The Washington Times has an editorial today about the Abdul Rahman case.
The case of Abdul Rahman, who faces execution in Afghanistan for having become a Christian 15 years ago, is about as clear-cut as it could be. A democracy founded on the principles of freedom and tolerance does not kill religious dissenters. This was why Afghanistan under the Taliban was considered one of the most oppressive countries in the world. What have American soldiers achieved if they have not eliminated this barbaric medieval legacy?
The case would be clear-cut even if constitutional questions were not in play. In theory the Afghan constitution protects religious freedom, but the document sets out that Shariah is the law of the land. Drafters intentionally drew this discrepancy because they wanted unity, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has spent a great deal of his time in office avoiding a constitutional crisis. But it was only a matter of time before these ambiguities came to a head or, in this case, were forced to a head by radical judges. The goal now is to minimize the damage these divisions have created, while trying to save Mr. Rahman’s life.
Meanwhile, the Post has yet to speak out.
Read the whole thing.
Previous Post:
A Fight For The Future
Bush Speaks Out, Softly, On Abdul Rahman
Of Course, He’s Insane
Time To Take A Stand
And These Are the People We Helped Liberate ?
Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, Taliban,Religious Freedom, Abdul Rahman
