Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Porn film actress stoned to death in Iran prison
TEHRAN, May 21 (AFP) -
An Iranian woman convicted of acting in pronographic films has been stoned to death in the prison where she has been held for the last eight years, a newspaper reported Monday.
The unnamed 35-year-old was buried in a pit and pelted with stones until she died in the centre of Tehran's Evin prison, the Entekhab paper said, adding that she had been tracked down after an intensive police search.
It said investigators only succeeded in finding her after they noticed the serial number of an electricity meter that was in the background of a scene in one of her films.
She denied being the woman on screen but police found several witnesses who testified she was indeed the X-rated actress.
The woman was sentenced to death after being convicted of adultery and "corruption on earth," a verdict which was upheld by the supreme court, the paper said.
Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery and corruption on earth are punishable by death.
Men sentenced to stoning are buried up to their necks, and women up to their armpits, but according to Islamic tradition they are acquitted if they succeed in pulling themselves free during the stoning.
The paper did not say when the woman was executed.
My original intent was to claim that action such as the stoning described in the story should never be used to condemn the beliefs of people of faith, although that might not have come across as I intended.
Hopefully, this thread will be able to be kept civil. I've noticed that sometimes only the comments of the offensive poster can be eliminated from a thread while the good stuff is allowed to remain. I wish that happened more often.
Any idea who it was that pushed it off the forum?
No idea what got it yanked.
Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery and corruption on earth are punishable by death
A barbaric and sadistic culture, ran by fascist zealots. The law of the land is fairly specific, and the woman knew what she was doing. Although the action is deplorable, and my contempt for Iran is almost on the same level as my hatred of leeches, she knowningly violated the law. If she had filmed her 'fun' outside of the country, it would be a different story.
Whoa...I go for a sandwich and the thread gets yanked. What happened?
wasn't me
Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery and corruption on earth are punishable by death
Under US's Liberal law, being born on earth is punishable by death
So much so for equal rights between the present day living and posterity.
Could've been Thorn1cav's post, though that was actually very mild compared to some I've seen. Could've been the fact that most of the thread was arguments over whether or not anyone was going to accuse Christians of bigotry.
That said...
My original intent was to claim that action such as the stoning described in the story should never be used to condemn the beliefs of people of faith, although that might not have come across as I intended.
I still don't see much point to this article. What, exactly, does this have to do with American Conservatism?? If you're worried that someone might equate right-wing Christians with Islamic fundamentalists, I don't see much point in sponsoring a thread specifically to give them the opportunity to do so, "pre-emptive" or not. And, if no one takes the bait and starts accusing right-wing Christians of being the moral equivalents of Shi'ite fanatics... then what, exactly, will the thread be about?
>>>And, if no one takes the bait and starts accusing right-wing Christians of being the moral equivalents of Shi'ite fanatics... then what, exactly, will the thread be about?<<<
My intent wasn't to encourage the bashing of Christians but to address what I percieved as the propensity of some to do so, particularly in light of articles such as this (that are often posted as general news).
I would point to the original thread as an example of how opening such a discussion can have some positive results...
...if the thread still existed. Sigh.
Plus, if there was some way for us to encourage the pulling of the individual offensive comments instead of the whole thread, I'd like to vote on behalf of the former.
>>>Whoa...I go for a sandwich and the thread gets yanked. What happened?<<<
We aren't sure. It took a couple of us by surprise.
Under US's Liberal law, being born on earth is punishable by death..
Then why are the conservatives doing all the killing? I don't see what you call liberals killing black people in the street and calling it law enforcement. I don't see them killing gays and abortion doctors. That is squarely on the shoulders on the elitists in this country known as the Right.
Sang in a nasal drawn out tone
"And I would not feel so all alone
every body must get stoned."
I'm not saying liberals are killing, I am saying it is a liberal law.
Back in my college days, the liberal socialists chanted "Death to the Shah! U.S. out of Iran!" I remember fondly the name of the campaign: Committee for Artistic and Intellectual Freedom in Iran. Nice job, guys!
And I suppose Jesse Dirkhising's murderers were registered Republicans?
My intent wasn't to encourage the bashing of Christians but to address what I percieved as the propensity of some to do so, particularly in light of articles such as this (that are often posted as general news).I would point to the original thread as an example of how opening such a discussion can have some positive results... ...if the thread still existed. Sigh.
Okay. Here, I'll even offer a good-faith suggestion: If you want to discuss the demonization of Christians so prevalent in America today, you could probably find a Christianity Today or WORLD article specifically addressing that subject, and its implications for the American Conservative political scene.... without having to allude to the subject indirectly, via a circuitous logical path from an article discussing religious law in Iran. Just an idea, to each his own.
Plus, if there was some way for us to encourage the pulling of the individual offensive comments instead of the whole thread, I'd like to vote on behalf of the former.
I know that Jim has this capability (to delete single posts rather than wholly threads), but it's entirely his discretion as to its use....
"whole" not "wholly". mea culpa.
OPP Member since May 21, 2001. . .
Why should we believe in your views? You have made no proof whatsoever of what you said. All I was doing is art. Are you assuming too much? are you asking the right questions?
As long as G_d will not have His place in government, displaced by supremacist views, why should anyone believe anything the liberals say, or what you say for that matter? It's pointless to believe in a liberal cult, because the cult does not ask you to consider questions equaly, but demands that you submit to the cult, the cult that there is no view of G_d in government, and that killing babies is not murder, without questions, like Nazies killing without question.
I am not asking you to believe me, nor anyone, I am doing art.
Explains the youthful exuberance of the Khmer Rouge ....
Any idea what she looked like?
Ron, do you know this young lady?
"Death to the Shah! U.S. out of Iran!"
Indeed, besides AIDS, drugs, inner city crimes, persecuted blacks and the shah, liberals have made Iranian women victims too... The gift of the enlightened who does not believe in Renaissance spirit of at least equal thought and questioning... just supremacist chants of death for sexual revolutions, great societies, ousting of the Shah, without question ...
An Iranian porn film, gee, did she show one of her ankles? Oh well, compared to the Taliban, the Iranians are like Larry Flynt!
The earlier post might have been pulled for the very same reason that this one might be - the inability of posters to stay on-topic. Note that the thread has already wandered off the story and is now about Christianity.
Back to the topic - I'm just wondering what Iranian porn would look like. Would you have a muzzein urging the performers onward and upward? Would the girls be wearing veils but otherwise be naked? Just the very idea of Iranian porn makes me laugh.
Michael
You continually harp on the Taliban for being into this type of behavior.
Any repudiation of Russia's massive dealings with this Iranian regime forthcoming from you?
Then why are the conservatives doing all the killing? I don't see what you call liberals killing black people in the street and calling it law enforcement. I don't see them killing gays and abortion doctors. That is squarely on the shoulders on the elitists in this country known as the Right
Now wait a minute....brand new member, and the first thing you do is accuse Conservatives of being Elitist and killers? You haven't got one shred of evidence to back that up, and you know it. Let's take a look at this: The blacks whine and cry that they are being singled out, and killed in disproportionate numbers. It seems that a larger number and percentage of blacks are involved in crime than whites. I think that can be proven statistically. I know that a larger percentage of the black population is involved in crime than whites. It stands to reason that there would be a larger number of blacks arrested if there is a larger percentage of crimes committed by blacks. That is not racism, that's just the way it is! If blacks want to be perceived better and treated better, quit acting like criminals! Blacks complain that whites stereotype them. Stereotypes are at least partially based on perceived, observable fact. If they don't want to be stereotyped, don't act like the stereotype! Conservative don't advocate killing blacks just to kill blacks, Conservatives believe in law and order, and that people are responsible for their own actions. If they commit a crime, they should be punished, pure and simple! That's not Elitist, that's just plain correct and right!
Just the very idea of Iranian porn makes me laugh.
The very idea that a sex act would put the actors under the very real threat of death from their government makes my heart ache.
Back in the '60's American college students were having rampant sex, all the while trying to convince themselves that they were performing some sort of revolutionary act. What a naked farce! These naked Farsis, in contrast, truly are committing revolutionary acts as they fornicate. When compared to the perversion that is their government, these porn stars are chaste and pure.
Then why are the conservatives doing all the killing?
You mean like Bill Clinton and Reno ordered the extermination of 80 men, women, children ,a dn babies at Waco? That kind of killing?
I don't see what you call liberals killing black people in the street and calling it law enforcement.
What do you call Baltimore? What do you call Los Angeles? What do you call Washington DC? These are liberal towns, and they stack up the bodies of dead black men like so much cordwoord. Of course, much of the killing is black-on-black violence; for some reason, liberal big-city-mayors think blacks-killing-blacks is no big deal. Guess liberals think it's okay for blacks to die, as long as other blacks do the killing.
Conservatives, on the other hand, favor Law Enforcement to punish violence and Economic Freedom to provide blacks with a road out of the welfare-dependency ghetto.
I don't see them killing gays and abortion doctors. That is squarely on the shoulders on the elitists in this country known as the Right.
The whole "Right" is to be blamed for the actions of loose cannons who undertook violence that no one on the Right is advocating? That's utterly insensible, but, okay -- as long as the Left shoulders the burden for killing 35 million unborn babies. An atrocity which they advocate, unlike the violence so falsely attributed to conservatives by the Lying Left.
Hmm.... CeeJay must have a passport...
Although the action is deplorable, and my contempt for Iran is almost on the same level as my hatred of leeches, she knowningly violated the law
Morality is Superior to Law.
Well. It was nice knowing you... LOL.
>Back in the '60's American college students were having rampant sex, all the while trying to convince themselves that they were performing some sort of revolutionary act.
In the 60s, Frank Zappa was arrested in his pre-MOI days for making porn films. (He used to play guitar in scaggy clubs back then, was desperate for money, and had access to groupies. I'm not exactly clear if he actually "acted" or just worked the camera/editing/sound. He later wrote that he regarded the episode as pathetic, but not as pathetic as the people who bought the films.)
Mark W.
Does this mean Julia Roberts and Rosie are not taking a sabbatical to Iran?
>>>Does this mean Julia Roberts and Rosie are not taking a sabbatical to Iran?<<<
Not voluntarily.
I'm still hoping that Bill Clinton is on a plane that has to make an emergency landing in Belgrade.
Guess liberals think its okay for blacks to die as long as other blacks doing the killing.
Liberals, in their condescending know-whats-best for the 'lower' class endorse the killing of American blacks routinely. Ever go thru an inner city neighborhood? Family practioners, well child clinics, etc., are few (if any). But abortion clinics are abundant. How many abortion mills out in white suburbia? How can the Sharptons, JJacksons, Faye Wattlestons (of Planned Parenthood) ignore the statistical fact that black women abort at a rate disproportionately higher than whites and hispanics? This termination of a generation of unborn black Americans should be just as alarming as the violence that takes the lives of so many young black males. Or could it possibly be that the culture (environment) that supports and encourages the taking of the life of an unborn brother makes the taking of the life of a born 'brother' so easy.
Men sentenced to stoning are buried up to their necks, and women up to their armpits, but according to Islamic tradition they are acquitted if they succeed in pulling themselves free during the stoning.
Is that some sort of sport where the adience tries to kill a person while he/she is desperately trying to "free" him/her self? Is there a referee stopping the crowd "OK, that's enough guys, it's not fair, you see he/she has freed him/her self."
Welcome to FreeRepublic, O member since May 21, 2001.
Any repudiation of Russia's massive dealings with this Iranian regime forthcoming from you?
