There's the law, and then there's the law's practical application. These rarely line up, especially for foreigners. Iran isn't really interested in making world news by executing foreigners.
Exactly, and it's also worth mentioning that alot of these types of laws exist to create criminals when one is needed, and not to preemptively seek out violators. That's not necessarily morally any better, but at least it removes the spectre of "I'm going to get killed the instant I land at the airport" feeling that seems to be so common.
> Exactly, and it's also worth mentioning that alot of these types of laws exist to create criminals when one is needed,
How on Earth does that make it better in any way? That is the hallmark of any fascist or authoritarian state. That these type of laws exist to punish cultural outliers does not make them just or right.
I feel like I'm the upside down here, why are people in any way defending actual thought crime laws in countries like Iran? In what universe is it acceptable for the state to make not believing in something a crime punishable by death?
> How on Earth does that make it better in any way? [...] That these type of laws exist to punish cultural outliers does not make them just or right.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that GP was saying that? Did you read sentence 2 of 2, in which he clarifies he was not making a moral comparison? If you feel you’re in the upside down, it’s because you’re reading something that isn’t there. Not everything you encounter must be immediately classified as ‘for’ or ‘against’ whatever moral issue you currently feel passionate about. Nuance exists.
