« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Iran Executing Man for Converting to Christianity

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  February 27th, 2012 at 06:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Fox News reports Iran has not yet executed Youcef Nadarkhani yet for the crime of converting Moslems in Iran to Christianity:

The Christian pastor sentenced to death in Iran last week for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity was confirmed alive as of early Sunday, sources close to his attorneys told Fox News.

The American Center for Law and Justice , working hard to educate Americans on this important religious freedom issue, wrote Sunday:

Our sources in Iran have confirmed to the ACLJ that Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is still alive as of earlier today. We still believe that his execution has been ordered, but it is clear that renewed international pressure on Iran for Pastor Youcef’s release is having an impact. It is this immense pressure that continues to keep Pastor Youcef alive.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mndasher

    Obama should apologize to Iran for this man’s huge mistake.

    • http://www.gosmllbiz.com byhisgrace

      He was BORN a Christian. Iran ants him to go back to the ‘religion’ (not – it’s a totalitarian government using ‘religion’ to keep its people in bondage) of his ancestors. Wake up America…they want all of us, all the infidels dead…and if GOD FORBID they were ever to accomplish their dream of re establishing their caliphate, this is what will happen to anyone who doesn’t convert.

      Again Pastor Youcef did not convert he was born a Christian.

      Sorry, to enter my post here…the link to add a message is not working.

      Love your comment.

      • tnguy

        …is “born” a Christian. Rather born again.

      • out4tea

        Connie, Every report I have seen on this issue states he converted to Christianity. I believe he was charged with “apostasy”. If they execute citizens for being Christian, how does anyone practice Christianity in the Middle East? Being Christian in of itself is not a crime. However converting from Islam to Christianity is a crime punishable by death.
        Do you have evidence he has been Christian since birth?

  • circlegranch

    and denounce Iran and their religious bigotry and intolerance before Obama apologizes to them for this man being in their country, converting to Christianity and ultimately offending them, the followers of the religion of peace.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    written in 2005, states that Islam is the official religion and the foundation and source for their legislation. These same actions occur in Iraq every day. I would expect to see the same in Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. To name a few. Christians are killed for their beliefs all over the world.

    • Scope

      support the execution of Christians or not, just that it happens every day in Muslim countries. You are the very same poster that thought that we should use E-Verify for those in US emergency rooms, before they get any treatment, even when they are brought there with life threatening injuries/illnesses. I questioned you on that, and your response was that hey it’s just the way it should be, in other words. I seriously have to question if you are even a human being, with a brain, a heart, and any sense of humanity at all. I truly am not quite sure that I have seen many posting here at RS that are not just 32 degrees, but you seem to be sitting in the deep deep freeze with your attitude. Your lack of any empathy is chilling.

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        I was born Buddhist, but converted to Christianity as a young child (my family is from South Korea). Needless to say I don’t support being executed for my beliefs. My point is that this is a terrible thing that occurs every day, but that there is not much we can do about it. Sanctions have always shown a propensity to fail as Europe just stabs us in the back (see oil for food scandal). Military force does not always work either – look to Iraq for an example of that. Even in 2005 when we had 150,000 troops on the ground there, they still chose to make Islamic law the foundation for their legislation. This is reality. Christians are executed all over the world every day. I do not support this in any way. However, I see no point in focusing on such a tremendous problem with no solutions to offer.

        Put yourself in the place of the President. Only better, you don’t have to worry about congress – assume they will just work with you. A man is being executed in Iran for his religion. What would you do? The same is happening in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. You are the president of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world. What would you do?

        • Ausonius

          SuzyQ: wrote:

          “However, I see no point in focusing on such a tremendous problem with no solutions to offer.”

          Exactly how does one find a solution to a “tremendous problem” without focusing on it?

          Ostracizing such nations economically, politically, militarily would be a nice solution, if we had not already shot ourselves in the foot decades ago on that solution.

          As they say, doing something like e.g. blowing up the Ka’aba stone would only put us on the level of the terrorists, no matter how satisfying it might seem.

          Covertly supporting underground resistance movements, like the anti-government movement in Iran, would be one long-term solution. But you need a president who does not apologize and bow down to Islamic thugs for that to happen!

