Hanged for being a Christian in Iran

[Psephos]

Source: UK Telegraph

A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled "Islamic Penal Code", which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against.

Imposing the death penalty for changing religion blatantly violates one of the most fundamental of all human rights. The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the European Convention of Human Rights. It is even enshrined as Article 23 of Iran's own constitution, which states that no one may be molested simply for his beliefs. And yet few politicians or clerics in Iran see any contradiction between a law mandating the death penalty for changing religion and Iran's constitution. There has been no public protest in Iran against it.

<snip>

For one woman living in London, however, the Iranian parliamentary vote cannot be brushed aside. Rashin Soodmand is a 29-year-old Iranian Christian. Her father, Hossein Soodmand, was the last man to be executed in Iran for apostasy, the "crime" of abandoning one's religion. He had converted from Islam to Christianity in 1960, when he was 13 years old. Thirty years later, he was hanged by the Iranian authorities for that decision. Today, Rashin's brother, Ramtin, is also held in a prison cell in Mashad, Iran's holiest city. He was arrested on August 21. He has not been charged but he is a Christian. And Rashin fears that, just as her father was the last man to be executed for apostasy in Iran, her brother may become one of the first to be killed under Iran's new law.

Her brother's situation has ominous echoes of her father's fate. Rashin was 14 when her father was arrested. "He was held in prison for one month," she remembers. "Then the religious police released him without explanation and without apology. We were overjoyed. We thought his ordeal was over." But six months later, the police came back and took her father away again. This time, they offered him a choice: he could denounce his Christian faith, and the church in which he was a pastor – or he would be killed. "Of course, my father refused to give up his faith," Rashid recalls proudly. "He could not renounce his God. His belief in Christ was his life – it was his deepest conviction." So two weeks later, Hossein Soodmand was taken by guards to the prison gallows and hanged.

Life for Rashin, her siblings and her mother became extremely difficult. Some Muslims are extremely hostile to people of any other religion, never mind to those who they consider apostates: Ayatollah Khomeini declared that "non-Muslims are impure", insisting that for Muslims to wash the clothes of non-Muslims, or to eat food with non-Muslims, or even to use utensils touched by non-Muslims, would spoil their purity.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/3179465/Hanged-for-being-a-Christian-in-Iran.html

[rockymountaindem]

1. Mistranslation! Agitprop!

:sarcasm:

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Yup!

And, the "what about "over there" crap, though it has nothing to do with what is being proposed. If you find this to be intolerable, you must be for bombing Iran.

[tjwash]

88. Just because that's usually where it always ends up with the fucking U.S.

The "bombing the shit out of {insert brown skinned current enemy of the United States near oil reserves here}" part that is.

Hm...where have I heard shit like this article before?

I wonder...

Oh yeah....BABIES TORN FROM INCUBATORS!!! BABIES TORN FROM INCUBATORS!!!

OMG11!!!11! Saadaam hussein is burning christians at the stake1!1 we must destoys them!!11!!!

[Behind the Aegis]

90. So you have something to disprove the article?

[tjwash]

93. telegraph.co.uk? Are you fucking serious? That's like linking to "little green footballs"

Not that it really matters...I can see just by the general tone of this thread that the savage bloodlust faction of DUers are sharpening their hooves, and gearing up for President Obama to go medieval on Afghanistan and probably Pakistan as well.

Polish those boots, clean your weapons, and get in formation. DUers are gonna prove that they can also cheer massive body counts (as long as they are the "right type" of moslem :eyes:) and patriot bait those who disagree with them.

[Behind the Aegis]

97. BWAHAHA!

Oh yes, decrying the murder of those simply for changing religions is a call to war. :eyes: You are just all over the place, aren't you? Of course, the only "baiting" here is from you and other posters like you. If you are against this type of injustice, you must hate Muslims and are all for attacking Iran or what ever Muslim/Arab country du jour. So fucking predictable.

[tjwash]

100. "you and other posters like you", "So fucking predictable."

Keep it up...your almost in to that full "questioning whether I am a true American / Real Dem" territory that you are going to embrace so much soon.

Oh, and if I didn't type it slow enough for you to understand...telegraph.co.uk is a joke of an ultra right wing nutbag website. Britains version of "the drudge report".

Thanks for proving my point though, in a way I never could...I love the way you decry them because you read on a suspect-rumor mongering website they are the "right types of moslems" that deserve your full wrath and ire.

Keep sharpening those hooves!

[Behind the Aegis]

102. More pathetic ad hominems.

Yes, tjwash, you are the victim here. :eyes: Of course, by not agreeing with your assessment, it is really just a clever way of saying you aren't a real American or Democrat, something I never said nor implied. Personally, I could care less if you are a Democrat or even an American as it is not even germane to the discussion, but don't let that stop your pity party.

Your post is so silly and inane. At what point have I even indicated because of this story "...the "right types of moslems" that deserve your full wrath and ire."? The only one making accusations here is you by claiming I am simply a sheep and you are somehow more intelligent, which is laughable on its own.

On edit: Thank you for proving my original point! ;)

[ohio2007]

139. Some people have been predicting the invasion of Iran since early 2004. It's an annual event quoting

"experts" who explain why every June the US will invade. lol
Must remember, only certain flavors of Kool-Aid are only allowed to be quoted but never questioned as to why the failure of such predictions materialize.
maybe June '09 ?
<crickets>

[The Stranger]

123. So you do support bombing and murdering millions of innocents based on this?

[Rage for Order]

140. I do. However...

I don't think killing millions would be enough. We'll probably need to kill tens of millions based on this report.

[The Stranger]

176. Didn't think I had asked you.

But thanks nevertheless.

[Behind the Aegis]

167. So you do support the death penalty for changing one's religion?

[The Stranger]

175. The implication from your response is that you would support war murdering millions based on this.

Duly noted.

[Behind the Aegis]

187. The implication from your question and response is that you support...

...hate crimes, the death penalty, and general disregard for human rights. Duly noted, again!

[The Stranger]

188. Then duly note this:

That there was a hate crime or human rights violation does not justify launching an ideologically-based war that would involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of innocents -- none of whom had jack fucking shit to do with the aforementioned hate crime or human rights violation.

Nor does opposing such a war (and the concomitant mass murders of innocents) in any way justify the original hate crime or human rights violation itself.

[Behind the Aegis]

190. Then, you too, should duly note:

That some would be overjoyed at an ideolocially-based war based more on oil than anything else, does not excuse the toleration of hate crimes or human rights violations from said country.

Nor does pointing out the violation of human rights in any way indicate a desire or support for such a war.

[The Stranger]

191. Except given that the world is already locked in an ideologically based war driven by this fallacy,

and seeing the blurring of the line between war propaganda and true concern for human rights, it is more important to inveigh against the exploitation of a true concern for human rights for pro-war purposes.

As I have done here.

[Behind the Aegis]

192. You have done nothing of the sort.

You simply object to anyone finding this type of lack of concern for human rights inexcusable and then declare they are pro-war and actually not concerned for human rights. The only one blurring lines are those like you who take legitimate concerns and scream they are nothing more than pro-war propaganda. You are no more concerned for human rights in Iran than those who would use this as an excuse to bomb Iran (or any country for that matter).

[LooseWilly]

152. How about my uncle in Tehran...

when he came to visit... first thing he said to me, before we went out to a restaurant was "You are driving. You must drink vodka."
When we got to the restaurant, he turned to me and said "I will have the pork chops. I am muslim."

Just so you know... the debate over this law in Iran is about as hugely offensive as the NSA listening in to my phone calls to my uncle in Tehran, simply because he's in Tehran. Then again... I'm from a family who takes religion so seriously that our version of Islam involves lots of drinking and driving and eating of pork.

As for the obvious intent of this article, to villify Iran, I ask... how much torture is involved to find the identity of others who might've also converted from Islam before the execution takes place?

I won't even deal with the whole nuclear issue, except to point out that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty DOES legally allow Iran to develop civillian nuclear energy. And the IAEA has not found any evidence of any weapons grade work being pursued... but then again, the IAEA found no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq before the war either... so how much can you trust their conclusions?...

[Behind the Aegis]

166. And this has what to do with the veracity of the claims of the article?

Actually, had more people read the article, yourself included (just a guess), it has not been passed and very well may not pass. I find it more than interesting how many people will spin their wheels about how this is just a lead up to an attack on Iran and anyone who takes issue with this proposed law is somehow wanting to see Iran bombed, or even sanctioned.

For someone not wanting to deal with the "whole nuclear issue," seems you did. It is a red herring in this case, just as this proposed law is a red herring in an attack on Iran. Seems many countries are vilified in one way or another by various groups and other countries, but pointing out something such as this is no more saber-rattling than criticizing the religious right of the US is attacking the US as a whole. If anyone believes something like this would be used as an excuse to attack Iran, then they are as deluded as those that think this is the way of all Iranians.

[JPettus]

160. I guess I don't see the point to it myself

Not that I am insensitive to the plight of people of Iran or any other country where superstition outweighs common sense and common freedoms, but it's not the US's job, IMO, to try to fix the cultures of other countries. Think Star Trek's "Prime Directive."

People put aside their superstitious nonsense only when they themselves have found that it doesn't work and is counterproductive.

I'm very sorry that people are being killed for the superstitious prejudices of their fellow countrymen.

In the US we still have people who are determined to force their religious beliefs and values down the throats of other citizens, regardless of the human cost. I'd rather fix US first.

I also get furious with the evangelicals who travel to places like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq in order to spread their gospel. In such countries, the penalty for preaching something other than Islam is death. I didn't send them over there, and I find it sad that they go over thinking their nationality or their god will protect them and then go crying to the State Department when it doesn't.

Call me a heartless bastard if you wish.

[LooseWilly]

165. Cheers, I say.

That's the biggest irony... when the US just minds its own business, viz. a viz. Iran, then the students and even some of the politicians are able to make liberal progress... then the Neo-cons who want the oil get some piece of the power and next thing we know the Iranians are electing their own personal version of Bush (Ahmedinejad is an Iranian fundie)....

And then, in mind boggling reality dissassociation... the neo cons use the election of Iranian version of Bush, elected largely due to frictions with Bush, justify more Bush behavior... mind boggling.

"People put aside their superstitious nonsense only when they themselves have found that it doesn't work and is counterproductive. " exactly true... so how about the States just leave Iran the fuck alone... and they'll sort themselves out in due course. I mean, in his time in power, the Shah exposed Iranians to Western ideas aplenty. My Family in Iran thinks of Islam and Ahmedinejad the way I think of Christian Fundamentalism and Bush... but as long as US Imperialist power is being flexed in the region... fear will keep the Iranian fundies in power.

Can the correlation be any more obvious?

[Behind the Aegis]

168. Where does this article say anything about the US trying to "fix the culture?"

I couldn't find it anywhere in the article. However, I do see it as important as a collective that things like this should be discussed and derided for the crap it is. To say "well, it is not my business," is the same attitude of those who do nothing when they see a person being beaten (child/spousal abuse) because it is not "their problem." I don't think military intervention, and in some cases, even economic sanctions are the way to go, but to stand by and say "well, it's their culture" is a cop-out in situations like this.

[JPettus]

173. I'm not sure it's a valid analogy

We are talking about the actions of adults.

In repressive cultures, people tend to hide what they believe could cause them pain. An Iranian who was Muslim but who has embraced Christianity is under no compulsion to let the rest of his corner of the world know of his decision. It's between him and his/her little blue sky pixie of choice.

However, if you bring up an emotional issue as an analogy, such as a child being beaten (throwing in "child" as someone who doesn't have any options or ability to consent versus adults who can and do leave or simply hide their religious preferences) then you make a false analogy, IMO.

And "it's not my business" is perfectly acceptable when discussing the differences in culture. I can't change the superstitious beliefs of people who embrace something that tells them to remain in the 16th century and that women have no value. I think it's a damned shame, but short of embracing genocide of fundamentalist religious freaks (and who can say how far we could take that?) to solve the problems of the rest of the world, I don't see there are any other decent options. We can try to use sanctions and trade barriers, but there are enough other Muslim countries in the world, especially those needing oil, to effectively nullify any effect we have.

And I don't favor a military solution for a cultural bias. You take over, you kick out one set of despots and put in another set of despots that simply hide it better from the media and make it harder for us to see what they do. And the process of kicking out old despots and putting in new despots has a very significant human cost, to say nothing of the financial costs.

However, it's all just my two cents worth.

[dgibby]

2. Sure do hope Sarah doesn't see this.

I'd hate to give her anymore ideas.

[Boojatta]

3. "who leaves his Islamic faith"

When an Iranian male switches from one Islamic denomination to another Islamic denomination, is he leaving his Islamic faith?

[UndertheOcean]

53. Yes , according the those cavemen

[LooseWilly]

155. Uhh, which Cavemen?

The Iranian Cavemen? or the Cavemen like the poster and his ilk who love to ride the tide of fear of Iran?
(Boogey Boogey Boogey... says the half-Iranian Boogeyman...)

[tularetom]

4. I'm not touching this post with a 10 foot pole

[krispos42]

21. How about an 11-foot Romanian?

Ba-dum tsh!

[ronnie624]

22. Lol.

It took several seconds of contemplation, but I finally got it. Very funny.

[krispos42]

23. Did you do a facepalm?

If yes, my mission in life is completed!


:-)

[iandhr]

5. wow

What a charming group of people illegal codesmilie_remote(':sarcasm:')

[Trajan]

9. What does this mean ?

"... illegal codesmilie_remote .... "

[Trajan]

10. Delete

Wrong post

[jrockford]

13. How do you feel about resettlements, illegal and otherwise, or shoot-to-kill policies

or third-class status, paper requirements, mandated ghettos, "soft torture" for Palestinians, etc.

How do you *really* feel, not the convenient "I don't care if it is etc/etc/etc/etc

[ronnie624]

19. Very good points.

By proxy, those are indeed the policies of OUR government in 'you know where' (I don't want to cause this thread to be condemned to a dungeon somewhere).

If we leave Iran alone, the younger, more progressive elements of their society will be in control in no time. They ache for a more Westernized culture. Anonymous polling in Iran shows this conclusively.

I think the illegal threats and bellicose rhetoric is doubtless designed to have the opposite effect. It helps to keep Iran divided and weak and the government oppressive. The conflict that has been manufactured by the U.S. and 'you know who', is more about military dominance over a region rich in key resources than it is about human rights. It is an economically and militarily powerful Iran, influential in regional politics that is truly feared. If the rights of women and gays and Christians in the region was of utmost concern, why would our government have recently unleashed an orgy of death and destruction there, with justifications based entirely on lies?

[leftynyc]

32. How do you feel about this story?

Why do you feel the need to change the subject?

[jrockford]

38. Hardly consider it changing the subject as it has deep relevance.

But the fact that you so readily dismiss it, seems to give slight indication where your biases are.

I am fairly dismissive of this "claim" because it seems difficult to back up. Not only have I lived there for some time, after returning to Europe and then the U.S. I noticed quite a lot of B.S. in the U.S. papers that simply were not true.

Such as that executions of rape victims and other such tripe. Israel has quite a vested interest in destablising Iran and it has nothing to do with comments by the relatively powerless President. Without Iran, Israel can run free all over Lebanon and Palestinian settlements. Don't think for a second that the victory of Hamas was Hamas alone. That was almost a test...and the fact they couldn't beat rag-tag proxy support paramilitary is probably part of the reason they were hesitant to go into Iran first.

The Nazi's did the same stuff against the Poles and Slavs, etc. Dehumanise them and make them villains in the papers and then have people like you ask "why change the subject."

[leftchick]

44. wow! Post of the year here!

:applause:

:thumbsup:


and so very well put! Thank you!

[leftynyc]

45. You going off about bias?!!

How pathetic.

[Phx_Dem]

65. You have it backwards

Israel has demonstrated it's peaceful intent over and over, through the years they were able to come to an understanding with both Egypt and Jordan which resulted in formal peace agreements. Iran on the other hand is committed to a expansionist, imperialist policy known as the "Iranian Revolution" whereby they have infiltrated sovereign nations (like Syria, Lebanon and the OTs) in order to forcibly spread their control though the ME.

[apocalypsehow]

149. "Israel has quite a vested interest" - ah, yes, we've heard this refrain before. Blame the Jews.

:thumbsdown:

[Zhade]

14. What, all Iranians? How very racist of you.

NT!

[rpannier]

6. Said it before, I'll say it again

A fundie is a fundie is a fundie.
Whether they claim the Crescent, the Cross or the Star.
They're all essentially the same.

on another note: Would someone like to explain the 'Religion of Love and Peace' thing again.

[jrockford]

11. If you readily belive this, you're part of the problem.

Take the bait, let it hook deep in you though....then that *is* mission accomplished.

[Regret My New Name]

94. What do you disagree with about that statement?

You don't think Muslim fundies are as dangerous as Christian fundies?

[apocalypsehow]

154. Yes, he does. Or pretends to. There is a blind spot on the Left to this stuff, sadly.

More likely, though: I've usually seen such reactions on the Net from those pretending to be liberals, but who are really fundamentalist followers of Islam. Like their fundamentalist Christian brethren, they feel no compunction about lying about their identities to the "infidels" or "sinners" (depending on their brand of fundamentalism) in order to make dreary points about this or that.

[INDIA]

98. That whack job talking point just won't die will it?

Christian fundies are annoying. And they trend conservative. Yeah, that kind of sucks.

Muslim fundies are brutal, violent, and dangerous. They kill dozens of people everyday across the ME, Asia and Africa, sometimes hundreds. They have supported and installed brutal, oppressive, totalitarian regimes, and have set back what was once the cradle of civilization to cavemen days.

NO COMPARISON. STOP IT WITH THAT CRAP.

[Dr.Phool]

7. I just googled the reporter. Don't know what to think.

I'd have to check it a bit more. I remember those debunked stories about Iran requiring Jews to wear armbands too.


http://www.spectator.co.uk/search/author/?searchString=Alasdair%20Palmer

[ronnie624]

72. Like most conservative political writers,

he hims and haws a lot before he finally gets to his central point, and then it isn't easy to figure out what it is he is trying to say or what his position on the matter is. But after reading a number of his scratchings, I've concluded that he is exceedingly friendly to the cock-eyed notions of libertarianism, he supports the Bush Administration's foreign policies, and torturing 'terrorists' is a-okay. He also likes the "shoot to kill" provision of British law that is responsible for the death of the innocent young Brazilian by result of a point blank head shot from London police on the subway a few years ago.

Of course that doesn't prove the claim in the OP wrong, but it is an indicator of his motives for writing about it.

[cyr330]

8. Just Wait!

If McShit & Palin win, they'll probably try to hang anybody who's NOT a Christian!

[Trajan]

12. I am no fan of Theocracy ....

Before I argued against Bush and Cheney supporters .... Before Al Gore was thrown out of his office by judicial fiat: I was an atheistic secular humanist ....

I still am ....

Before there was 911 .... There was terror in the form of religious fanaticism ....

It must be resisted on ALL sides: Muslim/Jew/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist ... It doesnt matter: IF you are religious and are demanding the punishment or death of another primarily because they do not meet a religious tenet or requirement, then you are my enemy ...

[ShortnFiery]

15. Yes, it's time for our "illustrious" press in the USA to chime in and whip up

the hatred for the evil-doers in Iran. Get a good, in general, hatred of all "others."

There's stifling intolerance in Iran and life there is oppressive but I'm not going to lather myself up into a frenzy right now.

[happyslug]

17. Long tradition in Islam, but tied more is with our concept of Treason

Remember, Islam as formed by Mohammad was a movement for reform. He wanted, and needed complete loyal followers, thus anyone who stop following him was a traitor and subject to death, as are most traitor throughout history. Remember Separation of Church and State came out of the dual Covering system of the middle ages (i.e. The Catholic Church and the remains of the Roman State which it had been part of, and which absorbed almost all aspects of what we call Governing except the Military and its related land ownership, i.e. your right to land determined your military obligation, thus the two were together and the heart of the states that succeeded the Roman Empire). Out of this dual state system, we developed the concept of separation of church and state. With the state taking over more and more of the secular functions of the church during the reformation and again during the age of reason, you finally could see the possibility of Church and State being two separate identities. It was not till the invention of pulp paper, high speed printers and railroads that true separation was possible, for till then if the state wanted to tell the people anything it had to use the Church. Thus true separation of Church and State did not occur till the US Civil War. The Federal Government had separated itself from any Church, but the states did not till after the Civil War. Some states did technically eliminated state churches in the 1790s, but those same states then use the Churches to spread news up to the Civil War. It is only with the invention of the modern Newspaper (Which needed Pulp paper, High Speed presses and Railroads to print anything more then expensive advertisements). Prior to the 1850s Newspapers were expensive advertisements, it is only with pulp paper that you could print papers so cheap you could rely on people buying them to pay for the newspaper as opposed to the Advertisements, which is reflected in the change in the 1860s, with headlines and news on the front page replacing advertisements, which had been the norm prior to the Civil War.

