Despite an international outcry and effort to pay traditional “blood money” in the Saudi legal system, the Kingdom has cut the head off a Sri Lankan maid for allegedly smothering an infant child when the nanny was just 17. The maid was decapitated by a swordsman in Riyadh under the country’s Sharia based legal system.
Rizana Nafeek was sentenced to death in 2007 but Sri Lankan government appealed the death penalty and many international groups decried the ludicrous trial and draconian sentence. While under arrest, the maid signed a confession written in Arabic that she did not understand and later retracted. It did not matter.
Saudi Arabia beheaded as many as 76 people last year.
Source: National Post
I love the discussion of who killed more, religious zealots or atheists.
So let me get this strait, a religious zealot kills because his/her god says that someone has committed an atrocity so heinous that deserves death. And the atheist kills because…hmmm, got to be a reason….hmmm. Perhaps it’s because they just wanted to? Whatever the reason, dead is dead.
There is no Christian in her wanting to condemn whoever. Jesus came to save. Jesus did not come to build jails, and military armies. She fell victim to the very laws she supports.
“I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.” – Marcus Aurelius
now now you are being an elitist snob. Perhaps this the definition of Christian thatis at issue. if I tell you that I am a Jewish vegetarian while I am eating a double bacon cheeseburger I clearly I’m not a Jewish vegetarian
Mickey,
The issue at hand is you being wrong and not man enough to admit it. You said I didn’t give a robust enough answer the first time, so I gave you one that was both robust and historically accurate and you didn’t like the answer. That falls into the category of your problem, not mine.
you assume a lot. My family grew up in nazioccupied Europe. it’s my hobby too. really a small point. You can call yourself anything you want is your behavior that is the issue
Mickey,
I suspect I know a lot more about Hitler than you do. WWII history is a hobby and I’m currently writing a novel set in part in Nazi Germany so I’ve been collating research. Hitler was a lapsed Catholic, but he never adopted any other tradition (including atheism) which means he’s a Christian if not a practicing Catholic. When dealing with his inner-circle, you get conflicting stories as you’d expect from a politician of his caliber.
Privately, when he was dealing with his more occult oriented friends like Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann (both members of the Thule Society which did play an instrumental part in his rise to power as early supporters of what would become the Nazi Party), he frequently criticised Christianity. This, however, would also comport with him be lapsed from an organized religion and most of his criticism focused on the organization rather than the religion itself. When dealing with other members of his staff who were themselves staunch Christians like General Gerhard Engel and Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, he spoke like a true believer.
Publicly, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, his belief in an Aryan Christ, and concurrent with the attempt to create the National Reich Church he espoused the twisted form of positive Christianity that institution was to be built upon.
Like it or not, Hitler was a Christian in the non-denominational sense that he didn’t follow any organized religion’s dogma, but was spiritually a Christian in the theological sense albeit in a form twisted to rationalize his actions as a genocidal maniac. If anything, Hitler saw himself as a religious reformer trying to reshape Christianity in such a way as to make it compatible with the Nazi ethos (which it is inherently not compatible with) and a politician looking to preserve what support he had garnered from traditional organized Christianity and minimize possible discord within the state that flatly banning organized religion (other than the National Reich Church of course) would have caused.
Frankly .. I agree with you its humans. humans that lust for power over others that is the problem. I ignore nothing. I was responding to P Smith. Never give up your right to own and bare arms because government has been the greatist source of murder in history.
“its humans that are the problem” – Frankly
True enough, but some of the ridiculous crap they can believe does factor into their bad actions.
And herein is demonstrated why it is pointless to argue who killed more. Mickey, you ignore a lot of religious history to try and make your point. And everyone misses the important point: its humans that are the problem no matter what they believe.
@rafflaw yes they have killed more. Check the linkfor university of Hawaii
Genne H the link yo posted is incomplet. Google (Hitlers faith abc) top of the hits should be a very indepth study of Hitler that clearly showa he was not a practicing christian and dabeled in the occult. therefore not a christian.
Mickey,
I am not sure that you can claim that the Soviets and Chinese have killed more than organized religions. We are talking thousands of years of religions killing so-called infidels or non-believers.
Mike,
I agree that JC would be ashamed of how the Catholic Church has morphed from being all about helping the underprivileged to being more concerned about maintaining their control over the people and the money.
check out the link for the University of Hawaii the I posted withyou also find a link for pre 20th century murders by government witin that link
Yes Mike I totally agree however the Sovietand the Chinese Godless communist killed far more as a matter of number than all of those combined
I concede that religion including Christian are responsible for deathsr
“Sovietand the Chinese Godless communist killed far more as a matter of number than all of those combined”
Mickey,
I’m really not sure that can be quantified. However, you must understand that even though Communists are atheists, Communism as practiced is itself a religion, though one not believing in God. I can’t say that I agree with P Smith’s original statement either. I think that institutionalized religion, fundamentalist religion and atheistic religions are all bad, not because of their teachings per se, but because sociopaths tend to rise to the top of their hierarchies and pervert the original intent of the belief. do you really think that Karl Marx would have approved of Lenin, Stalin and Mao? I seriously doubt it.
Just as I doubt that Jesus would see what has been done in his name as following his teachings.
If you are a lapsed Catholicyou are not Catholic. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness.I am NOT a Jehovah’s Witness that has lapsed. I reject the Jehovah’s Witness religion. Truly all a small point. This came about when P Smith said that religion needed to end because it is cause so many deaths. My only point was the godlessstates have murdered even more people. however I do believe Islam “as interpreted by far too many people” is a threatto civilization
Saudi households are highly dependent on domestic workers from African and South Asian countries.
In a statement before the execution, Amnesty International said that it appeared Nafeek had no access to lawyers either during her pre-trial interrogation or at her trial in 2007.
“It appears that she was herself a child at the time and there are real concerns about the fairness of her trial,” Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa programme director, said the day before the execution.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/20131107434432906.html
She had said the infant choked on formula while feeding….where are the autopsy results???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society
Noo-oooooooooooo. Not agreed. Hitler wasn’t an occultist. He was a Christian. A lapsed Catholic who subscribed to pseudo-science. Many in the SS and some of his cabinet were occultists. He was not.
Historical revisionism doesn’t help your case and putting words in my mouth even less so.
Waldo
1, January 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm
What’s so “draconian” about the death penalty for intentionally killing an infant? That’s certainly a possible punishment in many US states for the same crime.————–
where is the proof of intentionally killing an infant? She signed something under duress….