Heric, I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

I don't see how this is "an American 'success' story." If Abdul Rahman converted to Christianity while working for an international Christian group, then how is that "American?" Such organizations are usually referred to as "non-governmental agencies" because they are not connected to or sponsored by any particular government (the Red Cross or the Red Crescent would be examples). There are many such organizations, often sponsored by one religious group or another, all over the world, and those that are not dedicated solely to evangelism do a great deal of good, frequently helping in areas and in endeavors that governments don't seem to care much about. It sounds like Abdul Rahman was working with such a group (". . . helping Afghan refugees").

The idea that a person could be tried and executed for his or her religious beliefs when those beliefs don't conform to some dogma accepted by the government is an indictment of that government, or any government that allows this sort of travesty to take place—in this case, the Afghani government. Such is the nature of some theocracies. And this is an object lesson to those who don't see any danger in a particular religious group being allowed to have a strong influence political leaders, legislators, the judiciary, and the educational system (see current administration and some state governments). A theocracy is just as dangerous to its own citizens as a fascist government is.

One helluva lot things can be justly laid at the door of American foreign policy. But I don't see how the ordeal that Abdul Rahman is facing is one of them.

Don Firth