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

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...

Some times some people.

What Cancel Culture is NOT

Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott. It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...

Synova

Search This Blog