I'll condemn any barbarians, be they farsi-speaking or not. That's a personal point of view which not necessarily translates into condemnation of everything islamic. Iran is no more fundamentalist than the American oil-supplying friends.
Note that I don't care what they do in their own country, as long as they don't spread their islamic revolution onto neigboring countries. You do remember that I wrote that I don't care about Afghanistan per se, but about the Taliban getting involved in other hot spots.
Yes Uriel1975,
This isn't a good analogy. As sad as this is, it's not useful to compare our chuches to theirs. For one thing, we respect no establisment of religion.
Back in my college days, the liberal socialists chanted "Death to the Shah! U.S. out of Iran!" I remember fondly the name of the campaign: Committee for Artistic and Intellectual Freedom in Iran. Nice job, guys!
Right! An Carter's people supported the change.
They better have had a permit for the rocks.
When I was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, there was an accident involving a van full of SP's (Security Police). One of the injured airmen taken to the hospital was female--and, it turned out, pregnant. Orders were issued very quickly to get her out of the country as the Saudis felt that single mothers should be stoned to death. (A fine "thank you" for a young lady, risking her life to protect their country.)
>>>Is that some sort of sport where the adience tries to kill a person...<<<
I don't know. However, I must confess that I wouldn't be surprised if there a level of audience participation.
Libertarians are all for getting stoned.
Maybe they should move over there ;)
bump
Would you support such a penalty for the woman in this case?
I think I'm seeing maybe why the other thread got pulled.
Well let's see there was the leftist Mao he killed over 50 million (I'm being generous here), there is the Scoailist Stalin who killed more than 30 million, there is PolPot who killed more than 3 million, there is the National SOCIALIST Hitler who killed 10 million plus (not counting just Jews but the others civilans also. Concerning Black people being killed in this country, if you believe the polls most Black people voted for the democrats, and also killed most of the Black people who have been murdered. I don't see all the "right wingers" running amock. It is also notable that most cities are run by democrat administrations, and run the police departemnts. Where Republicans run the cities, say NYC the number of Black people killed by cops has gone down. The number for the last year of the Dinkins administration (Black Democrat) was 36 black people killed by the police, in 1999 under Guliani the number was reduced to 12.
If you want to play here try getting some facts, BS won't cut it.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
So is it safe to assume, that you would favor a similar treatment for such crimes in this country?
Look. I thought that the purpose of Islamic Justice was supposed to be Terrible and Swift.
They held her for 8 years and then carried out the sentence??
So is it safe to assume, that you would favor a similar treatment for such crimes in this country?
I believe a US federal law governing this area would not and should not be constitutional since common criminal law is not and should not be within the purview of federal authority.
I believe a US federal law governing this area would not and should not be constitutional since common criminal law is not and should not be within the purview of federal authority.
You'll pardon me if I think this answer sounds a bit evasive.
Would you favor this punishment for the crime mentioned, at ANY level of government?
Yes. I think a similar law could certainly be enacted at the state or local level. However I view the death penalty as being an unlikely sentence because of the "cruel and unusual" punishment provisions would probably be invoked. Seeing as how those provisions have been continually revised and reinterpreted towards shock probation and psychological counseling as being the only punishments that are not "cruel and unusual", I have little doubt it would pass constitutional muster. If however a state passes and ordinance mandating a 5 year prison sentence for committing the crime of adultery that in itself is certainly constitutional.
Just to be clear, you favor the death penalty, administered by state or local government, for the crimes specified in this post?
Does this include the crimes of homosexuality and adultery, in accordance with Mosaic law?
I assume there is some law book that states this?
I have not seen anything that suggests their political beliefs, if they had any. Have you?
I personally do.
Thanks for your candid reply.
Just so you can't say you haven't seen it.
It was about the people of Iran looking to make their, and you cannot achieve that if you have another country using your leader which was not voted for to angle their way in your life. I don't like theoracies either, and I wish this regime goes the way of the dodo bird, but the people of Iran decide what they want to do with their lives, just like I help decide as an American how we run things here. If you notice we don't allow for theocracies to crop up around here.
Glad to be here too!
Now let me get this straight. You go on about some liberal law that says that if you are born you should be killed, and you question my credibility?
No it is elitist. You can go to the Army of God for your proof. You can find advocates of the other things via the Council of Conservative Citizens, whose associates have no problems getting into political office and promote what I am talking about.
You even put yourself out there for scrutiny "The way it is" in regards to crime does not mean every African-American in the country should be inconvienced. Yet, conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and Steve Rogers in Nutley , NJ, seem eager to do so. I don't care how many blacks commit crimes when the ones getting killed recently have not commited one crime in their life! Don't worry about how long I have been here. If that is what you want to be concerned about, one has to take into question if you, not I have what it takes to deal with the issues like you should.
It was about the people of Iran looking to make their, and you cannot achieve that if you have another country using your leader which was not voted for to angle their way in your life. I don't like theoracies either, and I wish this regime goes the way of the dodo bird, but the people of Iran decide what they want to do with their lives, just like I help decide as an American how we run things here. If you notice we don't allow for theocracies to crop up around here.
Is there any such thing as Unalienable Rights, or are Rights purely a construct of Majority Whim?
Put another way, is there any basis for saying that the Iranians are objectively wrong in this policy, or is morality purely a matter of personal preference?
Okay, it it insensible to blame the Right for "the actions of loose cannons who undertook violence that no one on the Right is advocating" but not insensible to blame liberals for the inner-city murders. I see a double-standard. Oh, and those crimes are not law enforcement.
RC1 -- I ask the following questions with no ill will. I am not baiting you, just looking for you to flesh out your political philosophy for my benefit.
