Hypocrite alert! Some of the very liberals who find it unacceptable for Christians to impose morality upon the United States seem to think it’s ok to impose American morality on Saudi Arabia. My question: who says your morality (or lack thereof…) is better than that of the Saudis?
A Saudi woman who was out in public with a man who was not her husband (a violation of Saudi law) was abducted (along with the man) and gang raped by 7 men. Five of the seven men have been apprehended and sentenced to prison and a combined total of 2,230 lashes. The woman was sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with an unrelated man; her sentence was increased when she spoke to the media about the case.
To hear CNN tell the story, the woman was punished for being raped. This is certainly not the case. The woman was punished for violating Saudi law by being out in public with a man who is not her relative. The woman broke the law, and should be punished accordingly. Should she get a free pass because she was raped? Certainly not.
I can’t imagine a woman in this country getting a free pass on robbing a convenience store simply because she was raped as she ran from the scene. “Oh, you were raped…let’s just forget about that law you broke beforehand!” That’s not justice, or even some twisted form of mercy.
So, while it may seem harsh to an American that this woman is being punished for something we don’t understand – being out in public with a man who is not her relative – it is not our place to condemn the actions of the Saudi court. Especially if you’re a bleeding heart liberal who doesn’t believe that one should impose her morality on another.
I just thank God congress isn’t in session, or they would certainly pass some worthless resolution condemning the sentence which is, quite frankly, none of our business.
November 23, 2007 at 5:34 am
Jama, You’re surprised? Let me explain this as a liberal would….wait a minute, I’m not well versed in self-delusion, hypocrisy, envy, laziness, intellectual dishonesty, etc.
Besides, who says the Liberals are going to disagree? In the US, when a victim of violent crime fights back and actually wins, don’t they blame the victim for being a vigilante or using excessive force, failing to retreat, etc?
November 26, 2007 at 8:38 am
Are you guys really serious here? This type of “justice” cannot be justified merely because we don’t “understand” Saudi law. My God, a woman was out with her fiancee’ and another male friend. She was kidnapped by seven men and brutally gang raped. In the end though, she gets beat for being in public with an unrelated man?????? You see no problem with that??????? As for your comparison with robbing a convience store…..I mean come on! Are you equating robbing a convience store with being in public with an unrelated man????? What should be condemned here is the draconian laws these theocratic sicko’s adhere to which make other human beings second class citizens because of their gender. But then again, maybe the Nazi’s should not have been condemned for their treatment of the Jews…after all it was really none of our business. Furthermore, I firmly believe that there is a significant issue with imposing ones morality on another. Would it be fair for the government to suddenly adopt the ideas of Jerry Falwell???? I am really surprised Jama, that you are defending inhumane Islamic law.
November 27, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“The woman was punished for violating Saudi law by being out in public with a man who is not her relative.” Simple.
“Five of the seven men have been apprehended and sentenced to prison and a combined total of 2,230 lashes”. Simple.
In the US, if the victim ALSO broke the law during the course of victimization, they are still prosecuted for their infraction. Simple.
November 28, 2007 at 12:35 pm
The question here is whether or not you are advocating this kind of inane justice? Nobody is questioning whether or not a victim should be prosecuted if they broke the law during the course of their victimization. I don’t believe that has been advocated by anyone, if so, I would be interested by whom and how.
Just because that is their law doesn’t make it o.k. For pete’s sakes, it used to be against the law for a black man to marry a white woman. Was that o.k.? Should noone speak out against what is clearly wrong?
We are talking about blatant draconian laws which designate human beings to second class status. Obviously, what this shows us is the real danger of a theocratic system of government. The sad thing is that some folks on the right would have no problem with implementing religious law in replacement of common and constitutional law. Falwell said of such a change “what a blessed day that would be!” But I have a better idea. Keep religion at home and church and out of the justice system.