A Muslim cleric has been arrested in the latest atrocity from Sharia courts. Hena Begum, 14, died after being lashed 80 times publicly for adultery. Her family insisted that she had been raped by her cousin.
It took her six days to die. The village cleric and elders also demanded that her father pay a 4700 fine. The police are also looking for other men responsible for the heinous crime, including a local madrassa teacher. This is the second reported death from flogging by a Sharia court in the country this year. As previously discussed, in December, a 40-year-old woman was caned to death for allegedly having an affair with her stepson.
Source: BBC
Mike Spindell,
I can write very clearly and directly. I do not need big words except when no combination of smaller words works at all.
Scientific, obtuse jargon can quickly convey to those who understand the jargon well, in ten words what can take ten thousand words without the jargon.
Also, from my pastoral counseling work and the background which qualifies me to do such counseling ethically, I well recognize that some of the ideas within my research findings, being about severe abuse-generated trauma, may accidentally impair some folks coping skills in ways I seek to prevent.
Such findings as I think may trouble a few particularly fragile people, I put in elaborate jargon only to protect them from being harmed by my not knowing or understanding their coping skills limits.
As I have no way to know in advance who may or may not find my work of some use, I put it out, without using deception, so that whoever may find use for it may have it to use.
I do not write for those who have no use for my work, because, no matter how I write it, they will have no use for it.
I write only about what is within me; because I do not have what is not within me to write about, save as utter fantasy.
That is not egotistical and it is not narcissistic; it is actually quite the opposite of those, except perhaps to some people who are so egotistical and/or narcissistic that they are unable to fully recognize and accept any other person.
I recognize and accept Buddha is Laughing as a valid person, who is doing as his life circumstances both allow and require him to do.
I recognize and accept him that way because that is the way I recognize and accept everyone, myself included.
Yet, as I fully allow that he is an attorney-at-law, surely he understands that my not refuting his mistaken claims about me is the same as my validating said mistaken claims.
I make no claims about him, I only describe my concerns regarding his mistaken claims. Were he to have the real ability to do bioengineering research at a level similar to the level at which I work, he and I would be able to have a nifty and beautiful conversation or dialogue, during which I would become able to know his view of my work well enough to learn whether his written view of my work is right and my view wrong.
Alas, invectives merely inform me of someone I would guess is suffering from some sort of trauma, only, I have yet to read anything he has written which would begin to tell me that or not.
The multi-layered meaning to which you, Mike, have referred, is real. One layer is my choosing to not retaliate for invectives while not accepting even the most sincerely made mistakes others may tell regarding me or my work.
Were I to not make a decent effort to inform someone who seems to misunderstand me and my work, and as-though promotes his/her misunderstandings to others as not misunderstandings, surely I would not even understand myself.
Some ideas have rather complicated structure. To leave out the structure in telling such ideas is to not tell such ideas at all.
Were I to guess, I would guess that there may be people who find what I write of use, yet are not comfortable commenting here.
Given how sensitive, gentle people may experience what Buddha is Laughing has been writing regarding my posted comments, I would delicately admonish any such folks, if there are any, to be super-careful before considering commenting here.
Being as though figuratively caught in a cross-fire of Gatling guns is simply not for everyone.
Brian,
As obtuse as your writing can be at times, I essentially like your style and train of thought. I found this last post to be valuable food for thought.
“Methinks religion is not the problem. Methinks false religion may be a problem, but who am I that I may even think that?”
Absolutely beautiful line with multi-layered meaning. My hat is off to you.