Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Christians sentenced to 80 lashes

YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 10:15:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com...

"Four Iranian Christians were reportedly sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking wine for communion, a shocking punishment meted out even as a new United Nations report blasted the Islamic republic for its systematic persecution of non-Muslims."

...

"Iran"s regime has made stopping the spread of Christianity a cornerstone of its crackdown on religious freedom. There are estimated to be as many as 370,000 Christians in Iran, according to the most recent U.S. State Department report. The clerical rulers see Christianity as a threat to Iran"s majority ultra-orthodox Shiite Islamic religion."

...

""It should be no surprise that Iran"s human rights record as documented by the UN is nothing short of atrocious," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FoxNews.com. "If the regime thinks that its international charm offensive will help whitewash its appalling human rights record as documented by the UN report, they are sorely mistaken."

...

""The sentences handed down to these members of the Church of Iran effectively criminalize the Christian sacrament of sharing in the Lord"s Supper and constitute an unacceptable infringement on the right to practice faith freely and peaceably," Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said."

------

Were I in a position to do this, I would personally issue a phone call to the ayatollah. I would inform him that he has two options: (1) commute the sentences and discontinue all cruel and unusual punishments or (2) be cut off from the world economy to the extent that the United States could facilitate that outcome. I don't expect to affect Iran's morally depraved culture, but I could damn well make the costs of their behavior unbearably high. I would also not rule out bringing international criminal charges to the judge who ordered the punishment.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 11:20:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 10:15:37 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

"Four Iranian Christians were reportedly sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking wine for communion, a shocking punishment meted out even as a new United Nations report blasted the Islamic republic for its systematic persecution of non-Muslims."

...

"Iran"s regime has made stopping the spread of Christianity a cornerstone of its crackdown on religious freedom. There are estimated to be as many as 370,000 Christians in Iran, according to the most recent U.S. State Department report. The clerical rulers see Christianity as a threat to Iran"s majority ultra-orthodox Shiite Islamic religion."

...

""It should be no surprise that Iran"s human rights record as documented by the UN is nothing short of atrocious," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FoxNews.com. "If the regime thinks that its international charm offensive will help whitewash its appalling human rights record as documented by the UN report, they are sorely mistaken."

...

""The sentences handed down to these members of the Church of Iran effectively criminalize the Christian sacrament of sharing in the Lord"s Supper and constitute an unacceptable infringement on the right to practice faith freely and peaceably," Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said."

------

Were I in a position to do this, I would personally issue a phone call to the ayatollah. I would inform him that he has two options: (1) commute the sentences and discontinue all cruel and unusual punishments or (2) be cut off from the world economy to the extent that the United States could facilitate that outcome. I don't expect to affect Iran's morally depraved culture, but I could damn well make the costs of their behavior unbearably high. I would also not rule out bringing international criminal charges to the judge who ordered the punishment.

Aren't you a realist?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 2:31:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 11:20:08 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/25/2013 10:15:37 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

"Four Iranian Christians were reportedly sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking wine for communion, a shocking punishment meted out even as a new United Nations report blasted the Islamic republic for its systematic persecution of non-Muslims."

...

"Iran"s regime has made stopping the spread of Christianity a cornerstone of its crackdown on religious freedom. There are estimated to be as many as 370,000 Christians in Iran, according to the most recent U.S. State Department report. The clerical rulers see Christianity as a threat to Iran"s majority ultra-orthodox Shiite Islamic religion."

...

""It should be no surprise that Iran"s human rights record as documented by the UN is nothing short of atrocious," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FoxNews.com. "If the regime thinks that its international charm offensive will help whitewash its appalling human rights record as documented by the UN report, they are sorely mistaken."

...

""The sentences handed down to these members of the Church of Iran effectively criminalize the Christian sacrament of sharing in the Lord"s Supper and constitute an unacceptable infringement on the right to practice faith freely and peaceably," Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said."

