Saudi Arabia News

It's the only thing I'm good at xD. And I'd rather make people chuckle or grin than stress them out or make them argue more.

well considering morality is based of a country own culture and customs, magic might not be moral at Saudi Arabia. Well, one could say it certainly is not, considering this event. Still, what most ppl here is trying to do is force their own moral, based in their own perpective and background, to insinuate how injust and wrong that was.

There should be things globally accepted as immoral however. To me, the worst thing on this theard was seeing someone saying that the atomic bomb was the best option to both sides of the story...The war was pretty much over when they bombed Japan. Iirc both Germany and Italy had already surrendered before that happened, and in no time Japan would also have done it. Still the US, or the Allience, or w/e, used it just to check it's true decimating power and show to the world their own power.

(best thing here: good to know you are alive vit!^^)

When a person's life is on the line, I would argue that it takes priority over minding one's own business. In this case, magic can't be immoral because there's no such thing, he's not really a witch. The worst you could say about the guy is that he's a huckster. Furthermore, he wasn't even practicing magic in Saudi Arabia, he was on a religious pilgrimage at the time. His show was based in Lebannon. How would you like it if they arrested and convicted you of sorcery if they found out that you had played with a Ouija board when you were a kid?
Since people can't shut up about the use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima, I'd like to point out that it is hardly a black-and-white issue. For one, Japan had not surrendered and the indication was that the government there was urging everyone to be ready to fight and sacrifice themselves in the event of an invasion, which was the other option. The use of the A-bomb was argued to be a way to show that we had the ability to obliterate whole cities without setting foot on Japanese soil, without losing any of our own forces, which would result in an outright slaughter, not a battle. Of course, there was also an indication that Japan would surrender on the sole condition that we agree to not try the emperor as a war criminal, which we ended up not doing anyway. This tends to make the use of the A-bomb seem unnecessary. This is especially true when one considers that the targets were not military in nature and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Now I've actually been to Hiroshima. My birthday is the same day it was bombed, August 6. I went there on the 60th anniversary of the bombing in 2005, and let me tell you, it was an emotional experience that left me feeling not a little bit guilty. That said, I can still recognize that there were practical considerations that muddy the issue, which is why I refuse to take a stand on it, and I wish people would stop treating it like it was cut and dry, not to mention, once again, the morality or immorality of the bomb has nothing to do with this guy on Saudi Arabian death row.

If it was based in a society that the practice of a different religion (magic) is immoral, then this society ethics and law will endorse that. If death was found over time to be the best punishment then so be it.

A different society based on religious liberty will find that to be a price too high. Will find it wrong. But what could they do? Maybe wait for the first society to evolve into something more tolerant or perhaps even help them percept that flaw and achieve tolerancy. Actually these international motions may do exactly that.

Just like you said it's not black and white for the A-bomb, it's not black and white for this situation. Your perpective says it's completely wrong, but their's don't.

Having been there as well, I'm wondering how much of the documents you read in the Peace Memorial. Considering there is a lot of stuff in there (namely one report that an American involved in the project that Japan would surrender before we got a chance to actually use the bomb) that we really should be ashamed about. Not to mention the numerous reports that were released after the bombing from our own military leaders saying that it was largely unnecessary.

Dug this up,

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

And this was not an isolated point of view at the time. We felt like testing something nasty on someone, is what it gets down to.