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.

[McCulloch]

Religious freedom must be protected in a tolerant society. However, religious freedom must be defined as an individual's right to believe and practice his or her own chosen religion. Sharia law, if it prescribes execution for converts, then does not protect religious freedom. If it does not protect religious freedom then it would be hypocritical for its advocates to invoke the principle of religious freedom to support this practice. Freedom of religion is not absolute. There are other rights and freedoms which must take president. For instance, if my religion teaches that humanity must be destroyed since humanity is bad for the Earth's ecosystem, then I doubt if I would be allowed to practice my religion freely. That is why an atheist government which suppresses the rights of religionists to practice their religion is as bad as a theist government which suppresses the rights of non-religionists and heathens/heretics/infidels. You must be free to practice your religion, including the right to change or abandon it, but that right is limited by the your responsibility to respect the rights of others.

[youngborean]

I agree. But I find it particularly interesting that the hard-line Muslims in this case feel that their religious freedoms are being infringed upon. I have found all of these recent developments (this issue, the election of Hamas, the rhetoric of the Iranian President) somewhat refreshing in that the public is no longer allowed to assume what some people are thinking on the other side. This is a benefit of the egagement of the muslim world in that these things (sharia law, religious support of terrorism, and holocaust denial) will finally be brought out into the open rather than assumed to be an incosequential by-product of Islam. The danger in the engagement is if they don't accept the ideals of the west and we become offended by it. I was having a discussion about this a week ago. For instance, what if the US elects a more liberal candidate in the next election and there is still another terrorist attack?

But to the original question. Should the issue be self-determination or coerison when we run into ethical contradictions with these emerging nations? The hard-line muslims are in a bind here because executing this man would be an admission that an Islamic state does not support the freedom of religion.

[juliod]

But I find it particularly interesting that the hard-line Muslims in this case feel that their religious freedoms are being infringed upon.

Just the same as some conservative christians feel that they are being oppressed if gay marriage is allowed. I think it is a general conservative feature to think that you are not free unless someone else is being harmed.

The danger in the engagement is if they don't accept the ideals of the west and we become offended by it.

It's wrong (absurd, really) to think they will accept the values of the west. In a country with no functioning legal system, repeated invasion, occupation, the Taleban, etc; to claim that that man is being executed unjustly is ... well, using the wrong langauge. Rights don't exist there. Everyone lives in injustice there. And everyone dies in injustice.

Should the issue be self-determination or coerison when we run into ethical contradictions with these emerging nations?

In practical terms of real-politics, self-determination is the important issue. But then we in the west have A Problem too. We've just invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Supposedly we've just won a Great Victory and installed a proper democratic government. It's all been shown to be a lie.

DanZ

[micatala]

Just the same as some conservative christians feel that they are being oppressed if gay marriage is allowed. I think it is a general conservative feature to think that you are not free unless someone else is being harmed.

I would agree that the legalization of gay marriage does not constitute oppression of anyone.

I would disagree with the second sentence.

The 'cliche' phrase these days is that it is 'all about values.' I don't think conservatives are alone in feeling that a society needs some agree upon set of values to function reasonably effectively. Conservatives feel that 'marriage is a man and a woman' is one of these values, and as such, trumps what others might see as a basic right, namely to marry who you please provided both parties are competent and consenting.

Conservatives are not 'seeking to harm someone' by this policy, they are (most of them sincerely I think) trying to perserve what they see as an important societal value.

[juliod]

Conservatives are not 'seeking to harm someone' by this policy, they are (most of them sincerely I think) trying to perserve what they see as an important societal value.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I see conservativism (everywhere, not just in the US) as wanting to cause harm to the people they decide are "bad". Often in terms of denial of rights or opportunities, but sometimes with violence and aggresive bigotry.

It takes a special kind of animosity to deny people (blacks, women, homosexuals) the right to work or be educated. But that's the history of conservativism.

DanZ

[1John2_26]

Why does gay stuff permeate every thing? They are free to boff to their hearts content. They are free to flog a person dressed up to look like Jesus, while dressed like Nuns, on the streets of San Francisco. Anti-Christ religion is even free to these people.

A man Abdul Rahman, is going to be executed for becoming a Christian and leaving Islam.

Let us for once honor the peacefulness of a Christian in the face of unimagineable terror.

Obviously. religious freedom is not "guaranteed," Islam has shown its murderous declaration since Mohammad raided caravans, and every free individual should for once put down their agenda and decry this foul country (Afghanistan) condemning a peaceful man.

It is incredibly important to protect religious freedom but stoping it from murdering people that leave one religion for another.

May God keep this man Abdul Rahman in His keeping. May God bless his heroic stand for Christ in the face of certain death.

[micatala]

A man Abdul Rahman, is going to be executed for becoming a Christian and leaving Islam.

Let us for once honor the peacefulness of a Christian in the face of unimagineable terror.

Hopefully he will at least avoid execution. Harmid Karzhai at least has said 'he will not be harmed.'

I can understand Muslims seeing this as a 'freedom of religion' issue, but I think we are projecting our own values in this area on others when we assume they are thinking of this as a religious freedom issue in the same way we think of religious freedom.

Certainly, I can't see the possible execution or even jailing of Mr. Rahman simply for changing faiths as anything but a gross injustice. If the Aghan clerics and others do not want to have Mr. Rahman as a part of their society, and if the international community is not willing to go to the mat to attempt to force Afghanis to accept the idea of religious freedom in their country, then I would suggest they allow Mr. Rahman to emigrate. This is still not really fair to him, but it is better than prison or execution.

[Cephus]

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.

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.

[micatala]

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.