# Raped woman sentenced to 90 lashes. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 6, 2007, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837 "2007-03-06T18:54:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/181 "2007-03-09T03:19:38Z")
[QUOTE=bluethree] [Christian Science Monitor article, the Myth of Muslim Support for Terrorism.](http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html) [/QUOTE] Do you have a link that shows the actual question asked? The Monitor opinion piece doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/182 "2007-03-09T07:16:53Z")
[QUOTE=George Kaplin] Furthermore, the goal the United States was trying to achieve in attacking Hiroshima was undoubtedly both necessary and morally justifiable. [/quote] > [@](#): > > Moreover, their intention, to “defend Islam” is one which would be laughable if so many people weren’t getting killed. Thank you. A beautiful illustration of ‘it’s ok to kill innocents if I happen to agree with the reason but not if I don’t’. :rolleyes: The irony would be funny if it wasn’t so nauseating. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/183 "2007-03-09T07:18:16Z")
**magellan01** Do you comprehend the concept that ‘some’ is not equal to ‘most’? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/184 "2007-03-09T09:37:24Z")
[QUOTE=Book Monster] Let me try to keep this simple “Islam” the religion is not the same as “Islam” as some Muslims choose to practice it. Scripture and practice ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If the Qur’an says “women must go to school” and the Taliban prohibit women from going to school, that is obviously a perversion of scripture. It is NOT an indication that “Islam” prevents women from getting an education. **Tagos** and **Magellan** would have us believe that the religion itself, the very scripture, is inherently “murderous” and mysoginistic. [/QUOTE] Jeez, it’s like talking to a particularly wilfully obtuse brick wall. What is it about the concept ‘religions are what religions do’ that you are finding so hard to understand? I couldn’t care less what the mumbo jumbo says. I judge a religion by what it actually does in the real world. And Sharia Law is the interface and a bloody unpleasant one at that as we can see wherever it raised its medieval head. You can dispute to the cows come home whether the Koran has statements that agree with sharia interpretations but it’s not worth the candle especially as that would get into which verses abrogate what (and the sword verses are held by many to abrogate the fluffy bunny stuff). Sharia law is the method by which the Koran is interpreted in the light of the life of Mohammed revealed in the hadiths. So long as islamic countries are applying sharia laws that violate human rights and decencies then that is what Islam is regardless of what unicorns and ponies for all stories you can make up from cherry-picking sayings. I’m all in favour of an Islam that comes to terms with the modern secular world of human rights. But outside of inconsequential sects it does not exist. I cut the equal lack of slack for other religions including christianity in its lunatic extant variants and the actions of the catholic church in effectively aiding and abetting the Aids epidemic in Africa and its unremitting support of torturing dictators in South America in the sixties and beyond. And no doubt a whole lot of other shit if I put my mind to it. But thankfully most of the West is moving away from letting mumbo jumbo determine how a society runs. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/185 "2007-03-09T10:20:35Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] And Clinton got a blow job. Xeno? [/QUOTE] :: quick rummage throuch change on desk :: Following your precedent, if I pay you £0.94 would you just fuck off. Your nonsense really does get dull. I’ll try to make this as easy to understand as possible. Any religion can be misrepresented as an excuse for violence. This can easily be demonstrated by numerous events in Christian history, where time and again the slaughter of the innocents was presented as gods will. This is not just applicable to religions. Pol Pot and Stalin managed to justify the slaughter of millions as the will of the proletariat. Clearly it’s not just Muslims and Christians that are murderous bastards, the atheists are at it too. Going back to the case in the OP, oppression of women is also something that’s been seen in societies of many different religions and circumstances. Look at female circumcision for instance, practiced as widely in Somalia as it is in Ethiopia. This has got fuck all to do with religion. It’s people seizing an excuse to justify their actions. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/186 "2007-03-09T11:11:06Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Uh, thanks for the history lesson. Not that it has squat to do with anything. I am not defending or protectiing any religion on what it was, or should be, or will be, but what it is. Then you are either a liar or a complete fucking idiot. You choose. But I would be interested to learn about all these murderous Buddhists? How about Amish? Any murderous Amish sects? Well, if you would take your head out of your ass so you could see the screen m ore clearly you might notice that I never said I hate Muslims. I hate those who are murderers and barbarians. I thiink we should be wary of the religion. Not hate it. [/QUOTE] Well, it’s hard to know just how to reply to stream of consciousness burbling to reply such as this. You’re not interested in examples of how religions have always been used as an excuse. You think a person is either a liar or a fucking idiot to say that Islam is no more inherently murderous than any other religion. Really, let’s just cut to the chase. You don’t trust muslims. Nothing anyone can say or do will persuade you otherwise. You’ll seize upon any incident possible as justification for why people should be wary of them. After all, if I may quote you: “there is something about Islam that leads people to be barbaric fuckwits” “Islam is something to be watched, to be wary of” “If there was another religion whose adherents were similarly barbaric, I’d say be wary of them” When a person believes statements such as the above, there’s not an argument in the world that will persuade them otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/187 "2007-03-09T11:32:07Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Jeez, it’s like talking to a particularly wilfully obtuse brick wall. What is it about the concept ‘religions are what religions do’ that you are finding so hard to understand? I couldn’t care less what the mumbo jumbo says. I judge a religion by what it actually does in the real world. And Sharia Law is the interface and a bloody unpleasant one at that as we can see wherever it raised its medieval head. [/quote] I understand the point you’re trying to make - I just don’t agree with it. You’re saying “religions are what religions do”, and that it is the actions of Muslims that define what Islam really is, right? But exactly which Muslims are you talking about? Is it the Sunnis? The Shi’is? The Ismailis? The Wahhabbis? The Bahai’is? The Durzis? The Sufis? the Ahmadis? My point is that you cannot take the actions of Muslims as a definition of Islam itself. There are just so many different sects, interpretations, factions and schools of thought that it is impossible to make that kind of neat little assertion. Some of these sects do not agree that Mohammad was a prophet, some do. Which of these is the “True Islam”, and who are you to make that kind of judgement? The actions of all these different types of Muslims the world over are so different, so conflicting and so varied that it is impossible to say that what they DO is what defines Islam. > [@](#): > > Sharia law is the method by which the Koran is interpreted in the light of the life of Mohammed revealed in the hadiths. So long as islamic countries are applying sharia laws that violate human rights and decencies then that is what Islam is regardless of what unicorns and ponies for all stories you can make up from cherry-picking sayings. Again, even if you focus solely on the Sharia, different countries and courts of law interpret and apply the Sharia in different ways. If the Saudi, Wahabbi-inspired interpretation of Sharia leads to violations of human rights, then by all means criticise them, but it is wrong to vilify and condemn Islam AS A WHOLE because of that interpretation. > [@](#): > > I’m all in favour of an Islam that comes to terms with the modern secular world of human rights. But outside of inconsequential sects it does not exist. I disagree. It exists in the Quran and the Hadith as a guideline for Muslims and Muslim nations to follow: _“Islam has laid down universal fundamental rights for humanity which are to be observed and respected in all circumstances. For example, human blood is sacred and may not be spilled without strong justification; it is not permissible to oppress women, children, old people, the sick or the wounded; women’s honour and chastity must be respected; the hungry must be fed, the naked clothed and the wounded or diseased treated medically irrespective of whether they belong to the Islamic community or are from amongst its enemies. These, and other provisions have been laid down by Islam as fundamental rights for every man by virtue of his status as a human being.”_ Sounds pretty good to me. Now I freely admit that Muslims and Muslim Nations might fall short of this ideal, but which nation hasn’t? Even the civilised, secular nations of the West are in the frequent habit of abusing human rights. My point again is that “Islam” as laid down in scripture, is not the same thing as “Islam” as some Muslims choos to interpret it. The scripture provides ample instruction and guidance for Muslims to live their lives in a peaceful and neighborly manner. Some Muslims choose not to see it that way, but that doesn’t mean the scripture itself is inherently dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/188 "2007-03-09T13:43:33Z")
