<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Religious judge executed 16 year old because of her sharp toung. May he rot in hell.</font>

On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.

The sentence was issued by the head of Neka’s Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs’ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.

In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.

The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”. Source

More... Shock, outrage over execution

[ 08-24-2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Execute the judge, be glad if you don't live in a country where sex is illegal, oh -- and down with fundamentalism.

Hear, hear.

Mr big bad judge didn't like to be criticised, so he condemned and took a personal hand in the execution of a 16-year-old girl. Disgusting.

Backwater country, backwater people, backwater culture.... i'm not even surprised to read something like that. A young girl dares to raise her voice against a man ? That calls for a personal jihad with Allah as a whitness. :rolleyes:

Fundamentalist ISLAM. Not fundamentalism. Fundamentalist pacificism is a good thing. So is fundamentalist mercy or grace. Or fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism or fundamentalist anything that doesn't harm others.

Sheesh. So simple. It RELATIVE to the FUNDAMENTAL beliefs held!!! Down with misunderstanding. Down with ignorant insults. Down with perpetuation of errors on forii.

Fundamentalist ISLAM. Not fundamentalism. Fundamentalist pacificism is a good thing. So is fundamentalist mercy or grace. Or fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism or fundamentalist anything that doesn't harm others.

Sheesh. So simple. It RELATIVE to the FUNDAMENTAL beliefs held!!! Down with misunderstanding. Down with ignorant insults. Down with perpetuation of errors on forii. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Not quite so simple as fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Wicca, Confucianism does not mean Fundamentalist pacificism and at times are as bad or worse than non-pacificism Fundamentalist ISLAM. Generally speaking we refer to Fundamentalist as the violent wackos, the pacifist ones barly register so we don't usally notice them the same way.</font>

[ 08-24-2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Source

That's what I meant by fundamentalism. So, careful Yorick, calling me out may show your own ignorance. You were at the very least mistaken in thinking I didn't say what I meant.

Additional Reading: Why Fundamentalism is Wrong

Consulting your dictionary would have saved us all some arguing here, Yorick:
See Here.

[ 08-24-2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I see modern Fundamentalism as a product of, and a reaction against the modern secular world that is so dominant today. There have always been fundamentalists movements of various kinds, but I don't think they've been so widespread and obvious as they are today.

What I find interresting about some fundamentalists movements is, while they often rage against the modern society, they are also quick to use the products of said society, such as technology.

[ 08-24-2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

Whilst complimenting TL on the links in the above post, I'd just remind you all of the moratorium on religious debates.

Sorry, Mouse. I'll watch it. It's a darned difficult topic to stay away from though, especially when trying to analyze social problems causing strife around the world.

How can one talk about the problems in Iran specifically or the Middle East in general without recognizing that religon is a core part of the society and recognizing the part that Islam plays in shaping those societies?

While not discussing any religion in specific, it seems that this situation is an excellent example of why religion and politics make dangerous bedfellows. Especially in light of the fact that when religion creeps into politics, it's usually of the fundamentalist persuasion. Excellent sources there TL, thanks for the links.

We can't. We may be able to skirt around the edges and occasionally dip our toes into the water, but cannonballs are out of the question. Maybe if we talk in generalities or come up with a sufficiently confusing veiled analogy... [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

Or start a petition to the Z-man and the Chocmeister requesting a relaxation of the moratorium with a big, smoochy promise that we'll be good when discussing religion? [img]smile.gif[/img]
I mean seriously, alot of 'contemporary issues' (the discussion of which is the whole point of this forum, right?) will involve religion in some shape or form. It's unavoidable...

Do you think that we're capable of discussing religion without it turning nasty? Sure as shooting ( ;) ) someone will misconstrue a post or have their post misconstrued, and then the fireballs will fly.

Maybe it could work if we set out clear limits in a thread about what exactly is to be discussed, (e.g. Iran's society regarding women, or something of the sort) and everyone tries hard not to stray from the topic or plunk down reactionary posts. Opinions, mods?

I don't know... I'd like to think it can be kept under control, but we can't even discuss homosexuality in a civil manner.

The moratorium on threads whose primary topic is religion was put in place for a good reason.

Firstly, the general position of most of the participants had become so entrenched that further debate was pointless as all that was posted was an increasingly ill-tempered retread/restatement of those positions.

Secondly, the whole process of getting to these entrenched positions unfortunately involved flaming, personal insults, and debates that far too often degenerated into reductio ad absurdum squabbles over words and phrases taken out of context.

For the good of the board as a whole the moratorium was introduced, and as far as I'm concerned, it should stand. This does not mean that any mention of religion as an adjunct to another topic is forbidden, but if religion and the justification of, or opposition to, religious viewpoints becomes the primary focus of a thread, then it's crossed the line.

Sorry guys, I'd love to believe you, and I'd like to think that some of you can easily exercise the required amount of self-control, but unfortunately it only takes a few people to lose it in the heat of the moment and ruin it for everyone. I still have memories of what caused us to put this moratorium in the first place - some people here feel VERY strongly about their religious beliefs or lack thereof, and can't help but take personal offence to contrary points of view. I still remember 10-15 page threads of essentially circular discussion by increasingly ill-tempered protagonists, continually trying to "win" the argument for their side. Sometimes people just can't let things go when it comes to religion - they seem to think that they're entitled to enforce their opinions on others, no matter what.

