Democracy
This whole business about the Christian Abdul in Afghanistan has got me thinking a lot about the nature of the type of democracy that the US is trying to support. Although I think that killing someone for their beliefs is cruel and inhuman, it did make me wonder if this was just one more example of hypocrisy. We ostensibly fight wars to give people the right to make decisions over their own lives. But when they make decisions we don't like, it's not okay - or example with the Hamas election victory, we're not pleased when these decisions lead to outcomes that go against our interests.
This case is different. And yet, it still raises questions. If say the court wasn't to kill Abdul but simply to jail him, would we seriously have the moral authority to complain about such a decision. In this case, the argument goes that there is an inviolable human right that's being violated. But if we can be abstract for a moment, consider this: From the governance perspective, laws maintain order in a society. In a democracy in particular, laws reflect the norms and mores that a society agrees upon (in an ideal situation). Now, if in their society, there was consensus that by becoming christian, he posed a threat to a way of life that the majority of people have chosen, don't they have a right to expel him?
I'm not trying to argue that this situation is either right or wrong, but the principle of choice is being violated here. We have examples of that at home. I've been watching Big Love and it's as enticing as it is gross. But what I'm saying is that these people and their way of life is illegal in the US. Aside from those 80 year olds that marry 12 year olds on compounds, there are people that make that choice. It's not the same as killing them for being polygamists, but it is the same sort of human rights infringement. Our response to claims that it's also a human right's violation is that these polygamists undermine the norm of the family which in turn undermines society. As a democratic society, we have a right to defend certain beliefs not on any irrefutable, air-tight scientific logical basis but on the basis of consensus that something is just not right. Will we give other people that right as well?
This case is different. And yet, it still raises questions. If say the court wasn't to kill Abdul but simply to jail him, would we seriously have the moral authority to complain about such a decision. In this case, the argument goes that there is an inviolable human right that's being violated. But if we can be abstract for a moment, consider this: From the governance perspective, laws maintain order in a society. In a democracy in particular, laws reflect the norms and mores that a society agrees upon (in an ideal situation). Now, if in their society, there was consensus that by becoming christian, he posed a threat to a way of life that the majority of people have chosen, don't they have a right to expel him?
I'm not trying to argue that this situation is either right or wrong, but the principle of choice is being violated here. We have examples of that at home. I've been watching Big Love and it's as enticing as it is gross. But what I'm saying is that these people and their way of life is illegal in the US. Aside from those 80 year olds that marry 12 year olds on compounds, there are people that make that choice. It's not the same as killing them for being polygamists, but it is the same sort of human rights infringement. Our response to claims that it's also a human right's violation is that these polygamists undermine the norm of the family which in turn undermines society. As a democratic society, we have a right to defend certain beliefs not on any irrefutable, air-tight scientific logical basis but on the basis of consensus that something is just not right. Will we give other people that right as well?
posted by periwinky at 7:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home