Replies

First, they are incorporating the Koran into the Constitution by reference.

Second, you cannot keep comparing the founding of our country to Iraq. Our founding we did ourselves. Theirs is being done after we fought a war for them (and us) and they are doing so under our protection (and occupation). And they are even less historically prepared to do so than we were 229 years ago. And beside that they are saddled with a religion that calls for beating women and killing Christians, Jews and other infidels (us).

First, they are incorporating the Koran into the Constitution by reference.

Yes, but not necessarily just the Koran. Read again what the statement says: that no law that contradicts the Koran can be psased. That doesn't mean that every law that doesn't contradict the Koran must be passed. Thus if the constitution includes extra-Koranic preservation of civil rights, it would not be inconsistent.

Second, you cannot keep comparing the founding of our country to Iraq.

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

Theirs is being done after we fought a war for them (and us) and they are doing so under our protection (and occupation).

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.

And beside that they are saddled with a religion that calls for beating women and killing Christians, Jews and other infidels (us).

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

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.

I know a good liberal interest group or two who would like to see that happen around here! :)

OK, I've spent much of this thread defending the Iraqi's right to include pro-Islamic language into their Constitution. I wasn't just playing devil's advocate, I believe what I said. As long as they enshrine genuine democracy into said constitution, I am content to let them have their process, imperfect as it may be. I think it's important that we do so.

But lest you think I am dooming them to ruin, allow me to post just one picture that suggests otherwise:

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?