home

Saudi Arabia Sentences Cleric to Crucifixion

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 05:01:57 AM EST
Tags: Saudi Death Penalty, death penalty (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

These kinds of headlines make me find 3 confirming reports before writing about them, in case there's a language difference as to the use of some words, like "crucifixion. In this case, it means what we think it means.

Nimr Baqer al-Nimr, a reformist cleric, has been sentenced to death by crucifixiton , the country's harshest punishment. He will be beaheaded and his body will be tied to two perpendicular pieces of wood. He'll be strung up and his severed head will be by him. This barbarity will take place in the public square severed head will be place by him. The event takes place in town square, with the public watching.

What was al-Nimr's sin? He preached against the Saudi King, arguing for civil rights. and an end to corruption and discrimination against minorities. [More...]

Charged with terrorism offences and “breaking allegiance to the king,” the judge upheld the country’s harshest sentence — “crucifixion” — where the decapitated body is publicly displayed.

Prominent clerics protested the sentence.
One said Saudi Arabia was living in the stone age. Also,

Saudi Arabia is a country which has no constitution and no elections,” he wrote in the Huffington Post U.K. “Laws are enacted by royal decrees and ratified by a toothless parliament whose members are installed by the monarch. If this is how the Sunni citizens are treated, you can only imagine what the (Shiite) face on a daily basis. ”

I'm crossing another country off my never-visit list. I'm up to Bali, the Phillippines and now Saudi Arabia.

< U.S. Ditches Free Syrian Army Rebels: Iraq Comes First | Thursday News and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saudi Arabia Sentences Cleric to Crucifixion | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wish I could say this is (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 07:56:23 AM EST
    unbelievable.  But it's not.  These people are among the worst in that part of the world.  The fact that we for so many decades we have had their back so we can have their oil is a disgrace.  It's been a disgrace for a long time.   The royal family should be thrown to the ISIS wolves for the justice they deserve.

    I find (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 08:35:04 AM EST
    this really ironic. Saudi Arabia beheading people and crickets. ISIS beheading people and it's hysteria time.

    Parent
    It's interesting (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 08:51:54 AM EST
    i hope you are not surprised.  Go back a few years, 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers are Saudi- lets go get those dirty Iraqies.

    But crucifying is an interesting way to go.  Like beheading it has "connotations" that may give some people pause.  
    That would be of course if anyone other than J reports it.  Which is unlikely.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    not surprised at all. The Sauds get preferential treatment. I remember before 9/11 a lot of conservatives praising the culture of the Middle East. They thought it was great that they cut people's hands off for stealing. I guess they probably would have loved to do the same thing here if they could have. And then there's Bandar Bush who was allowed to wander freely around the White House.

    No, not surprised in the least in a lot of ways.

    Parent

    Beyond the injustice of (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    charges and the barbarous sentencing (if you can get beyond it), is the distinct potential for additional sectarian unrest in the region--as if more gasoline is needed for the fires already raging.  Perhaps,, the Saudi royals have determined that the execution of the Shia Ayatollah will burnish their Sunni badges in light of their "support" in the fight against ISIS--a threat, albeit a Sunni one.  

    Parent
    It is a disgrace (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Politalkix on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 07:04:46 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    The other disgrace-being hooked to Saudi oil (none / 0) (#69)
    by Politalkix on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    link

    The Saudis are making things difficult for Jim. He hates Islam as a religion but loves cheap oil and is hooked to it. What is he now going to do?

    Parent

    Keystone XL (none / 0) (#73)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 05:31:43 AM EST


    Parent
    Wow, quite an article. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Green26 on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 12:28:07 AM EST
    Thx.

    Parent
    Pol, was referring to the Saudi beheading article. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Green26 on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 12:33:38 AM EST
    The oil price article is good too. Again, thx.

    Parent
    Not Sure if You Remember.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    ...but a couple years ago a woman was sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months jail for being alone with a man who was not a relative.  The guy was blackmailing her.  Both were gang raped by 7 men.

    The appeals court doubled the sentences because of the press coverage, but last minute the king pardoned both the woman and the man she was with.

    Had there been no press, which is probably most cases, the sentence would have been carried out.

    It's very hard to read.

