<p>And to add, if God knows what is in her heart, he knows that she would not truly be denying her faith. And is it denying your faith to switch religions, if in both religions you still believe in God? Why do you have to be subservient to one specific religion? She wouldn’t actually be turning her back on God.</p>
<p>It’s simple. The child either is or isn’t an American citizen. But, we don’t know. </p>
<p>Perhaps, busdriver, the plan is bigger than just this woman and her family. <em>looks off into the distance</em></p>
<p>I guess that’s the hope, Niquii. Either that, or the usual, we can’t possibly understand God’s plans…</p>
<p>Though that always creeps me out when people use that to explain atrocities or horrific natural disasters…</p>
<p>I do know that children born overseas to american parents are granted citizenship rather easily. </p>
<p>I know several ex-patriots working for companies whose kids were born overseas and the kids were all automatically american citizens; they were even issued SSNs and passports with no problems to travel as infants. The difference is though, both parents were american to start. I cannot speak for this married to an american aspect though. </p>
<p>I also forgot that in cases of emergency births, while traveling, the kids are also american citizens as well. They told that to my wife and I when planning on traveling later in her first pregnancy. It was only across border to Canada, but still was important to check. But Canada is such a close ally, there are tons of cross-border agreements, so it is not like a “real” foreign country.</p>
<p>Additionally, the US is one of the few countries where being born on its soil grants citizenship. It is not automatic like that in most other countries, unless the parents are already citizens of the country.</p>
<p>The silence of the State Department is telling, because it already knows. There must be a political angle to that fact, which does not work in the administration’s favor, and that is the only reason they are not saying either way. This is steeped in much politics as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Peter denied Christ three times in one night and it seems safe to say he did not go to hell. He did feel great shame for that. I don’t think someone would go to hell for that since we have the example of Peter. But there have been many people who have died for their faith or died because they would not convert to avoid death. There is something to be said for having the courage to stand for what you believe and for having the courage to say that you won’t recant your faith even upon pain of death. It’s like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednago who faced being thrown into a fiery pit. Their reply was “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” (Daniel 3:17-18) They were delivered, but they didn’t know if they would be when they said that. Sometimes the answer needs to be “we will not” even when faced with the threat of death. </p>
<p>All through history change has come when people were willing to die for what they believed to be right. Look at many of the great movements of history. I am praying for this woman to be freed, but look at the attention she has brought to the plight of women in her country. Look at how the world is watching. It’s because she refused to back down. </p>
<p><<<
Why do we think we’re always right, and everyone else is always wrong? I</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>because we dont put people on trial for a capital crime for choosing a faith that is different from the majority. </p>
<p>are you comparing our desire to try, convict, and execute first degree special circumstances murderers with another country’s desire to execute a person for her choice of religion? If so, then there can be no logical discussion.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I doubt it. God knows what is in your heart. And we are not required to tell the truth to those who are NOT owed the truth (in this case, Sudan)</p>
<p><<<
But remember what just happened with the botched execution: a little humility might be a good thing for us once in while.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Oh yes, I haven’t been able to sleep nights ever since that brutal murderer might have experienced some discomfort before he died.</p>
<p>:blissfullysnoring:</p>
<p>^^ Whoa… you are tough. But, I hear you. </p>
<p>@busdriver11 I think that not renouncing your religion even under the threat of death doesn’t have much to do with logic but with righteousness. It’s simply seems admirable and the right thing to do when someone continuously admits, “I am [insert something important to you here]” in the face of certain death. The situation is more complex since she’s also with a baby (does anyone else feel that the baby was also thrown in prison, because the authorities thought that it would make it more likely for her to renounce Christianity? I’m pretty sure that the child isn’t being accused of “committing apostasy”).</p>
<p>And in all fairness, Christians and followers of many other faiths believe in an afterlife. So it’s not like someone who dies in a horrible way necessarily gets a bad ending to their story. There’s more to come after that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do hope you recognize this is a non sequitur. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Pretty much an apples and oranges type of deduction. </p>
<p>Most people view martyrdom as most (or only) noble when it done by people of a religion with which they themselves affiliate. </p>
<p>If you are truly committed to a God you do not fake recanting. If you are committed you live out your faith, and in Christianity that means trusting in God to see you THROUGH the dark times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. And many countries in Europe, for example, regard the existence of the death penalty in OUR country as barbaric. (So do I.) It seems difficult for some people to grasp this. Think about if England and France decided to stage an armed intervention to save one of the people we currently have on death row. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>oh please.</p>
<p>why are you equating giving the DP to murderers who even England and France would agree have been convicted of horrible crimes? E and F would not be arguing that our condemned should be FREE. If anything, they would be arguing that our condemned should be given life imprisonment.</p>
<p>No sane person thinks this woman should be convicted of any crime, much less be given any sentence.</p>
<p>And BTW, it is virtually certain that at least some of the people on death row are innocent. (Especially in TX!) Look at the number of people who have been cleared by The Innocence Project.</p>
<p>Regarding the possibility of this woman pretending to recant in order to save her life, I believe that would only reinforce the charge of adultery, since she, as a Muslim, cannot legally marry a non-Muslim. The penalty for adultery may effectively be death also.</p>
<p>The best chance for her to survive is for people working quietly behind the scenes to arrange for her to be given mercy, and for her and her family to be exiled to a neighboring African state, from which they can depart to the US. Those who have imposed this sentence will only dig in their heels if they are made to publicly back down by a show of force.</p>
<p>The latest contribution to mankind from religious extremists:</p>
<p><a href=“http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/21/world/meast/iran-happy-video-arrests/”>'Happy' video dancers, but not director, freed in Iran - CNN;
</p>
<p>There’s a huge difference between something acknowledged to be a failure of a system (an innocent person being executed) and something that is an intrinsic part of a system (deciding that apostasy is a crime potentially punishable by death).</p>
<p>Personally, I’m more troubled by draconian punishments for minor offenses, especially drug offenses, than I am by the death penalty, although I think the latter is in great need of reform. Yet, I still think there is a massive difference between assigning a too-harsh penalty for a crime and calling something that should be a basic human right criminal behavior. I feel terrible for people caught up in a rotten drug war, and think marijuana should be legal in any case, but I don’t think smoking pot is an inalienable right. Getting to choose your own religion is. </p>
<p>There’s always a subjective element to human judgments, but to use that as a reason for not intervening is a recipe for blanket inaction on almost every issue. We also wouldn’t get much done if we made our own perfection a precondition for moral disapproval. When antebellum Southerners told Northerners they were hypocrites because impoverished factory workers had it worse, in a material sense, than a lot of slaves, they weren’t entirely wrong. That doesn’t mean abolitionists were arrogant imperialists who should have just shut up under the rationale that slavery was just a different value system they had no right to judge. </p>