View Full Version : Iraq Transitional Constitution
CoLawman
08-23-2005, 22:05
The proposed Iraqi transitional Constitution has what I consider a very troubling caveat.
Article 7.
A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.
In my mind this article should not have been allowed by us. And when I say us, I mean the United States. The universally agreed tenets of Islam governance, in my opinion, is what the Taliban tried to create in Afghanistan. Are these the same tenets that Iran has used since the the deposal of the Shah? ABSOLUTELY!
General MacArthur is certainly turning over in his grave. Did he not reduce the role of Emperor Hirohito to a ceremonial role. At the time the Emperor was considered a Deity. In fact General MacArthur required Hirohito to come down from Mount Olympus and address the populace. In that address he stated that his position was not divine, it was a myth. Just as the Japanese being the master race was a myth.
Do we not have a Constitution to model their's by. Seems that we should dictate certain elements of this document of democracy being drafted by a subordinate nation. For example, maybe "Separation of Church and State" should be a starting point.
These are kinder gentler times. God forbid we impose our will on a country like that.
Although I agree with you %100.
I don't think it's such a big deal. It's their country, they can fuck it up if they want to.
Huey, that would sort of mess up the whole point of being there, IMO.
Martin
General MacArthur did have a big part In the re-writing of Japan's constitution at the end of WW II. That has caused problems that could not be seen 50-60 years later.
Everybody likes to beat up on Japan for it's limited military participation in world events but it was the US who wrote that into their constitution.
You can look at all the information you have but in the end you have to balance all the information and then make your choice of options.
Time changes the view of world events and the people who look back and say what they would have done seem to have 20/20 vision. Politicians seem to have perfect 20/20 rear view vision.
Kyobanim
08-24-2005, 06:09
Huey, that would sort of mess up the whole point of being there, IMO.
Martin
The point of being there is to give them the freedom to make their own choices, good or bad.
The point of being there is to give them the freedom to make their own choices, good or bad.
I thought it also was to remove threats and cultivate a good environment. I have doubts whether Islam is fit to be the limits of a free society. If they want to mess themselves up, that's okay, but the issue is not limited to the borders of Iraq - although minorities within should be considered too.
Let me put it this way. I do not suggest dominating their lives, but that the lives living there should have a denominator that does not inhibit that freedom you spoke of.
I am all for letting people seek happiness and success wherever they please and with their means at hand. I really don't care if someone prays to God or not. That's up to them. The resulting culture will establish norms and some values from old times will live on.
What's concerning is when culture moves more and more into law, when the people is no longer deemed fit to decide what is moral and ethical. That is not freedom and it is a base from which only certain types will prosper.
Martin
Article 7.
A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.
I'm not too concerned. After all it only says that Islam is "a" source of legislation (the de facto truth anyway), not "the" source of legislation. The "universally agreed tenets" part is a big hedge, too. How much "universal agreement" is there on any topic between different types of Muslims, and how many of those stances are the ones we're worried about?
CoLawman
08-24-2005, 08:12
Afghan Constitution:
Article 3 [Law and Religion]
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
By allowing these articles into the constitutions they have virtually guaranteed that the Mullahs and Imams are at the top of the heap in governance.
There are no checks and balances. These constitutions prevent any reasonable facsimle to a Republic government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are dependent and subordinate to the Religious branch. Which by definition is a Theocracy.
Idolaters beware!
IMO.
I'm not too concerned. After all it only says that Islam is "a" source of legislation (the de facto truth anyway), not "the" source of legislation. The "universally agreed tenets" part is a big hedge, too. How much "universal agreement" is there on any topic between different types of Muslims, and how many of those stances are the ones we're worried about?
Indeed, wouldn't this be a great reason for a civil war or new border drawing?
Universal in practice only, IMO, seems to imply that the voicing parties within the country has to agree. Agree, being relative, as in Praise Allah Sistani/Whoever Version or 7.62 mm to the forehead. The militas don't appear to be getting any smaller.
Or not, perhaps they can simply split up the country, get the non-refusal of the majority and get a unified small vocal group that writes the laws. Just a thought. However, I suppose they would rewrite the constitution in that case anyway, if they split the country up.
Only my opinion and subject to change in light of better arguments.
Martin
From what I heard today on NPR (yes I know, not the most objective of news sources) it sounds like the Iraqi consitution will have some checks against Islam. Yes, it does have a provision that no law may be made that is contrary to Islamic beliefs, but from the wording it sounds like they leave that up to lawyers and cut the clerics out of the descision in order to retain some stability and keep from degrading into a theocracy.
