Here's what I said the other day, here: He's facing conviction and execution for the crime of converting to Christianity. It's the law, you know, and as moronic commenters to other posts on this blog have been pointing out, to obey and enforce the law is always of paramount concern. As an Afghan Christian, he's "ILLEGAL." Today, via Billy Beck, I get Jay Jardine saying the same thing, only in a far more clever way. So where on earth does this Rahman character come off thinking he's above The Law? Look: it says right here that "Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic" and that "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam." The document opens with "We The People of Afghanistan" does it not? Surely Rahman's squiggy is on there somewhere. Forget all that mystic, inherent rights B.S. some libertarians will try and sell you on. Everyone knows that rights are social constructs - We As A Society sit down at a big table and decide together what rights we are going to have. So why should Rahman be allowed to shirk his duties as spelled out in the Social Contract?...