Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democratic Stoning

In ancient times when a woman did not follow the dictates of the Bible she was stoned to death. This sort of autocratic stoning is definitely wrong. However, today we have a more civilized type of stoning - a democratic stoning - that may occur in a democracy such as Iraq.

Does anyone doubt Iraq is a democracy? Millions of Iraqis have purple fingers to attest to the fact that they voted. They voted for a parliament. They voted for a constitution. Iraq has a purple-finger democracy.

Although many Americans think that chaos rules in Iraq, Iraqis believe in the rule of law:

A slender, black-haired girl is dragged in a headlock through a braying mob of men. Within seconds, she is on the ground in a fetal position, covering her head with her arms in a futile attempt to fend off a shower of stones.

Someone slams a concrete block onto the back of her head. A river of blood oozes from beneath her long, tangled hair. The girl stops moving, but the kicks and the rocks keep coming, as do the victorious shouts of the men delivering them.

The girl was 17 and a member of a religious sect called Yazidi and she loved a boy who was a Sunni. Obviously such a crime calls for stoning.

What's wrong with this? In a democratic society what the people want is what they get. They want stoning, they get stoning. With their purple-finger hands they pick up stones and throw them at a teenager. They want many religious sects, they get many religious sects. They want sects to kill each other, they kill each other.

What are we doing there? Why are we interfering? We offer advice that is unheeded. We present benchmarks to tell them how to modify their constitution and they pay no attention. We tell them to stop the bombing and killing and they continue.

Before you know it, U.S. will tell Iraqis to stop stoning 17 year old girls. Don't we know that stoning is OK, that it is part of their religions. Now that Iraq is a purple-finger democracy, it can choose to be ruled by Sharia, love Iran and Hezbollah, and hate Israel - and US if we don't get out of there.

U.S. has sanctified democratic stoning.

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 21, 2007 5:49 PM
Comments
Comment #220969

Paul:

Before you know it, U.S. will tell Iraqis to stop stoning 17 year old girls. Don’t we know that stoning is OK, that it is part of their religions.

Do you really mean to say that you believe it is ok to stone a 17 year old girl?

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 21, 2007 7:02 PM
Comment #220970

Craig, Paul is merely saying that we went into Iraq to destroy tyranny and “allow” them to create a democracy. Neither they, nor we realized that Bush was the one who wanted to determine how that should be done, who should be in charge of it, and how they should play once it was done.
What the hell have we accomplished, based on that criteria??? Purple fingers !!!!! And we are in the middle of a war on religious beliefs that has been waged forever, and isn’t going to stop because some idiot with a brain like a b-b in a barrel wants them to “make nice”. The cost for this has been more precious than many could have imagined, and it is the lives and life-styles of our injured & mutilated military men and women.
He has accomplished a lot alright, but nothing that we will be able to fix for a very long time……

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 21, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #220973

Sorry Paul but aren’t you stretching a bit here?

If you want to point to religious violence perpertrated in a ‘democracy’ why not just point to our own country first. Are you suggesting that these things don’t happen in civilized countries? By that criteria I don’t think there is one.

The system is in place to allow for change, no one thinks it should take place overnight and the Iraqis are doing there best to prove that right. I don’t think we should still be there, we went in to remove Saddam, and we accomplished that 4 years ago. This new mission, one that wasn’t sold the us, is and cannot be led by the US. This administration screwed up big time when it did not hand over the rebuilding of Iraq to the UN as they offered, because they didn’t like the strings attached.

But, that doesn’t mean that removing a tyrant and terrorist supporter that had been thumbing his nose at the world community was the wrong thing to do. If the citizens are suffering from violence now it should be at their own hands, not the hands of a dictator nor the hands of an occupying force trying to tell them how best not to kill themselves. We have a problem in the US thinking we can tell others how to live their lives, just look at the laws we put into place in THIS country for proof of that, we don’t need to be telling others the same. If they keep it within the borders of Iraq why do we care of they tear each other apart because they have too much hatred (that is founded in idiocy and religous fervor) for each other? Perhaps eventually the religious morons will kill themselves off and the remaining sensible population will then take over.

It’s not to far from what happened (and is still happening) here in the US.

