In Major Departure From U.S. Legal Model, Iraq's Draft Constitution Gives Islam Key Role

AP ^ | AP-ES-07-26-05 1459EDT

[GoLightly]

I'd prefer we wait to see what they come up with, for the reasons I stated in my first post to you in this thread.

[GoLightly]

One more thing, from the article: In an Internet statement Tuesday, al-Qaida's wing in Iraq warned Iraqis not to take part in the constitutional referendum, saying democracy goes against God's law and anyone who participates would be considered an "infidel," and earmarked for death.

Ignoring the part Iraq plays in the bigger WOT is not a good idea, strategically.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Thus if the constitution includes extra-Koranic preservation of civil rights, it would not be inconsistent.

But without law you can't enforce them.

That's funny, that is what everyone else is doing, by suggesting that Iraq must hew closer to our model of civil rights.

Our current model of civil rights (except maybe some of the stupid rulings of the last few decades) not the one we had in 1776.

OK, so basically we are justified imposing our will on the Iraqi people. I see, I thought we were there to give them self government, but that is apparently a sham.

If the Iraqis freely elect Iranian type Ayatollahs, Al Zaqqari or Saddam Hussein, then it should be obvious that we should and would blow them all away.

You mean as opposed to religion (which I subscribe to, btw) whose text calls for the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals, and whose ancestors were specifically commanded by God to exterminate certain pagan nations?

If you think those ideas are quaint, why do you subscribe to that religion? Those laws were given to the Jews only. They were free to leave. You should check into the Noahic laws that apply to everyone. And the pagans that were commanded destroyed were practicing child sacrifice.

And Jesus did claim that he did not come to change even an iota of the law, didn't he?

"Till all is fulfilled"

And doesn't the New Testament say that women have to keep silent in the church, and that they shall not teach, they should wear head coverings and no jewelry, and that they are the weaker vessel, etc. etc.?

Yes. Or they can leave. There is no compulsion (or shouldn't be.) See what happens if you quit the mosque. I'd also ask you look at women who have become priests and otherwise outspoken in Christian churches as ask yourself if it would be better if they would shut up and sit down?

Yes, I know, you may say, mainstream interpretation sets that aside much of that now, and interprets other parts of it in terms the culture at the time, etc. etc....

That is not a religion, that is a "living" document that means nothing at all. If you think that the precepts as laid down are wrong, you should spit in God's eye and move on instead of making up your own rules or following some current fashion, belittling previous ages, and then claim you believe in it. You make it all a joke. Read Matthew 15.

Well, that's fine, that's what Islam is going to have to do, as well. And that may be a tall order, one that the Muslim people simply are not prepared to do as a whole.

That is because Muhammad was way ahead of you. Muhammad's central contention is that Jews and Christians corrupted God's Word, following fashions. Islam was not to be reinterpreted. And instead of having a leader like the Pope or priests to lead people astray, Muhammad ordered all Muslims individually to enforce the orthodoxy on each other. This is a self-correcting mechanism that no matter how you try to "corrupt" it, there will always be plenty of "radicals" trying to drag it back.

But let's be honest. What you seem to be saying is that we're basically going to have to eradicate their religion, from any application in their government. Immediately.

Not only that, but eradicate Islam altogether, like the child-sacrificers if necessary. (And yes, we have our own child-sacrificers to deal with too.)

Read my tag line. I'm not hiding it.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

As long as we continue to see ink-stained fingers on the women of Iraq, I for one am going to remain optimistic. Are you with me?

Yes, because it is a repudiation of Islam.

[G32]

4 more of our guys were just blown up to the 'allahu akbar' chants.

Yet we're rewarding the entire thing. Why'd we even BOTHER if we're doing this?

[TalBlack]

"I think it's important that we do so."

There is nothing else we CAN do short of wipeing out 2\3rds of the population. With Islam a part of the equation it is only a matter of time before that woman with the inkstained fingers is beaten back into her hovel. Islam offers it's bosses the same thing Marxisim offers it's rulers: Total power. That's a strong motivation! For that reason either the fighting has just begun for the Iraqis or it's all the hell over and Islam is on top. Time will tell.

I don't see a hell of a lot more that we can do except convincingly promise the Iraqi Gov't that if they again become a haven for Islamic Hate they're going to be out one country and their culture will be a memory.

[lainde]

ditto

[Concentrate]

Ping.