          • wantthegopback

            for fun if nothing else. So if you were president, what would you do? She did ask that.

          • JSobieski

            The list of countries (a list that includes but is not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan) that has initiated criminal trials against Christians from the crime of apostacy is much longer than people believe. It pretty much covers the OIC except for Turkey, and Turkey is heading in that direction.

            Anti-government movements are just as likely to end up like the movement in Egypt as it is in . . . [searching for a successful alternative outcome].

          • Ausonius

            Especially under MAObama: note that we neither ostracize nor do much of anything else about this behavior among our curious “allies.” The aid money keeps flowing to them.

            I agree that anti-government movements do not necessarily lead to more enlightened governments taking form after a revolution or a coup. The point is that we need to influence and squeeze these countries in whatever way possible. If that means causing them trouble by supporting underground groups which would seemingly be an improvement, then so be it.

            But yes, there are no guarantees of long-term improvement with a replacement, but you might thereby force the regime in power to relent.

          • JSobieski

            I would agree that ongoing permanent revolution in Iran and Syria would be a good thing.

            Best thing for us would be PERMANENT revolution in these countries so that they never focus on the outside world again.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            More on that very topic wrt Syria today.

          • Ausonius

            I also agree that these countries do not look hopeful right now: optimists see the decline of fundamentalism long-term because of technology like the Internet.

            Pessimists see the rise of fundamentalism persisting precisely because of technological threats! Fundamentalism is a reaction to the rationalism of the Scientific Age and such an age’s implicit hostility to a (basically) unreformed theology from the 600′s. Islamic thinkers who have tried to advance and reform Islam are not now ascendant.

          • Scope

            if you want to call it that was in Honduras. The Hondurans rose up against the dictator Zelaya (?) wanting to throw out the constitution and run for extended terms, like Chavez, and the people, along with their legislature stood up to H Clinton and Obama that were in support of Zelaya remaining in power. Clinton tried to broker a deal with the Honduran legislature to allow the dictator to remain, and they told her where to go. She backed away, quietly, with a whole lot of egg on her face. I believe the new leader that was the choice of the people has risen to power. I haven’t heard of the country going downhill or having protests in the streets because the will of the citizens prevailed in a fair manner.

          • Ausonius

            Having a Western heritage might have helped the Hondurans, but even that was no guarantee for France in 1789 or Germany in the 1930′s.

            And no help at all were Clinton and MAObama supporting the Chavez-wannabe.

        • jet5000

          SuzieQ, you wrote:
          A man is being executed in Iran for his religion. What would you do? The same is happening in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.

          Are you claiming the Israeli government executes people for their religion?????!!!!!!

          If so, what are you referring to, and what is your source??

          Clarify if there is some confusion here, or put up what you think is supporting information, or correct yourself and apologize for that outrageous, slanderous absurdity.

          Posted by 74.73.163.104 via http://webwarper.net, created by AlgART: http://algart.net/
          This is added while posting a message to avoid misusing the service

          • wantthegopback

            about Israel. I missed that in her post. My bad. Yeah, that has to be clarified, because… well the because should be obvious. You know, like its totally BS…

      • JSobieski

        Now the logic and analysis: People have been sentenced to death or faced death penalty “trials” in both Iraq and Afghanistan while our soldiers were securing the court rooms used for the proceedings.

        Our tax dollars paid for judges, rooms, etc. in which people were prosecuted for converting to Christianity.

        It is important that people understand the evil of Iran, but it is also important that people understand that the governments and people of Afghanistan and Iraq resemble Iran far more closely than they do any country we would consider decent.

      • The_Gadfly

        she didn’t come across that way to me. I read it as just a short summation of facts. Yes, her reply muddies things a bit, but this post remains a set of facts. I’ll give you one more: Christians should all know that these are the facts and they will remain the facts until our Lord returns. Something about even as they did unto him, they shall do onto us.

        That doesn’t mean we aren’t also required to do something about it. That something is witnessing. And the ironic thing is, while it will be our loss if the pastor is executed, there is no greater witness of faith than to die for it. And the more Iran publicizes the event, the more people see the truth of his faith and the weakness of their own.

        • Scope

          Start with the Iran hostages that Reagan managed to secure freedom for by complete strength of leadership, and he didn’t bow down and kiss the Ayotollah’s feet to do it. Bill Clinton went to North Korea to secure the freedom of the two women prisoners being held there. More recently the 2 men and one woman were freed by the Iranian dictators, albeit for a price, but someone was willing to come up with the dollars to secure there release and it wasn’t the government, if I am correct. It appears that Iran has made a habit of snatching up people, demanding big dollars for their release, and this president sits back, kisses their feet, talks nice to them, is lead by the nose by China and Russia, and then throws his hands up in the air and does nothing.

          I’ve got to wonder if the fact that the prisoner is facing death because he converted to Christianity makes him not worth the trouble. I don’t believe Obama, or Hillary have even made any statements about the Christians being murdered in middle eastern countries simply because of their religion. Not a peep. Two of our candidates have said that Obama is waging war on religion, and unfortunately the Christians are seen by him as the enemy.

      • tnguy

        Has nothing to do with the thread, but are you willing to pay for random people’s health care forever? To what degree? Or are you going to force Suzie to pay for it, at the point of a gun?

        IMO, her point wasn’t irrational. Perhaps it went to far, but we have to start thinking in those terms. We can’t afford to continue to pay for everything we are now. Where do you draw the line? “Life threatening illness” is any number of things, some of which require extraordinarily expensive treatments. Who is going to pay for that? You’re willing to take a 2nd mortgage to pay for that random person’s treatment? Great if you do. But then what do you do when the next person comes along with a catastrophic illness and you’ve no assets left with which to mortgage?That’s where we are as a nation.

        I don’t say that callously or as trolling. My point is we as a people have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to health care. I don’t advocate denial of care to someone on the verge of death. Simply put, America cannot afford the current level of care given to American citizens, much less those who are not citizens. If you ask me my solution, sorry, I have none, other than to pray for guidance.

        • Scope

          and suzieQ that you find it acceptable to just let someone die on the street, because they are illegal and therefore not human or worthy of emergency care. You both sound like the Ron Paul supporters at the debate when Paul was asked about the solution to someone who doesn’t have healthcare insurance, and the supporters shouted “let him die.” The attitude of both of you are apparently the product of the Ron Paul radical right playbook, where the only thing of any value is money. Your incredible sense of charity is breathtaking. As I said to suzieQ, you better do more than pray that you never fall on hard times, and can’t afford your healthcare premiums. Is it really about the money, or is it more so about those damn dirty illegals that are breaking our laws and are not worthy of emergency life saving care? Thankfully you are in a very small minority of the population. I like to believe that my fellow American citizens are better than that. I’m not suggesting that the US citizens shell out food, clothing, an education, housing and free healthcare for the flu to those that are here illegally. I’m saying that you are no better than the liberals and their death panels on who gets to say who lives and who dies with respect to emergency life saving care.

          • JSobieski

            Whether its food stamps, nursing home coverage, etc. they just say “you conservatives find it acceptable to just let someone die on the street” because they can’t afford the alternative.

            Its a straw man argument.

            You won’t find Pence or DeMint talking like this, that is for sure.

            Resources are finite. By characterizing the arguments above as death panels, you are doing the left’s job for them.

            Let me clearly distinguish the two arguments for you.

            An Obamacare death panel is different because they tell ALL INSURANCE companies what they should do. There is no “Option B” when you have an Obamacare death panel. When government calls all the shots, nobody is going to go against a decision by the government that something shouldn’t be covered. Nor do you have any recourse against the government.

            With a private sector, there are many options. First, there is competition betwee insurance companies so the companies have an incentive to not blemish their good names. Second, insurance companies are sued all the time, and those cases are winnable—people like John Edwards can handle such cases. Third, with a private market, one can do things like ask for charity, host fundraisers, etc.

            In short, there is no right wing equivalent to an Obama death panel.

          • lapert

            I’m the last person who would normally stand up for Scope and her post could use clarity and less emotion. But in this case, the discussion with SuzieQ was literally about requiring E-Verify checks before emergency room (and presumably ambulatory) services are provided. Which would quite literally leave people dying in the streets or at the hospital door, and not just illegals but anyone out jogging without an ID who needs an ambulance.

