Engel: Forgive me for not giving Prof Dawkins credit for his evolutionary theory on morality, cos I learn most of my values from what my religion and society taught me, not the Prof. When I was young I was told not to do it, so I don't do it. When I grew older I asked myself why I don't do it, and think about the reasons. Once I see the reasons behind not doing it, I therefore do not do it.
As much as I do not believe everything is dictated by religion, I also do not believe that everything is dictated by theories like evolution.
But I would believe that the book would be a good read. Perhaps I shall pick it up one day
Anyway, to go back into the topic of this thread. Some interesting points have been brought up about the case. Basically I think what disturbs us is the severity of the punishment dealt to something that to most of society is socially acceptable. Perhaps a councilling, a fine, a few days of jail... these are perhaps the some of the alternatives that may be put forward as oppose to caning.
But when it deals with something that ties to religion, the weight of the "crime" is perceive as much more severe. Something that may be socially acceptable like consuming alcohol does not equate to acceptable in the eyes of religion. Other examples include homosexuality, pornography, gambling etc etc. These, in the eyes of the religious law, is deeply wrong, but in modern times it has become socially acceptable.
Think about it this way: in the eyes of the social law, piracy and sharing of songs is wrong. Yet, it is socially common. Does it make it any less wrong? In the eyes of the Singapore law, no. No matter what, as a Singaporean, you still get fined or jailed for it. That is the law.
Taking this into the religious context. You claim to believe in a particular faith, yet you practice what is religiously wrong. It may be socially common, but is it less wrong? At least in the eyes of your faith, it's not. So if you get caught, as a practitioner of your faith, you should be punished as how your faith dictates it. That IS the law.
Anyway, everyone seems to scrutinies how Islam punish its people. Has anybody ever taken notice about how such crimes can be easily pardoned? I believe, a murderer does not need the pardon of a president to escape the death sentence. Pardon can be given by the family members of the victim, on their own terms and condition.
