Passing The Test?
That's Abdul Rahman up there, folks, an Afghani Christian convert who-- as far as the Islamic clerics in Afghanistan are concerned-- must be executed as "allowed" by the vestigial elements of sharia that slipped into the progressive Afghan Constitution.
And behold, Afghanistan's first Church vs. State controversy!
The "Church":
CLERICS INSIST ON EXECUTION OF CONVERT
By Daniel Cooney
(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
March 24, 2006
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Senior Muslim clerics demanded yesterday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."
No worries, people. That's just typical Middle Eastern histrionics from a crowd that used to control or supported the Taliban government.
It's much like the histrionics of the Lefties here who used to control or supported the Clinton Administration, histrionics like "I hope Bush gets assassinated!"
Just a lot of noise from unhinged fanatics "demanding" they get their way.
The State:
A government official said "He is likely to be released soon."
Let's just hope it doesn't take an insanity plea to do it.
We'll see.
An anonymous guest of Republicus expressed their frustration in the commentary section of the March 22 post "The Test" because they felt that the United States was being too wishy-washy about laying down the law of Democracy and Freedom.
Republicus understood but also reminded Anonymous about the political gamesmanship that is required while maneuvering towards an objective.
Like TR said:
Speak softly but carry a big stick.The coalition indeed carries a very big stick, and the soft-spoken diplomacy is tempered by what emanates from the United States:
There is no more fundamental issue for the United States than freedom of religion and religious conscience... We have raised it in the strongest possible terms to make clear that it is our great hope and desire that Afghanistan will reaffirm what is already in its constitution, that the universal declaration on human rights will be respected, and that this will be resolved in a way that is consistent with those principles.Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper telephoned Karzai on this issue.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who converted away from Islam may be held to account. That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship.
President George W. Bush
He said about Karzai: "He conveyed to me that we don't have to worry about any such eventual outcome....He assured me that what's alarmed most of us will be worked out quickly ... in a way that fully respects religious rights, religious freedoms and human rights."
But look what's going on: You have the Afghanistani executive branch standing for Western liberalism, while the judiciary fixates on the strands of Taliban sharia which snuck it's way into the Constitution:
"Afghanistan's Supreme Court said Thursday it was trying to find a 'good solution' to the case, the first of its kind here, including persuading Rahman to revert to Islam.
Sharia law, on which the Afghan constitution is partly based, rules that conversion away from Islam must be punished by death if the accused person fails to revert."
Afghanistan is an Islamic country and its judiciary will act independently and neutrally...No other policy will be accepted apart from Islamic orders and what our constitution says.But wait, didn't Secretary Rice say:
Afghan Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada
Yes she did, and she is correct. The Afghan Constitution does uphold those values--along with the institutionalizing of the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary, the latter interpreting the clashing contradiction in its favor.
...our great hope and desire (is) that Afghanistan will reaffirm what is already in its constitution, that the universal declaration on human rights will be respected.
Afghanistan is having its first Constitutional crisis, ladies and gentleman.
We can only hope--while persuading and urging--that Karzai pre-empts his own country's civil war by winning what is analogously similar to our own Dred Scott decision of 1857.
Whatever happens, as things are now, this issue does not indicate a "failure," or a "debacle," or a "sham," but is proof that the fledgling democracy is undergoing the normal labor pains of a new birth.
We must strive to ensure that the newborn is neither miscarried or aborted post-partum by scissors-weilding Jihadists.
Republicus can not say whether the strands of sharia that have been woven into the Constitution will end up being a virus that freezes it up or whether the intellectual activity that will try to achieve reconciliation will find ways to liquify--and liberalize--it.
May the irrational, histrionic fanatics lose (there as well as here).
posted by John | 12:46 PM
3 Comments:
Republicas said:
"No worries, people. That's just typical Middle Eastern histrionics from a crowd that used to control or supported the Taliban government"
Sorry Republicas, but you are missing the point and covering with rhetoric yet again.
The "moderate cleric" who has said ""This man must die," was jailed three times fighting against the Taliban. He DID NOT SUPPORT THE TALIBAN, so in order to keep this civil, I think you need to retract that statement or actually use proof instead of rhetoric to prove otherwise.
Secondly,.....Afghanistan is not in the Middle East.
This whole thing is very troubling to me and to cover the factual problems with rhetoric frustrates me.
To be honest, I would have though someone with your conservative/ liberatarian credentials wouldn't be such mouthpiece for the administration.
lol I would like to laugh at Repbublicas's use of the Dred Scott and decision as a pro, and then bring in abortion as a con. You might want to see what anti-choice people feel about the Dred Scott decision!!
Republicus said:
"No worries, people. That's just typical Middle Eastern histrionics from a crowd that used to control or supported the Taliban government."
Anonymous responded:
"Sorry Republicas, but you are missing the point and covering with rhetoric yet again."
The point of this post was whether the new Afghan government will honor what Secretary Rice said: "our great hope and desire (is) that Afghanistan will reaffirm what is already in its constitution, that the universal declaration on human rights will be respected," or whether it will stray from that--and spite it in the process--by falling back to the dictates of *sharia*:
"Sharia law, on which the Afghan constitution is partly based, rules that conversion away from Islam must be punished by death if the accused person fails to revert."
As the Supreme Court Judge interpreted (much like a liberal who finds--or creates-- Constitional "penumbra" to support what is not there):
"Afghanistan is an Islamic country and its judiciary will act independently and neutrally...No other policy will be accepted apart from Islamic orders and what our constitution says."
Note that the judge distinguishes between "Islamic orders" and "what the constitution says."
It's a Church and State issue.
"To pass the test" refers to the State's constitution overriding the Church's/Islamic "orders."
Republicus stayed on the point of the post.
And what "rhetoric?" Can you provide an example?
Anonymous continued:
"The 'moderate cleric'..."
Who are you quoting as calling the cleric "moderate," Anonymuous?
Certainly not Republicus.
"...who has said 'This man must die,' was jailed three times fighting against the Taliban. He DID NOT SUPPORT THE TALIBAN..."
Republicus was as specific as the referenced Associated Press report allowed:
"Senior Muslim *clerics* (plural) demanded yesterday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, *they* (plural) will incite people to "pull him into pieces."
You are gratuitously referring to a specific "moderate cleric" who was opposed to Taliban rule for one tribal or provincial reason or another, but is obviously not too far removed from them in his own extreme Islamic ideology.
They just as well could be classified as Taliban-Lite.
People like him--and others on the court--are the ones who are causing the Constitutional crisis.
In case you missed it (understandaby as there has been a dizzying arrays of monickers for the War on Terror) President Bush last characterized this war as "The Struggle Against Islamic Extremism."
To allow the Islamic extremism embodied in *sharia* law to trump constitutional dictates would be to fail the test.
That's the point of the post.
Republicus did not miss it.
You did.
"...so in order to keep this civil, I think you need to retract that statement or actually use proof instead of rhetoric to prove otherwise."
Republicus stands by the post. The "proofs" used were verbatim quotations.
And again, what "rhetoric?"
"Secondly,.....Afghanistan is not in the Middle East."
Republicus didn't say it was. He said: "No worries, people. That's just typical Middle Eastern histrionics from a crowd that used to control or supported the Taliban government."
"This whole thing is very troubling to me and to cover the factual problems with rhetoric frustrates me."
Agreed. It is troubling. It's a big test to pass or fail.
But what "rhetoric?"
"To be honest, I would have though someone with your conservative/ liberatarian credentials wouldn't be such mouthpiece for the administration."
Republicus supports the war effort and understands the objectives.
For *sharia* law to trump the overriding Constitutional precepts would be a setback, as it would spite an objective: the rule of Constitutional law.
Again, as Secretary Rice unambiguously said:
"...that it is our great hope and desire (i.e. objective) that Afghanistan will reaffirm what is already in its constitution, that the universal declaration on human rights will be respected, and that this will be resolved in a way that is consistent with those principles."
Anonymous (another or the same?)said...
"lol I would like to laugh at Repbublicas's use of the Dred Scott and decision as a pro, and then bring in abortion as a con."
Republicus doesn't get the joke.
As for the reference to Mr. Scott's case and how it is similarly analogous to Mr. Rahman's, recall that in the former the Supreme Court of the United States of America had judged that Mr. Scott was someone's property.
"You might want to see what anti-choice people feel about the Dred Scott decision!!"
It appears that you are the same Anonymous who commented in the 3/6/06 post "The Pro-Life Gauntlet Is Thrown Down" and illogically concluded:
"huh? Are you saying that Pro-choice supporters would also have been pro slavery? Actually, that's exactly what you said, but I'll assume you made a mistake."
Republicus did not say that. But if you are the same person, do you realize that when you said: "You might want to see what anti-choice people feel about the Dred Scott decision!!" you made precisely the mistake you erroneously accused Republicus of making by your suggesting that "anti-Choice" (i.e. Pro-Life) supporters would also be pro slavery?
Yes, that's precisely what you are suggesting.
What is common between the Pro-slavery forces and the Pro-Life
movement is that both relied/rely on federalism to protect or empower their respective issues.
But that's where the similarity ends.
The Pro-Lifers are more compatible--in character-- with the Abolitionists, as both movements were spawned by biblically-based moral issues and Church activism seeking to overturn immoral laws that were/are sanctioned by the State's Constitution.
Hence, putting that in its proper context, the Pro-Abortionists (two can play at that game easily enough, Anonymous) are bedfellows with the Pro-Slavery factions, as both seek to preserve and protect immoral laws (i.e. abortion and slavery) that were badly constitionalized, and are against the moral sensibilities of the Church.
The situation in Afghanistan is inverted: It is the Afghani "Church" factions that seek to preserve, protect, and certainly advance bad laws that have been squeezed out by the new State's Constitution, and it is now up to the State to do the right thing.
That is the test and it must be passed, as is the point of the post.
And there's nothing "rhetorical" about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home