    Parent

    I do remember that (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 09:32:37 AM EST


    Parent
    A fair assessment. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 09:25:11 AM EST
    "One said Saudi Arabia was living in the stone age." Well, maybe not the stone age, they didn't have the curse of organized religion to content with. But certainly somewhere in the century or two before that guy Jesus was supposedly born.

    Doesn't "death by crucifixion" mean you (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 09:37:31 AM EST
    are alive when nailed to the cross and forced to die a slow, painful death?  If your head has already been removed from your body when the nailing takes place, this isn't "Death by Crucifixion," it's "Death by Beheading followed by Public Display of Body."

    Not that it matters - it's still barbaric, completely antithetical to anything even close to democracy, and I don't understand why we find it acceptable when our allies are doing it, but worth waging war over when it's not.

    Someone in Saudi Arabia (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 09:50:47 AM EST
    just slapped their forehead

    D'OH!!!

    Parent

    The more important issue is (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    the reason the person is being executed by the state b

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    sort of a joke.  

    Parent
    Yes. If Hilary Mantel is historically (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    correct, Henry VIII didn't order people crucified for importing the writings of John Tinsley and other "heretics" to England. Instead, he ordered them to be eviscerated in a public setting and then decapitated, after which the head was placed on a pike and then displayed on the Tower Bridge. [Wolf Hall.]

    Parent
    This is (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:08:47 AM EST
    the "cryptic" thing I mentioned
    ??

    Parent
    Stay tuned. The BBC is producing a mini series (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    based on Mantel's Booker Prize-winning novels "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up the Bodies."

    Parent
    John Tinsley (none / 0) (#31)
    by the capstan on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    Do you have an online reference to that John Tinsley?  My mother was a descendent of the Tinsleys who arrived here in 1638.  I am unfamiliar with the Tinsley name in relation to the Tudor religious controversy.

    Parent
    Do you mean (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 05:19:21 AM EST
    William Tyndale, aka Tyndall?

    Orr maybe she changed the name in the book...I can't remember and the bad thing about audio books is that I can't search them!

    Parent

    Thank you, ruffian. Excellent memory. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    I couldn't check either as I read library book.

    Parent
    Not such a great memory - had to google! (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 20, 2014 at 04:22:17 PM EST
    Maybe my memory on a deep level is good...Tinsley did not sound quite right!

    But you did get me impatient for Volume 3!

    Parent

    Wikipedia has a comprehensive (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    article describing the practice and its many, many variants.


    Parent
    ISIS - bad. (4.60 / 5) (#1)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 07:09:29 AM EST
    Very bad.
    They decapitate.
    They put it on video.
    Yikes! A head.

    Then there are the Saudis.
    Our friends.
    They decapitate.
    They go a notch further than bad ISIS.
    They crucify the headless body and put the body and head in the public square.
    A head.
    Yawn.

    If ever any proof was needed to show the bogus nature of the rationale for our fomenting an aggressive military campaign - with a few unenthusiastic stragglers - against ISIS, this would be it.

    I thank Jeralyn for bringing this report to our attention.
    But for her post, I would not have known about it.

    The record of Saudi Arabia on human rights, treatment of women, the lot, is well known, but is not part of our national dialogue. Mums the word.
    What's head or two among friends.
    Done that. Move on.

    My conclusion, now reenforced:

    The war on ISIS is good for business. Corporate entities are making good money. And our flaccid politicians get to look tough as they drag us into misery.

    Saying nothing about the atrocities in Saudi Arabia is also good for business. Corporate entities are making good money. And probably not a few of our politicians are getting a nice taste as well with things as they are.

    So this is about money.
    Not principle.

    And we the people are being put in the ISIS crosshairs.
    One incident over here from one of their devotees, and there will be rejoicing and confetti in the halls of Congress and Wall Street.

    At what point (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 10:06:16 AM EST
    will we catch on that Maher had a point??

    Link

    There is something that brings this out that is connected to some Muslim's belief system. And the Islamic religion is the only common thread.

    Pretty sure that type of behavior predates Islam (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Babel 17 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    If we look at all the brutality of Europe over the last 1700 years or so, what is the common thread?

    If we look at the murder and slavery that went hand in hand with colonialism in much of the Americas, what is the common thread?

