August 28, 2005
Hiding Hypocrisy in Plain Sight
It is clear from the Sunday talk shows that most (or all) opinion leaders see any significant inclusion of Islam in the Iraqi constitution as a kind of defeat. If Islam is a religion of peace, if Islam is “not the problem”, why do we care? (Does special status for Scandinavian Lutheranism similarly trouble us?) And if we care about Islam, why do we repeat the mantras?
I got to thinking about the other hypocrisies we hide in plain sight. Here are a few. Most "informed opinion" decries racial profiling. They say it is morally bankrupt and it doesn't even work. Just because a person looks a certain way doesn't mean he will act a certain way, they say. These same guys often support affirmative action, which is a clear and well-organized system of racial profiling.
Then we have the speaking for the troops and the families of the troops. They say that we are asking a small percentage of the U.S. population to bear the cost and it isn't fair, but we rarely ask the troops or their families what they think. Well, people with friends or relatives serving in Iraq are more likely than others to have a positive view of a generally unpopular war, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Should this change the rhetoric, or doesn't it matter?
Finally, there is the worn out Vietnam analogy. We hear that Iraq is like Vietnam. Any place any American troops have been deployed has probably been compared to Vietnam. But what lesson did we actually learn from Vietnam? When we left Vietnam (lost?) it made the world unstable for a decade, millions of people in SE Asia were murdered; the economies of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos went into the toilet (even while those around them soared). If Iraq is like Vietnam, is the lesson that we can't afford to lose?
Of course, I believe Dems are guiltier of these hypocrisies, but I know that - literally - we all do it, especially the Islam thing. It is an unconscious prejudice. Maybe it is something we should examine out in the open.
if Islam is “not the problem”, why do we care? (Does special status for Scandinavian Lutheranism similarly trouble us?)
Well, let’s ask the famous Iraqi woman who stood up at the last State of the Union address:
“When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened: we have lost all the gains we made over the past 30 years. It’s a big disappointment. Human rights should not be linked to Islamic sharia law at all. They should be listed separately in the constitution.”
P.S. As a scandinavian Lutheran myself, let me say you should be afraid….very afraid!
These same guys often support affirmative action, which is a clear and well-organized system of racial profiling.
Just because they both involve race, doesn’t mean that affirmative action and racial profiling are the same.
Well, people with friends or relatives serving in Iraq are more likely than others to have a positive view of a generally unpopular war, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
This only follows logic that someone with a friend or family member in Iraq would not want to think that they are fighting or risking their life for anything other than a noble, worthwhile cause. Having said that, I think you make a good point about how it should shape the rhetoric, but I’m not sure it falls under the category of hypocrisy.
If Iraq is like Vietnam, is the lesson that we can’t afford to lose?
Absolutely!
Posted by: Burt at August 28, 2005 11:14 AMChristian values at it’s best.
——————
Official in Racial Profiling Study Demoted
Justice Department Denies Political Pressure; Lawmaker Demands Investigation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082401893.html?sub=new
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 25, 2005; Page A07
The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee called for a congressional investigation yesterday into allegations that a Justice Department official is being demoted after attempting to publicize findings that police treated Hispanic and black drivers more aggressively than whites during traffic stops.
Posted by: Aldous at August 28, 2005 11:51 AMBurt
So you are saying that Islam is a problem? I am not trying to trap you. Certainly some forms of Islam, as practiced today, are incompatible with modern free societies. But saying that in public will bring retribution. Within a few minutes of my posting this, you will find several posts criticizing what I said and talking about sins of Christianity and/or the U.S. The hypocrisy is when the same people who attack anyone who questions whether Islam is a problem themselves have a problem with Islam.
Besides the potential spread of red jello and lutefisk, I don’t fear the march of Scandinavian Lutheranism.
Affirmative action is clearly a form of racial profiling. It assumes that people of a particular race will have particular ideas or attributes. Otherwise, why bother? If we judge a man by the content of his character, why even look at the color of his skin.
