An Afghan Christian facing possible execution for converting from Islam was likely to be released from jail “soon,” a senior government official said following huge Western pressure over the case.
“He is likely to be released soon,” the official said, adding there would be a top-level meeting on the matter Saturday.
Abdul Rahman was arrested two weeks ago under Islamic Sharia law and faced a possible death sentence in a case that has attracted widespread condemnation, especially from the United States.
If this comes to pass, then we can be satisfied that the series of events has transpired as it should – diplomacy and international pressure will have resulted in an innocent life saved.
I do not join with those, however, who have called for a withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan should the efforts to have Rahman freed fail. As much as I am troubled by the details of the case, I’m no more so than I have been by reports of corruption, honour killings, human rights abuses or any number of injustices perpetrated under, or tolerated by, regimes that enjoy various types of Canadian military and/or foreign aid. If the Rahman case is justification to pull Canadian troops from the theatre – in a country that was used as safe haven and launch point for Islamist terror attacks on the West – then surely the revelations of United Nations child porn rings should prompt the Canadian government to send back our blue helmets for a refund as well.
We might at least set a precedent by cutting off all foreign aid to China.
It’s disturbing to hear voices on talk radio and across the blogosphere suggest Canadian military support for the fledgling Afghan government be withdrawn as a mere consequence of the trial taking place at all – for none of them seem to have considered the obvious followup question – “and then what?”
As we are often reminded – democracy is a process, not a destination. One does not have to dig too deeply into the histories of our own Western democracies to realize that our modern protections of human rights and personal liberty did not congeal fully formed from the ether – they evolved over hundreds of years.
As the beneficiaries of that long and bloody process of democratic trial and error, living in societies more likely to face problems created by the excesses of liberalism than any shortage of it, we tend to view fledgling democracies like Afghanistan from the wrong end of the lens. Instead of comparing them to current Western democratic norms, it is probably more appropriate to measure events against that of Western democracies of the 1800 and 1900’s.
In that context, Afghanistan has come a very long way from the unspeakably repressive Taliban regime, and in an extraordinarily short time. But the process has only just begun, and progress is not likely to be plotted on a linear graph. Nor, needless to say, is the outcome assured.
It will be at least a generation before we can hope stories such as that of Abdul Rahman are consigned to Afghanistan’s dustbin of history – and that only if those forces helping sustain the progress of democracy and liberalization of Islamic governments stay the course. The alternative is to surrender Afghanistan back to the very forces that brought us there in the first place.
And then what?
arrgh…I can’t help it….
steve d
I don’t want to continue this debate but if you were actually considering all the sides as you claim then you would know that the Big Bang theory actually supports the the Biblical creation account.
In fact many athiests try to dismiss the Big Bang theory and have tried other theories (such as multiple bubble universes) because the Big Bang fits so well with creationism. Check out the book God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow (agnostic and Founder/Director of NASA ‘s Goddard Institute)
But you are right if the universe has exploded 1 millionth slower than it did it would have collapsed back upon itself, any fast and n planetary bodies would have been formed.
Thank you for agreeing with me Ryan. See, it wasn’t that hard now was it?
I don’t see how Genesis says anything about The Big Bang. It says the universe and the earth with everything in it was created in six days. Sorry, no bangie there.
Searching for beginning seems to be something humans naturally do, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there was one. I, for example, don’t think there ever was. Once one understands the concept of recursion, it just doesn’t make sense.
It seems to me that the only thing that makes sense is that existence always was and always will be. The only things I know for sure are that existence exists and that I am Vitruvius. After that, it seems to me, everthing else is a phenomenon of those axioms.
I think the big bang is an aritfact of the predictive model of phenomenon that has been built by physicists. And it’s a damn useful predictive model too. But as a description of reality, I think it contains a flaw, because the big bang describes a singularity. I don’t think existence does singularities.
I don’t think nature divides by zero. But man does it have some wild derivatives!
The Quran: A verse-by-verse translation, parallel with the Arabic, of the Quran into English with similar translations into French, German, Indonesian, Spanish and Russian.
http://www.alazhr.com/qurane/def1.asp
Mark
Ottawa
If one is a Pacifist, it is only logical to support our troops in their work to diminish the violence the Taliban and Jihadists in general use to bludgeon and suppress people into submission. TG
I say cut and run.
Posted by steve in bc at March 25, 2006 12:41 AM
==================
If you cut and run, you will be persued and shot. It’s a natural reaction. Try it in front of a cougar or bear.
If you stay and fight. You may change things where the problem lives.
If we run back to North America, then the chances are Jihadists will concentrate on solving their percieved problems in our back yard. Not much option then for us to improve things in Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran, for that matter.
TonyGuitar
I know its the macho thing to do to stay and fight to the last man, sort of like the Alamo. It is very romantic.
Reality: The Americans went to Afganistan to defeat the Taliban and Al Queda. They were defeated but they are waiting in the mountains. While they wait they play a little guerilla warfare. But we can’t stay there forever but they can.
Iraq: The Americans had to get in there real fast and asked the UN inspectors to leave. You don’t want to wait until you see a mushroom cloud.
They defeated Saddam. But three full years later the war goes on. Guerilla warfare, requires that the population cooperate. If the people don’t cooperate and tell on the insurgents the insurgents cannot function. It looks to me like they are functioning better every day. Over 50 bodies a day are found. It is a civil war. Take a bow Bush. Genius.
80% of Iraqis want the Americans out. 72% of the American soldiers want out within a year. 65%of Americans think the war was a mistake. Guess what? The war is over the civil war has begun. There is nothing for America to do now but bring the troops home. But because Bush is more stubborn than intelligent they will stay…and remain target practice for IED’S and sharp shooters like Juba(supposedly he has killed 140 Americans). One hopeful sign is that the Americans are trying to have a lower profile these days. Perhaps the number being killed will slow to a trickle, perhaps.
Vitruvius
“It seems to me that the only thing that makes sense is that existence always was and always will be”
Funny that I’m argueing the beginning of the universe on this thread but….
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics; the universe has a finite amount of energy, if the universe was eternal there would be no energy left.
2. The universe is expanding, as predicted by the Theory of General Relativity, and observed by Edwin Hubble. If the universe is eternal then why is it still expanding?
3. The Radiation Afterglow, residual radiation from the Big Bang has been observed and measured.
4. The discovery of Galaxy Seeds, young galaxies. Once again if the universe is eteranl, why are some galaxies younger?
5. Einstein�s Theory of General Relativity demands an absolute beginning of time, space, and matter. It shows that time, space and matter are co-relative; they cannot exist without one another.
The arguement for an eternal universe fizzles scientifically. Eternal is a big concept, it means always has been and always will be, but that is not the nature of our universe, stars get old and eventually burn out, energy is consumed and finite.
So the universe had a beginning, and everything that has a beginning has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause. Since, it is illogical and scientifically contradictory for something to come forth out of nothing (literally no-thing, no time, no space, no matter) the existence of a universe proves the existence of the super-natural. Since everything in nature began at the Big Bang, anything prior to it, is logically outside of (super to) nature.
Ryan
I agree. Science is inoperative before the Big Bang. You can choose to have faith in some pre-science hypothesizing or faith in a supreme being. It is interesting to think just how precise the Bang had to be to create the Earth.
Some fluke? Some accident? The more time you spend in contemplation of Creation even modest amount that we know, it is supreme in its intricate complexity and beauty. The sad part is we treat it like there is plenty more where this came from, but there isn’t the Earth is IT.
Whoa, whoa, slow down there Ryan, you’re puttin’ the cart ahead of the horse. I mean I love this stuff too, but you have to aware of its limits, not just its results. Remember back as a kid when you learned that rule about not dividing by zero. In common use it almost never matters, so we tend to forget about it, but in practice in physics and engineering it’s really imporant. Refineries have blown up and spaceships have crashed becase we humans have, on occasion, got it wrong.
Thermodynamics is a phenomenon of molecules, it does not apply at sub-molecular scales (quantum mechanics), nor at supra-molecular scales (galaxies, plasma, Bose-Einstein condensates &c).
To the degree that the universe is infinately large, it can easily have infinite energy, there is no requirement for any particular local flux vector to be unacceptably large. It’s density that matters, energy density, not total energy.
If existence is universal then whether or not our observable portion of it (given the limitations presented to date by the apparent speed of light constraint) is expanding or not is, in the absolute sense, irrelevant. Existence isn’t changing size. Nor do local observable trends imply simple functional abstraction; to the degree that existense is well modeled by chaotic dynamics, cycles are the least of it!
Sometimes I wonder whether or not the great error of those who expect more from our modelling efforts, qua humans, than we can provide, is that they have this crazy idea that existence isn’t naturally infinetly complex. Seems to me it is, and we get a slice. Hey, you’re up next.
Vitruvious
“to the degree that existense is well modeled by chaotic dynamics…”
It seems to me that in all of nature around about me that “existence” is well modeled by “orderly” dynamics. When you consider the galaxy or solar system and the exact and precise way that things move, order is a better descriptor than chaos. At the cellular level in our bodies we find perfect order. If there is a disorder, we call it disease and we may not exist in this natural world much longer because of it.
I cannot conceive of situations where order arises out of chaos. The exact opposite is normally true. Order can and does deteriorate into chaos. If I were to toss a thousand marbles up into the air and look at the results after they land, how many times would this chaotic event result in geometric patterns repeating themselves or perfect cicles, ovals, squares or rectangles. Chaotic events result in chaos not in order from my observations.
