Thursday, March 23, 2006

We could always give you back to the Taliban....

What is it lately with folks? The US breaks you out of the clutches of the enemy, and the slap us in the face. You may scroll down for SAWB's take on this, but I'm much less inclined to worry about Canadian hippies after reading the rest of the news.

Like the Afgan Clerics who are calling for the execution of an Afgan who converted from Islam to Christianity. Uhh. What? Here's the quote:

"The people will not be fooled," said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. "This is humiliating for Islam. ... Cut off his head."

Raoulf is considered a moderate cleric in Afghanistan. He was jailed three times for criticizing the Taliban's policies before the hardline regime was ousted by U.S.-led forces in 2001.

Boy, I sure am glad that's considered 'moderation' in Afganistan. Guess it lets everyone know how bad the Taliban really was, if they were locking this bozo up for being too liberal.

I also don't like that the Afgan government is gonna try and weasel out of this by saying homeboy is mentally unfit for trial. If the media hadn't picked up on this story, the dude would have been executed at the hands of the Afganistan government.

I ran across an article on MSNBC aptly titled "For Afgans, allies, a clash of values." Do you think? Hearing about this situation seems to have galvanized plenty of folks here at home:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, complained in a letter to Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by radical Islamists who kill Christians? . . . Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes."

In another open letter to Bush, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said it was "the obligation of our government" to take action in the case. The group warned that in Afghanistan, there is no legal guarantee of religious freedom and the judiciary is instructed to enforce Islamic principles. "The door is open for a harsh, unfair or even abusive interpretation of religious orthodoxy to be officially imposed," it said.

This is my huge problem with this Administration's foreign policy: it is not a change from what we had pre-September 11th. Back in the day, the CIA worked with Osama Bin Laden and his cronies in Afganistan because the Soviets were really bad. Now we're working with these knuckleheads because Osama Bin Laden and his cronies are really bad. In 20 years, who are we going to be working with against this current group of knuckleheads?

You know what they say about the definition of insanity, and the reasons we learn history, right?

I know these guys have a shady history, but even the Council on American-Islamic Relations is stepping up and calling shenanigans! (from lead article)
Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement calling for Rahman’s release. “Religious decisions should be matters of personal choice, not a cause for state intervention,” the Muslim civil liberties group said.


I reckon when you've got the Family Research Council and the Council on American-Islamic Relations together on something, that's some big news.

1 comment:

Laddi said...

"Now we're working with these knuckleheads"

I'm glad you linked to The daily... blog, as gp covered Afghanistan yesterday. In his blog, he has a link to the translated Afghanistan Constitution. And there we read:

------------------------
Article 2 [Religions]
(1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of IslamState_Religion.
(2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article 3 [Law and Religion]
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
--------------------------

It's that 3rd article that gets me: "no law can be contrary to the beliefs...of Islam"

That sounds like religious tolerance to me given that, according to Islamic law, conversion from Islam equals apostasy (or irtidad in arabic), a sin punishable by death. So there's conflict there. In essence, as long as you're not Muslim, you're free to express your religion, but if you're already a Muslim and you find you think you've followed the wrong path, then death to you because the Koran (more specifically the Shari'a as deemed by clerics) trumps any other law within the Afghanistan Constitution or its bylaws. How free.

But at least there's one thing going for them: at least they overtly incorporate their religious beliefs into their constitution, unlike those here in the US who wish to have our laws written to mirror certain religious tenets or support specific religions, while still trying to carry a facade supporting separation of church and state.

Hrmph.