You are probably right about the military families thing not being hypocrisy in itself, but it can easily drift in that direction.
Aldous
Okay. So you oppose racial profiling in traffic stops and (I suppose) affirmative action. What does that have to do with Christianity?
Jack,
Like Christianity, it comes down to a seperation between church and state.
People who believe in Islam should be free to follow it however they see fit (outside of the obvious radicals who bastardize it to condone terrorism). But to use the elements of that religion as law creates a serious problem if you are trying to form a free and open society.
Burt
I agree about the separation of church and state, but the explicit separation is much more an American thing. Many countries have an official or favored religion in theory at least.
As I read about the Iraqi draft constitution, it says something like nothing can be enacted that is at odds with Islam. It also says that nothing can be enacted that is at odds with democracy. Both of those are fairly innocuous phrases, subject to lots of interpretations. If Islam is not a problem, neither should be this constitution.
If Islam is a religion of peace, if Islam is “not the problem”, why do we care?
Three reasons. First, as Americans, we’re extremely suspicious the religious influnece over politics, as Robertson’s speech showed we well should be. Second, history shows, as Samuel Huntington famously said, that Islam tends to have bloody borders. Third, common sense tells us that Islam itself may be a grand religion and not necessarily a driver of violence but religious extremists are well able to pervert the teachings of any creed. So, the real danger isn’t Islam per se but an extremist version of it. There’s no hypocrisy here. The concerns are practical.
They say that we are asking a small percentage of the U.S. population to bear the cost and it isn’t fair, but we rarely ask the troops or their families what they think.
But I suggest people actually read the article to which jack links. It says, for example, “Those who know someone serving in Iraq were more likely to approve of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war - 44 percent, compared to 37 percent overall.” In other words, well over half of those who know someone serving in Iraq disapprove of Bush’s conduct of the war. As well they should.
Finally, there is the worn out Vietnam analogy. We hear that Iraq is like Vietnam.
The analogy is warranted in many respects. What the experts often fail to say is that Iraq is more like Vietnam than Vietnam was. Except politically, we were never truly stuck in Vietnam and pulling out of it never did much damage to our national interests. Iraq is a different ballgame. We really are stuck there for lots of truly compelling economic and military reasons, which many of us have discussed elsewhere.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 28, 2005 01:41 PMBurt,
Just because they both involve race, doesn’t mean that affirmative action and racial profiling are the same.
Affirmative action is racial profiling. It’s saying that just because someone is of a certian race that they are to stupid to make it on their own and needs the Government to help them.
jack,
Aldous
Okay. So you oppose racial profiling in traffic stops and (I suppose) affirmative action. What does that have to do with Christianity?
Those who opposed racial profiling at traffic stops are the one who support it in affirmative action.
Christianity has nothing to do with it.
I know most youall are going to rake me over the coals for saying this.
THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED AND OUR CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN ON CHRISTIAN VALUES. About 50 of our 54 founding fathers were professing Christians.
So what’s wrong with Iraq using Islam to base it constitution on?
Also the first admendment only prevents government from establishing a national religion, and garuntees FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!
Iraq is not like Vietnam. US bombs have not killed 2 million people in Iraq yet, and only Fallujah and parts of Baghdad have been levelled, as opposed to pretty much the whole of Vietnam. The hawks fallacy about Vietnam was that it was lost because the military could never “take the gloves off”, and not because levelling an entire country (and bits of a couple of neighbouring countries for good measure) is a really good way to make lots of enemies.
One lesson will hopefully be learnt from Vietnam. Vietnam was to have elections, which Ho Chi Minh and the Communist Nationalists would have comfortably won. Because this could not be allowed politically, there was the hare-brained scheme to divide the country in two, and impose an acceptable leader on the south. Hence the subsequent civil war in the south. Let’s hope that lesson remains learnt, and we let the Iraqis elect whoever the hell they want, and run their country any way they please.
And next time, can we learn the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq and not send the troops and the bombers in the first place?
Posted by: Paul at August 28, 2005 03:45 PMRon Brown
“THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED AND OUR CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN ON CHRISTIAN VALUES”
what values was this country founded upon that arn’t found in almoust any other religon.
“About 50 of our 54 founding fathers were professing Christians.”
that doesn’t make us a christian nation
“FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!”
phrases like that do not really mean any thing they just make good sound bites. we Guarantee
freedom of religon by keeping goverment away from religon
J. Anthony Matel
“opinion leaders see any significant inclusion of Islam in the Iraqi constitution as a kind of defeat. If Islam is a religion of peace, if Islam is “not the problem”, why do we care?”
because though there is nothing wrong with islam there is something wrong with having a goverment in which church and state mix, not only has history shown us this but any one who is not of the same religon as the goverment has there tax dollars go to a faith they do not believe in.
Jack, There can be no freedom of religion when the power of government establishes a national religion. And there can be no reasonable, rational, approach to government when religion dictates government policy, for all religious founding texts are inherently contradictory, and fail to establish reason and rational pragmatism as the means to resolving social and national problems. And irrational government in these days and times will be hard pressed to negotiate and live up to agreements with other nations (or even its own people over time) as a result.
That’s why I am concerned about theocracy there or here.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2005 05:43 PMIf a separation of church and state is so necessary, why aren’t you people jumping on the Brits?
If the Iraqis want a constitution that doesn’t separate church and state, then that’s their decision and all y’all who don’t like it will just have to suck it up. What is the more reasonable approach, allowing the Iraqis to determine what their own constitution is going to look like, or forcing them to become Little America?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 06:23 PMYou know, I still remember people on the left complaining early on that we were going to install a puppet regeim with no legitimacy and force our western morals on the Iraqi society and will instill hatred against the US.
Now, we let them build their own government and constitution and we are saying that we aren’t telling them ENOUGH what to do because they based it on their own societal rules.
Huh. How do you suppose we could reconcile those two positions?
My take, which is just my take, is that there are those on the left that will oppose anything and everything that this administration does or tries to do in some way or another either out of hatred or political power and attempt to label this war as veitnam as early as PRE INVASION with still no basis in fact.
But, that’s just my take on it. While I can’t stand the current republican leadership I entirely loathe and despise the blatant hypocrisy and hatred steaming from the left these days.
We REALLY need some Other Voices in the political landscape soon or we are going to be worried about saving our own democracy instead of building someone elses. :P
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 28, 2005 06:46 PMIf the Iraqis want a constitution that doesn’t separate church and state, then that’s their decision and all y’all who don’t like it will just have to suck it up.
Yes, America has had to suck up a lot lately. Like the sands of Iraq suck up our blood and treasure. Maybe some kind of democracy will grow from those sodden sands. Or maybe only chaos and theocracy and terror will be the harvest. Time will tell.
Posted by: Reed Sa nders at August 28, 2005 06:53 PMRhinehold,
“How do you suppose we could reconcile those two positions?”
Oh, the Left don’t have to reconcile their positions, remember. As long as it’s against Bush, all’s good. Besides, we can hope that it is two different sets of people on the Left making these conflicting statements.
“We REALLY need some Other Voices in the political landscape soon or we are going to be worried about saving our own democracy instead of building someone elses. :P “
I agree.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 07:21 PMReed Sanders,
And your point was what? Do you believe we should make Iraq into Little America by forcing them to accept our ideology (which we can’t even agree to ourselves, btw)?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 07:23 PMAnd your point was what?
My point is that if Iraq becomes a theocracy, then all the blood and treasure we’ve spent there will have been utterly wasted. We didn’t go over to die just so some religious fanantics could become the next Saddam.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 28, 2005 08:34 PMReed,
Elected officials are currently in charge of Iraq. If religious fanatics take charge of Iraq, it would be because we let them by withdrawing our troops and leaving the elected Iraqi government defenseless.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 08:38 PMStephanie,
I agree with that. That’s why I would hate to see a constitution approved if it establishes the foundation for a future theocracy. Iran is the example, of course. It has elections but they mean virtually nothing because the religious leaders hold the true key to power there.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 28, 2005 08:47 PMJack,
I think the percieved hypocrisy about the Muslim thing comes because you are comparing two completely different premises, making the broadest possible conclusions, and then saying they contradict.
First, the “Islam good” conclusion.
When we are talking about terrorism, then no, Islam is not necessarily the problem, any more than Christianity was the problem in Ireland. These arguments are made mostly agains people who advocate leaving “big holes” where thousands of muslims used to be, because they think that all muslims are bombers. From this argument, you derive the conclusion that we feel that Islam is good.
OK, on to the second conclusion, “Islam bad”
First, a little background. At this point the president has switched the justification for the war from fighting terrorism to bringing freedom to the Iraqis. (I know that that was always touched upon, and that he still talks about terrorism, so don’t jump all over me, but the emphasis has changed, and this aspect is what this part is about). Now, as far as domestic freedom, Islamic Sharia law is not anywhere close to what we would consider freedom, any more than establishing the Old Testament law in the US would be considered freedom. So, this argument is mainly about the value of the “freedom” that has been purchased with American lives.
Your conclusion from this—The left says Muslims are bad.
So, comparing the two, muslims good vs. muslims bad, you say there is hypocrisy. Is it really hard to see that there may be a difference between terrorism and domestic policy? I think that this is a made-up hypocrisy.
Rhinehold,
You know, I still remember people on the left complaining early on that we were going to install a puppet regeim with no legitimacy and force our western morals on the Iraqi society and will instill hatred against the US. Now, we let them build their own government and constitution and we are saying that we aren’t telling them ENOUGH what to do because they based it on their own societal rules.
I see it as seeing two possible bad outcomes from trying to impose democracy at the point of a sword. Either we go too hard with our ideology and the people rebel because we’re infidels pushing our morals on them, or we go too soft and we don’t actually accomplish the goal of allowing actual freedom.
Either way, we lose. Yet another argument never to have gone in in the first place, but not hypocritical, (maybe a little cynical, but it seems to be proving itself true) just hypothesis testing.
Stephanie,
If the Iraqis want a constitution that doesn’t separate church and state, then that’s their decision and all y’all who don’t like it will just have to suck it up. What is the more reasonable approach, allowing the Iraqis to determine what their own constitution is going to look like, or forcing them to become Little America?The only way that this scenario is worth the expenditure of American life and treasure is if your primary or only criteria for success is self-determination. In that case, you’d need to explain to me why close ties with Iran and the ability to opress women and rape the sisters of adulterers to shame the families (both things which have been justified by Sharia law) was worth American blood.
By the way, Stephanie, when you talk about hypocrisy, you may want to compare your comments about liberals in this column with what you are berating Stephen about in the “stop planning” column. Just my little pet peeve, again.
Posted by: Brian Poole at August 28, 2005 11:19 PMBrian,
My first question. Have you actually read their constitution? I haven’t actually seen a copy of what they’re going to vote. If you have a link I’d love to see it. So far, I’ve only heard opinions, and mostly stemming from the Sunnis (who, if I remember correctly, boycotted the elections and thus it’s their own fault they’re not better represented) or from people who’ve not answered my question above.
Second, are you sure it’s Sharia law, not Koranic law? I’ve heard “Koranic law” everywhere I’ve looked, except here on WatchBlog. There’s a difference. In the Koran, women actually have many rights. Not as many as women here, but better than women do in many Islamic nations. Sharia law is derived from the Koran, but “improved upon” by clerics who didn’t like the freedoms Mohammed gave women.
Third, to honestly expect any Islamic culture to do a 180 and embrace our idea of human rights simply because there’s a war is foolhardy. If that’s what people honestly thought, than Sicilian Eagle’s comments make much more sense. Please remember, all the rights we enjoy, our ancestors earned. Most of them were not granted to us by our nations founding fathers, at least not in the way we use them today. Assuming their constitution is prepared in such a way that allows for improvements over time, then they’ll work their way towards what we want at their own pace. Who knows, they may out-do us in the end.
“By the way, Stephanie, when you talk about hypocrisy, you may want to compare your comments about liberals in this column with what you are berating Stephen about in the “stop planning” column. Just my little pet peeve, again.”
Touche. I sincerely apologize and retract my statement regarding the Left. (See, it’s not so hard. Call me on it and I apologize. Now, if only Bush could do that….ah, well.)
In self-defense, however, I must say that I commented about Stephen’s behavior because of the way he presented himself when he started the thread. When I made the comment above I really wasn’t trying to cooperate, as Stephen suggested he was trying to do. That said, it does not excuse the behavior and I do apologize.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 01:33 AMStephanie,
Wow, I’m impressed. Thanks. I’m sorry for acting like a jerk.
I think you’re right about the principles of Koranic and Sharia law. I was going to try to talk about that in my response to Jack, but I thought it might get a little confusing.
The draft of the constitution that I read here just says “Islamic law,” which is not very helpful for our discussion. I also think that the exact role of Islamic law in the government is one of the major discussion/sticking points right now, so we probably don’t know for sure. There are a lot of parts where rights are guaranteed, but these also say things like “so long as it does not infringe on public decency or morality”, which throws it right back to the religious authorities again.
My concern is things like Mukhtar Mai, who was gang-raped in response to her brother’s adultery in Pakistan. The village officials didn’t feel that they needed to take the case to the government because their constitution guaranteed that Islamic law could not be infringed and they felt that that was what was called for under their version of Islamic law. I don’t want us involved in setting up a system where that kind of thing is a topic for constitutional discussion, not immediate condemnation.
I agree that we earned our freedoms, and we can’t expect total 180’s from Iraq, which is why I have argued against spreading democracy at the point of a sword. I just don’t know if it’s worth the damage to America so that the Iraqis can have the potential for real freedom in 30 years.
Posted by: Brian Poole at August 29, 2005 02:39 AMBrian,
You’re welcome and forgiven.
I’ve only gotten through the first page of the Iraqi constitution you’ve linked me to (thank you very much for that, btw) and it seems really benign to me. I really do not see what the problem is here.
“My concern is things like Mukhtar Mai, who was gang-raped in response to her brother’s adultery in Pakistan…”
Yes, that was and is (since it’s an on-going thing, as I understand it) a very ugly practice. However, from the first page (which is all the further I’ve gotten yet, patience, patience) that seems extremely unlikely. They would be able to contest that, with American lawyers to back them up, free of charge no doubt.
“I agree that we earned our freedoms, and we can’t expect total 180’s from Iraq, which is why I have argued against spreading democracy at the point of a sword.”
I understand. I still think Saddam had to get taken out, because we’d already been in there and didn’t do it then, but… We can’t agree on everything, can we? ;-)
Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 03:14 AMStephanie,
This is kind of off-topic, but a lot of the stuff in that constitution would have the Republican posters up in arms if it was in ours. Guaranteed right to a job, constitutional right to form labor unions, constitutionally mandated environmental protection, right to privacy…Take away the supremacy of Islamic law, the disputes over federalism, and the very real possibility of civil war, and it starts to sound pretty good!
Brian,
Well, it’s certainly more poetic than ours. Arabs are known for their poetry. At least by the people who give enough of a damn to know about Arab culture.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 03:38 AMIf Islam is a religion of peace, if Islam is “not the problem”, why do we care?
LOL! Nice reframing, Jack. I’m dismayed that everyone fell into it. Liberals are so easy to sidetrack sometimes.
The fact is, President Bush promised to create a free-market liberal democracy in Iraq. He failed. That’s why it’s a big deal.
Had President Bush said we’re invading Iraq to create an Islamic theocracy with close ties to Iran, then (I guess) everyone would be congratulating him on a job well done.
Maybe we should care because no matter what the religion, its principles and practices will always be carried out by people, people who have the freedom to interpret said principles any damn way they please!
I’ve read the bulk of this tread and I have to say upfront that I am not as knowledgeable as some of you guys (especially you, Stephanie-thanks for the insight btw), but I can say that I do have more than a casual interest. I agree with Bugs Bunny who so eloquently stated: “Humans are the craziest peoples!”
We need only look at our own country (melting pot that it is) to see how man screws up religion. There is one Bible, but what seems like a gazillion interpretations.
But slow down a minute; there is actually more than one veresion of the Bible, isn’t there (the great King James changing it comes to mind)?
And there is the same issue with Islam. There is this interpretation vs. that one and so on and so forth.
The problem arises when someone of great power and influence (or at least potentially great) comes along and gathers a sizable or at least violent following. Then it’s okay to treat women like trash and blow up anyone whom you find yourself in disagreement. (The last time I checked there was only ONE version of the truth!)
Is that so different than some “so called” Christians here who praise Jesus on Sunday, but want anyone non-white dead or deported, or to close off the borders so that no one else can have the same opportunities afforded them, or call for the assassination of a head of state because he doesn’t like us, or even start a war because they feel it is the best way to handle a problem?
It’s funny how we supposedly have a President who got re-elected riding his Christian faith, but conveniently violates that commandment that states, “Thou salt not kill.” and unleases a wave of violence on a nation that has led to just that.
But let’s not turn this into Bush bashing since he isn’t the only President who ignored that little commandment under the guise of “…in the interest of the United States.” No, he just has the dubious distinction of not having waited for someone else to start the fighting first.
Now from where I stand things were crazy enough with Sadaam in power, so that guy should have been ousted (especially since we didn’t take care of it the first time). But handling things the way we are now? Well, that was a screw up. And the worst thing about it is that we really never had good reason to think that Bushs’ plan for the region would work in the first place!
Yes it does compare to ‘Nam, but it is not the same. Where it does compare is that we will probably be there for quite some time, we will loose many more troops, and it will take devine intervention to keep that nation from plunging into civil war (with us in the middle).
So no it isn’t ‘Nam, but it doesn’t need to be; in the years to come we’ll be comparing the next war and saying, “No this isn’t like Iraq!”
Posted by: cnw at August 29, 2005 11:11 AMBrian,
Thanks for linking to the text of the constitution.
Stephanie,
Thanks for finally asking for it. I purposely didn’t ask for it. I was wondering how many threads and posts would be written here on WB before someone felt the need to actually read the thing. Quite a few, as it turned out. I’ve been enjoying reading your posts, btw.
Now that I’ve had a chance to skim the actual constitution, I don’t see anything that screams “theocracy.” The opening says Islam is “a basic source” of what was written.
There are multiple articles guaranteeing freedoms (including religious freedoms).
Here’s an example:
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
2nd — This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.
They seem to have gone out of their way to include more articles about religious freedoms, as well.
Posted by: TheTraveler at August 29, 2005 04:06 PMAll:
Brian Poole (thanks again Brian) provided me with a link, for those who think this constitution would make Iraq a theocracy, tell me how. It doesn’t sound like it would be any more of a theocracy than Britain is. If you disagree, show me why.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 04:21 PMcnw,
Thank you for your praise. I try to share what knowledge I know and to receive knowledge in exchange. WatchBlog can be a great venue for that.
The Traveler,
Thanks, I just couldn’t find it. My latest comment was because I thought that some people may have missed Brian’s link (thank you yet again for providing it, Brian).
Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 04:25 PMI don’t think mentioning Islam in the Iraqi constitution is the problem so much as mentioning religion at all in the Iraqi constitution. Perhaps my memory is trying to push me in a particular direction, but I personally can’t recall a government that has successfully merged politics and religion, Islam or otherwise.
Am I right or, has there been a successful theocracy (bonus points for more modern examples, if they do in fact exist)?
In my opinion religion should stay at least 100 yards from politics (science too).
Posted by: Christian at August 29, 2005 04:49 PMAs far as the Iraq is concerned I think that America should institute a “you break it, you bought it” policy. While I wouldn’t have chosen to go to war in the first place, now that it’s here it has to be dealt with. We have to prop up this broken nation until they can stand on their own and we should support the troops overseas that are doing propping. The U.S. broke Iraq and it’s something we’re going to be paying for for quite sometime.
Posted by: Christian at August 29, 2005 04:56 PMChristian,
“I don’t think mentioning Islam in the Iraqi constitution is the problem so much as mentioning religion at all in the Iraqi constitution…”
For many people over there religion is a lot more important than most people over here. Also, considering religion is one of the major reasons they struggle to get along with each other, I completely understand why they would have many safe-guards to protect their religious beliefs, which is what I see the Iraqi constitution accomplishing. I don’t see how calling this new Iraqi government a theocracy is at all justified.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 05:38 PMAm I right or, has there been a successful theocracy (bonus points for more modern examples, if they do in fact exist)?
The Vatican City comes to mind when I think of modern theocracies. Depending on one’s definition of success the Vatican City can be determined successful. I think the power to influece the ideas and decisions of millions of Catholics quite an accomplishment.
_________________________________________________
Thank You Brian for the link.
Here’s a little bit of the Constitution that I particularly like:
Article (30):
1st — The state guarantees social and health insurance, the basics for a free and honorable life for the individual and the family — especially children and women — and works to protect them from illiteracy, fear and poverty and provides them with housing and the means to rehabilitate and take care of them. This shall be regulated by law.
Article (31):
1st — Every Iraqi has the right to health service, and the state is in charge of public health and guarantees the means of protection and treatment by building different kinds of hospitals and health institutions.
…
Article (33):
1st — Every individual has the right to live in a correct environmental atmosphere.
2nd — The state guarantees protection and preservation of the environment and biological diversity.
_______________
So far I have found only one troubling phrase:
Article (2):
1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam.
A lot of interpetation is needed for the phrase “No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam.” There are a lot of different ideas of what things actually constitute as Islam, for example sharia law. Also which version of Islam will be used? Will it be Sunni or Shia Islam that cannot be contradicted? This worries me, someone could even say that bin Laden’s twisted version of Islam is the form that cannot be contradicted; that would be very dangerous.
Posted by: Warren P at August 30, 2005 08:40 AMWarren P,
My point is that there are limitations built right into the constitution, like gaurentees that other faiths can be practiced, and that women and children have undeniable rights, that limits a lot of the concerns considering Shia law. The people writing this document know they are a diverse group that has to be willing to make compromises to each other to accomplish this task we call democracy. From what I’ve seen they’re going out of their way to accomodate each other (at least on the diplomatic floor).
Could this constitution be manipulated to mean something it was never intended to, sure. However, so can ours as time has proven. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Our constituion was never set up as a document to be used to free the slaves, and yet that very thing was argued using our constitution. That’s a really great thing!
Posted by: Stephanie at August 30, 2005 01:28 PMSo far I have found only one troubling phrase:
Article (2):
1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam.
-
Warren, I also find this troubling as it ties together the good of the people with the good of Islam. Now to me this seems like a problem just waiting to happen, as someday those two interests will clash and who knows what the result may be.
Stephanie, thank you for your responses, I never even thought of the Vatican (smacks forehead). :)
Posted by: Christian at August 30, 2005 04:57 PMChristian,
Either did I, that was Warren P. :-)
Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 12:53 AMChristian,
“Warren, I also find this troubling as it ties together the good of the people with the good of Islam. Now to me this seems like a problem just waiting to happen, as someday those two interests will clash and who knows what the result may be.”Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 12:58 AMWhen they clash, they will also clash with other parts of the constitution. However, the intricate balance they struggle to maintain is because, for them, there is often no separating religious life with any other aspect of life. For many people over there the two are completely intertwined, which I find really admirable, but it also complicates things. The fact that they are even willing to try tackling that is quite admirable, IMO.
BTW, how did you find WatchBlog?