Maranatha
Mankind’s greatest challenge is to survive the ultimate collapse and rebirth of the universe. Everything else up to that point is just a test of our true substance and worth.
Do any of you ever get the feeling we have passed this way before? 🙂
Joe Canuck;
God said of Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I KNEW you, and before you were born I consecrated you…” Jer 1:5
Speaking to Jeremiah, God indicates that He knew Jeremiah before He was formed in His mothers womb and before he was born. This seems to indicate that even before Jeremiah had physical form, he existed as a soul? a spirit? both?
We were born to belong to the realm of eternity. This age that we call time will last for a “time” but eventually all that we can perceive naturally will pass away and we will continue to exist in the realm of the eternal.
“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2Pet 3:13
“While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” 2Cor 4:13
There are many things that we do not know and do not understand. It may surprise us how many things that we think we understand… but don’t.
God reveals things little by little. In His good time he reveals that which we need to know and leaves the things that we don’t need to know, hidden or concealed…like issues regarding our souls journey prior to our physical life and much mystery surrouds the afterlife as well. We are given glimpses and clues but as yet we do not see the whole picture. That leaves room for choice and faith!
Maranatha
Steve d, You just steped into deep water. Every point you make can be easily refuted. Your figures seem to rely on my trust rather than your impeccable sources, but I’ll give you the trust you may not deserve.
65% of Americans think the war was a mistake? Even if Americans were that uninformed, your figure carries no weight if most Americans are employed. Workers often are too tired to look much beyond the paper*s front page and news by *Soundbite* leaves most people without the big picture.
Your 65 number could even be higher. There is no acurate way to tell. Most well informed people refuse to take time out for polls. Poll results must then be skewed.
80% of Iraqis want Americans to leave?
80% of Iraqis voted and risked sporting a purple thumb.
The last thing those 80% who voted want is for American security to leave now. Your 80% figure would more logically be 20%
Three years later and the war goes on?
The Suni did terrible things to the Shiites and Kurds. Human nature should tell you that there will be on-going reprisals for some time. Iran backed Muqtada Al-Sadr is the most notorious *Black Headband * leader. His people are scooting about at night kinapping Suni and slitting throats.
Retribution is not civil war, but is deadly all the same.
If troops leave now as you suggest, the Suni are liable to be exterminated, and all those who voted for peace and democracy are liable to face the sharp blade of Fundamentalist revenge.
Did you mean to allow blood to flow in the streets with your withdrawl suggestion?
Do you have an unconcious hate for Iraqi citizens? Did you mean to be so vicious?
You say Bush is more stubborn than intellegent. Why do you comment on the nature of President Bush? That does not apply.
Bush is not a king.
Major decisions are developed and decided by a comittee of wise executive Americans, not by George Bush. George is more the advance public relations man. TG
Thank you for those comments, Maranatha.
Yes, we are all souls on a journey. And we all should have the rights to choice and to faith.
It is too bad that for many people in the world, choice and faith can be mutually exclusive – defined and forced on them by manipulators with dark souls.
To the degree you cannot conceive of situations where order arises out of chaos, Maranatha, you are missing out on the true beauty of nature. If, according to your observations, chaotic events result in chaos, not order, then your observations are too simplistic.
Check out the work of David Ruelle, Floris Takens, Ren� Thom, Edward Lornez, &c. I consider Lorenz’s “The Essence of Chaos” (1996) to be one of the top 100 documents in the history of man. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor
Vitruvious,
I may have misinterpreted your initial comments, if so, I appologize. I am not wanting to make a tempest in a teapot.
When you said that “existense is well modeled by chaotic dynamics”, I took that to mean all existence and the reasons for existence. If that is indeed what you meant, then I still take exception with it. If you are talking about natural chaotic events that have pattern and order within them, I have no problem with that. Even chaotic events are subject to natual laws and external forces, otherwise the aforementioned scientists would not be able to come up with formulas and eqations to offer in explanation for phenomena observed.
I have watched in awe as thunderstorms develop and roll across the prairie. One cannot help but be awed by the power and beauty assosiated with such events. I marvelled at the reports from seismic watchers who were reporting resonating vibrations throughout the earth, weeks after the manitude 9 that caused the tsunami on Boxing day. I am assuming that these are a couple of examples of the types of chaotic events spoken of. No doubt the universe is full of examples on many scales, grand and small.
What has bothered me are explanations given by scientists who say that the order we see in natural creation came out of chaos down to the microscopic level and at galactic proportions. Personally, I think this is not a plausible explanation for the complex order observed at the cellular level in particular.
I do have a comment on chaos and attractors. This theory is observed easily in the life of many a single male. His life is chaos, being evidenced by the dishes in his sink,the state of hygiene in his washing facilities and very often the chaotic appearance of his bedroom. Along comes an attractor and his life becomes more orderly as he suddenly has motivation to clean ip his act.
Thanks for the links, I followed them up and as you can imagine, they were pretty deep for a rather shallow fellow. I enjoyed them all the same.
Now, being a fellow who has recently lost all his marbles, I will set out to find them again!
Maranatha
Vitruvius
Some food for thought
�Now three lines of evidence�the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars�pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning�
“If the evidence for the expanding Universe could be explained away, the need for a moment of creation would be eliminated, and the concept of time without end would return to science. But these attempts have not succeeded, and most astronomers have come to the conclusion that they live in an exploding world”
� concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up� Robert Jastrow
It is apparent that matter could not be eternal, because, as everyone knows, eternal things do not run down.
Why would an eteranl universe be awash in beginings and endings? What your proposing is an eteranl universe full on finite things. Is this not contradictory?
“The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom.
And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of�out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing” Ralph Estling
Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?
I think that’s partly my fault, Maranatha, we’re using two different definitions of “chaos” here. I was meaning the one discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_dynamics
which is introduced there as follows.
“In mathematics and physics, chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is a sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economies, and population growth.
“Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder. A related field of physics called quantum chaos theory studies non-deterministic systems that follow the laws of quantum mechanics.”
Why? Because. That’s why. It’s sort of like sex. If your parents didn’t do it, then neither will you. Similarly, if existence didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be asking why. But you are. So it does. Why why?
Vitruvious
Sorry but I’m not making the connection as to how Chaos Theory proves an eternal universe, especially when all the recorded evidence and observation says otherwise.
“If existence is universal then whether or not our observable portion of it is expanding or not is, in the absolute sense, irrelevant. Existence isn’t changing size.”
If the universe is constantly expanding forth into nothingness, then how is existence not changing size?
“It’s sort of like sex. If your parents didn’t do it, then neither will you”
I find it funny that you use an analogy that infers creation and begining, in an arguement against creation and begining.
Barf Alert! Barf Alert!
Canadian Press bleeds for the pacifistic cowards.
Ties the appeasers to the return of the “Olympians”. The “media” awaits… blah, blah, blah,… +
Loney arrives in Canada to hero’s welcome
TORONTO (CP) – In a situation reminiscent of the return of Canada’s Olympians, family, friends, and the media on Sunday eagerly awaited the arrival of Christian activist James Loney, freed after four months as a hostage in Iraq. +
via cnews
Don’t confuse the totality of infinite existence with the words I explicitly used, to wit, “our observable portion of it.”
I’m not arguing against creation, I create things every day. I’m just arguing against any sort of notion of “first creation”. It doesn’t make sense: what created that?
Postulating infinite existence solves that problem, and physics doesn’t deny it, it just doesn’t model it. It models a subset.
But hey, I’m not saying I’m correct, I’m just chattin’ like you.
I think the point is that observed physics does seem to deny it.
postulating God solves it too, and it doesn’t require denying the evidence.
Well then, we shall have to agree to disagree.
we will, lively discussion though.
although completely off topic.
although i hope my inducement of the “G” word didn’t trigger the end.
Sorry about that, Ryan, I didn’t mean to sound curt, I’m just trying to control my enthusiasm because I’ve got to be getting back to work here soon. Agreed about the discussion though, thanks for remaining reasonable.
I don’t judge a person’s character by whether or not they believe in God, there are too many counter-examples, either way. And I really have no idea which is correct anyway, I suspect that deep deep down we’re both wrong though. We humans are a funny bunch, so full of ourselves.
I suppose, what can you do, but play the hand you’re dealt?
Oy, forgot to say something. Thanks, Kate, for hosting the Friends of Small Dead Animals.
Ryan re: “Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?”
Umm, well, for one thing, CCRA can’t tax you on nothing at all. 🙂
—————————————
Although fascinating to read, the depth of the imponderables and at times the circuitous logic used in these discussions about chaos, existence, the universe, etc only reminded me of that well known American debater, philosopher, raconteur and bon vivant, who in one of his more challenged moments responded to a question with “It depends on what your definition of IS is.” :))
————————————–
Sorry. I don’t mean to make light of these discussions – they are truly fascinating. I guess in reading through all of the posts, my mind started to boggle, and slipped into trivia mode. I hope y’all can forgive me.
Funny thing, Joe, and sad because Bill used the phrasing under fradulent circumstances, but I think that, indeed, it is just the case that the deepest question is what the definition of is is.
I’m not saying that there aren’t more important things in life, I’m just saying that they’re not deepest questions.