Where is the "honor" in "honor killing"?

The concept of "honor killings" shouldn't be respected. No one... NO ONE... is forced to kill his daughter or sister or cousin or mother. It's impossible. Culture or religion or *anything* doesn't force a man's hand or absolve him of criminal or spiritual guilt for the murder of people he is supposed to protect.

Honor is important and valuable, but let me paraphrase one of my favorite fictional characters... reputation is what others know about you, honor is what you know about yourself.

*Honor* can not be won by a public display of piety to make up for embarassment or personal failure. A man who kills his daughter because she runs away from home or refuses his authority or rejects his religion and culture has not redeemed his failure by a public display to prove that she was the guilty one. Because honor isn't what happens in public, it's what happened at home that made her leave.

Honor lies in truth, not in appearances.

A man concerned with honor can NOT be concerned with reputation.

A man concerned with honor, when faced with a victimized daughter or wife, is not concerned with how this reflects on *him*, he's concerned with protecting her and helping her heal. What he knows about himself, his personal honor, might well demand public shame. A man concerned with reputation will natually care more that he will be condemned by his neighbors for his failure to protect his family and will then transfer that guilt even if it means compounding the sin in his heart.

An honor killing is the action of a coward.

Comments

Synova said…

Thank you. :-)

8:04 PM

Some times some people.

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it. This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice. If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Synova

Search This Blog