As a Christian, I both understand and don't understand when people who don't believe in this religion call us intolerant. The message in schools and society are to tolerate other people and what they believe. They say it was the lack of toleration that has led to wars, murders, slavery, and so on. I understand how to someone who is not a Christian, the beliefs can sound exclusive. I agree, in a way, they are. But I wish that people can look objectively and see that Christians are not the only ones who can be intolerant. And I don't follow world affairs much, but this got to me.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed.
That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing.
Rahman, a father of two, was arrested and is on trial for rejecting Islam. The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty.
"They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it," Rahman told reporters last week, "but I am not a deserter and not an infidel."
He had been arrested after telling local police, whom he approached on an unrelated matter, that he had converted to Christianity. Reports say he was carrying a Bible at the time. He said he converted to Christianity 16 years ago after working with a Christian aid group that assisted refugees in neighboring Pakistan.
Rahman's case illustrates a split over the interpretation of the Afghan constitution, which calls for religious freedom while stating that Muslims who reject Islam can be executed.
Nicholas Burns, undersecretary for political affairs, said he understands the complexities of the case and promised the United States would respect Afghan sovereignty. However, he said, Afghans should be free to choose their own religion, and he believes the nation's constitution supports that.
"We hope the Afghan constitution is going to be upheld," Burns said. "If he has the right of freedom of religion, that ought to be respected."
My remarks:
For the record, Afghanistan's population is 80 percent Sunni Muslim and 19 percent Shiite Muslim, according to the CIA. The rest of the population is classified as "other." Now many Western nations object to this man going on trial as they should. But if we are cleaning up the Middle East and all, then why is a law so fundamental to human life as this, still in place from the Taliban reign? Should that not have been one of the first things addressed? And if he is found guilty, what will they do about it. Will they just use their secretaries to talk a good game and let the chips fall where they may?
Here's my more basic question. How can you write a Constitution that promotes religious freedom while also saying that people who don't follow Islam can be executed? Did each citizen get to write their own law and it was just adopted without anyone reviewing its validity? If I've heard hypocrisy in my life, this is it.
So what's the trial really about? Supposedly he's on trial for rejecting the official religion of the country he lives in. Well, if he has converted (and there are questions about his mental stability), then he is as guilty as can be under that law. I'm not saying I agree with the fundamentals of that law, because I don't. But if there is a law against rejecting Islam, I think he probably will be found guilty. I don't understand it, but there are flawed laws. And when they're in your country's Constitution or whatever document of fundamental beliefs and laws you have, you've got problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment