Mentally ill girl hanged from Crane at age 16 by Iran's "Morality Police"

I disagree. This is relativism at its worst. A 'capital offense' in this country is something like murder, not having sex with an unmarried man. To equate the two and say 'don't throw stones in glass houses' is absurd. Tolerance is justifiably a laudable value, but it doesn't extend into infinity. Oh hey, so what if they are cannibals - that's just the way they roll!

And actually someone can be pardoned, btw.

Further, the whole 'our house isn't clean' line of thought is almost equally ridiculous. Yes, Christians had the inquisition and the crusades. So what - does that mean we shouldn't criticize Islamic actions? Unless one's position is 'christians never did anything bad and Muslims do' the whole line is a non sequitur. It is an oft mounted response that has little or no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Name one. Or more to the point, name one we've executed for having sex with an unmarried man.

 

They didn't enjoy it I'm sure since they are holy men. What a joke! It’s kind of like the inquisition examining your body for the "devil’s mark" and finding a birth mark or a mole as proof. People get their kicks in all sorts of gruesome ways.

 

H*ll yes we're better than them, but that's not the issue. How many more little girls like this one will suffer?

No one here should be tempering their disgust or criticism because our society is imperfect or makes mistakes.

 

Lynching black men for having consensual sex with white women was commonplace in the south.

 

Yes....over 100 years ago.....

But not in the CIVILIZED WORLD OF TODAY !!

2 wrongs do not make a right.

DD

 

Our laws are our laws, their laws are theirs. In most Muslim societies, adultry is a 'capital' offense. Like it or not, that's reality. Just because we in the West merely 'frown upon' adultry and don't take it very seriously doesn't mean that Muslims shouldn't.

I agree, no one is immune to criticism, the problem is when someone goes beyond mere criticism to drawing comparisons, which is when the other side gets defensive and the issue becomes personal.

 

Umm...what? "Over a 100 years ago"? No, actually, racist and segregationist policies existed much, much more recently than that.

 

Screw you and your smelly kind!

 

Thank you.

 

And? Cavemen dragged women around by the hair. I don't agree with that either. What relevance does that have to condemning this action in Iran? Nor, was a lynching the law of the land - by definition lynching is an action by a mob not the government. Try again.

 

You're welcome...You need to support your argument with an example. I'm happy to help.

 

Certainly it does. In the end you have to make value judgements. If it is wrong it is wrong. Your argument follows the relativistic point exactly - do we say cannibalism is wrong? Yes. Is that a difference in belief and culture? Certainly. Should we stand aside while others practice cannibalism or human sacrifice or pedophilia or slavery? No. "Hey, sure the Nazis are making all kinds of laws persecuting Jews - but them's their laws!"

Again, if someone were to say 'Christianity has never been barbaric and Islam always has been' then I would agree that is a silly statement. But responding to a problem within Islam with 'well Christians had the Crusades and the Inquisition' is at best non responsive.

 

I think stiff sanctions on Iran is completely in order. Not just because of their nuclear program, but because of laws that are completely immoral by any measure of decent human standards.

 

So? Neither local nor federal government did anything to stop the Lynching Law in its heyday. In fact many officials participated lynching.

 

Every country has immoral laws. Its just what your definition of immoral is.

 

Wnes, you show a remarkable ability to make irrelevant arguments and derail a thread. 'So what' is my answer to your assertion. It has no impact on the argument.

 

So true,...I never thought of it like that, but too often culture gets a free pass when we try to "selectively" be relative. Wrong is wrong and qualification for the sake of "culture" makes no validity in my view...

 

Why is it irrelevant? You asked (losttexan) an implicit question, I provided an answer.

 

You have scary ideas about "taking something seriously".

 

Those actions were tolerated by the government, which seldom punished the perpetrators, but had no problem protecting them by 'looking the other way'.

Taking a 'passive' approach to enforcing the law when it came to crimes committed against a group of people is considered a passive endorsement of those actions.