I go into this to show even in the West Separation of Church and State is relatively recent (i.e. 1860). In Islamic countries separation does not exist except when imposed as part of Colonization by the West. Iran was NEVER colonized so separation of Church and State, as we in the West understand those terms, does not and never has occurred. On the other hand Iran is a Shiite country. The Shiites have been a minority religion in most of Islam for over a millennium. As such Shiites have long kept their religion separate from their State, given that the state tended to be Sunni and thus suppressive of Shiites the Shiites tended to keep their religion separate from their state. Thus the Shiites tend to have a clear difference between state and church then do Sunni but what happens when state and church are both Shiites? The first efforts were to keep them separate, but the Shah used this as a way to suppress opposition to his rule down. Khomeini used the Shiite Religious hierarchy to over throw the Shah but came up with the issue of how to rule Iran as a Shiite Islamic nation. Khomeini tried to resolve this problem by setting up the present dual executive rule system of Iran (The Supreme Ruler being a Shiite religious Leader and the President who is nothing more than a day to day manager of the Government).

Thus apostasy is a more series crime in a Islamic Country then in the West. It is more like treason than Apostasy in our Secular western Culture, something you may reject but must understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

[Kokonoe]

20. So the the republic of states use cheap public media

to inject devisive garbage information,:eyes: to be replaced by the church, Okey dokey.

[happyslug]

24. I pointed out some history, which shows WHEN true separation of Church and state occurred.

My point was prior to the Civil War, the technology did not yet exist (Technically the technology was available in the 1840s, but not fully implemented till the 1860s). To have a united Country the leadership and the people must communicate with each other. Today that is done by TV, Radio, the Internet, Newspapers etc. Prior to about 1860 none of those technology were NOT usable. Newspapers had existed for several centuries, but used linen paper which made the papers to expensive to use once and throw away. Thus such papers were advertisement designed to be kept for months if not years. The high speed presses, pulp paper and railroads permitted the introduction and widespread use of papers people can buy CHEAPLY, in fact so cheap people can buy them daily with no plans to keep them any longer then that day. For the first time in history you had a mechanism to get news to most citizens WITHOUT having to go through the local churches (With the pulpits could read linen and even parchment papers to their congregations). Pulpits were a cheaper way to get news (such as tax rates, and who was wanted and if anyone was called up for military duty) then newspapers EVEN after the invention of the printing press in the 1300s. During the French Revolution this was still clear that the revolutionary movement proposed a "reform" of the French Church not is abolishment. The US Federal Government could separate the Federal Government from religion, for the Federal Government could use whatever mechanism the state used (Including any state religions). Massachusetts was the last state to have a state church and abolished it in 1837 for the same reason all the other states had abolish it, to rid themselves of cost of taking care of widows and orphans (Who were told, starting by the Southern States in the 1790s, to go west and take land from the Indians for the state will NO longer pay for your keep and with the state NOT paying the CHurch did NOT have the Revenue to do it themselves).

My point was simple, true separation of Church and State was NOT possible till you had a mechanism to replace the Church as the medium to get information to the people as a whole. Newspaper could NOT do that till the 1860s (Amy the 1850s but NOT before). Radios could NOT do that before the 1920s, Television could not do that before the 1950s, and the net till the 1990s. Today we have various ways to communicate and hear what ever the Government need to tell us (i.e. increase taxes, military call up ext) so the pulpit is no longer needed Today. I only wanted to point out that true Separation of Church and State is only possible from about 1860 onward, and I then pointed out that these mechanism exist in Islamic lands, but the Islamic Culture has a shorter tradition of having a mechanism independent of their church and we have to at least try to understand that tradition. We can reject it, but all I wanted to do was to make people aware of the difference and to help people understand that difference. You can NOT hope to change something without understanding it, for if you do change something without understanding it you end of with more problems. The Classic example was the abolishment of forfeiture for committing a felony.

Under the Common Law if you were convicted of a Felony (including Murder) your property was forfeited to the state. This was abolished in the 1800s as each state made imprisonment for felonies the rule, forgetting about forfeiture for most felons did not have any money to claim. If money was available under the Traditional rule if you killed your Parents, upon their deaths you inherited their property, which was forfeited to the state upon your conviction of having Murdered your Parents. i.e. the Murder received nothing, the state received everything. With the abolishment of Forfeiture the Murder DID inherit and since forfeiture had been abolished, the murder kept his inheritance. The states had to pass another law forbidding such inheritance, but what if the next heir makes the Murder his heir? This has happened thus it is still possible to inherit from a person you killed, it just has to go through a third person nowadays unlike under the the old Forfeiture rules, which prevented this problem completely (i.e you technically inherited the money, but then lost it to the state upon your Conviction). I give this as an example of changing a law without fully understanding it. The purpose of my thread was to give people WHY Islam still considers Apostasy a crime equal to Treason, for under their tradition it is the same thing. You can not change it, till you accept how close the two concepts are in Iran (and other Islamic Nations) and then you can start the slow change, that many Islamic clerics have been doing for the last 200 years, separating Treason from Apostasy. It has been a slow process, but it is on going and should be encouraged not slapped as not being enough.

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. That is some messed up history, there.

How in the heck does separation of church and state have anything to do with newspapers or railroads? There were civil governments here from the beginning of each Colony - they were not at all dependent on the churches for civil communication of their laws. By your "theory" Thomas Paine's writings could never have been effective during the Revolution.

Four of the original thirteen American colonies were founded on religious tolerance in the early 1600's (Maryland - which had been part of Virginia previously, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island). Maryland (1649) and Virginia (1779) specifically passed laws on it (as did England, 1689), and in 1791 the Bill of Rights (First Amendment) was the added to the U.S. Constitution, making it the law in all states.

Cyrus of Persia (now Iran, strangely enough) was the first to grant religious freedom in the 6th century B.C. Of course that was way before Islam came along.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. In 1700 Mass. and NY passed laws ordering all Catholic priest to leave under penalty of death

1700 - In June, Massachusetts passes a law ordering all Roman Catholic priests to leave the colony within three months, upon penalty of life imprisonment or execution. New York then passes a similar law.

http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_history/1700_1800_timeline.htm

however this ban had already been enacted since 1647.



http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=155

Even after independence there were definite religious restrictions in a number of states on who could hold office. It was only after 1826 that Jews were allowed to hold office in Massachusetts or Maryland.


State governmental oaths or test requirements reflected the existing values of the people.

Delaware 1776: "I do profess faith in the God, the Father, and in J C His only son….

New Jersey 1776: "all persons, professing, a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect… shall be capable of being elected into any office…."

Maryland 1776: "That no other test or qualification ought to be required… than such oath of support and fidelity to this State.. and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."

South Carolina 1778: "…no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said legislature unless he be of the Protestant religion.."

Massachusetts 1780: "I declare, that I believe the Christian religion and have firm persuasion of its truth…"
http://www.jewishmag.com/81mag/usa4/usa4.htm

[happyslug]

99. Yes and all constitutional under the First Amendment.

For it is only with the Post Civil War Amendments that the Bills of Rights can be construed against the States. If the right is NOT a Fundamental Due Process right, it is STILL not applicable to the states (the First has long been incorporated as part of the Due Process Clause of the post Civil War Amendments, so after 1865 all of these laws would be unconditional). On the other hand all of these when passed and till repealed (all were repealed way before 1865) were constitutional under the Bill of Rights, for the Bill of Rights, until the passage of the post Civil War Amendments, did NOT apply to the states.

When talking of the First, one should concentrate on the Post-Civil War era more then the post Revolutionary period. Things had changed fundamentally and technologically so what the states did in the 1790s are of little importance in determine what the Bill of Rights protected when it came to the states. The 1790s is important to determine what the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal Government, but not the states. It is only with the Post Civil War Amendments that Congress and the States began to think in terms of the Bill of Rights Applying to the States. Thus the fact Massachusetts had a State Church till 1837 is meaningless, for that predates 1865. When you hear other STATE actions of the 1790s and early 1800s used to show restrictions on the Bill of Rights remember the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to the States at that time and the States knew it. After 1865 it became more and more clear that the Bill of Rights applied to the States (Through it would take almost 30 years before the Supreme Court started to incorporate the Bill of Rights as part of the Rights to Due Process even from the state that came to apply to the states AFTER the Passage of the Post Civil War Amendments.

[14thColony]

132. I think you're referring to the personal freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment

But in fact all of these religious tests required by the states were unconstitutional as soon as each state ratified the Constitution, due to Article 6, paragraph 3, which states:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Clearly this was meant to be binding on state governments as well, and exists in the main body of the Constitution, ratified by all the original signatory states.

[happyslug]

150. The oath applies to both State and Federal Positions, but the religious test is different

Notice the ban on a religious test only applies to "Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". i.e. Senators, Congressmen, the President, the Vice President, the member of the Cabinet, Federal Judges etc. The requirement as to members of the state government only requires the oath to support the Constitution. Thus any state could, prior to 1865, have a religious test for state positions (and some did) for the ban on religious tests is only on Federal positions (i.e. United States Positions NOT position with each of the state).

Remember "United States" as used in the Constitution means the Federal Government, NOT the Federal AND State Governments. Thus a ban on "Office or public Trust under the United States" means FEDERAL positions ONLY not position in the State Government.

People get confused on this all the time, for most states also abolished religious tests within 10 years of the adoption of the bill of rights (Starting in the South, but as I pointed out more to free the state from the cost of maintaining widows and orphans then any real attempt to separate Church and State). Massachusetts was the last state to do so, in 1837 (like the 1790s middle of a major depression and the states where looking for ways to cut costs). By 1865 separation of Church and state was both technically possible and was the rule of law in all states. To strength this separation during the late 1800s Congress tried (and failed) to pass the "Blaine Amendment" which forbade not only federal but state support for religious schools (When it failed to pass on the Federal Level, many states adopted it on the State level, thus the law in many states to this very day). Remember we are talking about historical situation, the post-Civil War Amendments slowly made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states via those amendments. So this is a moot point, all we are really discussing is WHEN it became the law NOT that it is or is not the law.

For more on the Blaine Amendment see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendments

[happyslug]

96. All proclamations prior to about 1860 went through churches

That is why most churches were important, it was how people heard the news. This happened even AFTER the colonies no longer had state Churches for they was NO OTHER WAY TO GET INFORMATION TO THE PEOPLE. As to Thomas Paine's pamphlets, they were popular but as George Washington did with his troops, he purchased them and then had his officers read them to his enlisted personal. The enlisted ranks did have people who could read and write but that was rare prior to the 1840s, thus most people had things like Paine's pamphlet read to them as opposes to today when we would read something like Paine's pamphlets.

As to religious tolerance, no one disputes that, but the time of the Revolution ALL the colonies were tolerate of almost any religion (And some Colonies tried to recruit Moslems, being desperate for people). Occasionally religious intolerance would raise its head but the need for people quickly overcame that. What I was pointing out that once a religion was in the Colonies it was common for the Colonial and later State Government to send their proclamations to the people via ALL of the churches. The state Churches tended to get them first, but the other churches quickly received them and told their parishioners. Notice I am emphasizing the use of Churches as means of communications, their actual religious beliefs were unimportant FOR THIS SUBJECT.

In the various Coups that occurred in various state throughout history, until almost the end of the 1800s it was important to grab the head of the largest Church so to gain control over this system of communication. In the late 1800s it become more important to grab control of the Local Newspapers for the same reason. In the July 19th Plot to overthrow Hitler, Gobbels made the comment the plotters were incompetent for they never tried to take over Radio Berlin, which is the first thing he could have done (Radios had replaced the newspapers as the quick way to spread news by the mid 20th Century). More recent coups, one of the targets of any plot is to take over the local Television stations for the same reason.

All of the above has replaced the church as the primary means of communications to the people. Once the Control of the Church was no longer needed to get the Government's message to the people, you can have true separation of Church and state. Prior to that it was an idea, but not possible. The Government needs the ability to get its message to the people and prior to pulp paper, High Speed Presses and the railroad, the best way to get that to the people was via the Pulpit.

Now you did have groups independent of the Churches communicating with each other, but this was the population that could read and write, which appear prior to the 1840s to be over 50% of the population (and that may be low even for the 1840s, through with the widespread adoption of public schools in the 1840s over 90% of the population North of the Mason-Dixon line could read and write). At the time of the Revolution you had your Committees of Safety in the various colonies sending messages to each other independent of the Churches and with the invention of the Steam press in the early 1700s you had the invention of the modern Novel (Something to be read and kept and passed to other as opposes to earlier presses which tended to print things meant to be kept for a long time, such as family Bibles). Even at the time of the Revolution it was rare to have more then one book in any home, and that book was the family bible. As your income went up your ability to buy and keep books increased, but no one went to see George Washington's library, for all it contained was every get rich schemed proposed in the late 1700s (And George was involved in more then one of them), but did go to Jefferson's to use his books (Which become the start of the Library of Congress, when Congress decided to buy them at his death). Benjamin Franklin started the first Free Library in Philadelphia so more people could have access to more books, but even that collection was small compared to anything in most High School's Libraries today.

Yes, people in the late 1700s were very tolerate of other religions, they were more read then previous generations and had access to more books, but the majority of people still received their news via the pulpit OR the social gathering the followed whatever religious service their attended. In many old town square three or more Churches exist on the town square, each follow of each religion would go to his own house of worship and then afterward would meet together in the town square and talk about the community as a whole. Most writing from the Colonial or State Government were read in the Town Square if not read in the Church before hand (and if the weather was bad, read in the Churches before hand). Until you had something that could get news to people as fast and as accurate as from the Bishop to his parish priests to the priest's parishioner (or the various protestant equivalents) true separation of Church and State was NOT possible. Once you have modern Newspapers you have something even quicker, but it toke time for it to replace the pulpit. Possible by the 1840s, but not really up to it till the 1860s, when during the Civil War the paper were found to be quicker at get the news from the front back home, especially from the locally raised unit back to the are that unit was raised in. This took the invention of cheap pulp paper and its widespread use, high speed presses to reduce the cost of printing by volume and the railroad to get such items to the newspapers and to get news back and forth.

You could see changes as early as the early 1700s with the invention of Steam Presses. The Invention of Pulp paper in 1801, seem at the time to be a minor invention, but by 1817 had spread to the US, but it was not till the 1850s that you had enough being made to reduce the cost or printing newspapers (and the invention of High Speed presses are only possible if they is something to print quickly and that require pulp paper). All of this requires heavy transport and that where the railroads came in (and I did forget to mention the adoption of what we would call Public Schools in the 1840s). Without these newspapers, as we know them, are not possible. Newspapers as Ads to be kept for months or years yes, but not newspapers for the latest news.

Many people today do not want to look back in the past and see how technology changed how we think. With the latest news NO longer coming from the pulpit, especially want the State Government wants us to know, the state no longer needed to control the Church and could free itself from the Church (And most countries did within 50 years of 1850).

One last Comment, till the post Civil War Amendments, the Bill of rights did NOT apply to the states, thus it was constitutional for Massachusetts to have a State Church till 1837. Furthermore no one is saying any one was being intolerant of any religion during the period from 1791 till 1865, all I am pointing out is that the State if is wanted ALL of its citizens to know of a change in the law had to have the law read to its Citizens via the pulpits prior to about 1860. After that date the state no longer needed to use the pulpit but prior to that date (and clearly prior to 1840) the state had to, for there was no other way to inform ALL of its citizens.

[Waiting For Everyman]

129. I don't know where you get this idea.

The churches were not a monolith, in fact they were contentious. The Colonial governments did NOT depend on them to disseminate news. They DID do most of the vital records keeping - births and marriages at least, although deaths were civilly probated.

[happyslug]

158. I did NOT say the Church were one, but that the church were used.

Remember in the post Civil War era the newspapers "were not a monolith, in fact they were contentious." That did not stop the state from publishing their new laws in those newspapers. The same with the Church before that time period, the state had to get that news out and the Church could and did spread such news. Uniformity is NOT needed to do that job and that is all the state wanted from the churches.

The question for the States and colonies before 1850 was "how do you get information to the people? especially given there are NO regular published newspapers (And those that exist are printed more as long tern advertisements then what ever is the latest news). Most people could NOT even read (reading is a product of the Public School System that started in the 1830s and came on full steam in the North in the 1840s, but did not take hold in the South till Reconstruction).

Thus the importance of Churches (as opposed to religion) at that time period. In fact the Methodists tended to be driven out of the South for their refusal to support slavery in the pre-Civil War era. The dispute over Slavery also lead to splits in many Protestant religions (Mostly the Baptists) that did NOT end till 100 years later (and some aspects have never ended). The reason was the South used these Churches to keep their white poor farmers supporting slavery. It was hard to get any anti-Slavery Message in the South, given the Post Office ban on sending anti-Slavery pamphlets anywhere in the south.

Anyway my point was NOT that the Churches were united but that the state knew each church's hierarchy and could use that hierarchy to send messages to the people via every church (and most such Hierarchy knew the State and Colonial Governments and would gather some of those items for distribution to its followers). Some Churches may oppose them (Most Quakers and Anglicans, for example were pro-crown during the Revolution and thus not reliable to get messages to their members, but in much of the US the Presbyterians/Congregationalists were the largest church and most of their members were pro-revolution, the Catholics and Lutherans were more neutral but would get the message out to their members).

Notice I am NOT saying the STATE did RELIGIOUS messages through the Church, the Colonies and later the States use of the church was like how the state uses newspapers, TV, Radio and the Net to tell people of changes in the law. That is ALL I am saying for until about 1850 there was NO WAY ELSE TO GET THE MESSAGE TO MOST OF THE PEOPLE. Come 1850 you have the penny press, which replaced this function of the Church, but the penny press is the product of pulp paper, high speed presses, universal Public education and railroads to get these items to each other which was the point I was trying to make, true separation of Church and State was not possible till the State had some other way to get its message to the people. That did not exist till the mid 1800s and once something else existed to get the state messages to the people, the state no longer needed the Church and you could have true separation of Church and State.

[treestar]

109. Religious tolerance among Christian sects

There were a few Jewish people and maybe even a Muslim or two but as a practical matter, could they vote or hold office? Probably not. Even the First Amendment was passed under conditions where, at the time, no one would have guessed it would ever have to stretch to include such religions or even atheism.

[14thColony]

135. Time to point out one of the great ironies of US history

That Benjamin Judah, a prominent lawyer and devout follower of Reform Judaism, was the Confederacy's Secretary of War and trusted confidant of President Jefferson Davis throughout the entire Civil War. Not US public office per se, but certainly a high public office in 19th century America.

I love the obscure parts of history.

[happyslug]

163. And how we got there.

William Rogers started out as a Radical Puritan, demanding that people not associate with non-Puritans. When some Puritans went back to England and returned and to keep their heads attended Church of England's ceremonies while in England. Rogers said NOT to associate with them for they were no longer prue but had been contaminated by the Church of England. He Kept on this Campaign and expanded it to anyone who associated with people who had gone back to England and returned. He was kicked out of Massachusetts Bay Colony for a while (Going to Plymouth which was technically a different Colony at that time). He was kicked out by the Separatists of Plymouth and returned to Massachusetts keeping up his idea of a perfect City on a Hill. During one winter he had disassociated himself with almost everyone in Massachusetts and was seen breaking wine and bread with his wife.

I always said, Rogers then started to have question about his wife, for she had to go out with and deal with the rest of the Colonist, who Rogers had come be believe had fallen from the true path. This brought Rogers to a dilemma, how can you be a Church of one? The answer is simple, you can't. The next Spring Rogers came out of his winter quarters and started to speak that all religions were heretical, for all were the product of man who was imperfect. God's plan was for man to slowly discover his plan when we were able to do so, but God's way is not man's way and given that All people are the creation of God, but people are imperfect, we are all heretics in some way. As long as that heresy causes no harm to others it is to be tolerated and studied. When people started to ask him about it someone ask would Rogers leave "Quakers and papists" into New England (paraphrase only Papist meant Catholics). Rogers Responded "I would leave in Jews and Turks" (By Turk he meant Moslem's).

