WorldNetDaily: U.S. cautiously backs Afghan Christian

While Italy is threatening to pull its troops out if Abdul Rahman, 42, is executed for his newfound faith, the US State Department says only that it is "monitoring" the situation. In other words, talk.

Talk is cheap, and in this instance cannot and will not do any good. The State Department ought to know this.

If that man dies, then he will be a witness (for that is what the transliterated ancient Greek word "martyr" means) against his society, for executing him, and America, for allowing this to happen. He will also be a witness against our anti-war press, who won't even discuss his case--for where else but WorldNetDaily, Fox, and CNN has anyone else seen any coverage of it? (Oh, yes, it's also on Radio Free Europe. Good for them. But why no one else?)

My recommendation: offer him political asylum. I say offer because he might prefer death to exile. (The case of St. Stephen, Acts 6-7, springs to mind.)

One possible reason why the Fishwrap Axis won't cover this case: the rhetoric of the prosecution. (Interesting word, "rhetoric." It comes from the Greek word rhetor, which means "lawyer.") I quote from the WorldNetDaily piece:

He is known as a microbe in society, and he should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed.

Hmmm. I could say that about a lot of people in our own society--purveyors of pornography spring to mind. But what would you all think of me then? I won't say that, of course, because the Bible tells me not to. ("The weapons of our warfare are not carnal.") Here is another difference between Christianity and Islam: the Koran says to kill, while the Bible merely says not to associate. The Koran would doubtless say to blow up the movie house (while it was packed full of people, to score an even greater body count in the name of Allah); Biblical precepts prompt us to quit going to the movie houses until they stop offering trash as entertainment. Which do you find more constructive and "enlightened"?