A very timely, and likely controversial, movie opens this week: “The Stoning of Soraya M.” As the title says, the movie tells the story of a woman stoned to death in Iran. Here’s a review from Big Hollywood:
The film opens with Freidoune (James Caviezel) breaking down in his car on his way to the border. Spending unwanted hours in a small village, he is approached by Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo), a woman the villagers try to shoo away as they call her crazy. But Zahra has a terrible secret. She does all she can to get word to the journalist about a terrible injustice committed in the village the previous day when her niece, Soraya M. (Mozhan Marnò), falsely accused of adultery by her cheating husband, Ali (Navid Negahban), was stoned to death per Islamic law.
Stoning’s premise, repeated with numbing regularity around the world today, is made all the more pressing by the masses of Iranians protesting in the streets today while the brutal Basij militia tries to beat them into submission. But it’s one thing for a stoning of an accused “adulteress” to occur in Somalia, and quite another for it to happen in the soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran. If a nation thinks nothing of stoning women to death for the “crime” of adultery while killing peaceful protesters, it takes no imagination to think of what they will do when in possession of a nuclear bomb.
Consider this an open thread.
{ 64 comments }
Hmmm.
This happens all the time in Pakistan. Why didn’t we invade Pakistan?
We invaded Iran? I must have missed that.
Mark Sanford was said to be M.I.A.
The libs were right, he was-
Missing
In
Argentina
Sanford is being stoned.
PPers are sometimes stoned.
I am just a stone’s throw from a stack of GOP mail solicitations from EVERYWHERE.
Maybe I should send a pebble.
YEah but I read Israel has nukes and eats Palestinian babies for Lent.
So…what? When has WMD’s ownership potential been grounds for invading a sovereign…
wait….
What Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists have done with their willingness to target innocents as part of their anti-American jihad is basically an open defiance to the actual teachings of the Koran…..which states that, in war, the killing of one innocent is like the killing of all humanity.
bin Laden, et al, have rationalized the targeting of innocents by stating, unequivocally, that no Americans are “innocent”.
The true danger in the nuclearization of any Islamic state is not that they have nukes….it’s that those nukes could fall either into the hands of extremists of like mind as bin Laden in regard to “innocents” or into those of an actual state regime that bears similar disregard for the teachings of the Koran.
Buzzfan,
Perhaps you should interpret the Koran in light of the whole, not just a verse out of context (same advice to us all concerning Bible). This is not some recent interpretation by Bin Laden or other terrorists.
Moslems had no problem slaughtering innocents in their invasion of the Mediterranean and European lands over 300 years before the Crusades. Those who refuse to convert are, by definition, not innocents – be they men, women, or children. It was true in Mohamed’s day when he invented the religion, and is still true today.
Fortunately, there are many Moslems who refuse to adhere to the more extreme teachings, and many more who will not act on those teachings in a land where they are the minority. But as the orthodox form of Islam grows stronger, they will be pressured more and more to conform.
Well, I guess it’s not just a media frenzy with the Sanford story, huh, Erick? What a joke.
The lesson in this and the Ensign thing for me is to not trust any politician who carries the baggage of the Religious Right.
Good to see that the Republican Party is still the party of morality. Sadie Fields and Nancy Shaefer must be rolling in their graves now.
Yeah, just like the Democratic Party is the party of environmental conservation.
It’s funny how every time a Republican official does something that is morally reprehensible, the entire party gets labeled by liberals as hypocrites. The good, hard-working, honest folks who voted for Sanford are still good, hard-working, honest folks. They didn’t vote for someone they thought would follow his hormones to Argentina.
A lot of people in this world are good at fooling people into seeing them as something they’re not, and Sanford clearly has demonstrated himself to be a weirdo. They’ll deal with it. He’s their governor, not their moral counsellor.
It is because the Republicans invest themselves so much in the morailty game, but do exactly zero to stop the immoral outrages within the party.
One should get their own house in order before commenting on the disarray of another.
DD,
Nahh…it’s easier for these religious busybodies to play the game of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
But Joshua does have a point on Democrats and environmental issues. The reason why people are so hard on Republican for their marital failings is because they try to tell everyone else how to run their marriage (and who should and should not be able to get married). By the same token, Democrats try to tell everyone else to put the environment ahead of many personal and business needs. But if they’re driving around town in a huge SUV with a pretty lame excuse as to why they just can’t make do with a more efficient vehicle, they should be judged harder on that issue than a Republican would. It would be hypocritical not to.
(And the nice thing about being a free agent is that I can stick my tounge out at both sides)
But since the topic of the day is the governor’s affair and abandonment of his post for the better part of a week, bringing up Democrats and their environmental failings is a bit of a red herring.
My point, Aubie, is that some elected officials are going to fail and turn out to be hypocrites. This doesn’t mean the whole party can’t stand by its principles–we just have to hold our own to the standards we claim.
I haven’t seen the Democrats holding their own elected officials to the environmental standard their party claims, and the same could be said for their claimed standards on helping the poor, paying taxes, ending racism/sexism, etc.
At least Sanford isn’t a LIAR like Poythress, with all his “Succession” talk.
“not trust any politician who carries the baggage of the Religious Right.”
Christians need to be careful of those they support. It is one thing to support a politician because on some things you have common ground. But nowhere in the New Testament does it teach that the the goals of the Church are to become the legislation of the government. Scripture is quite clear that Christians are to affect change in their society by the testimony of how they live their lives, by the love they show one to another, and then by their words of testimony. We are to live such that we are used by God to draw people to Christ, not drag them kicking and screaming.
As an example, if we Christians want to shut down the strip clubs, then it should be because people want what we have in Christ, then having obtained it freely and without coercion by grace, they choose for themselves not to attend such places. The end result is that the business closes down for lack of business.
Our trust should never, ever, be in politicians or government to achieve Godly ends. Whether it is a serial adulterer, global warming worshiper, and Rockefeller Republican like Gingrich, or Sanford and his “Girl from Ipanema”, people are always subject to failure. I do believe there is a place for common morality to be enforced in law (e.g. murder, rape, theft, etc.). I don’t believe, however, Christians should use the government and the law because they are too lazy or impatient to do things God’s way.
Now, maybe, just MAYBE, the fiscal conservatives, constitutionalists, independents, and libertarians can take this party back.
The election of 2004, won on the idiocy of Anti-Gay-Marriage, was the low point for the above groups.
After Ensign, Sanford, and Vitter, it looks like the GOPers are the big threat to marriage. After Foley, Craig, Gannon, and Haggard, the GOP exposed itself as the gayest danger of them all. After Reed, Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, and Ney, the GOP is also identified as the party of thieves.
Bye-bye GOP.
You guys cannot keep your hands off the babes, bullion, or butts.
MS Bass Singer,
Well put. That is my problem with the Religious Right (and the Religious Left, for that matter). No where in the New Testament does Christ instruct us to bring people to Christ affect the culture through governmental edicts and legislation.
IndyInjun,
If the government wants to endorse gay marriage, then exempt people (due to the free exercise of their Christian faith) from having to accept such “marriages” as legitimate in any degree to it touches their lives. That has been the “push back” impetus for Christians. We know that homosexuality is not a “state of being”, but a Biblically-defined immoral practice no different than heterosexual sex outside the marriage of one man and one woman. I understand others disagree, but that is Scripture defines it, and the religion of the pro-homosexuality crowd should not be forced upon us.
So long as we are not forced by government edict to accept homosexuality as legitimate (to the degree it touches our lives), you would see it go away as an issue for politically active Christians.
If a business. for example, flaunts homosexuality or openly supports it, I can choose not to shop there. If a TV show is openly pro-homosexual, I can find something else to watch or to do. If my neighbor is practicing homosexuality in his home, so long as he keeps the act behind closed doors, it is none of my business. But when the force of government is brought to bear to take my money to support it, or to be forced to hire someone whose immorality doesn’t fit into the character of my business, or I am threatened with arrest if I speak openly against the practice, then such legislation has to be stopped within the political system by the active participation of Christians.
Besides, the GOP doesn’t win without the full conservative platform. Those you might derisively call “SoCons” also fully support the strong defense of this nation, smaller government, less spending, less regulation, a return to the original intent of the Constitution, and lower taxes. Both Christian and secular conservatives need to work together in the areas we agree, and in areas we don’t (such as homosexual marriage), live and let live.
How exactly does anyone else’s marriage (gay or straight) “touch your life”? (other than grossing you out)
Besides my parent’s marriage?
Or your wife’s/husband’s?
Don’t forget any swingers you might know.
I find it interesting that he was having an affair with someone from Argentina. In a sense relying on outsourcing his mistress. She, I suppose, would do “jobs” Americans just wouldn’t do.
Surprised this wasn’t followed by a gamut of witticisms. Too soon, I guess… it’s what kept me away (that and being “witless.”)
btw, I enjoyed it.
And Obama wants us to apologize for bringing Democracy and the right to life ideals of Americans to the Middle East. His willingness to sacrifice the rights of others for his political expediency is in the traditions of American Democrats through history. Roosevelt did not want to save the Jews on the MS St. Louis in 1939 because he did not want to impose our views of how to treat minorities on the Nazis. The Copperhead Democrats in the 1860’s did not want Lincoln to impose freedom on Black Slaves. President Wilson did not want Republicans to impose women’s suffrage on America. Now, Obama and his idol Jimmy Carter do not want us to encourage the rights of Women and Democracy on Muslims for fear we will look to much like George Bush.
Right to Life in the Middle East? Unless I’m terribly mistaken, abortion is heavily restricted there. Some countries allow for abortion if there is an issue with the pregnancy that endangers the heath of the mother but beyond that, from everything I’ve ever read, in regards to abortion the Middle East is a right to life paradise.
If you’re talking about right to life in regards to criminal punishment, then isn’t the only real difference which crimes rise to the level of capital punishment? Putting citizens to death for having a view contrary to that of the government could be seen as a right to life issue but really it seems more like a control issue. Perhaps I’m splitting hair here but I just don’t see right to life being something that anyone is trying to export to the Middle East.
Er, these folks who want to make things better in Iran for victims of rape, incest ect… could probably get more bang for the buck by becoming more active against Human trafficking and global pedophile rings, ect… Of course if you’re trying to piss off the entire international Muslim community or heighten tensions with Iran, then by all means join the stampede. Of course many conservatives are wary of all this spoon fed information put out for the masses.
MSBS
All I am saying is that campaigning on moral issues only served to FOOL the socons into voting for the most immoral people around – or at least as immoral as the Dems.
Somehow the political religious right likes to prioritize sin in such a way that the Bushites got away with stealing everything in sight and were conducting their own gay sodomy to boot!
Interesting that Mark Sanford has resigned as Chair of the Republican Governors Association. Will he also resign as Governor of South Carolina? Also, when Sonny Perdue was Chair of the same association, he installed his fair-haired boy Nick Ayers as Executive Director. Will Nick survive under a new Chair? In 2006 Nick got a DUI that has been hushed up with the help of Sonny. What happened to your DUI case, Nick? Please come clean on this.
Not saying it ain’t true but of course there’s problems everywhere.
GameFan,
“if you’re trying to piss off the entire international Muslim community or heighten tensions with Iran”
Moslems around the world are already pissed at the US – remember 9/11? Tensions are always heightened with Iran – their nutcase leadership is constantly and proactively causing trouble.
So long as we are not Mohammedan, they will be angry. Ever since they got their rear ends handed to them by little Israel (time and time again), they have been set on whatever cowardly course of action they can take.
The only way to contain the threat of Islamic imperialism is to face them with overwhelming strength. They have no interest in friendship, cooperation, peaceful coexistence, or any other form of appeasement. They are evil, and evil must be defeated.
I have done business with and have many friends in the Islamic community. I grew up in an area which had one of the largest Mosque for years in America outside of Toledo Ohio. And in my hometown many Jewish people like me had friends in the Islamic community.
You might find this interesting. I never met the person I only saw this via google.
…….My parents’ commitment to their faith and their country not only led them to give back but also led them to push me to test my notions of identity and to take true ownership of who I am. With this belief, they enrolled me at the Hebrew Academy of Toledo, a small Jewish day school nestled in the suburbia of northwest Ohio. Being the only non-Jew in the school, I learned Hebrew and prayed in the synagogue alongside my classmates. On Sundays, I attended Arabic and religion classes at our mosque and prayed the mid-afternoon prayer with our Muslim community. There was no contradiction in these actions in my mind or within our family. For nine years, this routine was my definition of normalcy. The seamless and daily transition from my Jewish environment to my Islamic one allowed me to genuinely appreciate the faith of my friends alongside my own. My parents made sure that I knew the differences between Islam and Judaism, explaining the Islamic perspective on every topic I was taught at school. At the same time, they were ever careful to explain the respect we as Muslims should have for our Abrahamic brothers and sisters in faith. Our different perspectives did not negate the validity or the truth in the other faith.
I graduated from the Hebrew Academy in 1993 and moved on to a nonreligious school for junior high and high school. As far as I know, no Muslims besides my two siblings and I ever attended the Jewish school. Similarly, as the Muslim community grew and began to set up its own elementary schools in town, no Jewish children ever enrolled.
The embrace that my parents felt from the Arabs when they arrived to America found its echo for me within the Jewish community, which welcomed me in as family, ensuring that I always had a kitchen in which to break matzah, and a sukkah in which to shake the lulav. I know that much of my own adherence to Islam as an adult can be traced back to my Jewish friends from my youth who shared with me the joy and spiritual fulfillment they felt from practicing their faith. Their commitment to their faith inspired and encouraged me to explore and appreciate the complexity of my own. ……
http://www.onenationforall.org/What-s-New-in-the-American-Muslim-Community/Archive/-Growing-up-Muslim-Amongst-Jews.html
Man, did you guys see all the little children lined up Monday in the convenient stores around the nation to buy up all the last packs of candy flavored tobacco?
No household should be without an FDA agent. I check the mailbox every day for mine to arrive.
Moslems around the world are already pissed at the US – remember 9/11?
Yeah and wasn’t there some deck of cards or something with “the 50 worst S.O.B.s on the planet” or some such garbage? Weren’t we trying to isolate the terrorists back then? You neocons really need to get on the same page. It could help your game just a little since you’re all about your leaders and talking points, ect…
They must be defeated?
Hey, here’s a great slogan: “Depleted Uranium for Jesus” That one really pumps my nads.
If you’re making it all about religion (or attempting to) you’re missing the bigger picture (and you’re probably not doing your religion any good either) I mean seriously, what century did some of you folks come from? “THEY MUST BE CRUSHED ASUNDER. CRUSHED I SAY. SO SAYETH ME. SO SAYETH GOD” bla bla bla
Words to think about: Peacekeeper missile, Christian militia
What does this have to do with GA Politics?
Traditionally on Peach Pundit when a topic is declared to be an ‘open thread’ it is permissible to discuss issues not uniquely or directly related to Georgia politics.
Also South Carolina is our next door neighbor so we have a bit more interest in what’s going on there than some place like Idaho.
Correct. Open threads are just that, open.
They are here by design. We have a community that is interesed in GA Politics, and that is what usually drives the discussions here.
We on the front page have some editorial liberty to occasionally stray for “a moment of personal privilege” but are asked to not do it too often, and to keep most of our posts to matters of Georgia Politics.
Open threads are here so that the community that is assembled can also make non-related announcements, have their own moments of personal privilege, or otherwise discuss topics among people whose opinions they are used to reading on other topics.
There is no assumption that open threads will be about Georgia Politics, or politics at all.
Resume open thread.
Big news – Icarus will be 40 tomorrow!
Happy Birthday Icky!
Is that dog years?
Right of Center and Bill Simon:
Sanford did not carry the water for the “religious right.” He was known as a fiscal conservative and did not make social conservative issues a priority. Wasn’t he mistrusted by the religious right?
We had to adopt Sanford and DeMint, because ours aren’t even Republicans.
Sanford is all too MUCH a Republican, sad to say.
GOP- GIVE UP THE MORALITY BS, IT IS BEATING YOU TO A BLOODY PULP!
We need a party that will stay out of our wallets and our butt pocket.
AubieTurtle
I meant Right to Life for Women, religious minorities, Gays, etz. I meant it as a broader concept. People who are politically selfish view the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as only applying to a select group. I believe it applies to all.
(and the Religious Left, for that matter)
What “Religious” Left???
Must mean Scientologists…or worse, Catholics
I have never understood why some intelligent men strive and work to achieve election to higher office, then when they take office, they cease to think with the brain that helped them get elected. They begin to think with their other brain…
If you think men can ever stop thinking with the other brain, you really don’t understand us at all. Sooner or later we learn not to let the other brain have whatever it wants, because it’s not a recipe for a happy life. But it never stops trying to think for us. Making the right choices in spite of himself is what makes a good man good. If a man is “blessed” not to have that inner struggle with his other brain, he probably won’t have the drive to go far in life. That’s just how it is in a man’s world.
Religious left:
Google Jim Wallis and you’ll get a good idea. Or the powers that be in the Episcopal Church. Or the United Methodist Church. Or the Presbyterian Church USA. Personally I prefer the Religious Middle of the Road.
On Mark Sanford:
I personally don’t care who he’s screwing. It doesn’t affect my life one iota. Where’s the outrage of our current elected officials whose policies are affecting us… essentially our current leaders ARE screwing US. I’m not interested in their personally life decisions, I’m interested in their public policy decisions. The standards are being misplaced. I would fire a carpenter because he was a bad carpenter, not because he was a bad plumber.
I was once informed that a potential candidate I was going to support was an Atheist… I told the informant that that would matter if he wanted to be my preacher… I’m more concerned that he believes in the Constitution, which was relevant to the job he was going for. We’re going to loose a lot of people that would be good for this country if we continue with the politics of personal destruction and misplaced standards. Result, we all then get cheated on.
Gov Sanford,
Get your personal life back in order and get back to work. I’m not willing to over look the good you’ve done, because of this unwise personal screw-up. Granted, you made you trek more difficult, but I don’t believe it has to or should end.
cc jasonpye.com
Another example of having one set of standards for people you agree with and another for those you don’t.
If you do not apply them to all, you have no standards, and people like you are the reason we have the pieces of crap we have in Washington.
Character cannot be compartimentalized. People who have character issues have them through every fiber of their being. Everything about this affair smacks of a lowlife. Even his disappearing act as the sitting governor of the state to see some internet fling. The only thing shocking about this is that she wasn’t 12 years old, or a boy.
No state deserves such a man as governor. But I bet he can at least tie his own shoes.
DD,
First part, please provide examples of where I’ve used different standards for different folks.
As for the Character question, I look at totality… and don’t expect perfection… not realistic.
If SC doesn’t want him… I’ll trade him for Perdoofus, Saxby et. al. GA crooked slime …
Seriously, I don’t mean to belittle this. I’m just saying it is not representative of his governance… and that is more important to me in elected officials than personal/private/relationship/family matters.
ps. said the same about others when it comes to sex scandals… not an issue for me… unless “Maria” got a huge government contract in the deal…. then we can talk.
Perfection? Cheating on your wife goes far beyond a minor flaw. If it was up to me people who cheat on their spouses would be ineligible for pretty much any position of faith or trust under our government. If they cannot be trusted by those they supposed “love”, why are they somehow supposed to be trusted by the government or the voters?
If you want to sew your oats, do it when your 20 or as a private individual, and not the sitting governor of a state. How insane is this man who had Presidential aspiration to fly off to Argentina to see his mistress for a week while supposed being the head of South Carolina’s government? This is the type of flighty individual you want in charge of things like the state police or the nuclear button (as President).
How do you feel about “back problems”, Doug?
I agree DD and if he knew he had “feeling” for another woman than he should have had the decency to end his marriage first. I don’t mind if someone is divorced, I do mind if they cheat.
It depends if the back injury was caused by a loose shoe lace or not.
Reality:
AllSome of the Presidents’ GirlsMore bad news:
I’ve seen studies with numbers as high as 80% of couples have at least one or both partners who have had an affair. Most studies put the number at around 50% for both men and women. Those that have done these studies admit that accurate numbers are difficult due to people still married and/or still in the extra relationship won’t answer the question, even when done anonymously…. I’m just saying.
If it was up to me people who cheat on their spouses would be ineligible for pretty much any position of faith or trust under our government.
I guess that is where we differ… I don’t see the President as my “Caesar”, combined political and “faith” leader. Church and state is separate for me.
So we now know that you would use the litmus test of “lust”, about “Gluttony”, “Greed”, “Sloth”, “Wrath”, “Envy”, and “Pride”?
No fatties, right Doug?
DD,
I hope you realize we mostly agree on the mistake itself… it’s just the whole bath water, baby thing… you do get that, right?
Like your “jobs” joke… maybe I commented too soon.
Not sure which “jobs” joke you are referring to. I try to add a bit of humor to everything, so it could likely be anything.
Anyway, I do not care about lust, I do not care what someone is tempted by, but I do care about their choices. Any man or woman over the legal age who has not committed a felony or otherwise disqualified from office can be governor. There is nothing special about Sanford. He did not have to give speech after speech claiming how the GOP had to clean up its act and then run off with a woman he met through an e-mail on the internet. The problem is that he made a commitment to a family, which apparently has no meaning to you. Anyone who will betray their family will betray anyone.
The man lives in a childhood fantasy world, and the simple fact is if you didn’t subscribe to his agenda, you would not be defending him now. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.
You might like to live in a world where a man’s word is meaningless and where morality plays not part (as long as you like his political beliefs), but I bet few others do.
Problem is the state paid for his trip to Argentina a couple of times.
If that is the case then he should likely be in jail. It couldn’t happen to a better example of hypocrisy.
Still no response from Nick Ayers to my question regarding his 2006 DUI case. Come clean, Nick. Confession is good for the soul. How did you fix your 2006 DUI ticket? Inquiring minds want to know….
Comments on this entry are closed.