Rogers lasted about a year in Massachusetts with this new doctrine, but was force to leave. He left and founded Rhode Island. Rogers maintained contact with Massachusetts bay (Including writing letters to the Governor) but stayed with his new attitude to religion. Roger's view slowly became the dominate view of most religious people in what would become the US within the next 100 years (Remember Rogers lived in the mid 1600s). Thus you had toleration of most religions by 1700 (the chief exception would be Catholicism, but that had more to do with the ongoing war with Catholic France then any real religious difference).

Furthermore Increase Mather, the leading Puritan theologian of the period AFTER Rogers, was one of the first writers to say that before the Second Coming the Jews had to return to Israel. Given that the new Testament said the Jews had to return, to punish the Jews for being Jews would defeat God's plan as set forth in the Revelations. Thus while you could prohibit Jews from holding Government and Church positions, but no other restrictions on Jews were permitted. This carried even into England, where Oliver Cromwell repealed the laws of Edward I which forbade Jews in England. Again increase tolerance of different religions, even Jews throughout the Americans even 100 years before the Revolution.

[Igel]

80. Tradition, but vile and reprehensible.

Understanding--even when I think you have it right, which isn't 100% of the time--does not entail tolerance.

Note that you've just justified the expulsion of the Jews from (was it?) Cordoba (by the Muslims) and of Muslims and Jews from Spain (by the Spanish crown), as well as the Inquisition. You've justified anti-Jewish pogroms in Odessa and elsewhere, as well as the anti-Xian progrom in Aleppo in the 1850s or '60s.

With a few minor changes, you've provided a reasoned understanding for the Nazi fanatics' view of the Holocaust, at least as far as Jews in German or future-German lands goes, because race and loyalty to the state were assumed to be tied together in Nazism. Oh, and Rwanda, as well. And let's not forget the pogroms in Mosul and Orissa state.

[happyslug]

101. Understanding is NOT agreement

With understanding you can then try to work with them to stop such actions. For example the person hanged, was hanged 18 years ago. He had converted over 30 years before. This was AFTER the end of the Iran-Iraq war but before the First US-Iraq war. Now his son is under arrest, but his son does NOT appear ever to have been a Moslem and as such NOT an Apostate. This later fact needs to be emphasized AND the rule that being of "The Book" i.e Christian or Jew, he is protected under Moslem law. We need to emphasis this aspect of his case and get him released then attack Islam (i.e. use Islam to win his release, for that brings the religious people in on our side NOT opposing us and this man).

Side note: Something else is going on here, what I do not know, why arrest this man 18 years after executing his father? If this man was NEVER a Moslem them no Apostasy and no grounds for arrest. Given the Tribal nature of much of the world, this sounds like some piece of inner-tribal dispute or some other local dispute that someone escalated to a religious dispute more to win the local/tribal dispute then any real religious dispute.

[readmoreoften]

18. Iran is a theocracy. People don't get to "vote out" extremism.

While there aren't as many Christians in Iran, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel. It is also a nation full of basically secular youth who largely want a democratic system, who dislike enforced dress codes, religious extremism and so forth. Many don't want to live in a theocratic regime, but many who don't want to live under theocracy are far enough left as to have no interest in getting "help" from the US, which they see as equally evil and repressive.

[jrockford]

39. Have you lived there? In the 70s? Recently? No...didn't think so.

Isn't that bad at all.

[jrockford]

40. In fact, NPR last week was stating that our allies over there,

not just Israel, but Saudi Arabia, have a much worse human rights record and in fact Iran is quite westernised comparatively.

[treestar]

111. I've heard people who've been there to say that the younger

generation is really not all that fundamentalist. The girls "cheat" by putting some skimpy piece of material on their heads. They text each other and make fun of the mullahs. So maybe we could afford to leave this country alone and let them grow into a better future. Attacking them only hardens it. In fact, our meddling over there could explain the increase in fundamentalism. We'd probably take a stronger view of our own traditions were they under attack.

[readmoreoften]

79. Yeah, shows what you know. Jump to conclusions much?

I'll be sure to give you a full report when I return from Tehran in November.

[readmoreoften]

81. I'm not sure you quite grasped my post.

Iran is a theocracy but that doesn't mean its worse than Saudi Arabia. I would also argue that it isn't.

[TankLV]

26. Wow - uttterly disgusting...

like the lone poster above said, a fundie is a fundie is a fundie and they're ALL dispicable...

and that most on this thread are trying to defend this by deflecting to other topics is the most disturbing, instead of LOUDLY condemning this...

sigh...

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spoony]

42. Quit spamming this thread with your anti-Israel bullshit!

We have a whole forum here for you to rant about Israel. Go there.

[14thColony]

27. The headline is misleading, probably in pursuit of something 'eye catching'

He wasn't 'hanged for being a Christian' - he was hanged for abandoning Islam regardless of what religion it was for.

Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism are all 'legal' religions in Iran, and there are plenty of members of these groups who fail to get hanged every single day of their lives. People are free to convert to Islam from any of these, and convert AMONG these three (Zoroastrians can convert to Christianity if they want), but the crime here was abandoning Islam, not the fact he went to Christianity.

But 'Hanged for abandoning Islam' isn't nearly as attention-grabbing as a title is it?

And no, I do not condone the policy of death or any punishment at all for apostacy. I think it's indefensible and unworthy of the historically inclusive philosophy of Persian culture. Cyrus the Great would turn in his grave.

[Dorian Gray]

37. Oh...

well then that's okay, then.

[jrockford]

43. If it happened, then no it isn't ok. Any other sources to back this up

or if it is about Iran, you are as so ready to swallow the same tripe they fed you about Iraq?

[Dorian Gray]

104. I was being sarcastic.

[Rage for Order]

143. I thought I had a couple other sources...

But they were homosexuals, and since we all know (thanks to Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University) that there are no homosexuals in Iran, I realized the these other sources were obviously bogus.

[apocalypsehow]

157. Bull-fucking-Shit. If another "source" - or TEN other sources - were posted, your reply would be:

"PROPAGANDA! AGIT-PROP! LIES!"

You're not interested in facts - only in flacking for your curious talking points.

Interesting, that.

[14thColony]

51. You consider it OK that he was hanged for converting?

Because I sure as hell don't.

[LSK]

86. sarcasm

You missed it.

[14thColony]

92. No, I got it

Just doing it back.

Point I was trying to make was that the headline was worded in a sensationalistic manner, either on purpose or because the paper's staff has a depth of knowledge on the material on par with a turnip. Nothing I wrote was intended as an excuse for the Iranian government's actions.

[Dorian Gray]

105. Sarcasm

I was completely sarcastic. I didn't think I needed to point that out.

[14thColony]

108. Two 'sarcasm' replies? It's like deja vu all over again!

Kidding.

I know it was sarcasm.

[Dorian Gray]

128. Just want to make sure

I don't want people to think that I believe it's okay to murder people because they converted from one faith to another. :)

[14thColony]

130. Crazy we even have to discuss this, huh?

21st century or 11th century - hard to tell which we're living in sometimes.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

103. "Hanged for BECOMING a Christian" would be more accurate.

Since the thing that Islamic theocrats REALLY hate is abandoning Islam for other religion ("apostasy").

But of course, if you point this out it means you're OK with it and are a mullah-lover who wants Sharia. :eyes:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnutbutr]

29. Terrible ideal

An eye for an eye. It resolves nothing and only serves to deepen problems.

I also find it amusing that you use a bible passage to justify your response to actions condoned by another bible passage from a religion you do not follow and obviously dislike greatly.

[LeftishBrit]

30. I think Blarch'point is that you can also find passages recommending death for apostasy in the Bible

You can find nasty stuff in most religious texts, especially ancient ones.

However, not everyone, even religious people, applies ancient and barbarous bits of their religious texts to current law.

As others have said here, theocracy is ALWAYS evil and dangerous, whatever the religion.

[pnutbutr]

31. I don't think

that was his point.

[spoony]

35. Which Christian wrote Deuteronomy again?

But I suspect you'd be banned, and rightfully so, if you said "I see nothing wrong with killing Jews."

[Goblinmonger]

73. So the old testament is not a consideration

when it comes to a discussion of Christianity?

[spoony]

177. Did you see the post I was replying to?

It said the poster didn't see anything wrong with killing Christians. My point was not that the OT was irrelevant to Christianity. It was that the OT are holy writings to (religious) Jews as well, and wondered what it would sound like were his hate speech also directed at them.

[Fumesucker]

34. Anyone think Sarah Palin's church would be any better?

Or any other "Christian" church if they were to get absolute power?

[spoony]

36. FFS...

Even in a thread about a Christian being murdered by Iran, it STILL must be twisted to make all Christians bad! It'd almost be funny if it weren't in a thread about a man being killed.

[Fumesucker]

46. But my question remains..

Does anyone reading this think any Christian church would be significantly better if they had absolute power?

[spoony]

47. The question is almost impossibly stupid

You ask about "any" Christian church? About if they'd murder people if given the ability? You really, honestly think that every single church in this country wants to murder people? Or even that most do?

[Fumesucker]

56. Any religion that has absolute power...

Think about what absolute power does to people and organizations.

It's interesting that there is another thread going on GD right now about the very same kind of bigotry being exhibited by Hindus against Christians in India.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. Yes, me. Much, much better

I hold no brief whatsoever for the American Christian right, but it's nowhere near as bad as the Muslim right. Not even close.

[Fumesucker]

64. Give them absolute power and see what happens..

There is another thread going on GD right now about Hindu fundies treating Christians in India very similarly.

How many Christians were killed on 9/11/2001 by Muslim fundies?

How many Muslims have been killed by Christians since the Iraq invasion began?

[Goblinmonger]

74. Fred Phelps? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. Hard to tell.

It's possible that if given the power, he'd be getting on for as bad as the mainstream Islamic right, but not as bad as the worst of it. However, from what I've heard of the man, it strikes me as more likely than not that he's all talk and wouldn't actually go around killing people even if he could get away with it.


Phelps is several orders of magnitude madder than even Palin.

