I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."
Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him? What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.
You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.
My point remains. If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.
Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they
actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically
might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.
It's total bullshit.
Country A. Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted.
Country B. Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed.
Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent.
You are being ignorant of the probability of being charged and actually sentenced to the crime. While the punishment is harsh as a deterrent, you need to have 4 religous, sane and righteous men with good conduct to testify that they explicitly saw with their own eyes two people of the same sex having intercourse. Now where are you going to find that? You're going to have 4 of these good men peeking into people's bedrooms or what? It's almost impossible to convict someone, unless they confess themselves. They cannot be forced into confessing anything, and they will have to testify against themselves four times - each time, the judge will tell them to SAY NO because if they say they didn't do it and it cannot be proven, they cannot be punished. If they are drunk or insane then they cannot confess against themselves. Alan Turing simply would not have been convicted if he was under Islamic Rule, unlike British rule where he was forced to confess.
Moreover, there is no exact punishment for homosexuality in Islam. The are currently mroe than 50 Muslim majority countries with varying degrees of sharia law. Of those, the only countries which have a prescribed death penalty for homosexuality are:
Mauritania
Somaliland (part of Somalia)
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Iran
The United Arab Emirates also has, legally, a death penalty for acts of homosexuality. However, most cases are dealt with via fines, prison sentences, or expulsion from the country. I have not been able to find any cases of a death sentence having been dispensed by the courts in the United Arab Emirates.
This religion is something different than others. I hate mostly afterward. Is it because this religion is very dominant so they can do anything they like ?