On what basis do you favor you favor the death penalty, administered by state or local government, for the crimes of homosexuality and adultery? I am not inquiring as to the States' constitutional prerogative to enact such laws, but as to their moral basis for doing so (i.e., setting aside the question of, "can they", let's address the question, "should they"). Obviously, if you would support such a policy, you have a philosophical/theological basis for your advocacy. If you would, please explain your reasoning, for my benefit.
Wow, your 65 and 67 show that sometimes questions are more important than answers. Keep up the good work. BTW, did you draft GWB to serve as your scribe for another project?
Okay, it it insensible to blame the Right for "the actions of loose cannons who undertook violence that no one on the Right is advocating" but not insensible to blame liberals for the inner-city murders. I see a double-standard. Oh, and those crimes are not law enforcement.
There's a more fundamental question to answer.
On what basis can we say that murders of homosexuals, murders of blacks, or Iranian execution of pornographers are objectively wrong -- or, for that matter, the Holocaust? Is morality purely a matter of personal preference, or is there a philosophical basis for Unalienable Rights? If so, what??
Lest we forget that for all of its faults, under the Dinkins regime that number started going down. What went up during the Giulaini regime was the number of law abiding blacks killed.
No, he's doing some typing on his own. I look forward to his post. ;-)
I feel they are wrong, and perhaps I should not get away from that. To that I apologize for doing so. I was simply responding to a stupid assertion about a liberal law.
Wow, your 65 and 67 show that sometimes questions are more important than answers. Keep up the good work.
Could be an interesting debate.
In #65, I'm debating a full-fledged liberal. Complete moral subjectivist? We shall see.
In #67, I'm debating what appears to be a "full-covenant Moral Law Reconstructionist" (as opposed to my own "Second Table", State-enforces-Civil-Law Theonomic position). If he decides to post on the subject again, we'll find out just how fleshed-out his political philosophy really is.
Liberal on the one hand, Reconstructionist on the other.
Florentine sword fighting.
Very Weak. The crime rate is way down and that affected Balcks since they have a greater risk of being a victim of crime. Net result Black lives saved even if some of the people killed by the cops were innocent. As for innoncents killed tell that to Yankel Rosenbaum, who died while Dinkins did nothing to stop the rioting in NYC.
This however shouldn't be a racial issue all citizens have a right to live in safety, regardless of race.
I feel they are wrong, and perhaps I should not get away from that.
What is "wrong"?
Why do you feel it's wrong?
On what basis do you call a given a given action, "wrong"?
Is there an objective basis for Rights, or are they purely a construct of personal preference, of majority whim?
These are the real questions. Think.
I look forward to your response.
"Liberal on the one hand, Reconstructionist on the other."
Need someone to cover your back?
Is Alec Baldwin Iranian?
Conservatives believe in law and order, and that people are responsible for their own actions. If they commit a crime, they should be punished, pure and simple! That's not Elitist, that's just plain correct and right!
What is it about the above statement that you find Elitist? What is Elitist about law and order, or punishing criminals? Explain that one. What is this "Army of God" you refer to? Certainly not any mainstream group. I have no problem discussing these topics, and I believe you are a little out of place here, because your views certainly don't sound Conservative. If you're a Liberal, I'd advise you to keep your yap shut and your eyes and ears open, you'll learn more that way.
Need someone to cover your back? 76 Posted on 05/21/2001 14:46:39 PDT by Jerry_M
If the opponents see fit to engage, gladly.
Morality is Superior to Law.
Cute but irrelevant.
Morality and law is where you is, not what you think.
Sad, but reality often is.
I can;t follow the details. Was she in prison for 8 years on other charges and then found to be in the movie or did she do 8 years for the porn and then get stoned?
You even put yourself out there for scrutiny "The way it is" in regards to crime does not mean every African-American in the country should be inconvienced. Yet, conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and Steve Rogers in Nutley , NJ, seem eager to do so. I don't care how many blacks commit crimes when the ones getting killed recently have not commited one crime in their life!
Inconvienced? Maybe some of that would be because stereotypical bahavior patterns are the basis of the decision-making process...remember what I said about the stereotypes? And not "every Afican-American" is being inconvenienced, despite what the leftist media and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are saying. I take it you're Black. I have nothing against your race, I have no reason to be racist, and I'm not. But that doesn't mean I'm going to cut you or any other Black man slack just because they're Black, any more than I would cut a Yellow man or a White man slack just because of their race. Respect is earned. To be respected, you must show respect. To be respected, you must be worthy of respect. It cannot be legislated, decreed, or forced from someone.
It's my personal belief that God's law ought to form the basis for all civil law. Politically speaking, that means working towards that end. The theological basis can be found in Romans 13, Deuteronomy 17, and many others.
How can the Sharptons, JJacksons, Faye Wattlestons (of Planned Parenthood) ignore the statistical fact that black women abort at a rate disproportionately higher than whites and hispanics
Hi. Don't mean to make your day worse.... but Planned Parenthood planned black genocide from the beginning. Go and dig up the writings of PP's founder. (Name escapes me at the moment). They actually wanted abortion widespread in black neighborhoods to kill off the 'undesireables'.
Aren't leftists great?
I don't care how many blacks commit crimes when the ones getting killed recently have not commited one crime in their life!
Source? Not that I agree with it, and do think police departments are way way out of hand. But the inner city black community has itself to blame for violence they commit.
It's my personal belief that God's law ought to form the basis for all civil law. Politically speaking, that means working towards that end. The theological basis can be found in Romans 13, Deuteronomy 17, and many others.
Good. You have stated a theological foundation for your position.
It's important that thinkers have an axiomatic foundation for their beliefs; this ensures that there can be logical deductions drawn from that foundation, rather than the majoritarian whimsy which masquerades as philosophical "thought" so prevalently today. If the axiom is correct, than deductions derived from that axiom -- provided they are derived consistently -- are also correct. A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
I, too, believe that God's Law ought to form the basis for all civil law. So we are in agreement as to our Foundation. All that follows, then, is to deduce consistent derivations from that Foundation.
