Pregnant Sudanese woman sentenced to death for refusing to renounce her Christian faith

Parent Cafe
181

<p>In reality, people visit countries and put themselves at risk all the time. Much depends on chance and, in particular, the tenor of Islamic militancy in that country. See, for example, the use of blasphemy laws to attack liberal Muslims - an example in the NYT this week, occurring in Pakistan - and the use of similar laws (both blasphemy and conversion) against Christians all over the region but lately in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Tanzania, Algeria, etc. It’s easy for people to allege blasphemy: claim you heard an insult to Muhammed or that the person defaced a Qur’an. The presumption is guilt and the allegations have been used to spark violence against individuals and Christian groups. In Iran, for example, an American Pastor is in prison for being a convert and the Christian websites there say over 300 people have been arrested for conversion in the last 2 years. </p>

<p>It’s scary to read what happens in places like Pakistan where there’s an organized effort to kill liberals - and especially their defenders in law and other sectors - by alleging blasphemy. </p>

182

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m a big believer in the separation of church and state. In my “perfect world,” we are all allowed to believe or not believe as we see fit with respect to religion. How would “scrapping all religions” be different than any other mind control tactic imposed by governments? Laws which govern acts and human rights which are independent of religious belief-right on. Telling me which religion to embrace or forbidding me from belief or shaming me for it-no.</p>

<p>Governments need to concern themselves with actions and stay the hell out of our heads.</p>

183

<p>“Governments need to concern themselves with actions and stay the hell out of our heads”</p>

<p>Gotta agree with that one!</p>

184

<p>

</p>

<p>This is NOT what is seen as the similarity. The similarity is the French acting against something they fundamentally feel is wrong (death penalty) and you acting against something you fundamentally feel is wrong (criminalizing this woman’s conduct).</p>

185

<p>The comment that if she were given US citizenship, her actions would no longer be illegal is very strange. You can’t escape a marijuana charge in the US by being granted Dutch citizenship …</p>

186

<p>@dexter25 God has ordered murders throughout the bible. Exodus 31:15 orders the murder of anyone who works on the Sabbath (which happens to be Saturday not Sunday). Leviticus 24:16 God orders murder for blasphemy. Deuteronomy 13:9 God orders murder for anyone who practices another religion. This is interesting because here we are speaking about something similar. Deuteronomy 22:21 Murder a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night. Ok, these are a few examples of MANY!</p>

<p>So, it is very plausible why clerics can convince their fundamentalist followers that these verses, and those in other religions, can be used to justify barbaric punishments. We are in a modern era, not the era of goat herders, where we follow a whole new set of human rights. IMO, this is the problem with ancient religions. The teachings and stories conflict with a lot of modern norms. We are left to tap dance around the verses and do some gymnastics to draw non-literal conclusions. But a lot of the brutalities can not be justified when the verses are clearly repugnant.</p>

<p>@Nrdsb4 This Sudanese case is an example where we are telling the Sudanese Islamic courts not to follow their beliefs, but to follow those of the Western world. We are telling them not to embrace their religious beliefs because we think it is wrong. How do you resolve this and not interfere with their religious beliefs? </p>

187

<p>“This Sudanese case is an example where we are telling the Sudanese Islamic courts not to follow their beliefs, but to follow those of the Western world. We are telling them not to embrace their religious beliefs because we think it is wrong. How do you resolve this and not interfere with their religious beliefs?”</p>

<p>I think you come up with some basic international laws that are representative of the majority of 21st century nations, that protect basic human rights from government sponsored atrocities. If a nation wants to stay in the UN, and receive international aid, they must follow them. If they don’t, they lose their UN status and any international aid. Of course, you’d have to get the majority of countries to agree, at least the ones who are doling out the money.</p>

188

<p>@busdriver11 I agree and would go a step further. The members of the UN should cease trade with that nation. That is the level of response that will get the attention of those countries.</p>

189

<p>“I agree and would go a step further. The members of the UN should cease trade with that nation. That is the level of response that will get the attention of those countries.”</p>

<p>Yes, that would be an even better idea. Of course, getting Russia and China to agree not to support rogue nations because of human rights violations would be next to impossible, if those nations had something of interest for them.</p>

190

<p> 

</p>

<p>The moral equivalence defense…</p>

191

<p>

</p>

<p>I admit to being lost on your statement above. So that I may respond directly to your point, can you please list my sweeping generalizations.</p>

<p>It is very possible that you and I are doing two different analyses, and I would like to accurate to answering your statement. </p>

<p>Given a better understanding of what you view as my sweeping generalizations, then I can properly address your other statement about diplomatic nuance. Thanks.</p>

192

<p>

</p>

<p>However, it is important to acknowledge there is a religion or two in which their holy books talks directly about killing the infidels, not because they did anything to you, but because they are non-believers. No one could even begin to say that religion itself, given the complexity of the it, is wholly consistent. Those same holy books could also talk about thou shall not murder, but obviously there are qualifications.</p>

193

<p>

</p>

<p>The thread has gotten long, so I may need a quick refresher. I do not recall anyone even suggesting or saying this. Did I miss this being stated somewhere?</p>

194

<br>

<br>

<p>In fact, more generally, the US cannot do much for a person who is a dual citizen of another country, and is presently in trouble in that country (quite a common occurrence with Chinese-American citizens arrested in China).</p>

195

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly how do you think this is possible when over a third or more of the nations in the UN believe and condone in what is being done in many of these cases? You have to deal with what you are dealing with, not what you hope exists. </p>

