Iranian Pastor Faces Execution for Refusing to Recant Christian Faith

[Craig234]

This is indeed barbaric.

It's far worse than anything on this issue here, where we protect this freedom.

Much less bad, but still bad, is the prejudice which means a Muslim is effectively unelectable as President (or will be discriminated against serving in the cabinet of Herman Cain, who clearly thinks that announcing such discrimination is a winning way to get more Republican primary votes; we have one Muslim in Congress, who has been attacked for his religion).

Capital punishment itself is also 'barbaric', which most advanced nations have ended, though we choose to share that in common with Iran.

 

[OCGuy]

This is indeed barbaric.

It's far worse than anything on this issue here, where we protect this freedom.

Much less bad, but still bad, is the prejudice which means a Muslim is effectively unelectable as President (or will be discriminated against serving in the cabinet of Herman Cain, who clearly thinks that announcing such discrimination is a winning way to get more Republican primary votes; we have one Muslim in Congress, who has been attacked for his religion).

Capital punishment itself is also 'barbaric', which most advanced nations have ended, though we choose to share that in common with Iran.

Haha...almost on script.

See, apologists like this are so obvious in their disdain for the US and it's policies. They cannot read a news story without somehow relating it to the US.

Instead of condemning, they try to white-wash or equate it with something that is going on here.

I think this is some sort of USA-centric mental issue that should be studied by psychologists.

 

[Ausm]

This is indeed barbaric.

It's far worse than anything on this issue here, where we protect this freedom.

Much less bad, but still bad, is the prejudice which means a Muslim is effectively unelectable as President (or will be discriminated against serving in the cabinet of Herman Cain, who clearly thinks that announcing such discrimination is a winning way to get more Republican primary votes; we have one Muslim in Congress, who has been attacked for his religion).

Capital punishment itself is also 'barbaric', which most advanced nations have ended, though we choose to share that in common with Iran.

Great points here!

 

[Infohawk]

Haha...almost on script.

Yep, and I don't think he even read any of the previous posts...

 

[Kadarin]

Sorry, I actually know many Muslims from several countries and none of them support this type of treatment of non-Muslims.

These Muslims you know, do they come from countries that derive their laws from Sharia? Or do they happen to be Muslim but from countries whose laws and traditions are largely secular?

Muslims who are in the US for the most part tend to be less crazy than their counterparts who have grown up with and have internalized Islamic culture as a way of life.

Personally, I believe that Islam as a whole contributes nothing positive to the human condition, and that the world would be a better place without that entire religion. If Islamic culture managed to somehow conquer the world, human progress would stagnate and eventually decline.

 

[sandorski]

Queue in the "moral equivalancers" who will jump in and tell us how Christianity is 50 times worse.

It has a History of being just as bad.

 

[sandorski]

Theocracy sucks, regardless of the Religion it is based on.

 

[OCGuy]

It has a History of being just as bad.

Good thing we (well, at least the Western world) live in the present.

 

[sandorski]

Good thing we (well, at least the Western world) live in the present.

So do they.

 

[Craig234]

So do they.

Iran's government is 'living in the past' in term of the human race's cultural evolution on freedom of religion.

Let me quote James Madison on this evolution our country was then helping advance:

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Of course, we weren't so 'evolved' when we were using our power, with England, in the mid 20th century to take Iran's oil for a low price, and overthrew their democracy to install a dictator for 25 years; and then to encourage a decade-long war with a million Iranian casualties. That was pretty unevolved old-school imperialism and murder.

It's good we're concerned about the life of someone Iran's government wants to murder for his religion - a right we protect.

It's too bad we haven't been concerned about the lives and freedoms of millions of other Iranians and others in the region.

 

[Craig234]

Iran's government is also 'living in the past' in human cultural evolution on homosexuality.

They still execute gays reportedly; we have never done that.

We don't even imprison them now, having evolved 8 years ago past that; for days, we haven't banned them from serving in our military.

Soon, perhaps we'll evolve where many other nations have and have marriage equality.

 

[sandorski]

Iran's government is 'living in the past' in term of the human race's cultural evolution on freedom of religion.

Let me quote James Madison on this evolution our country was then helping advance:



Of course, we weren't so 'evolved' when we were using our power, with England, in the mid 20th century to take Iran's oil for a low price, and overthrew their democracy to install a dictator for 25 years; and then to encourage a decade-long war with a million Iranian casualties. That was pretty unevolved old-school imperialism and murder.

It's good we're concerned about the life of someone Iran's government wants to murder for his religion - a right we protect.

It's too bad we haven't been concerned about the lives and freedoms of millions of other Iranians and others in the region.

We all "Mature"(more accurate than "evolve" in this case, IMO) at different rates. We abandoned that BS after much firsthand experience and often with much violence. Others didn't have those experiences and so have no point of reference which causes them to think like we do. Hell, this thread shows that even we barely have that point of reference anymore. We Know it's wrong, but completely forget it's because of our experience with it and that it was with an entirely different Religion.

 

[grebe925]

This is indeed barbaric.

It's far worse than anything on this issue here, where we protect this freedom.

