing harm or TAKES PLEASURE FROM KNOWING THAT. There are humans who do. Mental cruelty is based on it. You want to harm someone through words or actions knowing full well that you are causing harm.
Plus, cats dont erect stadiums where other cats can watch mice being tormented.
Humans have bullrings.
The Colliseum was an art work designed so humans could watch as others were tortured and killed.
Usually, lions were terrified thrust into the middle of an alien structure housing tens of thousands of humans.
They had to be agitated into attacking christians.
Non humans got the worst brunt of the Coliseum.
Plus they would make blind people fight each other, children, women, dwarves, they even would restage myths like the one where Hera made a woman engage in a sex act with a bull---or setting a man on fire like a torch to re enact the fall of Icarus.
Plus the audience--mostly men I believe, would then go out and find prostitutes in the entranceway.
No other species is capable of this.
The only good thing is that time changes everything--and now cats practically own the coliseum. They make a much more civil audience for it.
I am 100% against the death penalty, but I may be willing to make an exception in the cases of Bush and Cheney.
I still think I prefer the idea putting them both in open cages hooked up to state of the art life support systems and provided top notch medical care 24/7, so that they live an extremely long life, and sending them on an endless world tour, so that everyone on the planet gets a chance to throw rocks at them...
canuckchuck:
carefull as an exception doth not
make 100%..
cage thing seems like a good idea!!
ken
darmanad: I doubt too many are really bothered by attacks on "fanatical jihadists" but, as just about everyone else on this list knows, none of the invasions were ever about that. Even if it was it doesn't justify killing over a million, the vast majority of whom were totally innocent civilians.
Re. the death penalty, it costs more for the state to kill someone than to imprison them.
I lived for nearly 4 years in a country where 75% of the population was Muslim and I worked in a Shiite neighbourhood. They were not as friendly as the Sunnis but not once did anyone insult the Christian religion or try to convert me, which would have been impossible incidentally. Religion was rarely even mentioned. Certainly there are extremists and a greater number now as a result of Bush's intemperate adventurism but this bit about Islam taking over the world is a crock. It's up there with Elvis sightings.
Get out of Fox and CNN and see the real world; you won't even recognize the shaped news.
What do the female martyrs get? How about 72 toy boys? Line up fellas.
What was the old catch phrase?
"Punish the leaders spare the followers."
I think that was it.
Just came to mind. On reading this article. That's all.
At every opportunity: break the circle of violence...
Great article and nice comments. Thank you.
One thing that I keep rolling over is my seemingly weird belief that humans are basically like wolves - highly social and caring within their own pacts. They NEVER kill their own. If a member really screws up, they are "shunned" and are forced to the outskirts of the pack. (I don't know if wolves allow for forgiveness and let shunned members back into the pack.) Wolf packs are also highly territorial for the same reason that human tribes are. They both have to be able to defend a territory large enough to sustain the group or they will parish. But again, rival wolf packs don't generally kill each other. They just run off the transgressors.
I also believe that killing and torture by humans is a "gang" activity that is not a "natural" individual instinct. By this I think I mean that when the majority in any group, gang, tribe, culture or nation hold the belief that capital punishment, wonton retaliation, torture, or other deadly behaviors are acceptable, than a gang mentality sets in that feeds on itself and perpetuates the gastly behavior. When we have leaders that are bent on increasing "their" territory, they don't seem to have any problem in knowing how to whip up the gang mentality and get the crowd to start hurling stones at dead bodies, children, civilians, or anyone else that isn't in their "gang". For the minority (mostly sane, caring individuals) that don't approve of or find this behavior toxic, tend to be silent. We know that if we try to fight the "gang" that we will just become another victim of their violence. Of course there are always a few who will try to apeal to our humanity and justice. But when a gang is the majority and have been duly whipped up, these few will end their lives as martyrs.
So what to do now? Don't exactly know. I'm a member of the ACLU hoping that the "gang" can be kept at bay. And I'm supporting Kucinich and his platform. And anyother candidate that promotes peace. Maybe the day will come when the majority of Americans accept that capital punishment is barbaric. Maybe the day will come when peace will become the norm by the a world that "shuns" deadly retaliation.
It could be as simple as genes and free will.
Evolution may have selected a violent gene trait resulting from species competition. The nice early humans may have been killed by their cruel neighbors.
