<br>
<br>
<p>exactly</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s some problems with this historical parallel you’re drawing. While the abolitionists had some influential members, they were not really part of the mainstream in the North…even during the Civil War. </p>
<p>In fact, they were widely derided by many northerners in ways similar to how mainstream establishment Americans of the '60s viewed the hippies and the counterculture. The abolitionists were more a minority who were ahead of their time than ones dictating mainstream northern opinion. </p>
<p>This is one reason why certain parts of the north with strong business interests…like parts of NYC were havens of Confederate sympathizers and why the Draft Riots of 1863 targeted known abolitionists and Black families/people. </p>
<p>Another factor is because the abolitionists were regarded widely as radical even in the north in the antebellum, they were in no position to have colonized and ruled over the south before the Civil War. </p>
<p>A better parallel would probably be comparing British popular opinion* on slavery and the south. And if that popular opinion was strongly reflected in the British political leadership of the time, they’d probably be considering the most diplomatically effective means of approaching the slavery issue in ways which minimize inflaming southern anger which is likely to increase the brutality and backlash against the enslaved. </p>
<p>Similarly, the current administration and other Western countries concerned about the persecuted Christian Sudanese woman are working behind the scenes to prevent the possibility of backlash and further harm to her. </p>
<ul>
<li>Some elite conservatives were sympathetic to slavery and the south and were at complete odds with the majority opinion in Britain in that period.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Since she is married to an American, perhaps the US can expedite her US citizenship. If she were a US citizen, I assume the violations for which she is being prosecuted would not apply to her. </p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>dont know how that would all work. </p>
<p>If she were given US citizenship because of her marriage, would that be enough? maybe she would have to be named a diplomat to get diplomatic immunity. ???</p>
<p>“Since she is married to an American, perhaps the US can expedite her US citizenship. If she were a US citizen, I assume the violations for which she is being prosecuted would not apply to her.”</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Some countries require formal renouncement of citizenship, orherwise, the person will still be viewed and treated as a citizen of said country no matter how many other countries’ passports s/he carries.</p>
<p>Bay,<br>
Most countries that practice Sharia laws impose them on ALL residents of the country, just as we hold all people living in the United States (citizens, undocumented aliens, and visitors) to obeying US and state/local laws. She would still be a daughter of a Muslim father, which means that it would be illegal for her to become a Christian,and still be a Christian in a relationship with a Muslim, thus guilty of adultery because the marriage is not legal. </p>
<p>Interesting. So a Christian American visiting Sudan would be subject to arrest for adultery there if she was married to a Muslim man back home in America? That is amazing, but I guess women in that position are probably aware and don’t visit countries like Sudan. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is very accurate, as a descriptor using morality, as the qualifier. However, I am afraid the posts mentioning other actions by the US are operating on a more dangerous and fundamental premise, which is all the actions are equal / the same. That is to say, they do not even see a moral distinction between the issues. </p>
<p>Using such an analytical framework, execution of a person in this country for a triple murder is the same as another country executing because someone does not renounce his religion. To those that think like this, the operative premise is not morals, but the action, regardless of the morals behind the actions. This is why the French invading the US to free a convicted murderer from execution seems logical and is seen as the same as the US going to free this woman from execution because, from this viewpoint, both are sentenced to the same action, death by the state. </p>
<p>This is similar to the serious advocates for gun control. They view defending your home from a invader with a gun the same, as using a gun for hunting, as the same for using a gun for target practice. It is the fact that it is a speedy projectile that can cause harm that is the issue; the moral use of said projectile is not part of the equation. </p>
<p>This is moral relativism taken to the most extreme to the point it is reduced to simply relativism; that is, all actions are equal if they involve identical mechanisms, morals notwithstanding. If followed, the end result would be exactly what you stated, paralysis. i.e., no one can oppose any action if he himself had ever taken such an action before. We do get to the same place, but I am coming down on the side we have or are quickly approaching the point that such a worldview no longer has anything to do with morality, as we have known it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You would be surprised how many do go. They are aware, but are in denial that it would happen to them. Same reason British tourists visit middle eastern resorts and hold hands and kiss in public. They know it is illegal there to do that in public, but they think being arrested would not happen to them. It is one of those things - you have to get caught first and many think they will not get caught. </p>
<p>And why our military gives advice to soldiers and civilian employees entering Muslim countries.Or why western female news reporters (and Hilary Clinton when she was Sec of State) wear head scarves and long sleeves, and do not drive themselves but rely on drivers.</p>
<p>The national laws are laws. It doesn’t matter whether or not they make sense to us - it is their country and they have the right to enforce them.</p>
<p>The Sudanese woman must have known for years that this was her fate.</p>
<p>awcntdb, you’re making incredible sweeping generalizations, entirely missing the points we’re making, then being extremely judgmental about your narrow conclusions.</p>
<p>I can see why you do not support behind the scenes diplomacy. Diplomacy involves nuance and sensitivity that your arguments lack. </p>
<p>I don’t think they have the right to enforce them. They have the ability to enforce them, which is a very different thing.</p>
<p>This woman was raised as a Christian since age 6, so she may not have been aware that she would be persecuted. or she was aware and possibly hiding from her father’s side of the family. Probably nobody in her vicinity even thought she was anything else. Her brother told authorities that she was in violation of the law and reported her missing, so they went after her. </p>
<p>Which brings more questions to mind. If her father married a Christian, then he is also guilty of that “crime”. If he was so devoted to her religious upbringing, then why did he leave the family when she was 6? It would only make sense that if she was raised by her mother alone, then her mother would raise her in the same religion as she is. </p>
<p>This isn’t the case of an adult Islamic woman renouncing Islam. This woman has been raised as a Christian and wants to remain one. She’s not renouncing Islam because she was never Islamic in the first place, at least as she sees herself. She isn’t an adult Muslim choosing to marry a Christian. She married a man of her same faith.</p>
<p>This leaves more to question about the father, a grown Muslim man, marrying a Christian woman, having a child and then leaving the family and the mother to raise her on her own. Nothing he did is reason for the death penalty either, but it seems his decisions have more to do with this woman not being raised as a Muslim since she was only 6 when he left. If he was committed to raising his children in his version of his faith in his country, then maybe he should have also followed the rules she is being penalized for breaking- marry a Muslim woman and raise his child as one. </p>
<p>I have never understood why people would kill in the name of God…Allah…christianity…Islamism…whatever. Why are some people just jealous about nonsense?? Always wanting a pretext to kill??..this is not new, this is not only happening in Africa…I mean it’s part of terrorism…</p>
<p>dexter, we might as well ask why human beings are human ! God has done his best to give us a clue, but we don’t listen very well.</p>
<p>^ I posted previously about tyrants warping religion for their own design. This probably accounts for most of the killing in “God’s” name. Actually it’s killing in the tyrant’s name.</p>
<p>@hayden what clue has God given us???..Be christian and hate muslims…or vice versa??? I might as well just get to the point that God doesn’t care about the things we think pleases him…</p>
<p>Well, dexter, we could start with two of the Commandments. Everyone has heard thou shalt not murder. That’s accepted as a Commandment by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Buddhists and Hindus have the same belief, just not from the Commandments. </p>
<p>Then we could move to the first Commandment - we should not take God’s name in vain. That means, among other things, we should not use God’s name as our personal pawn when what we really want is to claim someone else’s land, or keep some other group out of power, or make inappropriate judgments against others, all the while claiming it’s God’s will. God gets ticked off when you do that. </p>
<p>@hayden…Well understood, thank you!!! 
</p>