Saudi Women, Tired of Restraints, Find Ways to Flee

> "thorough" seems more like an assertion of direct correspondence to the original text

Direct correspondence to the original text is not the way most religions work, and it's not the way Christianity and Islam have worked historically.

Scripture is not always interpreted literally, and the people who insist on a literal interpretation are usually innovators, because it wasn't done that way originally.

The literalists are not more thorough than the others in their understanding of their religion or their dedication to it -- they are just more literal in their reading, and often more simplistic in their beliefs as a result.

I don't particularly disagree with you, I was simply making an observation that the original claim of "thoroughness" didn't seem to me to imply any assertion of perceived validity.

Besides that, the perceived validity of religious interpretations is largely in the eye of the beholder and statistically varies with sociocultural context and many other factors. Personally, the farther away from literalism people get on the literalist-modern Unitarian scale, the happier I'd be.

Well, by thorough I simply meant not skipping any part. And those horrible parts of scriptures from religions originating from middle east (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) really cannot be sensibly interpreted in any metaphoric way unless by skipping it. A common way to do it is by saying "this is very specific code that was only relevant in societies back then; we're wise to not follow it now". But that's just skipping with extra steps.

Edit: just to make sure it's clear - I'm very happy when such skipping happens. A quote from Captive Mind by Czeslaw Milosz:

> When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever say he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.

> By “an old Jew of Galicia”.

Lots of immigrants don’t like it. I personally know many who don’t.

Some stay and complain about “their ways” and how it’s better “back home”. Generally it’s older people, who are now stuck. They can never go back.

Others actually go back.

I know of a whole family who moved to Canada, not once, but twice! And eventually still went back to Eastern Europe. And this was mid-2000s, post-war country. Kids finished university and they were gone.

I know of 3 younger people who were proper immigrants, not edu visa, had finished their education and were offered/found good opportunities back in their countries and moved.

One friend of mine lived in Canada almost 20 years. Went to Moscow following his gf (she got a job as an English teacher). He loves it there and he stayed permanently.

I know many more stories like that. Life in Canada is good. It’s safe and peaceful. Almost complacent. Not everyone enjoys that lifestyle though.

IF people had stepped in when it happened to a man, she might have just been let through.

The Thai's would have known the pressure they would be under.

It's not a zero sum game, helping 'people' helps both sides, the us against them hurts everyone, but I doubt anyone will learn, when will we learn a refugee is a refugee. A person hurt is a person, it doesn't have to be gendered. Saudi men need to flee too.

Australian football executives meet Bahraini royal over detained footballer Hakeem al-Araibi The meeting comes more than 40 days after the Australian-based refugee was detained in Thailand

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/09/austr...