Our closest genetic relative is the chimpanzee. They engage in clan warfare, murder, revenge violence, social status violence, infanticide, senseless torment of one another, and other forms of cruel and unusual behavior.
They are also capable of kindness and affection and bond with one another.
The difference bewteen us and primates is most of us can think and understand our primal aggression and control the impulse, or convert the energy into less destructive forms. Yet, our complex brain is also capable of rationalizing killing as well as torture.
Unfortunately, there appears to be little hope for the smirking chimp! What to do ?
I still think Dubya and Cheney need their heads therapeutically amputated. They could keep them alive with a constant flow of blood plasma, and experiment with their bodies - for science. That's not a cruel or unusual punishment, at least not in regard to Dubya and Cheney.
Good point, Paul Bramscher. Not enough people bother to find out how humanity resembles, and differs from, our closest surviving animal relatives.
What am I missing?
Is everyone an ethical relativist? Some killings, in the form of state policy/war or otherwise, etc are in deed justified if they will result in a saving of more lives. Or the improvement in the quality of life so as to be a greater good. That's a no brainer, but a distinction not explored at all in this piece. Even capital punishment can be rationized by the good to which the money to keep the criminal alive would otherwise utilized. It might very well save more life or create more good. If that were the case it would be unethical not to practice it in some cases.
My guess is that Fisk would like to regard America and it's allies' attacks on fanatical jihadists as equally repugnant as 9/11 and other jihadists civilian homocide bombers ( suicide bomber is a grave misnomer). Bullshit. I don't buy it and neither should anyone with the least bit of ethical common sense. It's just that Bush et al has done a lousy job of defeating the jihadists and those who would seek to kill the nonbelievers for simply not believing. A fatwah on all apostates. Sharia law or die.
ps. If the paradise promised to martyrs includes 72 virgins, then what do female martyrs get?
Animals get a bad press. German dogs did not dig trenches to fight French dogs in parallel trenches for four years. Nor do Congolese Apes wage continuous war against Angolan Apes. Predators kill for food, not ideology. Being compared to "an animal" is a compliment which most humans don't deserve.
If anyone's interested in following this topic up, check out the study of "ethology": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology.
Specifically, there's some excellent work by a researcher named Frans de Waal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal in his "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" which treats some of the topics here. It's been awhile since I've read it, but it delves into the various tugs of primate behavior.
On the issue of capital punishment, we should tease out a couple different issues to help analyze the problem. There's the issue of killing itself, the barbarism, and the possibility of making a mistake in a guilty verdict.
But there's also, I think, an equally important component. Capital punishment is typically framed in terms of a state monopoly on violence. It stands in opposition to grassroots justice (vigilantism).
One wonders if there might be hybrid models. For instance, the state captures the accused and a guilty verdict is rendered. The state then allows the victim or his/her survivors, the ability to personally execute the accused. If they wish to do so, they may. If not, the state sends them to a life jail sentence instead.
I'm not saying this is a better model, but there's quite a bit more under-the-hood than the simple brutality of it all. There's the state monopoly aspect. And, in doing so, it removes the ability of the victim/survivor any direct recourse him/herself.
For the record, it was Peter who was crucified. Paul was beheaded.
Some philosophical discussion, no doubt, but conveniently forgetting the real reason behind this war: OIL
The USA is largely a Christian nation and has a larger percentage of Christian churchgoers than probably any other country. I thought Christianity was all about forgiveness and turning the other cheek etc. Did I miss something?
Of all the US Presential candidates, in both parties, Dennis Kucinich is the only one who speaks of "peace" as a global strategy. For his eforts he is marginalized - even with many who one would think of as elevated to some level or degree.
Almost every human being, when speaking from the perspective of humanity and decency, would say they seek peace and love. It is only when they eliminate this perspective that they see life as some kind of intellectual (actually anti-intellectual) process where compassion, rationality, and a sense of the sacredness and rsponsibility of and for life goes out the window.
Over and over again we see individuals do an about-face on their views when the issue enters their lives in very real and human terms - like a disease that may benefit from stem cell research or one of their children reveals that he or she is gay.
People think they can coduct their lives by compartmentalizing (sp?) all aspects of living - religion, politics, economics, art, relationships, law, etc. as if they are not all inter-related.
