National Review Online published a good editorial yesterday about the case of Abdul Rahman, a man who is facing trial and possible execution in Afghanistan simply for converting from Islam to Christianity. The opener:

We should have no illusions that Afghanistan - in many ways the backwater of the Islamic world - will soon embrace Western-style religious pluralism. But the trial of Abdul Rahman, who faces a potential death sentence for converting to Christianity some 15 years ago, is an affront to civilization. If there is always a balancing act between accommodating the religious beliefs of a traditional society like Afghanistan and coaxing it toward reform, the Rahman case is not a close call - killing or jailing someone for his religious beliefs is always wrong, and is especially galling in a country so dependent on American military forces and aid.

We only have one minor quibble with the editorial. The Editors at NRO said:

Yesterday, the State Department's Nicholas Burns adopted the right tone and substantive position when asked about the case by reporters.

That is mostly correct, however, there was some wishy-washy diplomacy-speak that could have been avoided. Mr. Burns said, in part:

"While we understand the complexity of the case and certainly respect the sovereignty of the Afghan authorities, from an American point of view, people should be free to choose their religion and should not suffer any severe penalties, certainly not death, for having made a personal choice as to what religion to follow," he said.

There is no complexity at all to the case. And we do not respect the sovereignty of the Afghan government when they contemplate murdering one of their citizens. We did not spend American blood and treasure in order to replace one barbaric regime with another. No one should be threatened with execution for choosing a different religion, period. Especially not by a government that owes its existence to the great sacrifice of American and allied troops.

The important thing is for Mr. Rahman's life to be preserved. But it would be so much better if the new Afghan government overtly rejected the very idea that one of their citizens should be executed or even tried for converting to Christianity. We hope the U.S government is saving the soft talk for it's public statements and leaning very hard on the Afghans behind the scenes.

A good summation from Ed Morrissey:

All due respect to Karzai's delicate position, allowing a Taliban appointee to murder a man simply for his profession of faith is simply unacceptable, and the US should register that message at a pay grade higher than that of Nicholas Burns. Karzai should hear this directly from George Bush, and he should understand that Karzai will suffer direct consequences if Rahman's persecution continues. The American people will not support efforts to prop up the Afghanistan democracy if it results in the execution of Christians for just being Christian; we will rightly ask whether we achieved anything in replacing the Taliban with Karzai's government. The new Afghan constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and if the Afghans do not adhere to this clause, then the whole document is unreliable.

We performed a marvelous mission in Afghanistan by liberating 24 million people from brutal oppression and dismantling the terrorist network that operated openly under Osama bin Laden. We can consider that much a success and a necessity in the war on terror. We do not need to support a government that wishes to impose another flavor of radical shari'a in order to justify that mission. Karzai needs to know that, and know it now.

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy, also writing for NRO, says we should have known this sort of thing was going to occur:

You reap what you sow. What is happening in Afghanistan (and in Iraq) is precisely what we bought on to when we actively participated in the drafting of constitutions which - in a manner antithetical to the development of true democracy - ignored the imperative to insulate the civil authority from the religious authority, installed Islam as the state religion, made sharia a dominant force in law, and expressly required that judges be trained in Islamic jurisprudence. To have done all those things makes outrage at today's natural consequences ring hollow.

Others:
Michelle Malkin
California Conservative
RCP blog