------

Were I in a position to do this, I would personally issue a phone call to the ayatollah. I would inform him that he has two options: (1) commute the sentences and discontinue all cruel and unusual punishments or (2) be cut off from the world economy to the extent that the United States could facilitate that outcome. I don't expect to affect Iran's morally depraved culture, but I could damn well make the costs of their behavior unbearably high. I would also not rule out bringing international criminal charges to the judge who ordered the punishment.

Aren't you a realist?

I'm a pragmatist.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 3:56:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 2:31:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/30/2013 11:20:08 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/25/2013 10:15:37 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

"Four Iranian Christians were reportedly sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking wine for communion, a shocking punishment meted out even as a new United Nations report blasted the Islamic republic for its systematic persecution of non-Muslims."

...

"Iran"s regime has made stopping the spread of Christianity a cornerstone of its crackdown on religious freedom. There are estimated to be as many as 370,000 Christians in Iran, according to the most recent U.S. State Department report. The clerical rulers see Christianity as a threat to Iran"s majority ultra-orthodox Shiite Islamic religion."

...

""It should be no surprise that Iran"s human rights record as documented by the UN is nothing short of atrocious," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FoxNews.com. "If the regime thinks that its international charm offensive will help whitewash its appalling human rights record as documented by the UN report, they are sorely mistaken."

...

""The sentences handed down to these members of the Church of Iran effectively criminalize the Christian sacrament of sharing in the Lord"s Supper and constitute an unacceptable infringement on the right to practice faith freely and peaceably," Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said."

------

Were I in a position to do this, I would personally issue a phone call to the ayatollah. I would inform him that he has two options: (1) commute the sentences and discontinue all cruel and unusual punishments or (2) be cut off from the world economy to the extent that the United States could facilitate that outcome. I don't expect to affect Iran's morally depraved culture, but I could damn well make the costs of their behavior unbearably high. I would also not rule out bringing international criminal charges to the judge who ordered the punishment.

Aren't you a realist?

I'm a pragmatist.

Yes, but you also follow the realist school in international relations, correct? So such a judgement would hardly be coherent under a framework like that.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 5:01:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 3:56:34 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/31/2013 2:31:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/30/2013 11:20:08 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/25/2013 10:15:37 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

"Four Iranian Christians were reportedly sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking wine for communion, a shocking punishment meted out even as a new United Nations report blasted the Islamic republic for its systematic persecution of non-Muslims."

...

"Iran"s regime has made stopping the spread of Christianity a cornerstone of its crackdown on religious freedom. There are estimated to be as many as 370,000 Christians in Iran, according to the most recent U.S. State Department report. The clerical rulers see Christianity as a threat to Iran"s majority ultra-orthodox Shiite Islamic religion."

...

""It should be no surprise that Iran"s human rights record as documented by the UN is nothing short of atrocious," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FoxNews.com. "If the regime thinks that its international charm offensive will help whitewash its appalling human rights record as documented by the UN report, they are sorely mistaken."

...

""The sentences handed down to these members of the Church of Iran effectively criminalize the Christian sacrament of sharing in the Lord"s Supper and constitute an unacceptable infringement on the right to practice faith freely and peaceably," Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said."

------

Were I in a position to do this, I would personally issue a phone call to the ayatollah. I would inform him that he has two options: (1) commute the sentences and discontinue all cruel and unusual punishments or (2) be cut off from the world economy to the extent that the United States could facilitate that outcome. I don't expect to affect Iran's morally depraved culture, but I could damn well make the costs of their behavior unbearably high. I would also not rule out bringing international criminal charges to the judge who ordered the punishment.

Aren't you a realist?

I'm a pragmatist.

Yes, but you also follow the realist school in international relations, correct? So such a judgement would hardly be coherent under a framework like that.

