A Saudi judge in Jeddah has again given the world a taste of law under the country’s medieval Sharia system. A 23-year-old pregnant woman who complained about being gang raped has been found guilty of adultery (even though she is not married) and ordered that she serve one year in jail and receive 100 lashes.
The woman said that she accepted a ride from a man who took her to a house in Jeddah where she was gang rape by him and his four friends all night. In an act of mercy, the Saudis will allow her to have the baby first and then flog her.
The woman’s “crime” was revealed at the hospital when she sought an abortion.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly punished rape victims under Sharia law, here and here..
In a fascinating interview, one reporters explored the view of some Saudi men that it is perfectly appropriate to rape a woman traveling alone or with a non-family member.
Rape victims have been stoned to death or jailed in other countries following Sharia.
Even in more modern nations like Turkey, rape victims can face “honor killings” by family members.
For the full story, click here.
Clint
Scrap right and wrong. Substitute, choices that lead to more choices.
Personal energy management.
Mike,
“any system that believes that only IT has the truth, or that IT knows God’s purpose, is both ignorant and blasphemous.”
But, somehow you do believe that that is the truth. Believing that no one has the truth is still, by implication, a belief that you do.
I don’t think any of you are dumb. I think that most (if not all) of you are far more intelligent than me. I haven’t even finished college and may never have an opportunity to do so. It seems that your presuppositions about my beliefs have ruled your dialogue with me. Do I think you are wrong in many ways…yes. But, you feel the same towards me.
Mespo,
“Enforced virtue is no virtue at all.”
Unless it is self-enforced for the purpose of self-justification. “For by works of the law (being moral), no human being will be justified in [God’s] sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” -Romans 3:20
Enforced virtue (God’s law) only ends up revealing that we have no virtue at all.
Bron98:
“I dont read playboy and I dont smoke dope and I dont run around on my wife but no one is telling me I cant which is as it should be.”
**********
Enforced virtue is no virtue at all.
Clint:
what is wrong with individual freedom? See the above from MikeS and Big Fella. Religious fundamentalism would certainly lead to a reduction in liberty. I am not saying you dont need laws to protect the individual from the masses or government. I dont read playboy and I dont smoke dope and I dont run around on my wife but no one is telling me I cant which is as it should be.
Humans have rights that are inherent to our nature as rational beings. You cannot force a man to do something other than at the point of a gun if he does not want to do it.
Thanks for the compliment, Mike. I’m with you on all religious fundamentalism: http://thebfdblog.com/2008/12/31/underming-the-first-amendment-by-creeping-christian-prostelyzation/
BF,
I’m with you, but would expand the insanity to all religious fundamentalism. I’m far from anti-religious, but any system that believes that only IT has the truth, or that IT knows God’s purpose, is both ignorant and blasphemous. BTW Liked your website. Being text illiterate I got some pleasure from doing BTW, but I really did like your website.
Fundamentalist Islamic beliefs can only be adequately described as ignorance and Stone Age mysticism. How else do you explain a Saudi think tanker who believes that women only need to let men suckle at their breasts if they want to be allowed to co mingle?
http://thebfdblog.com/2007/05/30/belief-systems-from-a-virtual-stone-age/
“a more morally superior nation or group of nations (such as one that largely supports the death of half of every black child conceived) must step in?”
“Mike,
I just got started and only made a slight reference to abortion”
Clint,
That wasn’t a slight reference, that was a sly reference, thrown in with the intent to try to bait a logical trap further down the line.
“Mespo:
I didn’t mention Jesus yet, stop skipping ahead.”
Where you come from and where you are going is obvious, Clint, why not cut to the chase because we’re not a dumb group here. You come on like “Jews for Jesus” people who tell ignorant Jewish people that Christianity is just like Judaism and anyway “Yeshuah” was also Jewish. If you want to argue your religious beliefs as they relate to government, I’m game. However, if you’re into pulling the same rhetorical tricks that con the innocent and unaware, then you’re just boring and I leave you to your beliefs and wish you well.
Bron,
Thanks for the link. I did indeed like it.
I liked it as an example of apologist propaganda.
Bron98,
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you that the U.S. is “morally superior” to China. I am only questioning why your opinion on human rights trumps someone else’s opinion (say Mugabe’s). If humanity is the ultimate authority on its own human rights then you’ll have plenty of conflicting opinions as to what is right and wrong.
Clint:
how can you argue with individual rights? I think the US is morally superior to say China or Rhodesia under Mugabe or any host of other countries that are repressive to individual freedom.
