View Thread

Atheists Today » Religion » Islam
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Saudi Arabia convicts rape victim
Doubting Thomas
That wonderful bastion of forward thinking freethought, Saudi Arabia, convicted a rape victim and gave her 6 months in prison & 90 lashes for adultery.

http://www.cnn.co...pe.victim/

Well, you know, it was her fault for getting into a car with a man alone. I mean, she should have been escorted by another man. Maybe in another 100 years they'll allow women to drive.

If instead of a penis you have labia, stay away from Saudi Arabia.
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
catman
I think I'll stay away anyway. What a hideous story.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Kallistie
I will never, ever understand Arab culture. Saudi Arabia is extra crazy, though, and makes it all the harder to figure out.

...and creation of a human rights commission.

Ahuh. Right. Anybody care to place bets on the number of justly resolved cases this commission takes?
 
Cynic
Well that's easy for them to accomplish in Saudi Arabia if you're flexible about what you consider a human.
 
Big Blue
You know, sometimes when I read a story like that, I wonder whether we're not on the brink of another dark age. It has happenned before, it could happen again. Then I look at the way my fellow countrymen and women have pulled together to help out the victims of the recent bushfires near here and I think there's hope for us yet. But I think it's no certain thing.
 
RayvenAlandria
This is sicking. It boggles the mind that stuff like this still happens. What really makes me ill is the fact that these monsters are wealthy because we depend on them for oil. I think they would have gone the way of the dinosaur long ago if it weren't for the money.
 
Bob of QF
Saudi Arabia-- one of the favorite "allies" of the now defunct Bush regime.

It would be nice, if Obama distanced the US from this country of creeps, but he won't, I'm certain; the US's interests are too closely tied in with it.

It *is* another fine example of rule by religion, though...
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Skeeve
This reminds me of something I read today. Some author bowed out of a literary award or competition being held in the middle east somewhere. One of the entrants or books dealt with or mentioned homosexuality and was disallowed to participate, so she held her own little boycott and refused to attend.

Why does anyone participate in any type of conference/awards/competition in these countries with such human rights abuses?

If the world would stand up and tell them they can't play until they grow up, maybe they would grow up a little faster?
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Cynic
There's a similar thing going on with an Israeli tennis player denied access to a competition in Dubai. I was thinking it would be nice if they all refused to play.
 
catman
Bob of QF: It is probably unnecessary for me to say this to you, but take care to differentiate between the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the mass of inhabitants ("country of creeps" seemed a bit general). I hated the idea that people in other countries were judging me because of the actions of George W. Bush. Some of the Saudis no doubt approve of the reprehensible regime they are under, but I'm quite sure that not all do.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Bob of QF
catman wrote:
Bob of QF: It is probably unnecessary for me to say this to you, but take care to differentiate between the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the mass of inhabitants ("country of creeps" seemed a bit general). I hated the idea that people in other countries were judging me because of the actions of George W. Bush. Some of the Saudis no doubt approve of the reprehensible regime they are under, but I'm quite sure that not all do.


Well, I don't care what some people believe, but the rulers of a country *do* reflect the will of the people, more or less.

That is, if the people of Saudi Arabia did not desire the rulers they had, they could toss'em out, and put something else in.

Take the USSR for example: eventually that government became so obviously inept, that the Russian people tossed it out on it's collective ear.

So, too, the Saudi's *could* remove their hateful government-- if they *really* wanted to.

That they do not, says something about them as a people.

Just as allowing Bush to be president said something about *us*.

Neither is anything good....

But, you are correct in that the rulers are total assholes.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Doubting Thomas
The trouble is that most of the time the citizens are brainwashed by the leaders, until matters are so dire that the leaders can't keep control any more.

True, letting W. Bush be president said something about us, but at least we tossed the Bush regime out last November.
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
catman
It took the people of the USSR a long time to get rid of their gov't. As it is turning out, I think perhaps they should have stuck with Gorbachev.

Something tells me that it would be extremely difficult for the citizens of Saudi Arabia to change their gov't even if they wanted to. I don't think they even have sham elections.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Bob of QF
catman wrote:
It took the people of the USSR a long time to get rid of their gov't. As it is turning out, I think perhaps they should have stuck with Gorbachev.

Something tells me that it would be extremely difficult for the citizens of Saudi Arabia to change their gov't even if they wanted to. I don't think they even have sham elections.


