Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Administration Fumbled Freedom In Afghanistan (re: Abdul Rahman)
Christian Communication Network ^ | 3/28/2006 | Rev. Rob Schenck, President, National Clergy Council

Posted on 03/28/2006 6:48:27 AM PST by Dark Skies

You won’t find me criticizing President Bush often; I’m convinced he is God’s man for this time in our country and our world. However, when it comes to the travesty involving Muslim convert to Christianity Abdul Rahman, I have plenty of excoriation to carry Mr. Bush through the rest of his term.

This recent and egregious violation of the highest of human rights—the right of religious conscience—nullifies any claim to “freedom” in the “new” Afghanistan. When I addressed this matter in a face-to-face with the European educated secular-minded Afghan ambassador, his response seemed dismissive of religion as something not worth risking internal conflict over.

I begged to disagree. I have always asserted that religion is the most important freedom any human being can enjoy. Religion represents the deepest, most passionate, most enduring and most transcendent of personal and corporate beliefs. Religion shapes one’s inner consciousness, morality, worldview, family and social structures. Religion also dictates how we see life as a whole, as well as death. In other words, religion concerns itself with the whole of our existence. Nothing is bigger than that.

Most relevant to Mr. Rahman’s plight, though, religion has much to say about how we treat our neighbors.

Without the freedom for every person to change his or her religion, there isn’t religious freedom. Without religious freedom, there isn’t any freedom at all. So, I would argue until Afghanistan not only assures religious freedom for all its citizens, but practices it in law and in society, it is not a “free” nation. Further, the sad story of Abdul Rahman puts the lie to any claim by Afghanistan or by the Bush Administration that the new Afghan constitution protects religious minorities. After all, the “minority among minorities” is always the convert from one religion to another.

No society can claim it practices religious freedom until it protects the smallest and most vulnerable of religious communities—in this case, one who, by his own choice, left Islam to embrace Christianity.

The Bush Administration missed the opportunity to place religious freedom at the top of the list of required conditions for the new Afghan government. With all due respect, the President failed when he didn’t issue a “no compromise” mandate for protecting every Afghan citizen’s God-given right to worship God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience. Notwithstanding the Afghan president’s capitulation to US pressure in securing Convert Rahman’s release, this flaw in Afghanistan’s constitutional DNA may prove a fateful—and fatal —flaw for its future.

I, for one, am deeply saddened the sacrifice of American and Afghan lives in the end resulted in such an unsatisfactory outcome. Let us pray that Mr. Bush, his administration and the new leaders of Afghanistan will match this sacrifice with the same commitment to freedom.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abdulrahman; afghanchristians; afghanistan; christians; persecution; radicalislam; robschenck; schenck
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last
To: lugsoul
It seems that some people think we will change hundreds of years of tradition and entire belief systems through military action. I say that such people are supremely foolish.

Oh and by the way "oh enlightened one"...our enemy isn't just a military force. It is also ideological and is in fact embedded in those traditions and tribal custom to which you refer.

Foolish or not, someone had better clearly identify the enemy and develop a strategy for victory.

The DoD has recently introduced a new strategy (which is the most comprehensive so far) called "countering ideological support for terrorism" (known as CIST).

Of course, they are probably confused.

61 posted on 03/28/2006 1:19:13 PM PST by Dark Skies ("The sleeper must awaken!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
If the DoD thinks they can change the mindset of residents of the remote regions of Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan, then they are simply repeating a mistake that has been made many times before.

And I don't think a cool acronym is going to make the difference, either.

62 posted on 03/28/2006 1:25:38 PM PST by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I know they will regret not checking with you first. Darn what a waste of taxpayer money.

I inserted the acronym in case you might want to Google it and learn something (maybe even follow it over time). How foolish of me.

63 posted on 03/28/2006 1:30:23 PM PST by Dark Skies ("The sleeper must awaken!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

I'm sure they are thanking heaven for your full-throated support. And I will certainly want to closely follow the progress of an attempt to do something that has never before been accomplished in history. I guess that, since we have a 'comprehensive strategy' to substitute an entirely new belief system for one that has been handed down from generation to generation, it is bound to work flawlessly and we should all just breathlessly wait for our cue to applaud.

It may come as a surprise to you, but the DoD does waste money from time to time.


64 posted on 03/28/2006 1:34:47 PM PST by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
And I will certainly want to closely follow the progress of an attempt to do something that has never before been accomplished in history.

Happens all the time. Slavery was ended in the U.S. along with institutional racial discrimination. Suttee (a practice several thousand year old) was ended in Indian by the English colonial rule. All happened by making certain objectionable things against the law and then enforcing that law.

The test for the administration in the matter of Abdul Rahman was whether or not REAL democracy would be exported or just this sharia-styled crap. The adminstration failed...but this is not over by a long shot.

If islam is to enter the modern world without destroying it, many of its rules will fall by the wayside. Honor killings, pederasty by imams, institutionalize misogyny, death sentences for the victims of rape, death for leaving the faith.

This is the nature of this war we are in. If you think we can just leave islam alone, you are in discord with islam. Islam plans to rule the world (despite the fact it hasn't been able to rule itself). Why do you think Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons? To defend himself from Israel.

The President and the DoD (and even Condi) all know full well that primitive islam cannot be allowed to have nukes. In case you haven't been following this matter, action is expected shortly.

BTW, I wouldn't have wasted time with you in this discussion except that I know you are from GA (as I am)...so don't send me a long comment as to how a war was fought to end slavery. I know the history of it.

65 posted on 03/28/2006 2:00:56 PM PST by Dark Skies ("The sleeper must awaken!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"The outcome was quite satisfactory, as Rahman is on his way to Italy, which has given him asylum."