Much less bad, but still bad, is the prejudice which means a Muslim is effectively unelectable as President (or will be discriminated against serving in the cabinet of Herman Cain, who clearly thinks that announcing such discrimination is a winning way to get more Republican primary votes; we have one Muslim in Congress, who has been attacked for his religion).

Capital punishment itself is also 'barbaric', which most advanced nations have ended, though we choose to share that in common with Iran.

There's a huge difference between a country which, in your opinon, does not elect a person you think is worthy and a person who is threatened with execution by the state for his beliefs (or for not recanting them in favor of what the state thinks they should be).

BTW, Obama is born to a Muslim father and was still elected POTUS. Technically, he would have faced the same fate as the pastor for being an apostate were he in a muslim dominated country.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Good thing we (well, at least the Western world) live in the present.

LOL.

This coming from a country that executes people.

No, you don't live in the present.

 

[grebe925]

LOL.

This coming from a country that executes people.

No, you don't live in the present.

You mean executes people who have murdered innocent people?

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

You mean executes people who have murdered innocent people?

Civilized countrys don't murder people. It doesn't matter what they've done.

In 100 years the population of America will look back in disgusts at the shit you do now. They'll think you're barbarians.

We used to execute people and it's embarrassing.

 

[Karl Agathon]

It has a History of being just as bad.

im well aware of Christianity's less then steller history. im refering to modern day. Or do you just see both as equal but will defend anything but christianity no matter what?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Civilized countrys don't murder people. It doesn't matter what they've done.

In 100 years the population of America will look back in disgusts at the shit you do now. They'll think you're barbarians.

We used to execute people and it's embarrassing.

The difference is that the US reserves execution for the most heinous murderers; people that commit outrageous crimes. Trying to equate that to Iran, which is trying to execute someone for practicing a religion they believe in, is patently ridiculous.

The fucked up attempts by some in here to draw moral equivalence with the most radically unequal situations never fails to amaze. There is no comparison in this case.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

The difference is that the US reserves execution for the most heinous murderers; people that commit outrageous crimes. Trying to equate that to Iran, which is trying to execute someone for practicing a religion they believe in, is patently ridiculous.

The fucked up attempts by some in here to draw moral equivalence with the most radically unequal situations never fails to amaze. There is no comparison in this case.

I wasn't comparing the US to Iran.

But Americans shouldn't talk about being 'in the present' when you're the only western country that executes people.

Leave the moral high ground to us advanced countries.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I wasn't comparing the US to Iran.

But Americans shouldn't talk about being 'in the present' when your the only western country that executes people.

Leave the moral high ground to us advanced countries.

Uh huh. We saw how "advanced" you guys were not too long ago with your treatment of Aborigines. So please don't bother preaching as if you own some sort of high ground. Australians have their own black history to deal with.

 

[sandorski]

im well aware of Christianity's less then steller history. im refering to modern day. Or do you just see both as equal but will defend anything but christianity no matter what?

If Christianity needs defended from false generalizations, I'll defend it.

 

[Nebor]

I wasn't comparing the US to Iran.

But Americans shouldn't talk about being 'in the present' when your the only western country that executes people.

Leave the moral high ground to us advanced countries.

 

[Craig234]

There's a huge difference between a country which, in your opinon, does not elect a person you think is worthy and a person who is threatened with execution by the state for his beliefs (or for not recanting them in favor of what the state thinks they should be).

Yes, there is. Which is exactly what I said:

Iran's government is 'living in the past' in term of the human race's cultural evolution on freedom of religion.

Or here:

This is indeed barbaric.

It's far worse than anything on this issue here, where we protect this freedom.

It's unfortunate something prevents you being able to read.

BTW, Obama is born to a Muslim father and was still elected POTUS. Technically, he would have faced the same fate as the pastor for being an apostate were he in a muslim dominated country.

I doubt that to be true, that he'd be executed for being a 'Muslim with a Christian father' in a Muslim country. Even the father would be freed if he became a Muslim.

Had he been a Muslim born to a Christian father in this country, he would not be President.

If you are talking about him being a Christian born to a Muslim father, yes, he might be in the same situation as this pastor - and that's just repeating the point they are barbaric.

As I said, to repeat, they are barbarous for executing. We are far less bad, denying them the Presidency for their religion, among other prejudices, but with broad legal protections.

You simply posted the same thing I did on one point (them), and ignored the other (us).

 

[Craig234]

We all "Mature"(more accurate than "evolve" in this case, IMO) at different rates. We abandoned that BS after much firsthand experience and often with much violence. Others didn't have those experiences and so have no point of reference which causes them to think like we do. Hell, this thread shows that even we barely have that point of reference anymore. We Know it's wrong, but completely forget it's because of our experience with it and that it was with an entirely different Religion.

I'm referring here to cultural evolution, not biological, and think it's a better phrase than 'mature', but that's semantics. And you're right, many here are 'de-evolving'.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Uh huh. We saw how "advanced" you guys were not too long ago with your treatment of Aborigines. So please don't bother preaching as if you own some sort of high ground. Australians have their own black history to deal with.

You're absolutely right. But the key word here is history.

Are problems are 40 years in the past. You guys executed a dude last week!