[QUOTE=Random] Do you have a link that shows the actual question asked? The Monitor opinion piece doesn’t. [/QUOTE] No, sorry, but I’ll look around a bit and see if I can find it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/189 "2007-03-09T15:13:58Z")
[QUOTE=Gary Kumquat] Following your precedent, if I pay you £0.94 would you just fuck off. [/quote] No. > [@](#): > > Any religion can be misrepresented as an excuse for violence. Who has said otherwise? If a Christian commits violence in the name of Christ, then Pit the son of a bitch. But don’t say, “Oh yeah, well what about all the violence Muslims commit?”. **And likewise** , if a Muslim commits violence in the name of Allah, then Pit the son of a bitch. But don’t say, “Oh yeah, well what about all the violence Christians commit?”. You would have more change on your desk if you didn’t waste so much money on straw. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/190 "2007-03-09T16:04:10Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Who has said otherwise? If a Christian commits violence in the name of Christ, then Pit the son of a bitch. But don’t say, “Oh yeah, well what about all the violence Muslims commit?”. **And likewise** , if a Muslim commits violence in the name of Allah, then Pit the son of a bitch. [/QUOTE] The whole point is you’re not pitting “the son of a bitch”. Do that, and no fucker’s likely to argue. Hell, you don’t even need to be that specific - point out that Saudi’s rulers are a barbaric bunch of bastards with a fucking awful justice system and I’d be gobsmacked if anyone said a word in disagreement. It’s when you start making comments about the whole fucking religion, i.e. about 1/5 of the population of the world, that people start to point out just how broad that brush of yours is. So, once more with smaller words: People who say Allah tell them to do bad things are naughty and are fibbers, just like the people who said Jesus told them to do bad things are naughty and are fibbers. That does not make all people who think Allah is great guy are naughty and do bad things. Short of scanning in a line drawing with happy faces and sad faces I think I’m going to have trouble trying to make this concept any more accessible for you. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/191 "2007-03-09T16:13:36Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] What is it about the concept ‘religions are what religions do’ that you are finding so hard to understand? [/QUOTE] Same question to you. Do you comprehend the concept of ‘some’? Do you think that ‘some’ equals ‘most’? Do you think ‘some’ equals ‘all’? Because that is what you are arguing, and if you cannot grok how ludicrous that is, then I have to agree that you and your ilk are beyond all help. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/192 "2007-03-09T16:16:28Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] No. if a Muslim commits violence in the name of Allah, then Pit the son of a bitch. But don’t say, “Oh yeah, well what about all the violence Christians commit?”. [/QUOTE] The point was that all arguments that extrapolate from the particular to the general are bogus. Christians and christianity were used as an example of why the arguments are bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/193 "2007-03-09T17:29:05Z")
[QUOTE=Random] Do you have a link that shows the actual question asked? The Monitor opinion piece doesn’t. [/QUOTE] It turns out the Christian Science Monitor article was based on more than one survey and they were conducted by different organizations. [This one](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/313.php?nid=&id=&pnt=313&lb=hmpg2) was conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, wrong called the Program on International Public Attitudes in the article, and is about Iranians opinions versus Americans’ opinions. It includes links to the actual data. > [@](#): > > Both Iranians and Americans were asked a series of questions about attacks on civilians. Taking these questions together, it appears that Iranians reject attacks on civilians more overwhelmingly than do Americans. > > At the most general level, respondents were asked: “Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?” > > A very large majority of Iranians (80%) take the strongest position that such attacks “are never justified,” and another 5 percent say they are rarely justified. Only 11 percent call them sometimes (8%) or often (3%) justified. > > Americans largely concur but at lower levels of intensity. Forty-six percent say that such attacks are never justified, while 27 percent say they are rarely justified. Twenty-four percent see them as sometimes (19%) or often (5%) justified. The other survey was conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow, and I’m having more trouble finding it on their website. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/194 "2007-03-09T17:34:47Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] Thank you. A beautiful illustration of ‘it’s ok to kill innocents if I happen to agree with the reason but not if I don’t’. :rolleyes: The irony would be funny if it wasn’t so nauseating. [/QUOTE] That’s actually how I feel about it. So I would have to answer that survey, “rarely.” ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/195 "2007-03-09T17:41:01Z")