[LeftishBrit]

68. But the crucial point is that they *don't* have absolute power.

Iran is a theocracy. America, even though the fundies have too much influence on the political process, is not a theocracy. That's the difference.

[Fumesucker]

70. OK....

If the US is not a theocracy then atheists should be represented in the political realm more or less to the extent they exist in society at large.

I'll be waiting for you to point out the many unapologetic atheists engaged in politics in the US.

[LeftishBrit]

91. There's a difference between being a theocracy, and practicing religious discrimination

Religious discrimination is a very bad thing and should be, and probably is, illegal; but it's not the same as basing all laws on religious texts. The likes of Pat Robertson and James Dobson would probably *like* to do so, but it hasn't happened, and is unlikely to IMO.

As a non-American atheist in a country that does *not* have formal church/state separation, I am indeed quite shocked at what I've discovered about discrimination against atheists in American politics. Imagine that your first openly atheist congressman had been elected in 1880. That you had numerous atheist congressmembers now, and that it was possible for an official in an pro-secularism organization to be elected to congress. That at least two Democratic presidential candidates had been openly atheist/agnostic; this had not been used against them; and, despite having voted for both candidates, you only just found out about their (non-) religion when checking their entries in Wikipedia just now. That the current American Secretary of State was openly atheist. Well, that corresponds to the situation here in the UK - and I would say that WE have a long way to go in ending discrimination (roll on complete church disestablishment and an end to bishops' involvement in lawmaking!). Other countries seem to have gone a lot further; e.g. Australia. But this still doesn't make either of our countries a theocracy.

[Fumesucker]

114. When all political power is held by theists..

You have a theocracy of sorts.

There is no political representation at all in the US for a non theistic point of view.

[Lifetimedem]

121. Thats disgusting

Christians build schools, hospitals, and run social service agencies.

They feed the poor

What have you done for humanity lately?

[Fumesucker]

134. So you think a Christian theocracy would be all sweetness and light?

You think there is some basic differences between human beings who happen to be Christians and those who happen to be say, Muslim?

[Starry Messenger]

48. Gassed for being Muslim in America

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/muslim-children-gassed-at_b_130076.html

Friday, September 26th ended a week in which thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West -- the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail -- were distributed by mail in Ohio. The same day, a "chemical irritant" was sprayed through a window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, where 300 people were gathered for a Ramadan prayer service. The room that the chemical was sprayed into was the room where babies and children were being kept while their mothers were engaged in prayers. This, apparently, is what the scare tactic political campaigning of John McCain's supporters has led to -- Americans perpetrating a terrorist attack against innocent children on American soil.

I read the story as reported by the Dayton Daily News, but this was after I had received an email written by a friend of some of the victims of these American terrorists. The matter of fact news report in the Dayton paper didn't come close to conveying the horrific impact of this unthinkable act like the email I had just read, so I asked the email's author for permission to share what they had written. The author was with one of the families from the mosque -- a mother and two of the small children who were in the room that was gassed -- the day after the attack occurred.

Sorry. What is this? "Christians are **so** abused day"?

[spoony]

49. No, it's "moral relativism and denial in action" day.

Otherwise people would simply be able to condemn an act of barbarism without saying at the same time that Christians are just as bad and Muslims can be victims of crimes. I've seen you post the same thing in two threads now. Apparently you think it cancels out or justifies or balances (or whatever the fuck) the *actual* topics of the threads you're posting in.

[LooseWilly]

161. And I'm sure you're offended that black people vote for Obama

... because that sort of "reverse racism" is just as bad as the lynching in effigy involved in the Jenna 6 racism.

Condemn the Iranians for debating such a bill, sure. The tone of the OP however, and the "heart-wrenching" human interest story that went with it are bullshit attempts at establishing a moral high ground and putting Iran on some sort of moral low ground. Anyone who has any knowledge about the revolution, and the subsequent attempts by the US to pressure the Islamic regime that finally took power into submission color the story very differently than regular exposure to the half-ass biased US media will color it.

Ohh yeah, and how is it more barbaric to condemn people to death for giving up Islam than it is to grab people on the word of some random fighter and whisk them off to a torture camp and hold/torture them indefinitely, until a court system can be dreamed up in which the detained can't possibly be exonerated?... AS barbaric, maybe... but AS doesn't give the moral high ground that the OP's title and "human interest" anecdotal story are reaching for.... alas...

And as for said anecdotal human interest story... given the nature of a revolution, it's not surprising that said Christian was put to death. Regretful, certainly... and, speaking as someone who STILL HAS FAMILY IN IRAN... I will be the first to say I hate the Islamic theocracy there... but the fucking superior-wanna-be tone of the OP pisses me off. Anecdotal christian put to death (anecdotal in the sense of statistical/evidentiary evidence, rather than amusing story) could well also have other extenuating circumstances... and in the case of the US Revolution, there may well have been some Tories that were put to death because they weren't willing to renounce the British Crown... and THAT is a direct correlation in terms of "moral relativism". The British at the time were as scary of a world imperialist power as the US is today. The Iranians had every bit as much reason to fear retribution for throwing off the yolk of imperialism as the US did 200 years before... and shit happens.
I know. I have large swaths of my family that I've NEVER MET, because SHIT HAPPENS. Have you met all of your cousins? I haven't. Did you ever meet your grandfather? I didn't. You know why?... because Republicans couldn't cope with the idea of Iran deciding that they wanted some say in what happened to their country, not to mention the oil we accidentally left under their country (oops).

How's that for answering the OP. And I don't mean the bullshit heart-string pulling actual denotative text, I mean the attempt to connotatively relate it to some sort of awful crime against... whatever.
Ohh yeah, and why isn't the gassing of innocent Muslims by freak job Christian terrorists relevant? There was no talk of it cancelling anything... just the reciprocal connotation that it should equally undermine the anti-Iranian attempt at building a moral high ground.

On the whole, Spoony, I'd suggest you try to learn more... I know it's easy to buy into the blame Iran meme... but let's face it, despite my personal distaste for Islam (look elsewhere on the thread for my stories of hanging out with my uncle when he was able to come to the States), the truth is that, in the realistic world of geopolitics, the US is the aggressor here... and Iran is so desperately trying to defend itself that what it's negotiating here is the relativity-equivalent of the Alien and Sedition act enacted by John Adams in... what?, 1798?...

Moral High Ground?... bullshit.

[spoony]

178. Apparently you've never seen

me post in a thread about the American Revolution. I loudly condemn the lynching (where the term actually came from) of British loyalists. In fact I find the entire revolution to be little more than a plutocratic power grab. I don't do moral relativism, and I don't dismiss crimes against humanity with "shit happens." And no matter how much you try to wiggle, hanging someone for changing religions is not self-defense against the US. It has nothing to do with the US, nor does it have anything to do with the (horrendous) attack(s) on Muslims here. They are separate deplorable acts.

[rockymountaindem]

59. That was a criminal act

The article in the OP is about state policies. Can you really not see the difference or are you just being obtuse?

[Starry Messenger]

60. I'm sure the Muslims in the story I posted will be happy to know that. n/t

[rockymountaindem]

63. I'm sure they will

because in that case, the government will protect them from harm by prosecuting the attacker and meting out the proper punishment. In Iran, it is the government itself that is promoting killing people for their beliefs. You see the difference?

[Starry Messenger]

66. I haven't heard of any arrests in that case that I posted.

In America, you can pay newspapers to distribute your propaganda with out any fear of reprisal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-ose/pro-mccain-group-dumping_b_125969.html

I'm sure you are totally right though. Justice will come to these evildoers and they will pay.

[LooseWilly]

164. Hmm?, blinders much?

I'm sure it must be nice to be able to simply focus on that... but step back another step or two, and you might remember another state policy, the one by which Reagan, and later Bush Sr., armed Saddam Hussein so that he could attack Iran. Coincidence?... bullshit. While Iran was one of the US satellites, Hussein would never have dared to attack them.
Then the Iranians had the audacity to overthrow the Shah that the CIA had put into power... who the fuck do they think they are???
So Saddam looks at the Iranian oil fields... and talks to the US... and rather than Israel-type defense of, which you KNOW would've been the word if the Shah were still in power, instead there are photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein, and Cheney shipping arms... including nerve gas... and batta-boom, batta-bing... Iraq invades Iran. We arm him. We give him all the weapons, planes, and even WMDs, that we used to give to Iran... but the Iranians have a new dedication... and somehow convince the children to bum-rush the battlefields, with no weapons... and charge.. hoping to find weapons along the way to fight the Iraqis with by the time they find them.

Am I bewildering you with too much detail?
Do you remember this information from the US corporate (sorry, Liberal) Media? Or do you remember just t-shirts with Mickey Mouse flipping off Khomeini?

I doubt you would know about my Mom trying to suggest that I should tell people who might ask that my father was actually Italian, and not Iranian. I'm guessing I'm not the only one either...
I was 10 years old at the time.

So now we get back to the OP.
The story about the poor Christian who was put to death by the state. Fears that son might be too. Nevermind that the Father was put to death in the middle of the Revolution. Funny thing, revolutionary paranoia leads to awful shit. As I posted above... I'm sure there were plenty of Tories that were executed in the newly US, for refusing to forswear the British Crown. I'm betting that the Father of the story was executed for a number of reasons... and being a Christian Minister, and being unwilling to "show his ass" to the new political powers that were by foreswearing Christianity was just the final show of "rebellion" that left no alternative but to snuff him.

My family, many of which still live in Tehran, was more practical... they played ball, and bought their illicit liquor on the black market... (buy, that shouldn't be the past tense).

If you want to be a martyr in the middle of a revolution, it isn't very hard. If the government is really thinking about this new policy, I can't help but think that it's a (half-baked) attempt at counter-intelligence. Like the Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams' administration (1798?). That just means to me that the government is bracing for a US invasion, like the one to the East of them (Afghanistan) and to the West (Iraq).

I know that Americans are ignorant about these things. If I didn't have family in the region, I might also be ignorant. If you want to stay ignorant though, please, do us a favor and shut the fuck up...
If, on the other hand, you want to make comments on this sort of thing, do us all a favor.. and develop a grasp of the greater context of the issue before you comment.