I believe that a lot of the literature in circulation within the White House recently has proposed the idea that if Islam is forced to coexist with even limited democracy and the wealth flowing from oil, it will eventually weaken to the point of a (relatively) secular state.
Remember- while we have no state religion, many of our laws come from the Bible. Just because laws come from Islam doesn't mean that they're wrong (necessarily).
Also, there is a fair amount of nuance in the writing of those articles which gives leeway for argument between secularists and islamists.
JMO,
Solid
Not arguing your point, but in regards to your first paragraph, this article might be interesting (just as a parallell):
Millions all over China convert to Christianity (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050802-115449-8165r.htm) (USA Today)
Interesting times.
Martin
CoLawman
08-26-2005, 08:55
I believe that a lot of the literature in circulation within the White House recently has proposed the idea that if Islam is forced to coexist with even limited democracy and the wealth flowing from oil, it will eventually weaken to the point of a (relatively) secular state.
Do you believe, or do you know this literature is in existence? Would be interested in seeing what is circulating in the White House in this regard!
Iran, being the world's third largest producer of oil seems to point out a flaw in this argument. And let us examine Venezuela in regards to oil wealth and co-existence with democracy. Oil has nothing to do with Separation of Church and State. Which is the point of my original post.
Remember- while we have no state religion, many of our laws come from the Bible. Just because laws come from Islam doesn't mean that they're wrong (necessarily).
Our legal system is not derived from the Bible. Like England, our laws are based on "Common Law." meaning that our legal system is not a derivitive of written statutes, but customs and consent of the people, defined by the judicial system.
Being a lay person in this regard I will leave it to the holders of Juris Doctorate to continue this Civics Lesson.
Also, there is a fair amount of nuance in the writing of those articles which gives leeway for argument between secularists and islamists.
AS written there is no leeway. The constitution clearly states that. And if one would agree with your argument that it gives leeway for argument, all the more reason to clean it up. There is no role for Islamic hardliners and purists in determining interpretation of laws in countries we have just expended enormous efforts to liberate. Al Sistani already has too much power, in my opinion.
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of our constitution, spoke to these concerns on several occassions.
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
AS written there is no leeway. The constitution clearly states that.
This is not correct. See my post above. There has been a considerable amount of debate regarding which articles should be inserted in these critical clauses.
There is no role for Islamic hardliners and purists in determining interpretation of laws in countries we have just expended enormous efforts to liberate.
It's up to the Iraqis to determine what sort of country they'll have and, frankly, there is little basis in Islam for the sort of church/state separation that is common in Western democracies. Their task is to create something new, not to emulate our example. IMHO, that "something new" needs to be a state that recognizes and honors the Muslim identity of the Iraqi people, while still ensuring the maintenance of basic freedoms and limiting the power of small factions, whether religious or secular. It is not the goal of the document to reform Islam itself - that will be the task of the civil institutions and individuals which the constitution aims to protect.
CoLawman
08-26-2005, 10:27
This is not correct. See my post above. There has been a considerable amount of debate regarding which articles should be inserted in these critical clauses.
I respectfully disagree. The Speaker of the National Assembly even disagrees with your assertion that "After all it only says that Islam is "a" source of legislation (the de facto truth anyway), not "the" source of legislation.
Negotiators clarified the role of Islam in the constitution, said Hachim al-Hassani, speaker of the National Assembly. Al-Hassani said the compromise language called Islam "a main source of legislation" -- wording that he said concerned him and women's rights advocates.
CNN.com 082105
It's up to the Iraqis to determine what sort of country they'll have and, frankly, there is little basis in Islam for the sort of church/state separation that is common in Western democracies. Their task is to create something new, not to emulate our example. IMHO, that "something new" needs to be a state that recognizes and honors the Muslim identity of the Iraqi people, while still ensuring the maintenance of basic freedoms and limiting the power of small factions, whether religious or secular. It is not the goal of the document to reform Islam itself - that will be the task of the civil institutions and individuals which the constitution aims to protect.
Of course there is no basis in Islam for separation of church and state. That is precisely what creates Theocracies. In their mind the Koran is supreme law. And that is exactly why we have to impose certain articles of our constitution on them. Like Separation of Church and State.
I believe our role is to dictate what type of government arises from this war. If that is not the case, then what argument do you use to justify us maintaining our troops in these countries. It seems to me that your argument suggests that we allow them to have free will in constructing their new government.
The way I see it, their lack of experience and knowledge of democracy is exactly why we need to assist them. I certainly support freedom of religion, but feel it very important that religion have no role in governance in civil affairs.
Please refer to my earlier post re: Thomas Jefferson's thoughts. :munchin
I believe our role is to dictate what type of government arises from this war.
The way I see it, their lack of experience and knowledge of democracy is exactly why we need to assist them.
I'm sure you know that dictating and assisting are two different things, and I don't mean to be obtuse but those two sentences seem to contradict each other.
I personally would hate to see Islam be the ruling law over there for a lot of reasons...but we are liberating them, who are we to actually dictate?
CoLawman
08-26-2005, 11:49
I'm sure you know that dictating and assisting are two different things, and I don't mean to be obtuse but those two sentences seem to contradict each other.
I personally would hate to see Islam be the ruling law over there for a lot of reasons...but we are liberating them, who are we to actually dictate?
We are the same peoples that liberated Japan and Germany. And there was a whole lot of dictating going on then. Our intended goal was to liberate and put in a place a democracy or republic to goven disfunctional countries. That has not changed. Do You propose that we allow the existing powers in Iraq to determine what is in our best interest. Not to be insensitive but we have the unmitigated right to impose our choice of government on them. We are to make decisions over there based on what is best for America not what is best for Islam.
Imposing a government free from religious interference or interpretation is not some thesis developed in a vacuum. We have a rather successful history with our chosen form of government.
It seems that I am under attack for my belief that religion should not have a role in government. I must be thick headed. Don't see the clarity in opposition to this.
We are the same peoples that liberated Japan and Germany. And there was a whole lot of dictating going on then. Our intended goal was to liberate and put in a place a democracy or republic to goven disfunctional countries. That has not changed. Do You propose that we allow the existing powers in Iraq to determine what is in our best interest.
Not to be insensitive but we have the unmitigated right to impose our choice of government on them. We are to make decisions over there based on what is best for America not what is best for Islam.
Imposing a government free from religious interference or interpretation is not some thesis developed in a vacuum. We have a rather successful history with our chosen form of government.
It seems that I am under attack for my belief that religion should not have a role in government. I must be thick headed. Don't see the clarity in opposition to this.
Of course I don't propose we allow anyone else to determine what is in our best interests. We alone do that, and will continue to do what needs to be done to ensure our safety. (As long as we have a President that won't cow tow to the UN and the like) As I said, I don't want Islam to be the law of the land, and part of me agrees with you.
But, Kyo summed it up...
Hopefully the people of Iraq WILL choose separation of church/state and real democracy and rights for all including women, and will actually understand what that means. Yes, we can show them, we can teach them, we can help them see the beauty of free will/freedom of religion etc...but we can't "make" them. I mean that as it's like leading a horse to water...can't make him drink.
I don't think you're under attack...people are just looking at things from different angles. For now...I'll continue reading and learning. ;)
CoLawman
08-26-2005, 12:58
Of course I don't propose we allow anyone else to determine what is in our best interests. We alone do that, and will continue to do what needs to be done to ensure our safety. (As long as we have a President that won't cow tow to the UN and the like) As I said, I don't want Islam to be the law of the land, and part of me agrees with you.
But, Kyo summed it up...
Hopefully the people of Iraq WILL choose separation of church/state and real democracy and rights for all including women, and will actually understand what that means. Yes, we can show them, we can teach them, we can help them see the beauty of free will/freedom of religion etc...but we can't "make" them. I mean that as it's like leading a horse to water...can't make him drink.
I don't think you're under attack...people are just looking at things from different angles. For now...I'll continue reading and learning. ;)
I believe the analogy that bests suits my contention is: You can lead a horse to water, and if thirsty he will drink.
I do not for a minute believe that the Iraqi population as an electorate would chose a Theocracy. That is why it is so important to insure Separation of Church and State. The Islamic power brokers know that there only hope for governance is through the constitution. Without that all important footing, they lose any chance of governing. The woman gain the right to vote under this constitution. It is presumptous, but I believe that this particular voting block would prevent a return to the Burkhas and Stonings.
If you would not like to see Iraq become an Islamic state then my argument should be clear to you. I am Risk Adverse and would prefer to see the odds stacked against such an occurrence.
Best Regards.
I know I am not under attack! Just being overly dramatic :)
I believe the analogy that bests suits my contention is: You can lead a horse to water, and if thirsty he will drink.
I do not for a minute believe that the Iraqi population as an electorate would chose a Theocracy. That is why it is so important to insure Separation of Church and State. The Islamic power brokers know that there only hope for governance is through the constitution. Without that all important footing, they lose any chance of governing. The woman gain the right to vote under this constitution. It is presumptous, but I believe that this particular voting block would prevent a return to the Burkhas and Stonings.
If you would not like to see Iraq become an Islamic state then my argument should be clear to you. I am Risk Adverse and would prefer to see the odds stacked against such an occurrence.
Best Regards.
I know I am not under attack! Just being overly dramatic :)
The horse/thirst analogy, basically it is the same premise in my mind. If thirsty he will drink, but you cannot make him drink. The key word is...*if*...pretty big word for only two letters hmmm? Thus the quest, if you will, is getting him to that state. ;) Anywayyyyyy enough about horses.
Your opinion is very clear to me...and I think your comment about the Islamist leaders wanting that footing rings true. And imho the people will be not much, if any, better off than under Saddam if they don't choose differently. (it's the whole "if you want different results do it different" thing with me...) It's also obvious that Iran, Syria and the other "neighbors" don't want democracy there either....which still is a threat then to our own Country.
We went in to remove the WMD and a dictator who was a threat to the world and our Country, a man who funded terrorists, and who I believe had ties to AQ. And I still believe the WMD are hidden somewhere. And yes of course we do want democracy to take hold in that part of the world. Now that they are liberated, the people must choose and hopefully with our guidance, alliance and assistance they do will exactly that. Sure part of me wants us to insist this is how you will do it...hell I wanted to bomb the whole damn ME after 9/11 and turn it into a giant swimming pool. Does that make me rational, or irrational? Don't know.
Could be my thought process is entirely flawed...that's partly why I am here, to read and learn from the Professionals. At times, I gain more from that than any news source.
LOL dramatic huh? Remember, just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't out to get you... :D
I thought the US/mates went in to find WMDs, rather than imposing democracy?
The US should not be dictating to a country how they should run their internal affairs, "liberaters" or not. If this Iraqi government is not to be "trusted" to run their own affairs, then I would suggest you just run the country as a 51st state.
Besides, this is just the transitional constitution. This clause may not make it through to the final copy.
Small detail - our current level of control in Iraq is much different than we enjoyed in Japan and Germany post-WW2. The implication is that we cannot impose an alien form of government in Iraq without broad Iraqi assent and expect it to have any legitimacy in the long run, and are kidding ourselves if we believe otherwise.
I thought the US/mates went in to find WMDs, rather than imposing democracy?
Whatever the coalition went there for, they are now in a position they have to deal with. Their point of being there now may or may not be the reason for why they got there in the first place. The reason for staying may be greater than the movement, non-existance, or otherwise not finding the WMDs, which maybe would have suggested a withdrawal.
The US should not be dictating to a country how they should run their internal affairs, "liberaters" or not. If this Iraqi government is not to be "trusted" to run their own affairs, then I would suggest you just run the country as a 51st state.
The USA is standing right in the middle of those internal affairs. Considering the interests of surrounding nation states and internal and external organizations, this is not handled by Queensbury rules.
Frankly, I don't think it's credible to state that they should not dictate how to run some parts of the internal affairs. jatx nailed it with his last post, the question is whether this is the best way to establish legitimacy while moving in the right direction.
Please note that I make a distinction between meddling in Iraqi affairs as to what they should do - and the framework the Iraqis are doing it within.
With that said, my experience in nation building is none. More importantly, I have not reformed that many cultures in my life time, or stood guard while somebody else is transforming their at least partly hostile religion.
While giving more and more authority to the Iraqis and other interest groups, at some point we need to give a little thought as to how things may come back to haunt us in the future. It might be prudent to do what we can to create destiny, rather than letting it come to chance.
Martin
aricbcool
08-26-2005, 18:24
While giving more and more authority to the Iraqis and other interest groups, at some point we need to give a little thought as to how things may come back to haunt us in the future. It might be prudent to do what we can to create destiny, rather than letting it come to chance.
Great point Martin. This is my biggest concern over this clause:
What if we end up having to invade/liberate Iraq again in 5, 10, 20 years because of this?
I think we should take a "Not on our watch" stance with this whole issue. It's definitely not in our interests to allow a "State Religion" nor is it beneficial to us (or the Iraqis) to limit the making of laws to only those which align with Islam.
We're exerting the majority of the effort, blood, sweat, tears and money in creating this new Iraq. We are the liberators, as much as we were in Germany and Japan. While I don't think we should dictate to them how to govern, I think we should have a "veto" ability for any law they create.
What if there was a clause in their constitution that said something along the lines of: "Terrorism is a valid tactic and we will support all forms of jihad against evil western influences..."
I doubt we'd let them get away with it.
However, by allowing a State Religion (especially Islam), and creating an environment where no law can contradict it, we are setting the stage for a theocracy that does just that.
Disclaimers:
Yes, it's a transitional clause and may not be in the final draft.
No I'm not qualified to make any of these assertions based on 1st hand exp.
The above is just my .02 :)
--Aric
P.S. CoLawman, it looks like we may be on the same side this time. ;)
CoLawman
08-26-2005, 20:01
The US should not be dictating to a country how they should run their internal affairs, "liberaters" or not. If this Iraqi government is not to be "trusted" to run their own affairs, then I would suggest you just run the country as a 51st state.
You state if they are not to be trusted then you would suggest we make them a commonwealth or a territory. This to me seems far more radical than what I support. Dictate from the outset the separation of church and state. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
I would concur with your position IF we had withdrawn and left them to their own devices. We did not for obvious reasons. What historical basis supports that we have no right to dictate to a conquered nation. To leave it all to chance at this point insures failure. The only reason there is any negotiations regarding the role Islam plays in their future government is because of our presence.
Our interest is establishing a democracy there. I can cut and paste all night long from POTUS on exactly this subject.
I would clearly be interested in the oppositions justification for maintaining our military presence in Iraq if we are to allow them to have free will in establishing thier own form of government. Is our presence merely to insure that we limit the amount of violence so that they can come up with a functioning Theocracy based on the Koran?
Waiting patiently with my debate team of Tubbs, Aric and Martin for your replies!
:munchin :munchin :munchin :munchin
I don't agree with all that Aricbcool wrote, for the record.
I would clearly be interested in the oppositions justification for maintaining our military presence in Iraq if we are to allow them to have free will in establishing thier own form of government.
To wit:
The point of being there is to give them the freedom to make their own choices, good or bad.
I'm not too concerned. After all it only says that Islam is "a" source of legislation (the de facto truth anyway), not "the" source of legislation. The "universally agreed tenets" part is a big hedge, too. How much "universal agreement" is there on any topic between different types of Muslims, and how many of those stances are the ones we're worried about?
Small detail - our current level of control in Iraq is much different than we enjoyed in Japan and Germany post-WW2. The implication is that we cannot impose an alien form of government in Iraq without broad Iraqi assent and expect it to have any legitimacy in the long run, and are kidding ourselves if we believe otherwise.
[...] there is little basis in Islam for the sort of church/state separation that is common in Western democracies. Their task is to create something new, not to emulate our example. IMHO, that "something new" needs to be a state that recognizes and honors the Muslim identity of the Iraqi people, while still ensuring the maintenance of basic freedoms and limiting the power of small factions, whether religious or secular. It is not the goal of the document to reform Islam itself - that will be the task of the civil institutions and individuals which the constitution aims to protect.
And yes of course we do want democracy to take hold in that part of the world. Now that they are liberated, the people must choose and hopefully with our guidance, alliance and assistance they do will exactly that.
Hopefully the people of Iraq WILL choose separation of church/state and real democracy and rights for all including women, and will actually understand what that means.
I personally would hate to see Islam be the ruling law over there for a lot of reasons...but we are liberating them, who are we to actually dictate?
CoLawman, they make some very important and good points.
It is not unreasonable, rather logical, to think that if you liberate someone, then they are completely free. They are free to bury themselves, chain themselves, create a huge capitalistic empire, sell cow dung. If we limit that, they are not free.
Further, you need to have faith in their desire and ability to maintain freedom.
For historic reasons and some noted by jatx, I do not have that confidence in their institution building.
Besides that, it is not unreasonable to view a constitution as one representation, albeit perhaps not the most important one for all people, of who you are and how you want to live. They need to personally accept the constitution, let it pass, for it to have any meaning and carry force. If we make up something that the people cannot identify with, they will reject it and we ( :o Ok, so I'm a wannabe American, sue me), will have to deal with the consequences of a more alienated and hostile region.
So, if you believe that that clause in the constitution does not make Islam the only source of law, what's the problem?
It really does not have to be the only source of law. It clearly states that "no law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period."
If a group manages to declare "any opinion, principle, dogma, belief, or doctrine, which a person holds or maintains as true" (definition of tenet) as part of Islam, by coercion or because of religious stature (e.g., Sistani), it should be possible to outlaw... I tripped myself!
The text does say anything contrary to Islam, it does not use it in a promoting sense. That's good.
Hmmm...
[an hour passes]
The more I think about it, I think what we're seeing is the beginning of a technical seperation of church and state in Iraq.
Some damn smart mofo is keeping an eye on this.
I still think there might be a little deadlocking, but that would happen in any system.
I like this. CoLawman, you're on your own. ;)
Martin
PS. The entire constitution can be read here:
command-post.org/2_archives/010794.html
PS2. I wonder how this fits in with public educational institutions. THAT could be problematic.
This to me seems far more radical than what I support. Dictate from the outset the separation of church and state. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.hmmm...how does dictating the constitution of a (more or less)sovereign state fit into the principal of self-determination...? what legitimacy would Iraq have in the region as a sovereign state...? a US-imposed constitution would only add fuel to the fire with regard to the insurgency...it would legitimize their violence and methods, it would smack of colonialism, it would fly in the face of what we set out to do in Iraq...freedom is not living under a constitution imposed by a foreign power any more than it would be living under a UN imposed constitution...just my $0.02...
The State comment was an offhand remark.
I'll get to the other points tommorow.
Team Sergeant
08-27-2005, 09:16
The proposed Iraqi transitional Constitution has what I consider a very troubling caveat.
Article 7.
A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.
There is an “up” side to this; it ensures that Iraq and most of its islamic followers will remain 1000 years behind the industrialized nations in the science and technology field.
It also guarantees that the entire middle eastern region will continue to remain unstable.
I predict that once the western world makes the leap to “alternative” fuels and the price of fossil fuel will no longer support their economy we will have a showdown of biblical proportions.
TS
CoLawman
08-27-2005, 11:07
Ok, so I'm a wannabe American, sue me),
If not for the Torstenssens, Sjodins, Olsons, and Olafssons bugging out for Minnesota I would be sharing your sentiments, rather than enjoying the rights of a second generation Yankee!
The more I think about it, I think what we're seeing is the beginning of a technical seperation of church and state in Iraq.
Some damn smart mofo is keeping an eye on this.
I still think there might be a little deadlocking, but that would happen in any system.
I like this. CoLawman, you're on your own. ;)
Martin
And then there were three................. :p :p :p
CoLawman
08-27-2005, 11:36
It is not unreasonable, rather logical, to think that if you liberate someone, then they are completely free. They are free to bury themselves, chain themselves, create a huge capitalistic empire, sell cow dung. If we limit that, they are not free.
I would concur.....If our only purpose was to liberate them. Does not this fly in the face of your earlier arguments?
If our intended purpose was remove the current regime and allow them self determination and free will..........(at the risk of being redundant) then why are we still there, in force.
Our goal is to establish a functioning democracy in that part of the world and more specifically in a country we are attempting to liberate. There should be little doubt, that left to their "self determination" they would become a nation under Sharia. And as proposed earlier F**k things us and sell cow dung!
I agree completely that this might be a exercise in futility!
Read the signature line of TS's post. And this creep is an American! I also defer to the posts on "ARe we at war with Islam". Frightening stuff! Establishing a Democracy in Iraq seems like a better choice than having to employ a scorched earth policy in defeating this threat.
Somethings I have learned while participating in this thread:
1. There are some really really bright people I have unwittingly tried to debate here.
2. I see things as Black and White......must be a cultural thing.......May I see your driver's license and registration Sir!
3. I find myself preoccupied with this discussion.
4. I find myself wondering (and worryinig) how TS and TR would weigh in on this.
5. I wonder if Razor is attributing my untenable position as oxygen deprivation brought about by living at ALTITUDE.
It has been engaging............but I must get back to work.............Do you know why I am pulling you over sir?
So, if you believe that that clause in the constitution does not make Islam the only source of law, what's the problem?
One Last shot over the shoulder. I do not believe that this clause does not make Islam the only source of law. I believe just the opposite and thus my ranting and raving.
And that is the problem! :lifter
CoLawman.... :eek: :p
I'll get there. It only takes time and effort.
Now, to the subject at hand: I did not contradict myself in what you first quoted, since I was playing the Devil's Advocate. I stand by everything I wrote previously, with the only change in thinking being noted in the end of my last post. I.e.: This particular part of the constitution may not be the inhibiting part of freedom, unless I'm mistaken.
Three things about the constitution:
That legislation can come from Islam. It does not say that everything in the Koran is to be considered law, and what is taken from it must allow for the articles of Chapter Two. Considering traditions and society of the region, this is not unreasonable. Now, if my English abilities are too weak to interpret this and it does in fact say that what's written in the Koran shall be law, please correct me.
That legislation, from others sources, cannot contradict universal tenets of Islam. Basically, you cannot outlaw Islam. I am not a lawyer, but since it only says that you can't legislate against Islam, that doesn't mean that it forces you legislate according to Islam.
Whether or not Islam is recognized as a source of law, while still not being law, does not appear to make a difference (correct me if wrong, please), since any legislation can be suggested and this part of the constitution only imposes checks on what law can be accepted as constitutional.
The noteworthy part should rather be Chapter Two.
I think that the "universal tenets of Islam" is going to be a source of friction, whether it actually carries any effect or not.
For months, I've kept leaning more and more towards what TS wrote...
Martin
aricbcool
08-27-2005, 15:38
I don't agree with all that Aricbcool wrote, for the record.
Sorry. Wasn't trying to misrepresent you. Your post just brought up a point I wanted to make about keeping our eye out for the future of America first, Iraq second.
Three things about the constitution:
That legislation, from others sources, cannot contradict universal tenets of Islam. Basically, you cannot outlaw Islam. I am not a lawyer, but since it only says that you can't legislate against Islam, that doesn't mean that it forces you legislate according to Islam.
Whether or not Islam is recognized as a source of law, while still not being law, does not appear to make a difference (correct me if wrong, please), since any legislation can be suggested and this part of the constitution only imposes checks on what law can be accepted as constitutional.
1. The way I interpret it is that you can't write any legislation that contradicts islam. That's not to avoid outlawing islam, it's to avoid things like legalizing women's voting rights, property rights, wearing anything less than burkas, drinking, gambling, free speech. And on and on... Being vague in the wording of universal tenets of islam makes it so anyone in power can interpret it how they like.
2. True, any source of legislation can be suggested, but if it contradicts islam (see above) it's automatically disqualified.
That's how I read it anyways.
For the record, I don't think that America should dictate what constitution to adopt. I do think that we should have veto power in light of the security we are providing that enables them to choose their own government.
Regards,
Aric
No problem, Aric.
I think legislation usually prohibits rather than permits. That makes a fundamental difference.
One might be curious about whether Chapter Two, which lays out the people's rights, is missing ingredients. I haven't thought it thoroughly through so I will not comment on that. But as article 7 of chapter one, posted by CoLawman in the beginning of the thread, says, neither chapter two nor universally agreed upon tenets of Islam nor democracy may be infringed. They play out against each other.
That means that even if Islam says no to, for instance, women voting, to outlaw it would be against chapter two of the constitution.
Yes, that means that the constitution likely contradicts itself at some points.
I hope that they have a definition of democracy in there, seems like that's happily reinvented every other decade...
Martin
CoLawman
08-27-2005, 19:45
After some thought I want to put a twist on this whole thread!
If our concern is the insurgency, does that mean that our concern is the Sunni?
Would it not seem practical to develop their secularist leanings? And I understand that we have gone to great lengths to include them into a process they boycotted, but should there be more?
The Kurds seem willing to afford the Sunni a reasonable voice in the final draft of the Constitution. Which I interpret as a good thing when it comes to Separation of Church and State.
Currently Al Sistani and The Badr Brigade (the elite) is trading blows with the Emperor with no clothes, Muqta Al Sadr and the Al Mahdi (The poor). Take advantage of the Shia fighting and develop relations with the former Baathists!
Just some random thoughts and not really developed or polished for presentation to such a well read and educated forum.............but I didn't want to forget my train of thought :D no matter how many cars jump the tracks!
This just in. Part of the populace reported the location of numerous AQ gathering at a house/building near the Syrian Border. We paid them a call. Reuters is reporting we might have wasted as many as 50 of these Bad Boys! The important point being the information (reportedly) coming from the populace.
:munchin