Yes, apparently.
-
Features
Saudi Arabia sentences a man to 10 years in jail and 2,000 lashes for being an atheist
- Thread starter Will Wiley
- Start date
Yes, apparently.
J842P
Veteran Member
"Masquerading?" Are you one of those people who thinks that "true religious practices" are always benign?
If it were up to the Saudi Monarchy I bet these sorts of things wouldn't happen. It is, after all, the tacit agreement they made with the ulema to have the Kingdom: we leave matters of morality and religion to the clerics, and the House of Saud controls the Kingdom and oil.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
I don't know that this is true. Do you have some examples?
(This is not a cry for links like we normally see here, that is a thinly veiled 'you are f.o.s.' I fully accept that I am not very knowledgeable about this subject and that there could be Christian countries who still punish people like us for things that we don't believe.)
fast
Contributor
The rule makes sense, as it can effectively keep the harm to public order to a minimum. The US could learn a thing or two from this when it comes to people that brag about civil disobedience through protests with no regard for pathetic legal consequences. Instituting such measures might change people's minds about how quickly they would jump at the chance of being baby-maryters. Of course, we should balance human rights into the equation, and if we do so, we'd easily see the unnecessary extremes of the punishment. For instance, 1 year in jail and 100 lashes should be sufficiently adequate to get the point across that a nation that does not accept such terrorism will be dealt with accordingly (swiftly and fairly). Human rights violations would then be more balanced and not so whopsided. It would be balanced against the great need to maintain public order and their way of life. If we went to the other extreme and had no human rights violations, we'd then wind up with a Saudia Arabia where anyone could say what they wanted, and that would destroy the very values so many people there passionately hold, forever damaging and harming their way of life that they now take extreme measures to preserve.
Would it not be a step in the right direction to start a movement resulting in less severe consequences for people who try to sway the thinking of others?
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
You should be beaten for even suggesting such a thing.
fast
Contributor
Yeah, you're right. The bad thing about doing what's right is that we'd be taken advantage of. Give a liberal an inch and they'll take a mile and all that. We must remain intolerant, not because we can't stomach tolerance but because of the cries for acceptance that will soon follow suit. Next thing ya know, witches won't be worried about being burnt at the stake; instead, their influence will creep it's way into the norm of social thought. If you give in and fail to be rigidly steadfast in your endeavor to maintain traditional social order, your grandchildren will grow up in an atmosphere where witch pride parades will be celebrated (far beyond acceptance and tolerance). Keep it up, and it'll be encouraged. Nobody alive today who grew up to embrace the same as their fellow man will want to support health care advancements in extending long life--for the world in which they would then live would be so vastly different.
(I hope y'all know I'm just messin' 'round)
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Islamophobia is when you're irrationally afraid of some Muslims based on what other Muslims are doing . It's an error of generalisation.
Having an issue about Saudi Arabia isn't a phobia at all. Nor is it fear. It's justified anger.
But direct it toward the Saudi king, not the Middle-Eastern looking guy at work. That's the difference
barbos
Contributor
The guy was sentenced to beating and 10 years for rejecting islam.
But you are right, there is nothing irrational about that, it's completely rational to call these assholes assholes. Bush invaded wrong country in 2003.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
if you thought Iraq was messy, I'm pretty sure liberating Islamic North Korea will be many times worse.
JonA
Senior Member
No true Muslim.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
ha ha Lol.
On a serious note. People are equivocating left and right here.
It is correct to say that Islam/Sharia/Quran contains barbaric practices. But it is also correct to say that most Muslims are pretty liberal on their interpretation of said religious artifact. Most Muslims are not fundamentalists. They're just not.
It's incorrect that all Muslims favor barbaric practices. It is correct that they pay lip-service to those same barbaric practices. Which is horrible and bad. I equate that with Republicans voting for the Republicans even though they think Trump is a vile and horrible person. You can be a Republican without thinking Trump is a kick-ass man. Likewise, you can be a Muslim just because you think going through the motions half-arsedly is less work than creating major drama in the family.
The Abrahamic religions all have to struggle with their sacred text's supposed infallibility. But there are theological solutions to these problems. Us rationalists might think those solutions are absolute bullshit and bizarre twists of logic. But that's not the topic. The topic is whether or not all Muslims really want all the horrendous bits in the Quran and Sharia to be made law. It's pretty clear, to me, that they do not. And thinking they do is Islamophobia.
And then there's the issue of whether Islam is making the world generally worse or better. Impossible to either prove or disprove.
barbos
Contributor
Who said anything about liberating them? Just invade and cause chaos.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
What exactly will that solve? At least now there's some accountability. The last thing we want is a Saudi Ghaddafi on the throne (or in the tent or whatever their kings sit on).
barbos
Contributor
You do realize that Ghaddafi is better option than what they have now?
Obviously - but I doubt there are any worse options than this smelly regime, which is backing jihadism and obscurantism everywhere.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,376
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
They could be openly and directly jihadi. I maintain that the reason the middle East stays backwards is because we allow their ruling class the benefits of an advanced society without demanding that their society advances to catch up.
I say the best solution has always been to build a bunch of nuclear power plants, improve electric vehicles, and then economically isolate the region. Provide a bastion in the West for all who step out into the 21sr century, and let the barbarians who don't keep killing themselves until they tire of it. Give them nothing but text books and teachers.
JonA
Senior Member
Wrong.
Don't forget to also equate it with something else that's completely unrelated.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
It's easy to measure. If they fundamentalists laws in primarily Muslim countries would not look the way they do. Traditions are more important within Islam than the text itself.
Axulus
Veteran Member
An invasion of SA by the west will result in nuclear weapons being developed by authoritarian countries across the world faster than you can say "Jihad".
barbos
Contributor
But that will be great excuse for invasion and causing chaos. I think SA is a main cause of shit in the ME. Yes, there is Iran too, but I think Iran has potential to became decent country, unlike SA which is nothing but a sand, oil and fat assholes. And I highly doubt SA will be able to mount any viable nuke program.