[UndertheOcean]

50. Barbaric

[UndertheOcean]

52. also here

http://poligazette.com/2008/10/12/iranian-christian-to-be-hanged-for-apostasy/

[Liberalatus]

54. This is why our founding fathers...

decided Separation of Church and State was the best way to go. A Theocracy does not work. One of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is that Jesus said it was best to avoid Politics, and Muhammed openly embraced them. I see that Islam is in its "Medieval" Period, and hopefully will emerge soon, and Islam and the world will be all the better for it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. But, hey, everyone knows Islamic extremists are no worse than the Republicans...

The number of DUers reluctant to admit that their could be religious or political movements worse than the American Christian right always depresses me.

Much as I dislike Christian extremists, the American variety are nowhere near as bad as most Muslim extremists, or even as bad as some Muslims often branded moderates (if you want to find Christian extremists as bad as the Muslims in meaningful numbers, you need to look in Africa).

[UndertheOcean]

57. I totally agree

[Fumesucker]

58. How many dead Christians on 9/11/2001?

How many dead Iraqis since the invasion?

But of course, Muslim extremists are worse than Christian extremists. :eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. You can't seriously be using the death toll in Iraq as evidence to defend Muslim extremism?

Nearly all the dead people in Iraq have been killed by Muslim extremists, not by Christians.

The Americans are guilty of removing the military dictator who was keeping the Muslim extremists in check, but they're just enablers - the people actually committing the atrocities are nearly all Muslims.

[Fumesucker]

67. I wasn't defending anyone at all...

Just pointing out that events put in motion by Christian Americans have lead to lots of dead people.

Keep in mind that Palin thinks the Iraq war is according to God's plan, there are a great many like her in the USA.

As for killing, the US has directly killed hundreds just in wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[MellowDem]

144. Events put in motion by Christian Americans....

Really, were all of them Christians? If I remember correctly, there were some Jews as well, not to mention some agnostics, hell even some atheists were vital to getting Iraq going.

The ignorance is deafening...

[Fumesucker]

151. The one who made the decision is a Christian..

And indeed, he even let us know that God told him to attack Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

[MellowDem]

193. Weak

Bush didn't make the decision, he was told by his neocon advisors to go in. Indeed, the real reason we went into Iraq was for neoconservatism, whose followers come from all backgrounds. Bush is just a figurehead, always was, and apparently always will be.

[tjwash]

78. Nice jingo...the Savage Mules are sharpening their fucking hooves I see.

Can't wait for soon to be President Obama to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan so that you can prove the Dems can also cheer cluster bombs and massive body counts along with the best Repuke eh?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. Why not just talk to yourself?

If you're going to try to supply both sides of the dialogue, why drag the rest of us into it?

"Cluster bombing Afghanistan is good" is not a logical sequitur from "Islamic extremism tends to be even worse than American Christian extremism".

I suspect that the reason you're attributing a clearly absurd position with nothing to do with what I actually said to me is that you don't want to face up to the truth of the sensible thing I actually did say - condemning the followers of religions other than Christianity makes many left-wingers feel uncomfortable, but not condemning those actions is clearly wrong, so the only solution is to obfuscate and try to change the subject.

[treestar]

110. They are in very different situations, though

I find it sad people really subscribe to the idea we are inherently superior. Like there is something to being born and raised in this one particular religion which makes us better than everyone else. It is a belief which gives us the hubris to attack other countries for not having our religion or system or taking their natural resources, etc.

We don't know how we'd react if we were the ones being colonized by other countries. If the Iranian army was here ordering us about and killing some of us, we'd do what; just let them do it? Turn the other cheek? Pray until they leave?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

126. I think that not executing apostates is inherently superior to executing apostates.

More generally, I think that secular liberalism is inherently superior to Christian fundamentalism as practiced by the Republicans, which in turn is inherently superior to Islamic fundamentalism.

Whether that means that in some sense secular liberals are inherently superior to Christian fundamentalists, etc, is a much, much trickier question, which I do not propose to offer an opinion on after midnight...

Yes, it's largely accident of birth that some people support executing homosexuals and others don't. That doesn't mean it's not a real, important difference.

If you want a guide to how America would respond to an Iranian invasion/occupation, the best guide you're probably likely to get is to look at what the French resistance did and didn't do, I suspect, although obviously there will be many differences.

[Junkdrawer]

115. Self Delete - Posted Wrong Spot

[SidDithers]

69. Theocracies suck...

doesn't matter which flavour.

Sid

[bullwinkle428]

71. Yet Iran still has a (relatively speaking) significant Jewish community...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews

http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

[readmoreoften]

83. The largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside Israel.

Many Iranian Jews have issues with Israel trying to entice them to 'return' as this particular group has been living in "Iran" for 2000 years (since the Persians rescued the Israelites from the Babylonians.)

[14thColony]

95. Closer to 3000 years

In terms of its traditions, practices, and lineages, it's the oldest Jewish community in the world. Some Iranian Jews who did emigrate to Israel have later moved back to Iran. IIRC, a larger percentage of Iranian Jews abandon life in Israel than those of any other origin.

[Jed Dilligan]

75. Their country, their rules.

If they don't like it, they can fight to change it. Why has America become so hazy about that? Personally, I care more that Americans are locked up and raped for having drugs than that Iranians are hanged for changing religions.

[Psephos]

76. Human rights do not stop at the lines drawn on maps

There's nothing magical about the arbitrary stripes humans have painted on the world. Some are due to the actions of despots and imperialists centuries ago. Some are due to the accidents of geography. Some are artifacts of chance. None is a fence marking where decency and enlightenment begin or end.

One world, one human race, one set of basic human rights applicable to all.

[Jed Dilligan]

85. Nice dream, but it will never happen.

Show me the people that you think can lead the way. I've never met them.

[ronnie624]

87. Flowery rhetorical flourishes

will not change the fact that Iran is a sovereign nation whose political destiny is in the hands of the Iranian people, not an imperialist power thousands of miles away, that desperately wishes for justifications to control resources in the Middle East. "One world, one human race, one set of basic human rights" is indeed a worthy goal, and if our species survives the coming decades, I have no doubt such will be achieved. Right now however, Iran must find its own way, without interference from a hypocritical superpower that is responsible for more death, destruction and human rights violations than all other countries combined during the last 60 years or so. It is the United States, through hegemonic, militaristic foreign policy goals that threatens global stability, not Iran.

[Psephos]

107. I am not a superpower, don't support a lot of US policy, and will not yield to "practical" cynicism

Do you think that your government trumps your own voice? Because you pay tax to the US treasury and vote in a US election (or wherever you live) you're unable to criticize hanging some poor dude in Iran because he practices the wrong religion?

By that logic, Europeans should have kept their traps shut in the early 20th Century when there was "strange fruit hangin' from the trees" in the US.

Uh huh.

That kind of thinking (authoritarianism) applied on a large scale is what enables the assholes of the world to fuck over unpowerful people, day in, day out. It makes the silent a party to the murderers.

It's true what Arthur Koestler said in The Yogi and the Commissar. Move far enough to the right *or* to the left on the political spectrum and you end up in the same place.

[Raskolnik]

112. Sophistry. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

118. How is my argument deceiving or confusing?

[tjwash]

77. Goodie...you think president Pat Robertson would be any more tolerant to moslems or gays?

Theocracies blow...that's why we have to make sure we don't let the christian conservanazi campaign seize power here like they have been trying to do since the Reagan years.

[I LUV DEM]

82. awful

[baby_mouse]

84. Let's bomb them! Muslims, Christians, ALL OF THEM!

Bombs away! Boom! Splat! Christian entrails all over Muslim faces! Burned baby Muslim skin all over the sidewalk! Fried Christain brain sliding down the drains in the muddy rain! Muslim body fat floating on puddles puddles!

Because they're EXTREMISTS and seeing their own body fat floating in puddles will magically convert them into subservient fearful people because they're SO unused to being bombed, cos extremists are really COWARDS and all you have to do is bomb them and everything's okay!

[Dukkha]

89. This what happens when you allow a theocracy to exist

and why separation of church & state must always be absolute, lest we return to the days of witch burnings ans public stonings for heresy.

[NNN0LHI]

106. A million Iraqis killed by Christians because they were born on top of oil

We should really quit this shit.

It makes us look stupid to the rest of the world.

Don

[MellowDem]

146. Really?

Who has killed most of the Iraqis? Why, I believe it was Muslims. And guess what else? There are Jews, atheists, Muslims, agnostics, Hindus, Bhuddists, and a whole host of other religious followers in our military who have killed Iraqis. That's right, lots of killing to go around over there. And lots of bigoted ignorant assumptions made by you. Your comment makes us look stupid to the rest of the world.

[LeftishBrit]

169. A million Iraqis were not killed *by Christians*

They were killed as a result of a war instigated by the Christian - and evil - Bush, certainly. But most were directly killed by other Muslims. The biggest religious war in that region is not between Muslims and Christians, but between different branches of Islam: Sunni and Shia. Just as many religious conflicts in Europe in the past were not between Christians and non-Christians but between Catholics and Protestants.

I agree that the world's worship of the Great God Oil has a lot to do with the horrors in Iraq.

[NNN0LHI]

170. So you are saying that if another country invaded America or Britain with Shock and Awe ...

... destroying all of our centers of government and then the same invaders who did that then dismantled our current police and military and then went on to create Death Squads (who the invaders themselves trained and armed) and then turned them loose under the watchful eye of those invaders and allowed them to kill at will that would be our fault but not the invaders who caused that?

Are you joking?

Don

[LeftishBrit]

171. I didn't say that at all!!!

America and Britain ARE the ones primarily at fault for pre-emptively invading Iraq and playing with fire near a powder-keg. Many people saw what would happen; our governments didn't see, or didn't care.

But the crime was committed by our nations, not by Christians as such. The religious-right certainly supported this for their own reasons, and are a big danger; but the driving force in the original invasion was not religion, but imperialism, oil, and self-interest.

Indirectly, the Christian Right has to bear a lot of responsibility, because without their vote, Bush would never have been or remained in office.

I just think it's a bit simplistic to see this as "Christians" murdering Iraqis. I do not justify pre-emptive war, or our countries' imperialist attitudes, in the SLIGHTEST!

[Canuckistanian]

113. Religion is such a comfort n/t

[Junkdrawer]

116. Awful law, but the last hung was in 1990....

Just trying to keep the record straight.

And with an attack on Iran imminent, one does have to wonder a tad about the agenda behind such articles.

[14thColony]

138. Especially coming from the Daily Telegraph...

they tend to be 'fair and balanced' if you know what I mean...

[lelgt60]

117. Can you imagine someone who only spoke and read Farsi trying to understand our politics?

Let alone, someone who had never lived in the US or even any other Western country?

I can't help but think those of us in the opposite situation (only speak English/other Western language; only lived in the US/Western country) might...uh...miss some of the subtleties. As one trying to learn French, even that language has so many cultural based meanings that I routinely miss the real meaning of things - let alone understand their sarcasm, etc.

In any event, I'm against persecuting/discriminating against people because they believe or don't believe in a particular religion, EXCEPT, that we shouldn't allow people of any religious belief (or political) to discriminate or persecute, either. And in cases where it's claimed that such persecution happened, it can't result in a blanket condemnation of an entire group. Only the actual guilty parties. We know where that leads.

Does this happen in Iran? probably.

Does this happen in the US/Western countries. Absolutely - I can read the news here and understand the speeches here.

So let's fix here, first.

[Gwendolyn]

127. Well, guess first, you have to have an understanding of why people move...

its a love and a disgust for the old way of doing things... and then people go on from there.

If there are those who only want to acknowledge some old way, and revel in it, then they are just helping the old shit, immigrant, blech. No matter how kind people are, trying to accept it. :)

Take it as you wish, from an immigrant child who speaks a few languages. The only thing immigrants ever bring is a love of family and cuisine. Not really an answer for your post, just don't assume that everything that comes into your world is great. As far as speaking a new language, learning a culture, yes, learn it and travel.

[cynatnite]

119. They kill gays, too. n/t

[dailykoff]

120. Maybe we shouldn't have toppled Mosadeq in 1953

and maybe there's a reason they don't like Christians.

Ya think?

[Regret My New Name]

133. Yeah, this guy should have thought about that before he...

hmm wait... what did he do again?

[MellowDem]

141. Wow

I can't believe hateful posts like yours are allowed. Well, I guess you also give the US the right to hang Muslims. After all, they gave us a reason not to like them on 9/11...

Sick.

[dailykoff]

145. Muslims had nothing to do with what happened on 911.

Just so ya know.

[MellowDem]

147. Christians had nothing to do with Iraq

Just so ya know.

[LeftishBrit]

172. Some Christians did.

It wasn't something orchestrated by a Christian church, and as I've been arguing elsewhere, it's not a blanket case of 'Christians killing Iraqis'. The direct religious conflict in Iraq is mainly between Sunni and Shia. Nonetheless, individual Christians such as Bush and Blair did plan the invasion.

[MellowDem]

194. True enough

I was just responding to the previous' posters ridiculous claim that 9/11 had "nothing to do with Muslims". As far as Iraq being invaded, I still believe it was primarily neoconservatism that was to blame for that, rather than Christian fundamentalists.

[Arugula Latte]

125. A pox on all extremist religions, fundamentalist Christianity included.

[northernsoul]

131. The consensus of Islamic legal scholars is that apostates must be killed.

In Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.

and sadly, Iran is not the only practitioner of this affront the basic human right of freedom of conscience, many of our alleged "allies" are just as bad:

Pakistan

In 1980 Pakistan incorporated making any disparaging remark against any personality revered in Islam into the penal code as an offence. In 1986 the law was extended to specifically include "Penal Code 295-C: Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of : whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of , shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." In October 1990, the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) ruled that "the penalty for contempt of ... is death and nothing else." In their 1996 report on Pakistan, Amnesty International stated that these laws have been extensively abused to harass members of religious minorities such as Christians and Ahmadis and that

In all the cases known to Amnesty International, these charges have been arbitrarily brought, founded solely on the individual's minority religious beliefs or on malicious accusations against individuals of the Muslim majority who advocate novel ideas. The available evidence indicates that charges were brought as a measure to intimidate and punish members of minority religious communities or non-conforming members of the majority community and that the hostility towards minority groups appeared in many cases compounded by personal enmity, professional envy or economic rivalry or a desire to gain political advantage."

An example of the passions and the feelings of extreme outrage that are evoked within the Muslim community is provided by Amnesty International's 2005 Report on Pakistan:

Samuel Masih, a 27-year-old Christian, was arrested in August 2003 and charged with having thrown litter on the ground near a mosque in Lahore. This was deemed an offence under section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which provides up to two years’ imprisonment for defiling a place of worship. Samuel Masih was held in a Lahore prison but transferred to hospital in May, suffering from tuberculosis. He died after his police guard attacked him in the hospital. The police officer stated that he had done his “religious duty”; he was charged with murder.

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

In March 2006, an Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was charged with apostasy and could have faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. His case attracted much international attention with Western countries condemning Afghanistan for persecuting a convert. Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds by the Afghan court after intervention by the president Hamid Karzai. He was released and left the country to find refuge in Italy. <38>

Two other Afghan converts to Christianity were arrested in March and their fate is unknown. In February, yet other converts had their homes raided by police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Punishment_for_apostasy

[ohio2007]

136. death to the Xian fundies....death to the Homosexuals...death to the 'spies'

You name it, they want it dead. Sure am glad this thread got moved to a backwater general inconvenient forum ;)

We are going to sit down and talk to these guys without any set pre conditions in a few months I understand.

[Jed Dilligan]

137. It's kind of like when a gang member gets killed

for trying to leave the gang. He knew what he was signing up for when he signed up. Unfortunate, but nowhere near the top of my list of things to worry about.

[Fumesucker]

142. But in this case the "gang member" was "signed up" at birth..

And had no choice in the matter.

Other than that trifling difference the two situations are quite similar. :eyes:

[Jed Dilligan]

148. You think people aren't signed up into gangs at birth?

[Fumesucker]

153. If you have evidence that people are indeed signed up for gangs at birth..

Then by all means post it.

Otherwise I shall continue to believe that you are blowing smoke.

[Jed Dilligan]

156. Common knowledge, a lot of gangs are in their 3rd or 4th generation.

And technically, one does not become Muslim until puberty. The choice is about as voluntary as gang membership is if you're born to gang members on gang turf.

[Fumesucker]

159. So you don't have evidence..

Try taking a prepubescent Muslim child and convert them to Christianity, I doubt the parents will be pleased.

And getting away from gangs is possible, getting away from something like Islam while technically possible is basically not a realistic prospect for most Muslims.

[Jed Dilligan]

162. No, I don't have time.

I could dig up "evidence" for you, but I know the next step of this tired high-school debate crap you are pulling along with 700,000 time wasters on the Internet at any given time.

People escape gangs and Islam. It happens. For most people, it is as you say "basically not a realistic prospect."

If you want to do something about something, I would recommend looking at the gangs in your own country before the religion in someone else's. But I suspect you don't.

on edit, just because I am really sick of this rhetorical bullshit:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9808/why.html

snip

A few are virtually born into gangs as a result of neighborhood traditions and their parents' earlier (and perhaps continuing) gang participation or involvement in criminal activity (Moore, 1978).

[Fumesucker]

174. Gangs could easily be decimated overnight....

With nothing more than the stroke of a pen.

Legalize "drugs" and provide for a retail distribution chain modeled on alcohol or tobacco.

A great many gangs would immediately lose their single largest raison de'etre.

[Jed Dilligan]

189. I agree with that. I don't agree that our country has ANY business

intervening overseas until we end the human rights violations here.

[spoony]

179. What a remarkable thread.

A news story about a person murdered for converting to Christianity becomes a thread about:

1. How Christians are bad and would do the same thing
2. How Iran is the victim of pre-war propaganda
3. How it's a shame, but it's their country
4. How it's a shame, but it doesn't happen that often, so hey


Very, very few unqualified condemnations of the action itself. And those are responded to with "SO U WANT TO BOM DEM!!!??11"

[NNN0LHI]

181. Maybe the reason there are not so many condemnations about this is because ...

... many of us remember how these same publications were misleading us about those dangerous Iraqis with all those WMDs and Winnebagos of Death, etc.

Did you believe those WMD stories and Winnebagos of Death stories back then without asking yourself if it might all be bullshit?

Its called living and learning.

Don

[spoony]

182. Do you also doubt they hang gay teens?

Saying Iran has a fucked up government is not saying that I want war with them. And it is not a lack of condemnation for things that happen elsewhere to other people . It simply is what it is.

[NNN0LHI]

184. Did you believe Saddam was grinding up people in huge shredders too?

I doubt everything our media spews at us.

And I have good reasons for doing so.

Don

Edit - Here is bin Laden's Secret Cave Complex that came via the Telegraph and that was never found:

Did you believe that one?

[spoony]

185. I believe he was a killer. That, like this, deserves condemnation

Not war, but global condemnation and communication. But hopefully by better diplomats than have made up this thread, because it's a clusterfuck of non sequiturs, diversions, and apathy.

[Fumesucker]

183. There is a huge "condemnation overload" on Iran these days..

It's very much the "in thing" to do. Recall Hillary's remark about how she would "obliterate Iran".

I take this as an opportunity to point out how theocracy is a very, very bad thing, no matter the particular brand of theocrats that are running things.

In an absolute sense, I dislike Islam more than I do Christianity, I don't think there is a majority Muslim nation that does not have at least a fledgling theocracy. But I'm surrounded by and to some extent oppressed by Christians, not Muslims, so I write about what I know.

[Skittles]

195. perhaps a better source is in order

[Strelnikov_]

180. Beheaded for being a witch in Saudi Arabia

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/saudi/Saudi-01.htm#P46_1029

On Friday December 13, 1996 (3 Sha`ban 1417), `Abd al-Karim Mara`i al-Naqshabandi, age forty, was executed in Riyadh. A Syrian national who had worked for Saudi Prince Salman bin Sa`ud bin `Abd al-`Aziz for over fourteen years, al-Naqshabandi was convicted of practicing witchcraft (sihr) against his employer, who is the son of the former king of Saudi Arabia and the nephew of the current king. The information Human Rights Watch has been able to collect about the al-Naqshabandi case indicates that gross violations of human rights took place, and that al-Naqshabandi may have been prosecuted and then executed to satisfy the wishes of his wealthy, well-connected employer.

[Gwendolyn]

186. really?

That's so different from us? We don't execute witches; we just invent good stories to make it better about why. Every single day bloodthirsty people kill others in our great nation.