    Religion is a tool used by tyrants, and the power mad. That's the real common thread, across the world. And it's not even an essential tool. Lacking it, there's always racism and nationalism. And there are other methods.

    The dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, imo, doesn't need religion to do what it wants to prop up its rule. It is mostly just convenient. It is their custom, and maybe a forgone conclusion that it will be invoked.

    But we should also look to all the quiet good that people have done in the name of Christ. Presumably it's easy for a Muslim to say the same about their region.

    Parent

    Oh Jim... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    ...the Muslim sin is being behind the times as there isn't anything Christians haven't done, but apparently because they did in another century, they get a reprieve.

    Haven't seen any witch trials, burning at the stake, or medieval torture chambers, yet.  So Christians 1, Muslims 0, on that front.

    It's not that you have a problem with what they are doing, which is nothing new, nothing that wasn't used by Christians, it's that their religion isn't functioning in the century you prefer.  Which is an odd take considering most conservative like the good ole days, when men were men.

    And surely you can understand how progressives feel when dealing with a group that is living in the past, aka conservatives.  People who think state sanctioned murder is good, who don't like women controlling their own bodies, who think war is the solution to every problem, and a zillion other antiquated ideals.

    I would love if CNN has some sort of time machine camera and they could run stories side by side of Christian religious barbarianism next Muslim religious barbarianism.  I would pay a months salary to watch the right's heads explode when they realize, compared to Christians, Muslims are puppy dogs in their religious atrocity history.

    FYI, the very folks you keep defending killed your beloved Jesus the same way, where is your outrage against that religion.  They killed the son of your god, surely a more important person that some Muslim cleric.  

    But you defend them, and condemn other religions doing the exact same thing, well actually, beheading first seems a bit more compassionate then letting someone die nailed to a board with gigantic spikes.

    How someone can hate the actions of one religious group to the point of wanting to go to war with them, yet be a member of a religion that for centuries did the exact same things...

    Call me stymied.  Good the your main religious text doesn't advocate this kind of barbarianism, or that would make you a gigantic hypocrite...

    Parent

    Scott, one day I will post a comment (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 01:38:54 PM EST
    on some barbaric act by a radical Muslim and no one will seek to find a moral equivalency with Christianity by comparing their acts of long long ago with what the radical Muslims are doing now.

    And I will faint.

    And in case you don't know it, Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish authorities. Neither, BTW, were Christians.

    The early Catholic church became so corrupt that Martin Luther started a reform. That still didn't stop the Inquisition or the various religious wars in Europe and England. And it hasn't stopped the various unchristian acts by (small letter) christians. But over time it has evolved to the point that these acts are condemned.

    But none of that has anything to do with what Maher, who I rarely agree with, said.

    There is a connection between these acts and Islam.

    And conservatives do not have an army 18 miles outside of Washington, DC.

    No Christian conservative is saying that legal executions are okay because SA will behead a Muslim.

    Simply put, there is no equivalency.

    And if you want to condemn the various bad things conservatives do I will join you, I am sure, on most if not all.

    But please quit using the barbaric acts of radical muslims as a crutch to attack conservatives and religion.

     

    Parent

    Ahhh Jim... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    ...yeah, I was talking about Jews and since the article is about crucifixion I thought maybe it should be mentioned that a lot of people outraged buy this crucifixion support and defend the religion that crucified their deity's son.

    My point was it's not the religion that is hated by most, it's the people.  You don't care the Jews killed Christ, because it's the people doing those acts who are the bad guys, not the religion.

    You won't even entertain the idea that Christianity was behind atrocities against man because you know damn well, it wasn't the religion, it was the people using religion to justify their bad deeds.  

    Why is this any different ?


    Parent

    Scott, yes, I entertained that christians (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 06:42:11 PM EST
    have done and can do evil things. I wrote:

    The early Catholic church became so corrupt that Martin Luther started a reform. That still didn't stop the Inquisition or the various religious wars in Europe and England. And it hasn't stopped the various unchristian acts by (small letter) christians. But over time it has evolved to the point that these acts are condemned.

    The crucifixion of Christ was foretold in the Old Testament. By taking all believers sins on himself his death was a sacrifice that allows all who believe in him to have their sins forgiven.

    And my point was that the Romans and the Jews were not Christians.

    And yes, I do not hate Jews because of what they did. Christ forgave them and the Romans from the cross. I can do no less. I also don't hate Muslims. In fact I don't hate anyone or their religion or lack of religion.

    The point is that, to repeat myself, there is a connecting tissue between radical muslims and Islam. If you, after all that has happened, can't see that then there is nothing I can tell you that would make you change your mind.

    Parent

    Wow... (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 09:00:26 AM EST
    ...I wonder what you would write for things you actually hate, because the promoting the killing of Muslim kids near bombs comes across as about the most hateful thing I could imagine anyone ever saying.

    So good for them, I guess, that you don't hate them.

    Parent

    Scott, war is a dreadful thing (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    and since you want to concentrate on the children, along with the Muslim children you might ask the German and Japanese killed in cities in WWII.

    If Hamas, or any such, choose to store weapons among women and children then it is they that are responsible for the harm that come to them.

    Stated simply we cannot protect ourselves if we allow our enemies to dictate where we can attack them by placing women and children in harms way.

    If you cannot understand this you have my sympathy.

    I ask you this. After Iran has obtained nuclear weapons they will take action against Israel and then threaten the US.

    Do you agree that we should respond military knowing that many will die just because they are there? Or would you say that we must agree to Iran's demands?

    Parent

    These folks who need a brutal (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 04:46:28 PM EST
    human sacrifice on the Cross to be "saved"..

    How both unhinged and insecure they are about the Almighty's protection of his Flock..

    And how little faith they have in the "angels of our better nature" and humankinds ability to learn and solve problems and resolve disputes --of course that all implies something like watcha call evolution..

    Parent

    A shocking ignorance of the law (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    If Hamas, or any such, choose to store weapons among women and children then it is they that are responsible for the harm that come to them.

    ... and morality, not to mention basic geography, given that any place in Gaza has women and children.  If you cannot understand this you have my sympathy.


    Parent

    Given that Hamas is, has been and will (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 11:48:38 PM EST
    in the future fire rockets FIRST before Israel is compelled to defend itself is all anyone need know.

    I repeat. The killers here are Hamas.

    No rockets. No reprisals.

    Parent

    Ignorance on top of ignorance (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 18, 2014 at 07:11:03 AM EST
    Hamas's firing of rockets does not justify war crimes, which is what you advocate (i.e. indiscriminate killing of everyone who is near weapons which, in Gaza in particular, are everwhere).  Being fired on first - even IF true - does not justify any all all action in response - just because you like one side and not the other.

    Parent
    So it is your contention that we can (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 18, 2014 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    launch ICBM's from the middle of New York city against the nuclear facilities of Iran and they will be guilty of war crimes if the retaliate.

    Wow.

    Parent

    No, it is my contention ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 18, 2014 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    ... that you advocate killing all the people "where the weapons are" - at least, when it is people you don't like.  You've stated it clearly, and what you are advocating would be a war crime.

    As far as your latest straw argument, that would be a silly argument.  Then again, i would expect nothing less from you.

    Parent

    Yes, that is exactly what you are claiming (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 19, 2014 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    that we can't attack a weapons site if the enemy has placed them among women and children because it would be a "war crime."

    Let's review.

    Hamas launches rockets at Israel from schools and hospitals where other weapons are stored.

    Israel responds. Hamas claims war crimes.

    I find your, and their, claim silly.

    Parent

    Israel hit A refugee center (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Oct 19, 2014 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    that the U.N. had told them was a  designated safe havens for civilians.

    Israel attacked a UN-run school housing refugees in Gaza despite warnings that civilians were there, the UN has said.

    UN spokesman Chris Gunness said "the world stands disgraced" by the attack, in which 15 died and dozens were hurt.

    Israel said an initial inquiry suggested soldiers responded to mortar fire. It called a partial, four-hour humanitarian ceasefire but Hamas, which controls Gaza, said it was meaningless.



    Parent
    No, it's not (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 19, 2014 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    You have enough trouble formulating sentences from your own mouth, Jim ... you shouldn't try it with others.

    What I'm saying is crystal clear.  I'll spell it out for you again using small words so you don't get confused.  You've called for killing all the people - including women and children - where there are weapons.  You're advocating war crimes.

    Parent

    Yman, you are so good with logic, (none / 0) (#95)
    by fishcamp on Sun Oct 19, 2014 at 06:03:35 PM EST
    and jim is not.  It's quite unbelievable that he keeps trying to refute your pure, clear, logic.  I'll never forget the time I tried it, and you knocked me off instantly, but I wasn't realizing it, until sj came to my rescue and told me we were both agreeing on the subject, whatever it was.

    Parent
    Are you kidding me?? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 19, 2014 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    You think it is logical that terrorists can store weapons and launch rockets from locations in which civilians are located and.....

    Israel can't attack them??

    Can you explain that?

    BTW - Based on your position I assume that you condemn our bombing Germany, Japan and Italy during WWII.

    So that means that ground troops would have had to take the disputed territory from an enemy who has a uninterrupted source of war materials and no pressure for peace from their homelands.

    Can you give me an estimate on how many allied troops would have died because of that?

    Parent

    Once again, NO ONE ... (2.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 19, 2014 at 08:38:30 PM EST
    You think it is logical that terrorists can store weapons and launch rockets from locations in which civilians are located and.....

    Israel can't attack them??

    Can you explain that?

    ... is making that silly argument except you.

    But I guess when you can only defeat your own, straw arguments ...

    Parent

    Yman, if you truly can't (1.50 / 2) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 19, 2014 at 11:24:08 PM EST
    grasp how outrageous it is to say that an enemy can attack you and then defend themselves by hiding themselves and their weapons among civilians we are so far apart there is no need to discuss.

    I mean really. But then I seem to remember that some US peaceniks supposedly went to Iraq and to make a human shield from the US's bombs.

    If only they would go to Israel.

    But they won't.

    You, and they, aren't about peace. You are about pushing a far Left political agenda that includes the destruction of Israel.

    I have found out who and what you are. Good night and good bye. We have nothing else to discuss.

    Parent

    Farm supply store? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 20, 2014 at 06:25:36 AM EST
    Yman, if you truly can't grasp how outrageous it is to say that an enemy can attack you and then defend themselves by hiding themselves and their weapons among civilians we are so far apart there is no need to discuss
    .

    You have enough straw ...

    BTW - Point to where I made that argument, Jim.  You won't, because I never did.  I'm calling out your position, not Israel's.  But you can't defend your own argument, so you come up with a fake argument.  Then you run away and hide.

    Typical.

    Parent

    I hope NOT!! (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 04:11:36 PM EST
    Scott, one day I will post a comment (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 12:38:54 PM MDT

    on some barbaric act by a radical Muslim and no one will seek to find a moral equivalency with Christianity by comparing their acts of long long ago with what the radical Muslims are doing now.

    If I am going to draw an inference between what Christians did "long long ago" and present day, I would say that religions have life cycles and maturity levels. Young religions have more fanatical adherents, while the mature religions desperately try to hold on to their "market share".

    Although, as you exemplify, even mature religions have their fanatics.

    Parent

    Just a reminder (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    Of recent  history and our close and special relationshipwith the KSA.

    Parent
    I take it you don't agree with Maher (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    And his opinion of Christians?

    "Are you watching these debates? Yes, the politicians are bad, but the people who egg them on. There are these crowds cheering for executions. Cheering for letting people without health insurance die. In today's Republican party there's a term for people who hate charity and love killing: Christian," Bill Maher said on his HBO series "Real Time."



    Parent
    I agree with Maher (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    wholeheartedly. Religion is a curse on mankind.

    Parent
    Theological or state, I would add (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    The lack of humane reason -- in whatever extreme form it takes, be it slavish adherence to a god or to a person or a system -- is the real curse. That said, to anyone arguing that Christianity no longer exercises these kinds a abuses, tell me how evangelical Christianity is doing in Uganda these days, and largely (disgracefully) thanks to disgusting support and inspiration from American fundamentalist Christians.

    Parent
    Or, the aiding and abetting (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    of Putin by the Russian Orthodox Church.  Highly recommended:  HBO documentary, "Hunted: the War on Gays in Russia."    

