There are no homosexuals in Iran...

Well, if there really are no homosexuals in Iran, it would explain why the place looks so drab in all the video footage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 26 2007, 06:46 AM) [snapback]517838[/snapback]</div>

First, I do not favor American involvement with Iran (except to stop them at Iraq's border, a country which we now occupy.) I do not favor invasion of Iran, bombing Iran, sending missiles into Iran. So don't lump me in with the conservatives who favor war. I do not.

I want to explore the distinction I made and why it makes a difference. And why the statement that cultural attitudes being somewhat similar is about as appropriate as the stupid comments that more Americans are killed in traffic accidents each year than in war.

Our western culture has seen the greatest expansion of rights in the history of mankind. We debate here in FHOP while standing on the shoulders of giants like St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Locke, William Blackstone and so many others. Because our western culture is steeped in a tradition of expanding personal rights, slavery was eventually overturned and eliminated. Indentured servitude was overturned. Working conditions were improved when the excesses of the Industrial Revolution came to light. The concept that man has intrinsic freedom, and government is instituted only to secure freedom - not grant it, but secure it - means that we can progress farther and farther into freedom.

Contrast that with a theocratic rule. Since everyone wants to show how liberal they are and kiss Muslims on the poo-tootie, let's choose the liberal's favorite whipping dog, Christians. Imagine with me for a minute that James Dobson or Phyllis Schafly is made Supreme Ruler of America. How do you think homosexuals would fair under that regime? Do you think things would ever get better for them?

Drawing a comparison, establishing some kind of moral equivalence between some people's individual prejudice's and a culture's legal standards is way off the mark. Until Iran gets out from under the totalitarian rule of Sharia Law, homosexuals will continue to executed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 26 2007, 10:50 PM) [snapback]518283[/snapback]</div>

I agree with what you say about the expansion of human rights via western culture. I would like to add that in addition to the great people who articulated the concepts and those that put them into action are millions more who sacrificed their lives and bodies in defense of those concepts - who gave willingly and with purpose and belief. Each and every concept of governing survives only if those under its sphere of influence voluntarily decide it is worth sacrificing for...

 

Ahmadinejad, how do you know there are no homosexuals in Iran?"

"We look and look, but we cannot find any."

"Really? How do you look for homosexuals?"

"We send people out into the street. They stop the people there and ask them if they are filthy homosexuals."

"What do you do if they say yes?"

"We kill them."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mad Hatter @ Sep 27 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]518535[/snapback]</div>

Islamic Law in Iran specifies that non-penetrative acts of homosexual behavior are punished with "lashes" (whippings), but penetrative acts, presumably even oral sex, can be punished with the death penalty.

It is a mistake to think that the process is as arbitrary and capricious as your statement above (I do admit it made me smile). Islam places great burdens on its judges to be fair and equitable in their decisions.

Its not a roving mob of men in white hoods who kill the homosexuals. It is not a car full of jacked-up teens out to "roll some" homosexuals. It is a legal, functioning system of jurisprudence that is recognized by the UN and many, many Americans as being "no worse than ours!"

We could have it here, if you want. We can't seem to work our brain cells hard enough to tell the difference between their system and ours, so maybe it won't seem that different when the District Attorney is charging our friends and neighbors with homosexuality.

 

fshagan
Do you have 100lb test on that troll line or are you truly that jaded or stupid.

Yeah its no worse than ours, except if you're a guy and you blow another guy, the state executes you. In the U.S. you have to pretty much rape and kill a 10 year old girl to get the death penalty, which may be used before you die of old age in prison! Except maybe in Texas.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 27 2007, 11:19 PM) [snapback]518843[/snapback]</div>

You refer to "Islam placing great burdens on its judges"... Who are its judges and what if any are their limits of power? In addition, how does one become an "Islamic Judge"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 28 2007, 01:46 AM) [snapback]518887[/snapback]</div>

If you think fshagan is a troll, you obviously don't bother reading what he writes and are just reacting without thinking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 27 2007, 10:46 PM) [snapback]518887[/snapback]</div>

There's a broader context to my statements than you are noticing. I'm responding to the idea that because some individuals in our society have persecuted homosexuals, then we are no better than modern Islamic states who have strong laws against homosexuality. It has been expressed here pretty clearly, and the defense of the statement was lacking in my opinion:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 25 2007, 12:46 PM) [snapback]517533[/snapback]</div>

