Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Bart Stupak's amendment barring federal funding for abortions did pass but could be removed from the final bill.
Click to Print
Include Comments
From “convert or die” to “convert and die”
From the Religion of Peace Department, there’s this newsflash:
The Iranian Parliament is reviewing a draft penal code that for the first time in Iranian history legislates the death penalty for apostasy. The draft clearly violates Iran’s commitments under the International Covenants on Human Rights, to which the State is party.
The Assyrian International News Agency has published links to the draft code here. Before you emit a big who-cares-what-happens-in-Iran? yawn, check out this twist:
Article 112 examines the extraterritorial application of the norms of the code, by extending its jurisdiction over actions that take place outside the country. (Emphasis added.) Article 112-3-1 refers to actions “against the government, the independence and the internal and external security of the country.” Security as a term is not defined in the law, thereby making any action qualified as such. Consequently, groups considered dangerous to the regime all over the world can be liable for actions taken outside Iran that are considered as contrary to the security of the country.
Should the Iranian Parliament ratify this code, what might be the global implications?
back to top29 Comments to “From “convert or die” to “convert and die””
There won’t be any global implications. Fanatical Muslims never kill people for apostacy. Their peaceful people–just like us. We just need to discuss the matter with them.
Report comment to moderator
You know, every time this subject comes up, it’s like I’m tied to the tracks, and I know there’s a train coming – I just can’t get up….
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to point out that this is exactly the same as the policy of the United States of America under George Bush. With the support of evangelicals he routinely executes apostates from Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Sounds like a “constitutional” fatwa to me. I think the Iranians are very much aware of their international obligations, they just don’t care. They can use this law to justify just about anything they want to do.
And people wonder why GWB calls them part of the axis of evil.
Report comment to moderator
No I don’t they should ratify that code; it sounds like a Bush policy.
Report comment to moderator
It means that if they don’t like your having shared the good news with a Muslim who became a Christian, they can order your death.
Report comment to moderator
Barak Obama will be able to talk them out of this, certainly.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn:Should the Iranian Parliament ratify this code, what might be the global implications?
Frank: Iran would merely be asserting a global authority that, until now, has only been asserted by the United States of Godblessamerica.
Oh, and their assertion would be just as bohus as ours. But that doesn’t mean they won’t try to act on it.
We have …
Report comment to moderator
Oops. Kyle already pointed out something similar at (3).
I disagree with him, however, that we execute apostates from Christianity. (Examples please, Kyle?)
No, we execute apostates who deviate from the _g_od of American hegemony.
“Agree with us that we should run the world … or we’ll KEEL you …”
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (4): And people wonder why GWB calls them part of the axis of evil.
Frank: How is the Iranian draft penal code substantively different from the unilateralist “rid-the-world-of-evil” mission as expressed, e.g., in our National Security Strategy of 2002? (Before you respond, be sure to read Wendell Berry’s “A Citizen’s Response to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America” for details — http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0209-11.htm .)
Report comment to moderator
I can’t be specific, but while this is a reprehensible policy, it is an indicator of Good News about the people of Iran.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose, Frank, that the snarky answer is “they’re codifying it.”
I think Mr. Berry’s response reminds me of all those ACLU-friendly people and librarians who were so convinced that the government was going to come after us and what we read (Patriot Act.) Their fears were not realized. As far as I know, the US hasn’t been going after “the guilty” by killing the innocent by bombing trains because we thought the guilty were traveling. Have we taken liquid bombs onto a plane to blow it up to get one of “the guilty?” No.
Now, I will agree with you that Iraq wasn’t necessarily necessary, but that’s only if you’re unwilling to take on the jihadists. They are not part of a particular state or government. That presented a problem for us. Ya gotta start somewhere, and if anyone was expendable, it was Saddam and his boys, if I may be so callous.
At the time (2001), I was emotionally, personally in favor of dropping anything and everything on Afghanistan and just keep doing it until we got the you-know-what. Mr. bin Laden didn’t anticipate or expect the response he got when the towers fell. He never thought we’d fight, and her certainly didn’t anticipate Iraq happening. And if he never thought that, what did he think? What would he have done after “humiliating” the US. We don’t know. Those are the “what ifs” of history. I understand that you feel we went too far by going into Iraq as well. I don’t know how it all plays out. What’s done is done, and I for one, am glad that someone had the guts to finally put his foot down. That was GWB.
Think of the other plans Mr. bin Laden and company had for the US. Certainly more bombings. You don’t know what GWB stopped by going into Iraq.
Report comment to moderator
Oh my! I never guessed that we Americans were so much like our friends in Iran and that we actually hate ourselves horribly – nearly as much as they hate us. We could be twins if you doidnlt look too closely.
Maybe, since we Americans are so much like our beloved friends, we should vote to approve or disapprove a few new penal codes of our own, just like our lovably democratic, Islamofascist, peacenik ,Iranian friends are now doing with theirs?
The vote would be if we should allow America Haters on the WMB thread or have some sharp bladed Iranians lop their heads off, for unspecified internal and external security reasons of course, if the vote turns unexpectedly against the American Haters in the end.
Perhaps, we could have a preliminary vote, before the real one (for those Socialists that don’t know what preliminary means) and spend half a billion dollars campaigning for or against the issue at hand and vote to see if we should have a real vote? Only in America would we consider this a viable option.
Knowing the Iranians love for a little head lopping when bored, they might gladly agree to pay us handsomely for the privilege and help ease the high costs associated with WMB. I say, no sense in making a democratic bloody mess of things and then have to clean it up without some re-numeration from a fascist or socialist somewhere.
Perhaps electroshock treatments will suffice in the short term for the rich America Haters who can afford the high cost of electricity today.
It seems that one punishment for the convicted just can’t fit all now a days but it is a shame the insane asylums are full and such actions are required in the first place if you ask me, no matter how democratic and peacefully crafted the votes are meant to appear to the weak minded
Report comment to moderator
These guys are just like the Hotel California, once you check in, you can’t ever leave (along with, if you don’t check in, we’ll kill you).
Yes, I know the lyric isn’t lifted faithfully.
Report comment to moderator
For those that said, “Big Deal”, when I said that Iraq making Islam the “National Religion” was a terrible mistake can look at Iran as the future of Iraq.
Thanks George. Mission Accomplished.
Report comment to moderator
I was being sarcastic in #1 and #3. (Oh, and “their” should have been “they’re.” I do that all the time.)
Report comment to moderator
Ok, some of you liberal weinies, tell me how this is “negotiable”? And tell me how this country should be allowed to continue on its manical path to gaining nuclear arms?
Report comment to moderator
The section allowing for the death penalty in the case of apostasy is completely different than the section advocating extra territoriality only in the case of “security”. The death to apostates appears to be deliberately mentioned at the same time in order to create images of Islamic death squads hunting down Iranian ex-pat converts. Vastly misleading. Iran appears to advocate extraterritoriality for security — how different is this from preemptive war, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition etc.?
Report comment to moderator
For those of you who equate the actions of the US with the actions of Islamic states, if you can read this article of about a woman who was arrested, strip searched, interrogated, and beaten in Saudi for sitting with a male colleague in a Starbucks, and still keep your stupid opinions, then I think you need professional help…
http://tinyurl.com/yw3xta
Report comment to moderator
Only because NJL and Kyle egged me on on Whirled Views…
but really folks, at the very least learn the difference between Persians and Arabs. This anti-Islamacist hysteria makes you little better than the typical Muslim Rube-in-the-street.
As to Iran, it will be better to understand the fragmented nature of governance in the country, here the quote from the press release is pertinent:
“A careful review of the draft clearly shows that it is nothing more than a legislative tool to consolidate power around the regime and extend its religious tyranny globally,”
What is missing, is that the President Ahmadinejad is exceedingly unpopular these days (bad economy does that to you), so it is natural to play to the base. Not that we don’t do the same (of course not! how could you think that?). That, and there is an election coming up in March. In its run-up, there has also been a Constitutional reform push to limit Reformers from participating.
Add to this, no other mention of these “reforms” in other press sources — this clearly looks less like a turn to Islamic nastiness, and much more like a piece of internal politicking. Sort of like Romney’s ill-fated pledge to “double Guantanamo.” Politics is like that; it makes you do and say stupid things.
Report comment to moderator
Sigh…
This is really nothing new. Remember what happened to Salmon Rushdie?
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man (19): For those of you who equate the actions of the US with the actions of Islamic states, if you can read this article of about a woman who was arrested, strip searched, interrogated, and beaten in Saudi for sitting with a male colleague in a Starbucks, and still keep your stupid opinions, then I think you need professional help…
Frank: For the record, let me state that I most certainly do not equate their actions with ours. (And maybe you’re not addressing me in the first place.) There are, however, eerie similarities in unilateral actions being justified by an assumed moral superiority.
That said, watch these two new reports of an Ohio woman being arrested, beaten and strip searched — by male officers, no less — for calling 9-1-1 after being assaulted (warning: digitized nudity on jailhouse videos):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019138.html
This certainly wasn’t done for religious reasons, I readily grant. But what gives with this tendancy lately of American cops to go ape feces under the most inapproriate of circumstances?