          • JSobieski

            If we increase the likelihood that an illegal immigrant will be identified, caught,and ultimately deported because of contact with X, illegal immigrants will avoid contact with X and our entire society will be worse off.

            In the context of sanctuary cities, X = police.
            In the context of healthcare, X = emergency rooms.

            Presuming that virtually every institution serves some generally public purpose, we should never enforce immigration laws because X is always a public good.

            While I agree that emergency care should not be withheld from someone because of a legal status (frankly, one can never be sure in real time whether an assessment is in error or not), I don’t have a fundamental problem with the idea that there are different events that can trigger an investigation as to who someone is, and what their status is.

            If I go jogging without an ID, I presume that a hospital would (1) treat me and (2) attempt to determine my identity. No doubt they will not wait all that long before asking for insurance, or a billing address.

            All of the minutia asside, my basic fundamental point applies to more than just the specific analysis above. We are cheapening the meaning of a “death panel” and that is my big argument.

            Unless a law actually prohibits the providing of medical services, it is NOT equivalent to an Obamacare death penal.

            The reason why Obamacare calls for a death panel is that it is not merely a decision by a private party not to do something. Rather it is a binding determination made by the government to PROHIBIT all applicable private parties from doing something.

            This is a huge difference, and is the reason why Obamacare death penals are not just a denial of coverage by an insurance company (a common D response).

            A death penal precludes the ability of anyone else to come to the rescue. A death penal precludes the ability of anyone else to come to their own rescue.

          • lapert

            Yes, that is all well and good – the key point is that the identity check happens after treatment. SuzieQ was arguing for the reverse in ERs as a means to save costs.

          • Scope

            Even being accused of using strawman arguments, and fighting like a Democrat, I WILL ALWAYS SIDE WITH LIFE. As I said above, the majority of the American citizens will always side with life, and in being charitable to fellow human beings. I am proud to be a part of the American culture who sends money, food and whatever else to people in other countries who experience natural disasters, and they aren’t legal US citizens. The problem isn’t with you or I having to pay for an illegals healthcare, it is with the government totally and completely interfering with, mandating, and running healthcare in this country. I’ll make a bet that the Catholic Hospitals, that may chose to close rather than be told by the government what they must do, wouldn’t be willing to first check E-Verify to see if someone there for life saving care is legal or not, or even if they have the money to pay for that care. Just how many illegals are transported to emergency room life saving care? or is just one too many for you?

          • tnguy

            ….bankruptcy, because if you think that saving the illegal alien who has sustained a gunshot wound is a moral imperitive (and I don’t deny that it is), then is not also giving the illegal alien life saving cancer treatments that cost tens of thousand$?

            What is the difference? There is none, really. It’s basically a problem to which there is no equitable solution.

            And since we’re talking about life saving treatment, what about treatment that might not seem so critical? Again, where are you drawing the line? And who is going to make that decision? You, since you’re the charitable one in the crowd?

            You can’t answer the basic question, because it’s unanswerable. We cannot afford the level of care that is currently provided to American citizens, much less those who are not.

            It’s awfully charitable of you to give everyone’s $$$ away. Because when we get down to the core of this, that’s what we’re doing. What if someone creates a drug which would immediately cure all heart disease, but it cost $1 Million. Should everyone with heart disease be entitled to it? Why not? We’re choosing life here, after all, regardless if it destroys whats left of our economy or not. That isn’t a strawman, either. That’s basically what we’re doing.

            Once more, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t know what to do, but I know that what we are doing now simply does not work. And if the “charitable” side of you will accept nothing less than full care for these individuals, then we’re back to you having the gun pointed at her head.

          • Scope

            showed up at the emergency room, in a life and death situation, and without immediate care, death was a sure thing, would you agree that that person’s life is valuable enough to save?

          • tnguy

            …. is valuable enough to save. Were I a health-care worker, I couldn’t in good conscious deny help to even the most vile person. They shouldn’t be placed in a position to wonder whether or not a person is here legally, because the illegal alien should not have been allowed in the first place.

            There is almost always something that health care providers can do to prolong or make a person’s life more comfortable. From a certain point of view, they are all life and death issues.

