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

<p>In my perfect world, we would scrap all religions and adopt internationally accepted laws to govern human rights. Many countries have laws and religious laws based upon the world seen by goat herders 2000 years ago. Come on, stoning human beings for any crime seems absolutely primitive. I know I am alarming some of you who shudder at the thought of Americans surrendering to international laws. Because “we” are right and “they” are wrong. But laws and crimes are relative. What is right and wrong for us is obviously not the same for some Sudanese.</p>

<p>Iran and Iraq were once very liberal and Westernized societies that have plunged into a radical abyss. Seriously, we are trying to put out fires here and not tending to the blaze. I don’t have the answer to this larger issue. Other than putting out these fires, agreeing to defend a set of human rights, and trying to scrap these ancient religious views (that always seem to be up for different interpretations), I don’t see how we can make a permanent change. Everyone on this thread agrees that the Sudanese sentence is wrong and that the pregnant woman shouldn’t be murdered. But I haven’t read a post providing a permanent solution. Does anyone want to offer a solution? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is a bit naive to think you can take politics out of politics.</p>

<p>When foreign aid requires a vote of Congress and signature of the President, there, by definition, has to be people who only see the political view. </p>

<p>I see the political and the moral. And in this vein, I do have the right to write a letter to my representative, if I want, asking he apply pressure. That is our system. I also can resist on moral grounds (that however is not a right, but a personal action).</p>

<p>But why this need to discount others?</p>

<p>There are people who only see the national sovereignty view; there are also people who only see the religious freedom view; there are also people who only see the universal moral view of being humane (I am sure the Dalai Lama would fall into this category); and then there are those who see a mixture of all three positions.</p>

<p>To focus on the political, at the expense of all other positions, strikes me as a bit too political. Too beholden to one person / politician; overzealously so, in my view. Although, I do understand there are strong opinions evoked given the polarization now present inside our own borders. </p>

<p>I could not have said it any better, so @mom2collegekids please allow me to poach your post:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But, there are political risks associated with politics. Sometimes, inaction or inattention is preferable. That’s politics.</p>

<p>^^ Very true. However, I do not see this as such a case.</p>

<p>Does anyone support a targeted US military operation to rescue the woman? Would you accept the chance of failure and killed or captured servicepeople? Would you support a missile attack more or less aimed at government infrastructure, to teach the Sudanese not to do this again, even if she could not be rescued?</p>

<p>Would you contribute to a $5 million ransom to get her safely out of the country?</p>

<p>Would you cut off all US aid, even if the short term consequence would be dozens or hundreds of children dying of hunger or disease?</p>

<p>I’m not in favor of our country adhering to all laws of the world, but one could possibly conceive of some basic laws to follow. Ironically, these laws would also be found in many major world religions as they would address ideas such as murder, stealing, lying under oath. Religion is part of the human condition, and virtually every civilization has also adopted some sort of belief system. I don’t think anyone can decree “no religions”, and don’t think it’s wise to do so, personally.</p>

<p>So where has religion ( or the outlawing of it or certain ones) gone awry? When it has been inseparable from leaders who have used it to seek power or control over others. Religion, when adopted as a personal belief, or community values, can work quite well. Religion is the basis of human rights and human rights movements, because all of them are based on the concept that each and every one of us is unique with inherent rights- which many advocates describe as God given rights. This religious principle is what MLK Jr based his civil rights campaign on. Where religion goes wrong is where a leader takes power and control by establishing his interpretation of religion as the law of the land. IMHO, religion isn’t the problem. People distorting it are, and if they didn’t have religion, they would distort something else like the Nazis distorted eugenics.</p>

<p>Our country took a step in the direction of religious freedom when it separated religious law from the law of the land. For instance, one can practice religious laws up to the point that it violates the secular law. The ancient practice of human sacrifice would be illegal here, even if someone wanted to believe it, but other laws, like not eating pork are acceptable because it doesn’t break any laws, even if others don’t agree with that.</p>

<p>One problem we have here when we discuss other religions or cultures, is that we have a poor understanding of them unless we have studied them extensively or experienced them. We judge, but we don’t have that right all the time. What gets us riled about this woman is that she is condemned to physical punishment and death for something most of us don’t consider to be a serious crime. The reason we don’t get world agreement on this is because not all cultures are based on the freedom we take for granted, they have their own values. It’s been that way since the beginning of time. </p>

<p>We can’t eliminate the diversity of beliefs and cultures in the world, and I would propose that we don’t. World peace is still a dream, but a good one. However, most world religions have a meeting point of decency, something maybe people who don’t want to have a religion might also agree on: we have basic rights to our lives, and to believe what we want, and not to be murdered for it- could be one of them. Our nation’s laws are based on this. Most of us agree that it is wrong to murder and to steal no matter what out beliefs are. As to religious laws, there are many that don’t effect others who choose not to follow them. Someone not eating pork has no effect on someone else enjoying a bacon cheeseburger. They can both be allowed to do. Someone can be considered an apostate from a religion, or incur disapproval for marrying out of their faith, but here they have the freedom to do so because it would be illegal to harm them for this. </p>

<p>Each and every one of us, of any religion or not, has free choice, and so over time, we’ve had countless examples of people who have done heroic things and tyrants and dictators who abuse power no matter what we agree on. Religion. or lack of it, doesn’t cause good or bad. People do. </p>

<p>“Many countries have laws and religious laws based upon the world seen by goat herders 2000 years ago.”</p>

<p>Not to be indelicate or irreverent about the gravity of this woman’s persecution, but let’s not demonize so broadly, given that this woman’s strong Christian faith is clearly built upon tenets first preached by “goat herders” a couple of millennia ago. Like Pennylane said, its when tyrants and dictators subvert religious faith (often for clearly secular reasons) that injustice arrives to endanger us all.</p>

<p><a href=“Senators try to save pregnant woman sentenced to death in Sudan - CBS News”>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senators-try-to-save-pregnant-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-sudan/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>She married a US citizen but did not come to the US. Or was she “not allowed to”?</p>

<p>This decision was reported–with quotations criticizing it–in Aljazeera: <a href=“Sudan woman gets death sentence for apostasy | News | Al Jazeera”>http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/05/sudan-woman-given-death-penalty-apostasy-20145159264775754.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Where do you want to draw the line? We cannot as a nation get involved in every case that we oppose just because one person happens to get media attention. Muslim nations and some others impose harsh sentences all the time. Should we defend everyone who is sentenced to be lashed for adultery or has a limb amputated for committing theft? Grant them all asylum? Bear in mind that her conviction is justified under her country’s rules.
We have ignored other nation’s pleas to spare the lives of their citizens sentenced to death in the USA.</p>

<p>Granted, her conviction and sentence are heartbreaking. But even as we focus on her, countless others are suffering as well. And as to the was she “not allowed to” enter the US, it may well have been our laws keeping her out, not Sudan’s laws keeping her in.</p>

<p>Why would our laws keep her out if she is married to a citizen? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In this case, that is easy to answer - 1) if she is married to an American citizen, and 2) if her imprisoned child is an American citizen, then it is a direct American foreign policy issue and problem.</p>

<p><a href=“http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/state-dept-won-t-say-if-christian-toddler-jailed-sudan-us-citizen-1”>http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/state-dept-won-t-say-if-christian-toddler-jailed-sudan-us-citizen-1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I agree the US cannot get involved in every case, such as every stoning or honor killing. Obviously, not practical or possible. However, our foreign aid (tax dollars) do not need to be supporting regimes that commit those activities either and can be used to demand more humane treatment.</p>

<p>“Why would our laws keep her out if she is married to a citizen?”</p>

<p>They would not keep her out technically, but practically there is a ton of hoops one needs to jump through to get a spousal visa approved. We do not know the details of their particular case, but the procedure sounds like a nightmare:</p>

<p><a href=“http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/types/family/immediate-relative.html#13”>http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/types/family/immediate-relative.html#13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><<<
Would you contribute to a $5 million ransom to get her safely out of the country?
<<<</p>

<p>I dont have 5M, but I would be happy to bundle my contribution with others to come up w/ $5M to get her out.</p>

<p>So that is a yes to contributing to a $5M ransom, m2ck?</p>

<p>too bad she cant fake renounce her faith, be released, get out of that country, and then become a spokesperson against this sort of thing.</p>

<p>i think that if she did renounce they would still carry out the sentences.</p>

<p>there were a couple of kidnapped reporters who were forced to (fake) renounce their faiths and 'convert to islam", and when they were released they returned to the US where they promptly renounced islam and returned to whatever their prior faiths were.</p>

<p>If only it were so easy just to renounce one’s faith. I’m unsure if in her situation I would renounce my faith. I’m leaning more on the side of not…</p>

<p>I remember back in 2001 that the French refused to turn over a suspected terrorist because it was against French law to extradite him if the crime he was accused of carried a death penalty here. Our response? We turned France into a pariah, even calling Frrench fries “freedom fries”. </p>

<p>Mexico pleaded with us to not execute a Mexican citizen, and Texas wanted to go ahead and kill him. </p>

<p>Why do we think we’re always right, and everyone else is always wrong? In this case, both my religion and my moral sense tell me that Sudan is wrong. But remember what just happened with the botched execution: a little humility might be a good thing for us once in while. </p>

<p>Give Sudan $5 million in ransom and you are contributing money to other brutalities and human rights violations you don’t agree with. That money will surely go into the pocket of a tyrant or fanatic. There are no easy answers. Take foreign aid away and an entity we don’t agree with steps in to fill the void. I am just acknowledging that there are no easy answers or permanent solutions. I wish there were and the whole world could be a more humane place. </p>

<p>@hayden Let me get this straight - there is a moral equivalence between convicted murderers and a woman refusing to denounce her faith. Wow! All I can say is we are in deep trouble if moral relativism is defined that far downwards. Given such a trajectory, soon it will not be possible to critique anything as out-of-bounds.</p>