Why don't you tell me what you think a realist is so that I can clarify that for you, and then I'll tell you why I'm a pragmatist -and then after that I'll elucidate why despite that I'd still do what I said I would if I had the means.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 9:35:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Were I in a position to do this, I would personally issue a phone call to the ayatollah. I would inform him that he has two options: (1) commute the sentences and discontinue all cruel and unusual punishments or (2) be cut off from the world economy to the extent that the United States could facilitate that outcome. I don't expect to affect Iran's morally depraved culture, but I could damn well make the costs of their behavior unbearably high. I would also not rule out bringing international criminal charges to the judge who ordered the punishment.

Even if he is acting according to the laws of his own country?! maybe you should charge the whole nation for voting for such laws , not just one man?

I'm sure that if you were in a position to do so, you'd have more business in USA than anywhere else.

PS: I don't agree with what they do in Iran, it's the business of Christians to celebrate their own things, not the business of the government to spy on them, unless it's forbidden to drink in public and they did, which is a different story. but still there is a law in that country, you may not like it but people know it, and it's up to them to change their own laws if they are so oppressive.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 12:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 5:01:02 AM, YYW wrote:
Why don't you tell me what you think a realist is so that I can clarify that for you, and then I'll tell you why I'm a pragmatist -and then after that I'll elucidate why despite that I'd still do what I said I would if I had the means.

Well, for a realist, foreign policy is mainly not carried out through "punishment" or by laying down certain ethical standards to be followed any more than the stock market is. It's the result of conflicting interests, and the most effective solution is not that which meets some idealist's conception of "justice", but which offers a plausible compromise between competing interests. Under this framework socialized healthcare or the war on drugs are neither good nor bad ideas, and such things do not exist outside of the perspectives of specific interests. They should be understood as the outcomes of a perpetual power struggle within society.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 1:23:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 12:16:15 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/31/2013 5:01:02 AM, YYW wrote:
Why don't you tell me what you think a realist is so that I can clarify that for you, and then I'll tell you why I'm a pragmatist -and then after that I'll elucidate why despite that I'd still do what I said I would if I had the means.

Well, for a realist, foreign policy is mainly not carried out through "punishment" or by laying down certain ethical standards to be followed any more than the stock market is. It's the result of conflicting interests, and the most effective solution is not that which meets some idealist's conception of "justice", but which offers a plausible compromise between competing interests. Under this framework socialized healthcare or the war on drugs are neither good nor bad ideas, and such things do not exist outside of the perspectives of specific interests. They should be understood as the outcomes of a perpetual power struggle within society.

Realism in a nutshell:

"Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power. The negative side of the realists' emphasis on power and self-interest is often their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states. National politics is the realm of authority and law, whereas international politics, they sometimes claim, is a sphere without justice, characterized by active or potential conflict among states."

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I'm not a realist in the strictest sense, but let me break it down for you. All rational states are first concerned with their security, which is its highest interest. However, if security is achieved, it then becomes possible to pursue other interests as states define them. If I were the president of the United States, assuming that security of the homeland was already achieved, one of among several other interests I would pursue would be the promotion of universal human rights. Why? It is always already in the interests of all countries that all other countries respect the basic dignity of its citizens. Doing so is not only the right thing to do, but it is the bedrock of social, internal political and regional geopolitical stability within a given area. So, brutally torturing Christians for drinking communion wine not only violates their right to not be cruelly or unusually punished, but it foremost violates their most basic right to religious freedom. In consequence, Iran in brutalizing members of its society is both threatening its own stability and regional stability by trampling on human rights -which is in diametric opposition to the interests of all other countries. The thing to take from this is that security and human rights are two sides of the same coin -and to the extent that I have an interest in the former, I must also have an interest in the latter. Let it also not be lost upon you that the idea of fundamentalist muslims torturing anyone for not acting in accordance to fundamentalist Islam elicits a particularly acute righteous indignation within me -the kind that cannot ignore the sort of behavior the Iranians perpetrate.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 1:29:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 9:35:09 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Were I in a position to do this, I would personally issue a phone call to the ayatollah. I would inform him that he has two options: (1) commute the sentences and discontinue all cruel and unusual punishments or (2) be cut off from the world economy to the extent that the United States could facilitate that outcome. I don't expect to affect Iran's morally depraved culture, but I could damn well make the costs of their behavior unbearably high. I would also not rule out bringing international criminal charges to the judge who ordered the punishment.

