Yesterday, as I left work, I turned on the radio in my car and started listening to a show on WBAI (local progressive listener-supported radio station) which was discussing the execution taking place in Georgia. In the course of the discussion, one of the hosts claimed that he had witnessed Taliban executions in Afghanistan and that the justice handed out by the Taliban was more "rational" than American justice.
Now I am not saying that the justice system in America is perfect or not in need of repair, but I just don't understand how an intelligent person could argue that Taliban justice (which includes, among other things, dehumanizing women and chopping off hands and executing homosexuals) is more rational than American justice.
Pat Condell raises this issue in his videos. He points out that people on the left seem to have some mental defect which renders them incapable of saying anything critical about Islam. It's similar to the right-wing pathological fear of communism which brought about the fact of support for fascist regimes.
The point I'm trying to make is that when we approach an issue we feel strongly about, perhaps we ought to make an extra effort to retain whatever sense of objectivity we can. I was just reading Darwin's introduction to 'Origin of Species' where he says that he arrived at his opinion on the transmutability (is that a word?) of species after much research and thinking and striving to be objective about the evidence. I am very impressed by the way he was open about the possible objections to his theory, and his writing reveals something of the great effort he put into evaluating his theory in an objective, scientific way. Perhaps we could all benefit from reading Darwin just to learn the lesson of evaluating our opinions and theories in a clear, rational and objective way.