|
Grex > Agora56 > #178: Afghan man faces death for converting to Christianity | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 32 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 2 of 32:
| 
Mar 20 20:09 UTC 2006 |
Not given the evidence of #0, it wouldn't.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 32:
|
Mar 20 20:29 UTC 2006 |
At least not in this regard. Women are now able to be educated and do much
more, but they also could not quit Islam without possible consequences.
This is going to be a real stumbling block to non-sectarian democracy
nearly everywhere in the Islamic countries.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 4 of 32:
|
Mar 20 20:49 UTC 2006 |
> Trial judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah told the BBC that Mr Rahman, 41,
> would be asked to reconsider his conversion, which he made while
> working for a Christian aid group in Pakistan.
>
> "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of
> tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will
> forgive him," the judge told the BBC on Monday.
>
> But if he refused to reconvert, then his mental state would be
> considered first before he was dealt with under Sharia law, the judge
> added.
I really do not believe the United States should support such a
government.
Of course, this totally blows away several leftist's assertions that we
are instituting an Americanized-Democracy over there.
|
klg
|
|
response 5 of 32:
|
Mar 20 20:52 UTC 2006 |
Name one democracy that started out perfect and did not have
significant "stumbling blocks?"
|
nharmon
|
|
response 6 of 32:
|
Mar 20 20:55 UTC 2006 |
Commonwealth of The Bahamas.
Would you like me to name more?
|
twenex
|
|
response 7 of 32:
|
Mar 20 20:56 UTC 2006 |
COTB started out as a colony.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 8 of 32:
|
Mar 20 21:00 UTC 2006 |
I'm sorry, but nearly all of the world was at one time a colony. I
don't really think it matters. As a democracy, The Bahamas started out
quite well, and did not have any significant "stumbling blocks".
Here is two more: Greenland and Iceland.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 9 of 32:
|
Mar 20 21:07 UTC 2006 |
I'm a little surprised that klg doesn't consider the USA to have started
out perfect.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 10 of 32:
|
Mar 20 21:08 UTC 2006 |
I've found two more: The Federated States of Micronesia, and The
Republic of the Marshall Islands.
|
cross
|
|
response 11 of 32:
|
Mar 20 22:55 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 12 of 32:
|
Mar 21 00:06 UTC 2006 |
re #0, it says we haven't achieved much so far. The new Iraqi
constitution says that the new government can't make laws that conflict
with islamic law. We aren't creating a democracy there, we are
creating a "democracy within a theocracy" I don't think you can have a
true democracy without having at its core the basic freedoms of speech
and religion. These freedoms are difficult to enforce on people who
have never really had, nor have any conception of, freedom of
church/temple/mosque and state. your item says we didnt change things
much in Afghanistan, and we likely won't change things much in iraq.
|
tod
|
|
response 13 of 32:
|
Mar 21 00:28 UTC 2006 |
re #0
As we labor to install "democracies" throughout the middle east and
south Asia, what does Rahman's case say about what we've achieved so far?
Freedom of speech is alive and well?
I dunno...
What can you say about a country that we sold SAMs to in the 80's and that
harbored Usama all under our watchful eyes? I'd say that while we might be
making options available through democratic means it doesn't mean a whole
country is going to change its culture to embrace Jesus as its deity. Nor
does it mean they will stop wearing burkhas or reading Q'ran. All a person
has to do is take a look at how the USA messed up Native Americans with the
missionary "freedoms" to see that maybe its not something to jump into.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 14 of 32:
|
Mar 21 00:56 UTC 2006 |
Given that some in the US would like to move the country in a more theocratic
direction, excuse me while I care more about what goes on here at home.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 32:
|
Mar 21 02:06 UTC 2006 |
Re #4: excuse me? "leftist's assertions that we are instituting an
Americanized-Democracy over there"? You must have gone through the looking
glass last night: only the raving *rightists* have been asserting we are
"instituting an Americanized-Democracy over there". But we aren't, and
never have been. It's all rightist blather.
|
twenex
|
|
response 16 of 32:
|
Mar 21 11:57 UTC 2006 |
Indeed.
|
klg
|
|
response 17 of 32:
|
Mar 21 12:02 UTC 2006 |
According to the CIA, the Bahamas refuses to accept refugees who are
fleeing Haiti and it serves as transshipment point for illegal drungs.
Also the newspaper there reports that the government "police cadets,
fully regaled in their military uniforms" participated in
the "Baptismal Parade" held on Sunday, 3/19 - an event clearly designed
to spread and encourage religion among the general population of the
nation.
I confess that I do not know very much about the Bahamas, but it took
me just a couple of minutes to find these items. What would I have
found if I had really dug? You folks find this a perfect country?
|
twenex
|
|
response 18 of 32:
|
Mar 21 12:36 UTC 2006 |
it serves as transshipment point for illegal drungs.
Sounds like the UK. Oh, and the US...
|
twenex
|
|
response 19 of 32:
|
Mar 21 12:38 UTC 2006 |
Klg's your typical blind "patriot". Every other country is wrong no matter
what it does, and his country is right no matter how fucked up he helps make
it.
And people wonder why patriotism gets a bad name.
|
cross
|
|
response 20 of 32:
|
Mar 21 15:48 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 32:
|
Mar 21 17:20 UTC 2006 |
Cross won't make any attempt to present an intelligent response when he
can make a disparaging remark or insult.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 32:
|
Mar 21 19:14 UTC 2006 |
Sounds like you....
|
twenex
|
|
response 23 of 32:
|
Mar 21 19:15 UTC 2006 |
rotflmao.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 32:
|
Mar 23 21:36 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:1: We seem to have replaced one authoritarian religious
government with another authoritarian religious government. I suppose
it's better in that, like Iran, it pretends to be democratic, but
that's a pretty minor improvement. The fact is, though, we went into
Afghanistan for revenge and to break up Al Queda, not to improve the
lot of people there -- so at least no one can say we tried to do that
and failed.
Re resp:3: On the other hand, women in Iraq now have fewer rights under
the new, more Islamist government than they did under Saddam's secular
government. That's not saying that the people there are worse off
overall with Saddam gone, but regime change there has certainly not
been an unmitigated benefit.
I understand why we went into Afghanistan. I'm not sure I understand
why we went into Iraq. That makes the situation there more troubling
to me. Almost 90% of troops there believe that we went into Iraq to
avenge 9/11, but that says more about what kind of propaganda our
soldiers are fed than our real reasons, I think.
|
tod
|
|
response 25 of 32:
|
Mar 23 21:44 UTC 2006 |
I hope they chop the dude's head off.
|
klg
|
|
response 26 of 32:
|
Mar 24 03:14 UTC 2006 |
Note that Broadbeck, of course, did not cite any evidence supporting his
claims.
|