Thread: Saudi Arabia beheads woman convicted of 'sorcery'

Originally Posted by Godo-kun

No matter if sorcery was even real, nobody has a right to kill a person for it.
And then whole sorcery deal should've ended in the 1800's.

Oh! Really!!...I dont think so...

(Ok...on topic:...Ummm yea...I never get that they dont end the life of the one who did the death crime but this really dosnt count!!...)

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Except the Muslim world in the Dark Ages of Europe was a prosperous, enlightened society full of brilliant thinkers, inventors and scholars.

This... is just barbaric.

It's like the country of Saudi Arabia has gone in the exact opposite direction the United States and every other country (yes, even North Korea) is going, although this is the result of the country being run by a totalitarian government that's obsessed with their religion (which, to me, seems more like a country-wide cult than a religion), and as a result, is pretty much the center of the entire worlds terrorist activity (including everyones favorite terrorist group, Al Qaeda, or as it's calling itself now in Yemen, "Ansar al Sharia").

Sorcery isn't even real, this is something medieval Europe would do, and look at Europe now, it's learned it's lesson about doing crap like this. Unbelievable in this day and age how a culture can still have such medieval beliefs.

I wonder if the US government would remain silent if Saudi Arabia was not buying all of those weapon from us (and giving those weapons to the very terrorists we are currently fighting in the Middle East)? Selective silence perhaps?

It's so sad, for a country to use religion as a shield to do whatever they'd like. It's akin to murderers pleading insanity; no, you're not insane for storing your victims body in the freezer for four months. If anything, that proves that you are calculating and waiting for the perfect chance to dispose of it.

And they're not even following the religion properly, either. But most people won't pick up on that. They'll simply assume they are, because it's totally fair to say that all priests are child molesters. Of course it is.

Some of you people are quite hypocritcal. How is this any more barbaric than US death penalties? This woman appearently did scam people out of their money, so it's not like she was completely innocent. She'd have been punished for that in western countries too, only with a lighter punishment.

Of course, I personally think all death penalties are barbaric.

Mijzel, you just want someone to poke you, right? :p

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

She'd have been punished for that in western countries too, only with a lighter punishment.

I'm a bit skeptical to this. Yes, you might say she was practicing medicine without license, and she was definitely a fraud. However, with the amount of bullshit in Europe on the alternate medicine front, to say that she would have been punished for giving alternate treatment to diseases is something I'm skeptical to. There's far too many quacks in Europe for me to think that would be the case.

Originally Posted by farewell, friend

Mijzel, you just want someone to poke you, right? :p

Erm, no? I have no idea what you mean by this :P

Originally Posted by H-con

I'm a bit skeptical to this. Yes, you might say she was practicing medicine without license, and she was definitely a fraud. However, with the amount of bullshit in Europe on the alternate medicine front, to say that she would have been punished for giving alternate treatment to diseases is something I'm skeptical to. There's far too many quacks in Europe for me to think that would be the case.

Didn't Ukraine recently have (and probably still have) a problem with gypsies doing the same thing? They have been threatened to stop or be punished by the law.

I still think she'd sued. I'm no expert on alternate medicine, but all it takes is for one of the duped to contact one of those tv shows and they'd probably see what can be done (at least in my country those tv shows are pretty popular).

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

Didn't Ukraine recently have (and probably still have) a problem with gypsies doing the same thing? They have been threatened to stop or be punished by the law.

I still think she'd sued. I'm no expert on alternate medicine, but all it takes is for one of the duped to contact one of those tv shows and they'd probably see what can be done (at least in my country those tv shows are pretty popular).

I was thinking more that's it's not illegal for people to sell something in the name of medicine that has no real effect (homeopathy would be a good example of this, to name one) here in Europe. If she was claiming to be a doctor and use actual medicine, that would be different, but people are stupid enough to believe in some weird things, and if people want to pay you for it, then obviously that's enough. A lot of things in the alternate medicine business is mere fraud, and I can't really see any difference between that and what this woman was doing.

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

Some of you people are quite hypocritcal. How is this any more barbaric than US death penalties? This woman appearently did scam people out of their money, so it's not like she was completely innocent. She'd have been punished for that in western countries too, only with a lighter punishment.

Of course, I personally think all death penalties are barbaric.

It's not hypocritical. It's quite ridiculous to not consider the crime when judging the harshness of the punishment. Yes, the death penalty is never good, but that's not the point of the article, and I think you know that. The point is that punishments in civilized countries (ie, countries where women are allowed to drive and go out in public without a veil, and 'honor killings' are frowned upon), we base our judgement of criminals on objectivity and evidence. In a theocracy, those judgements are made based on supersticion.

So now look again at the situation in this frame of reference. If she had been charged in a secular country, it would have been for what she actually did, which was fraud. She would be given a fine and maybe some jail time depending on the severity. However, since she was charged in a theocracy, she was doing sorcery, the blasphemy of which cannot be tolorated, so they sawed her head off. That is why it's barbaric, and that is what makes this situation remeniscent of the dark ages.

Originally Posted by TheKnittingno.

It's not hypocritical. It's quite ridiculous to not consider the crime when judging the harshness of the punishment.

Now who are you to decide when it's ok to have a death penalty and when not? Is there one universal line that should be drawn, that you get to decide?

I'm not factoring in the severity of the crime because then we could go into a philosphical discussion like that^, and I felt that would be getting the discussion too off-topic.

Yes, the death penalty is never good, but that's not the point of the article, and I think you know that. The point is that punishments in civilized countries (ie, countries where women are allowed to drive and go out in public without a veil, and 'honor killings' are frowned upon), we base our judgement of criminals on objectivity and evidence. In a theocracy, those judgements are made based on supersticion.

I think you're seeing things a little too black and white here. Though I'm no expert on Middle-Eastern law systems, so I can't really disprove what you say.

So now look again at the situation in this frame of reference. If she had been charged in a secular country, it would have been for what she actually did, which was fraud. She would be given a fine and maybe some jail time depending on the severity. However, since she was charged in a theocracy, she was doing sorcery, the blasphemy of which cannot be tolorated, so they sawed her head off. That is why it's barbaric, and that is what makes this situation remeniscent of the dark ages.

You seem to be awefully biased on theocracy's. The problem is that Saoudi-Arabia is charging people for stuff that isn't technically even illegal. So what if they say it's because of sorcery? The Soviet-Union and Nazi Germany did the same things, only under different guises. And they weren't theocratical.

I feel like I agree with you that it is barbaric, only I do for different reasons than you.

(Also, it's kinda ironic what you're saying about the dark ages, because in the dark ages the middle east was actually quite prosperous and civilized :P)

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

Now who are you to decide when it's ok to have a death penalty and when not? Is there one universal line that should be drawn, that you get to decide?

I'm not factoring in the severity of the crime because then we could go into a philosphical discussion like that^, and I felt that would be getting the discussion too off-topic.

You're dodging the issue again. The issue is not what kind of crime warrants the death penalty, the issue is whether or not punishments are being dealt for crimes that are being objectively committed.

I think you're seeing things a little too black and white here. Though I'm no expert on Middle-Eastern law systems, so I can't really disprove what you say.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. All I did in this segment was make factual statements, I didn't present any judgements of my own.

You seem to be awefully biased on theocracy's. The problem is that Saoudi-Arabia is charging people for stuff that isn't technically even illegal. So what if they say it's because of sorcery? The Soviet-Union and Nazi Germany did the same things, only under different guises. And they weren't theocratical.

Of course I'm biased against it, that's the point of my posts. I'm whole heartedly against theocracy. Hitler was actually religious and an occultist. Stalin was a Stalinist, he essentially invented his own religion where the people are supposed to worship him as a god. The reason theocracy is a problem is because when your laws are based on religion, you can do whatever you want and cite divine will. Basically, you have ultimate justification for anything that you want to do.

I feel like I agree with you that it is barbaric, only I do for different reasons than you.

(Also, it's kinda ironic what you're saying about the dark ages, because in the dark ages the middle east was actually quite prosperous and civilized :P)

It was prosperous, it was the hub of the world's knowledge. Of course, until around the 12th century they decided that God hates math and banished all scientists and free thinkers. Nice try.

To put it simply: Theocrats are religious nutjobs, they act less like religious officials and more like cultists, shoving their religious beliefs down peoples throats and slaying anyone who goes against them.

Originally Posted by TheKnittingno.

Of course I'm biased against it, that's the point of my posts. I'm whole heartedly against theocracy. Hitler was actually religious and an occultist. Stalin was a Stalinist, he essentially invented his own religion where the people are supposed to worship him as a god. The reason theocracy is a problem is because when your laws are based on religion, you can do whatever you want and cite divine will. Basically, you have ultimate justification for anything that you want to do.

And hence one of the reasons why terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda exist, because theocratic governments have caused their motivations to be set into motion. Interestingly, the US constitution was based on Christian beliefs and Gods teachings, so it works both ways.

It was prosperous, it was the hub of the world's knowledge. Of course, until around the 12th century they decided that God hates math and banished all scientists and free thinkers. Nice try.

The same could be said for some other cultures, Muhammad is mainly to blame for the old Arabia's fall to these disgusting, barbaric ways of theirs. Humanity (or at least certain portions of it, like this one) just sickens me anymore...

While tricking people out of their money on the basis of 'curing' their illnesses is wrong and should be punished...can't justify chopping off someone's head for it.

Originally Posted by Joshawott

While tricking people out of their money on the basis of 'curing' their illnesses is wrong and should be punished...can't justify chopping off someone's head for it.

Not so sure. Just look at the alternate medicine industry today. The industry is built upon making people believe that they can cure illnesses (when they clearly aren't better than placebo). I can't honestly say the concept behind homeopathy is any less ridiculous than sorcery when you stop and think about it.

Originally Posted by TheKnittingno.

You're dodging the issue again. The issue is not what kind of crime warrants the death penalty, the issue is whether or not punishments are being dealt for crimes that are being objectively committed.

I thought I said that was the issue. They're punishing people for something that's not in the law.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. All I did in this segment was make factual statements, I didn't present any judgements of my own.

What you said boiled down to "in the west we use evidence and trials to convict someone, while in the east they convict someone on superstition". That sounds more like a stereotype than a fact. And stereotypes are generally not factual.

Of course I'm biased against it, that's the point of my posts. I'm whole heartedly against theocracy.

Ah. Then ignore what I said just above.

Hitler was actually religious and an occultist. Stalin was a Stalinist, he essentially invented his own religion where the people are supposed to worship him as a god. The reason theocracy is a problem is because when your laws are based on religion, you can do whatever you want and cite divine will. Basically, you have ultimate justification for anything that you want to do.

Doesn't the US president have a thing called "the football" on him that allows him to destroy the world whenever he wants to? Though I'm sure there is a big difference between those, of course ;P

Also, just because a dictator is a bit religious doesn't mean he has a theocracy. Heck, I could take over a country and become a ruthless dictator and kill everyone who opposes me. By your logics if I was even the teensiest bit of religious that would immediatly make my country a theoracy of some kind. But as an Atheist I could do exactly the same thing, and the country wouldn't be a theocracy.

It was prosperous, it was the hub of the world's knowledge. Of course, until around the 12th century they decided that God hates math and banished all scientists and free thinkers. Nice try.

Wait what? In the 15th and 16th centuries the Ottoman Empire still was way more civilized than it was in Europe.

Originally Posted by Masterge77

The same could be said for some other cultures, Muhammad is mainly to blame for the old Arabia's fall to these disgusting, barbaric ways of theirs. Humanity (or at least certain portions of it, like this one) just sickens me anymore...

That is fucking bullshit. The Islam actually helped creating powerful empires like the Ottoman and the Mughal empires, you know.

inb4 those empires were still barbaric: they did't have any nobility, people were more equal there than they were in Europe, and they had less internal conflict than Europe had.