An Afghan, who converted to Christianity many years ago, has been placed on trial for his life in Afghanistan. Lately, in response (I think) to international pressure, the charges against this man have been dismissed. The reasons for the charges being dismissed have been variously ascribed to 'lack of evidence' or 'mentally unfit to stand trial'. There are more than enough issues to wonder about as we observe this case!
How many others in Muslim countries are being tried and executed for conversion to Christianity? Why does this man make our headlines, while others pass unnoticed?
Independence of the judiciary is a value of our particular brand of governance. Yet we are often finding ourselves confounded by the proactivity of judges. Is judicial independence really so valuable?
How do people and nations decide what is right or rights?
Is there even a right or rights?
If you haven't spent some extensive time outside of North America, I suggest that you cannot begin to understand what goes on in the majority of the world. Very few people live as we do. Very few people have the rights and freedoms that we assume to be basic. Very few people accept that our way of doing things is right. Many people in North America do not accept that our way of doing things is right!
If we move from the 'majority of the world' to Afghanistan and we will make another leap. Now I do not presume to know much about Afghanistan, but I do know a little. And I have had my eyes opened by living in the third world. Many countries in the world have a national government of some kind that wields a great deal of influence on how ordinary people conduct their affairs—Afghanistan is not one. The president of Afghanistan might well be described as the mayor of the capital city, or at most as the leader of one province. In much of the country he has little or no influence on the people. He can neither oppress or protect them. But we are in Afghanistan, trying to prop up this man, trying to support the installation of our kind of governance in the whole country, and wondering about how he is managing the courts, when he doesn't even run the country. And we still don't even know how to determine if this is the right thing to do.
In our country we certainly do not accept that religion is the basis of right. However, I posit, without religion there is no basis of right. Without religion, right is a matter of power, and law is simply a social experiment. When we declare, "Freedom of religion is a right!"or "An independent judiciary is a necessity!", we are making religious statements. If we determine to disregard such belief systems as religion puts forward, we have no basis to declare universal truths at all. In USA, they believe that some truths are self-evident, but most of the world does not see their list as being self-evident at all. In fact, their lists of truths are religious, and with their peculiar debate over the separation of church and state, they don't know quite what to make of the whole problem anymore. Thus, despite their self-evident truths, most of their people are not happy with the way law or governance is going these days.
So now, what is your take on the plight of the poor Afghan Christian?
How many others in Muslim countries are being tried and executed for conversion to Christianity? Why does this man make our headlines, while others pass unnoticed?
Independence of the judiciary is a value of our particular brand of governance. Yet we are often finding ourselves confounded by the proactivity of judges. Is judicial independence really so valuable?
How do people and nations decide what is right or rights?
Is there even a right or rights?
If you haven't spent some extensive time outside of North America, I suggest that you cannot begin to understand what goes on in the majority of the world. Very few people live as we do. Very few people have the rights and freedoms that we assume to be basic. Very few people accept that our way of doing things is right. Many people in North America do not accept that our way of doing things is right!
If we move from the 'majority of the world' to Afghanistan and we will make another leap. Now I do not presume to know much about Afghanistan, but I do know a little. And I have had my eyes opened by living in the third world. Many countries in the world have a national government of some kind that wields a great deal of influence on how ordinary people conduct their affairs—Afghanistan is not one. The president of Afghanistan might well be described as the mayor of the capital city, or at most as the leader of one province. In much of the country he has little or no influence on the people. He can neither oppress or protect them. But we are in Afghanistan, trying to prop up this man, trying to support the installation of our kind of governance in the whole country, and wondering about how he is managing the courts, when he doesn't even run the country. And we still don't even know how to determine if this is the right thing to do.
In our country we certainly do not accept that religion is the basis of right. However, I posit, without religion there is no basis of right. Without religion, right is a matter of power, and law is simply a social experiment. When we declare, "Freedom of religion is a right!"or "An independent judiciary is a necessity!", we are making religious statements. If we determine to disregard such belief systems as religion puts forward, we have no basis to declare universal truths at all. In USA, they believe that some truths are self-evident, but most of the world does not see their list as being self-evident at all. In fact, their lists of truths are religious, and with their peculiar debate over the separation of church and state, they don't know quite what to make of the whole problem anymore. Thus, despite their self-evident truths, most of their people are not happy with the way law or governance is going these days.
So now, what is your take on the plight of the poor Afghan Christian?
