Whatever my doubts about Iraq, I think we did the right thing in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But if we were truly successful there, and if we finished our job, and if freedom is on the march, to quote one of our leaders, why does a 41 year-old Afghani man face execution for converting to Christianity 16 years ago?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Is it our job to force/incorporate all our rights and privileges afforded under OUR Constitution to current prisoners jailed under the former Taliban regime??? I think it is a human rights issue which can only be handled properly and administratively through Afgan government. I am sure there are agencies currently reviweing similiar fates of prisoners. It really sucks for these people, but whoever said life is fair really was off their rocker.
Actually, I am not sure but I don't think the Taliban were the ruling party 16 years ago, however any form of fundamentalism can only be trumped by changes within the country by its native inhabitants not American force,,,military dictators combined with fundmentalist regimes (i.e. IRAN) can only be stopped militarily, I am afraid. This does not mean I condone or approve of Saddam's removal by our own means in 2003, but a quagmire nonetheless. While they may be a need (with Isreali lead) to confront Iran, I am still puzzled by the lack of geopolitical planning that went astray in Iraq, but then again suppose Hussein and Khamenei ventured together against Isreal? Fighting a two nation front would be a worse perilous journey
One more thing:
The judge in the case says Rahman could face death if he refuses to convert back to Islam. According to an interpretation of the Afghan Constitution, passed in January 2004, the preamble says that Afghans should adhere to Islam and expresses respect for the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. Article Two says: “followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rights.” Article Three seems to contradict Article Two: “... no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam.”
Is it contridictory?
1. He isn't jailed under the former Taliban regime. He is jailed currently under the regime that we installed and under a constitution that we oversaw being written.
2. It might not be our responsibility to see that all people have the rights that are RECOGNIZED under our Constitution's Bill of Rights. (They aren't afforded insofar as they were seen to be human rights; i.e., rights that pertain to all people insofar as they are people, not as citizens of the US; this is why it was seen as so important to make sure that Congress did not transgress them.) But, although he earlier disclaimed it, Bush has entered into a campaign of nation-building. He has left Afghanistan with a government that executes converts. This is not consistent with his claimed objectives.
3. He's being tried now for a conversion that took place 16 years ago. His family has denounced him. The issue isn't whether he was tried under the Taliban.
4. Given the history of the long Iran Iraq war which led to the lost of an entire generation of Iranians at the hands of Saddam's forces, Hussein's avowed secularism, his being Arab (unlike Iranians) and Sunni (unlike Iranians), it seems extremely unlikely that he would have joined with Iran in a war against Israel.
5. Since Muhammad expressed respect for the People of the Book, Jews and Christians, there is nothing inconsistent in thinking that a Muslim nation would respect other religions. The problem is a legal tradition that believes that an "insult" to Islam (how is converting an insult?) should be punishable by death. This is the same mindset that caused the Taliban to blow up 3000 year-old mountain carvings of the Buddha. It appears that we have left Afghanistan pretty much as we found it, just with a different leader.
ok since somebody mentioned Israel :) I just want to add that whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or the Gaza Strip, I think it is hubristic (hubristical?) of the West (and Bush)to think that they can swoop in and create insta-democracies that go against centuries of cultural experience in the area.
As Tim Gunn would say: "Make it WORK, people!!!"
STOP IT TYLER!!!! YOUR BRILLANCE AND KNOWLEDGE IS FRIGHTENING
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed and muscle head citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
I was thinking more about the issue of contradiction while walking back from my second class today. It seems that the Afghan Constitution is saying something like this: We respect the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but of course we also believe in a higher law, that of God.
The problem, of course is that the clerics (who today were demanding in midday prayer that he be executed) are putting a lot of weight on the higher law. (At the same time, many of them were claiming that Afghanistan had NO international obligations.)
Personally, I find this problematic, because I, for instance, think that sometimes there is a higher law that we ought to answer to. So, for instance, I think Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles is right in saying that Church workers cannot morally report illegal immigrants who come to them for aid, no matter what the House may try to require. I just think that Mahony is right about higher obligations and the Afghan clerics are wrong. It's hard to justify this claim, though, except to say that we should allow claims to higher authorities only when such claims are not more punitive than claims to lower ones.
But now I have to go work out and mull these issues over with the help of my mp3 player and my desire to get huge.
I, for one, would love for you to define Higher Law? Because whatever you are referring to, and I can only assume you mean GOD, doesn't such Higher Law have so many inconsistencies and inter-woven problems that it is impossible to believe such law exists?
Presumably, those who believe that there is a Higher Law do believe it is God, or they might just believe that it is the moral law, which precedes notions of civil law.
While it's certainly true that many conceptions of such a higher law have been confused. I'm not sure why they would have to be necessarily inconsistent. Why do you think they would have to be?
Aristotle argued that each kind of animal has a mental nature that is appropriate to its physical nature. All animals know or can discover what they need to do in order to lead the life that they are physically fitted to live. Thus humans are naturally capable of knowing how to live together and do business with each other without killing each other. Under any contemporary supposition, based on the lessons we learn from the Old and New Testament, which evidences that a higher power exists, pursuant to such rules created by a Higher Power it interferes with my contemporary notion of “living together” under natural law. Doesn't it?
How many times does the Old Testament contridict the New???
Well, presumably, if there is a higher power, that higher power created us with the natures we have. Thus, the morality we read off of the natural law would be the morality that is designed for us by that higher power. In fact, this is the traditional Catholic position, viz., that we can know the truths of morality through an examination of our natures and that merely looking at the Old and New Testaments is insufficient for moral guidance since not all situations are considered therein and the world in which we live is different than that of either Testament.
However, I talked only of a higher law not of a higher power. You assumed I meant God, but that wasn't what I said. If it is God then it must be a reasonable God who decrees a morality that we can grasp with our reason (i.e., through a consideration of the natural law) or else His morality could not be of any concern to us.
Post a Comment