Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[Calgaryborn]

I quite reading after 6 pages so please forgive me if I'm repeating something.

Adultery defined by Judeo-Christian tradition is the breaking of the marriage covenant. That covenant is the vows the couple made to each other before God. A person sleeping with someone under such a covenant is committing adultery even though they didn't make the covenant. They are participating in the breaking of the covenant. Islam might see things different though.

Also one big reason why female adultery has been traditionally dealt with so harshly around the world is the birthright. Until recent times you had to be able to trust the virtue of your wife to know the children she produced was actually yours. In our 21st century culture birthright and inheritance isn't as important because for most of us we are more concerned with creating our own wealth. We also, live fairly long lives and aren't too worried about what we leave behind.

Traditionally a birthright determined your station in life and what standard of living you and your future children would enjoy. It was very difficult to move up from whatever station your birth placed you in. Wealth was passed down through inheritance rather than earned. Short life spans made producing a male heir and seeing that the family inheritance was passed down uncorrupted as one of the most important duties a man had to his family. An unfaithful wife put everything in doubt. Her betrayal wasn't just against you but, against your whole clan.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In our 21st century culture birthright and inheritance isn't as important because for most of us we are more concerned with creating our own wealth.

If you aren't concerned about creating your own wealth, how exactly do you pass on an inheritance (or a whatever a birthright is)?

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Traditionally a birthright determined your station in life and what standard of living you and your future children would enjoy. It was very difficult to move up from whatever station your birth placed you in. Wealth was passed down through inheritance rather than earned. Short life spans made producing a male heir and seeing that the family inheritance was passed down uncorrupted as one of the most important duties a man had to his family. An unfaithful wife put everything in doubt. Her betrayal wasn't just against you but, against your whole clan.

Several people have their parents able pay for their down payment on a house so they can enter the market immediately. Some parents pay for a kids post secondary schooling, allowing people to have a good financial position after school.

Those are just a couple of examples, but they show that wealth is still passed down and not earned in cases. It just might not be as obvious now.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by peter12

Interesting point, but somewhat unfair given the global context. Regardless of everything else, the United States is still the beacon of a good liberal regime.

It is A beacon, but not THE beacon. There are large, obvious flaws inherant in the US system of governing which are often overlooked as they are the single most powerful nation on the planet.

This is an interesting discussion though and looks directly at the sovereignty of nations. Does any nation or body have a right to interfere with the running of another nation? On what grounds and under what circumstances? Who should we be looking to to interfere in this situation, and how?

As horrific as this situation is, is there anything we can do to stop it without creating a religious war? Frankly, any interference will likely result in the claim that it was anti-Islam based. Pointing out that they're going against their own laws and may be punished by their God will probably be ineffective as they are likely well aware of the hypocrisy in their actions. It's quite a conundrum and I hate to say it, but is one life worth the repercussions of interference? Perhaps that's what they're looking for.

[mmanzz]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Godwin's Law wins again.

To address your statement from an emotional perspective, comparing genocide to a death sentence of one person is like torching a field full of wheat because of a rotten ear of corn.

Now from a strictly hypothetical perspective, no. You don't ignore it. You denounce, condemn and sanction the hell out of the state, but you do not interfere. If it were possible, taking them to a higher court would be the next best option, but sovereign nations are unlikely to (and nor should they) respect the authority of a world court.

The sanctions and condemnations are a way to enact political and diplomatic pressure on a state to capitulate to your demands without resorting to force. Force is just as barbaric, if you're the sort that believes humanity must find ways to co-exist rather than wiping out people simply because their cultural views are different.

You called it this time, its so true. Last time i called it someone had actually brought the nazi's into a discussion about moving the coyotes to Winnipeg. I think it was about 80 posts but this is again a ridiculous comparison.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I am no defender of the the bible. But despite what it says nobody stones their children for disobedience based on it.

So why is it ok for muslims to use the teachings of the Koran to justify barbaric acts envisaged in the medieval days?

Well, that civilization peaked around the 14th century, and has pretty much stayed there since then, plus cell phones and modern weapons...

I keed, I keed, ....well, not really...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FireFly

It is A beacon, but not THE beacon. There are large, obvious flaws inherant in the US system of governing which are often overlooked as they are the single most powerful nation on the planet.

This is an interesting discussion though and looks directly at the sovereignty of nations. Does any nation or body have a right to interfere with the running of another nation? On what grounds and under what circumstances? Who should we be looking to to interfere in this situation, and how?

As horrific as this situation is, is there anything we can do to stop it without creating a religious war? Frankly, any interference will likely result in the claim that it was anti-Islam based. Pointing out that they're going against their own laws and may be punished by their God will probably be ineffective as they are likely well aware of the hypocrisy in their actions. It's quite a conundrum and I hate to say it, but is one life worth the repercussions of interference? Perhaps that's what they're looking for.

No, it's THE beacon. The subject of liberty follows the American example. I have problems with republicanism (even though I would call myself a small-r republican) but it's institutions and citizenry are by far the most liberal on the face of this earth.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, it's THE beacon. The subject of liberty follows the American example. I have problems with republicanism (even though I would call myself a small-r republican) but it's institutions and citizenry are by far the most liberal on the face of this earth.

LOL! You keep telling yourself that and we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm certain numerous minority groups in the US would also disagree, but what do I know?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FireFly

LOL! You keep telling yourself that and we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm certain numerous minority groups in the US would also disagree, but what do I know?

Not much, apparently. The USA is the most diverse country in the world with a Constitution that is designed to solve problems with minority factions etc...

I never said that the USA was some sort of racial utopia, I said it was the beacon for liberal regimes to follow. Just look at their President.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by T@T

Other than the shear numbers I fail to see this any differently than other crimes against humanity. It's barbaric, stupid and plain wrong. No religion should ever have to power to make it law to kill a human being for being "horny" even if guilty, which in this case isn't exactly true reality.

I agree.

To emphasize the shear scope of this barbarism just look at who throws the stones! these are supposed to be "normal" citizens. A dump truck shows up and drops off a big pile of nice potato sized stones and these idiots line up to get them. To me they are far from normal and certainly not civilized. This act is pure MURDER...nothing less.

Despite the large number of individuals that will be throwing stones, I assure you that the number of people that will not be throwing stones is significantly higher. Probably out of apathy, probably out of inconvenience, probably because they're not barbaric as those that will be throwing stones. I will openly condemn the regime that runs Iran, but I would not condemn every one of her citizens the same way. There are jerks and saints in every culture. It's unfair to generalize the group over the actions of a small few.

Furthermore, given Iran's great efforts to prohibit Western cultural invasion, I would imagine that forms of entertainment in Iran are not nearly as plentiful as the options at our fingertips. Dare I say, such a public punishment is just as much entertainment as it is their ill conceived concept of justice. The other side to that coin is that because their efforts to prevent Western cultural invasion are largely successful, many citizens may not be aware that there are other cultural codes of law outside of their own. In their eyes, by stoning this woman, they are doing what they believe to be Allah's work.

Now we know in Canada, such a tactic would never fly. We have levels of authority whose sole purpose is to enforce the code of Laws we Canadians enjoy, such levels of authority one citizen can go to and report other citizens when they break said code. But on the world stage, there is no such court. Each sovereign nation has their own respective supreme authority, an authority that bows to no one. Iran is a sovereign nation, and they do not bow to Canada or the Crown, just as we do not bow to them, thus in my opinion, we can condemn their cultural practices til our throats are sore, but we do not have the right to interefere.

Our civilizations were once just as barbaric as Iran is today. Through cultural reform and revolution within our own nation, we were able to rise to the level of sophistication we are at today. Culture cannot be force-fed to other civilizations. It has to develop and grow from within through the exchange of knowlede and ideas.

Something that will be very difficult to do in Iran, given the only voices they want to listen to are the ones that speak like they do.

Acts like this just prove my point that God is imaginary and religion should be banned from the face of the earth for stupidity reasons alone.

I wish nothing but the best for Iran and other countrys with these ######ed views...a quick and painless nuke will do the trick. ...at least it would be civilized.

Religion is not inherantly bad, T@T. I myself am not a religious man, although I was born and raised Lutheran. There are many religious people that do great things and perform selfless acts of charity. Though I can certainly sympathize with your statement, especially given that some of the worst crimes in history were done in the name of religion. It's a double edged sword. I think your anger is clouding your judgment. I do not believe you would truly condone nuclear genocide as a just act in response to the questionable conviction of a likely innocent woman charged with adultery.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not much, apparently. The USA is the most diverse country in the world with a Constitution that is designed to solve problems with minority factions etc...

