I try to be open minded about other people's culture, but when I see things like that, I sometimes wonder if I'm losing my time.

I don't really see this as a cultural thing. It's an extreme case of misuse of power. It's true that the political and social atmosphere of Iran is more conducive to gross abuses than our system(s), but the article states that Iran's sharia law (such as it is) says that no one under 18 shall be executed.

From a legal standpoint, there are two nasty things in this debacle:

1) The evidence. If her state ID card says she's 16, how does the court get away with saying that she's 22; did they have any credible evidence or was it a mere assertion? How do they account for the discrepancy?

2) The abuse of power. Where do I start on this one? Execution for speaking one's mind, even though the offense did not merit execution under their own laws. The judge's personal involvement/grudge which affected the case. The lack of an advocate for the girl. The failure of the appeal process, which allowed these abuses to continue.

That's what I'm saying, those would not happen in our society. Our rights are a cultural thing, in my opinion.

Ah, I see now.

But power abuses can happen here, too. I think much of the problem is the individual, not merely the society/culture. Just recently a BC judge was stripped of his position and sent to jail for a good stretch of time. Reason? He coerced/threatened/extorted sex from/raped a couple of teenaged girls who were in trouble with the law. He used his position as a judge to force them to keep silent, as he threatened to send them up for long stretches if they caused him trouble. He was on the bench in their cases several times before, during and after this sordid story. He might have gotten away with all this, except that one of the girls broke down when he was lecturing her from the bench and accused him of his crimes and hypocrisy - which subsequently turned out to be true. The difference here is that someone took the accused's accusations seriously and investigated the judge. Moreover, we have judicial standards. So in that regard, I see eye to eye with you, Luvian.

I agree with you in the sense that the Iranian system/society is rife with abuses and lends itself to covering over and allowing the abuse. But I view that as more political than cultural. Iran rebelled violently against Western influence in their country in the late 70s; it was corrupt, at the time - the Shah was milking as much money as he could from the state. The fanatics managed to gain power because they represented change and they haven't looked back. Who knows what kind of system or culture Iran might have now if the theocrats weren't in charge? There is substantial dissatisfaction in Iran right now, because the government is keeping the lid down on all sorts of reforms. There are also a sizable number of Iranians who fled the regime who might otherwise have stayed, many ending up in Canada.

One of them, a female journalist with long-standing Canadian citizenship, went to Iran to report on the status of women in the country. She was held for a month in a state prison "for questioning", and died in state custody. The state-run trial, held at the insistence of Canadian Foreign Affairs and the international community, was a crock. Nothing happened, and the Iranian government had the gall to suggest that her multiple severe head injuries (consistent with those caused by blunt instruments) were caused by an "accidental fall." Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

[ 08-25-2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

Did you even read what you posted? Here I'll do it for you:


1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

b. Adherence to the theology of this movement


Again, fundamentalism is RELATIVE. If you are a fundamentalist nonviolent pacifist, then you are INTOLERANT of war and aggression of any sort, and rigidly adhere to those principles.

See: GHANDI

Note the keywords "USUALLY a religious movement OR POINT OF VIEW"

One example of fundamentalism, ONE EXAMPLE, cites opposition to secularism:
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Considering most if not all the moral codes on the planet have religious laws underpinning them, it's not exactly a radical concept to oppose the exclusion of matters of faith from social affairs.

Regardless, this is an "often" dependant on the "usual". It's all RELATIVE Timber.

My father is a fundamentalist preacher. Self proclaimed. His church, the Anglican Church, Sydney diocese, is regarded by all the other Australian churches as being fundamentalist.

Are they violent?
Are they akin to your radical Jerry Falwell Americans?
Are they akin to Islamist violent extremists?

No. No. No.

They merely hold a strict adhereance to the fundamental principles of the Gospel: Jesus grace and deity, eternal life, redemption of sins, and love of the monotheistic Creator.

To haul in a body of people that provide the Australian government with social networks (such as government funded marital counselling, social counselling, shelters for the poor etc. ) into Islamic violent extremism is offensive to the extreme and perpetuates ignorance. Their characterisation of opposition to secularism is to get their hands and feet dirty by improving peoples lives with the government funding they are given. (Australia, secular Australia outsources all of it's counselling services to 4 churches. Anglican, Roman, Baptist and Uniting, each taking a quadrant of Sydney for example. It's been proven, statistically proven that church groups provide the most effective and wholistic social counselling around)

So yeah, I find it offensive becaue you insulted my father and a huge number of friends - all good people, pacifists, going about their lives, adhereing to fundamentalist Christianity, with nothing to do with American radicalists or Islamic violent extremists.

So please. Keep your erroneous generalised slurrs to yourself. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thanks

[ 08-25-2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorick, you can't pick a part of my definition that applies to you and find offense. I listed several characteristics that I was discussing, and they do not all apply to the religions you discussed. The fact that you only put part of one of two definitions in bold tells me you are ignoring the rest of the definition, which likely does not apply.

Just because your father calls his church "fundamentalist" doesn't mean he fits the definition of what I'm talking about. I spelled it all out.

I don't recall you detailing how your situation fit all of these. Note that there are 3 groups of characteristics to address: general, ideological, and organizational. Now, if your situation fits into all of these things discussed above, chance are you may have a bone to pick. But I don't think you do.

But, sure, find offense if you like. Just realize your logic:

Timber: "If you are 1, 2, 3, and 4, then I got a problem with you."
Yorick: "Hey, I'm 2 and 4 so he must have a problem with me!" :mad:

Maybe it's the definition of the word "and" you need help with. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Anyway, thanks for tossing ignorance at me again as an insult. At least that's a problem that, if present, I can remedy.

[ 08-25-2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

And yet all he quotes at the start are radicalist Americans. Let's make another generalisation based on those quotes then shall we?

"Down with America".

How does that feel? You are them Timber. Those whackos represent what you are and stand for. You're American, they're American. Down with America!

Next time let's try quoting a fundamentalist Christian from Australia.

I'll work on finding some in a tic....

Are you trying to start up the terrorist debate again? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

You're talking about the largest church in Australia Timber. Not the words of one man. Liberal churches like the Uniting Church, also regard the Sydney Anglicans as being fundamentalist. So it's self identification, and external identification.

Your definition is incorrect. If you're quoting then their definition is incorrect, or a definition that only applies to their narrow American experience. Find a new word or phrase if the current one doesn't fit.

[quote]These family resemblances include:
>
-religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity;
-fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified;
-it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence's point about language -- outsiders cannot understand it);


This is not unique to fundamentalism, nor is fundamentalism the exclusive domain of this idea.


Relative to the beliefs Timber. Literalist Christians will choose male leadership due to their interpretation of Pauls letters. Fundamentalists can be literalists or not.


Only if that is fundamental to their beliefs, view and gospel. It's relative.


The ones I have known, yes do do this. Again though, it's relative to what thay gospel or revelation is. A fundamentalist cultist will be adamandt that their cult leaders revealations are innerant. A fundamentalist Christian will reject individuals words as being inerrant and instead regard the gospel as being inerrant. This is not radical nor extreme, but a quite common belief.

The Anglican church do this, but if the beliefs were anarchistic, or egalitarian, then fundamentalism would be to have no leadership.

Not always the case. Wrong.


[ 08-25-2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

<font color=plum>Boys, boys, boys....NO FIGHTING! [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/fight.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img]

<font color=yellow>Ziroc</font> - can we get a smiley that has a bucket of water being dumped on two cats fighting? I think we could use one. ;) </font>