The Indy Star has an editorial today arguing that “the Bush administration must take a strong stand against the trial of Afghan man accused of converting to Christianity.” Abdul Rahman faces the death penalty for becoming a Christian.
This is the kind of thing that happens in a land where religious minorities are not vigorously protected from the passions and preferences of the majority. Closer to home, Representative Bosma has apparently made the argument that Christian prayer as official business of the Indiana House of Representatives is perfectly alright because Christians enjoy such a large majority in the state (the figure suggested was 80% Christian, 2% Jew). Now, before anyone starts hyperventilating over the comparison, please note that I realize having your government endorse Christianity to the exclusion of one’s minority religion is nowhere near as severe as having your government execute you for believing in your minority religion. But some have suggested that those of minority religions either need to suck it up or leave because Christians are the majority and majority rules in America, failing to recognize that protection of minorities against the passions and preferences of the majority are an essential component of our Constitutional Republic.
The Indy Star editorial mentions “freedom and democracy” in the same sentence. Sometimes the two are not perfectly compatible. Sometimes freedom requires antidemocratic protections against the majority. I speculate that if you polled all the citizens of Afghanistan, you’d find a majority in favor of Rahman’s execution. Majority support still would not make it right.
I am glad to see this get some attention for both reasons you mentioned. This is hardly rare, though. India still has anti-conversion laws on the books in many areas. More info here: http://www.persecution.com
I don’t see much being done to Afghanistan. If they do, I could see many people pointing out correctly that we didn’t bother Hindus when they did this, so why now with Muslems? It makes us a fair target for the “USA hates Islam” arguement.
Is it because we vaule our outsourcing arrangements more than we are outraged at a few hundred people getting killed for their faith?
Our administration is very good at throwing words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ around.
But the caveat is that in Iraq the Shiites are 60% of population so DEMOCRACY will give them the FREEDOM to commit mass genocide on all their political and cultural enemies.We’ve lost the concept of ‘fairplay’ and ‘minority opposition rights’ in our own government processes but we expect more of Iraq? And USA has a 200+ year history of legislated, Constitutional LAW!
Bush adminstration advertised early they had a MANDATE( ex-Constitution?),and whoever ‘wins’ in Iraq most likely will have a MANDATE,also..So It wont be good.
Is it because we vaule our outsourcing arrangements more than we are outraged at a few hundred people getting killed for their faith?
Jason,
It’s nice to be on the same side of an issue as you for once. That is, assuming that the tone of the question implies a “yes” answer…
:)