An Islamic Government in Iraq? Surely not!

[iain]

Reading a BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2965193.stm) about the religious celebrations/protests in Iraq, I laughed to see this comment :
Correspondents say some Washington officials are unsettled by the fact that what is moving to fill the vacuum created by the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime appears so emphatically Islamic in character. What the hell were they expecting? Southern Baptists?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by iain
Reading a BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2965193.stm) about the religious celebrations/protests in Iraq, I laughed to see this comment :
What the hell were they expecting? Southern Baptists?

Actually, rumor was that they wanted someone who was an Israeli supporter. Seriously.

[Crossbow]

I am sure the US will be for democracy in Iraq provided that new democracy will serve US interests.

The US sure dropped support of Shities after the GW I after the first Bush asked them to rebel.

Go figure!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I am sure the US will be for democracy in Iraq provided that new democracy will serve US interests.


And if the majority of people don't want to serve US interests?

So much for democracy, eh?

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


And if the majority of people don't want to serve US interests?

So much for democracy, eh?

Well, I wouldn't be too optimistic. From the same article:
On Monday, protesters gathered outside the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad complaining that a Shia leader, Sheikh Muhammad al-Fartusi, and other clerics had been arrested by US forces.

Within hours of the protest, it was reported that the cleric had been released, although US military officials never confirmed that he had been detained.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Crossbow
The US sure dropped support of Shities after the GW I after the first Bush asked them to rebel.

If this was a typo, it is pretty funny. If it was an insult, well, a little more lame, but still funny.

[richardm]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
So much for democracy, eh?

Well, it depends. If a theocracy gets power, then it's no sort of democracy at all.

[Barkhorn1x]

...Democracy Islamic Party style = one man, one vote, one time.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[Mel]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Actually, rumor was that they wanted someone who was an Israeli supporter. Seriously.

And there is something wrong about wanting to stop the cycle of Anti-Israeli violence in that region?

Frankly, if every Arab country wants to slowly implode, it's their right. I think the ONLY concern of the free world is that they don't take any democratic countries with them.

Seriously.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Mel


And there is something wrong about wanting to stop the cycle of Anti-Israeli violence in that region?


Do you seriously think that the Iraqi people want a pro-Israeli government?

I thought this was about giving the Iraqis the chance to rule themselves? What we want to happen is immaterial. If we are to allow them true freedom, then they must be free to chose their government.

And I guarantee, it isn't going to be a pro-Israeli one.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Do you seriously think that the Iraqi people want a pro-Israeli government?

How exactly do you define 'pro-Israel'?

There can be several 'levels' of being pro-Israel. Obviously, wanting to have Israel 'driven into the sea' would be anti-Israel. But, they could agree to recognize Israel, and then more or less leave them alone. Or they could have 'minor' exchanges. (For example, look at Turkey... Israel has helped Turkey out during recent earthquakes, and has helped rescue Turkish ships at sea.)

Anything would be an improvement over a government that funds terrorist bombers and lobs scuds at them.

[Tony]

This is something that really concerns me. IMO, we should do everything and anything to quell the formation of an islamic state.

[Smalso]

And if the majority votes for a theocracy? Or an anti-American, anti-Israeli regime?

[dsm]

Who cares what the majority want -- as long as it's decided upon democratically. ;)

[LCBOY]

Almost all Iraqis are Muslim. Democracy is incompatible with Islam. Just check out the presidental election going on right now in Nigeria. The Muslim candidiate has stated if elected he will impose Muslim Sharia law. In the Muslim worldview there is no such thing as seperation of church and state. They believe that secular law can never supercede Muslim law. So if Iraqis want a Muslim sate isn't that their right?

[Richard G]

The only thing that will work is a constitutional republic. I'm certain this will be the model that will be used, I'm just curious who will draft the initial constitution.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Richard G
The only thing that will work is a constitutional republic. I'm certain this will be the model that will be used, I'm just curious who will draft the initial constitution.

And how long it will last.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Smalso


And how long it will last.

