How important is the protection of Religious freedom?

[youngborean]

Outcry rises over Afghan Christian convert


Very interesting story. Sharia law prescribes execution for converts, Western ideals say that no one should be persecuted for religious beliefs. So whose freedom to practice religion is more important (the west or the pro-Sharia Muslims)? And if we elect to support religious freedom should this pressure be applied to all regions where Sharia law exists (Iran, etc.)? Self-determination is more complicated than anyone imagined.

[1John2_26]

As stupid as I think this whole thing is, if you believe in self-determinism, then Afghanistan has to make their own laws, based on whatever they wish to base them on, and be allowed to operate within those laws. Western ideals can say whatever they want, Afghanistan does not operate under western ideals. If we insist that US law applies to Afghanistan, then we're no better than dictators, forcing our will on a foreign people because their ways don't appeal to our western sensibilities.

If Rahman was proclaiming his atheist values, the cry from the World community would be deafening. If he was proclaiming other "leftist" pet agenda's there would be war.

A Christian dies everyday from Muslim AK's and the UN and the garden-variety leftist asks nothing.

Religious freedom is not allowed to kill anyone. Isn't that the great "skeptic" label on Christianity? It's violent "past?"

The hypocrisy of those that decry "Christianity's violent past" but shrivel back from "today's" Muslim violence on an hourly basis, is not just deafening, it is a declaration of war and support against the Christians on this planet today.

Any free person should be outraged by what Afghanistan is doing against free people. It is not "stupid" to allow Afghanistan to be a darkened world of intolerance, it is ignorance. Did not 9-11 teach the educated anything?

Christians are acting as free people and are being criminalized for no good reason.

That should alarm any "other" free people.

[McCulloch]

If Rahman was proclaiming his atheist values, the cry from the World community would be deafening. If he was proclaiming other "leftist" pet agenda's there would be war.

Perhaps I am naive, but I hope that you are wrong. Religious toleration should be extended to atheists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims.

A Christian dies everyday from Muslim AK's and the UN and the garden-variety leftist asks nothing.

Maybe I am getting biased news reports, where is is reported that Christians are being killed for their religion daily?

Religious freedom is not allowed to kill anyone.

Amen.

The hypocrisy of those that decry "Christianity's violent past" but shrivel back from "today's" Muslim violence on an hourly basis, is not just deafening, it is a declaration of war and support against the Christians on this planet today.

Let us all hope (and pray for those who believe in it) that you are wrong here. I, for one, am fully supportive of the right of Muslims anywhere to abandon Islam for whatever other faith (or lack of faith) that they may find more reasonable.

Any free person should be outraged by what Afghanistan is doing against free people. It is not "stupid" to allow Afghanistan to be a darkened world of intolerance, it is ignorance.

Absolutely right. Intolerance should not be tolerated in the name of any religion.

Christians are acting as free people and are being criminalized for no good reason.
That should alarm any "other" free people.

Quite so. This is exactly the reason why governments must be secular. Without the protection of religiously neutral governments, the rights of minorities (in this case Christian converts in Islamic Republics) can be brutally trampled.

[Cephus]

But if we say self-determinism trumps basic human rights, like religious freedom or freedom of movement or association, then we should give the South back to the confederacy and send the black people back into slavery.

There's no such thing as "basic human rights". Rights are granted solely by the society or culture in which you live. Unfortunately, the US runs around imposing *OUR* views on everyone else because we think that what we do here is so much better than all the other poor, dumb primitives.

Self-determinism means they get to decide FOR THEMSELVES what they're going to do.

[1John2_26]

There's no such thing as "basic human rights". Rights are granted solely by the society or culture in which you live. Unfortunately, the US runs around imposing *OUR* views on everyone else because we think that what we do here is so much better than all the other poor, dumb primitives.

A far cry better than European superiority that doesn't give a s%# about anyone else's suffering as long as they get the cocoa beans for their coffee to be flavored a little nicer.

We die so that others may live free. European and Islamic people's just let others die.

You cannot decide anything UNLEES you have a choice!!!!

I like the feeling of being an American. Because, there is such a thing a basic human rights as immutable as needing air to breathe.

[micatala]

If Rahman was proclaiming his atheist values, the cry from the World community would be deafening. If he was proclaiming other "leftist" pet agenda's there would be war.

How on earth do you come to this conclusion?

I think the exact opposite is more likely. We have a big brouhaha now

because

of Mr. Rahman's professed CHristianity.

My bet is that if he was proclaiming atheism, there would be much less of an outrage, in the U.S. anyway. The only people who stand up for atheists in general are themselves, and there aren't a whole lot of 'em around these parts.

The outcry in Europe would probably be about the same as it is in the present circumstance.

As far as 'leftist pet agenda's', the idea that we or any major western country would go to war over somebody's 'pet agenda' is just totally ludicrous. What war in the last 50 years has any western country started because they wanted to defend some 'leftist pet agenda?'

micatala wrote:
But if we say self-determinism trumps basic human rights, like religious freedom or freedom of movement or association, then we should give the South back to the confederacy and send the black people back into slavery.

There's no such thing as "basic human rights". Rights are granted solely by the society or culture in which you live. Unfortunately, the US runs around imposing *OUR* views on everyone else because we think that what we do here is so much better than all the other poor, dumb primitives.

So, I take it you view Lincoln's decision to fight secession as the US 'running around and imposing our views on everyone else.' You would be OK with letting the South secede and perpetuate slavery, even to this day?

Sure, I can read in between the lines that you don't think the U.S. government really cares one bit about human rights elsewhere, only the government's perceived political interests, and this is a valid criticism to make. However, that does not mean that the right thing to do in the present circumstance is simply say 'well, that's what they want to do so I guess we just let them do it and don't say a word.'

I'm not saying we take any drastic action, but I do think our government and our citizenry, yay even the citizenry of the whole civilized world, should speak out strongly and forcefully that the proposed execution of this individual would be a huge miscarriage of justice, that it would indicate clearly to the world the barbarism of those who agree with such a course of action, and that if Afghanistan wants to be respected within the international community, they need to back up and try again.

I think we make it clear that while we appreciate the Afghan's desire and right to self-determination, and that we do not believe it is our place to dictate what they should do, we definitely should use strong persuasion on behalf of Mr. Rahman in particular, and the idea of religious freedom in general.

Yes, government's are the de facto bestower of rights. However, no government is an island unto itself, and the people's of the world should expect and insist that governments respect individual rights.

[1John2_26]

I'm hoping that Rahman becomes a speaker here in America and Afghanistan sinks completely into the abyss of evil that it truly is.

The only time I think about voting for a Democrat, is when I think about being involved with Islamic countries. Let Satan have them. But it goes away in an instant (I don't want Satan controlling congress either).

It is important for the world to see (except Islam) the reception awaiting Rahman in the Christian community here in America.

I pray that he gets out of that cesspool of AK-47 religious doctrine safe and "sound."

With religious freedom springs a supporting community.

[juliod]

What war in the last 50 years has any western country started because they wanted to defend some 'leftist pet agenda?'

The great Bra-Wars of the late 60's. Someone misunderstood the meaning of "burn your bra" and thought bras were a the new best sourde of fossil fuel. Special forces raided the boutiques of Paris.

Other than this, I bet 1john can't come up with even one example.

DanZ

[juliod]

I'm hoping that Rahman becomes a speaker here in America and Afghanistan sinks completely into the abyss of evil that it truly is.

To what degree do you think the current state of Afghanistan is attributable to the US?

Hint: We currently occupy that country.

DanZ

[micatala]

Quote:
What war in the last 50 years has any western country started because they wanted to defend some 'leftist pet agenda?'

The great Bra-Wars of the late 60's. Someone misunderstood the meaning of "burn your bra" and thought bras were a the new best sourde of fossil fuel. Special forces raided the boutiques of Paris.

Other than this, I bet 1john can't come up with even one example.

Missed those bra wars, or maybe I was just too young to have noticed.



I noticed I didn't even get a response to my question, and that the subject was conveniently changed.

[McCulloch]

I'm hoping that Rahman becomes a speaker here in America and Afghanistan sinks completely into the abyss of evil that it truly is.

I see that you exemplify your Lord's attitude towards his enemies, again!