Posted on 03/22/2006 7:29:55 AM PST by Cboldt
We should have no illusions that Afghanistan -- in many ways the backwater of the Islamic world -- will soon embrace Western-style religious pluralism. But the trial of Abdul Rahman, who faces a potential death sentence for converting to Christianity some 15 years ago, is an affront to civilization. If there is always a balancing act between accommodating the religious beliefs of a traditional society like Afghanistan and coaxing it toward reform, the Rahman case is not a close call -- killing or jailing someone for his religious beliefs is always wrong, and is especially galling in a country so dependent on American military forces and aid.
The Afghan constitution is a work of studied ambiguity when it comes to religious liberty. Article 2 says Islam is Afghanistan's religion, but it also stipulates that other religions are free to perform their ceremonies within the limits of the law (whatever that means). Article 7 says the state shall abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- which includes the right of conversion -- but Article 130 says, where there is no guidance for the constitution or other laws, Islamic laws apply. This is the kind of living constitution Ruth Bader Ginsburg can only dream about in the U.S. The Afghan document was deliberately written vaguely to bridge the divide between the country's modernizers and its Islamists. The latter surely want to use the Rahman case to embarrass our ally President Karzai and to advance their interpretation of the constitution.
Yesterday, the State Department's Nicholas Burns adopted the right tone and substantive position when asked about the case by reporters. He said that, as far as the U.S. is concerned, the Afghan constitution guarantees religious liberty, and therefore Rahman shouldn't be punished for his conversion. But he also emphasized our respect for Afghan sovereignty. It is important that, while we push for justice in the case, we dont play into the hands of Karzai's enemies, who are eager to capitalize on the fears of a very traditional society. We should make it clear privately, but very firmly to Karzai -- who would have to sign Rahman's death warrant -- that we expect him to find some Afghan way to short-circuit the case before it ever gets to that point.
Conservatives in this country have been admirably willing to accept the compromises and frustrations that come with President Bush's attempts to reform recalcitrant parts of the world. The judicial murder of a Christian convert by a government that exists only on the basis of American power and good will, however, would be intolerable.
Intolerable indeed. This outrage can't be allowed to go unchallenged.
This is absolutely intolerable. Mr. Rahman should be set free. It may have to be done with a minimum of fuss, but would should it make it very clear (behind closed doors) that this is absolutely unacceptable.
Pretty clearly stated, and I agree.
Well put. The obvious solution in Abdul Rahman's case would be for him to leave Afghanistan for a place that doesn't condemn converts from Islam to death. That would satisfy Nicholas Burns's advice to seek an Afghan solution that will weasel around the problem.
But that still leaves us with the basic problem: that Muslims are required to SUBMIT to Islam, like it or not, and that most of them enthusiastically agree with that position, to the point of turning in or executing their own families. That has got to change, or we will still be stuck with an intolerant Islam determined to conquer the whole world and convert or kill everyone, like it or not.
What would you suggest? Replace the government that the United States helped to put in place to replace the original government? What about 'spreading democracy'? The new constitution established the government and the Afghans put it there freely.
The Afghan constitution is a work of studied ambiguity when it comes to religious liberty. Article 2 says Islam is Afghanistan's religion, but it also stipulates that other religions are free to perform their ceremonies within the limits of the law (whatever that means)
This had to be have been written by Rich Lowry. Only an idiot wouldn't understand that this means under their new and improved Westernized constitution Islamic law will be supreme in Afghanistan.
F**k Rahman. Free Mumia!
/s
"What would you suggest? Replace the government that the United States helped to put in place to replace the original government? What about 'spreading democracy'? The new constitution established the government and the Afghans put it there freely."
Exactly. And what I'm saying is that we should be using all influence we have to prevent this atrocity. This new government wouldn't exist without us. They depend on us for support. We should certainly have substantial diplomatic and economic leverage to push for this man's rights. The question is whether we have the courage to do it.
It is intolerable, but I'm not sure the US is in a position to do much besides helping this man leave Afghanistan safely.
Unless we're ready to form a puppet government in Afghanistan (and Iraq), we're going to have problems from now on with any government, elected by the citizens of that country, that adopts Sharia law.
We're also in no position to insist that the governments of Afghanistan (and Iraq) be composed to our specifications. The only way we can do that is to become an occupying country, and there's not much support for that here in the USA.
We're going to see lots of injustices from these new governments in the next few years. Lots. What will we do?
Let Afghan justice run it's course. Our liberation of the country doesn't give us the authority...or the power...to change the religion of the place. We'll only lose control if we try.
Get the Christian guy out of there with a deal, or engineer an "escape" with the collaboration of the government and have him get to a US unit, base or embassy and ask for asylum. This removes the threat to his life, and removes the threat to our puppet over there.
We should not have tried to do "Nation Building" in Afghanistan. We had to take care of the Taliban because of 911 but then we should have funded the Northern Alliance and then left that sorry state.
Oh, really? Suppose your religious belief is that the best way to gain paradise id to hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper full of "infidels"?
Straight talk on the front end ameliorates criticism and disappointment down the road. E.g., add some tempering language to the notion of, "I guess the Taliban didn't believe us -- or me. And so we acted. Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists."
What will we do? indeed. It's a tough question - no easy answer there. But I have a sense that quite a few people are disappointed - perhaps prematurely - that a U.S.-backed government is even entertaining the execution of a person for converting to Christianity.
It's bad enough to happen in countries that aren't "U.S.-backed," but at least it's easier for the US government to distance itself from those actors.
Islam decided early on to be non-evolving. Civilizations evolve, so it is no wonder Islamic countries are virtually uncivilized and uncivilizable by modern standards.
Islam is also determinate, and free will is not expected or accepted. The classic example is that when asked about whether Islam was like backgammon (primarily chance and set strategy) or chess (primarily intellect-driven, with evolving strategy) the Islamic elders equate Islam to backgammon.
With these perspectives in place, an apostate challenges the society's entire conception of the world. They either must kill him or destroy their understanding of Islam.
Which proves Islam is evil, in its current form.
"Conform or die" cannot be a loving G-d's message to humans. Only a spiteful man-fearing G-d could posit the elimination of man's natural free will. Such a G-d negates his creation.
IMHO.
Well, for one thing we should use our obvious leverage to get this guy off the hook. If this guy gets put to death and here we are over there with our troops helping the government that put him to death because he is a Christian, what does that say about our policies? We then find ourselves as enablers. Talk about a blow to troop morale!
I don't think this is going to play very well politically here at home either.
Sorry, but I've heard to argument that slaverly was against our constitution in the beginning but didn't end for 100 years, so we should just let them grow in democracy incrementally. Does anyone here think that's going to happen? I don't. Sharia law is Sharia law.
If we don't step in and pressure the Afghan government to stop this, there are going to be some repurcussions on the homefront.
"Straight talk on the front end ameliorates criticism and disappointment down the road. E.g., add some tempering language to the notion of, "I guess the Taliban didn't believe us -- or me. And so we acted. Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists."
"If we don't step in and pressure the Afghan government to stop this, there are going to be some repurcussions on the homefront."
LOL, and you'll offer up your tax dollars to pay for it will you? I realize new 'conservatives' care less about wasting money but for most of us the money well's run flat dry
Sad state of affairs when telling the truth is a tall order. And I think the short term "gain" (avoidance of hard questions and pain) that accompanies sugar coating and double-talk is more than offset, in a bad way, later on.
And the leaders wonder why they are not held with more respect. Pah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.