As long as the mullahs are marginalized and the country has freedom.

[Smalso]

As long as the mullahs are marginalized and the country has freedom.
You mean the mullahs are to be suppressed and not allowed free speech? I'm not sure what you mean by "marginalized."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Almost all Iraqis are Muslim. Democracy is incompatible with Islam. Just check out the presidental election going on right now in Nigeria. The Muslim candidiate has stated if elected he will impose Muslim Sharia law.
Have to disagree with that.

There are thousands of Muslims living quite happily in democracies in the U.S., Canada, and other western countries. (There are even Muslims involved in democracy in Israel.) I assume many of these people do vote.

I believe that the people who are pushing for Sharia law are just using Islam as a means to an end (grabbing authority for themselves).

[Mel]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Do you seriously think that the Iraqi people want a pro-Israeli government?

I thought this was about giving the Iraqis the chance to rule themselves? What we want to happen is immaterial. If we are to allow them true freedom, then they must be free to chose their government.

And I guarantee, it isn't going to be a pro-Israeli one.

I don't think pro-Israel will ever be an attainable goal in the Arab world. You don't have to love or even like your neighbor in order to stop trying to destroy another country.

In some ways the ANTI-Israel violence does more to hurt the Arabs than the Jews. When corrupt governments (especially Saudi Arabia) spend more energy propogating hatred towards an outsider (Jews) than taking care of their own backyards, I think the people are being used and abused.


And I also don't think it's likely than freedom will take hold in ANY Arab country unless we see some positive changes in the whole region. As long as terrorists are going to be exported throughout the region to further the goals of fundamentalist govts, freedom and/or peace has no REAL chance.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


There are thousands of Muslims living quite happily in democracies in the U.S., Canada, and other western countries. (There are even Muslims involved in democracy in Israel.) I assume many of these people do vote.

I believe that the people who are pushing for Sharia law are just using Islam as a means to an end (grabbing authority for themselves).

I agree, but the U.S. Canada, and other western country are not Muslim countries. If you look at the Islamic world there is not one democratic government among them (well, maybe Turkey, I'll go research...). I aslo agree that Sharia Law is the means. The reason it is the means is because they believe this is the proper way to grab power. It is their belief that it is Allah's will that muslims live under Shiria law. Again they believe that no secular law can ever supercede Muslim law.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Segnosaur:
There can be several 'levels' of being pro-Israel. Obviously, wanting to have Israel 'driven into the sea' would be anti-Israel. But, they could agree to recognize Israel, and then more or less leave them alone. Or they could have 'minor' exchanges. (For example, look at Turkey... Israel has helped Turkey out during recent earthquakes, and has helped rescue Turkish ships at sea.)

IIRC Arabs are as antagonistic towards Turkey as they are towards Israel, due to Turkey's imperial past in the region. Israeli-Turkish cordiality isn't all that strange when seen in this light.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Smalso

I'm not sure what you mean by "marginalized."


Another word might be "educated". That is, if the population as a whole can be educated about the benefits of a democratic government, then they are less likely to vote for another style of government and, thus, those that attempt to establish a different government are "marginalized" into the minority.

Of course, given the makeup of the region, such an education will take time to filter out to the general populace.

[LCBOY]

Education is important. But will happen when they learn that to have a democratic gov't then will not be able to teach Islam in school, no prayer allowed in school, people have the right to "ridicule" Mohammed and the Koran, and women call be independent?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Smalso

You mean the mullahs are to be suppressed and not allowed free speech? I'm not sure what you mean by "marginalized."

The mullahs should not be allowed to incite hatred, rebellion and violence. When I say marginalized, I mean that they should be made to be irrelevant. How are we going to acomplish this? Ask me when ive had time to think about it.

[LCBOY]

by "right" I mean the the freedom without persecution.

[Mel]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Education is important. But will happen when they learn that to have a democratic gov't then will not be able to teach Islam in school, no prayer allowed in school, people have the right to "ridicule" Mohammed and the Koran, and women call be independent?

I don't think a country has to go that far to be democratic.