Humans as rational beings have rights based on that or if you prefer the origin of rights as given in the Declaration of Independence. I actually think that rights are inherent in being human and not granted by a Creator. If the Creator grants he can also take away.
Jill,
Starting from the overall power structure is the baseline for determining if a culturally-accepted act is wrong? Some would say that might is always right. If a female’s religious convictions involve her husband having the right to beat her, then are you or I of any authority to say she is wrong to believe that is acceptable behavior? I hope I understood what you were saying.
I’m not on the topic of abortion, I’m on the topic of moral absolutes and who has the right to determine if a culturally acceptable act is right or wrong.
Mike,
I just got started and only made a slight reference to abortion (as an example of a culturally-accepted act that is opposed by other groups) and you have already determined that I’m a hypocrite.
Bron98,
Thanks for answering the question. But, what if two countries have opposing moral absolutes? Who is right, why, and why should your feelings be the standard for others?
Fed,
My goal in the dialogue is not to rail against those who are pro-abortion. If I wanted to preach hell to all who deserved it, then I’d have to preach it first to myself. Thanks for congratulating me!
The common theme in most of these “cultural” differences that occur in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Taliban Afghanistan, the US when it comes to pregnacy issues, (and others) is the repression of women. Most religions, not all, put women in a lower caste than that of men. Until you equalize the sexes in these religions/cultures, nothing will change for the better.
Chris:
read this article and let me know what you think. It talks about some of the issues Buddha has brought up in the post above and also some other ideas.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp
You and Buddha might like this one:
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-summer/neoconservative-foreign-policy.asp
“Iran and Saudi Arabia.”
chris,
Yes, you can pick and chose. That’s part of the basic art of statesmanship. The threshold is attack, plain and simple. If another country is not acting as an aggressor to us or an ally, their internal policy is simply not our business (absent genocide, but that is an entirely different topic). A country’s internal affairs become our business the day they attack us, directly or by proxy, and ONLY on that day. Anything else is against self-determination and that is a key component of sovereignty. The U.S. is not the world police. That’s supposed to be the job of international cooperative agencies like the U.N. and localized treaty groups like NATO. America’s job is to mind America’s business. Not to go to war because someone feels threatened in some vague ideological way, but because we were attacked in the physical sense of life and property destroyed – nothing more, nothing less. The idea that we “needed to invade Iraq” because they were “a threat to democracy” is pure Neocon kool-aid. It’s bullshit designed to make the fearful to fall in line behind their lies for profit. You’re basically saying an idea is more of a threat worthy of response than an actual physical attack. That’s childish. “Bobby likes Superman! Everyone knows Batman rules! Get him!” The objective reality is that, despot or not, Iraq was a non-theocratic stabilizing counter-balance to the ambitions of Iran and Iraq. It was before it was illegally invaded anyway. Now it’s just broken. Broken in such a way as to be a recruiting tool for our real enemies. On this particular topic, it seems you have drank a gallon of the Neocon poison. You’re a jingoist at worst and a dupe at best, but every time you make this argument, you sound ignorant about the basic concepts of sovereign states and their responsibilities.
I think you can have moral absolutes. And some cultures are morally superior to others.
As a basis I would use the concept of individual freedom, what ever makes you less free is a bad thing and what ever makes you more free is a good thing. So based on that the young lady has had her personal rights abused on all levels. By individuals and the state and all by force.
Based on this I think we can say that most countries are morally superior to SA. And I would go on to say that any culture that is fundamentally for individual freedom is morally superior to one that does not allow personal freedom. As far as whether they like a certain food or dress or hairstyle is immaterial, a hot dog and a samosa are morally neutral. (although I think a samosa goes better with beer)
Clint, I ask you if you outlaw abortion what prevents another group from making abortion required? In the case of the mother with 14 children there are questions about whether she can care for these children. The tax payers are supporting her, in some peoples mind she should have been made to have an abortion.
I personally think it is wrong and I would not want my wife forced to have one because we had 2 children already. What the state gives the state can take away. I think the strategy for reducing abortion is education not force.
Clint,
Congratulations to you and your new bride.
(I just saw your website)
My point is that when I brought up the fact that Sadaam was responsible for the deaths of innocent Iraqi lives I was told what happened internally in Iraq was none of our business. The truth is that this type of behavior is unacceptable no matter what country imposes these types of punishments on its people. You cant just pick and choose what countries internal workings are and aren’t our business.