A video of a 17-year old Kurdish girl of the minority Yezidi group is stoned to death for having a "relationship" with a Sunni Muslim boy. The cell-phone video that made its way onto uTube clearly showed a young girl laying motionless on the dirt-street, half stripped and naked, with a large cinder block resting against the back of her head. A mob of men encircle her, as the whole town looks on, doing nothing. According to The London Daily Mail, even a local Iraqi security force witnessed the killing, but did nothing to stop it.
"A large crowd watched as eight or nine men dragged Aswad from a house, and then hurled stones at her for about 30 minutes until she was dead," stated the London Daily Mail. If their assumptions of the young kurish girl were true, and it turned out to be proven that she did have an illicit affair with her Sunni boyfriend, what would happen if she was found to be pregnant? Did the villagers commit a double homicide? Do the ancient laws forbid the stoning of pregnant women?
"An Amnesty International spokesman in London said they receive frequent reports of honor crimes from Iraq – particularly in the predominantly Kurdish north. Most victims are women and girls who are considered by male relatives to have shamed their families by immoral behavior," reported Fox News.
Inalienable rights are given by God to ensure that Mob Rule does NOT rule. God instituted the Civil Magistrate under the law of Moses, so that the individual had the right to defend oneself in a court of law against potentially false and presumptuous accusers in the presence of impartial and objective judges.
Case Law, Biblical Norms, and The Error of The Yezidi and Sunni Elders
Christ turned away the Pharisees from stoning the woman caught in adultery because her accusers were not fulfilling the law of Moses: It takes two to have an affair, and the man wasn't present with the woman.
If the accusers were found to be lying or had tainted, withheld, or tampered with the evidence, they would receive the punishment they intended upon their victims; thus, fulfilling the dictum, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." The "eye for an eye..." mandate was to insure honesty and protection for the accused. This safegaurded people, and made accusers far more careful before bringing an accusation against someone. The accuser also had to be the first to stone the accused if found guilty by their own evidence. In other words, by "your own hand did you bring this about, to end this person's life, and you swear before God, that if this is not true, may God return upon you the same judgment you are casting the first stone upon".
Under Mosaic law and the Law of Christ it is a sin for a private citizen to take the law into your their own hands and act as juror and judge. Under the Old Testament, there had to be two or three witnesses, they had to be brought before the elders at the gates of the city, and they had to have the accusers stand before the tribunal and prove it.
Under the New Testament, Christians are absolutely forbidden to take justice into their own hands, They can sue for justice in a court of law. They can call the magistrate to arrest and apprehend a criminal. And only if they themselves are in personal danger can they defend themselves with appropriate force. But Christ makes it clear, "Do NOT return evil for evil. Pray for those who despitefully use you." It is both a sin and punishable offense to take personal vengeance upon another person of the community for suspected illicit behavior. God said, "vengeance is mine says the Lord, I will repay." Only is the civil magistrate allowed to punish the "evil doer".
the Westminster Confession of Faith is one of the key landmarks of Western Civilization for defining the role of the "state" and their "magistrates" (legally elected officials, monarchs, or rulers, etc.). Listen to what it says:
Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.
Hey! What happened "cultural relativism" and multicultural values? It appears we are guilty then of assuming that everyone believes that inalienable rights truly exist. But if we are to be consistent with the "scientific" dictum taught in anthropology, we shouldn't be judging any other culture by any ethic or moral standard other than that found within it's own culture. I should just shrug and say, "Hey! If inalienable rights don't exist in that country or culture, who am I to judge?" I should liberate myself! Shake free any ethnocentrism, and be-numb myself when I hear of the corpses of little children tossed into ditches on the sides of highways like filthy rubbish, or rushed to judgment "honor killings" by stoning. Apparently, the Yezidi and Sunnis are being very "vigilent" under a different set of values.
Yet we see this in our "multcultural" lovefest society... Kate Allen, the organisation’s UK director believes in "inalienable rights" and upholding universal human rights. She's stated as saying, "This young girl’s murder is truly abhorrent and her killers must be brought to justice." She obviously believes that justice is an ojbective truth, and not arbitrarily defined by the will of the majority in ones culture.
Link to Video: