Another fine example of Iranian justice at work...

______________________________________________________

Execution Looms for Iranian Pastor Who Refuses to Renounce His Christian Faith

By Patrick Goodenough

September 27, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – An Iranian pastor who refuses to renounce his Christian faith could be hanged as soon as Wednesday, after a trial court ruling this week upheld his death sentence for "apostasy."

Religious freedom advocates are calling urgently for governments to take up the case of Youcef Nadarkhani, a 32-year-old evangelical first sentenced to death late last year. If the sentence is carried out he will be the first Iranian Christian known to have been executed for his faith in 21 years.

Read more here: http://cnsnews.com/n...christian-faith

Dead scared of Christianity, aren't they?

Another fine example of Iranian justice at work...

______________________________________________________

Execution Looms for Iranian Pastor Who Refuses to Renounce His Christian Faith

By Patrick Goodenough

September 27, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – An Iranian pastor who refuses to renounce his Christian faith could be hanged as soon as Wednesday, after a trial court ruling this week upheld his death sentence for "apostasy."

Religious freedom advocates are calling urgently for governments to take up the case of Youcef Nadarkhani, a 32-year-old evangelical first sentenced to death late last year. If the sentence is carried out he will be the first Iranian Christian known to have been executed for his faith in 21 years.

Read more here: http://cnsnews.com/n...christian-faith

Dead scared of Christianity, aren't they?

Not necessarily...they are dead scared of any 'non-believer'!

Another fine example of Iranian justice at work...

______________________________________________________

Execution Looms for Iranian Pastor Who Refuses to Renounce His Christian Faith

By Patrick Goodenough

September 27, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – An Iranian pastor who refuses to renounce his Christian faith could be hanged as soon as Wednesday, after a trial court ruling this week upheld his death sentence for "apostasy."

Religious freedom advocates are calling urgently for governments to take up the case of Youcef Nadarkhani, a 32-year-old evangelical first sentenced to death late last year. If the sentence is carried out he will be the first Iranian Christian known to have been executed for his faith in 21 years.

Read more here: http://cnsnews.com/n...christian-faith

Dead scared of Christianity, aren't they?

Not necessarily...they are dead scared of any 'non-believer'!

I don't think he is being executed for being a Christian. I think he is being executed for converting to another religion from Islam.

As I understand Islam preaches tolerance of other religions, but not of proselytisation (is that the right word? Attempting to convert people from Islam to another faith)

As I understand...

Now that is a little awkward for those amongst us who have claimed Islam in order to marry Muslim ladies, as they are now, by their own admission to the Muslim faith, bound by Shariah law.

SC

Another fine example of Iranian justice at work...

______________________________________________________

Execution Looms for Iranian Pastor Who Refuses to Renounce His Christian Faith

By Patrick Goodenough

September 27, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – An Iranian pastor who refuses to renounce his Christian faith could be hanged as soon as Wednesday, after a trial court ruling this week upheld his death sentence for "apostasy."

Religious freedom advocates are calling urgently for governments to take up the case of Youcef Nadarkhani, a 32-year-old evangelical first sentenced to death late last year. If the sentence is carried out he will be the first Iranian Christian known to have been executed for his faith in 21 years.

Read more here: http://cnsnews.com/n...christian-faith

Dead scared of Christianity, aren't they?

Not necessarily...they are dead scared of any 'non-believer'!

I don't think he is being executed for being a Christian. I think he is being executed for converting to another religion from Islam.

As I understand Islam preaches tolerance of other religions, but not of proselytisation (is that the right word? Attempting to convert people from Islam to another faith)

As I understand...

Now that is a little awkward for those amongst us who have claimed Islam in order to marry Muslim ladies, as they are now, by their own admission to the Muslim faith, bound by Shariah law.

SC

He is being executed for apostasy, which is his denial of Islam. He is considered Islamic because of his parentage. He is, therefore, being executed because he is now a Christian and refuses to renounce his Christianity.

There are no Muslims of convenience. Those that converted to Islam for marriage may be in for a shock should they have a change of heart.

It is also against the law in Malaysia to convert to Christianity. It seems there's no free will in Islam.

It is also against the law in Malaysia to convert to Christianity. It seems there's no free will in Islam.

I think only against Shariah law in Malaysia, which applies to Muslims only. I believe other religions can convert. THere is no specific targeting of Christianity, either; its not so much adopting another religion as renouncing Islam which is the offence. Islam does place some quite specific demands on the believer.

SC

It is also against the law in Malaysia to convert to Christianity. It seems there's no free will in Islam.

I think only against Shariah law in Malaysia, which applies to Muslims only. I believe other religions can convert. THere is no specific targeting of Christianity, either; its not so much adopting another religion as renouncing Islam which is the offence. Islam does place some quite specific demands on the believer.

SC

I thought that was implied, SC. We were all talking about converting from Islam. In practical terms, that means to Christianity, as the other main religion in Malaysia, Hinduism, does not proselytise. Agreed, it is apostasy which is forbidden.

The Catholic Church also places specific demands on the believer, but these days we don't execute those who lapse. We have learnt, the hard way, to be more tolerant, though we still have some way to go.

If someone's life has become so horrible that he will commit crimes that require his removal from society- through permanent imprisonment (social death) or actual death- that society has failed that person, with the exception of those who have physical or physiological causes for their behaviour which are beyond our technology/medicine to address.

... but it seems to me if we are ever to understand why such persons exist and how we can avoid the tragedies connecting with producing them (both for them and for their victims), we need them to live- in controlled conditions- to find out why they are how they are, and if there is any way to help them, either now or at some earlier or later stage.

Surely this turns on whether you believe evil exists in this world as a tool of Satan.

Some people are good, some evil, the majority in-between.

But pure evil does exist.

There is always a reason why people commit crimes, even though we may not be able to see what the reason is. By retributive justice (execution, even imprisonment), we are dealing with the crime after it has been committed; we are not tackling the causes of that crime. This gives us a sense of satisfaction ("He won't do it again"), but it does nothing to stop other people committing the same or similar crimes. Deterrents rarely work for the same reason; they don't tackle the reason behind the action.

I don't believe anybody is purely evil. People become evil rather like people get cancer; their minds start to go wrong just as the cancerous body goes wrong, and eventually evil/cancer takes over. Cancer kills the host body; I suspect evil kills the host mind. Personify evil as Satan if you like.

I don't look at the death penalty primarily as a deterrent. For me, it's just eliminating a defective individual from society - like taking out the trash. Get rid of "it" and move on. If it makes someone else think twice about commiting an awful crime, then great.

I concur.

Another fine example of Iranian justice at work...

______________________________________________________

Execution Looms for Iranian Pastor Who Refuses to Renounce His Christian Faith

By Patrick Goodenough

September 27, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – An Iranian pastor who refuses to renounce his Christian faith could be hanged as soon as Wednesday, after a trial court ruling this week upheld his death sentence for "apostasy."

Religious freedom advocates are calling urgently for governments to take up the case of Youcef Nadarkhani, a 32-year-old evangelical first sentenced to death late last year. If the sentence is carried out he will be the first Iranian Christian known to have been executed for his faith in 21 years.

Read more here: http://cnsnews.com/n...christian-faith

Thank you for posting this in this context. So some people are in favour of murdering people for one reason, and other people are in favour of murdering people for another reason.

IMHO, there is no justification for state-sanctioned (or ANY kind of) murder in any case, at least not in any country that considers itself civilised.

Islam does place some quite specific demands on the believer.

Or more accurately countries with an Islamic code and governance based around the religion.

I don't look at the death penalty primarily as a deterrent. For me, it's just eliminating a defective individual from society - like taking out the trash. Get rid of "it" and move on. If it makes someone else think twice about commiting an awful crime, then great.

It's a short step to euthanasia for the terminally ill, mongols, Down's syndrome and thalidomide babies.

I agree with Tom... state-sanctioned murder is still murder, and is not justified under any conditions. Not even of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.

It is also against the law in Malaysia to convert to Christianity. It seems there's no free will in Islam.

I think only against Shariah law in Malaysia, which applies to Muslims only. I believe other religions can convert. THere is no specific targeting of Christianity, either; its not so much adopting another religion as renouncing Islam which is the offence. Islam does place some quite specific demands on the believer.

SC

I thought that was implied, SC. We were all talking about converting from Islam. In practical terms, that means to Christianity, as the other main religion in Malaysia, Hinduism, does not proselytise. Agreed, it is apostasy which is forbidden.

The Catholic Church also places specific demands on the believer, but these days we don't execute those who lapse. We have learnt, the hard way, to be more tolerant, though we still have some way to go.

My point was that we were not at risk, and Christianity was not being singled out, nor Christians.

I'm not so interested as to do the research and find out exactly how much interpretation is required to derive Sharia Law from the Koran, but I think it is more closely linked than the edicts of the Catholic Church are to the New Testament. I think the Koran is much more practical and directive (again, based on ill-informed prejudice)

SC

It's a short step to euthanasia for the terminally ill, mongols, Down's syndrome and thalidomide babies.

I agree with Tom... state-sanctioned murder is still murder, and is not justified under any conditions. Not even of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.

I don't know that Bin Laden was a state-sanctioned murder, I think had it been possible, he would have been taken alive. But that's off-topic.

It's very sad to see a teenager executed.

QUOTES

It's a short step to euthanasia for the terminally ill, mongols, Down's syndrome and thalidomide babies.

I agree with Tom... state-sanctioned murder is still murder, and is not justified under any conditions. Not even of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.

...

I don't know that Bin Laden was a state-sanctioned murder, I think had it been possible, he would have been taken alive. But that's off-topic.

It's very sad to see a teenager executed.

ENDQUOTES

Would it be less sad to see a pensioner executed?

Small child?

White person?

Perhaps we should rank people in the order in which we should like to see them executed?

I think the executions are an inevitable consequence of the law which dictates their execution, and it might be better to oppose that law than the execution that follows. Unless one feels that the law is just, in which case we must accept all executions that follow from it....

SC

^The logic is a bit odd there- if a state has capital punishment for murder, and you oppose capital punishment, then we should take away the law against murder? Or maybe I misunderstand.

I don't believe in intangible moral 'essences' like good and evil. People are shaped by their childhoods, and then make decisions in response to their environments which may or may not benefit the lives of themselves and others, and which may or may not fit into their majority society. Some people will see a broader, more functional range of decisions, or have better information about how to fit into 'normal' society (i.e., well-adjusted people vs. psychopaths). None of us is responsible for how we were raised, and if a person has been cruelly socially/emotionally damaged by his family, it seems very unfair that a society wouldn't factor that in as an extenuating circumstance. No doubt the victims and their families would also consider their lot unfair, but collectively until we as members of societies are willing to pay the price- including, potentially, enough tolerance to solve the problems of the morally damaged rather than punishing them as if they were equally able to be responsible- I think that we, collectively, must accept the continued risk of the emergence of such types and the damage that they wreck on others. In other words, if we choose to think of the existence of these damaged types as inevitable (despite a certain lack of evidence that they arise in such ways with such frequency in all other societies), then we are probably stuck with them. If we could break the cycle of retributive justice, perhaps with patience we could learn to break the cycle of such damaged families, too. That would take work, courage, faith, and money, of course- but wouldn't such a price tag be worth a world with significant reductions in non-physiological psychopathy?

^The logic is a bit odd there- if a state has capital punishment for murder, and you oppose capital punishment, then we should take away the law against murder? Or maybe I misunderstand.

...

No. I meant if the state has capital punishment for murder, then we should not complain about any specific case, and expect any specific individual not to suffer the punishment for the crime of which he was convicted. We should complain about the law, not the case. So the headline of the thread should be "Iran has capital punishment for murder, and that law applies to seventeen-year-olds

SC

I don't believe in intangible moral 'essences' like good and evil.

Ted Bundy led a normal childhood with very little truama. However, as an adult he murdered a score of young women for his own sexual gradification. Hurting other people for no reason is wicked. Bundy is just one example of pure evil, but there are plenty of others. Evil is real.

QUOTES

It's a short step to euthanasia for the terminally ill, mongols, Down's syndrome and thalidomide babies.

I agree with Tom... state-sanctioned murder is still murder, and is not justified under any conditions. Not even of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.

...

I don't know that Bin Laden was a state-sanctioned murder, I think had it been possible, he would have been taken alive. But that's off-topic.

It's very sad to see a teenager executed.

ENDQUOTES

Would it be less sad to see a pensioner executed?

Small child?

White person?

Perhaps we should rank people in the order in which we should like to see them executed?

I think the executions are an inevitable consequence of the law which dictates their execution, and it might be better to oppose that law than the execution that follows. Unless one feels that the law is just, in which case we must accept all executions that follow from it....

SC

I agree with this. As you said, if such a law exists, executions will happen. Therefore, a law that allows execution is barbaric and must be abolished. You cannot fight murder with murder. It has been proven that it does not work as a deterrant and is ethically unsound.

There seems to be some confusion in several of the posts above between the law, which says certain things are forbidden, and the penalty, which is the punishment which can be imposed; usually the law indicates a maximum penalty, and it is up to the judge to decide what penalty to impose. It's not the law that needs changing; it's simply that capital punishment needs to be removed as a penalty which may be imposed.... as indeed it has been in many countries.

I agree with Tom; capital punishment is wrong in all cases..... though I admit I don't know what you would do with people like Saddam Hussein if you didn't execute them. This problem is not often considered by opponents of capital punishment.

I agree with Tom; capital punishment is wrong in all cases..... though I admit I don't know what you would do with people like Saddam Hussein if you didn't execute them. This problem is not often considered by opponents of capital punishment.

Put them in a high-security-prison, as they did with the Nazi leaders they caught: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandau_Prison

I don't believe in intangible moral 'essences' like good and evil.

Ted Bundy led a normal childhood with very little truama. However, as an adult he murdered a score of young women for his own sexual gradification. Hurting other people for no reason is wicked. Bundy is just one example of pure evil, but there are plenty of others. Evil is real.

I don't know enough about his case to confirm the childhood, but you're pretty well-read and I'll take it for granted you're right, based on all available sources. That still leaves some non-essentialist explanations, though:

1. Inherent physiological problems (hormonal imbalances, brain irregularities, etc.) which were not tested on him or which we do not yet know how to detect and diagnose.

2. Non-physical emotional abandonment (a form of emotional abuse) leading Bundy into a state of denial about his childhood (his parents would already be in denial).

3. Abuse of Bundy occurred outside the family home and yet was serious enough to put him into the same kind of state of denial.

I have seen parents, and even students, in such states of denial about how things really worked in their family that it would not surprise me that everyone in the family unit might report that things were sunny and fine, quite in opposition to how things really were.

I agree with Tom; capital punishment is wrong in all cases..... though I admit I don't know what you would do with people like Saddam Hussein if you didn't execute them. This problem is not often considered by opponents of capital punishment.

Put them in a high-security-prison, as they did with the Nazi leaders they caught: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandau_Prison

I would suggest a high-tech, high-security 'assisted living' facility- with psychologists and very well-trained security nurses- for research purposes. The goal would not be revenge; it would be containment and comprehension. Interactions with anyone outside the facility who was not a qualified researcher would be very limited.

I agree with Tom; capital punishment is wrong in all cases..... though I admit I don't know what you would do with people like Saddam Hussein if you didn't execute them. This problem is not often considered by opponents of capital punishment.

Put them in a high-security-prison, as they did with the Nazi leaders they caught: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandau_Prison

I would suggest a high-tech, high-security 'assisted living' facility- with psychologists and very well-trained security nurses- for research purposes. The goal would not be revenge; it would be containment and comprehension. Interactions with anyone outside the facility who was not a qualified researcher would be very limited.

If I am ever on trial for murder, I want you on my jury.

I nearly mentioned Spandau, and just wondered how much it cost. IJWT's maximum security facility (mustn't call it a prison) would cost a fortune!

For once I find myself agreeing with Ulysses G. Evil exists. So does good. Exactly what they are, I couldn't define, though I made an attempt earlier in this thread. I think the potential for both lies in each one of us; what pushes us one way or the other probably lies in our background (in the widest possible sense).

I agree with Tom; capital punishment is wrong in all cases..... though I admit I don't know what you would do with people like Saddam Hussein if you didn't execute them. This problem is not often considered by opponents of capital punishment.

Put them in a high-security-prison, as they did with the Nazi leaders they caught: http://en.wikipedia..../Spandau_Prison

I would suggest a high-tech, high-security 'assisted living' facility- with psychologists and very well-trained security nurses- for research purposes. The goal would not be revenge; it would be containment and comprehension. Interactions with anyone outside the facility who was not a qualified researcher would be very limited.

Use them as guinea-pigs? I think that would require an ethical discussion.

And about the question about the cost of the inprisonment for society: Society has produced these people, society will have to foot the bill. You cannot say that somebody has to die just because it is cheaper...

I agree with Tom; capital punishment is wrong in all cases..... though I admit I don't know what you would do with people like Saddam Hussein if you didn't execute them. This problem is not often considered by opponents of capital punishment.

Put them in a high-security-prison, as they did with the Nazi leaders they caught: http://en.wikipedia..../Spandau_Prison

I would suggest a high-tech, high-security 'assisted living' facility- with psychologists and very well-trained security nurses- for research purposes. The goal would not be revenge; it would be containment and comprehension. Interactions with anyone outside the facility who was not a qualified researcher would be very limited.

Use them as guinea-pigs? I think that would require an ethical discussion.

And about the question about the cost of the inprisonment for society: Society has produced these people, society will have to foot the bill. You cannot say that somebody has to die just because it is cheaper...

That last point of yours is exactly what I mean- we are responsible collectively for having a society where such people develop in that twisted way, and simply executing them is irresponsible and ineffective. Regarding the costs, they may seem steep at first- but can you put a dollar amount on potentially cutting the number of psychopaths and all the toll they exact on various victims throughout their lifetime (I would imagine the murders are just the extreme tip of the iceberg) during a hopefully long and indefinite future? I'd be willing to invest in that as a good deal for the long term.

I agree that there are some ethical issues raised by my 'research project' proposal, but at some point they either have to make a deal or leave the society. Presumably, if that doesn't mean through execution or (inhumane) prison-style lockup, that would only leave exile to somewhere which they could never get away from (I doubt they would be officially welcome in most other countries) to do as they pleased and where responsibility for their continued existence would be their own lookout.

If they choose to remain in the society despite their inabilities to follow societal norms on their own (like not killing people) then they must submit to treatment, in the same way that someone with a dangerously infectious disease would be required to be quarantined and treated as long as they were dangerous to others. The problem is we don't know what the treatment should be yet. However, I would think that such persons could be accommodated in relatively basic yet comfortable fashion while interacting with doctors/researchers, and yet prevented from killing anyone.

Put them in a high-security-prison, as they did with the Nazi leaders they caught: http://en.wikipedia..../Spandau_Prison

I would suggest a high-tech, high-security 'assisted living' facility- with psychologists and very well-trained security nurses- for research purposes. The goal would not be revenge; it would be containment and comprehension. Interactions with anyone outside the facility who was not a qualified researcher would be very limited.

Use them as guinea-pigs? I think that would require an ethical discussion.

And about the question about the cost of the inprisonment for society: Society has produced these people, society will have to foot the bill. You cannot say that somebody has to die just because it is cheaper...

That last point of yours is exactly what I mean- we are responsible collectively for having a society where such people develop in that twisted way, and simply executing them is irresponsible and ineffective. Regarding the costs, they may seem steep at first- but can you put a dollar amount on potentially cutting the number of psychopaths and all the toll they exact on various victims throughout their lifetime (I would imagine the murders are just the extreme tip of the iceberg) during a hopefully long and indefinite future? I'd be willing to invest in that as a good deal for the long term.

I agree that there are some ethical issues raised by my 'research project' proposal, but at some point they either have to make a deal or leave the society. Presumably, if that doesn't mean through execution or (inhumane) prison-style lockup, that would only leave exile to somewhere which they could never get away from (I doubt they would be officially welcome in most other countries) to do as they pleased and where responsibility for their continued existence would be their own lookout.

If they choose to remain in the society despite their inabilities to follow societal norms on their own (like not killing people) then they must submit to treatment, in the same way that someone with a dangerously infectious disease would be required to be quarantined and treated as long as they were dangerous to others. The problem is we don't know what the treatment should be yet. However, I would think that such persons could be accommodated in relatively basic yet comfortable fashion while interacting with doctors/researchers, and yet prevented from killing anyone.

Your approach is softer than mine: I do not believe that criminals of any kind should have the choice of living in society if they agree to therapy. I think they should be punished with a jail sentence, and that jail should not be equivalent to a five-star hotel.

For top-level criminals, such as heads of state or heads of government (you mentioned Saddam Hussein), exile has been used as a punishment in the past, history is full of it. I'm not sure whether letting them live in luxury albeit far from home is a punishment. You will always find a country that will take you if you just bring enough cash.

I hear what you're saying but...well...I want to infringe someones "human rights" with a box of overripe tomatoes.....perhaps a local burglar for example.

Surely you'd all like to take a potshot.....come on roll up! Don't be shy!

Your approach is softer than mine: I do not believe that criminals of any kind should have the choice of living in society if they agree to therapy. I think they should be punished with a jail sentence, and that jail should not be equivalent to a five-star hotel.

For top-level criminals, such as heads of state or heads of government (you mentioned Saddam Hussein), exile has been used as a punishment in the past, history is full of it. I'm not sure whether letting them live in luxury albeit far from home is a punishment. You will always find a country that will take you if you just bring enough cash.

Exile worked when you could make sure the criminal stayed where he was put; nowadays this would be virtually impossible (unless you put them somewhere like Tristan da Cunha).

I think IJWT is too idealistic. The really evil criminals are incurable in our present state of knowledge, and should never be allowed back into society. I raised the question of cost because I think it has to be considered... but I never even hinted, Tom, that someone should die because it's cheaper.