Let us begin.
Would you agree that the Law of God is comprehensive in its applicability? That is, would you agree with the sentiment:
JAMES 2: 10 -- For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
??? I look forward to your response.
Liberal on the one hand, Reconstructionist on the other. Florentine sword fighting.
Two enemies, hmmm...? You'll need this.
Margaret Sanger.
This however shouldn't be a racial issue all citizens have a right to live in safety, regardless of race.
Actually, no - they don't.
They have a right to live FREE. Liberty. There is no right to safety.
Of course there is a right to self defense, prevented by immoral law in NYC.
Two enemies, hmmm...? You'll need this.
A thousand gratitudes, D'artagnon!! Erm, I mean, D'Anconia!!
Horrible....horrible.
Censorship advocates should read this article to see where their ideas ultimately lead.
(Out for awhile. Hope to see your response upon my return. Take care)
Certainly I do. What's next Colossians 2? :-)
Maybe we can cut to the chase. I assume you don't agree that homosexuality and bestiality belong to the second table. If not why? Is it fair then to ask "What is adultery?"
>>>Censorship advocates should read this article to see where their ideas ultimately lead.<<<
I'm sorry, but that's just way too big of a leap for me. Keeping stores from selling pornography in your neighborhood is one thing, this is something else altogether.
I spent over 5 years in Iran, and for one year next to Evin Prison, and out of the 5 years I probably in and out of it more than 500/600 times. This wasn’t a big deal then , it's been done there for ages, but now with all of the busy bodies that has nothing else to do except look into another countries Laws should pay more attention to there own and how it’s changing on a daily towards SOCIALISM and will be affecting them over the next few years!
The median age of the population of Iran is quite young, mid to late 20s if I understand it correctly. Due to the hammering repression that people this age constantly get from their fanatical leaders, it would not surprise me a bit to learn that pornography is making a comeback. Both as a way to relieve the tension and frustration they feel by being under the iron boot of religious totalitarianism and as an act of defiance. An "in-your-face" form of rebellion against those same leaders.
In Tokyo there is a substantial population of young men who come here on tourist visas and end up staying to work. It's illegal, but the Japanese economy is very dependent on oil imports from Iran, so there is not much of a fuss made unless they get really out of hand.
But they DO get out of hand with alarming frequency. A very significant percentage of them hate the current government of Iran and hope they never have to return. While in Japan they go crazy on beer and porno and do all the things they are forbidden to do back home. Eventually, the worst of them step over the line and commit and act that gets them deported. They leave all the freedom and fun they had in Japan and go back to the land of veils, head-scarves and religious bigotry. I doubt that the habits they developed just fade away.
Iran is a pressure cooker these days. Another revolution may not be that far off.
I think all the feminists in this country should visit Iran immediately and protest in the streets!
Certainly I do. What's next Colossians 2? :-)
No. :-)
I'm not discussing soteriology here (which is the concern of Colossians 2), I'm discussing Theonomy.
What I had in mind, was the Ratification law of Deuteronomy 27.
See, if the Whole Law of God is internally consistent and self-validating, then the Law for proper Ratification is every bit as binding as the ordinances -- that is, the justiciable laws.
There are two possible models for the imposition of Biblical Law -- consensual, and non-consensual. Covenantal, and Tyrannical.
The Biblical Model for the imposition of the Moral Law is Covenantal -- consensual, specifically, unanimous consent.
And the Levites shall speak, and say unto all the men of Israel with a loud voice,DEUTERONOMY 27: 14 - 26
Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.
The Biblical model for ratification of the Moral Law is Covenantal, not Tyrannical. The Moral Law cannot be imposed non-consensually; it must be adopted consensually. A quote from Rev. Sandlin's Chalcedon Foundation will serve to underscore the point:
No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God’ sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced.
It bothers me more than a little to see Reconstructionist-minded Christian conservatives advocating the establishment of the justiciable ordinances of the Moral Law without accepting the Biblical requirement that the adoption of the Moral Law must be by Unanimous Covenant. It seems that the rationale is, "Since we'll never get Unanimous Consent to establish the Moral Law in America or even in any one of the Sovereign States, we'll just have to do without it". But Reconstructionists can't just decide to enact the justiciable laws and dispense with the ratification laws; to do so, is to pervert the Law itself (James 2:10). The consensual adoption of the Moral Law is an integral, indispenable component of a people's Covenantal assumption of the Moral Responsibility for upholding the Moral Law.
So... if you can't enact the Moral Law without Unanimous Covenantal assent to its adoption, what laws can you enact? Surely the State must have the Authority to enact some laws, hadn't it??
Indeed it does. But the Authority of the State is limited to the imposition of the Civil Law of Romans 13, which corresponds to the Second Table of the Decalogue:
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.... For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.ROMANS 13: 3-6, 9-10
Frederick Nymeyer, in The Powers That Be, reinforces the point: The State may Morally enact these laws, these reactive or "reflexive" Civil Laws, for in doing so the State is employing no more Force than a common man may himself Morally employ:
Maybe we have failed. Maybe we are incompetent readers of Scripture. But we have searched the Scriptures in vain for any indication that any government or "sphere of sovereignty" has any authority whatever to do more than an individual may do. If any government or "sphere of sovereignty" has any such power, where is the text that supports that proposition? In fact, if there were any text in Scripture of such a kind then the definition of brotherly love would be different for a group than for an individual. That, we believe, would be a damnable situation and an outrageous inconsistency.A man, as an individual, may and should employ violence and coercion to restrain improper acts (especially those forbidden in the Sixth to Ninth Commandments). I may resist bodily harm, and adultery, and theft, and falsehood attempted on me and on others by a neighbor. But in regard to everything else I must leave my neighbor free and he must leave me free.