What in the world do you mean, "the outcome was quite satisfactory"????? When he has to take asylum in another country! And, he can't even live in his own? THAT'S satisfactory??? What the HE$$ did we fight and die for? So he can "take asylum" in another country??? You out to be totally outraged! He/We won nothing! Afghanistan is NOT free! What a waste! What about anyone else that wants to convert to another religion - will they be "torn to pieces"? Some freedom. NO, we have not won yet in Afghanistan. And, I'm very afraid Iraq is headed the same way.

66 posted on 03/28/2006 2:32:21 PM PST by jackibutterfly (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
"He has been freed you Whine All The Time morons."

FREED??? To do what? To have to take aslyum in another country, because to stay in the one that WE "freed" (Ha!), he would be killed? What about anyone else that would wish to convert from Islam? What will happen to them?? I think you'd better re-think that "moron" remark. Also, some punctuation would be a good friend for you. Should have been:

He has been freed, you "Whine All The Time" morons.

67 posted on 03/28/2006 2:39:09 PM PST by jackibutterfly (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
"I, for one, am glad that the Taliban is no longer in control of Afghanistan..."

Dream on - you haven't read anything about what the Afghanistan women themselves have said, have you?

68 posted on 03/28/2006 2:43:27 PM PST by jackibutterfly (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

That's because WE "helped" Afghan. set up a "democratic" government; those other governments are not free or democratic. That's the difference. That "one" Christian is supposed to be free to practice his religion, no matter what it is. That was one of the reasons we went into Afghanistan, and Iraq.


69 posted on 03/28/2006 2:49:37 PM PST by jackibutterfly (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

Your examples are of eradication of ills by the RULERS of those countries. We didn't go to Afghanistan to conquer, and we didn't stay to rule. Unless you are willing to be the conquerer - which means use of enough force that even those in far-flung places are subject to your will - you ain't gonna change the way they think or the way they live. And their tradition crosses national bounderies, and more of the problem is on the other side than ours. You wanna invade Pakistan, too? Primitive Islam already has nukes, and they are in Pakistan.


70 posted on 03/28/2006 2:49:58 PM PST by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Just a note...sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I imagine you are an open-minded person as I am.

I am sure there is much I can learn from you and look forward to more discussion.

DS

71 posted on 03/28/2006 2:50:14 PM PST by Dark Skies (" For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. " Matthew 6:21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"The Taliban is gone..."

The Taliban is NOT gone - just ask the Afghani women.

72 posted on 03/28/2006 2:53:16 PM PST by jackibutterfly (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Primitive Islam already has nukes, and they are in Pakistan.

Actually, I think there are plans already in place as to how to deal with Paki nukes falling into the wrong hands. A.Q. Khan and Musharraf and many other Pakis are anything but primitive. Out in the hinterlands, it is another matter.

73 posted on 03/28/2006 2:53:56 PM PST by Dark Skies (" For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. " Matthew 6:21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
"Out in the hinterlands, it is another matter."

Or in the upper echelon of the ISI...

74 posted on 03/28/2006 2:56:17 PM PST by lugsoul ("Crash" - the movie that teaches we are all incurable racists, except when we are not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Check it out...most of my article posts are Fox headlines later in the day.

Are you just a self-impressed red-neck or are you someone who is learning and spreading the truth.

If you are just another narrow-mind...don't expect me to enter into any discussion with you.

75 posted on 03/28/2006 3:37:49 PM PST by Dark Skies (" For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. " Matthew 6:21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly
Dream on - you haven't read anything about what the Afghanistan women themselves have said, have you?

What? I'm talking about the Taliban and bin Laden and you're throwing around Afghan women?

Are you claiming that the women in Afghanistan are actually working for the Taliban and bin Laden? Are you disputing that we removed the Taliban from power or that we broke al Qaeda's base of operations?

What is your point?

76 posted on 03/28/2006 6:14:08 PM PST by SittinYonder (That's how I saw it, and see it still.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
"What? I'm talking about the Taliban and bin Laden and you're throwing around Afghan women? "

So am I. I'm talking about the Afghan women and what they can tell you about the Taliban. And, yes, I'm disputing that we removed the Taliban from "power". The Taliban is still "in power" - rather, they're still bullying their way around. The women are in fear of their lives if they don't wear the burka, they are still being attacked by the Taliban, still can't leave their home without the accompaniment of a male relative, etc, etc, etc! THAT'S my point. Just ask the Afghan women about life in the "new" Afghanistan.

You know, you really can't just jump into a conversation without reading the posts, as I already remarked on this in previous posts. It would probably be very helpful to you.

77 posted on 03/28/2006 9:11:56 PM PST by jackibutterfly (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly
You know, you really can't just jump into a conversation without reading the posts, as I already remarked on this in previous posts. It would probably be very helpful to you.

I posted to someone else at Post #12. You responded to me at Post #68 ... who's jumping into whose conversations?

Afghanistan may not be paradise for women, but for you to suggest that the present situation is no better than or different from the Taliban's rule is simply ridiculous. How many women were in the Taliban government as elected officials? How about now? There are women fighting for women's rights in Afghanistan ... how would that have gone with the Taliban still in charge?

Your comments may be accurate to a point but to overlook the successes for women and claim it has gotten no better for them is simply wrong-headed.

And, regardless of the condition for women, my initial point stands that we removed the Taliban from power and broke bin Laden's base of operations ... which is what we went there to do, not to secure equal rights for women.

78 posted on 03/29/2006 5:10:18 AM PST by SittinYonder (That's how I saw it, and see it still.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson