<p>Thanks, Stressedout-yes, it would make sense that there is a wide variance considering the size and range of people who follow Islam, and also the historical interweaving of politics and religion across time. It’s good to see articles that explain the different points of view and also hear from followers of Islam who oppose the way this woman is treated. . </p>
<p>“Agree, but this is what is puzzling… Where are the Islamic leaders with their denouncement of the planned murder in the name of Islam? Where is their outrage? And where are prominent figures from other faiths?”</p>
<p>1) They may be out there but it doesn’t make CNN (or Fox News or MSNBC or the NYTimes).</p>
<p>2) As with any religion, the fringe don’t really care what the “mainstream followers” think of their actions. </p>
<p>The Westboro folks didn’t care that mainstream Christians thought they were nuts. </p>
<p>The orthodox Jews who protest women at the Wall and throw stones at passersby in Mea Shearim who aren’t “properly” covered don’t care one bit that mainstream Jews think such actions are atrocious and protest them.</p>
<p>It’s tempting to want to think these zealots would all of a sudden go – oh! the more moderate ones of my faith have it right, I’ve interpreted things too narrowly and too zealously, whoops, sorry! – but it doesn’t work like that, at all, for any religion. They have as much disdain for what they perceive as apostates as they do for non-believers. All the “good” Islamic leaders could congregate and declare this to be the atrocity that it is - these people just don’t care. </p>
<p>What I would like to note is that it’s relative easy for us all to get up in arms and demand action and the cutoff of funds, etc., when this happens in some place like Sudan. Things are a bit more quiet when things happen in China and Saudi Arabia, which are important economic trading partners with the U.S.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, you’re right that extremists don’t tend to care what the mainstream thinks. In fact, some may actually enjoy the publicity at the world’s outrage, ie Westboro Baptist seemed to do things that put them in the spotlight. </p>
<p>The public outrage from moderate leaders might not do anything to change their minds, but it would go on record that they didn’t remain silent. In addition, it would be good to see the voice of sanity if the media would publish it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Regarding Sudan, being an international pariah…especially with the US/West plays very well with the current regime’s main supporters. This was further illustrated when Omar al Bashir, current leader of said regime saw his domestic support INCREASE among his key supporters when he was indicted by the ICC for war crimes. </p>
<p>In some ways, it’s playing from the same handbook North Korea and other similar type regimes have used with some success. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with statement. However, you are leaving out the second piece of the puzzle, which, for me, is the most relevant part. </p>
<p>It is my tax dollars that are, in part, supporting that activity via foreign aid. Since it is my money, I do have the right to pull it back if I see atrocities being committed because my money facilitates said atrocities. If I am funding the perpetrators, I do feel responsible. </p>
<p>As for China and Saudi Arabia, there is no foreign aid, in terms of tax dollars, going their way; in fact, they implicitly give the US foreign aid by buying our bonds and, when necessary, pumping more oil to lower price. Which idiot bites the hands that feeds him? Very few. </p>
<p>Now, if we produced more of our own oil and if we practice fiscal constraint and eliminate this unseemingly debt, then criticism of China and Saudi Arabia could increase.</p>
<p>The bottom-line is if someone’s money is supporting violence, I do think that person should use whatever fiscal power they have to try and stop that violence, all other political considerations considered as well, e.g., @sorghum brought up the salient point of the risks of China and Russia filling the void. Something that should be put into the calculus of what is done. </p>
<p>For those of you wondering why Islamic leaders don’t come out against atrocities like this: I remember a similar outrage a couple of years ago when an Islamic leader in England said England should adopt Sharia law, and he planned a major rally at Trafalgar Square. Wow - immediately there was an outcry here in the US about why won’t Islamic leaders speak out, and why aren’t there marches, etc. </p>
<p>I went to London, and this was getting heavy press there. The BBC interviewed Islamic leaders and they expressed strong opposition to imposing Sharia law. In fact they did a lot of organizing against the Islamic fanatic who proposed it. The day of the rally, the Muslims opposing Sharia law outnumbered the Muslims in favor of a Sharia. </p>
<p>When I returned to the US, I was still reading people expressing outrage that Muslims were not speaking out against the Sharia fanatic…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You stated that we needed a “real” leader in the White House, who would speak out to save this one African woman, and provided Ronald Reagan as an example. I replied that Ronald Reagan’s brand of “leadership” had in fact severely impacted the availability of crucial healthcare to millions of African women, causing untold suffering. </p>
<p>The point is not to debate abortion. The point is that this is the reality of actions and consequences, and that making simplistic PR statements is not what I would consider real leadership. It is cheap and easy to make the statement. It is another thing to effectively address the problem: not only the horrific treatment of this one woman, but the horrific treatment of millions of others. (I’m in agreement with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is possible to hold more than one thought in one’s head at the same time: action to resolve conflicts that create refugees does not preclude aiding those refugees, and vice versa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No where did I ever demonstrate I do not have two thoughts in my head. In fact, i demonstrated the opposite by both questioning his idea and countering with my own. </p>
<p>By “bookends that will never meet” means in terms of where we decide to take actions and in what we believe is most effective. In fact, I expressly stated I understood the person’s position now that he explained it. It is possible to have two ideas in one head and think one stronger than the other; not all ideas need be viewed as equal.</p>
<p>Your comment really should be directed at the other person. He has given up trying to eradicate the problem. He truly has but one thought in his head at this point. But, I do understand how he got there, as he explained it well above.</p>
<p>As a closer to home example - there are people in my company I have never met and will never meet, even though they work for me. We do very different things and thus there is no reason to ever meet. Yet, we both work towards the same goal of excellent products.</p>
<p><<<
What I would like to note is that it’s relative easy for us all to get up in arms and demand action and the cutoff of funds, etc., when this happens in some place like Sudan. Things are a bit more quiet when things happen in China and Saudi Arabia, which are important economic trading partners with the U.S.
.>>>></p>
<p>@Hunt </p>
<p>I think many of us are outraged by similar outrageous stuff that goes on in Saudi Arabia. Are there cases where China has recently sentenced a woman (pregnant, no less) to death for something similar?</p>
<p>Diplomacy isn’t always simple. “Simple” can really screw things up. If you come out trumpeting that this or that head of state should do something, he immediately has a built-in incentive to do the exact opposite. Doing what you want would make him lose face by appearing to be weak and giving in to you. </p>
<p>I’m betting - and hoping - that as long as our country and Europe keep relatively quiet in public, we have a good chance of behind the scenes talks succeeding. </p>
<p>I can see problems with the U.S. taking a position publicly about this. We too, have laws against who may get married, and we impose the death penalty when people violate certain laws. We see our parameters as reasonable, but they are really arbitrary, just like Sudan’s. </p>
<p>Now that I think about it, our laws in that regard probably have religious/biblical origins too. </p>
<p>oh good heavens…the US does not impose the death penalty for minor crimes (and in this case, there is no crime). Heck, the US rarely imposes the DP for murder.</p>
<p>your words suggest that the US has no right to be outraged because it, too, has some arbitrary laws are just silly.</p>
<p>So, if this woman isn’t executed, but only subjected to some lesser punishment, will we have won?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I do understand your position is based on respecting national sovereignty of other nations, it simultaneously melds into the realm of moral relativism of actions. I do not want to open a debate on moral relativism of religions. Instead I look at the big picture; that is, not all actions are equal in underlying reasoning, regardless of the reason for said actions.</p>
<p>The first thing I thought of is Logan’s Run, which is kind of weird actually, but it was from my youth. I doubt that few would support a society whose laws imposed death on people upon reaching 30-years old. It is an action that just crosses a line. I would go as far as to say, few would not support such as law even if it were codified in thousands of years of religious tenets. </p>
<p>This is what @mom2collegekids is saying, I believe. It would be one thing to impose a prison sentence, for whatever reason, but imposing a death sentence is essentially jumping the shark of what is acceptable.</p>
<p>There is a point where some things are no longer supportable or excusable; they are just wrong, whether based on religious beliefs or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I just answered this question in the my immediate post above. </p>
<p>And, I would not use the word “won.” This is not a win or lose situation. Being humane is not a contest where one keeps score in wins or loses; it is just the right thing to do for fellow man. </p>
<p>
I wish this were true, but the fact that some people won’t be satisfied by behind-the-scenes diplomacy shows that it isn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problems with behind the scenes diplomacy are very obvious - it has little to no deterrent power or deterrance objective.</p>
<p>When some things are just so wrong, it is important to take a stand publicly so others, who are thinking these actions might be OK, think twice or three times and maybe, hopefully, they do not try anything similar. </p>
<p>What is that one saying - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The one goal here, in my view, is to prevent further similar actions to helpless women and children (even men too). Waltzing around behind the scenes at diplomatic dinners gets no message across except that if you do such things, you have no real price to pay, but you may get some free food and an audience with a powerful country. </p>
<p>And your deduction is a bit faulty, I believe. Just because someone may not be satisfied with a process, such as behind the scenes diplomacy, does not equate to or deduce to they take the situation, as a win or loss scenario. The goal is the save the life of the woman. If the woman’s life is spared, I guarantee the overwhelming reaction will be one of happiness and relief, not the feeling that one has won or lost based on some process.</p>
<p>Come on, awcntdb. You know that the goal of many people pontificating on this case is not to spare the woman’s life, but to make particular politicians look bad. That’s what annoys me about cases like this–the hypocrisy. This particular case is tailor-made for this kind of attack, which is why it’s getting so much press, while others, involving more people, are ignored.</p>
<p>I have no intention of making any particular politician or party look bad. I think any american or politician is appalled by this and hopefully something is being done behind the scenes. There isnt a democrat or republican, liberal or conservative that thinks this is ok and shouldnt be prevented if some way/pressure could be enacted.</p>