So, the media wildstorm over an Afghan citizen's Islam-to-Christianity convert is over. Shame on all of us. America made this big deal because another man under another country's laws was in danger of being sentenced to death for something that we don't believe in. Putting aside that much of the world considers the death penalty itself uncivilized and that America loves it as its chosen method of state-sanctioned revenge, and assuming that the U.S. has a right to influence laws it doesn't like, we should still be ashamed because we don't care anymore.

Last important headline read "Case dismissed." As if that meant anything. U.S. Christians hail it as a victory for morality. It's not. It's a measure in superficial lip service to pretending to care. Did anyone catch what that dismissal actually meant? Nothing. Why does no one read beyond the headlines? Afghanistan did not change its laws. The man was released because there were questions of whether the man was either (1) no longer an Afghan citizen (and therefore the law of that state did not apply to him), or (2) insane (and thus exculpated). Therefore, if a sane Afghan citizen were to convert to Christianity, that person would be put to death and there is nothing the U.S. could do about it short of sending in troops. Further, did anyone catch what that person is doing now? He is in hiding for fear that vigilante mobs will kill him. And you know what, they probably will find and kill him. And maybe, just maybe, that story will make page B12 in the paper, in the bottom left hand corner. Or maybe it won't at all. Maybe that's just not a good story.

To be responsible citizens, we need to think beyond the headlines. This issue, no matter how one reasons it, has not been resolved, and like most legal quandries, will come up again. Should either reason or faith settle for good headlines? Or should they seek for results that actually mean something?

Moreover, this documents how democracy can run amuck. If 90% of the people of Afghanistan are in favor of this law, should they be allowed to enforce it? Or should Afghan rights be protected by some kind of Bill of Rights? This is a question that is relevant to any democracy, new or old. And the opposite rule holds true. If U.S. citizens will argue that the small percentage of Christians in Afghanistan deserve the right to live, practice, and exercise minority religious rights, without interference by the Muslims, those same U.S. citizens must also admit that the minority of non-Christians in America deserve the right to live, practice, and exercise their rights, without being forced into the moral worldview of Christians.

Think about it.