The Saudi Sharia system has again made headlines with its perverse view of justice. The latest victim is a businesswoman who will receive 50 lashes for merely insulting the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, or the Saudi morality police. Of course, the Saudi morality police is widely ridiculed and denounced as a group of religious fanatics upholding a medieval system of religious law.
You will recall that this is the same organization of lunatics who blocked girls from escaping a fire in Mecca because they were not appropriately covered according to Islamic standards. Fifteen would die in the interests of Islamic modesty at the hands of the morality police. Better to be burned alive than expose their hair in public.
This is also the same group that has been killing people in car chases and harassing families recently in malls. In other words, if there is any group of individuals more worthy contempt than the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
The victim in the latest atrocity insulted members of the morality squad when they entered a cafe looking for immoral acts like women sitting with unrelated men. Some of the woman’s employees had to run in fear of being arrested on immigration issues. The victim was then arrested for “cursing the morality police” and calling them “liars.”
A Saudi judge applied Sharia law and sentenced the woman to be flogged.
The fact that this is a woman cannot be easily dismissed given the work of these religious fanatics in arresting women for not dressing modestly or appearing in public with men who are not related to them. To have a woman confront these morality thugs takes an enormous amount of courage and likely magnified the anger for the religious police. Of course, she could hardly make a fast getaway: women are still not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
Source: Yahoo
John, with all due respect…..What the heck are you blathering about?
Did you say BOTH PARENTS??? It’s just coincidence that is the requirement for eligibility for the office of president that BOTH PARENTS BE CITIZENS. Wow! Small world, huh?
@annie
I don’t disagree that there are often good reasons for a divorce. But I also have seen many divorces for no good reason except that the partners are not “happy” in some weird undifferentiated sense, and divorces at the insistence of an obviously crazy obsessed wife.
I don’t know how you could classify the crazy wife ones, or even address them in an era where everybody is equal. But some psychiatrist needs to do a study on this because it happens, and it is so apparent to the attorneys working on the case, on both sides.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, when people marry young, or even not so young, people change, some drastically. Or in someone’s youth they chose poorly. Many serious and legitimate reasons for divorce. I’m not saying that couples shouldn’t try to work out their differences. It takes both spouses to want to make it work though. When onevspouse grows up and the one doesn’t, it doesn’t pay off to stay married. Kids are better off with the responsible adult, even if I means only one parent that has placement of the children. I didn’t say BOTH parents were responsible adults. It’s usually one or the other.
@annie
Then I think you are not seeing the real world of divorce. Plus, if the issues were “way more serious”, that makes me think cheating, drugs or abuse, and from such roots, I don’t see responsible parenting springing from both parties. I do see children being glad that the druggie or abuser is dispatched.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Thank you Darren.
Squeeky, maybe there outta be a law against stupid people getting married. The women and men that I know who have gotten divorced, it was way more serious than that. Plus they were excellent parents, some of their children thanked their parent or parents for divorcing.
@annie
Well, I have worked with my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq,, an attorney, and some of these women are OUT THERE. They have some kind of weird obsession about getting divorced, and when they do, they tend to take up with other men who are nowhere the caliber of their ex-husbands, and often a series of total losers. It is like their genes are screaming, “Mate again with another man and get some genetic diversity, no matter what!” or something like that.
I have seen them give up nice homes, with a pool, and a nice husband, and end up in a beat up trailer, on drugs, with a guy on meth. Something is definitely not right here. But, we get to do the subsequent custody battles, too.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
LOST A POST IN THE FILTER. PLEASE ASSIST!
Annie,
The short answer is gap management. Let me explain.
The Department of the Navy decided to implement Total Quality Management principles into an organization embedded with certain “traditional” ways of doing things. Although the senior leaders had become “enlightened” to these principles, the Navy culture had not yet had the “privilege”. The DON had a strategic plan with a VISION of where they wanted to get; they had GUIDING PRINCIPLES that set the behavior; and they still had a MISSION to accomplish.
They then had to do a complete assessment of where we were today in comparison to the vision they set. This GAP is what needed to be strategically managed. The biggest obstacle to this radical change is the embedded culture. The change had to be managed and would take years to accomplish. You don’t turn an organization that large on a dime and it’s certainly more difficult for a nation.
The framer’s had to essentially manage their way through the same obstacles to achieve the vision of a “more perfect union” based on equality and security of unalienable rights. Amendments would be the natural result of this process; all under the guidance of moral absolutes. Take away the absolutes (guiding principles) and you take away the compass that is intended to guide you.
John Oliver, I retrieved your comment at 5:45.
Squeeky, “at that age”? LOL? But whatever, we can be who we want online, right? You’ve never been married and have no children, as you’ve said, seriously though Squeeky, and I don’t intend this to be insulting, but you sound like a child sometimes.
@annie
When there are kids, I would make divorces a lot harder to get, and end those based “irreconcilable differences, and general indignities.Plus, I would require a mental examination for any woman seeking a divorce who is between 35 and 42ish, or they can’t get custody of any kids. Because I swear, some of these women are nothing but psycho, and I think it is hormonal or something. They become nutz, and I am scared to death it will happen to me at that age. So many do not have good sense, and destroy their marriages and ruin their children’s lives over trivial crap. Work with a divorce lawyer for a while and you will see what I mean.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Also children are abused in any situation in which there is an abusive adult. Marriage doesn’t prevent child abuse.
Squeeky, there are widows and divorcees who manage to raise children very successfully. What would you do, make a law demanding a male relative marry widows? Prohibit divorce?
@pauls
Well, partnership law doesn’t change Junior’s diaper at 3:00 AM. It doesn’t take Junior to his soccer practice, or spank Junior’s rear end when he needs it. Child support may ameliorate some of the problem, but does it really help much when Mommy brings home the latest John she found that will buy her a few drinks???
If you want to see what happens when marriage goes bye-bye, just visit your nearest poor black neighborhood.
Sooo, artificial or not, I think you need marriage if there are kids involved. True, women need it more than men, but society in general would be even worse without it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Paul, perhaps you can ask the Supreme Court to reconsider.
Annie – The Amendments are based on moral absolutes. Things we learned from the British and they did not have but we felt we needed. As an enlightened person living in an advanced society I think abortion is murder. How do I legally rectify that?
JohnO, if we demand moral absolutes, we wouldn’t have gotten the Amendments, which were obviously needed. We needed an end to slavery, the right to vote, etc etc etc. If we worked in a framework of moral absolutes then how would we end practices that we as enlightened people living in an advanced society, KNOW are wrong and how do we legally rectify them?
@annie
What business is it of mine if some other society wishes to make its women wear a burka??? I suspect that those type of societies take one look at ours, see all our skanky females with piercings and crummy tats all over, with zippo morals to the point where about 1/3 have an STD, and about half or more in some races can’t even bother with getting married before reproducing, etc. and recoil in disgust. I can hardly blame them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
squeeky – I always thought that marriage was an artificial construct designed to protect property rights. Now we can do all that with partnership law and child support, so who cares.
Annie,
That’s a very good answer and one I used to hold as well until I studied why government is created in the first place. Without moral absolutes then no government structure is secure from manipulation; the Gov. Perry thread is a perfect example of this. We have the capability to reason our way to a moral and just society but human nature does not bend well to law if it can find a way around it. This is where I see the purpose for religion. It provides a structure for society that sets cultural norms and more importantly, it provides a measure of virtue with which we should select those to govern.