There were two stories out of Saudi Arabia last week that begged for more detail. The first told of a judge who asked hospitals if they could sever a man’s spinal cord in order to paralyze him as punishment for injuries he inflicted during a fight. In many cases the stories didn’t highlight the judicial principle that motivated the judge’s request — a strict adherence to “an eye for an eye” judicial code. Or even if they mentioned the principle, they didn’t include a healthy discussion of the theology underlying it or the various interpretations of it.