in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. :)
| Fox News | Wow: Nearly 70 percent of adoption credit claims were audited by IRS, report finds |
0 |
| Gov. Perry | This: [Press Release] Statement by Gov. Rick Perry on Decision by the Boy Scouts of America |
0 |
| NYT | Hmm: Huma Abedin Is an Unexpected Driving Force in Weiner’s Comeback |
0 |
| KOMO | Awful: Cars, people sent tumbling into Skagit River as I-5 bridge collapses |
0 |
| Politico | Media Watch: The Sharyl Attkisson approach |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Move Along:
""The whole issue of this - of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. The whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations."
Pres. Obama on GOP demands for Benghazi answers, 5/13/2013
The Iraqi Constitution
Iraq the Model has the latest breaking news on what the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds are agreeing (or not agreeing) to regarding the Iraqi Constitution. I’m troubled by one update (emphasis added):
Regarding Islam and the constitution: it was agreed upon that no laws that are against the widely agreed upon values of Islam can be issued and no laws that are against the values of democracy and human rights can be issued. Natural resources according to the draft will be managed in cooperation between the central government and the local administrations of the federal states/provinces.
What does that mean? Could those two standards possibly co-exist? Andy McCarthy at NRO makes some great points here:
Now, if several reports this weekend are accurate, we see the shocking ultimate destination of the democracy diversion. In the desperation to complete an Iraqi constitution – which can be spun as a major step of progress on the march toward democratic nirvana – the United States of America is pressuring competing factions to accept the supremacy of Islam and the fundamental principle no law may contradict Islamic principles. There is grave reason to doubt that Islam and democracy (at least the Western version based on liberty and equality) are compatible. But that is an argument for another day. The argument for today is: the American people were never asked whether they would commit their forces to overseas hostilities for the purpose of turning Iraq into a democracy (we committed them (a) to topple a terror-abetting tyrant who was credibly thought both to have and to covet weapons of mass destruction, and (b) to kill or capture jihadists who posed a danger to American national security). I doubt they would have agreed to wage war for the purpose of establishing democracy. Like most Americans, I would like to see Iraq be an authentic democracy – just as I would like to see Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. be authentic democracies. But I would not sacrifice American lives to make it so. But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace. It is not our place to fix what ails Islam. But it is utter recklessness to avert our eyes from the fact that militant Islam thrives wherever Islam reigns. That is a fact. When and where militant Islam thrives, America and the West are endangered. That is also a fact. How can we possibly be urging people who wisely don’t want it to accept the government-institutionalized supremacy of Islam? And if the United States, in contradiction of its own bedrock principle against government establishment religion, has decided to go into the theocracy business, how in the world is it that Islam is the religion we picked?
We haven’t sacrificed the blood of American soldiers to set up an Islamic state. We shouldn’t settle for anything less than a Constitution free of laws based on Islam. Stay tuned to the Iraq the Model blog for updates on the debate over the Iraqi Constitution. Linking up with OTB’s traffic jam. Tuesday morning update: La Shawn Barber comments and wonders the same thing I’ve been wondering:
You needn’t be an Islamic or constitutional scholar to see the contradictory elements here. Iraq, according to items 1a and 1b of the draft constitution, will be a democracy, which means government “by the people,” but at the same time, subject to Islamic law. What kind of democracy is that? And one type of law can’t contradict the other. Aren’t Islam and democracy inherently contradictory? What kind of shell game are these people playing?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I don’t like it. I just don’t like it. I have to believe that our people over there know what they’re doing, but I don’t like it. I really, really don’t like that Dean might have been right when he said women may have less rights under the new Iraq than they did under Saddam….I just don’t know. Damn.
Sister Toldjah, I say the Iraqis should start with these articles of our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and article XIX, “The right of citizens of (I’m substituting Iraq for U.S.) to vote shall not be denied or abridged by Iraq or any State on account of sex” This would be a good beginning in a part of the world where women aren’t permitted to drive! I don’t know why Muslim men are so threatened by Muslim women!
“We shouldn’t settle for anything less than a Constitution free of laws based on Islam.”
This democracy business doesn’t seem to turn out the way we want it to.
It looks more promising to me.
no laws that are against the widely agreed upon values of Islam just means to me that if there is a widely agreed upon value of Islam that they can’t pass a law against it. NOTHING wrong with that.
no laws that are against the values of democracy and human rights can be issued just means to me that if there can be no law passed that remove democracy or go against human rights. People always thought, “Well what if they want to elect an Islamic leader and that leader then removes elections.” “They were free as a democracy to elect themselves a dictator.” Well that would be unconstitutional now wouldn’t it. That smacks that liberal (I generalize because I can and only liberals posed this to me) argument down.
“no laws that are against the widely agreed upon values of Islam just means to me that if there is a widely agreed upon value of Islam that they can’t pass a law against it. NOTHING wrong with that.”
Yeah, but just what is that “value”?
The problem is that just about every other constitution in the Arab world enshrines Islam (Lebanon is the only exception I can find), or makes shar’ia the basis of their judicial system.
I think Iraq’s gonna be okay (at least, I hope it will be). Frankly, I didn’t expect a constitution that didn’t mention Iraq or Shar’ia. I’m with Baklava on this one, and still have great optimism.
Thanks guys – I’m reading your comments here and those at NRO’s Corner, who also seems to be taking a cautiously optimistic approach.
Color me highly skeptical at this point, but I do take into account that not all this nations’ “founding laws” were perfect, either.
Not what we would have ideally hoped for, but remember: Our own constitution, as originally drafted, contained some things that weren’t very pretty.
“Frankly, I didn’t expect a constitution that didn’t mention Iraq or Shar’ia.”
Its not just ‘mentioning’ it. Its that no law can oppose it.
Its not just ‘mentioning’ it. Its that no law can oppose it.
The question is moot now, as a vote on the Constitution has been delayed once again.
As someone else said, “A Iraq constitution that did not mention Islam, in some way, would be like a physics book that omitted the theory of gravity.”
As for “no law can oppose it”, we’ll see when the actual Constitution is ratified. Our 1787 Constitution enshrined slavery and didn’t give women the right to vote. Yet Americans solved those problems and our Constitution is considered to be a model document.
I really, really don’t like that Dean might have been right when he said women may have less rights under the new Iraq than they did under Saddam….I just don’t know. Damn./
And yet, the simplest explanation, eh?
I think those two standards could co-exist, but I’d have to study up on what Islamic law really says about the treatment of women.
I know that in the New Testament it says women are to be quiet and such-like…
(II Timothy, I believe)
I went and checked; it’s I Timothy, Chapter 2:11-12:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
FYI, I’m not trying to stir anything up; my point is that you can take things out of context and make them say a lot of things…
“But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace.”
How can you have anything BUT an Islamic government in an Islamic country?
Turkey is an Islamic country with a formally secular government.
At least you have to give the Iraqi’s an E for effort. Getting the various divisions in Iraq to agree on any govenment form was never going to be easy. For them to have come this far is miraculous indeed. The tests to come are 1) how they treat women who typically do not have the same rights are men in Islamic law 2) how they treat people of other faiths, perhaps their biggest test will be with Jews 3) how they treat the people that switch from Islam to other faiths. 4) their relationship with the other Islamic countries especially those that surround them. In my opinion which I believe is also the opinion of President Bush is that any chance for a non-Islamic representative form of government in Iraq is dependant on our (USA) continuing presence.
True – but didn’t the Sunni’s say they hadn’t agreed to the draft of the Constitution?