I never said that the USA was some sort of racial utopia, I said it was the beacon for liberal regimes to follow. Just look at their President.

OH, you're not talking about how they actually operate, you're talking about what they SAY they should do. I get it.

Their entire system of government which includes their Constitution and, which you say is designed to solve problems with minority factions, actually rewards special interest groups. You know that right? And by minority groups, I don't necessarily mean racial groups, eh? Ask gays in California about their supposed liberty.

Oooooh, a black President. Look out. That certainly means they're liberal.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FireFly

OH, you're not talking about how they actually operate, you're talking about what they SAY they should do. I get it.

Their entire system of government which includes their Constitution and, which you say is designed to solve problems with minority factions, actually rewards special interest groups. You know that right? And by minority groups, I don't necessarily mean racial groups, eh? Ask gays in California about their supposed liberty.

Oooooh, a black President. Look out. That certainly means they're liberal.

Prop 8 was settle democratically and fairly. Both sides had their say and one side lost. That's democracy. You don't always win.

I'd like to see your apology for a liberal regime you consider more liberal than the Americans.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by peter12

Prop 8 was settle democratically and fairly. Both sides had their say and one side lost. That's democracy. You don't always win.

I'd like to see your apology for a liberal regime you consider more liberal than the Americans.

He's got you there...

[Traditional_Ale]

So has she been stoned to death yet?

Do we have enough time to still nuke the bashtards?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by peter12

Prop 8 was settle democratically and fairly. Both sides had their say and one side lost. That's democracy. You don't always win.

I'd like to see your apology for a liberal regime you consider more liberal than the Americans.

We'll see how liberal the Americans are at the end of the year elections.
Seems to me the US is split right down the middle. Totally bi-polar.
40% one side, 40% the other side. The rest are independents or people who are always upset with the status quo and will vote for whoever sounds better than the current president.

In 2008 it was "Sick of Bush"
Maybe in 2012 it will be "Sick of Obama"

[CaptainCrunch]

Obama - "I will not run for a second term as President of the United States, I have accomplished everything that I set out to do. I'm going to help design my Library, write my memoirs and spend time with my wife and kids. Thank you very much"

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Prop 8 was settle democratically and fairly. Both sides had their say and one side lost. That's democracy. You don't always win.

I'd like to see your apology for a liberal regime you consider more liberal than the Americans.

I'm guessing she's talking about nations like the Netherlands and many nordic nations like Sweden. Iceland has a lesbian prime minster, take that Obama!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by peter12

I never said that the USA was some sort of racial utopia, I said it was the beacon for liberal regimes to follow. Just look at their President.

Congratulations to the US for electing a non-white male leader 16 years after Canada's female Prime Minister served a term in office?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by peter12

Prop 8 was settle democratically and fairly. Both sides had their say and one side lost. That's democracy. You don't always win.

I'd like to see your apology for a liberal regime you consider more liberal than the Americans.

So what you're saying is democracy trumps liberty?

Hell, Canada is more liberal than the US. In fact, I would consider Canada a much better beacon of liberty than the US. Let's talk about a dictionary definition of liberty first and go from there...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

Now if you click that link, one of my favorite definitions pops up... I'll highlight it here just to show you if you're too lazy to click the link.

lib·er·ty

–noun, plural -ties.

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

This is just a sample of what liberty is, there are additional definitions listed.

Now if you look at number three, would you say that having a gay marriage bill defeated would give gays 'freedom from control to do, think or speak according to choice"? I don't think so. Liberty would mean that those opposing gay marriage can say, "I don't think that's right!", (as they are free from the control of their speech,) while gay people say, "that's too bad! I am at liberty to choose the spouse that I wish!"

Just as an example. Neither act would infringe on the rights of others as stated in the constitution, but would allow for maximum liberty. See?

I'm not saying Canada is perfect; the battle over the Alberta Human Rights Act is proof of that. However in general, Canada is a beacon of liberty, and a damn good one at that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'm guessing she's talking about nations like the Netherlands and many nordic nations like Sweden. Iceland has a lesbian prime minster, take that Obama!

All of those countries struggle with institutionalized racism. Besides, I wouldn't call Denmark or Sweden "liberal" countries. More like conservative communitarian cultures that create social institutions to preserve a culture.