It’s fun, to watch liberals get all jammed up over something that puts them in a position where they find themselves outraged by a crime, or violation of someone’s rights, but that violation was committed by a group that they support. If the circumstances weren’t so tragic, it would be comical.

What’s the conundrum for today?  Well, it’s the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian woman convicted of adultery, and sentenced to death via stoning.  Yes, stoning.   By Islamic Shari’a law, that is the penalty for committing adultery. It is unclear if the man in this situation was punished or not.  If the sentence is carried out, she will be buried up to her shoulders, and then stoned by a group of people.  Think about that for a moment, folks. Islam, the religion of peace, and harmony, states that this is the punishment for committing adultery.  Now, what does this have to do with being a “conundrum” for liberals?

It’s simple. Liberals adhere to the principal, that everything is relative, and that there is no universal truth, and that to impose one’s beliefs on another person or culture is wrong.  But, liberals also claim to be the champions of women’s rights.  When Iran was named to the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women the most vocal liberal women’s group NOW (National Organization for Women) said little in way of protest.   However, mention the words “pro-life” and out comes vitriol, anger, and protests.  Claims that conservatives, Christians and pro-lifers are “anti-woman”, and “full of hate” and want to violate the rights of women.  But, the stoning to death of a Muslim woman, who, as it turns out, may not have done anything wrong at all, is okay…Well, maybe it’s not necessarily “okay” but they are not going to come out and say it’s wrong.. Lest they offend the Muslims of the world, who most liberal groups support, because they view the Muslim people as downtrodden, and persecuted, and constantly refer to Islam as the “religion of peace”.  (That’s why they fly airplanes into skyscrapers, or set off car bombs that kill innocent women and children)  So, here is your typical liberal, stuck in a moral quagmire because they simply cannot decide if the stoning, and violation of Ashtiani’s rights is wrong, given the context that it is being done by a Muslim.  However, if a Christian were to stop and counsel a woman who is about to walk in to an abortion clinic, that is “hateful” and “violating women’s rights”…. The histrionics would be legend.  But, somehow the stoning (or, hanging, or beheading) of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is……..what?  I mention the hanging or beheading, because if they choose not to stone her, she is still under her death sentence, and therefore, the other styles of executions are options.

While there is outcry from various groups around the world, and in Iran itself, the execution could still be carried out.  The simple thing here is that this situation does not require much thought.  It’s wrong, plain and simple, and even if the woman did commit adultery, which is also wrong, she does not deserve to be stoned to death.  Most liberals, if not all of them, are the typical “archetypal secular progressive” who believes everything is relative, and there is no universal truth, and that to push one’s views on another is taboo, unless of course, they are trying to push their views on someone, then, that is okay.  They are quick to jump at conservatives and Christians for being “judgemental” and “intolerant”, when it is they themselves who display their intolerant and judgemental character every chance they get. (i.e, disagree with President Obama, and you are racist)  Within their philosophical viewpoint are thousands of subtle variations, which further muddies the waters of the liberal thought process and moral fabric.  The same holds true for pornography.  It’s obvious that it objectifies women, but, at the same time, they do not wish to condemn it, because then that would require taking a moral stance on the subject, which is difficult to do, because they are full of relativism, and “moral equivalence”.  However, they are quick to judge anyone who does not agree with them, and when faced with logic and facts tend to fall back on personal attacks, ridicule, and belittling.  They also bristle when their morality, or lack thereof, or their stance on any subject is questioned.   Their basic style of arguing their point is to do their darndest to shout the other person down, to the point where the other party gets tired and walks away, and they claim ‘”victory” for their side, when actually all they did was prove nothing but the emptiness of their argument.

Somewhere in Tabriz, a woman sits in a cell awaiting a fate that can scarcely be imagined.  Some of us who have read the story of this woman are outraged at a government and religious-legal system that allows such barbarity.  Others, who have nor moral compass sit and equivocate, vacillate, and then fail to arrive at any condemnation, because, after all, everything is relative.  They may express sympathy for the woman, but moral outrage is something they are incapable of….. lest they offend someone.