March 22, 2006

Tolerating Intolerance?

Abdul Rahman is an Afghan facing the death penalty because he is a Christian, and so far the U.S. has not taken a public stand opposing that outcome. Here's a sample from Michelle Malkin's column:

This is a watershed moment in the post-Sept. 11 world. The Taliban are out of power. And yet today, an innocent man sits in the jail of a "moderate" Muslim nation praying for his life because he owned a Bible and refuses to renounce his Christian faith...

Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council raises the unpleasant question Bush evaded and no one in the White House press corps bothered to ask: "How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians?...President Bush should immediately send Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rice to Kabul to read [Afghan President] Hamid Karzai's government the riot act. Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Democracy is more than purple thumbs."

Watershed is the right word, it seems to me. If this precedent is permitted, do they go right back to public stoning of gays and strict gender apartheid? And if so, has there been any real "liberation" from murderous theocracy?

Related:

Andy McCarthy in The Corner

Andrew G. Bostom at FPM

UPDATE 3/23: NRO editorial.

UPDATE 3/23: I was not aware when I wrote the above post that the State Department's Nicholas Burns did make a statement yesterday that "the Afghan constitution guarantees religious liberty, and therefore Rahman shouldn't be punished for his conversion." One hopes the President can make the case a bit more forcefully in private...with all due respect for Afghan sovereignty, of course.

Posted by dan at March 22, 2006 10:20 PM