Does every country have to completely BAN religion in schools or government? Can not COMPELLING all citizens to follow any specific religion can be just as effective?

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Tony


The mullahs should not be allowed to incite hatred, rebellion and violence. When I say marginalized, I mean that they should be made to be irrelevant. How are we going to acomplish this? Ask me when ive had time to think about it.

Fair enough. It's certainly something to think about. It's going to be tricky, sure enough. The odds are high against it, I think. To try set up a democracy, then make it known that certain factions will not be allowed a voice does not speak well for democracy; and it would make the U.S. more occupiers than liberators.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Smalso
It's going to be tricky, sure enough.

No it's not. If nominated, I will not run and if elected I will not serve.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Mel

Does every country have to completely BAN religion in schools or government? Can not COMPELLING all citizens to follow any specific religion can be just as effective?


Uh... huh? :confused:

[dsm]

Originally posted by Smalso

Fair enough. It's certainly something to think about. It's going to be tricky, sure enough. The odds are high against it, I think. To try set up a democracy, then make it known that certain factions will not be allowed a voice does not speak well for democracy; and it would make the U.S. more occupiers than liberators.


Flip that around.

If the US sets up a democratic election process in Iraq in the next few months and then leaves, will the first election have been truly democratic if the population immediately votes to eliminate democracy and go with a permanent Islamic government?

Will a country that has not had democracy (in a long time?) be able to vote democratically the first time or will it be simply "powerful factions" controlling the election?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dsm


Flip that around.

If the US sets up a democratic election process in Iraq in the next few months and then leaves, will the first election have been truly democratic if the population immediately votes to eliminate democracy and go with a permanent Islamic government?

Will a country that has not had democracy (in a long time?) be able to vote democratically the first time or will it be simply "powerful factions" controlling the election?

With "The US controlling the election" as the other option?

This concerns me a lot. Suppose we allow free elections, and some powerful faction comes along and sways the election one way or another. How do we respond? Do we call a "Do over" because we don't like the result? How can we do that and still claim that we aren't trying to take over the middle east and are only trying to free the Iraqi people? 'Freedom to do what the US wants' is not really much in terms of freedom.

[Mel]

Originally posted by dsm


Uh... huh? :confused:

I don't blame you for being confused... I wrote it & can barely understand what I said. lol

Let me try again..... (But I'm not promising it will make more sense. lol)

Does every country have to completely BAN religion in schools or government? Can not COMPELLING all citizens to follow any specific religion can be just as effective?

Every DEMOCRATIC country does not have to separate 'church' and state to the point where the general public is afraid to allow children to say a prayer in school.

I think it is possible for a country to 'be' religious and democratic as long as they do NOT force its citizens to practice or abstain from any particular religion.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Mel


I think it is possible for a country to 'be' religious and democratic as long as they do NOT force its citizens to practice or abstain from any particular religion.

In the US aren't people forced to abstain for religion in schools? In Texas someone got court order to stop a school from praying before a football game. Now, if someone chooses not to pray that is their inalienable right not to do so. But that was not good enough for them. The had to force the others to stop praying.

[Mel]

Originally posted by LCBOY


In the US aren't people forced to abstain for religion in schools? In Texas someone got court order to stop a school from praying before a football game. Now, if someone chooses not to pray that is their inalienable right not to do so. But that was not good enough for them. The had to force the others to stop praying.

Yes, but we are talking about Iraq and what it takes to be considered a democratic govt.

I don't think it's necessary or helpful to compare a Middle Eastern country with an American's concept of freedom.

Can't a democratic type govt. be tailored to fit a region?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Mel

Can't a democratic type govt. be tailored to fit a region?

Good question.

The question is can a democratic gov't be tailored to fit within Islam. What do they do when democratic concepts contradict Muslim principles? Within Islam the Koran is the final arbitor when it comes to all of life's matters, including gov't.

[Mel]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Good question.

The question is can a democratic gov't be tailored to fit within Islam. What do they do when democratic concepts contradict Muslim principles? Within Islam the Koran is the final arbitor when it comes to all of life's matters, including gov't.

Maybe you can define what Muslim principles you think might contradict the concepts of democracy?

[Smalso]

Tricky:No it's not. If nominated, I will not run and if elected I will not serve.

Pity. You were certainly my first choice.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Mel


Maybe you can define what Muslim principles you think might contradict the concepts of democracy?

Dissent is a important part of a democatic gov't. People's right to protest or disagree without fear of retribution. In most Muslim countries dissent is not allowed. In Palistan for instance, anyone that speaks against Islam, Mohhammed, or the Koran face jail or even death. In Saudi Arabia, a Saudi citizen who converts to another religion faces a death penalty. That is the law of the land.

[LCBOY]

I mean Pakistan.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LCBOY

In the US aren't people forced to abstain for religion in schools? In Texas someone got court order to stop a school from praying before a football game. Now, if someone chooses not to pray that is their inalienable right not to do so. But that was not good enough for them. The had to force the others to stop praying.
Absolutely wrong. They got a court order to stop schools from having Christian prayers spoken aloud at secular events (like football games). No power on earth can ever stop a person from praying.

Besides, dont you remember Matthew 6:5-8 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Matthew+6%3A5-9&NIV_version=yes&language=english&x=15&y=11)

5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Tricky

Absolutely wrong. They got a court order to stop schools from having Christian prayers spoken aloud at secular events (like football games). No power on earth can ever stop a person from praying.


You are playing semantics here. I meant they were stopped from praying AT FOOTBALL GAMES. Do people's religious rights end when they leave church or their homes?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Mel

Every DEMOCRATIC country does not have to separate 'church' and state to the point where the general public is afraid to allow children to say a prayer in school.

I think it is possible for a country to 'be' religious and democratic as long as they do NOT force its citizens to practice or abstain from any particular religion.


How do you tell that to a 5 year old whose family does not practice religion and, yet, is told by his school that, at 3pm every day, the school will observe (to be generous) a "moment of silence" so that everyone can say a prayer to their God? At that age, the boundary between suggesting to a kid what he should do during the silence and forcing a kid to "observe" a particular religious practice is very thin.

Or would you suggest using "public" funds to setup schools for EVERY religious denomination (including atheism) so that each parent can choose the school that best fits their practice?

:rolleyes:

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LCBOY


You are playing semantics here. I meant they were stopped from praying AT FOOTBALL GAMES. Do people's religious rights end when they leave church or their homes?

As Tricky said, no one said people couldn't pray at the football game. They just ruled that the school could not sponsor prayer over the PA.

If the cheerleaders all decide to face Mecca and pray they can still do that.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by dsm


How do you tell that to a 5 year old whose family does not practice religion and, yet, is told by his school that, at 3pm every day, the school will observe (to be generous) a "moment of silence" so that everyone can say a prayer to their God? At that age, the boundary between suggesting to a kid what he should do during the silence and forcing a kid to "observe" a particular religious practice is very thin.


I don't think it is that thin. Unless someone grabs the kid in a headlock and forces them pray, most kids will just go with flow and not pay attention to the others praying.

Educational vouchers for atheist schools. Any interesting idea...;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LCBOY


You are playing semantics here. I meant they were stopped from praying AT FOOTBALL GAMES. Do people's religious rights end when they leave church or their homes?
No they were not, and it is not semantics at all. They were stoped from having prayers broadcasts over the speakers. Are you seriously trying to suggest that people cannot pray unless they do it aloud, following the lead of someone else?

Did you read the bit about what Jesus said about praying in public? He's supposed to have some influence with you, right?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Tricky

No they were not, and it is not semantics at all. They were stoped from having prayers broadcasts over the speakers. Are you seriously trying to suggest that people cannot pray unless they do it aloud, following the lead of someone else?


I suggested no such thing. :D

[dsm]

Originally posted by LCBOY

I don't think it is that thin. Unless someone grabs the kid in a headlock and forces them pray, most kids will just go with flow and not pay attention to the others praying.


The first N times, maybe. Eventually, though, the impression is made on both the kids that follow the practice and the kids that don't that those kids are "different". This becomes especially true when most of the school follow one religion (like the southern Bible belt) and the other kids begin taunting the one or two who are different. At ages 5-10, kids are trying to establish their place in the social hierarchy and picking on those who are "different" gives them leverage in their peer group.

Kind of explains the problems in the Middle East, don't you think?

:D

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by dsm


The first N times, maybe. Eventually, though, the impression is made on both the kids that follow the practice and the kids that don't that those kids are "different". This becomes especially true when most of the school follow one religion (like the southern Bible belt) and the other kids begin taunting the one or two who are different. At ages 5-10, kids are trying to establish their place in the social hierarchy and picking on those who are "different" gives them leverage in their peer group.

Kind of explains the problems in the Middle East, don't you think?

:D

All kids are different. Kids get picked on for many other reasons besides "religion" I remember a kid in school that picked on because he had a unibrow. Kids get picked on because or clothes, habits. appearance, accent, etc...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LCBOY


All kids are different. Kids get picked on for many other reasons besides "religion" I remember a kid in school that picked on because he had a unibrow. Kids get picked on because or clothes, habits. appearance, accent, etc...
Yes, kids can be cruel. This hardly excuses adults who deliberately try to manufacture an "us and them" situation, giving the cruel kids yet another reason to pick on people unlike themselves. Growing up in Alabama, I was physically harassed (fortunately not beaten up though) because I publicly stated that I believed in evolution. Do you think that those kids just invented their anti-evolutionary stance, or do you suspect the parents may have had something to do with it?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, kids can be cruel. This hardly excuses adults who deliberately try to manufacture an "us and them" situation, giving the cruel kids yet another reason to pick on people unlike themselves. Growing up in Alabama, I was physically harassed (fortunately not beaten up though) because I publicly stated that I believed in evolution. Do you think that those kids just invented their anti-evolutionary stance, or do you suspect the parents may have had something to do with it?

I agree. The people who harrassed you were terribly misguided. I'm sure their parents had a lot to do with it. Did you ask the kids why it bothered them that you believed in evolution? In college I was an atheist and told people but nobody bothered me...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LCBOY


I agree. The people who harrassed you were terribly misguided. I'm sure their parents had a lot to do with it. Did you ask the kids why it bothered them that you believed in evolution?

LOL. I didn't have to ask him. He let me know in no uncertain terms that God hates evolutionists. (Really, there was only one ringleader bully who shoved me around. The others just kind of stood around looking menacing.) I guess he felt he was doing God's work. I say in his defense, though, that he could have easily beaten the crap out of me (I was a scrawny kid) but he didn't.

Originally posted by LCBOY
In college I was an atheist and told people but nobody bothered me...
Me too and me neither. It seems the age of bullying is the teens. By college age, most people have learned to control their anger, and most people with unconventional beliefs learn where and when to let them be known.

High school, though, is the gladiator pit of peer pressure. That's why it is so very important not to give people reasons to isolate others at that delicate age.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tricky
Are you seriously trying to suggest that people cannot pray unless they do it aloud, following the lead of someone else?


Originally posted by LCBOY
I suggested no such thing. :D
You did, however, state that people were prevented from praying, when in fact they were only prevented from praying over the loudspeakers.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tricky
You did, however, state that people were prevented from praying, when in fact they were only prevented from praying over the loudspeakers. Loudspeakers for praying sounds very muslim to me - would LCBOY approve it if it was in fact Texan muslims demanding a right to pray and broadcast it at the football games? :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Loudspeakers for praying sounds very muslim to me - would LCBOY approve it if it was in fact Texan muslims demanding a right to pray and broadcast it at the football games? :p
Or Wiccan! My wife is Wiccan (a fact that she has to conceal carefully, since she is a teacher) and I can just imagine the look on some of our fellow Texans' faces if one of her Goddess rituals was broadcast before a football game. There would probably be a riot!:D