<p>Look at the debates and votes of the UN yourself; there is a reason nothing has been done for 60 years on many of these issues. When you have Saudi Arabia as a rotating member on the counsel for women’s rights in the UN, while not allowing woman the basic privilege of driving or being in the presence of a unknown male, it is kind of turns this idea of international consensus of basic human rights and laws on its head before it is even attempted.</p>

<p>Given that over 75% of the countries on the planet are not free, democratic systems and institutionally believe in the subjugation of people or a caste-like system, and given the fact that they too have a vote in the UN, exactly how humane do you really think those supposed basic international human rights laws would really be?</p>

<p>Both laudable idealistic ideas, but really wishful thinking when put up against reality of the political and government systems of all the countries in the UN. </p>

196

<p>I’m going to point out that human rights shouldn’t be called “Western.” The limitation to the Western world is a tad insulting.</p>

<p>@KKmama‌ From what I have heard, Americans and Europeans visiting Saudi Arabia do indeed get “special treatment.” They’re not held up to all the same laws.</p>

<p>@awcntdb Holy books aren’t always meant to be 5 step guides. There is sometimes context you have to study outside the text itself. Explanations given by authorities (who are irrefutably considered authorities of said religion) that, again, aren’t given without in the text itself.
People interpret literature in different ways, yet we don’t see this as a fault of literature. It’s an ongoing discussion where some arguments are better then others, some interpretations gain more validity while others gain less. If the classics were such simple books, we wouldn’t value nearly as much as we do.</p>

<p>And in reply to your earlier comment: “Just because one believes there is a better life in the afterlife, does not mean one should accept abhorrent behavior by others in this life. Defeats the humanity part of religion, which is to assist your fellow man when he is in need.”
No, it does not mean that one should always accept abhorrent behavior in this life. My point was meant to specifically address facing atrocities in the name of what is right. Not facing atrocities in general. Of course, avoid them when you can, but face them if it is more righteous to do so.</p>

<p>@frugaldoctor What I’ve replied to awcntdb- there may be more to a verse then just the words you see.
As for conflicting with modern norms, I don’t see why being modern makes something inherently good. Of course, many modern things are good. But many are not as well.</p>

<p>@busdriver11 The problem with the solution of setting up international laws in this way is that international laws become based upon whatever the moral views of the most powerful countries happen to be, not the moral views that are inherently correct. It strikes me as a bit imperialist.</p>

197

<p>

</p>

<p>As a bumper sticker, it is great philosophical statement re civil society and government systems.</p>

<p>However, legally, it falls apart rather quickly, and I would venture to guess that given certain situations you would be glad the government “looks” into your head. I do not mean, as a snoop or, as a controller, but, as to your intent.</p>

<p>Laws, which are the linchpins of civil society and government, become meaningless real fast (or put another way, become draconian) if not grounded in something higher than an action. Simply because the same action can have different meanings, which are situational dependent. </p>

<p>That is why there is something called “the spirt of the law” and “the intent” of the the person doing an action. Both this spirit and intent must be grounded in something higher-order that the society has morally decided, at some intrinsic level, represents what the people believe is right or wrong or acceptable.</p>

<p>A most basic example is someone punching another person in the face. That is an assault and if the government, i.e., the legal system, looked at a punch in the face as all the same, then society becomes dracionian in punishing human behavior.</p>

<p>For example, if a person walks up and just punches someone in the face for no reason, that action should land him charged with assault. However, if that same person is having an argument with someone and that someone becomes agitated and upset to the point where he closes inside what is deemed the other person’s personal space, is warned to back off, but then becomes openly threatening to do bodily harm, the non-aggressor sensing imminent danger has the right of self-defense to punch the aggressor in the face once said personal space is deemed hostilely violated. </p>

<p>Both punches to the face are the same action, and both are assaults in the most basic sense. However, one is punishable by law, and the other is protected by law. The only difference is when interviewed by the government (i.e., the legal system) does “get into your head” and determines the intent of your action, which is something you want to have done. It would really be draconian if both punches to the face were given punishment.</p>

<p>This but one example; it is easy to think of hundreds of these. In the most primitive sense, this is the foundation of prosecutorial discretion, which is something that is desirable given the same action in different situations.</p>

198

<p>

</p>

<p>You are proving my point. </p>

<p>The issue with this is since human rights definitions vary by country and culture, then any change involves giving up something one may see as sacred to one’s culture, doesn’t it? </p>

<p>I can easily rewrite what you wrote to properly indicate the problem - non-western people find it insulting that western people do not want to give up their western principles. Go figure that. And western people find it similarly insulting to be told to do things that are non-western. Checkmate.</p>

<p>It goes both ways, and thus no international human rights anything can happen, except a bunch of words in some proclamation not worth the paper it is written on. Especially not when child labor and other contentious issues are interwoven in other countries, and those same countries have votes in the UN. </p>

<p>The ideal is understandable, as desirable, but it is important to live in the world as it exists, not as we would like it to exist. </p>

199

<p>@sorghum Thanks for the quote; I missed that. I understand your post now.</p>

200

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you might have mis-interpreted what @busdriver11 was saying. </p>

<p>By international, I read that he envisioned countries would come together and EACH have an equal vote and say in determining the basic laws. In such a set-up, there would not be a country, which more powerful than the other. Maybe I am taking it to the idealistic extreme, but that is how I read it. @busdriver11 can correct as necessary.</p>