A bit of a history lesson is in order. WHY did the pilgrims come to the colonies? To escape religious persecution just like what the Islamic Law is doing. Why did our constitution insure FREEDOM to CHOOSE (OR NOT CHOOSE) a particular religion? To prevent the very thing that is taking place under Islamic Law. Yes a democratic government must allow its citizens to choose their religion. The issue is WHY America should risk its young man and women and its treasure to enable governments that force their population to choose only ONE Religion to the extent of putting them to death. The answer is simple-- WE SHOULD NOT be committing the lives and treasure of America to ANY SUCH COUNTRIES! We should let them decide their own issues and stay OUT. At the same time we should issue a VERY CLEAR warning that any future attack or support for an attack on this country will be met with an attack that will END the country that attacks us or supports any attack on America! WE will not invade or occupy their country. We will destroy it so it can never again pose a danger to us or other countries on this planet!

"You" still don't get it do you? Let me correct your "history" lesson. Since when is the constitution "required" to form a democracy? Freedom of religion is GUARANTEED by our constitution, NOT the "democracy" behind it.

Let me be clear. We can not support ANY government with the lives of our military or our tax dollars that puts people to death for selecting a religion other then Islam! To do so would violate the most basic rights of free people. The universal declaration of democracy REQUIRES a democratic government to ALLOW religious FREEDON. That is NOT what is taking place in ANY country that places Islamic Law as the supreme law of that country!

A bit of a history lesson is in order. WHY did the pilgrims come to the colonies? To escape religious persecution just like what the Islamic Law is doing.

I bet the colonist in Rhode Island who didn't mesh with the Puritans would beg to differ. Did you know that in some colonies (Connecticut being one, I believe) being a Quaker was grounds for being charged with being a witch? You might be a little foggy on history, Col, but being found to be a witch in the colonies carried with it the same penalty as the Afghan man is facing.

You got caught in an inconsistency here, col, but rather than admit it, you just keep getting stuck deeper and deeper in it.

Our constitution did not set up any particular religion nor did it put people to death for selecting a particular religion. It did not establish any religious dogma as the standard by which all people had to adhere and be judged. What the Bush policy has done in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan is to enable the people to create Theocracies not Democracies. We have so far created three more Iran's and kid our selves that will make us safer.

The universal declaration of democracy REQUIRES a democratic government to ALLOW religious FREEDON.

Link please. I never knew that there was a "Universal Declaration of Democracy" or that there was even requirements.

Yes a democratic government must allow its citizens to choose their religion.

That is simply your opinion and preference. I repeat, religious freedom is not a condition of democracy, it is a value that our democracy has chosen to codify. There were democracies thousands of years before ours, speaking of history lessons - democracy wasn't invented by our Constitution, it established a particular form of representative government. I'd say "But you know that," but I'm beginning to wonder.

What other democracies choose to do, once they have the freedom to choose, is not up to us. I have no problem committing our "lives and treasure" to giving people that opportunity in the process of the war on terror. It's far better than not doing so. We cannot make them colonies & impose our law upon them, but we can make it much harder for the terrorists to thrive by fostering democratic self-interest, in turn depriving them of safe haven and support.

Our constitution did not set up any particular religion nor did it put people to death for selecting a particular religion. It did not establish any religious dogma as the standard by which all people had to adhere and be judged. What the Bush policy has done in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan is to enable the people to create Theocracies not Democracies. We have so far created three more Iran's and kid our selves that will make us safer.

Back up a second, Col. Your statement, to which I replied, had to do with the COLONIES, NOT the Constitution. The colonies predated the existence of America, and operated under different laws. And before you start on your argument that religions have not been persecuted in the United States, you might want to research the early history of the Mormons in the United States, and, more recently, the government led extermination of the Branch Davidians in Waco under your own demigod, Bill Clinton.

Odd. If I recall, one of the first things we, the poor downtrodden religious exiles, started doing when we came here was killing 'heathen' indians and burning witches at the stake. The Afghanis want to impose their standards on this guy, and the Col wants to impose his standards on Afghanis. At least they are imposing their will in their own country.

The document the Col posted on the other blog was the UNs standards on the treatment of non-nationals. The UN doesn't define democracy, or even promote it given that many member nations aren't democracies, and some use Sharia law for the MAIN ruling system. Afghanistan only uses it when their laws are unclear on a subject.

The UN doesn't define democracy, or even promote it given that many member nations aren't democracies, and some use Sharia law for the MAIN ruling system.

Even if the UN DID define democracy, I would find it highly ironic that the organization, whose representatives are, themselves, NOT democratically elected, would have ANYTHING to say on the subject.

The UN defining democracy is insane, anyway, since non-democracies would have a hand in defining democracy. When the UN was formed, how many nations who were members WERE democracies? Given the standards offered up by the current peanut gallery, there are no democracies at all.

To force our beliefs and our Constitution on another country, then say that you must agree with our policies seems alot like Imperialism to me.

What we can not do is support a government that would put to death a person because they chose to change their religious belief from Islam to another belief. I do not care what any other country does; we have certain basic freedoms that are not optional. To embrace ANY government that would kill a member of their society because they would not accept a particular religion is unacceptable.

Bush is now faced with either violating the most basic principals of freedom or continue to support a government that violates those most basic freedoms. He can not have it both ways. He can not stand up as he does and lecture the world that America has a responsibility to promote these universal freedoms as Bush puts it and then support governments that violate those same universal freedoms. As he said you are either with us or against us. So far the three new governments in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are AGINST US!

Looks like Afghanistan is a democracy, Gene - they're letting the guy go.

And you know perfectly well what Bush means by "with-us-or-against-us" - in the war on terror. When you have no answer you invent one, out of thin air.

What we can not do is support a government that would put to death a person because they chose to change their religious belief from Islam to another belief. I do not care what any other country does; we have certain basic freedoms that are not optional. To embrace ANY government that would kill a member of their society because they would not accept a particular religion is unacceptable. Bush is now faced with either violating the most basic principals of freedom or continue to support a government that violates those most basic freedoms. He can not have it both ways. He can not stand up as he does and lecture the world that America has a responsibility to promote these universal freedoms as Bush puts it and then support governments that violate those same universal freedoms. As he said you are either with us or against us. So far the three new governments in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are AGINST US!

I'm sorry but, you sir (spelled with a "c") are a flaming idiot that can not see beyond his hatred of the President. Universal freedoms include CHOICE! Which means they get to choose both their form of religious government. The key word is "WE" in this statement:" we have certain basic freedoms that are not optional". THEY ARE NOT US! We can not/should not/ WILL NOT tell them how to run their lives! We are there to make sure they have their choices. "If" they do not wish to include religious freedom in their new form of government then that is THEIR CHOICE to make. Not yours, not mine, not our government, THEIRS! Get it now, or do I need to draw it in crayon for you as per usual?