Even if he is acting according to the laws of his own country?! maybe you should charge the whole nation for voting for such laws , not just one man?

Realize that laws in Iran are not passed in the same way as laws in a democracy are. Realize also that sovereignty is no defense for trampling human rights.

I'm sure that if you were in a position to do so, you'd have more business in USA than anywhere else.

PS: I don't agree with what they do in Iran, it's the business of Christians to celebrate their own things, not the business of the government to spy on them, unless it's forbidden to drink in public and they did, which is a different story.

This is a case of fundamentalist muslims torturing non-muslims for not acting in accordance to the provisions of fundamentalist Islam.

but still there is a law in that country, you may not like it but people know it, and it's up to them to change their own laws if they are so oppressive.

That is one of the most depressingly myopic statements I have ever heard. That a law exists does not make it just, however well publicized it may or may not be. Moreover, changing a law in Iran doesn't work quite the same way as it would in a liberal democracy, because of the structure of Iran's political system. So, even if a majority of people wanted to change a law, doing so would be impossible without, among other things, the Ayatollah's final sign-off, which would not come were the new law not to be in accordance with a particularly grotesque brand of fundamentalist Islam.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 2:06:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 1:23:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2013 12:16:15 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/31/2013 5:01:02 AM, YYW wrote:
Why don't you tell me what you think a realist is so that I can clarify that for you, and then I'll tell you why I'm a pragmatist -and then after that I'll elucidate why despite that I'd still do what I said I would if I had the means.

Well, for a realist, foreign policy is mainly not carried out through "punishment" or by laying down certain ethical standards to be followed any more than the stock market is. It's the result of conflicting interests, and the most effective solution is not that which meets some idealist's conception of "justice", but which offers a plausible compromise between competing interests. Under this framework socialized healthcare or the war on drugs are neither good nor bad ideas, and such things do not exist outside of the perspectives of specific interests. They should be understood as the outcomes of a perpetual power struggle within society.

Realism in a nutshell:

"Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power. The negative side of the realists' emphasis on power and self-interest is often their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states. National politics is the realm of authority and law, whereas international politics, they sometimes claim, is a sphere without justice, characterized by active or potential conflict among states."

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Yes, I understand that.

I'm not a realist in the strictest sense, but let me break it down for you. All rational states are first concerned with their security, which is its highest interest. However, if security is achieved, it then becomes possible to pursue other interests as states define them. If I were the president of the United States, assuming that security of the homeland was already achieved, one of among several other interests I would pursue would be the promotion of universal human rights. Why? It is always already in the interests of all countries that all other countries respect the basic dignity of its citizens.

1. The security of the homeland is not achieved fully and permanently.

2. US interests are not limited to basic security of the homeland. We are so integrated with the world economy and political hierarchy that disregarding state power in favor of some fanciful collective categorical imperative would quite efficiently lead to global chaos.

Doing so is not only the right thing to do, but it is the bedrock of social, internal political and regional geopolitical stability within a given area.

Lol wut? Promoting some arbitrary doctrine of human rights to cultures that haven't even begun to develop the institutions, society, and culture necessary for reform will result in regional stability and an end to social oppression, regardless of multipolarity, external interests by larger powers (Russia, Turkey, etc.), ethnoreligious fault lines, geography, tradition, and the fact that Iran is one of the most geostrategically important countries in western Asia?

Let it also not be lost upon you that the idea of fundamentalist muslims torturing anyone for not acting in accordance to fundamentalist Islam elicits a particularly acute righteous indignation within me -the kind that cannot ignore the sort of behavior the Iranians perpetrate.

Lol, that's what Kissinger always used to say. Oh, wait.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 2:15:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 2:06:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/31/2013 1:23:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2013 12:16:15 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/31/2013 5:01:02 AM, YYW wrote:
Why don't you tell me what you think a realist is so that I can clarify that for you, and then I'll tell you why I'm a pragmatist -and then after that I'll elucidate why despite that I'd still do what I said I would if I had the means.

Well, for a realist, foreign policy is mainly not carried out through "punishment" or by laying down certain ethical standards to be followed any more than the stock market is. It's the result of conflicting interests, and the most effective solution is not that which meets some idealist's conception of "justice", but which offers a plausible compromise between competing interests. Under this framework socialized healthcare or the war on drugs are neither good nor bad ideas, and such things do not exist outside of the perspectives of specific interests. They should be understood as the outcomes of a perpetual power struggle within society.

Realism in a nutshell:

"Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power. The negative side of the realists' emphasis on power and self-interest is often their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states. National politics is the realm of authority and law, whereas international politics, they sometimes claim, is a sphere without justice, characterized by active or potential conflict among states."

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Yes, I understand that.

I'm not a realist in the strictest sense, but let me break it down for you. All rational states are first concerned with their security, which is its highest interest. However, if security is achieved, it then becomes possible to pursue other interests as states define them. If I were the president of the United States, assuming that security of the homeland was already achieved, one of among several other interests I would pursue would be the promotion of universal human rights. Why? It is always already in the interests of all countries that all other countries respect the basic dignity of its citizens.

1. The security of the homeland is not achieved fully and permanently.

I'm not saying it is achieved fully and permanently, only sufficiently such that the United States is in a position to do other things.

2. US interests are not limited to basic security of the homeland. We are so integrated with the world economy and political hierarchy that disregarding state power in favor of some fanciful collective categorical imperative would quite efficiently lead to global chaos.

There are a lot of terms in that sentence that don't work with one another, but that's ok for now because you're not in college. If you want to see the possibility of what I'm saying and get an idea of how it would work, look at how the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Iran to curtail its nuclear development. I'm not saying that the sanctions are working, only that this is a measure of power that is very much within the United State's ability to exercise.

Doing so is not only the right thing to do, but it is the bedrock of social, internal political and regional geopolitical stability within a given area.

Lol wut? Promoting some arbitrary doctrine of human rights to cultures that haven't even begun to develop the institutions, society, and culture necessary for reform will result in regional stability and an end to social oppression, regardless of multipolarity, external interests by larger powers (Russia, Turkey, etc.), ethnoreligious fault lines, geography, tradition, and the fact that Iran is one of the most geostrategically important countries in western Asia?

Human rights are arbitrary? I think not. While your point that Iran is a backwards country is well taken, realize that their failure to join the developed world's standards of conduct does not justify their continuing to do so.

Let it also not be lost upon you that the idea of fundamentalist muslims torturing anyone for not acting in accordance to fundamentalist Islam elicits a particularly acute righteous indignation within me -the kind that cannot ignore the sort of behavior the Iranians perpetrate.

Lol, that's what Kissinger always used to say. Oh, wait.

Ever read Eichmann in Jerusalem?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 4:56:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 2:15:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2013 2:06:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
1. The security of the homeland is not achieved fully and permanently.

I'm not saying it is achieved fully and permanently, only sufficiently such that the United States is in a position to do other things.

Of course, but the resources and margin of error is still limited, and sacrificing its geopolitical preponderance for the sake of a few persecuted religious groups doesn't seem very helpful.

2. US interests are not limited to basic security of the homeland. We are so integrated with the world economy and political hierarchy that disregarding state power in favor of some fanciful collective categorical imperative would quite efficiently lead to global chaos.

There are a lot of terms in that sentence that don't work with one another, but that's ok for now because you're not in college.

I stayed awake all night and I'm trying to get through the day without dropping off (and I have problems articulating my thoughts anyway- I what I mean, but the phrasing often eludes me).

