I hope this is a case of better late than never. White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, condemned Iran for its treatment of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who has been convicted of apostasy from Islam and is threatened with imminent execution”
“Pastor Nadarkhani has done nothing more than maintain his devout faith, which is a universal right for all people. That the Iranian authorities would try to force him to renounce that faith violates the religious values they claim to defend, crosses all bounds of decency, and breaches Iran’s own international obligations. We call upon the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Nadarkhani, and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion”
As Michael Ledeen likes to say, “Faster please.” How about strongly worded personal statements from President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton?
September 29th, 2011 | 5:14 pm
Is this really about saving a potential Christian martyr, or is it about how much you don’t like the Obama administration? Wouldn’t a statement from the Vatican be in order?
September 29th, 2011 | 5:23 pm
Notice he didn’t see “freedom of worship,” which has been the direction in which liberals and the Administration have been moving. Obviously we’re more concerned right now with Pastor Nadarkhani, but I did notice it.
September 29th, 2011 | 8:45 pm
David, it’s almost as if the FT braintrust is rethinking an alliance with Islam just to be contra-Obama.
September 29th, 2011 | 10:48 pm
As much as I am often in disagreement with Mr. Nickols, I have to agree with the claim about the phrasing of the post. There is no way for us to know if the administration was attempting to negotiate with the Iranians over the matter; and if this were the case, the administration would not condemn the pending execution if negotiations were underway. Or perhaps there may have been negotiations about something else? We don’t know.
But it is telling when someone uses this man’s plight to land a political jab in the perennial saga of ideological pettiness. This is tiring. Grow up. This isn’t about American politics.
September 29th, 2011 | 11:21 pm
I would hope (and expect) the Vatican to speak up, but suspect it is following its usual behind-the -scenes method, as explained here in another case:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-expected-to-seek-clemency-for-death-row-iranian-woman-46643/
September 29th, 2011 | 11:57 pm
Um, do any of the above commenters who for some reason object to this post honestly think if the administration were Republican and had behaved exactly the same as the current administration, that First Things wouldn’t have written the identical complaint? Get over yourselves.
September 30th, 2011 | 6:21 am
Brian,
I suspect the word finally would not have been in the headline, at minimum. I also believe there would have been more of a tendency to believe some kind of private diplomacy was taking place (which, for all we know, there may have been). Also, there is a question in my mind as to whether “strongly worded personal statements from President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton” would do more harm than good. On political matters, I am perfectly willing to second-guess the president. But on matters of state and diplomacy, it’s considerably trickier.
Remember Pope Pius XII.
September 30th, 2011 | 10:17 am
There are long-standing Christian communities in Iran. I guess the reason Rev. Nadarkhani is in trouble is because of evangelzing. Those other communities tend to keep their heads down. Whether or not that is the Christian thing to do, I don’t know. God bless.
September 30th, 2011 | 11:46 am
Chris, the charge is apostasy. In many Muslim countries, it’s (barely) okay to be a Christian if you’re “born” one (i.e. part of one of those historic Christian communities), but conversion from Islam is apostasy, and subject to penalty.
September 30th, 2011 | 12:55 pm
“Um, do any of the above commenters who for some reason object to this post honestly think if the administration were Republican and had behaved exactly the same as the current administration, that First Things wouldn’t have written the identical complaint?”
Um, yes. I do.
There was another execution involving religious freedom recently.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/311777
Not a word about it from First Things. Not one word. Why? Becasue the indivdual wasn’t a Christian and FT can’t use his tragic death to claim Obama is anti-Christian as a political cudgel.
Thought experiment:
There was a recent execution here in the US, Troy Davis. Would Troy Davis’ chances for clemency have been improved or reduced if the Iranian Governnment issued a harsh condemnation of U.S. death penalty practices especially as applied to racial minorities?
My answer: It would have hastened the Governor’s resolve to ensure a swift execution. If I were on Davis’ team and offered Iranian support, I’d privately express my appreciation and ask it to offically remain silent.
I suspect the same result if Obama weighs in too heavily in internal matters in Iran. That’s why we have a State Department–in part to provide plausible deniability and get the job done behind the scenes. Also, president’s correctly castigate congressmen who practice foreign policy. Notice that not a word of criticism was expressed by the White House after Boehner’s comments.
You’ll also recall that Iran had two Americans imprisoned until just a few days ago and had been hinting that their release might be arranged soon.
In the middle of those negotiations, you expect Obama to “fire and brimstone” Iran for an execution just to prove his street cred on Christianity?
Thought Experiment #2.
What was Obama’s public position on the Troy Davis execution? Why?
Did First Things suggest call on Obama to commute the death sentence as a matter of Christian forgiveness?
I agree with a lot of the thoughtful articles posted here. This isn’t one of them.
September 30th, 2011 | 1:48 pm
I see this scenario playing out like that of those two American hitchhikers who were recently released on a million dollars’ “bail” (i.e. extortion money). Someone will pay off the Iranians again and Rev. Nadarkhani will have to leave.
September 30th, 2011 | 2:03 pm
David Nickol,
The reality is the Vatican and the pope (not necessarily the same thing) HAVE a history of condemning the death-penalty for apostasy. It was less than a year ago that the pope personally urged the country of Pakistan to spare the life of a Muslim woman who was going to be executed for allegedly insulting the Muhammed.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has maintained for decades that people have the right of following their conscience (properly informed) in matters of religion.
Can you expect one man or administration (president or pope) to intercede personally every time this happens in some country? That’s an unrealistic expectation.
However, it is the job of the media to report such matters, and the job of christians and any other group committed to freedom to act to some degree.
September 30th, 2011 | 2:10 pm
Joe McFaul
Or it could be because this is the first time we’ve heard about that incident. But now that we have: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/09/30/saudi-arabia-beheads-man-for-convicted-of-sorcery/
September 30th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
Joe, I’m pleased you posted it.
It is, however, the second time I posted this link in comments om this series of posts by Wesley Smith regarding Nadarkhani–not that I expect every comment to be reviewed carefully.
Now–why was this the first time FT heard about it? It has shown up on my Google “World news” column for the past few days. I guess we all read only what interests us.
There have been a number of executions in Saudia Arabia alone for sorcery or apostasy.
Each indivudual about to be executed deserves some attention from the world community. That said–I don’t want the President of the US involved in these issues. See Amanda Knox as another example of Presidential (official) non-involvement.
These incicents are not likley to get resolved by the Presidential “Bully Pulpit” and the use of the Bully Pulpit may do far more harm than good. The best source of pressure is through grass roots activism–Amnesty International for instance.
Right now, I want the U.S. President to focus all his energies on just two things:
1. The US economy; and
2. The US economy.
There is a lot includeed in those two things (wars, taxation, deficits, etc.) but particular instances of other countries’, or even the State of Georgia’s, use of the death penalty is not in those two categories.
September 30th, 2011 | 2:59 pm
[...] of Sorcery Friday, September 30, 2011, 2:06 PM Joe Carter The White House deserves praise for condemning Iran over their violations of religious freedom. Hopefully they have time for one more: A migrant worker [...]
September 30th, 2011 | 3:12 pm
“Each indivudual about to be executed deserves some attention from the world community.”
Mr. McFaul, that’s an absolutely horrible idea that would cause more harm than good. It’s an absolutely unrealistic idea. We appoint juries because we realize it’s untenable–and ultimately unjust–to be voting as an entire community on every alleged crime.
When many feel a mistake is made by a jury, that’s when the debate gets broadened more publicly.
September 30th, 2011 | 3:22 pm
Joe McFaul: First, even if the Governor of Georgia cared what Iran thinks (pretty sure he doesn’t), he has no power to stop executions. This was well documented in the press.
Second, Obama had exactly zero power to do anything about Troy Davis either, so it would have been awfully silly to lobby him about it.
Third, where the heck do you get this from: “FT can’t use his tragic death to claim Obama is anti-Christian as a political cudgel.” Um, what?
Finally, it seems quite likely you’ll have your hypothetical answer soon enough since it seems entirely probable that there will be a GOP president by 2013 and Iran (and Saudi Arabia) will surely do something equally barbaric at that time. The next administration will probably be approximately equally as timid, and in your world First Things just won’t care at all. Seems awfully unlikely to me, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
September 30th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
While I am glad the White House, the State Department, and various organizations have condemned this possible execution in Iran, just how much weight do we expect our Supreme Court to give to protests from other countries or from religious or political organizations? None at all.
September 30th, 2011 | 5:20 pm
“and in your world First Things just won’t care at all.”
Forecasting the future is difficult. Why don’t we go back in time where there is already a track record. What was First Thing’s position on the Karla Faye Tucker execution? Did FT call for presidential or gubernatorial intervention in that case?
I honestly don’t know. I will make a retro-diction that it did not call upon either the President or the Governor of Texas to halt the execution.
Sauidi Arabia has been executing “sorcerers” for years. Again, I see no call from FT to other Presidents to act. I stand by my claim that this particular event is being used as an Obama cudgel.
That said, let me single out a FT person who has been extremely consistent. Joe Carter has made the argument that the death penalty is everywhere morally wrong. So, I can say with certainty that at least one member of FT does care.
I’m leaning more and more towards his position, but still struggle.
September 30th, 2011 | 8:25 pm
[...] Christian Pastor may be murdered for not recanting his faith. More here. The White House condemns the planned killing of this [...]
October 1st, 2011 | 9:55 am
I will make a retro-diction that it did not call upon either the President or the Governor of Texas to halt the execution.
Joe McFaul,
Your retro-diction is correct. A Google search reveals no appeals from or in First Things to spare Karla Faye Tucker. Click this link. There is an article by James Nuechterlein that appeared shortly after her execution in which Nuechterlein, a defender of the death penalty, confesses his ambivalence about that particular execution. There are also shortly after that article two letters commenting on it. There are no references to Karla Faye Tucker in First Things prior to her execution and also no others besides the Nuechterlein article and the two letters until years later, or at least none to be found with Google.
October 1st, 2011 | 10:04 am
This whole discussion is bizarre. Tucker was a murderer who admitted her crime as she asked for mercy. The pastor is to be killed for his faith. That so many clearly either can’t see the distinction or don’t care confirms that anti Christianity is an emotional commitment of some driving power. That a certain ideogical sector gets more upset over Mumia does as well.
October 1st, 2011 | 12:04 pm
That so many clearly either can’t see the distinction or don’t care confirms that anti Christianity is an emotional commitment of some driving power.
Wesley J. Smith,
I certainly can see a distinction between a murderer who confesses and asks for mercy and a man who may be martyred for his Christian faith. But according to my understanding of Catholic teaching on the death penalty, neither the confessed murderer who presents no danger to society nor the would-be martyr deserves to die. Killing either one is wrong. In a very real sense, those on death row who present no danger to society have just as much right not to be executed as Pastor Nadarkhani.
October 1st, 2011 | 12:56 pm
Joe McFaul: Um, this started out as a debate about whether First Things was using the IRANIAN execution to unfairly bash Obama. Somehow you’ve morphed it into whether First Things should be opposed to all capital punishment. How bizarre.
Or, what Wes said.
October 1st, 2011 | 4:09 pm
No, FT has singled out one instance of of the imposition of the death penalty and used that instance to cudgel Obama, yet there have been numerous other instances of equally undeserving death penalty administrations under Republicans in which FT was silent.
FT’s expressed outrage on the death penalty differs by President.
I find that hypocritical.
October 1st, 2011 | 6:45 pm
That said, let me single out a FT person who has been extremely consistent. Joe Carter has made the argument that the death penalty is everywhere morally wrong. So, I can say with certainty that at least one member of FT does care.
I hate to disagree with you when you are given me credit, but I’m probably the only staffer at FT that supports the death penalty, at least in the case of murder.
But I don’t understand why you are turning this in a debate over capital punishment. Both stories are about executing people because of religious motivations, not because they have committed some capital crime.
FT’s expressed outrage on the death penalty differs by President.
Where has FT condemned President Obama for his support of the death penalty?
October 2nd, 2011 | 12:30 pm
Sadly, this post is false in its premises – on May 11 the State Department spoke on this:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/rm/2011/163123.htm
and on July 6 the SD spokesman said “While Iran’s leaders hypocritically claim to promote tolerance, they continue to detain, imprison, harass, and abuse those who simply wish to worship the faith of their choosing.” Read the rest here:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/07/167733.htm
October 3rd, 2011 | 9:26 am
I second the earlier comment that this thread has gotten bizarre. I will attempt to clarify non-Catholics understanding concerning Catholic teaching on the death penalty, but given what I’ve seen here, it might lead a few posters to accuse the Church (wrongfully) of hypocrisy.
Currently, the USCCB is waging a campaign against the death penalty in the United States, from the position that modern technology/systems can detain a person and reasonably guarantee they won’t continue to kill again (some 52.5 murders committed in the prison system per year, last time I looked). The tradition of the Church, however, is that the state has a moral obligation to protect the innocent, and if the only way to stop a killer from continuing to kill is capital punishment, then such is permissible, though not preferable (preferably, other means could be employed that wouldn’t end the life of a child of God).
In other words, if a society can safely incarcerate for life, they should. This distinction tends to lead to support for the death penalty in undeveloped countries, where they lack the ability to incarcerate safely and persistently, and opposition to it in “advanced” ones. It may seem like hypocrisy, but it is not, as both protect a principle in favor of saving the most lives.
October 3rd, 2011 | 3:26 pm
[...] Christian Pastor may be murdered for not recanting his faith. More here. The White House condemns the planned killing of this [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact