Posted on 03/23/2006 8:57:03 PM PST by tbird5
Worse than being a Christian in a Muslim country is being a Muslim who converts to Christianity. Such is the case of Abdul Rahman, a longtime Christian convert who lived in Germany for years and was arrested last month in Kabul, Afghanistan. Christians are no strangers to this, having endured persecution, including beatings, imprisonment and death in both Communst and Muslim nations, which Evangelicals have long chronicled. But, again, rejecting Islam for Christ is considered far worse. Christians worldwide have been joined by President Bush in condemning Rahman's being sentenced to death for this "crime." Of course, Americans of all religions and parties deplore this prospect, particularly since our armed forces helped liberate the country from the Taliban tyranny. But what the media and others call a "clash of values" is considerably more than that. Indeed, such a phrase trivilializes the matter.
According to the political philosophy of liberal democracy, which is based on the natural rights of human beings, no one justly can be coerced in matters of religious belief. But I wonder if this conviction is more residual than rock solid in liberals, given the notion of tolerance which has been at the heart of liberalism for 50 years or more, reaching a kind of zenith (or is it nadir?) in relativism and multiculturalism. We know the drill: Who are we to judge what other nations do in their courts? Who are we to impose our values on them? Several years ago I took a course in World Civilization in a master's program at the University of Southern Mississippi in which the professor defended Japanese emperors who put Christians to death on what seemed to him to be the defensible ground that their doctrine was subversive in a kingdom in which the emperor was himself a god.
Now if nations or "cultures" live in sealed containers, or if not, ought to be insulated from the effects of universal doctrines like Christianity or liberal democracy, then we are in no position to complain no matter what the Afghan government does to the unfortunate (from our point of view) Abdul Rahman. Only the fact that our forces spared the Afghans worse things (from their point of view) gives us reason for concern, but that cuts no ice with Muslims.
If, in all seriousness, liberals are to be genuinely outraged at the execution of a Muslim convert to Christianity, then they must abandon relativism and multiculturalism. But this is not likely. After all, the daily murder of Muslim innocents in Iraq seems not to bother them, so why should the death of one man in Afghanistan? Unless, of course, they agree with Josef Stalin that the death of one person is a tragedy, but the deaths of thousands (he actually said millions, but then he did things on the grand scale) is merely a statistic.
One hopes that the external pressure being brought to bear on the Afghan regime in this case will prevent an injustice, to say the least, but it is not clear that that regime, despite its democratic procedures, is prepared to give up its Islamic foundations just yet. Democracy without equal rights is just another unjust regime, even if it is less dangerous in the world.
The libs will play politics with this, as they always do.
According to an e-mail that I received, from the Afghanistan constitution:
Article
18, which provides that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion" and that "this right shall include
freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice."
I may be wrong but does not the Muslim faith teach that all men are born Muslim then apostate to other religions which incurs the death penalty? If I am wrong which religion has the belief?
thanks
Good post!
Did we? Seems to me like what they have now in Afghanistan is Taliban, the sequel.
So much for our beacon of Freedom to the world. I am not impressed.
"in this case will prevent an injustice"
They see the injustice as rejecting Islam.
Islam is a religion straight out of hell. USA is dead wrong in backing such a government and taking our tax
dollars to do this.
For a liberal, and I do not think there are more than a handful of exceptions, Mr. Rahman has three disabilities. First he is a Christian and thus deserving of whatever evil is given him. Second he is an ethnic traitor who is saying that his group is not as good as any other(else he would not convert) sort of likd black Republicans. Third, Mohammedans can do no wrong so long as they are not doing it to the the individual liberal (excepting any who might admire America- for them see the second reason.
A Mohammedan explained the first part of that to me some years ago before the present unpleasantness. He saisd he thought I was worthy to live and should convert, though.
(/sarcasm)
L
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.