The Ugly Side of Freedom and Democracy.

By Mark David Blum

When you give people the right to vote and the right to express themselves and to pursue their own paths, among those paths they may WISH to choose for themselves are the ways of authoritarianism and oppression and live under strict codes and rules of behavior.

How much can we complain if the People of Afghanistan choose through their elected leadership, a set of laws and behaviors (Sharia) that they accept but which we find morally offensive?

Do we have the right to do anything more than express ourselves? Can we enforce our paradigms and belief systems upon others?

Yes, it is a Christian under the gun this time and the entire Western world is aflame. Is the World Wide Christian Community willing to throw open its' doors to the same scrutiny as it is applying to Islam? Arguably, their stances on birth control, gay marriage, AIDS and sexuality, and covering up pedophilia is just as dangerous and harmful. Oh, and is it just me or does anybody else remember a time when Christians would burn, torture, torment, maim, murder, and commit mayhem upon anybody who did not follow their WAY? The crucifix is not a symbol of love and peace to everybody.

What the Muslims are doing to Mr. Rahman is deplorable, despicable, indefensible, and undeniably outside the realm of modern tolerable behavior. It is patently wrong and offensive. I query whether our outrage is because of the actions or because they are Muslim or Arab? Would we, as Americans ever take issue with a 'Christian Country' that is behaving in such an "uncivilized" manner? What do we do when the Chinese execute prisoners for their religious beliefs (and sell their organs on the open market)?

Behaviors legal here in the United States do not insulate Americans from the laws and codes of other nations. Hypothetically, would our opinion change if Mr. Rahman was born an American Muslim and converted and was now subject to Afghani law?

We have to respect the laws of Afghanistan; though mold them we might attempt. The decision ultimately, is theirs ... unless of course, we are willing to invite other nations to come barging into our homes and tell us how to treat our citizens. (They may not be able to do it with bombs, but they can surely do it with economics).

I still maintain my continuing thesis that the debates, disputes, and worldwide conflagurations going on at this point in history are all based on a single premise ... the ideas and ways of the prophets and religion and mysticism and of the first two millenia .... have come into conflict with the new realities of the 21st Century. With technology, science, and enlightenment, the world is reaching out toward Mr. Adams' dream. Indeed it is the apocalypse for old school religions that do not modify and change with the times.

Those who insist on holding onto the soothsayers and ancient writings are the weights shackled around the ankles of modern man. They are the real enemy at war with itself. Presently, regardless of the religion, religionists are at war amongst themselves as to which of them has ownership of the real 'truth'. After they sort that out, they will come after modernity itself.

But, in the interests of having our own democracy and freedom and the right to have our own say in our own nation, we should be very careful in how far we tread to save Mr. Rahman.