Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Free-dumb of Religion

I love how America marches into other countries and topples their government, installs their own, then builds oil pipelines for the Vice President's former Corporation (that's Halliburton). I'm talking about Afghanistan. The Taliban was an oppressive, murderous form of government that harbored terrorists (I'm being serious). So, toppling that regime wasn't sooooo bad. I'm just a little bitter that they lied about why they did it.

Alot of people have forgotten about Afghanistan but this article brought a very strong reminder to me.

I can't believe that we totally overthrew their government on the basis that it was an oppressive theocracy, then allowed them to write a contradictory constitution that claims to allow freedom of religion while at the same time making conversion from Islam to any other religion a capital offense. This guy has one defense: that he is mad. Otherwise, they'll kill him because he loves Jesus.

Let's chalk up another notch for the War on Terror and the spread of democracy in the Middle East.


Chuck Wade said...

Well my friend, you have committed a falacy in your... uh... argument(?) here (and the more I read of your fascinating writing the more I wonder if you care). The falacy is called "Searching for the Perfect Solution" and the definition is: "Falsely assuming that because part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted."

Yes it is a shame that this man, my brother, will probably die because he converted to Christianity, just another gift from our friends, the "religion of peace". It is also a shame when it happens in India because of the enlightened Hindus, in China because of the thoughtful Communists, and in the Czech Republic because of our intelligent atheist friends.

Did the American led war in Afghanistan accomplish its objective to rid that nation of the Taliban? Yes. Did that instantly make it the perfect country with the perfect leaders? No. Does that mean that America should not have done it? No.

Now as far as the whole "Bush did it for oil!" line which you guys love to scream whenever you can't think of something else to say, you are making an accusation which has no proof, nor can it have proof. You simply cannot prove the motive of the President, his administration, the United States House of Representatives, the CIA, MI6 and what ever Russia's intelligence is was to gain oil for the Vice President, so why make the accusation?

Finally, wasn't it one of your liberal friends (or is he extremely conservative, who knows?) who was poking fun at those whacko conservatives for all their conspiracy theories about the liberal media? But here you are with a conspiracy theory of your own. I suppose it's ok for those of the more liberal persuasion, they are typically more educated.

The Cobra said...

I didn't, necessarily, say that they shouldn't have tried to solve the issue of religious oppression in Afghanistan. I was simply pointing out that you could hardly call what was tried a solution. The article points out contradictory statements within their constitution: one which condones the state-ordered murder of Islamic converts, and another which creates a "free-dumb of religion." That particular solution should never have been adopted because it's not a solution at all. It's stupid. It is blatantly so. And when you do blatantly stupid things to a nation's constitution, particularly the parts about relgious freedom, expect people to call you "stupid".

The constitutions of India, China, and the Czech Republic weren't co-written by America, so the fact that religious oppression exists there isn't too big of a shocker--moreso an identificatoin of the obvious.

I didn't expect the situation in Afghanistan to be perfect after we, so kindly, meddled in their affairs. But, with the faith I have in our democracy, and the liberty we claim to proliferate, I do expect the basic constructs we try to impose (freedom of relgion, speech, assembly, trial, etc.) should work and should NOT contradict itself in the nations foundational governing body (their constitution).

There was no implication that "Bush did it for oil!" I just said that after the new National Assembly of Afghanistan was inaugurated on December 19. 2005, Afghanistan finally approved construction for the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline one week later, of which a major portion of the service contract was already held by Halliburton.

Chuck Wade said...

Yet another instance of this administration showing us how completely inept they are. Clearly Secretary Rice has no concept of democracy, neither the Bush administration seeking to help this young democracy thrive. DOWN WITH BUSH!!!

My personal favorite line: "“We have raised it in the strongest possible terms to make clear that it is our great hope and desire that Afghanistan will reaffirm what is already in its constitution, that the universal declaration on human rights will be respected, and that this will be resolved in a way that is consistent with those principles," Rice said."

But you're right, we did get that pipeline up pretty fast in one of our nation's largest contributors of oil... by the way, what does your car run on? 'cause mine runs on gasoline for now.

The Cobra said...

That a very promising article, displaying hope that diplomacy, at least at some level, isn't dead to the United States.

The Cobra said...


First of all, what I find bizarre, is that, according to page two of this article, he hasn't even been charged yet. Very peculiar.

The article also points out how he came to be in custody -- his family ratted him out. That says many disturbing things to me about Islamic culture, specifically, that they would have their brother's and son's killed for walking away from the family's religious beliefs thus making him a martyr for Christians. In a religion that holds its martyrs in such high esteem, almost worshiping them, and certainly kissing their image, why would they offer up such a powerful symbol of faith to those which, as they claim, are the enemy?

I would, lastly, like to point out what I see as the cornerstone for the violence, particularly of the religious sort, in the middle east. Since the election of Hamas, the rising civil war in Iraq, the central issue of religion and its role in government, and now this case with Rahman, it has become increasingly more evident that a religious theocracy is what these people want. They claim to like democracy, because it gives them some semblance of "power" and a "voice" in political affairs but when it comes down to it, they very much want their god to be the cornerstone of not only their nation, its policies and laws, but, most importantly, its constitution.

This whole situation is a bit of a sticky wicket.

Chuck Wade said...

Actually you may be surprised about the "strong family values" of the religion of peace. Most often it is the family of the converted Christian who "turn them in". The family is legally allowed to beat the new convert into submission back to Islam, and even if they kill them there is no law against it (in fact the law tends to be on their side). Islam is a horribly oppressive and terribly violent religion, and those who say differently are either liars or fools.

Your theocracy comment is very interesting and probably true. The unfortunate side to that is that everyone wants their religion to be the dominant one... that doesn't work for me. So the idea of a theocracy in a world with 6 billion people in it, doesn't seem like the most logical option, but I think that you're right and for the most part that is what we want.

The Cobra said...

***More Free-dumb***

While this article brings up some very promising points such as:

"He is likely to be released soon,"


"Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper...said he telephoned Karzai to express concern about a possible execution and 'he conveyed to me that we don't have to worry about any such eventual outcome.'"

This article: not so much.

Especially this part:

"...the Muslim people of Afghanistan would consider struggle their legal and religious duty"

"'We respect all religions, but we don't go into the British embassy or the American embassy to see what religion they are following,'"

The World Responds

"If we can't guarantee fundamental religious freedoms in the countries where we establish democratic reforms, then the whole credibility of our foreign policy is thrown into serious question."

"The case is more than deeply troubling, it's barbaric...If Afghanistan wants to return to the Taliban days, it can do so without the help of the United States."

Sanctuary in Court

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die"

If he is released, will he survive the walk to his car or will he be lynched in the streets? You can't call these Islams "extremists." Their really just plain-old fundamentalists. We have a slew of Christian Fundies in America. We sometimes say that it is the fundamentalists who say God hates fags, but those are Christian Extremists who make the rest look bad. It is the Islamic fundamentalist who says "God hates ______" and then fill in whatever person, act, belief, country, or boutique you wish.

Does Islam honestly believe that they are the hands and feet of God and as such they should use that duty to kill? What happened to nurturing the fallen or the wayward? If you kill them, they go straight to Hell, or whatever Islam's equivalent is. If you, instead, make a commitment to "saving" this man then you have not extinguished the hope that someday he may come "home" again.

But I think Islam believes in that whole "unforgiveable sin" nonsense. So much for the power of their God hmm?

Chuck Wade said...

Uh-oh it looks like America and the Bush administration can make a difference. Maybe America and democracy aren't quite the evils that you would like them to be?

*For those too busy to look at the link, the title is: "Afghan court drops case against Christian"*

The story was also found on Drudge, which I know is not quite the stalwart of unbiased news that you may get from CNN or one of the other liberal favorites

The Cobra said...

The title I read was "Afghan Christian Should Be Released Soon"

Interesting Quote:

"There will be big protests across Afghanistan," said Faiez Mohammed, a Sunni Muslim leader in the northern city of Kunduz. "This has shamed Afghanistan in the eyes of other Muslim countries."

I think that none would argue that the Bush Administration "makes a difference."

I do not want America nor democracy to be evil. I think it is evident in the tone of my blogging that my criticisms of each are an attempt to make them both see their own image reflected. My perspective is from a point which seeks to hold accountable each, in whatever trite manner I might contrive, which, no matter how eloquent, will not "make a difference" in either.