Afghan Man Could Be Put To Death For Becoming Christian!

"We do not get it that for Moslems their religious beliefs are the MOST important part of their life and they DO NOT separate their religious beliefs from their secular life."

What does Democracy have to do with this? We have our laws, they have theirs. I differ with theirs, but that doesn't mean those laws have been imposed by totalitarian rule. You obviously believe that you can't impose restrictions on religious practice in a Democracy. You'll find that we do it right here in the US.

You've bitten off more than you can chew here. Sharia law is "Islamic" in pretense, but you'll find if you bother to learn about it that it also defies the Koran in certain spots. It isn't religious law, it is civil law made in the name of religion, much as the Catholic Church oppressed people in the Middle Ages.

I think your assertion that Muslims can't appreciate Democracy is idiotic and bigoted, since many nations with large Muslim populations are Democracies. Sharia law is a stain on the world, I'll agree with you there, but nations that rule using it are a tiny minority. The fact that you are willing to smear Muslims to make yet another empty statement about Bush just shows that you don't really care about any of these issues, they're just tools in your ongoing war.

Christians once killed fellow Christians for converting to another religion. Jews did too, a long time ago.

It is no surprise that Muslims have the same problem.

But to assume that it is somehow clear that they cannot change is bigoted.

When Islamic Law puts people to death for exercising FREEDOM of religion, it is NOT compatible with Democracy!

"Gene", somebody as well read as you must certainly know that freedom of religion is recognized by the US constitution and not an integral feature of democracy.

"When Islamic Law puts people to death for exercising FREEDOM of religion, it is NOT compatible with Democracy!"

That's simply not true.

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -cies Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

You've made two mistakes. You've implied that the Muslim faith can't function in a Democracy, and you've totally misstated what Democracy is. Such are the lengths you're willing to go to in order to make a stab at your white whale.

What about Muslims that move to the US with a half-dozen wives? Is their religious belief being trodden upon by "Democracy"? What about white supremacists who have to deal with being deemed "hateful" when they state their related religious beliefs in places like Canada? Is Canada not a Democracy?

AHHHAAAAHHHAAAAHHHAAAAHHAAAA! Col, you just made me laugh my ass off. How the HELL you can blame this on Bush is beyond me! This is the same "religion of peace" you guys call "freedom fighters" and "patriots" that has been responsible for enacting the laws that make this man eligible for the death penalty. You can't have it both ways.

How the HELL you can blame this on Bush is beyond me!

COL isn't blaming Bush for this atrocity; he cites Bush himself found it troubling. Give COL his due, even though he used it as an illustration to show how misguided the president is. Don't let the messager get in your way of common sense.

Eh, I'd have to differ, steve. The last line pretty much sums up the post:

"This is just another example of how misguided the Bush policies are in the Moslem World! We can NOT supplant our democratic principals for Islamic Law in the Moslem world."

Granted, this guy would have been killed in a pre-war Afghanistan, too, but I think the point here is Bush is wrong for trying to bring Democracy to the poor, inadequate Muslims. I find it insulting, and I'm not even a Muslim.

P.S. Is the name 'Abdul Rahman' the 'John Smith' of the Islamic world?

COL isn't blaming Bush for this atrocity; he cites Bush himself found it troubling. Give COL his due, even though he used it as an illustration to show how misguided the president is. Don't let the messager get in your way of common sense.

Wow, to what extent will you and KB go to contradict everyone here? You guys would agree with Col, something you've never done before, just to spite people here. That's sad if you ask me.

We should never have gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, in Gene's view, so what does it matter? Apparently, religious nullification is required, among many other things, for our foreign policy to be acceptable to him.

I never said we should not have gone into Afghanistan. We NEVER finish our work there because we went into Iraq that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or posed ANY danger to the United States. If we had done the job properly in Afghanistan and destroyed more of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 we would be much better off then by going into Iraq and committing more then ½ of our Army, killing 2,300 young people and spending what looks like a Trillion dollars until this war is over( whenever that will be)! At the same time the people responsible for 9/11 have not been captured or killed!

Then what exactly is your point about Bush, Col? Obviously Muslims can enjoy Democracy, since they do all over the world. Obviously Democracy doesn't prevent people from making laws like the one you cite. Obviously we would be considered tyrants if we didn't allow the Afghani people to have the consitution they want.

So are you saying that had we not invaded Iraq that they wouldn't have adopted sharia law... since we could have imposed our will a little better? Either you didn't get across your point or you don't really have one. Why does this spell "the utter folly of the U. S. trying to spread democracy in the Moslem World"?

What I am saying is that the spreading Democracy idea that is to make us safe from terrorism is BS. First, Islamic Law is not in agreement with any concept of democracy that we embrace. There in no equality for women or religious freedom. In the elections so far, the people have elected either terrorist group in Palestine or government that subscribe to the Islamic law and not democracy. The idea that we will be safe from terrorism if only we spread democracy is bankrupt and has not worked. Bush himself admitted the issue of punishing a person under Islamic law that converts from being Moslem to another religion is NOT ACCEPTABLE. He said he was going to use his influence for this man. That does not solve the larger question that under Islamic law which these Moslem counters hold as supreme will put Moslems to death if the concert to another religion. Look at Iraq. If that is a democracy I am a conservative!

There is no "true" version of Democracy. There's many versions of that too.

If Iraq country becomes a democracy, it would be a different version. We shouldn't make clones out of USA.

What if we doesn't like their version? So what? It's their own country.

" What I am saying is that the spreading Democracy idea that is to make us safe from terrorism is BS."

Why? Because you say so? What exactly does this case have to do with terrorism? They have no Sharia law in Ireland, or Spain, or South America and they seemed to take to terrorism just fine.

On the other hand... when nations have to be accountable for the money they spend, and when they don't have regimes that stay in power continually, it is much harder to promote terror. You might for four or eight years, but there's not guarentee the next guy will.

In a Democracy, people can vote to REJECT terrorism, or even Sharia law. That's what Democracy provides them, if they so choose. Perhaps you'd prefer an Afghanistan as it was where there was no hope at all.

"First, Islamic Law is not in agreement with any concept of democracy that we embrace."

I find it difficult to believe that you have made any study of Sharia law. The Koran, like the Bible, doesn't go into daily life much, or how a nation should be ruled. Those parts have been inferred or just outright added over the centuries. Take the time and you'll find there are many Muslim nations that aren't ruled by Sharia law.

Frankly, given the way you are talking about it, I don't know if you've given study to Democracy, either. I posted the definition above for you, if you'd bother to read it. You can easily live in a Democracy and have Sharia law. You can have whatever laws you want... it's a Democracy, after all...

"Bush himself admitted the issue of punishing a person under Islamic law that converts from being Moslem to another religion is NOT ACCEPTABLE."

Not according to our moral standards, but it has nothing to do with Democracy. We don't have to choose to aid them, and we don't have to choose to be allies with them. But if we tell them they can't pass the laws they like, THEN it isn't a Democracy.

"Look at Iraq. If that is a democracy I am a conservative!"

Why don't you explain for us why Iraq isn't a Democracy, then, Col. I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

A small insect bit a child in the himalayas, and IT'S ALL BUSHES FAULT. you have turned into a parody of yourself gene, you need some rest and nice long rest.

Then explain the rational for Israel and the U S refusing to deal with the government chosen in a free election in Palestine?

" Then explain the rational for Israel and the U S refusing to deal with the government chosen in a free election in Palestine?"

So you are saying that as long as a nation is a Democracy, we have to deal with them? We aren't discouraging Democracy by refusing to fund a Hamas led government, we're just refusing to fund a Hamas led government. When we refuse to do business with Iran, does that mean we are discouraging Democracy? You realize they vote for their government leaders there, too, right?

Democracy isn't about making the "right" decision, it is about the right to make the decisions at all. If Palestine wants a terrorist government, by all means, let them have it. That doesn't mean I have to vote to send my tax money there, being a part of my own Democracy here in the US. You are confusing our ideals with a political system. Democracy gives them the chance to choose our ideals, it doesn't impose our ideals on them

We don't have to support governments that we don't agree with. There's a difference between withdrawing our support and imposing our standard of morality on the people who have DEMOCRATICALLY chosen otherwise. We don't have to help out the Afghani government any more, either, and they'll be able to go right on making their own decisions.

There may have been elections in Iraq but they do not have anything like a government. The people do not look to that government but to the faction they belong to as their first loyalty. If you believe what exists in Iraq is a democracy then why can that government provide the most basic security? The last three days have been outrageous. This goes on day after day; week after week and month after month. We have 130,000 troops in what amounts to a civil war. This is not a few terrorists or foreigners. This is one sect in Iraq fighting another. Bush has broken the jar and can not fix it.The same thing is true in Afghanistan. In the last election the people did not even know the names of the people they were voting for until they got into the voting place. That country is run by War Lords and the number of terrorists attacks in increasing every day.

Hrm... I seem to recall some "civil unrest" in the US in the middle of the 19th century. If I recall we were definately a Democracy then, too. Before that we allowed SLAVERY. Could you possibly have slavery in a Democracy? Evidently so.

Again, you're not addressing Democracy, you're addressing your own ideals about the choices people in a functioning Democracy should make. I can show you neighborhoods that look like war zones here in the US, and that police barely have any impact on, but oddly the people there still get to vote.

And it took an all out Civil War to unite our country. WE did the fighting not some other country. It must by the Iraqi people NOT the U S Army that will need to settle what government results in Iraq. It is TIME TO GET OUT. Then the people of Iraq can settle what type of government they want or if they even want a single country given their differences.

wait, wait, wait. Make up your mind. Isn't this still about your assertion that you can't have Islamic law, or civil war, and still be a Democracy? This isn't about Iraq, it is about how this Christian vs. Muslim think somehow reflects on Bush's policies.

You can not get a democracy like the one Bush claims will eliminate the danger to America. You can have a government that is elected but that poses a danger to our country. That is what Bush is getting with his policies. Look at Palestine as an example. My point. The simplistic answer that if we spread democracy countries will result that will not pose a danger to us is not true. We have committed the lives of our young people and spent huge amounts of money to get something we will not want. The old saying, Be careful what you ask for.or.

" You can not get a democracy like the one Bush claims will eliminate the danger to America."

No, you MIGHT not. You know as well as anyone that fundamentalist Islamic nations are living in the Middle Ages. The reason they normally do so is because they are ignorant and kept down by their government. That won't change overnight, even when they are offered the opportunity.

To say that it will NEVER change, though, ignores basic human instincts. This generation may choose to live in primitive fashion, but their kids may not, and their kids most certainly won't. The sooner they get the choice to live differently the sooner they might.

You are declaring defeat in the same way people declared it in terms of the Soviet Union. Our government persevered, though, and eventually people chose to step up and get what they rest of the world had. The government there decided that they simply couldn't continue their practices in the face of their failure. THEY aren't even out of the woods yet. It doesn't happen in a year, or even ten years, but until you give the people the choice they never, ever will.

Fundamentalist Islamic states will be the same. Democracy is about chaos, Col. It is about people having the right to try whatever they like, and reform when they must. Giving these states the ability to choose reform, out from under the thumbs of oppressive regimes, is a step in the right direction. The only real loss would be if they revert to a system of government where the people CAN'T choose, which seems to be where you want to leave them.

Yes, this is a sad case.
Yet, it's not near as sad as the leftiewing biased MSM's sudden and intense interest in the rights and life of one, individual Christian, when entire villages of them have been wiped out in Africa, and that barely rates a comment.
Of course, the untold numbers of Christians murdered by Muslims in Africa had no real connection to President Bush that could be manipulated in yet another sinister and still pathetic move to affect public opinion. That public would be you, Colonel, and those like you.