About the same as sending a man to prison because he defends his home from an intruder.

Someone needs to invent a forum where you just post recordings of your voice saying things, rather than text.

Should you reallly need a sarcasm tag when you include bits like "insane sub-human waste"?

Wouldn't 90 lashes be fatal?

While I don't think this is "right," I am aware that I have been raised in a culture wrought with hypocracies, simplifications and mores based on ancient grasps for power, and I certainly don't think myself wise enough to discern absolute right from absolute wrong.

Maybe I'm playing with semantics here, but I don't think anyone sane is capable of true evil, true malice, causing harm for the sake of causing harm. Even Hitler thought he what he was doing was right, and enough people agreed with him that he was able to commit one of the greatest atrocities in history.

I'm not going to compare Bush to Hitler, or the US to Nazi Germany; I mentioned Hitler just as an example of how subjective "good" can be. Even if you accept that America acts for all the right reasons, and with benevolence, it cannot be denied that lives have been destroyed needlessly, or even just accidentally by U.S. action, be it through inciting rebellion, quelling rebellion, bombing insurgent hideouts in civilian neighborhoods, or what have you. Absolute good that requires unwilling sacrifice is not absolute good. Any life ruined or taken in the name of justice is one taken out of convenience; a burden removed rather than dealt with. I mean, many Americans ritualistically hold babies under water as part of a religious practice. This is the part where someone attempts to torpedo my entire theory by pointing out my hypocracy, with the single word, "abortion." Well, I never suggested I was an entirely good or moral person, nor would I disagree that abortion is most often done for convenience, rather than good. Also, I never give up hope that one day we'll all rise above the tactic of, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll question your credibility until I can comfortably ignore it."

So no, I'm not saying we're evil, as again I think it takes an absolute psychopath to truly be evil. I simply think we ought to think twice before saying there is anyone, anywhere, let alone an entire nation of people, that is qualified to define morality for all of humankind. And JMJ is right, it is no excuse to simply say, "it's a different culture." We should think critically about this. However, it may be over-simplifying things - and perhaps premature - to say, "I find this abhorrent and barbaric, and I am right, therefore, this is evil."

Be that as it may, upon further consideration this does appear to be abhorrent, barbaric, and as evil as anything a society perpetrates on its people.

Is this wrong? Yes. I think by any reasonable moral compass, it is. Moral relativism, an unpopular phrase, does not simply mean that anything goes. Like anything else it must be dictated by a compass of reason, and of course it can be abused as quickly and easily a moral absolutism, which I think JMJ describes by ascribing the certainty of a "right" and a "wrong". In fact, moral relativism in its best forms should be precisely the reasonable dictate that tempers moral absolutism. After all, it is the moral absolutism of the Saudi culture here that creates the supposed wrong, and the temperment of Western relativism that they might see as interfering with the word of law.

I make this point, first to negate the idea that moral relativism would say "hey, it's their culture. They can do what they want" and to point out that the moral absolutism that might be used to counter can be precisely the problem. The missing element in both debates is the place of reason, and that's certainly what's missing in the Saudi case illustrated. Reason.

So, that brings me to my question, which is that yes, we can judge that this action is wrong. So what are we supposed to do about that? And by me, I mean western culture, because the moment we start interfering and passing judgment is the moment we escalate the holy war. I guess what I'm asking is, is it our place, our moral duty and authority to end this kind of culture?

Sure, it's easy to judge. But the hard part is in forming the response, isn't it?

But that's not the thing that annoys me. What annoys me are the people (not you, but they exist,) who refuse to even admit that we are capable of and entitled to make a judgment of the actions of another culture. What I wrote above, as evidenced by Johnny's reaction, is something you could VERY WELL hear in many settings these days.

The thing that aggravated me was seeing Bush in one of his early Iraq war justification speeches talk about how one of the reasons they were right to invade was how women were treated and how much of an oppressive culture was present there. Something which by the by, hasn't changed since the war. That aside, I don't see how it can be anything but huge western hypocrisy to use that among the many reasons to invade Iraq while at the same time they call Saudi Arabia an ally. If treating woman as little more than animals is wrong in one place it's wrong in all the other places, not just the ones you don't have a trading relationship with.

hmm I read it as he blackmailed her into going with him, and that he was part of the whole rape gang.

But as I said above it was intentionally worded to make it seem like she was being lashed for being raped, istead of for her "crime". One might just as easily argue that if she hadn't commited her crime she would not have been raped at all. After rereading it I see that the first guy may not have been involved in the kidnap and rape part, but he did blackmail her into getting into the car with him (I'm sure his intentions were honorable, blackmailers are known for their trustworthyness). He got lashes as well according to the article.

I know it makes no valid discussion point, but I feel compelled to note that this sort of thing really, really disturbs and hurts me to read. Even if the two incidents were unrelated, the whole scenario shakes my ability to believe in the inherent good of humanity in general. How can anyone think this sort of thing is right and just? That someone should suffer due to victimization, and even separately, that people should be beaten for meeting with people of the opposite sex..? I'm a big advocate of people having the right to live by their own cultures and ways (I love the Amish), but I can only do so with the thought that choice in the matter must come into play...

another thing to consider is that the saudi media is just an extension of the government, in which case this could be 'the good spin'... makes it even scarier. it's pretty safe to say her life is ruined, not that i know a great deal about arab culture, but isn't 'shame' a huge affront to them? just seems like piling on at this point and i don't think it's fair to compare her to a bank robber in any way. her crime was... wait for it... going outside. once again, not big on the knowledge of arab culture, but if your laws state it's fair to beat someone half to death for just doing that i don't think it's unfair to claim that said law/society/culture is rotten to the core.

Er.. the victim was given lashes?

Man, that's progressive. I wonder what the perp got? Medals of Honor? $50 and a gift certificate to pottery barn? A phallus made entirely of gold?

in a culture where 'shame' and 'honour' are held in such high regard, don't you think that publicly whipping someone with full disclosure of their name and crime could be considered punishment?

that's the point though, she is being punished albeit not by direct verdict. it's not like barney fife taking a truncheon to otis in the basement. this is done publicly, where the 'offender' is paraded around, named and shamed in front of a crowd. given that women are forbidden to leave their house alone or with someone who isn't a family member, the entire thing would have to be somewhat of a rarity in daily saudi life. you've got to consider that family and tribal ties are incredibly important, with a name you can pretty much tell where and who someone comes from...

put all that together and yes, she is being punished for being raped.

how is publicly naming a rape victim in a culture where a woman's virtue is everything not punishment?