This is a sentiment I hear a lot, and its based on the idea that any similarity should be amplified and any difference should be minimized. That's a fine philosophy when you are dealing with a peaceful neighbor and trying to understand his culture, but a very dangerous one when making the small decisions today that will determine what kind of culture our children will live in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 27 2007, 11:19 PM) [snapback]518843[/snapback]</div>

again,
You refer to "Islam placing great burdens on its judges"... Who are its judges and what if any are their limits of power? In addition, how does one become an "Islamic Judge"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 27 2007, 08:19 PM) [snapback]518843[/snapback]</div>

Understood, it was complete hyperbole. I was just trying to make a point that his statement reflects the level of persecution. Besides, it's funny.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 28 2007, 07:32 AM) [snapback]518962[/snapback]</div>

The LA Times had a great series of articles on Islamic jurisprudence, focusing primarily on Saudi Arabia, back in the early 1990s. I think there was an American sentenced to death there for murder, and if I remember correctly, the family of the victim had the final say on if the criminal was beheaded or not. People were shocked that the family of the victim could establish a financial penalty that would have the Islamic court release the perpetrator.

I can't find the article on-line ... this was before the presence of articles on the Internet ... but you can Google for the teachings of the Quran and scholars regarding judges. Buraidah Bin Haseeb, a contemporary of Mohammad quoted him in his Hadith as saying that "The judges are of three types: One in Paradise and two in the Hellfire. As for the one in Paradise, he is the one who knows the truth and judges by it. For the one who knows the truth and does not do justice in his ruling, then he is in the Fire. And as for the one who passes judgment between people out of ignorance, then he also is in the Fire."

Here are several links that discuss Islamic law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh ("fiqh" roughly means Islamic jurisprudence)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema ("Ulema" = "scholar") are trained as lawyers then act as arbiters of Islamic law.

In practice, the "scholars" are either under the control of the government, as in Saudi Arabia (where they serve as counsel to the King) and Egypt (where they are under the military), or are the ultimate rulers themselves, as in Iran.

The Ulema article talks about the 4 or 5 different "schools" of thought that dictate just how strident the application of the law is, but as we've seen, the influence of the 4 "conservative" schools is greater than the one more "liberal" school.

Our media focuses on the "morality police" like those empowered in the Palestinian Land of Chaos to enforce fasting during Ramadan. We think of these like vigilante groups that would be eliminated in a more organized society.

The mistake we make in thinking that Islamic law is meted out by these roving bands of thugs is that we underestimate the extent to which these policies are considered essential to Islamic life. If you live in a religious Islamic country, homosexuals will be executed by the state. It is always true, and will always be true. It is not an aberration borne of individual prejudice and bigotry. The only way to avoid it is to remain a secular state, a precarious position because every religious Muslim believes that living under God's law is preferable to secularism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 28 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]518944[/snapback]</div>

I'm not arguing against the differences in our laws and their, or trying to minimize that. Rather, i'm trying to point out the similarities between their culture today and ours in the past. We managed to work through a lot of cultural problems dealing with bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. Those problems weren't solved by the legal system, they were solved through a gradual transformation of our cultural beliefs. we still have a long way to go, but we've come an awful long way as well.

As to the point of discussion, it's pretty easy for a nation to change it's laws. It happens all the time. What's much more difficult is to change it's culture. We're seeing that in Iraq right now - we went in and changed it's government and laws, and we're seeing the resistance from their culture. Some people would use this issue as an argument that Iran is "evil" and, among other things, that military action is needed. Rather than attempt to change their laws and ways through force, why not work on trying to change their culture? Work on exposing them to ours, showing them the good in it and letting them absorb some of that into theirs. If we can help them change their cultural beliefs to be more accepting, then they will change their laws. And if we can do that much, maybe someday we won't see them as "the enemy".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 29 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]519067[/snapback]</div>

Who appoints their judges and who oversees their judges and is their an appeal system in place? The laws that they interpret are "modifiable" by the people or a process?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 1 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]519881[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure ... in Saudi Arabia, IIRC, the system was that the top legal scholars, who had become lawyers also, were the ones who became judges. In that country, the top religious official drew his power from the King, so I suspect the royal family has a lot of say in who administers justice. I'm not sure about Iran; the leaders there are the religious ones (over the political leaders, who are elected). I suspect each "school of thought" within Islam has its criteria for selecting the men who will judge. Everything I've read is that they are the top of the heap in their cultures, and not ignorant thugs.

Which scares me even more.