Things have improved somewhat from a few months ago, and I certainly don't believe that anyone here intentionally goes out to cause trouble - but we're still not prepared to take that risk, for the reasons that Mouse stated above. I apologise for sounding cynical, but we've been burned too many times on that front, unfortunately. Try to look at things from our point of view (ie step outside your viewpoint and try and look at these discussions from a neutral perspective) and you'll see where we're coming from.

When we're able to go in here and find out that people are able to self-moderate themselves and conduct their discussions and more importantly their disagreements in a civil manner and have appropriate exit strategies that don't involve flaming, flamebaiting or dissing contrary viewpoints and PREFERABLY involve agreeing to disagree, without feeling stung or feeling or made to feel like you've "lost" the discussion (I've seen this happen quite a few times too from people when other people have tried to exit the discussion) then we will lift the moratorium. Not before.

So the ball's in your court when it comes to lifting this moratorium, really. Thanks guys - I appreciate your understanding with regards to this. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-25-2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

<font color=plum>I deeply disagreed with the moratorium on religion and tirelessly requested to have the first moratorium lifted. Unfortunately, <font color=red>Memnoch's</font> stated concerns quickly became a reality and "religious threads" popped up - sometimes for no other purpose than to re-address a previous argument.

There was a time when religious topic could be discussed in a more civil manner here, but that has been a long time ago. Much as I hate to admit it, I believe <font color=red>Memnoch & Mouse</font> are well justified in their caution.

So if you want to discuss religious topics, I suggest doing what I did, and Search for religious forums. Here are two I have found that have good discussions that are well Moderated. There is also a good amount of self-moderation on the board and - generally speaking - opposing views are treated respectfully and the discussions are usually very civil.

Mystic Wicks (Online Pagan Community)

Christian Forums (Online Christian Community)

Both sites offer good areas of discussion for ALL religious views.</font>

[ 08-25-2004, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

<font color=plum>Now to get back on topic.

My BIGGEST concern regarding this story is that this very same thing could easily happen in Iraq also if the U.S. just "pulls out" and allows the Iraqi's to set up thier own government.

Their are 2-3 very powerful religious sects that have a great deal of influence and it is no stretch of the imagination to believe that one of them could easily become the official "ruling body" if Iraq is left to their own devices.</font>

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>

I'm just sick of having people I love being lumped in with violent extremists. I could be anti-American and say I'm sick of American ignorance coloring peoples perception of what it is to be christian, but that would be going to far, so I won't.

However, the number of times I see a whacko raving, and people referring to him as "fundamentalist" drives me insane!

It IS a relative term. Like IDEALIST. What are your ideals? Idealism isn't wrong.

Religion, faith, ideals, fundamentalism, intolerance. All relative terms. Any benefit or damage to an individual or society is found within the CONTENT of those beliefs, not simply having beliefs.

Otherwise it's a deification of moderationism.

[ 08-25-2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Here are some words from a fundamentalist Australian Anglican, Peter Jensen:


[ 08-25-2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

What does it matter what another labels somebody? We are what we are, labels mean only what we alow them to mean. Call me what you want that doesn't make it so, besides as I have said before I've been called worse., and probibily by better ;)

You can label me a mass murderer, that doesn't make me one. You can label me a Christain southern hairychested knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing gun totter, that doesn't make me one, my action make me one. :D I are what I are.

Right on the money!

In passing, I'll put in that I view "fundamentalism" as one of our vaguest -isms.

I generally operate on the assumption that the word has two distinct meanings;

1) The pacifist live-by-Christ's/Buddha's/Mohammed's word crowd. Usually includes thoughtful, socially conscious people.

2) The Biblical Old Testament/jihad-hungry groups. Tend to be reactionary and intolerant.

Okay, I see a [img]graemlins/choc3.gif[/img] on the horizon coming to lecture me about bending the moratorium on religious discussion, so I shall stop here. [img]graemlins/outtahere.gif[/img]

What's that? An ebonics afficianado?

Actually it's just a misquoted Eminem verse. :D

So that would be a yes.

@Yorick - a small point you may like to ponder. I'm not sure whether you have interpreted the phrase "an elect or chosen membership" quite in context. I believe what the author of the piece was getting at was the belief of these "fundamentalists" that they are "elect" in the extreme Clavinist doctrinal sense of the word i.e predestined for salvation. "Chosen" in this context is synonymous and interchangeable.

In short, it is an indicator of narrow, elitist and intolerant dogma.

Interesting Mouse, I didn't thunk of it that way. I may have to re-look at my conversation with T.L. yesterday on this issue. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Actually, that's brilliant Ronn. The song "The Way I Am" is a very powerful song and a powerful argument, and basically just gives a big shrug and a middle finger to those who would label you. It turns the whole "You are _____ " thing on its head, and says: "Yeah, sure, so be it. Now don't blame me for acting accordingly." It's very applicable to this thread.

[ 08-25-2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]