<p>awcntdb: different cultures treat others who do not believe the same things based on their own beliefs. Which is why a Muslim can sentence those who desert the faith to death and Christians cannot do the reverse. Judeo-Christian scriptures discuss not associating with nonbelievers, but not killing them. Each culture/country acts out of its own mindset. What seems logical to one is unthinkable to another. </p>
<p>So yes, this is why the UN is often paralyzed. But at the same time, we have to keep the hope of conversation and compromise open. It beats the alternative.</p>
<p>@KKmama Yes, I know the reasoning, and I am sure others do as well. I do not think this is lost on many people. </p>
<p>What I find intriguing is to actually watch the differences play out in various scenarios AND then read posts, such as on this thread, about general agreed to human rights laws and “can’t we all just get along” stuff. It really makes me wonder if people have buried their heads in the sand because, from what I deduce, in many venues of thought there really can be no other compromise other than live and let live. </p>
<p>I understand this get along sentiment, but the rubber has to hit the road and contact reality as some point. It is this contact I gather many do not want to actually do and choose instead to live in a world thinking certain cultures are more alike than different, when in fact, it is more different than alike that is operative. </p>
<p>The case of the woman highlights this all too well.</p>
<p>@KKmama look at my recent post. Judeo Christian scriptures indeed orders the killing of non believers. During the Inquisitions, non-believers were also put to death justified by the biblical verses. Our beliefs evolved over the past 700 years since that time to more libertarian. </p>
<p>If you want something definitively done on this Sudanese case, be ready to back any action with military force just in case those efforts fail. As I said before, I don’t believe they will kill her. In recent history, political pressures and deals have prevented similar death sentences for apostasy. </p>
<p>Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.</p>
<p>OK fair enough. I forgot this one. At this time, they also had courts, and judges to consider the case and any punishment so civilians wouldn’t take this law into their own hands or interpret them their own way. </p>
<p>Like other civilizations of the time, they had kings as rulers. They sacrificed animals. Some had more than one wife. There was a large central temple for festivals and rituals, and there were priests. None of these practices are done today. Although the 613 laws are still studied, for some, it is not possible to follow them. Modern Jews also have years of rabbinic commentary and perspective. </p>
<p>I think my cat, and my neighbor, are safe… at least for now. No stoning or sacrifices tonight… :)>- </p>
<p>“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>Not true. I visited Saudi Arabia for business. I had to be signed over to a male client Saudi to be my guardian and technically speaking, he could have prohibited me from leaving the country and the US govt wouldn’t have been able to have done a darn thing. I had to wear the hijab and abaya. I had to be segregated in restaurants. I could not have driven. The religious police could have entered my hotel room at any time and put me in jail if I had, say, a cross, bible or Star of David. Sorry, stressed out, on this one you are wrong. </p>
<p>There is nothing new about fanatical interpretations in any religion or for acting literally on actual words in any holy book re killing of non-believers. That really was standard operating procedures for thousands of years.</p>
<p>What is new is it is 2014 and somethings now do not fit with what we believe today in terms of human rights. Human rights, as we know them today, are what are new; fanatical beliefs are not. </p>
<p>One thing I wanted to mention a while back is this common misconception of this supposed overarching belief of “Thou shall not kill” being sacred in Christianity, Islam etc. For some odd reason, people always leave out the caveats found in other parts of the religions. When those caveats are taken into account, the real commandment is easily understood by believers to be “Thou shall not kill those not worthy of death.” Another way of saying this is no religion (that I know) is a suicide pact; therefore, killing and murder, by definition, is obviously allowed if followers feel threatened by whatever.</p>
<p>Stressed out - shortly before I went to Saudi Arabia, there was an incident in which an American woman was arrested because she and a male coworker went to Starbucks. You see, they were an unrelated couple eating together. That is absolutely what the situation is. I had to pretend one of my male American coworkers was my brother, and we were seated in areas that were hidden by shields because clearly the sight of me eating with unrelated men would drive everyone into a tizzy. </p>
<p>Dubai, on the other hand, is very different. I don’t know where some of you are getting your information. You can absolutely walk down the street holding your husband’s hand. There are women there in burkas and women in shorts and tank top. You absolutely can have a drink in a restaurant - we did. If you didn’t see women in burkas, you’d think you were in a Western city. I agree their laws on gays are draconian, but there’s a complete difference between Saudi Arabia and Dubai. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl It is one of those things - depends on what you are doing and whether it they decide to enforce as well. There are many incidents, and lots of others, which do not make the UK papers.</p>
<p>I know business people who just will not take the chance re being around unrelated females; too much to lose in their book if selective enforcement heads their way.</p>
<p>These are different years. The first and third articles are a compilation of actual incidents.</p>
<p>The third article explains why you were just fine with your husband; see “Last word” section at bottom of page. And the key word is “unlikely.”</p>
<p>“In our opinion, given the number of western expats who happily live in Dubai or visit Dubai, for most couples (whether married or not), as long as they behave reasonably respectfully and sensibly, it is unlikely that they will find themselves in trouble just for holding hands while walking through a shopping mall or kissing each other hello at the airport. Just keep the tongues and hands under control until in the privacy of home or hotel bedroom.” </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl You misunderstood me. I wasn’t being sarcastic. You and other posters have shown me that I was wrong. “I’ve heard wrong” was a genuine statement.</p>
<p>@awcntdb The idea that 21st century human rights are purely modern and that religion was purely backwards is something most people simply assume. It’s not something I believe to be completely true. As far as Islam goes, “thou shalt not kill” was never claimed to be an absolute principle. You’re allowed to kill in certain situations, such as self defense. I also strongly believe, as I’ve stated before in this thread, that the killing of disbelievers and those who convert away from Islam is against Islamic teaching.</p>
<p>I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree. </p>
<p>While Jews, Christians, and Muslims are generally aligned with the Ten Commandments, there are differences between the translations in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible, it is written " You shall not murder". Also missing from the NT is the volumes of commentary on these laws: Talmud, Mishna… ( of which I am not an expert). In Talmud, for instance, there will be a law, and then commentary on the various conditions of implementing that law from various rabbis over centuries discussing the different circumstances and consequences of the law.
Just like our laws, “You shall not murder” takes a different meaning when done in self defense. You are allowed to defend yourself. I’m not an expert in Islam, but looking it up I found this: “You shall not take life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law”.
I think all three religions do agree that life is sacred, and the wanton taking of life is wrong, but in certain cases, such as self defense, it is unfortunately necessary. Like modern day laws though, there are only certain circumstances where it is considered self defense- a person just can’t clam it.
In a fair and just governance, someone committing a “crime” is judged fairly, otherwise you have no justice or something like Jean Valjean getting 19 years of jail for stealing a loaf of bread. Not all regimes however, are fair. </p>
<p>I never said human rights are PURELY modern. What I said specifically is what we believe today IN TERMS of human rights is modern. And what are those terms? There is a belief now that everyone should have some basic set of human rights, which are / could be established and implemented via a body, such as the UN. </p>
<p>This concept that there are certain basic human rights, which everyone should be afforded is definitely modern for this concept did not exist before the League of Nations was founded in 1919, as there was no governing body that deliberated, as a world-wide group that even could enforce such a concept. </p>
<p>And, for clarity sake, I never said religion was PURELY backwards. I said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The word “interpretation” indicates I acknowledge there were those readings and beliefs that were not of the fanatical vein.</p>
<p>On the other issue - yes, agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Back to the original issue… From what I read, this woman will be allowed to nurse her baby until the baby is 2 and then the execution will happen. Two years is a long time, but it does not mean that there is no urgency. If nothing is done now, the dust will settle, so to speak, the media attention will wane, and she will be hanged without the event even making the news. </p>
<p>@BunsenBurner Thank you very much for the update and for the get back to the issue post. I agree with your reasoning, as to why something needs to be done now.</p>
<p>I think it likely that the two years will enable those working behind the scenes to quietly extract her from this situation without openly challenging the authority of the court. </p>
<p>"@busdriver11 Perhaps the fanatical interpretations are the ones that are new."</p>
<p>I don’t think so, @stressedouttt. I think the interpretations that we consider fanatical used to be more the norm. I think we value human life far more than people did in the past. Certainly the fact that communication is exceptional, millions of people can be informed and horrified at someone’s mistreatment, and feel that it matters. In the past, this woman would be put to death, and who would know and perhaps only her family would care. It used to be far more local and brutality was far more the norm than the exception.</p>