Posted by: rhinehold at May 21, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #220975

Any culture/religion that surpresses half of its population (women) is in the “stone” age. Problem is that the Muslim birth rate is 6.00 accross Arab/Muslim countries. This is higher than any other part of the world. China and India are set to be surpased by the Muslim world on the whole within 50 years. (The Economist World Figures 2007 Pocket Book). U.S. interests still must lie in getting the word out about Democracy.

I can’t argue with leave a culture to its own. However I would choose to believe that the glass is half full and that there are those that have tasted democracy and were standing there not throwing rocks, whereas four years ago they would have been the first to pick up a stone.

Posted by: Honest at May 21, 2007 8:47 PM
Comment #220982
If you want to point to religious violence perpertrated in a ‘democracy’ why not just point to our own country first.

Why do guys like you always blame America first, Rhinehold? :)

Paul, Iraqi law is based on Fundamentalist Islamic Shariah Law. It specifically says so in the Iraqi Constitution that Republicans all thought was so great.

I pointed it out at the time, but nobody was interested.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 21, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #220988
Why do guys like you always blame America first, Rhinehold?

Can’t help it I guess, just a traitorous bastard at heart. ;)

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 21, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #221012

Honest,

The highest birth rate *and* fertility rate are not in the muslim world but in central Africa, where many are not muslims countries, except for the east african ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertility_rate_world_map.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png

One will notice, though, that Afghanistan is a very visible exception.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 22, 2007 4:50 AM
Comment #221014

I see nothing wrong with the stoning. They were just Conservatives doing their thing.

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at May 22, 2007 5:37 AM
Comment #221018

Outrage over Iraqi’s stoning of a young women for loving the wrong man, but silence over the killing of unborn children here in the U.S. We’re civilized and love democracy and they are heathens pretending at democracy. What hypocracy! My philosophy and religion good, your’s bad. Democrats good, Republicans bad. What a bunch of judgemental freaks.

Posted by: Jim at May 22, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #221019

Jim,

The Iraqis aren’t the only folks throwing stones.
Thise in the right seem pretty good at it as well.

People in glass houses…..

Posted by: Rocky at May 22, 2007 10:54 AM
Comment #221030
but silence over the killing of unborn children here in the U.S.

Jim, I wouldn’t describe the unholy racket over abortion as silence.

And the difference is: Abortion in America is a choice. A hard choice. But cracking open the heads of silly teenage girls in Iraq with cinder blocks is compulsary. It’s the law.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #221033

And the difference is: Abortion in America is a choice. A hard choice. But cracking open the heads of silly teenage girls in Iraq with cinder blocks is compulsary. It’s the law.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2007 01:58 PM

Of course liberals don’t call killing innocent children killing, it’s abortion. And morality certainly doesn’t trump law. You are easily recognized by what spews from your mouth and pen. When they drag your rusty old ass to the death clinic they will just be obeying the law certain to be enacted when enough young liberals achieve power. To whom will you appeal? Killing the innocent under any law or by any name is dastardly.

Posted by: Jim at May 22, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #221037

Jim,
Where’s the outrage over the trillions of sperm that never have a chance at life. How about the eggs never fertilized. What you won’t acknowledge is there are zillions of opportunities for life here that are wasted.

What hypocracy! My philosophy and religion good, your’s bad. Republicans good, Democrats bad. What a judgemental freak.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 22, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #221049

Schwamp…equating sperm with a child in the womb is silly…even for a liberal. And, I have voted Democrat numerous times. I object to the liberal wing of a great party. PLease…I don’t know of a single religion that advocates killing its young. Do you? Bury yourself in your philosophical wasteland while I intend to remain morally grounded. And yes, I am judgemental. In the good old days being judgemental meant having principles that guided our lives. The “I’m OK and your O.K. BS of today simply means that one is not willing to stand up for anything.

Posted by: Jim at May 22, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #221055

What happen to judge not lest you be judged.

Posted by: Debbie at May 22, 2007 8:39 PM
Comment #221066

Philippe Houdoin, thanks for the clarificaton.

Thanks for the clarification. I am quoting off memory from the book “America Alone” and from “The Economist’s Pock World Figures 2007 Edition”

Perhaps we need to get to a net number, birth rates fewer death rates. However, let’s assume your information is correct. Africa hardly represents the political threat that the combination of Muslim countries represent.

Relative to this article and my point is that if Muslim countries have a high birthrate combined, then they are certainly growing their populations faster than Western civilization. And their value of life is different than ours; you could almost say they are growing room for an attrition war unless the moderate Muslims stand up to their fanatical elements. Which is not happening to date. I will hope it does. However, exposing their ever growing population to democratic values might just stick with some of their population.

Back to stats: Maternal mortality rate in African countries is the highest of the world to, so again maybe a net number needs to clarify our positions. I am sorry I can’t create a web link, but this is book I get as a subscriber to The Economist. Great magazine, it comes as a free gift with your subscription each year.

Highest infant mortality, this would seem to be an offset for high birth rates. They have to survive to really grow the population. Again a net number would be helpful but difficult to calculate.

1. Sierra Leone
2. Niger
3. Afghanistan
4. Angola
5. Liberia
6. Mail
7. Burkina Faso
8. Cote d Ivoire
9. Somalia
10. Congo-Kinshasa

This is telling, lowest death rates, scary in a way to see Muslim nations ahead of Western nations. NO WESTERN NATION SHOWS UP IN THE TOP 21. #13 is Mexico, #21 is Venezuela. The list only goes to 21 spots.

1. United Arab Emirates
2. Kuwait
3. Brunei
4. Oman
5. Qatar
6. Bahrain
7. Syria
8. Saudi Arabia
9. West Bank and Gaza
10. Jordan

Maternal mortality rate (Deaths per 100,000 live births)

1. Sierra Leone
2. Afghanistan
3. Malawi
4. Angola
5. Niger
6. Tanzania
7. Rwanda
8. Mali
9. Central African Rep
10. Chad
11. Guinea-Bissau
12. Somalia
13. Zimbabwe
14. Kenya

Posted by: Honest at May 22, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #221088

The story did not say the stoning of the young woman was in accordance in law; in fact, it implied that it wasn’t because the perps and the police who witnessed it but did nothing face arrest. Regardless, the Yazidis (I admit I’ve never heard of them before) aren’t Muslim; they worship a royal blue peacock!) The whole sordid story smacks of a perverse Romeo and Juliet.

Posted by: Gerrold at May 23, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #221139

The truth, like so many things has been lost in the race to condemn the entire Iraqi people for the actions of a few.

This is a horrible crime, and quite frankly it repels me.

Still we need to establish some facts here.

-The girl was Yazidi
-That is a very small religion, or cult
-Iraq suffered fifty years under Saddam
-Cultures don’t change over night

Social change is nothing something that can be accomplished over night, why people liberal or conserative expect it to is a never ending source of amusement to me.

It took the United States two hundred years to reach where we are now, and some people would say we haven’t even come that far.

This instance is disturbing, but to judge an entire country and people based on the actions of a few is the worst type of generalaztion.

People, pretend like common sense must not leave the room when you need to espouse your Anti-Bush, or Anti-Liberal views.

Posted by: OblivionsPuppet at May 23, 2007 5:25 PM
Comment #221141

“In a democratic society what the people want is what they get. They want stoning, they get stoning. With their purple-finger hands they pick up stones and throw them at a teenager. They want many religious sects, they get many religious sects. They want sects to kill each other, they kill each other.”

Sure makes me proud to live in a REPUBLIC.

Posted by: tomd at May 23, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #221398

Oblivionpuppets,

It took the United States two hundred years to reach where we are now, and some people would say we haven’t even come that far.

I don’t really think stoning a teenage girl like this would have ever been acceptable to a similar group of people, in any time since America was founded. Of course there have been many mistakes, but even then we’ve come far more in a couple hundred years while apparently certain people in the middle east have come in a millenium. Even our civil war, as awful as it was, still of course followed certain rules of war and wasn’t like the constant bombing and murder of civilians of a different sect like in Iraq. Of course, America of was founded on the principles of the enligtenment (although now of course it’s moving away from it). Iraq of course shows what happens when people believe in governing by religious fundamentalism and emotion, rather than reason. And I think it shows what happens when you “liberate” a group of people, without their permission or consent, and then expect them to immediately think just like you.

Posted by: thom at May 27, 2007 1:19 AM
Comment #221407

“I don’t really think stoning a teenage girl like this would have ever been acceptable to a similar group of people, in any time since America was founded.”

Like Salem witch trials?

Posted by: tomd at May 27, 2007 7:49 AM
Post a comment