Might it have something to do with the militarization of American law enforcement agencies?
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man (19): For those of you who equate the actions of the US with the actions of Islamic states, if you can read this article of about a woman who was arrested, strip searched, interrogated, and beaten in Saudi for sitting with a male colleague in a Starbucks, and still keep your stupid opinions, then I think you need professional help…
Frank: For the record, let me state that I most certainly do not equate their actions with ours. (And maybe you’re not addressing me in the first place.) There are, however, eerie similarities in unilateral actions being justified by an assumed moral superiority.
That said, watch these two new reports of an Ohio woman being arrested, beaten and strip searched — by male officers, no less — for calling 9-1-1 after being assaulted (warning: digitized nudity on jailhouse videos):
lewrockwell. com/blog/lewrw/archives/019138.html
[Delete space between DOT and COM]
This certainly wasn’t done for religious reasons, I readily grant. But what gives with this tendancy lately of American cops to go ape feces under the most inapproriate of circumstances?
Might it have something to do with the militarization of American law enforcement agencies?
Report comment to moderator
Harris, I do know the difference between Persians and Arabs, Shiite and Sunni. The Iranians are still whackadoodle Muslims. It may be internal politicking, but as long as the Mullahs and people like Ahmadinejad (you heard about his 4 German shepards, right?) are in power, as long as they believe they have to create the conditions that bring about “the Mahdi” and plan to destroy Israel, we would foolish to dismiss their “internal affairs.” If they kept to themselves, no one would care. They don’t.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
We have certainly suffered from our messianism, as well. The tendency to look for a savior is not simply their’s alone. As to Israel — again more subtlety helps here. President Ahmadinejab is certainly on the record as you say, so too are the supporters of Israel for taking strong military action against Iran. There is nothing to suggest that the leadership of Iran as a whole is especially irrational, and even less that they are collectively “whackadoodle.” That’s not the stuff of rational thinking but just letting the choler control us. It scarcely counts as wise (as in “wise as serpants”).
Report comment to moderator
Actually the Persians were Arabized when they were overrun and Zoaratrainism was destroyed. Many, many years ago. The Shiite/Sunni divide is an intersting one, and I do find myself wondering if the USG is exploiting that and if we are not then why are we not. All morals aside, divide and conquer is sound strategy.
Report comment to moderator
CB: But the Persians like to think of themselves and their language as “European.” They think they’re better than the Arabs. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that? As long as the Muslims have their hatred of the West in common, they’ll be “united.” They’re using the same principle.
Now, Harris, be very careful when you compare Jesus and the Mahdi. I doubt you want to go there on this board.
I do see a certain collective “whackadoodleness” in these people (all Muslims in fact). Everything they do is based on violence, killing and repression, from the honor killings, to the burkhas, to not wanting girls to go to school, gang-raping women who are in the wrong car with the “wrong” guy — the list is endless. So, yes, I can see people like Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs deciding to use a nuclear bomb on Israel. These are the same people who sent their children out in the first wave, unarmed, against the Iraqis. Death is the cost of doing business for them.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
The reference was to political messianism — In the US we tend to practice a more secular flavor (tho’ if we look carefully we can detect the religious roots). The secular form still results in the same sort of preference for the ideal or ideological over the practical. But no, I’m not thinking that Jesus = Mahdi, not at all.
And I will have to differ on your assessment of Muslims and that use of “all” — after all, you know all too well how the MSM so easily pillories and mis-represents Evangelicals. They focus on the extremes, and so you have these assumptions that all Evangelicals are haters, or hard-right keep the girls pregnant and barefoot, barely literate etc etc. etc. We know the prejudice first-hand. How different is this lumping together of all Muslims?
For our critique (as conservative Evangelicals) to be heard, it must be still be grounded in the actual social reality. Nuance helps. And in the case of Iran, theirs is a composite society — how could it not be with 60 million? There are the middle class (sizeable in Tehran); there is a policy elite different from the popular or religious leaders; there is the split between the religious revolutionary guard and the regular military, etc. It would be a fundamental mistake to underestimate them or think they cannot be supple and sophisticated in their dealings. The controversy over the shutdown of the woman’s magazine Zanan indicates something of the variety of voices in Iranian society, as well as the repressive role of the religious Guardians.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Yes Persians like to think of themselves that way and they have a long history. Still the fact remains that the Persian court was Arabized when they were conquered which explains the roots of the Iraq/Iran conflict. Which also explains why Hussein acted as if he had WMD, after all this is what he told his interrogators and incidentally what his nuclear scientists told us about WMD. There is a collective whackiness, that I do grant. The West has escaped the whacky because we had these philosophical movements renaissance, reformation, enlightenment.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!