Clear, elevated voices like Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Gandi, Fisk, Kucinich, and on and on aren't starry-eyed pie-in-the-sky raving idealists. They are all practical realists who see that our only salvation is by saving ourselves from ourselves. We must all change our ways or expire.
This thread sure lost the topic of the article.
Practical advice on overcoming violence can be found here: http://www.eckharttolle.com/eckhart_biography
Cromerovich,
Thanks for speaking to my comment on the morality of killing and capital punishment. Unfortunately, your "everyone else" remark belies an ignorance of what I said (as does your silly admonition to get my information from other than Fox and CNN). Read more carefully. I don't disagree that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil. Even as we speak, Greenspan joins the legion of key ex-admin figures who affirm as much. It follows that the killing there by the "coalition" is horribly wrong. I said nothing to the contrary in regard thereto. And to this extent I have no argument with Fisk, but his plea to consider all killing as unethical is nonsensical.
The coalition attack on Afghanistan/Taliban is a case in point and presents a different story than Iraq. If we had been more successful in hunting down - "killing" - OSB and his followers we might have been spared a lot of death and pain. Therefore it was right. Any government that supports Al Quaida and the imposition of a world wide caliphate is an anathema and an enemy of all free thinking people. Or do you make no distinction between the war/state killing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
We apparently also do not disagree on the merits of capital punishment inasmuch as you simply argue the fact of the cost of imposing it vs. the cost of life imprisonment, but do not argue the absolute immorality of state sanctioned killing. If you were right on the facts I might agree that capital punishment makes no sense, but I don't think you are. The cost of housing and feeding an unproductive murderer is in fact less than the cost of an ethical taking of his life. Last time I checked the min cost of imprisoning a violent offender exceeded 30K per year although it would probably drop dramatically if we would stop mindlessly clogging the system with drug offenders. The legal system can and should be tweaked to minimize mistakes, but on balance the increasingly slight possibility of a false conviction in a capital case is not a decisive factor in reaching a position on the subject. Of course, to the extent society could squeeze some productivity out of the offender I would tend to do so rather than take his life. It's a balance sheet argument pure and simple because many (though arguably not all) murderers, demented or not, have forfeited any moral claim to life.
Your personal anecdotes about coexisting peacefully in a predominantly Moslem country are persuasive of nothing. If you think the aspirations of jihadists are not to convert the world to Islam and sharia law by any means necessary, go read the Koran. What do you think motivates their abhorrent killing? Revenge is only part of the answer as is the continuing presence of infidels in the holy places. Based upon core religious precepts they claim the right to spread sharia law that exists today in Iran, Saudi Arabia and several other Islamic states to all of the ancient caliphate including much of Spain and western Europe. They are Hitlerian in their thirst for power and dominance. So-called moderate Muslims sit on their thumbs afraid to speak out in opposition to the killing by their coreligionists for fear of being accused of being a bad moslem. That could theoretically result in a fatwa (off with their heads!).
You may equate the jihadists' chances of success with that of bumping into Elvis, but their aspirations are unmistakably clear. Thanks to the madness of Bush et al they are enjoying great success at converting many of their uneducated and impoverished brethren all over the world to become mujaheddin. You ignore them at your peril. Whistling in the dark may calm your nerves, but it does nothing for physical safety.
p.s. You can joke about the lure of paradise, but don't do so to a good Muslim - he would be obligated by the teachings of the Koran to kill you. No ifs, ands, or buts.
After looking around the world today the Romans don't seem all that far out of the norm. People are already trying to explain away dog fights, cock fights, bullfights, and pro-wrestling where the combatants abuse themselves with steroids and cut themselves for blood to thrill the crowd.
The viewers of these spectacles have at ready access thousands of nature documentaries, books, music, games, plays and other harmless or even beneficial diversions.
The popularity of the Colosseum reminds me of the obsession with Alcatraz in SF. IMHOP this island is nothing but a blight on what just may be the prettiest city in this country.
Yet people wait days, even weeks for the tour of this symbol of cruelty and suffering.
I believe it is the most popular tourist destination in CA.
Each time I visit my favorite US city, i sit at the Wharf, chowder and sourdough in hand, lamenting the lines of eager ghouls.
To me, the sadness is there is debate on the subject. The Truth should be self evident, though as always self serving men subvert and twist until dealing Death and Misery to each other seems moral.
darmanad wrote:
"The cost of housing and feeding an unproductive murderer is in fact less than the cost of an ethical taking of his life. ..."
What ever happened, to the golden rule? The USAn thugs are unique in their capitalist depravity in their argument for killing imprisoned men and women on the basis of dollars. Then they wonder why their country is so violent! This is sick!
Please furnish some quotes from the Koran to support your assertion that it teaches violence. Then, consider the old testament, or maybe the Bagavad Gita, Based on the the stories there, should we consider Jews and/or Hindus to be intolerant murderers who we better annihilate first?
John, PJD,
I don't often debate at sites like this because the intellectual level of the debate is too erratic. It's largely a self-indulgent waste of time;however, as I have extra time here's a response for you, PJD, on the specific verses of the Koran that dictate violence and death to infidels. See: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html
for a pretty objective analysis of the specific verses. Isn't Google great?
By the way, Christians and Jews, so called people of the book, are entitled to buy their way out of death by payment of a special tax, the jizya. If you want to learn more about Islam I recommend www.jihadwatch.org. It's fairly objective and scholarly. And often quite funny.
It really doesn't defeat the argument that Islam's core precepts dictate an "Off with their heads!" approach to non-believers to respond with " well so does the bible" , or "so does some other religious text." Firstly, two wrongs don't make a right. More significantly, no modern, mainstream religious Christian/Jewish/Etc leaders would now interpret the bellicose parts of the bible or other religious texts to support death to people who choose not to accept the faith (or who leave it). On the contrary, the MAINSTREAM religious leaders of the Muslim faith do just that.
I don't fully comprehend your references to the golden rule and capitalist depravity in connection with the issue of capital punishment. China has practiced capital punishment for quite some time and until recently it was not a capitalist economy. Whether it is immoral for the state to kill depends on whether the killing will result in the saving of other lives, or a greater good via the improvement in the quality of life for many others with the money saved by not having to house and feed the offender. For example, if the state would save 10MM per year by exercising the death penalty and thereby save 100 lives by buying AIDS vaccine for people who would otherwise die without it, wouldn't you agree it would be better to opt for saving the 100 than the keeping the offender housed and fed?
John Freeman, pull yourself together. Debate is good and the truth is not self evident. Is it immoral to kill another in self defense? Or to prevent the deaths of many more? You need to rethink your sadness.
By the way, what the hell was Fisk doing in the Colosseum at night anyway. This piece is atypical of his journalism -nothing much more that a melancholy bemoaning of the evil of war.
Darmanad: For starters you have used some logical fallacies, as in building up a supposition of what Fisk thinks e.g. "my guess is that fisk..." and then knocking it down without providing any argument. Saying that "neither should anyone with the least bit of ethical common sense" is also a little arrogant don't you think? People can make up their own minds without you telling them how to think and if you have to resort to words like bullshit it automatically detracts from your argument. That is if you had one but all you have given us is your opinion and that, judging by your condescending comments to other readers, is a little pompous. That's OK; I occasionally fall into the same trap myself. So you "feel that his plea to consider all killing as unethical is nonsensical". Do you consider Gandhi nonsensical; do you think he did not have the "least bit of ethical commonsense"? I think one can make a good argument for all killing being unethical even if such an ideal is impractical considering humans have animal emotions and the fact that history proves that humans excel at killing each other. But what exactly does killing someone actually achieve? Perhaps you could provide some real arguments beyond fiscal prudence?
Hunting down OSB was never more than token facade. Bush needs OSB to keep the fear going and the phony "war on terror" alive. OSB was in the sights on numerous occasions but nothing was done. Does anyone really believe that he could not be found? He may, of course, be dead by now and given the recycled video of late that may be a real possibility.
Next point. Because I responded to your fiscal statement about capital punishment without mentioning any moral argument does not give you the right to draw conclusions on what I think on a moral level. Another logical fallacy on your part. Your statement "ethical taking of life" could be considered an oxymoron by many. Next you dismiss my experience living and working for several years in a predominantly Moslem country as worthless. That is your prerogative but it is spectacularly empty of argument.
My work there was not controversial but I can think of several occasions when people threatened to kill me. Arabic speaking people can be very emotional but most of the time you can just ignore the threat and defuse the situation. Certainly there was risk and during my time there were several outbreaks of localized warfare but neither myself nor any of the rest of the office personnel received any injuries. I have had more real physical injuries in North America.
I agree with your comment that thanks to Bush there are now far more converts to radical Islam but perhaps that was always part of his (or his handlers) ideological plan?
As for your core religious precepts of Islam all I can say is that Islam is a peaceful religion. You can take almost any religion, particularly ones that have had several translations over the centuries, and read into what you wish to justify or distort. Religious whackos/extremists are the same the world over but the way to keep them on the margins is to not allow any power vacuums or humiliating circumstances that precipitate revenge to occur. That takes intelligent foreign policy and diplomacy; something that is sadly lacking today.
You asked the question and I gave you an answer and you then admonish me. No, a good Moslem would not feel obliged to kill me. An extremist might possibly but a good moderate peaceful Moslem would not, as it would go against their beliefs; at best my dry humour would be considered tacky. The moderate would not believe the martyr part for starters; otherwise every Sunni and Shiite would have killed each other after having killed every Christian or other religious countryman first. It hasn't happened and you are looking at everything through a black/white binary lens. There's a lot of gray out there and we should be very thankful for that.
Darmanad: I have yet to hear back any eloquent rebuttals so as I now have had time to read your comments to other readers let me add a little more. You suggest http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html and www.jihadwatch.org. as being fairly objective. Ha-ha-ha! Objective! Just like Fox is fair and balanced? Even the URL names indicate a lack of objectivity and when you see inflammatory phrases on the first page like "Islam apologists" there is living proof that it lacks objectivity. The quotes are cherry-picked to demonstrate that true followers of Islam are waiting on every corner to behead the nearest infidel. That hardly jives with the statistical incidence of reality, does it? How many billions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims are out there and what percent are getting whacked by religious differences on every street corner? Ah, yes there is conflict in some parts of the world. Religion is rarely the reason for conflict though; invariably it is extreme economic disadvantage or a power struggle that is the basis for hostilities. Religion is nothing but a convenient label for justification, one that covers the consistent human failings of greed, power and arrogance.
Let me stoop to your level for a moment and do some cherry-picking of my own. I detested being sent to church as a child and in the manner that all children rapidly see through facades I quickly ascertained that it was a control mechanism and directed at me in particular. As a consequence of a defensive cut-off filter I therefore have very little knowledge of either the Bible (or the Koran) so I am on shaky ground. I have bravely chosen the New Testament, King James version and randomly opened it to Romans Chapter 1 and scanned through to verses 29 through 32. I can't say I have ever seen this before but here's a summary: Along with the expected sermons about fornication and unspecified wickedness it includes the unrighteousness of "debate, pride, boasting and disobedience to parents". Wow! Who is innocent of these? In verse 32 it states that "such things are worthy of death". Ouch! It appears to make the Koran look positively benign in the latter's far narrower category of faults requiring death? Now I am sure there are balancing statements elsewhere but so too with the Koran? Perhaps someone more qualified could expound on this topic and put this historical cherry picking nonsense to bed? Life was nasty and short back then; why would the user guide be anything but similarly harsh.
Let me give a modern perspective on the relevance of historical texts. I recently came across a manual for Microsoft Dos 4.0. Remember that? Certainly there are a few general kernels of truth in there but the specifics are of little relevance to present day Microsoft Windows XP and Vista. You have to therefore read critically and translate any information using the context of the present time. Perhaps that suggestion might offend some but I have made a debatable (ouch!) point here. Debate anyone?
Spare me the "ethical" baloney! We all know that Bush the Creep killed more prisoners than any other governor before him. So he went on to kill millions more. That, frankly, does not surprise me. Yeah, all religious book are full of violence. It goes with the genre. That doesn't surprise me either.
There's something ugly in the heart of man and this ugliness is more apparent today because of the global news network. I prefer peace, love and forgiveness. But give some men all that he needs and desires and he will still want gore. Take Vick, the man who has everything he needs, money, fame, friends, connections, a mansion, etc. Yet he indulged in dog fighting. Explain this hideous attraction. This black man has been in a position to help so many black people who need a helping hand to rise up out of the ghetto, or even take O.J. another sort, same story. Mankind is and has always been filled with the insane and violent propensities of human nature. The only answer to such insanity is people such as the writer who echo man's greater ability to aspire to virtue, quality and humanitarian impulses.