            It gets back to the same thing…where do we draw the line, and who is going to pay for it? My broader point – which I realize is poorly made – is that we are already going broke with what we’re doing, and providing care to people who are here illegally is worsening it.

            The more we look at health care as a God-given right (as opposed to a commodity) and look to the government to help provide it, 2 things are certain: it will cost more, and what is provided will eventually be of a significantly less quality.

  • jet5000

    To say this is sad and sickening is to understate how awful it is.

    I would note that, as an agnostic, I have trouble talking about morality with a fundamentalist of any religion, because to a fundamentalist, what is moral is what scripture says is immoral, period, end of story, because those rules are divine and therefore the unquestionable truth. So the only response to someone who does something to others that I consider awful and unjustifiable and therefore immoral is to (1) assert that that person has misinterpreted his own scripture, or (2) assert that he is wrong to think his scripture is the divine truth. #2 is obviously a non-starter. And he may be able to defend his interpretation (#1). There’s nothing I can say.

    Same with homosexuality. Someone says it’s immoral because that’s what his scripture says, period, end of discussion. Until the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 (yes, that recently) some states even criminalized sodomy, and apparently some people supported such laws. I could ask why someone would consider homosexuality immoral, let alone so awful that people should be thrown in jail for it, but the answer would simply be “Because God says so.” There is no potential for a productive discussion, other than to question that person’s interpretation of scripture.

    I’m NOT equating people who consider homosexuality immoral on religious grounds with those evil people in Iran who are going to kill a man for his beliefs. I’m just making the point that a purely religious basis for morality can go to scary places, and when it does, it cannot be reasoned with on the basis of individual rights or a discussion of morality based on how things affect people or any basis other than an argument over interpretation of that person’s scripture.

    • JSobieski

      People in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. do not subscribe to “your version” of morality.

      Nor is their any equivalent to secular philosphy in the Muslim world.

      Fundamentalism in the context of a turn the other cheek belief system is nothing like fundamentalism in the context of a smite their knecks belief system.

      • jet5000

        nt

        Posted by 74.73.163.104 via http://webwarper.net, created by AlgART: http://algart.net/
        This is added while posting a message to avoid misusing the service

    • Scope

      n/t

  • greyeagle

    The Mullahs controlling Iran are nothing but barbarians. I truly hope this Minister is not killed. I am not sure they would not kill his family either. If Obama was any kind of a man, he would put a lot of pressure on Iran. But Obama is nothing but a weak ineffective President.

  • jet5000

    I realize that religion has played a major role in shaping and transferring views of morality that would have substantial overlap with a secular approach to morality, but first of all, if really taken literally in terms of what is forbidden and the prescribed punishments in scriptures of some major religions, there would be some substantial differences also, and moreover, you seem to be missing or ignoring my point, which is that once religious doctrine is someone’s sole basis for categorizing something as immoral (or a moral imperative), there is no reasoning with that person on any basis in terms of justice or human/individual rights or fairness or in general the idea that people shouldn’t harm other people without sufficient (secular) justification, and that some behavior shouldn’t be branded immoral unless there is a secular argument that the actor is harming someone else.

    If the response to any (secular) challenge regarding one’s branding of something as moral or immoral is “God says so”, then all bets are off. That person cannot be convinced to change his mind by anything other than an argument that he has misinterpreted his own scripture (or the rare case in which he can be convinced that his scripture is not actually divine truth). If that person discovered tomorrow that his scripture commands that we burn alive anyone who eats pork or has sex with someone of the same gender or works on the sabbath or puts on both socks before either shoe rather than sock-shoe-sock-shoe or whatever, no argument I could possibly present — that putting on socks and shoes in that order doesn’t harm anyone, or that the punishment is excessive — would even be considered by that person, because he would continuously think and say “God says so.”

    That’s my point. With secular morality, people can reason with one another over the morality or immorality of some behavior or act, assessing how people are affected (who benefits? who is harmed?), and on what basis (the consideration of merit), etc. But if religious doctrine is the sole basis, no reasoned discussion can be had. Divine truth is divine truth. Other than debating interpretation of scripture, what argument can anyone possibly present that would have a chance of getting that person to reassess his view? He’s not likely to be convinced by anything — no matter how strong the argument seems on a secular basis — that the “divine” commandment or rule re: morality or immorality and prescribed and prohibited behavior is wrong. After all, it’s divine truth in his eyes, so it is infallible.

