The Case Against 'Technicality' Dismissal of Charges Against Amiri

Just posted on Election Predictions ( http://electionpredictions.blogspot.com ) and I thought it was very interesting. I did not write this, this is the work of siteowner Tom:

Many of you are already familiar with the ongoing development of the case of Zamari Amiri, an Afghani Muslim who converted to Christianity over a decade ago. The case brought against him, based on Aghan Islamic law, threatens to plunge the nation back under the strict rule of Muslim fundamentalists. The sentence for converting from Islam according to Islamic law (as believed by religious extremists) is death. "The Associated Press reported the court dismissed the case against a man who converted from Islam to Christianity because of a lack of evidence and he will be released soon, officials said." Muslim leaders in Afghanistan have warned the government of possible uprisings if Zamari Amiri is released. The already fragile government is teetering on the balance of falling back under harsh Islamic law or standing up and defending democratic principles and individual rights. Zamari Amiri should not be released due to a 'lack of evidence' or 'legal holes' or any 'technicalities'. The people of Afghanistan and of the world are watching the decision of the government. To dismiss the case for one of the aforementioned reasons is to give in to religious extremists. The Afghani government should not be looking for a way to retreat from the situation. The government should dismiss the case because every individual has the right to practice religious freedom. By refusing to acknowledge that principle, the government is telling its people that it is acceptable for someone to be criminally persecuted by religious fundamentalists because of a deviation from Islamic beliefs. What if another convert is brought to court and there is ample evidence to convict them? The government has placed itself in a precarious position by backing down. If converting from Islam is justification for prosecution by the government, surely lesser crimes are fair game as well. Does this mean that missing one of the daily prayers can land you in jail? For example, should the Catholic Church be able to have the government prosecute me for failing to attend Mass? Should the Catholic Church be able to have the government prosecute a non-Catholic for failing to attend Mass? While the government did prevent Zamari Amiri from receiving the death sentence, the manner in which the government acted is contrary to the principles of democracy and freedom that the United States fought a war to establish. Karzai must recognize the true reason the case against Zamari must be dismissed in order to tell the Afghani people that religious freedom is tantamount to achieving democracy and stability.

Please feel free to discuss.

it's not a question of freedom of religion, it's a question of separation of Church and State. Which is not the same thing. There are plenty of countries with freedom of religion and non-separation of Church and State. Which leads to problems sooner or later, even if the problems don't go to the level of death or not.

A country can be fully democratic and stable and still have death penalty for for example blasphemy. After all if the vast majority in a very legal and controlled procedure decides that it is right, well it's legal. US fundies would love that. Or condemning gays, same stuff...

a true separation of Church and State says that religion is a PRIVATE matter and CANNOT interfere in legal procedures. That makes impossible for example to give tax-deductions to cults. And nobody can be prosecuted for a RELIGIOUS matter. It means if somebody is peeing in public on a picture of the Pope, he'll be prosecuted because of indecent exposure but not for the picture's contents.

Obviously many US-citizens are very confused about this issue. That's why they don't understand the legislation in some European countries, specially France... or even Turkey !

I completely disagree with you. He make's the case that religious groups should not be able to use the government to persecute people who deviate from fundamentalist beliefs. The questions of religious freedom or separation of Church and State are the same thing. If someone has the ability to practice religion free from government, Church and State are separated. In order for Church and State to be separated there must be religious freedom. Freedom of religion is my ability to convert to Judaism if I so choose. If someone is free to practice religious freedom than they are free from the government telling them they need to follow Islamic rule.

because they are diffrent processes. Exactly for similar reasons people mix republic and democracy (which is an often employed rightwing/libertarian "argument" to justify non-democratic processes), when the two concepts have nothing to do with eachother.

Of course freedom of religion leads often to separation of Church and State. But it's not always the case. The UK has no separation of Church and State, but freedom of religion. Sweden has recently separated, but since they had state officials that were priests (state religion), some of them in the 90s refused to ordinate womenpriests thus violating other secular laws of non-discrimination. The guys were in an impossible seat : they had as civil-servants to enforce a law going against their beliefs. At the same time it was perfectly legal in Sweden to convert to any religion. There are several examples of the same kind in other European countries

So my reasoning is still valid. The separation of Church and State in the US isn't completely clear, because it's ONLY named as an expression of freedom of religion in the Constitution. Which leaves the door open to plenty of loopholes that the fundies use. For example Mormons claim that the 1st amendment would be violated if inquiries of molestation of children are made in Churches. http://www.mormonstoday.com/000820/NGeneral.shtml. And I'll skip presidential oaths, public monuments, prayers in schools etc... which all together are a monumental attack against the very principle of separation of Church and State.

I quote : "that religious groups should not be able to use the government to persecute people who deviate from fundamentalist beliefs." Very nice....

from ANY belief, it should stand. It should not even come into question. Religion is a PRIVATE matter. Which doesn't mean that people can't have the right to have churches or do whatever they want EXCEPT if that goes against secular laws. The State must protect and enforce that right to practise a religion or not to. But religion can't never be a legal motive to justify an otherwise illegal action.

So democracy is a system that implies rights. One of these is freedom of religion. But without a clearly formulated principle of NON-NEGOTIABLE secularity and separation of Church and State inwritten in a constitution and applied consequentlty througout all legislation, that right will be rapidly eroded...

and it's exactly what's happening in the US today...