Young Writers Society

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html ...Not the best link for the news, but manageable.

Anyone else noticed the story? A fellow in Afghanistan converts to Christianity, and is dragged in for capital punishment for the former "crime". It's bloody well Nero-esqe. But the odd thing seemed to be relatively lukewarm response of Western nations. This is basic human rights; and yet what do we hear from the UN? Nothing that I've seen.

Have I missed the outraged response? Or is it really so absent?

I have never actually met a middle easterner, who was born into muslim, who has converted.
This is odd... I am really not the one for religion, I believe people can choose their own... but that's insane...
UN does nothing? No surprise.... what have they done to keep peace lately....

Bush was all up in arms about it. Which kind of pisses me off, because this isn't the first time this has happened in Afghanistan since we've liberated the place, but it is the first time its been about christianity.

Afghanistan said that if they didn't kill him, that they would have to give him up, and that the people would 'rip him apart.'

It is the law in Afghanistan, and it isn't really our place to change it. As I understand it, its considered a hellworthy sin in Islam to convert from Islam. Evan to Christianity or Judaism, which as I understand it are still kind of ok in the quaran. (koran? q'ran?)

Its not like we go to Jamaica and tell the rastas to stop smoking pot.

It happens to be a matter of basic decency, and human rights. We as the West may not have the brazen freedom to stomp over people's traditions, nor to tell them precisely how to run their country. But I do believe we have a responsibility to guard where we can (in influence at least) the lives and dignities of our fellow human beings. If this man were being exiled, it would be a different matter. Let's grant that a sovereign state may, if they wish, make a state religion in which all must participate (tenuous, even that); but no goverment has the right to kill a citizen over his choice of religion. That is an abuse of autonomy - and power.

Both sides of the coin can be argued. While we believe in freedom of religion, there is obviously a majority in that country who don't. The question is, do we have a right interfere in their sovereign country's judicial process?

Don't forget that human rights are basically socially constructed: just because people sign a piece of paper saying they believe everyone has certain privilages assigned to them doesn't make it true. I could (and Nietzsche did) just as easily argue that the only rights you have are what you are able to fight to keep. If you are weak, that gives other people a right to use you how they like.

Of course, Afghanistan's constitution says that people have the right to follow whatever religion they like, oddly enough. Unfortunately, it also says that Islamic law must be followed. Stupid lawmakers? Well, yes. Tell me what's new.

Personally, I believe in human rights: the point is, do[es] I/we/my country have the right to force that belief onto other sovereign, self-contained countries? The UN Charter says no; the Coalition masks its 'yes' by claiming issues of security - really, we have to make a choice between letting atrocities unfold as they will on the one hand, and honestly admitting that we're out to change the world into a better place on the other. Now, it's a very arrogant ethnocentric western white-mans-burden neo-Nietzschean view, but I personally think we should get out there and export some civilization.

That's all.

Ok, I believe in human rights and I certainly think that what happened was atrocious, especially as Christianity and Judaism are partially accepted in Islam. However, I do not think that anyone has the right to invade another country in order to enforce their own values and beliefs on others. Isnt that exactly what the Afghans did to that man, but on a much larger much more devestating scale?

since we've liberated the place

I have to object to that statement. There was a brutal invasion, in which many thousands died. There was extreme disorder, choas and despair as a result. There was no liberating as such.

JigSaw wrote:There was a brutal invasion, in which many thousands died. There was extreme disorder, choas and despair as a result.

Assuming that's taken as such, the fact that there was disorder and people died says nothing about whether the country was liberated. Freedom has never come easily, rarely without bloodshed. But you've started with the presupposition that the United States invaded to impose their own values and beliefs. They went in to root out terrorists, and to liberate those who asked. No one was freeunder the Taliban. Firstly, there's the possibility that some 'values' and beliefs are more just or more natural. So are murderers not to be imposed upon to stop murdering?

War is never, ought never to be the first choice. I agree wholly that invading another country should be in extremity. But not that the struggle in Afghanistan is in the least comparable to sentencing a man for conversion to another religion - especially when their own constitution protects him.

Even though the man got off, he's still going to die. I smell a lynching.

there's the possibility that some 'values' and beliefs are more just or more natural. So are murderers not to be imposed upon to stop murdering?

It's an example that's used a lot, but it doesn't entirely fit the bill.

People in society are subject to an unwritten social contract: if you're going to take benefits from society (healthcare, welfare, protection by police/army, even roads and suchlike) then you have to be prepared to abide by the laws of society. If you choose not to obey those laws, then you are a criminal and will be treated as such - if you don't want to obey the laws, but also don't want to be a criminal, then you have the choice to opt out of society, meaning you either move somewhere else, or you commit suicide.

That's the basis behind why we infringe upon murderer's rights to stop them murdering - because they're trying to stay in society and take from it without accepting the laws that come with that, society (and therefore those appointed to dispense justice) has a right to take away freedoms and privilages. However, that doesn't hold true for another country - just because we don't like what they're doing doesn't mean we have any hold over them, because there is no social contract for the international community. As can be seen by the groundswell of popular support, this action has the mandate of the people in that country, making it all the more justified.

I'm a neo-Nietzschean, so I don't have any of these ethical problems: I just say go in there and impose a better way of life to your hearts content. But at least admit that's what you're doing.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that this happened in a predominately Muslim country...

This is not right, you should be allowed to give up your religion if you feel it's not for you. Not get the death sentence for changing.

Poor_Imp wrote:No one was freeunder the Taliban.

The Taliban didn't rule. They are a terrorist group (or freedom fighters, depending on your point of view).


Anyways, on the actual issue... I'm torn. On one hand, I feel it is wrong to kill a man over his belief system. On the other hand, I don't know what it's like out there.

If this were to be happening in England (or anywhere else in the Western world) then I would object. But the East is alien to me (although I have every intention of visiting it in my life time).

So are murderers not to be imposed upon to stop murdering?

Converting is a sin. Punishable by death. Murder of the soul is still murder.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that this happened in a predominately Muslim country...

You are aware that western countries, especially the British Isles, did this sory of thing all the time. It was standard operating procedure for hundreds of years. I am constantly confused by the American mind-set. Punishing one for one's sexual preference is no different than punishing one for one's religios beliefs.

K wrote:Punishing one for one's sexual preference is no different than punishing one for one's religios beliefs.

Just as a note - no one is punished for their sexual preference in the West/United States. They are/have been punished for their behaviour.

You are aware that western countries, especially the British Isles, did this sory of thing all the time. It was standard operating procedure for hundreds of years.

Of course we're aware that Western countries have been unjust in the past. And yet it is still injustice. I think that you're right that religion is deadly serious; conversion, belief - the life of the soul. But in the end faith, morality - truth cannot be forced on anyone. If a man is forced to remain Muslim, under threat of death, he is not a true Muslim. He can be just as dead, soul-wise, under such a system.

Funny, denying someone the right to marry another seems kind of like a punishment to me. Or women, perhaps, are punished for being old, or heavy, or unattractive. It may not be a formalized punishment, but your citizens are terrified to be themselves. I see no difference.

The West's insistence that their way is best infuriates me. Your president is only upset because he himself is a christian. The Law is the Law. It is not, nor will it ever be, your place to decide what is right for us.