Stoning is sanctioned within the bible. Islamic law prescribes the stoning of couples suspected of having sex, or having children out of wedlock. Many of us now ridicule such a practice, deeming it inhumane, or unfair---at the very least. But this sort of punishment isn't exclusive to old religious practices. It is still an accepted means of reprimanding convicted persons today. This way of capital punishment is shameful, but legal in various societies. And though we don't necessarily throw physical stones in our society, here in the U.S. of A., we aren't free of guilt. For we have alternative, and just as sickening means of throwing stones, for the mere infraction of loving someone.
I've learned recently, that Islamists have carried out such an execution just days ago. They controlled a town in northern Mali. An otherwise innocent couple were brought to death---after the Islamic group accused them of having children outside of marriage. The couple were maliciously transported to the town of Aguelhok. Once there, the less than human group of Islamists buried them in voids four feet in depth, leaving exposed their heads, and proceeded to pelt them with stones, until death ensued. http://americablog.com/2012/07/islamists-in-mali-stone-couple-to-death-for-having-kids-out-of-wedlock.html
The normal, decent individual might understandably think this to be a fairytale. That individual has not the slightest idea how much I wish it was so.
Though it isn't a common occurrence, this barbaric,idiotic practice is alive and well in Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. To the extent of my knowledge(everyone knows that's not far), there's not much that definitively indicates that stoning has been carried out in Pakistan, Nigeria, or Iraq. That doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility.
The Old Testament prescribed stoning for murder, blasphemy, and apostasy. I am not perfect, nonetheless I try to uphold honesty whenever possible and practical---so, I can say that I can probably understand how this might barely be justified for murder. This guy here has minimal respect and remorse for murderers that prey on those who cannot defend themselves. Those are the mentally and physically impaired, children, and women( I don't mean that women are inferior, bare with me here). Death for apostasy and blasphemy is senseless. That's putting it gently.
How it's specified in law:
Article 102 of the Islamic penal code of Iran, states that "men should be buried up to their waist, and women up to their breasts", for the execution. Beautiful right? --Yeah. Article 104, referring to adultery, contains directives for the stones that are used. According to this directive, stones that are to be utilised shall not be sufficiently large as to cause death by only a couple of strikes. Selected stones should neither be so small that they can't be classified as stones. Who in Hell comes up with this stuff?
I've even discovered that persons who were able to fight themselves free from the hole they were placed in, were let go. This doesn't make me feel any more chipper. And women always seem to afford the short end of the stick. Because women are buried to their breasts, and men to their waists, it is easy to deduce who possesses the greater probability of escape. It's not like men are generally physically stronger or anything. Sillyrabbits. http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/faq_stoning
Why the U.S. is guilty:
We throw stones of a different type. These stones come in the form of destructive words, and ridicule to single mothers, that even a child can sense the inequality and unfairness in. Single fathers and children of single fathers don't seem to endure quite the judgement. They may receive a few bats of the eye, from the "uppity", out of touch with the crude world posh, but nothing in comparison. For a being as delicate as a child, why must we make them to endure such disgusting description? Words like "bastard", "illegitimate", "whoreson", and other choice words that I would consider choking the life out of a person for, are completely unacceptable. Adults are less mature than the children they are describing when they decide to use such language. Regarding the aforementioned derogatory terms, many people use them to distinguish themselves from the unwed, or children therefrom---as if it makes them elitists. Reasonably, having that thought process lessens one's credible character. Is that a tenet of what we stand for? I opine that people should use less of dilapidated texts to define, or govern respiring human beings, and start using their hearts.
Legally, the method of legitimizing a child involves the parents being married at the moment of birth. Currently, children are regarded as legitimate if they are formally acknowledged by their father. Am I the only one who thinks this to be a bit absurd? All children are legitimate! I mean, have we gone mad or what? Love is the binding force that legitimizes children---love from any direction in fact. Who cares what the conveniently pious thinks? Love is too that binding force that legitimizes any true relationship. It is the ring figuratively around your heart when commitment is real--the one around the finger is intended to be symbolic, but it's rapidly changing into a piece for show.
As soon as a child is born, that child is more significant than a word. The magical moment a mother embraces her newborn for the first time, that child has a proper name, and shan't be called upon by anything other than what it is, unless one is speaking constructively. No legal entity, nor religious text, nor any emotionally debilitating opinion from any poor excuse of a person shall be credible.
Perspective:
With divorce rates in the neighbourhood of 50%, who shall casts judgment? Moreover, the U.S. is running a close race with having the highest rate in the dissolution of marriage. That's alarming. This isn't to mock or look at our nation negatively. I'm a realist. I introduced the aforesaid fact to introduce another: the institution of marriage, and the adherence to religious beliefs, do not necessarily guarantee a healthy or sound partnership, or childhood. We all know troubled children of married parents; each of us can think of an abusive marriage.
The effect:
Parents and children especially, living under a single parent roof, face different realities; some never overcome them. Sometimes a child will try to compensate for that absent parent. Many times this is done positively and effectively. Also, a bleak truth is that some children grow to compensate counterproductively. The euphoria from a missing parental hug, in some cases, is replaced chemically or promiscuously--There's an array of other ways. (Obviously this isn't exact under every circumstance.) This compensation can be known as self medicating, psychologically. http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP10-14-FF.pdf
I intend to do nothing more than shed light on the hearts that may indeed be fractured. Why would we throw lexical stones at hearts that might already be in pain?
Unmarried couples, children of unmarried couples, and single parents do not have to be plagued by the shirt that society, theocracies, or any other entity have stitched for them. Not knowing his father has never stopped Lance Armstrong from achieving greatness(I don't give two cruise ships about his steroid accusations, or use). Being raised by his grandparents didn't stifle the suave voice, or comedic genius of Jamie Foxx. Being abandoned doesn't jeopardize the wealth of Jay Z today. And having met his father only once as a tot doesn't seem to damage the ambition of Barack Obama(set aside your political or personal dislike for a sec).
Perhaps we should think about the acceptance of stoning in the Old Testament---But surely, we should watch how we throw stones, in the form of words.
-cheers, D.A.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment