Some Democracy!

Afghan Case Highlights Debate Over Religious Freedom

I guess democracy can mean different things to different people, but I don't see much sense in declarinig a government democratic if it is not going to uphold the principle of religious tolerance. Alternatively, if religious tolerance is not a facet of democracy, then democracy is not the goal for which to strive.

It looks like this individual, Abdul Rahman, will be spared because of the international outcry over his trial. However, how many of these types of cases are lurking below the surface? If the number is substantial, we are doing a great disservice by upholding Afghanistan as a democratic country while it practicies such undemocratic procedures as trying and executing converts away from Islam.

I just finished reading Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", which is his play about the Salem witch-hunts. The play is a powerful polemic against religious intolerance, and extremely relevant to what is happening in the world today.

Comments

Sean Meade said…
for starters, let's just get the missing 'c' in the title out of the way ;-)

part of what Tom says is that good democracy requires good markets. we hook 'em up to global economics and let'er rip. i can't think of an instance where good markets have not led to 'liberalization' (in the classic sense) over time.

so, i disagree that we are doing Afghanistan a disservice. if we stick with it, and help make that country safe for globalization/capitalism, the tolerance will come.

another good thing about this situation and the rest of the Middle East, including the Hamas election, is it shortens the 'product cycle'. now Hamas is responsible to their populace for more than killing Israelis. let's see how they do on administering sanitation (for example). same with Afghanistan: make the Islamists responsible, keep connecting the economies, turn up the churn.

overthrowing the Taliban in no disservice to anyone when it comes to religious tolerance!

give capitalism a chance! ;-) the smart money says if you get their standard of living up a little, Afghanis will sell out (to security and income and education and a rising middle class, etc.) like so many before them have.
8:43 AM
Eric said…
This is good feedback, Sean. And, I'll fix that missing c. Dang!

I'd like to think about this a little bit and then respond, so look for a new post or an e-mail from me, because I find the 'capitalism leads to liberalization cause/effect question/theory' quite interesting.
9:26 PM
Sean Meade said…
cool. i'll stand by. email me with thoughts/questions.
7:45 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An
Read more