[QUOTE=George Kaplin] I can think of no bizarro situation under which the deliberate murder of children in defence of Islam could ever be considered anything less than an unequivocal atrocity. Therefore I’m much more likely to be suspicious of people who say such acts are “rarely” justified than I am of people who say torture is “rarely” justified. Now, I know what you (and probably **saiorse** ) are thinking: “Oh, this guy is just doing more of the same old special pleading you hear from Muslim bashers everywhere. He thinks it’s only wrong when the other guy does it”. I can only assure you this genuinely isn’t the case. If you can convince me that there are circumstances, bizarre as they may be, that suicide attacks on civilians in defence of Islam (or any religion, come to that) are morally justifiable, I’d be willing to reconsider my position. I very much doubt the powers of the human mind are sufficient to make such a case, however. [/QUOTE] EMILE HENRY (1872-1894) Not many people have heard of Emile Henry, which is surprising really. He was born in 1872 in Spain, the son of an exiled Communard. He returned to Paris with his family, and became a student at the Prestigious Ecole Polytechnique. However, he chose to abandon his studies in favour of “propaganda by deed”. He placed a bomb in the offices of a mining company notorious for its strike-breaking activities. The bomb was discovered, and taken by the police to a local police station, where it exploded, killing several policemen. In February of 1894, he placed a bomb in a prestigious cafe, which detonated killing one person, and injuring several others. Emile Henry marched to the guillotine in 1894, unrepentent. At his trial he made [this defence](http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/HenryEmile.htm). > [@Emile Henry](#): > > That is why I struck at random and did not choose my victims! The bourgeoisie must be brought to understand that those who have suffered are tired at last of their sufferings; they are showing their teeth and they will strike all the more brutally if you are brutal with them. They have no respect for human life, because the bourgeoisie themselves have shown they have no care for it. It is not for the assassins who were responsible for the bloody week and for Fourmies to regard others as assassins. > > We will not spare the women and children of the bourgeois, for the women and children of those we love have not been spared. Must we not count among the innocent victims those children who die slowly of anaemia in the slums because bread is scarce in their houses; those women who grow pale in your workshops, working to earn forty sous a day and fortunate when poverty does not force them into prostitution; those old men whom you have made production machines all their lives and whom you cast on to the waste heap or into the workhouse when their strength has worn away? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/196 "2007-03-09T17:58:19Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] Christians and christianity were used as an example of why the arguments are bogus. [/QUOTE] What arguments do you mean? The argument “All Muslims are terrorists” is bogus. But the argument “This woman was punished by Islamic law” is not. ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/197 "2007-03-09T18:10:40Z")
> [@Quiddity Glomfuster](#): > > Thank you. A beautiful illustration of ‘it’s ok to kill innocents if I happen to agree with the reason but not if I don’t’ :rolleyes: > The irony would be funny if it wasn’t so nauseating. There are two ways to interpret this statement: 1. You can think of a situation in which obliterating a score of completely innocent civilians “in defence of Islam” would be morally justifiable. 2. You think the attack on Hiroshima was morally indefensible and, morally, on a par with suicide attacks against civilians. If the former, please share this situation with me. I would be most interested to know under precisely what circumstances you would grant suicide bombers a pass when they unmake themselves in crowded market places filled with children. If the latter, please explain how the attack on Hiroshima was immoral, given that the only feasible alternative to such an attack was a full scale land assault which would have killed many, many more people. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/198 "2007-03-09T18:49:08Z")
[QUOTE=George Kaplin] There are two ways to interpret this statement: 1. You can think of a situation in which obliterating a score of completely innocent civilians “in defence of Islam” would be morally justifiable. [/quote] Okay. How about if the US (or some other Western or association of Western powers) began a focused campaign of genocide against Islamic nations? I’m talking Nazi Final Solution type stuff here, not just us blundering into Iraq and breaking a bunch of shit. I think that, against a nation that’s rounding you up and putting you in death camps because they want to wipe your religion off the face of the Earth, one could justify a fairly broad range of terrorist actions against the aggressor nation “in defence of Islam.” Not _any_ terrorist action, by any means, but I think that targetting non-military members of the genocidal regime, collaborators, and the civilian infrastructure would be legitimate tactics in a situation like that. And, of course, I don’t think any of the terror attacks carried out by Muslim extremists in the real world is justified. But it’s pretty easy to conceive of an extreme situation in which they would, so I guess that puts me in the “rarely justified” column. > [@](#): > > 1. You think the attack on Hiroshima was morally indefensible and, morally, on a par with suicide attacks against civilians. Although I do think the attack on Hiroshima was justified, it’s not nearly the open-and-shut case you present it to be. And, of course, even if you justify Hiroshima, justifiying Nagasaki is a lot more difficult. > [@](#): > > If the former, please share this situation with me. I would be most interested to know under precisely what circumstances you would grant suicide bombers a pass when they unmake themselves in crowded market places filled with children. This is the second time you’ve interpreted that poll you linked to as supporting deliberate attacks on children. I don’t think that’s particularly honest of you, and the cheap emotionalism of the tactic does not do much to help your argument. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/199 "2007-03-09T19:14:58Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] But the argument “This woman was punished by Islamic law” is not. [/QUOTE] It _is_ disingenuous, though. As I mentioned earlier, the Bible prescribes death by stoning for adulterers. _But_, if any Christian were to actually _implement_ that law, he would be seen as a radical, far outside the thinking of moderate Christians. It wouldn’t be fair to say “This person was punished by Christian law”, because most Christians don’t see that law as something to be taken literally. They reject the radical interpretation. I see a double-standard here. Whenever Christian radicals do something violent in the name of their religion, excuses are made, and everyone is quick to point out that the mainstream religion rejects that. But when Muslim radicals do something violent, people immediately scan the text of the Koran to find a passage that justifies it, so that they can proclaim: “See, this horrible, violent religion is responsible for this behavior.” Seems to me the blame ought to fall on the _individuals in the government who are implementing these radical ideas_ rather than on the religion itself. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/200 "2007-03-09T22:41:14Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] It _is_ disingenuous, though. As I mentioned earlier, the Bible prescribes death by stoning for adulterers. _But_, if any Christian were to actually _implement_ that law, he would be seen as a radical, far outside the thinking of moderate Christians. It wouldn’t be fair to say “This person was punished by Christian law”, because most Christians don’t see that law as something to be taken literally. They reject the radical interpretation. I see a double-standard here. Whenever Christian radicals do something violent in the name of their religion, excuses are made, and everyone is quick to point out that the mainstream religion rejects that. But when Muslim radicals do something violent, people immediately scan the text of the Koran to find a passage that justifies it, so that they can proclaim: “See, this horrible, violent religion is responsible for this behavior.” Seems to me the blame ought to fall on the _individuals in the government who are implementing these radical ideas_ rather than on the religion itself. [/QUOTE] I had to read your post several times over. Something in it clicked for me, and so I carefully examined it for meaning that I could mine. And I come away from it thinking that you and I agree. What you say above is true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837.md?page=11)