    Parent
    I saw this last night (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    terrifying

    Parent
    Yeah, well.. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    what that shows you is, what a short hop it can be from "our" superior, much-more-evolved Christian Tradition to something much more repressive and hateful and injurious.

    Parent
    I DVR'd it (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 09:36:31 PM EST
    To watch later.  Glad I know to be prepared.

    Parent
    Muslims (1.50 / 2) (#88)
    by alansnipes734 on Sat Oct 18, 2014 at 09:50:26 AM EST
    Yes, but criticizing this behavior is allegedly racism towards the Muslim religion according to Ben Affleck.

    Affleck called criticism ... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 18, 2014 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    ... of crucifixion by Muslims racism?!?

    Anyone who claims this either: 1) didn't see the interview, 2)completely miscomprehended what Affleck said or 3) is intentionally trying to distort Affleck's comments.

    Parent

    I've traveled to the Philippines (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 08:07:57 AM EST
    And as long as you have someone with you who knows what's what wherever you go there, you'll be fine.

    The above doesn't apply to Mindinao, of course.

    Thanks for posting this (none / 0) (#6)
    by Babel 17 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 09:12:53 AM EST
    This deserves widespread coverage. Spread the word!

    "Moderate" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 10:49:38 AM EST
    This story is interesting coming a week after the fiery Bill Maher debate.  And the very good and honest debate hear @ TL.

    Let's all keep in mind Saudi Arabia is the home of the Muslim faith.  In fact they see themselves as the "Guardians of The Holy Places" of Mecca and the faith itself.   What a fine example they set.

    What if the Vatican (the home of Catholicism and Christianity) was putting people on stakes?  Obviously this is not an apples to apples comparison but it should not be ignored either that the home of Islam is also the home of a horrible ruling state that also happens to be an American ally and producer of the worlds oil.

    Is Saudi Arabia a "moderate" Muslim state?  Are the people of Saudi Arabia "moderates"?  

    When people throw around the talking point that 1.5 billion Muslims can't all be radical that is true but how many are?  There are 27 million Muslims in Saudi Arabia (I count the entire population as Muslim because you can't be anything else there) and how many of them agree with this practice?  50% 10% 80%?

    This is what Bill Maher is talking about.   The "moderates" in Islam are not as moderate as some would like to believe.   In fact many of them are quite radical.  

    It's not the religion per say but the way these majority Islamic countries conduct themselves and this is a perfect example.

    Until we can openly criticize the abuses in "moderate" countries how can we ever confront groups like ISIS?

    That's the ticket... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    It's not the religion per say but the way these majority Islamic countries conduct themselves and this is a perfect example.

    Sometimes I think Islam is just the tool used for tyranny and consolidation of power and subjugation of people.  Convince people you want to control that you're the keeper of some faith, of some "truth"...be it Islam, Christianity, Communism, Capitalism, what have you...and you can get away with murder.  

    It doesn't mean these belief systems are inherently bad per se, just that bad people use them as tools to do bad things, and thus convince people that evil is divine, that bad is good. An age old con-job.

    And when critics rail against the tool instead of the person/people wielding it, it's much easier for the bad guy to denounce the critic as a heretic, and the valid point gets lost.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 12:52:45 PM EST
    An age old con-job.  And, an age-old governance job.  I think of Emperor Constantine and his strategic alignment of politics with the Christian Church.  Control of religion, religious leaders and their "flock."   Control of the 99.9 percent by the 0.l percent of the day--accept your lowly economic status, don't envy my palaces, jewels and ermine robes.  After all, some day, in the next life,  you will all be "kings" in heaven.  

    Parent
    Amen... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    it's not a con, it's the con.

    Parent
    fwiw (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    No, I do not consider Saudi Arabia to be a "moderate" state.  I consider Saudi Arabia to be one of the worst of them.  Of course they are also one of our biggest allies in the middle east and have a ton of oil, so no one seems to give a $hit.

    Maybe Bill Maher does, but the people in congress screaming about Isis sure don't.

    As for how many people agree with the practice in Saudi Arabia - it's hard to tell.  It's not exactly a democracy, so it's not like they're asking those questions.  Ultimately I think those in charge care most about money and power.  Religion is just a useful tool to control people.  Let's be clear - this man is being crucified for being a political dissident under the guise of religion.  Honestly it reminds me more of Stalin than Isis.

    Parent

    Well, Italy is home to the Catholic Church (none / 0) (#24)
    by Babel 17 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    And as recently as last century Italy was committing atrocities in Africa and even had a very bad guy as their leader. That leader had an even worse partner.

    Mussolini had no moral claim to speak for Christianity. And, as the cleric in question is going to pay with his life for pointing out, the Saudi Royal family isn't the repository for the spirit of Islam, or anything like that.

    People here in the USA argue that we're the shield and sword of modern day Christianity and we ignore them.

    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:18:20 AM EST
    What if the Vatican (the home of Catholicism and Christianity) was putting people on stakes?  
    You have heard about the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, etc., etc., right?

    Those things happened when Christianity was about the same age that Islam is. I draw no inference from that, I merely note it.

    And who cares if the Saudis see themselves as the Guardians of the Holy Places? The US sees ourselves as the guardians of democracy all while becoming an oligarchy and while some people work toward a theocracy.

    It isn't only nations who are blind about themselves.

    Parent

    I've heard of them (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    I read about them in history books.  

    I suppose no form of government is preferable since they all make mistakes?

    Would you prefer Western secular government or Islamist government? Can you bring yourself to judge one as better?

    Parent

    Way to miss the point (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    As to this:
    Would you prefer Western secular government or Islamist government? Can you bring yourself to judge one as better?
    I wouldn't want to live under Saudi rule. Any more than I would have wanted to live in Europe during the Middle Ages when Christian states were doing what some Islamic states are doing now.

    I can see a difference between the rank and file Christians and Muslims compared to the radicals of each.

    Parent

    You say (2.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 06:45:26 PM EST
    I wouldn't want to live under Saudi rule. Any more than I would have wanted to live in Europe during the Middle Ages when Christian states were doing what some Islamic states are doing now.

    But the point is that you cannot live in the Middle Ages.

    You can live in an Islamic theocracy now.

    Parent

    Radicals? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 03:55:09 PM EST
    That's the whole point.

    What is a radical and how many are there?

    What I maintain is that more Muslims are radical then many are comfortable with so they simply deny it.

    17% of French Citizens support ISIS (because of high Muslim immigration from Algeria).

    40% of British Muslims want Sharia Law

    45% of British Muslims think 9/11 was an American Jewish Conspiracy

    92% of Iraq, 94% of Afghanistan, 96% of Malaysian Muslims believe a wife is always obliged to obey her husband.

    49% of Indonesians support strict adherence to Sharia law in Islamic countries.

    The list is much, much longer but I think you get the point.

    It is not that big a "minority" and even if they aren't as radical as ISIS they are much closer to them then I'd think any rational person would like.

    Bad ideas are just bad ideas.  No matter what religion you are and for whatever reason many in the Islamic world hold bad ideas.


    Parent

    I'm sticking with "oy" (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sj on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 04:13:03 PM EST


    Parent
    So do "many" in the (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 07:06:47 PM EST
    ... "Christian world".  

    What's your point?

    Parent

    St. Paul was quite forthright on (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    the obligation of a wife to obey her husband. And he was converted by an act of God.

    Parent
    But our laws don't require such a thing (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 04:01:08 PM EST


    Parent
    And what year was that? (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 04:26:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Huh (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    What does this have to do with anything?

    Parent
    And I quote: (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    Yet when it comes to private life, most Muslims say a wife should always obey her husband.


    Parent
    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 04:53:25 PM EST
    he means now.  When do you mean?  

    And this thing about Islam being at the point Christianity was a thousand years ago, even if that's true, which it isn't, we can not allow them to slaughter and enslave people for another thousand years. Until the faith "matures".
    Sorry.  Life isn't fair.  

    Parent

    Under Sharia law (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    Women don't get the choice that I get, to follow a teaching of a faith or choose not to and still have the same right to life, liberty, and happiness as everyone else.

    Women's Rights Under Sharia Law

    Parent

    After that last comment (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Thu Oct 16, 2014 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    The more I think about it, the more "Islamic states" remind me of "communist states".

    To be perfectly clear, I think Karl Marx had some d@mn good ideas, and there are a lot of good people who believe in those ideas.  I would not want to live in a communist state.

    Good example...