There is simply insufficient police/army people to truly repress an entire nation, if that nation was not at least partly complicit.

If the whole people rose up? Doesn't matter how oppressive the government is. My example of the USSR is an excellent one, for that very reason. The old USSR was as oppressive as they came, yet it fell.

Enough of the Saudi people are passive about their government, if not outright supportive of it, that it continues as is.

Those who speak out against it are either not in-country, or else quickly silenced.

There's just enough velvet over the iron-fist, that the majority while maybe not 'content' are not oppressed enough to do anything about it.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
The populace would have to organize themselves in order to accomplish anything, which would likely be difficult for the organizers. The USSR disintegrated because it became more moderate; the Stalinist regime could hardly have been overthrown, even though it was extremely harsh, killing at least 10 million of its own people during the forced collectivization of the early 1930s. At least that's how I see it.

As you said, this is all beside the point, anyway. The Saudi Arabian population probably isn't all that interested in overthrowing their government. (Can't say as I really know, of course.)
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
catalyst
Bob of QF wrote:
So, too, the Saudi's *could* remove their hateful government-- if they *really* wanted to.

That they do not, says something about them as a people.

It speaks volumes about the power of religious indoctrination more than about the actual people. It's a vicious cycle. Parents are brought up believing in all this islamic nonsense and they, in turn, do the same to their children, rinse and repeat.

Also, it's not as if the islamic community in any way promotes critical thought or an inquisitive mind, so the chances of people, as a whole, realising that the current way of things is bad are slim. In islamic countries, it does seem that islam is both a religion and a way of life.
Edited by catalyst on 02/23/2009 05:32
 
Bob of QF
catalyst wrote:
Bob of QF wrote:
So, too, the Saudi's *could* remove their hateful government-- if they *really* wanted to.

That they do not, says something about them as a people.

It speaks volumes about the power of religious indoctrination more than about the actual people. It's a vicious cycle. Parents are brought up believing in all this islamic nonsense and they, in turn, do the same to their children, rinse and repeat.

Also, it's not as if the islamic community in any way promotes critical thought or an inquisitive mind, so the chances of people, as a whole, realising that the current way of things is bad are slim. In islamic countries, it does seem that islam is both a religion and a way of life.


catman wrote:
The populace would have to organize themselves in order to accomplish anything, which would likely be difficult for the organizers. The USSR disintegrated because it became more moderate; the Stalinist regime could hardly have been overthrown, even though it was extremely harsh, killing at least 10 million of its own people during the forced collectivization of the early 1930s. At least that's how I see it.

As you said, this is all beside the point, anyway. The Saudi Arabian population probably isn't all that interested in overthrowing their government. (Can't say as I really know, of course.)


Okay, the above two arguments weakens my position that government is by the ultimate consent of the people.

For I *did* forget to factor in child-hood indoctrination by the culture in question.

Susan Blackmore wrote about this quite a bit, and she coined the term "meme" to be an idea that acts sort of like a disease. It self-replicates itself into a culture, and becomes entrenched to the point of being nearly impossible to remove. Much like a disease.

Religious brainwashing of the young has this exact effect: it keeps the majority from going against the status quo. Saudi Arabia certainly practices this, and I see the communist propaganda machine as doing the same thing within the old USSR. People were enough afraid of change, that they would not organize out against it.

Thus minor uprisings were easy enough to quell--- even if you had to make examples of millions not directly involved like Stalin did.

..........

So, it's never as simple as a single issue, is it? Grin

Thanks for reminding me.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
Hitler at least was apparently genuinely fond of certain people. Stalin had no friends: everyone feared him and his purges. His first wife committed suicide. It wasn't so much that people were afraid of change in the old USSR. It was more that Stalin had everyone afraid of even voicing an opinion for fear of being ratted out. No one could trust anyone.

Yep, that's what memes do. When you're a kid being brought up in a religious household, in a religious community, that's just the way things are. Period. (!)Grin
Edited by catman on 02/23/2009 14:54
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
God vs Child-rape The Lounge 2 11/07/2010 23:13
Blame the victim: Religious leaflet claims ‘ungodly’ dressed women provoke rape Christianity 11 03/04/2010 17:58
How to prevent rape Interesting Articles and links 5 10/30/2009 01:23
Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? The Rant Room 11 09/08/2009 08:18
Saudi judge: It's OK to slap wives who spend too much Islam 1 05/11/2009 11:35