    Posted by 74.73.163.104 via http://webwarper.net, created by AlgART: http://algart.net/
    This is added while posting a message to avoid misusing the service

    • JSobieski

      Nothing Jesus did or said would result in a human rights abuse.

      So your inability to convince a fundamentalist Christian regarding some issue should not result in the moral harm that you describe.

      Secularity is no salvation of morality, and history is filled with numerous examples (USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China to name a few) where secular states attack religion because religion is the only thing left that can preserve some sense of moral obstacles to the state.

      It is not fundamentalism which is the problem, but rather fundamentalism with regards to what belief system.

      A fundamentalist pacifist is no threat to me, you, or anyone else.

      By focusing on the magnitude of belief rather than the belief itself you are misdiagnosing the problem.

      • jet5000

        Re: your inability to convince a fundamentalist Christian regarding some issue should not result in the moral harm that you describe.

        Well, perhaps you can understand how it is hardly reassuring for someone to tell me that his religious doctrine gets it all perfectly right regarding morality and immorality anyway so I don?t need to worry about the impossibility of having a reasoned discussion/debate over whether something is moral or immoral. (As a note, I?m speaking more broadly than just human rights abuses, although those are obviously generally included among immoral behaviors/acts)

        And as an example that seems contrary to your assertion, I don?t see any (secular) reason why homosexuality should be considered immoral, let alone criminalized as many apparently wanted and did (until SCOTUS ruled such laws unconstitutional in 2003), presumably because they viewed it as sin. I also see no reason to consider pre-marital sex immoral. Or contraception. (Do you have secular arguments as to why homosexuality, pre-marital sex, or contraception should be considered immoral?) And, although I don?t know if Christians apply this rule from the Old Testament, if I recall correctly from my Jewish education in grade school, the punishment for working on the Jewish Sabbath is supposed to be death. I could go on, but suffice to say I think it shouldn?t be too hard for you to understand why I can reasonably feel very far from certain that my point is completely moot with regard to Christian fundamentalists as if there couldn?t be any discrepancy between what Christianity says is moral or immoral vs. what some people could (not unreasonably) consider moral or immoral on a secular basis, meaning trying to determine if something is moral or immoral by considering how some behavior harmed or helped others (without applying presumptions of that religion about such effects, which would be somewhat tautologous).

        Do you agree that it?s possible for a reasonable person taking a secular approach to morality to reach a conflicting conclusion regarding the morality of a particular behavior/act than what Christianity says? And do you agree that when there is such a conflict, there is no secular argument regarding a weighing of harmful effects or beneficial effects on others that could have any chance of persuading a Christian fundamentalist as long as he sees a clear ruling on the matter in his scripture/doctrine? If so, then you agree with my point: there can be discrepancies, and a reasoned discussion/debate cannot be had, because ?divine truth? is considered by that person of faith as infallible and unquestionable.

        Re: Secularity is no salvation of morality

        Agreed. I wasn?t implying that it was anything of the sort. I wasn?t even arguing that it leads people to be more moral than they would be if basing their ?morality? purely on religious doctrine. In fact, my assumption is that, overall, people are more moral ? meaning treat others better ? if they are religious than non-religious, and probably that is even the case for fundamentalists vs. atheists, although that gets murkier because of the extremes fundamentalism can go to, partly because it cannot be reasoned with on the basis of discussing how people are harmed or helped by the behavior or act in question ? in other words, what I consider morality (basically, treating others well and not harming others without sufficient [secular] justification) carries no weight with fundamentalists, because such considerations are viewed as devoid of any weight when the ?divine truth? is clear on the matter.

        Re: history is filled with numerous examples (USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China to name a few) where secular states attack religion because religion is the only thing left that can preserve some sense of moral obstacles to the state.

        History is certainly filled with evil secular regimes. There is also no shortage of evil theocratic or quasi-theocratic regimes (the subject of this thread, for example). I disagree that they attacked religion because it was a ?moral? obstacle to the state. Rather, they attacked it because it competed with the state for the allegiance of the people and influence with the people. And sometimes minority religions were attacked as a means of gaining popularity with the majority and thereby gaining/increasing/defending power.

        Re: It is not fundamentalism which is the problem, but rather fundamentalism with regards to what belief system.

        I disagree. Whenever people categorize everything, every time, as moral or immoral based strictly on a rule book without being open to consideration of how people are harmed or benefited in trying to determine if it is moral or immoral, that is at best a risky situation.

        Re: A fundamentalist pacifist is no threat to me, you, or anyone else.

        Not true. Fundamentalist pacifists among my people who wouldn?t help me defend my people against an aggressor is indeed a threat to me, in effect. And if you were a hostage or in a concentration camp somewhere and all your compatriots were fundamentalist pacifists, that would be a threat to you. I hope you?re not suggesting that pacifism is inherently a/the moral choice.

        Re: By focusing on the magnitude of belief rather than the belief itself you are misdiagnosing the problem.

        I?m focusing on ?magnitude? (fundamentalism rather than religious faith and religiosity in general) because my whole point is a situation of purity of approach. I?m not talking about someone who is just guided by his religion, but also may consider (on a secular basis) what effects (harms and benefits) some behavior or act has on others and may reach a conclusion that conflicts with what he sees written in his scripture. I?m talking a fundamentalist who will not be willing to give weight to such considerations, but rather simply categorizes things as immoral or moral by referencing what he reads in a ?divine? rule book.

        Posted by 74.73.163.104 via http://webwarper.net, created by AlgART: http://algart.net/
        This is added while posting a message to avoid misusing the service

  • Jack_Savage

    For Obama to mend things with the middle east.

    More like the middle ages. Anyway, nice to see the committed Christian Obama staying silent on this as one more Christian will be slaughtered over there. 100? 1000? 10,000? What’s a couple of zeros among friends?

    If Obama going to church makes him a Christian, I am proud to report that after going to my garage today, I am a car.

    • cowdoc

      ROTFL regarding the car comment.

  • hubbchappy

    What he can do for this man is use the bully pulpit of the United States and very publicly condemn this human rights attrocity. Franklin Graham was pilloried for daring to suggest that according to Obama’s actions, or again in this case inaction it was hard to make the case the this president is a Christian. Here you go with another in your face example of Obama remaining silent when he should address this issue from the oval office as forcefully as possible to try and save this pastors life. I hear only crickets. If world leaders were vocal about this and what a barbaric practice/law this is it would put a ton of pressure on these animals and shine a whole lot of light on the religion of peace, unwanted light that is. So far Obama has been true to form.

  • spolson

    We should send Obama to Iran to apologize for allowing Christianity out of our backwoods where we cling to it with our guns. Maybe include a handsome donation of gold plated swords for cutting off heads,.

  • doctorbob

    Is there ANYONE so brain-dead that they can’t see the writing on the wall? If Muslims ever become a majority (or even an influential minority), this is EXACTLY what our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will face one day. Convert to Islam or die. WAKE UP, AMERICA! Obama is stoking the fires of hell for us, doing everything in his power to expand Islam in America, and it’s happening at a frightening rate! I live in a small midwestern town, and darned if we’re not seeing Muslims popping up here! Currently, we have around a dozen Muslims, but this is a new phenomenon for us. And, they DO NOT integrate into our town. Instead, they stick to themselves, run as a pack. In restaurants, the men eat at one table, while the women eat at another. If you try to engage them in conversation, they won’t talk to you, and if pressed will get up and leave! They are most definitely NOT here to become Americans, or to blend into society. I have Catholic friends, Methodist friends, Lutheran friends, Evangelical friends, Episcopal friends, atheist friends. I have NO Muslim friends. Nobody here does. They will not allow themselves to be befriended. I see this as alarming behavior, and I am NOT comfortable with Muslims among us. If the day comes that I am threatened to either become a Muslim or die, then I guess I’m going to die. But I WILL take as many Muslims with me as possible when I go! COUNT ON IT! Unlike Libtards, I KEPT my guns! Paranoia? It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you!