The Afrikaaners did base the oppression on religion however other religions, eg the Roman Catholic church opposed Apartheid also on religious grounds.
I one way I agree with you. In order for a religion to survive and expand it must embrace as many points of view as possible while protecting the essentially authoritarian center. So it is qute normal in christianity etc to have lots of wildly different and conflicting opinions on subjects amongs the members of a particular religion, all of whome claim that theirs is correct, divinely mandated and supported by that religion. So yes, Christianity was a justification for apartheid while at the same time it was a justification for fighting apartheid. Christianity was also a justification used to justify slavery in the US while at the same time it was the justification for abolishing slavery. And it goes on and on. There are as many interpretations of christianity as there are christians. All of whome beleive that they are absolutely, undeniably right. One of the arguments for christianity is that it and the bible provide the only definitive guide for moral behaviour. The problem is that the bible does not do this. It is vague, conflicting, badly written etc. You can make anything you want of it. George Bernard Shaw - "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."
Its also incredibly rude and naive to be an armchair champion for injustice where one has not visited the country, spoken to the locals and decided for oneself if they are really oppressed or not, not based upon anti-religious bias but really on the psyche of the population.
Here is where we fundamentally disagree. I as a human being have to make moral judgements all the time. I am not saying that it is wrong to punish rape victims with 200 lashes because I don't like religion. I am saying it's wrong based on what is admittedly my own moral beliefs. These are beliefs based on the concepts of equity, fair treatment, individual liberty etc. These are not beliefs which are highly regarded in authoritarian states, be they religious or not. So my moral judgement is that these actions are reprehensable. I understand what you are saying about it being relative. But then everything is.
As said before, women exist in Saudi society and they raise their sons, at least in the beginning. They raise them to treat them as they do. Now I'm not passing judgement here but these males and females don't exist in a vacuum being bred in coccoons independently of each other. People grow up in families and girls start wearing their traditional dress when they reach maturity. I think we shouldn't judge these people by our own standards which to them are those of debauchery.
I cannot judge them by any other standards. Now the kicker is what does this mean? You allude to bombings, sanctions etc. I am not calling for any of these, or any other punishment. Simply because this has not gone far enough. The trick is to decide when and if we should start taking action. In the case of Saudi Arabia, we are a long way from that point. There are far worse things about Saudi than this. They are far more a source of terrorism or at least terrorist ideology than any other country in the world.
since they haven't risen up like say the Iranians against the Shiah or the Palestinians against the Israelis we can assume that they are not that discontended with their status quo.
Very, very bad assumption. They live in a police state where dissent is harshly punished. I don't think we have to wait until the streets run red with blood to admit that their is discontent without any legal method of either voiving that discontent or promoting change.
Just to add, yes I feel sorry for the woman concerned but its her country and her laws. I'm not going to go petitioning the EU/USA to start bombing them for that.
Yet you condone it? Thats the difference. I don't. Where I see evil I call it. I'm also not demanding the bombs or even demanding that they change. But I won't pretend that it's ok, by my (and western societies) understanding of right and wrong.
As for change, why should there be change? Change to what? A bin Ladin run government which sponsors terrorism? Mind you - that is a moot point too since the Saudis do seem to support
the Palestinians.
Not change for change sake. But change for an improvement. Change is constant. but those on top will always resist change because maybe they won't be on top then. But it is a very risky game for outsiders to attempt to force change. Seldom works.
Still most Saudis seem happy in their enslavement.
As I aid. You assume mutch. Some may be happy. But mostly the enslavers.
Are you happy in yours? You're not really free either? You can't leave SA for example without a passport and a ticket?
I have a passport and can get a ticket. Probably a work permit / residence as well. And my family is unlikely to hunt me down and punish me if I try leave. But I agree. We are also slaves. But it has more to do with socio economic domination. No, I am not happy in mine. But I do have valid ways of protesting.
