Yes they executed the victim according to “our” law. Under their law she commited a crime. Fucked up? Yes! But we can all do things that a perfectly legal in one country yet are a crime in another. This is an EXTREME version of this.
But the death penalty is wrong wherever it is and for whatever reason it is used.
Just look at the stink that western countries put up when one of their own gets the death penalty in somewhere like Thailand for drug smuggling. That is their law. To “us” it seems extreme.
In NZ prostitution is legal. It seems odd to me to think that this is a crime elsewhere. In Amersterdam you can smoke weed in a cafe, elsewhere this could get you jail time.
Do I think it is right this girl got the death penalty? Shit no! But then I don’t think anyone should get the death penalty.
You killed someone you evil person…right! That’s it we are going to kill you! It’s as stupid as smacking a child to teach them not to hit their sibling.
Excellent point. Some people are judging cultures and debating about what is acceptable to kill people over, and are missing the point that most European countries condemn the USA for killing people at all just as much as they condemn Iran for killing people at all.
I haven’t seen anyone claim that our (Western) moral framework is “perfect.” As far as the Nazi thing goes, doesn’t it reasonably follow from the arguments presented? The Iranians don’t like sharp-tongued women so they kill them. The Nazis didn’t like Jews and did much the same thing. While it may be over-the-top, I’m not so sure this is a straw-man.
Where these practices come from is completely irrelevant to me. They are wrong. Where is the morality in it? Whether we are superior or not is irrelevant also. Personally I think we ourselves are pretty messed up in a lot of ways. That does not excuse this so called judge. Why did I bring up Nazis? Because they killed innocent people who had done nothing, under the pretext of law, just like this judge did. They made it legal to kill (to kill the “right” people). The more I think about it, the more I think maybe a good old fashioned vendetta is what this judge needs and deserves.
A few years ago a friend of mine was grabbed off her bike, kidnapped, driven into the mountains blindfolded then raped by at least two men for three days. They let her see them so she is pretty sure they had no intention of letting her get away alive. When she talked to the police the first thing an officer said was “What were you wearing.”
This story of the girl is horrible. I can condemn it fully. The problem is, that too often we are capable of looking at other cultures and condemn their barbarities and then use that as an excuse to never look at our own. I thinking of women in corsets protesting women having their feet bound. The point was that both are worthy of condemning, and the fact that one culture commits attrocities doesn’t give your own a pass.
The Nazis did kill innocent people, as have many lunatic leaders and governments (Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein etc etc forever and ever). That is not the case here.
She was not a random someone grabbed off the streets. She was tried for a crime. A crime many of us feel is abhorrant (because it is) but in her country it was a crime. That doesn’t make it a good law, or a fair law. Just a law in that country.
The fact that she recieved the death penalty is what matters. It is a hideous thing wherever it happens and for whatever crime.
I agree with you but believe you are missing the point. No one that I have seen in this thread is claiming perfection for Western culture or asking for a pass on the many things that are, in fact, fucked up in the West. OTOH, I can’t come up with any Western countries that would do something like hang a 16 YO girl for sassing the judge.
I don’t really see this as an example of the difference between Western and Persian culture so much as the difference between secular, constitutional justice and religious law. When you have a theocracy, this is the kind of justice you get; that would be true under any of the major religions. People like Jerry Falwell probably have twisted little dreams at night of a Christian-ruled America where judges pass out sentences based on the Ten Commandments (in which case I’d be going up the river on two or three charges).
So far, I have only seen one person argue for the extermination of that entire culture. I, for one, consider that culture to be utterly wrong in its morality, but I am not arguing for the extermination of its people. Not in the least.
Nonsense. I never said that there can be NO personal and cultural morals. In fact, before you open your mouth again, I respectfully ask you to point out where I made such a claim.
Take your time. You’re going to have a long and fruitless search, since I never said any such thing.
What I actually said was “This is just one reason why I don’t buy the whole
‘The moralities of one culture is neither better nor worse than those of others’ worldview. Some acts are just wrong, regardless of which culture perpetuates it. Sometimes, the culture itself is just plain wrong, and this is a perfect example.” This is not the same as claiming that there is no room for personal or cultural variations in one’s moral worldview. It is, however, a strong condemnation of the perspective that all morality is equally valid, so long as it is rooted in cultural differences.
Get it? There is a huge difference between saying “There can be some cultural differences in morality” and “There are no moral absolutes, since different cultures espouse different moral worldviews.” I am condemning the latter, and have said absolutely nothing about the former.
Yet somehow, that does not stop you from lambasting me based on the former premise–a worldview that I have neither criticized nor endorsed. Indeed, it is a statement which I have made no comment about whatsoever.
Actually, I had an anthropology professor who once told the class that we were arrogant if we judged female genital mutilation because it was a “cultural thing.” Sometimes the argument is carried too far.
Good grief. By that logic, churches shouldn’t bother with sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry; after all, that is a matter for the here-and-now, instead of eternity. It also means that the churches that opposed slavery had their priorities all messed up. And heaven forbid that any churches speak out either for or against laws pertaining to homosexuality!
Sorry, but while the hereafter should be their ultimate concern, I don’t buy the argument that they should keep their noses out of present-day matters.
That is another perfect example of what I’m talking about. Contrary to what Marley23 claims, there are indeed a great many people who do excuse such atrocities on the grounds that they are “cultural things.”
So what if they’re cultural? I don’t care. There was a time when the culture of the confederate states endorsed slavery. That didn’t make it excusable by any means, and I have no problem in judging that moral perspective as being wrong.
We all agree she should not have been executed. At least I think we agree(?). Or are we still on the “Nobody has a right to have an opinion, and other people are allowed to murder young girls who were attacked because they are a different culture” track?
Now, am I missing something or are people now saying was OK to bring her up on charges, the “crime” being that she was the VICTIM?
Let’s see if I got that right. In some mythical(?) country (with a different outlook), if I do something completely horrible, brutal and disgusting to you, forcibly, it is alright for you to be hauled into a court and charged with some vague semi-religious charge while I face no charges at all? The girl should have never been on trial to begin with, her attacker should have.
Spot on. Especially considering the judge in this particular case admitted that this young woman’s punishment was not the execution, but rather she was executed because of her “sharp tongue”… his brand of justice, I presume?
Argueing that those of us in the West are in someway hypocritical to be repulsed by the execution of this 16 year old girl for speaking her mind when we allow the death penalty at all seems to me a weak analogy. If you want to attack our freedom of speech, then bring it on…at least that would be the correct analogy.
{slight hijack} smartini goes on record as one who is against the death penalty not in theory but because it biased as hell. {slight hijack}
I take your point but believe the charitable acts you mention could be better handled by organizations without an ulterior motive. IMHO, it seems that when a religion gains secular power it turns into something like we have in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Admittedly, both countries are governed by versions of the same religion but my personal belief is that the mad-mullahs of Iran are no worse than someone like Jerry Falwell would be if SOCAS and the Bill of Rights didn’t restrain him.
As far as speaking out about laws pertaining to homosexuality, I would point out that religion is the reason we have laws against homosexuality as well as other “decency” laws to worry about in the first place.
I think the best case you could make for churches re homosexuality laws is that their overall effect is neutral, with some for legalization and others against it. As far as slavery goes, I don’t have a cite but believe the practice was justified in several churches.
Religions should focus on the hereafter and keep the hell out of the here-and-now.