Death to the Converts, Damn the Iranian Constitution

I didn't get around to checking all my e-mail yesterday (I was home, taking a 'vacation day'), so didn't notice this link from David Mills from the Telegraph, a reminder of the sort of countries we are dealing with in certain parts of the world.

A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled "Islamic Penal Code", which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith.

Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against. Imposing the death penalty for changing religion blatantly violates one of the most fundamental of all human rights.

The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the European Convention of Human Rights. It is even enshrined as Article 23 of Iran's own constitution, which states that no one may be molested simply for his beliefs.

None of this is shocking to me. I've been reading lives of the saints for a couple of years and it is utterly routine to read about beheadings and torture in Persia (Iran) at certain periods and in Greece and Asia Minor under the Ottomans. I could throw in Spain under the Moors, and so on. Standard fare. The contradiction between Iran's "constitution" and its law approving the death penalty is clear and of no interest to its citizens:

...few politicians or clerics in Iran see any contradiction between a law mandating the death penalty for changing religion and Iran's constitution. There has been no public protest in Iran against it.

Now exactly how different is this from our having a clause in our own constitution or founding documents about a God-given right to life and our Supreme Court sanctioning abortion on demand? I guess it's a matter of what you can live with.

Comments

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Now exactly how different is this from our having a clause in our own constitution or founding documents about a God-given right to life and our Supreme Court sanctioning abortion on demand?"

You had to point that out, didn't ya Jim?

[bonobo]

It's good to realize how unable we are to point fingers in this regard.

What religion have the unborn except "let me live"? It seems one may not, also under pain of death, apostatize from the religion of Choice Supreme...

[Pesky Pundit]

There are MANY contradictions which fly in the face of the Constitution. Employment equity/affirmative action, for example, is - in the final analysis - based upon the presumptive racist perspectives of lower expectations some have of particular population groups. But the point made about the right to life is irrefutable. McCain at least has clearly expressed his own unambiguous position. That gets my vote. Human life is THAT important.

[c matt]

McCain at least has clearly expressed his own unambiguous position.

Yes he has. He clearly favors the right to life of the unborn, unless you happen to be a leftover embryo that can be useful for scientific research. Then you're screwed.

But, that's still less egregious than Obama.

I'm sure the Iranians do a similar torture of logic to the term "belief" or "religion" just like we do with "person" in order to get the desired result.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'm sure the Iranians do a similar torture of logic to the term "belief" or "religion" just like we do with "person" in order to get the desired result.<<<

No, the Iranians are very logical and consistent. Theirs is an ISLAMIC republic, in which Sharia has priority over any other code of law. Sharia is very explicit regarding the penalty for apostasy. What the Iranian Constitution says is irrelevant because Sharia overrides the Constitution.

>>>He clearly favors the right to life of the unborn, unless you happen to be a leftover embryo that can be useful for scientific research.<<<

The point will shortly become moot as the need for such embryos evaporates in the face of new technologies that use other sorts of cells. Embryonic stem cell research, aside from its moral problems, has proven to be far too difficult to transition from the lab into workable therapies. Investors seek return on investment; they will not back technologies that offer little or no payoff and have the added problem of being morally controversial.

[Judy K. Warner]

However, those in government who really like the idea of destroying embryos might be able to find ways to keep funding that research. I don't think John McCain is one such, but 0bama might be.

[Stuart Koehl]

Well, the whole embryonic stem cell gig was never really about helping Michael J. Fox get over Parkinson's Disease; it was always about finding an acceptable rationale for continuing the practice of abortion.