Tuesday, March 21, 2006


Sometime soon I will share (much to Ben's delight) some regrets I now have about the way we went to war in Iraq. But for now, let me just ask, didn't we go to war in Afghanistan to stop crap like this?


Myles said...

as much as democracy does right, the flaw is that it ultimately is the rule of the people. and if the people democratically decide that Islam should be the law, the U.S. can't say much about it without looking like a total hypocrite. See Iran and the recent Iraq elections for further examples of more of the same. When the people decide they want Islamic law, what can you do?

Bean said...

Praise God for a heart that loves Christ more than life. This makes me reflect on my own "trials" with great humility-for they are nothing compared to his.

The Table Guy said...

"Rahman's case illustrates a split over the interpretation of the Afghan constitution, which calls for religious freedom while stating that Muslims who reject Islam can be executed"

What a contradiction.

jenA said...

to your question, Craig, my answer is no.
On its face, that was not why we went.
I say no because we have been brought up in a democratic society, under a supposed democratic government.
But our First Amendment, which includes freedom of religion and freedom from government sponsorship of religion, could not have been born naturally of any and all democratic rule.
I don't doubt there are "democratic" societies that govern without these specific freedoms, because the 'people' are fine without them.
I agree with Myles here. Democracy is a people-driven political system. If the people want Islam to dictate their social and government structure, so be it.
Americans don't like religious oppression. The French don't, either. But look how each nation deals with it.
And, just for some additional reading, I found the Wikipedia def of democracy interesting:

Democracy (from Greek ?????????? (demokratia), ????? (demos) the common people + ??????? (kratein) to rule + the suffix ?? (ia), literally "the common people rule") is a system where the population of a society controls the government. It may be narrowly defined as that of nation-state government specifically, or more broadly to describe a society as a whole, which can also exert political power and social power.
Democratic government aspires to serve under "the people" rather than ruling over them. This ideal is pursued by implementing some form of a voting system, usually involving indirect representation. It shares links with the concept of a republic.
Democratic governments may be "liberal", where fundamental rights of individuals in the minority are protected by law, or they may be "illiberal" where they are not.

Carn-Dog said...


My blog is all white and no blog today. Anyone know why?