Richard Reeb fleshes out the argument my crony made by raising the question of whether the trial of Abdul Rahman (for converting to Christianity) is a "clash of values" as the MSM would have it. He points out that in order to "save" Rahman at the theoretical level, you have to give up your multiculturalism.
We know the drill: Who are we to judge what other nations do in their courts? Who are we to impose our values on them? Several years ago I took a course in World Civilization in a master's program at the University of Southern Mississippi in which the professor defended Japanese emperors who put Christians to death on what seemed to him to be the defensible ground that their doctrine was subversive in a kingdom in which the emperor was himself a god.
If cultures are equally valid (or, I might add, for benefit of the Crunchy-Cons, if cultures are fixed but for gradual changes that occur with the slow unfolding of history), then there's nothing we can or ought to do for Rahman:
Now if nations or "cultures" live in sealed containers, or if not, ought to be insulated from the effects of universal doctrines like Christianity or liberal democracy, then we are in no position to complain no matter what the Afghan government does to the unfortunate (from our point of view) Abdul Rahman.
Or you could take the view --both Christian & classical liberal-- that all men are created equal and have equal natural rights. Reeb concludes:
Democracy without equal rights is just another unjust regime, even if it is less dangerous in the world.
