Religion is Evil!

In a blatant attempt to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons.... I am sure the Iranians aren't too happy with a nuclear US.If they started assassinating US nuclear scientists and researchers into other areas of science that could be used for warfare do you think this would be justified?

So the US is justified in assassinating Iranian scientists who they feel might be involved in weapons development and the Iranians are justified in assasinating US scientists who they think might be doing the same. Both sides think they are equally righteous and the whole thing escalates out of all proportion.......Isn't this how wars start? And the Israelis don't want the same of Iran? I think you are ignoring that the entire situation isn't as simple as good vs bad. You cannot reduce this to US/Israel = good and Iran = bad and then justify all sorts of activities on that simplistic basis. And any Iranian assassins that start kiling Israeli or US scientists will no doubt feel equally that they are the "goodies" fighting for self preservation and the others are the oppressor "baddies". Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The scientists that was killed was 32, married and had a young son. He wasn't armed. Last July another scientist, Darioush Rezaeinejad, was shot dead outside his daughter's nursery in Tehran. Two other Iranian scientists have met a similar fate in the last year or two.These are state sponsored murders aren't they? Arguably even state sponsored acts of terrorism. Do you support state sponsored murder?5th Amendemnt - "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"Now I know that this doesn't legally apply to Iranians but doesn't it apply morally? I wouldn't condone torturing a surefire terror suspect so I don't see how I can support governments giving themselves the right to murder their suspected enemies abroad.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Actually I would suggest that the reason that governments need to be held to account for these sorts of things is exactly because governments are prone to legitimising atrocious acts on little more than a "them" and "us" basis. It's not about singing in harrrr-mo-neee. It's about how moral (or otherwise) we want our governments to be in our name.If the Iranian government implemented a series of killings of top Western scientists there would be no hesitation at all in declaring these immoral acts of state sponsored terrorism would there?

As I said previously - I doubt that US constitution legally applies to assassins hired by the US in Iran to kill Iranians anyway.But those who point to the letter of a law like this are usually doing so to avoid adhering to the spirit of, or moral reasons for, the law.

Do you think that those who did the killing are justified in taking on the role of being not only the "the world's police" - but also the world's judge jury and executioner?Do you think in the absence of a world police force it is a case of every nation for itself and anything-goes on that basis?

I am not suggesting that the US constitution be applied in all it’s glory to citizens of Iran residing in Iran. I am merely pointing out that a rather inconsistent moral approach is being taken here.Unless you think it is morally justifiable for foreign governments to kill US scientists on US soil because their work is perceived as potentially threatening by the foreign government in question I don’t really see how you can justify your approach to the act under discussion.Do you think other nations who feel threatened by scientific research taking place in the US have the moral right to have US scientists assassinated as they go about their daily lives? Do you think that those who did the killing are justified in taking on the role of being not only the "the world's police" - but also the world's judge jury and executioner?Do you think in the absence of a world police force it is a case of every nation for itself and anything-goes on that basis? I don't think I am espousing cultural relatavism so much as moral consistency.

Yes the golden rule provides a reasonable basis for moral decision making. Christianity of course adopted the golden rule (which long predates Christianity) and has rephrased it in the way you describe.

I think it's fair to say that most that have contemplated ethics, whether they be religious or not, have come up with some variant of the golden rule. It seems a pretty practical foundation on which to base moral conclusions for a social species such as ourselves.I don't think religion can lay particular claim to it however.