If you want to see the possibility of what I'm saying and get an idea of how it would work, look at how the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Iran to curtail its nuclear development. I'm not saying that the sanctions are working, only that this is a measure of power that is very much within the United State's ability to exercise.

Sanctions placed in order to halt a nuclear weapons program and apply pressure to an aggressive regional power with dreams of hegemony over the Persian gulf and Levant is rational. But we would have to break ties with quite a few of our own allies as well. I recall Saudi Arabia recently began hanging people for witchcraft.

Lol wut? Promoting some arbitrary doctrine of human rights to cultures that haven't even begun to develop the institutions, society, and culture necessary for reform will result in regional stability and an end to social oppression, regardless of multipolarity, external interests by larger powers (Russia, Turkey, etc.), ethnoreligious fault lines, geography, tradition, and the fact that Iran is one of the most geostrategically important countries in western Asia?

Human rights are arbitrary? I think not. While your point that Iran is a backwards country is well taken, realize that their failure to join the developed world's standards of conduct does not justify their continuing to do so.

I agree, but it also doesn't justify unilateral action in order to force them to behave properly. Sure, if they were gassing Azeris or something, I could see it being justified. But really?

Let it also not be lost upon you that the idea of fundamentalist muslims torturing anyone for not acting in accordance to fundamentalist Islam elicits a particularly acute righteous indignation within me -the kind that cannot ignore the sort of behavior the Iranians perpetrate.

Lol, that's what Kissinger always used to say. Oh, wait.

Ever read Eichmann in Jerusalem?

I don't like Arendt... I should read it one of these days even still.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 6:30:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 1:29:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2013 9:35:09 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Were I in a position to do this, I would personally issue a phone call to the ayatollah. I would inform him that he has two options: (1) commute the sentences and discontinue all cruel and unusual punishments or (2) be cut off from the world economy to the extent that the United States could facilitate that outcome. I don't expect to affect Iran's morally depraved culture, but I could damn well make the costs of their behavior unbearably high. I would also not rule out bringing international criminal charges to the judge who ordered the punishment.

Even if he is acting according to the laws of his own country?! maybe you should charge the whole nation for voting for such laws , not just one man?

Realize that laws in Iran are not passed in the same way as laws in a democracy are. Realize also that sovereignty is no defense for trampling human rights.

Why should they be passed the same way ? if the majority of people happen to be fundamentalist Shias anyways. you can't dictate your idea of justice to everyone else.

I'm sure that if you were in a position to do so, you'd have more business in USA than anywhere else.

PS: I don't agree with what they do in Iran, it's the business of Christians to celebrate their own things, not the business of the government to spy on them, unless it's forbidden to drink in public and they did, which is a different story.

This is a case of fundamentalist muslims torturing non-muslims for not acting in accordance to the provisions of fundamentalist Islam.

But they do it through the law, they're not treating Christians worst that a Muslim who does the same thing, are they ? (not agreeing with them, trying to show they didn't invent a law for the Christian, or treat Christians unequally with the rest of citizens)

but still there is a law in that country, you may not like it but people know it, and it's up to them to change their own laws if they are so oppressive.

That is one of the most depressingly myopic statements I have ever heard. That a law exists does not make it just, however well publicized it may or may not be. Moreover, changing a law in Iran doesn't work quite the same way as it would in a liberal democracy, because of the structure of Iran's political system. So, even if a majority of people wanted to change a law, doing so would be impossible without, among other things, the Ayatollah's final sign-off, which would not come were the new law not to be in accordance with a particularly grotesque brand of fundamentalist Islam.

If there is a majority of people there would be too much pressure on the government, they would do what the majority want or there will be a revolution.

But for a minority of Christians and other groups they just need to live with the law until they get the chance to change things. and living with the specific law isn't that difficult!
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 12:26:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's as simple as the French banning Hijab and burqa, just live with it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin