More Like Punishment by Religion...

We're talking about freedom of religion on our blog. Or, the opposite too I guess.

I just read this article in The New York Times about the exact opposite happening: punishment by religion. In Iran, a women convicted of adultery may be stoned to death. Stoned. And it's a shocking thing to media systems both there and here. It's shocking in Iran, because they are actually talking about it in the media-- a clip of the woman calling herself a sinner was shown on state-owned television. It's shocking in the United States, because of the severity of the punishment of adultery, and because her son specifically told people who knew about the situation to lie to foreign western media, to make it less of a deal.

So this brings up two good aspects:

• Because of the government's and her own strict following of the Muslim faith, this Iranian woman may be stoned to death (the punishment is under review by the court-- but she may still be executed in a different way), because she was convicted of having an illicit relationship. Is this religious freedom?
• It was controversial in Iran, because this story was broadcast on television. The woman's lawyer told her son to lie to western media, saying it would be prudent. Is this media freedom?
• 

Iran has a "Stop Stoning Forever" Campaign

US Making Strides?

It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes when you really don't have any clue how to relate to them.

This article highlights a new policy made by the United States two weeks ago, which will require the frisking of people with turbans as a security policy. The U.S. decided not to make the removal of turbans mandatory, but still reserves the right to "pat down" the turban to feel for anything suspicious. In my eyes, this seems like a good compromise, but many people are still offended by the decision.

Is the U.S. doing enough with this decision? Are they taking steps in the right direction?

The article at a glance:

"The turban — along with a comb, a sword, a specific undergarment and a metallic wrist bangle — are part of the required dress for Sikh men, according to the religion, which is a mix of Hindu and Islam founded in the 15th Century in Punjab. Sikh women are forbidden to cut their hair.

Men have long accepted they cannot carry a sword aboard planes, Badal said, and so have modified the religious requirement by carrying pendants or blades embedded in their comb 'as a symbolic symbol.' But this can mean they do not clear a metal detector, which prompts a second security screening."

Take a look. Did the U.S. make a fair decision?

U.S under U.N. scrutiny for Religious Rights

The U.S. will be the brunt of scrutiny by the United Nations Human Rights Council during the "Universal Periodic Review," coming under accusations of human rights violations such as:

• violent, barbaric police officers
• holding political prisoners behind bars
• 30% of the population not having adequate income for basic needs
• discrimination against Muslim people

The speakers against the U.S. even come from inside the U.S, and they say that America has stimulated a profiling issue of Middle Eastern people based on terrorism and religious beliefs. These people will be able to speak out against the U.S. and say "what really goes on" here and how it should be changed.

I was surprised to read this article. I never would have guessed that the U.S. would be brought before the U.N. for human rights violations-- especially when this is a "free" country, one that I think has done a pretty good job in comparison to others around the world. I don't think the U.N. should be able to be told people's opinions about American's attitudes toward other people (Muslims, Middle Eastern people) if there aren't bad things happening because of those attitudes.