Thus, we are left with this: unless the State has (following the Biblical model) received Unanimous Covenantal affirmation from the citizenry for the imposition of Moral Law, the State may only Morally employ Force for the same reason which a common man may Morally employ Force: "to restrain improper acts (especially those forbidden in the Sixth to Ninth Commandments). I may resist bodily harm, and adultery, and theft, and falsehood attempted on me and on others by a neighbor. But in regard to everything else I must leave my neighbor free and he must leave me free."
Maybe we can cut to the chase. I assume you don't agree that homosexuality and bestiality belong to the second table. If not why?
Rejoinder: If Romans 13 does not include these acts among the aggressive, "Overt Evils of Action" as Nymeyer terms them, on what basis do we extend State Power to encompass their punishment?
Undoubtedly they are grossly immoral; but absent Unanimous Covenantal consent to enact the Moral Law, what Authority does the State have to proscribe such sins -- save the power of Reflexive Force to punish overt evils of aggression, as advanced in Romans 13 (and exposited by Nymeyer)?
Is it fair then to ask "What is adultery?"
Perfectly fair. And, as Paul affirms (and I agree), "adultery" is indeed a Second Table, Civil Law concern.
But within that context, you're asking the right question. It is, indeed, the business of the State to punish adultery; it is the business of the State to punish all contract-breaking (Ninth Commandment), but particularly contract-breaking involving the marriage covenant.
It is not, however, the business of the State to define and ordain marriage. The definition of Marriage has already been unalterably fixed by Holy Scripture, and its ordination belongs wholly to the Church.
Let's delve into this a bit... "Life-Covenants" which are not marriages according to Biblical definition -- for example, "swinging" or "open" marriages -- aren't "marriages" at all. An "open" marriage isn't a marriage, it's just contractual fornication with certain financial arrangements. A cousin to prostitution, perhaps, but not "marriage". No "adultery" is occurring if the partners sleep around; they're just fornicating with someone other than their usual contractor, as their contract specifically allows. If other clauses (say, the financial arrangements) are violated, then the State should act on its Ninth Commandment mandate to punish the contract-breaker; but there's no point in the State attempting to punish "adultery" in such cases, as there's no "adultery" to punish.
Any life-covenant which conforms to the Biblical model for marriage, On The Other Hand, is a marriage, and any such marriage will necessarily define marital infidelity as a violation of the covenant (it would have to, to conform to the Biblical model). In such cases, the State should punish the contract-breaker for violating his sworn covenant. The State may not be charged with the definition of marriage; but any Marriage which conforms to the Biblical model, must necessarily define infidelity as a betrayal of the covenant and the State may act to punish the violator, and require recompense for the aggreived.
It would be my contention, however, that the State's New Testamental authority to punish adultery, does not necessitate or inherently justify the Old Testamental mode of punishment. Under the Levitical Covenant, the fusion of Church and State empowered the State to impose punishment for violations of both the Civil Law and the Moral Law; in punishment of adultery, the State was empowered to punish both the Civil violation inherent in the act (betrayal of covenant between persons) and the Moral defilement of the act (betrayal of God's institution). The people of God were required to purge the evil from their midst.
The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.DEUTERONOMY 17: 7
But, with the passing of the Levitical Covenant, the duties of Church and State are separate and independent. While the State must still punish the civil component of adultery, and require that the contract-breaker recompense the aggreived, the Moral component of purging the evil from the congregation is fulfilled by the discipline of Excommunication. This is the clear sense of 1 Corinthians:
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.I CORINTHIANS 5: 9 - 13
With the passing of the Levitical Covenant, the division of Moral and Civil duties between Church and State necessitates a division of the punishment of adultery. The State must and should punish the civil violation, the contract-breaking, and require recompense for the aggreived. But as reagrds the Moral component, the "purging" is accomplished by excommunicating the unrepetant adulterer from the congregation. If any harsher punishment is desired, I can only repeat the words of Paul: "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?.... But them that are without God judgeth."
It is not weak. Fact is no politician who brought the crime rate down, we did. I don't go out an break laws, and I am assuming you don't. Giulaini, still wants to make the blacks that do not commit crimes, the one you yourself said benefit from the drop, the criminals, and that is wrong, and reflective of what many people see when the see conservatism.
Ah, but if you ask yourself these questions, you will then understand why there are so many people rejecting the so-called morality of conservatives. However, the answeres for me are quite simple. A religion-based government is not a viable one. It is a dictatorship. You do not have to answer any questions, you do not have to be logical in your conclusions. A law enforced that is devoid of any reasoning behind it makes your society dangerous. tha is what happendto this woman.
Ah, but if you ask yourself these questions, you will then understand why there are so many people rejecting the so-called morality of conservatives. However, the answeres for me are quite simple. A religion-based government is not a viable one. It is a dictatorship. You do not have to answer any questions, you do not have to be logical in your conclusions. A law enforced that is devoid of any reasoning behind it makes your society dangerous. tha is what happendto this woman.
"A law enforced that is devoid of any reasoning behind it makes your society dangerous."
Agreed.
Now: Show me why this is so. I'm not disagreeing with your statement that, "A law enforced that is devoid of any reasoning behind it makes your society dangerous", but that begs the question: what reasoning, may morally stand as the foundation for Law? To demonstrate the validity of your contentions, you must answer the question.
Ah, but if you ask yourself these questions, you will then understand why there are so many people rejecting the so-called morality of conservatives.
So show me.
Ask yourself these questions. And, answer them.
What is "wrong"?
Why do you feel it's wrong?
On what basis do you call a given a given action, "wrong"?
Is there an objective basis for Rights, or are they purely a construct of personal preference, of majority whim?
These are the real questions. Think.
I look forward to your response.
I have kept my yap shut, and I have listened enough to know that conservatives do not believe in law and order anymore than anyone else. Just like everyone else with a political agenda, conservatives only believe in law and order for everyone else but themselves. I just met Father Frank Pavone. He says he is against the shooting of abortion doctors, something the Army of God loves. He is however against it not because it is wrong, but because it is detrimental to winning new converts to his way of thinking. That makes what you call law and order Elitist, and it is not right. Also, in case you haven't noticed, it is not tolerated either.
investigators only succeeded in finding her after they noticed the serial number of an electricity meter that was in the background of a scene in one of her films.
I wonder what else they studied so carefully? Dirty job but someone has to do it I suppose.
And how did four black and latino college students ean the disrespect of two officers in NJ who shot them, sparking the racial profiling concern? Yes, I am black, and i also used to be Security Police in the Air Force, so I can go from both perspectives. I will tell you by the way that deciding things based on stereotypes will get you killed out there on the job if that's "the way it is". Every cop will tell you that you do NOT go into a situation as if it is a routine, which kills stereotyping and profiling. That is one thing everybody forgets.
First off, the community is not to blame, the ones committing the crimes are. Secondly even if that was true, Middle-class blacks like are among those who have been hurt by reckless cops. Ans as for sources:
Amadou Diallo: No criminal record
Abner Louima: No criminal record
The four youths that were stopped by troopers Hogan and Kenna on the NJ Turnpike: No criminal Record
Patrick Dorismond:Juvenile record, that was sealed until Mayor Giulaini felt he needed some dirt on him. Even the conservative New York Post cried foul on that one.
What is "wrong"?
Wrong to me is what disallows a person to decide for his or herself the path they choose. They did that in Iran to this woman.
Why do you feel it's wrong?
Because everyone has that right to do make those choices.
On what basis do you call a given a given action, "wrong"?
Is there an objective basis for Rights, or are they purely a construct of personal preference, of majority whim?
Objective, never a majority whim, or as I say reactionary.
Is there an objective basis for Rights, or are they purely a construct of personal preference, of majority whim? ~~ Objective, never a majority whim, or as I say reactionary.
Good. So, we are in agreement that, once we have defined what constitutes an individual's Rights, Majority Whim may NEVER morally abrogate or violate those Rights.
An important point to establish.
Let's continue.
What is "wrong"? On what basis do you call a given a given action, "wrong"? ~~ Wrong to me is what disallows a person to decide for his or herself the path they choose. They did that in Iran to this woman.
Why do you feel it's wrong? ~~ Because everyone has that right to do make those choices.
"Wrong to me is what disallows a person to decide for his or herself the path they choose."
May an individual morally choose to initiate violence, or coercion, or fraud against another individual? Would such a choice be "wrong"? Why or why not?
I am sure the Islamic Supreme court would of watched the video enough times to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of this woman.
The foundress of PP was Margart Sanger. And yes I did know of her beliefs prior to posting. She was 'celebrated' as one of the 100 most influential women of the 20th Century.
Revisionist history is practiced for the convenience the agenda. Ms. Sanger was a 'champion' of womyn's reproductive rights...so what if she wanted to 'control' the population of blacks thru what amounts to infanticide.
Abner Louima: No criminal record
I believe that cops should be held to a higher standard of legal recourse than we are. They are intrusted with state force, and if they violate it as above - the consequences should be severe. The case above you name is one such case. The cops should have been in prison for the Maximum time allowed under law. And for every criminal violation. Assault - 1-10 yrs? That's 10. Sexual Battery 1-10 years? There's 10 more....
(I also hold this standard for women who falsely accuse of rape - they should have to serve the sentence for rapists - side issue)
Believe me, I'm totally against crooked cops. IMO, local citizens would have been justified in taking justice in their own hands on these particular cops.
But you do the black community no justice, when examples like Cincinnati are used. Where the black community starts dragging white people out of cars and beating them. In case you're not aware, not all us white folks like the police either - and we're aware of how corrupt they are - but we don't deserve our heads bashed in because we drive into the wrong place at the wrong time.
BUMP - FYI -- see also post #104
Mine was just an art. YOurs was a philosophical supremacist point ... kind of like Nazism. At least it seems that way.
I'm sure you have a law book to supremacisticaly impose on others your personal philosophies and point of views.
I do not impose, I just do art.
yeehah, OPP's post number 106 states that all morality can be reduced to personal desires. I am sure glad he posted that, since I have always had a desire to see what a machine gun can do to a crowded market place. What, OPP says that is wrong? Based on what? Isn't he the one who told me that I could choose my own path? Didn't Hitler choose his own path? Stalin? Mao? Fidel Castro? Even maybe the mullahs in Iran?
Wrong answer OPP.
May an individual morally choose to initiate violence, or coercion, or fraud against another individual? Would such a choice be "wrong"? Why or why not?
It would be wrong, because it hampers the rights of another individual. Simply put, it's not playng fair.
I was in Cincinnati at that time. I live in Columbus, Ohio. What is more, I saw whites out there causing a lot of damamge too. Things are getting stressful for a lot of folks, and they are tired of not being listened too, that is why things happened in Cincinnati the way it did. In fact, that is why you see the violence at all these trade meetings like Seattle, DC, Quebec City, and the RNC Convention and at the Inaguration (I was at the last two). There was a shooting in Oakland this weekend. No one is talking about it. There was a shooting in Cincinnati a few weeks ago and everyone went nuts. We are still talking about it. The right did it too with the Oklahoma City Bombing. That was what prompted John Mc Cain to open up hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. He even said so on Crossfire back in 1995. Hell, the right is using the Cincinnati unrest to push for the carry and conceal law here in Ohio, something that I support by the way.
You don't have to condone the violence to come up with a solution, but without the violence it seems no one wants to even talk about a solution. We need to fix that if we are going to get ahead.
And how do I impose anything on anyone. I am stating my personal opinion. That is not imposing.
No it was not. I did say you cannot disallow the people their right to choose the path we choose, especially as a society, so to test out that machine gun in a crowded marketplace would do just that.
yeehah, OPP's post number 106 states that all morality can be reduced to personal desires.
Morality is absolute only in so far as it occurs in the real world with real people. People have a primitive core which causes them to be territorial, combined with an intellect that makes revenge possible. If I wantonly killed someone, I would brush up against human nature, and would likely be killed in retaliation for the pain I caused. And I obviously don't want that.
For the most part, morality is relative to the civilization in which it occurs, and moral advances go hand in hand with technological advances --they evolve to forms that are more in accord with human nature over time. This is why the morality of North America is not the same as the morality in Iran. And this is also why the morality of the Bible (children being held guilty for the crimes of the parent, slavery, rape) is not the same as the morality of North America today.
People don't have to get their morality from the Bible, since it's a poor source anyway. Common sense and a bit of empathy will suffice. These also appeal to better parts of human nature than the bribe of heaven, or the threat of hell.
Well, so be it. You're opinions are scary wishes. Mine is art, not an opinion.
You are still on a path of relativism regarding morality, regardless of any disclaimer you might have recently made about societal restraint. Even "Hillary makes me hot"'s response in your defense supports this fact.
This moral relativism has no authority other than the whims of the majority. Both Uriel and myself (along with the founding fathers) know that there are "unalienable rights" due to the fact that the basis of morality resides in authoritarian dictates of the Creator. Without this basis, morality is reduced to a matter of the highest number of votes. Pretty scary stuff!
Why would it be immoral for me to test my machine gun in the public market? Because there are enough people like you who would vote to outlaw this act, or because the Word of the Almighty makes it unlawful? If the former, then God help us (pun intended) when the majority of us want to be machine gun testers!
You sound paranoid.
Moral is an absolute. Like Truth.
Just because civilizations change and some approach being moral, does not mean that they were moral at the time.
Just because rape, slavery, etc, etc is in the Bible does not make it moral either....
Our perceptions of moral or not moral may be flawed. Just as our perceptions of truth may be flawed. Because we are not trying, because we are ignorant, because we are intellectually lazy... but the concepts do not change just because we fail them.
You are trying to suggest that I am saying anything goes, and I hope you are not saying that because it fits your political argument. There is a life beyond the disussion board, and if you want to maintain a way of thinking that doesn't jibe with what is really happening out there, you are going to get your feelings hurt. No, anythng does not go, and where the line has been drawn even by conservatives is when someone takes it upon themselves to deny their freedoms and liberties that have been afforded them.
" That is squarely on the shoulders on the elitists in this country known as the Right."
The liberals murder 1 million babies every year. The murder of babies is squarely on the shoulders of the elitists in this country known as the Left. The same elitists that gave Clinton a pass on rape.
"A religion-based government is not a viable one. It is a dictatorship. "
A government based on left-wing ideas is not a viable one. It is a dictatorship. Leftism is a secular religion.
"He says he is against the shooting of abortion doctors, something the Army of God loves. He is however against it not because it is wrong, but because it is detrimental to winning new converts to his way of thinking. "
So lets' say someone advocated killing abortion "doctors". How is that person any worse morally than all the liberals who advocate killing innocent babies?
I fail to see how killing abortionists is any worse than killing babies.
Whoa...I go for a sandwich and the thread gets yanked. What happened?
When Cultural Jihad, Fred25 and Texasforever admitted that they were in on the stoning, all hell broke loose.
No, I am not playing games with you. Along with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and a slew of others, I am trying to demonstrate that there is no such thing as morality unless it is based upon an absolute. "Moral Relativism" is an oxymoron, it doesn't exist. Morality does not exist without absolute authority, morality does not exist apart from God.
Well I figured I was being led into a prepared debate, nevertheless a few points...
I'm not discussing soteriology here (which is the concern of Colossians 2), I'm discussing Theonomy.
Colossians 2 is also concerned with what the "whole of the law" is, which is where I thought you were going. No matter.
The Biblical Model for the imposition of the Moral Law is Covenantal -- consensual, specifically, unanimous consent.
DEUTERONOMY 27: 14 - 26
The convenant was binding on the descendants of Israel.
And this covenant was extended to all... Matt. 21:43, Eph 5:1
It doesn't require continual generational unanimous consent.
So... if you can't enact the Moral Law without Unanimous Covenantal assent to its adoption, what laws can you enact? Surely the State must have the Authority to enact some laws, hadn't it??
Indeed it does. But the Authority of the State is limited to the imposition of the Civil Law of Romans 13, which corresponds to the Second Table of the Decalogue:
ROMANS 13: 3-6, 9-10
Methinks you have Romans 13 backwards. Why do you leave out 7-8 which enumerates those things you must be subject. While 9-10 enumerates what you _cannot_ render. For to render them would be serving a throne of iniquity. Unless said ordinances were specifically repealed they are still in effect.
But, with the passing of the Levitical Covenant, the duties of Church and State are separate and independent.
The covenant never passed away. The Romans conquering Israel did not break the convenant.
bttt ping to mark post...
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have found, to my dismay, that all too many Christian conservatives on this Forum are unwilling to address a Biblical argument for libertarianism, preferring instead to argue (in essence) "The Bible doesn't give us rules for government, we have to make up our own" (which is really an utterly anti-nomian position). You have not done so, instead offering a counter-argument which treats Scripture as the rightful Authority in determining matters of Faith and Practice (including the practice of governing).
I appreciate your response and will respond with a critique as soon as I am able (I will be travelling tomorrow, and my not FReep again 'till the weekend depending on my schedule).
Thanks again,
Uriel
132 Posted on 11/08/2001 11:34:07 PST by backhoe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |