I thought Islam was a religion of peace, and it allowed freedoms for all it's followers? Isn't that the case? If so, what is the problem ? DD
The article is only showing a couple of women who oppose a strong religious role in the Constitution/government. That's is NOT a poll, you should try to remember that next time. Anyways, here is just a part of a Gallup poll conducted in Iraq last year, I am just including this part to answer your question about whether or not Iraqis want their government to be at least inspired by Islamic norms: http://www.pipa.org/analyses/06_13_2005/06_13_2005.html Support for Religion Playing a Central Role At the same time Iraqis do want the religion to play a central role in the Iraqi government. Most reject the notion of a pure separation of church and state. In a spring 2004 Gallup poll, Iraqis were told that “there is a notion, which calls for the separation of religion from political government.” They were then asked whether they supported or opposed this notion. Among all Iraqis a 58% majority opposed this notion; only 31% supported it. Overwhelming majorities support having Islam be the moral basis for the Iraqi legal system. In an August 2004 IRI poll 84% agreed (70% strongly), that, “the new Iraqi Constitution should take Islam and the Shari’a as the sole basis for all laws and legislation.” In an April 2005 IRI poll that asked what the role of Islam should be in the creation of laws and legislation, three out of four Iraqis said Islam should be “the sole source” (35%) or “the main source” (40%). Only 12% said Islam should be only “one source” and a mere 2% that laws and legislation “should not be based on any religious source.” Overwhelming majorities endorse the view that Iraq should be an Islamic state. Eighty-eight percent agreed that the “new Iraqi constitution should ensure the Islamic identity of Iraq” (IRI, August 2004). In an April 2005 IRI poll 92% agreed that “the new constitution should make Islam the official religion.” Finally, though Iraqis do not want clerics to serve in government they do think that they should play a key role in shaping outcomes. In March 2005, IRI asked “in writing the constitution, whose input do you feel should be most important in creating a document that is acceptable to the Iraqi people?” A 59% majority of Iraqis chose clerics or religious leaders as their first (47%) or second choice (12%), outstripping the 30% who chose political party representatives (16% first choice, 14% second choice) or the 26% who chose the Prime Minister (10% first choice, 16% second choice). As mentioned above, in the spring 2004 Gallup poll only small minorities favored clerics being directly in charge of eight specified government functions. However, very large majorities favored them advising the government officials holding these responsibilities. Also, though most Iraqis say they would not feel compelled to adhere to clerics’ decrees on electoral matters, only 13% said they would ignore them. Three out of four said they would at least “listen to what clerics have to say” (25%), that the “guidance of clerics or religious organizations will be a major factor” in their participation in the elections” (16%) or that they would follow all of the decrees of the clerics (33%).
The problem is that some Americans are oblivious to the fact that unlike most Westerners, Muslims in the Middle East don't want a secular society, and they DON'T want a Western-type of society that basically lets anything goes. That's just a fact some people will have to live with. Different culture, different norms, and now that IRaqis have a chance at building a democracy, they will build it on their own terms, not to make their society an American/European clone. If you read the poll I posted in above, you will know that everything pretty much written in the current draft of the Iraqi Constitution coincides with what the majority of the people want. That's democracy in action. We are a liberal/secular democracy, and so is Europe, Iraqis apparently don't want to go down that path. It's up to them, whether people think it's good or bad.
I never said it was a poll. From that same source you provided: "In polling conducted in the spring of 2004 Gallup asked Iraqis to choose among seven forms of government. A mere 12% chose the option “An Islamic theocracy in which religious leaders or mullahs have a strong influence, such as in Iran.” Virtually none endorsed the model of former Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The most popular single model, endorsed by 40%, was for “a multiparty democracy such as that in most European and some Asian countries.” In a separate question only 22% said that what Iraq needs is a government “made up mostly of religious leaders.” "
Good point. Everyone thinks democracy is the ideal government but it really isn't. Some of the reasons America is viable is the wording of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Democracy, in of itself, has A LOT of problems. Majority trumps minority everytime. Luckily, our forefathers were very intelligent people who set up a good system to counter the many problems democracy has. Will the fathers of the Iraqi Constitution do the same? Should we try to influence them to serve our interests and our ideals?
OK, I appologize, it's the wording again, right? OK, how about this? Americans elected a leader who believes firmly in his religion, and wants to take actions based on his "morality" to attempt and reverse what he and many of his party members view as an "immoral society", including issues of abortion, attacking Hollywood and the p*rn industry, among others. Isn't that rhester what modern conservatives are mostly concerned about? Isn't that what the last election strangely turned into -- a battle between those "immoral" Liberals and the "Moral, Christian" Conservatives? Didn't nearly a third of the voters declare that "moral values" were their top concern and dictated how they voted in the election? Why is homosexuality being discussed in a supposedly "secular" nation? Why are the Democrats now falling all over themselves trying to insert "Jesus" and "God" in every other sentence, isn't it to win votes from an American public that seems to be "born-again"? Again, sorry for the confusion.
OK, for some reason I am starting to think that you are not very good at understanding stuff, so let me try to explain... The first question asked if IRaq wanted an "Iran-type theocracy", which means NO DEMOCRACY whatsoever, since the ultimate power to make decisions is in the hands of the mullahs. That's not democracy, so it shouldn't surprise you that most rejected it. The Taliban were an extremist bunch and we know how great their country was doing, so again no surprise Iraqis rejected such an extreme, radical form of government, which again is NOT democratic. The one endorsed by most, the "multiparty system", means that they want a democratic system similar to how the Europeans have it constructed, but that just means how the government would constructed to look like and function, and is not an endorsement of secularist society like Europe; BIG DIFFERENCE. This is similar to someone asking you if you "Prefer a winner-takes-all system, or a proportional representation system of government?" In this case, the Iraqis prefer a system set up similar to those in most of European countries, and dislike a winner-takes-all system like that in U.S. Again, the part I posted clearly asks a question about the role of Islam in the Iraqi government, and that's the only part that directly answers that question.
Sure, Al-Qaeda that's blowing innocent Iraqis to pieces is quiet popular there We can try to influence them by giving them ideas/opinions/etc., but we can't twist their arms to force them to adopt a system we are comfortable with, while they might not be happy with, because sooner or later they will change it to their liking. This is a brand new democracy, they won't get everything right from the start. Look at American history and the development/maturation of our democracy for reference. If I remember correctly, women suffrage wasn't enacted until not too distantly in our past, let alone the civil rights movement that finally granted Blacks and some other minorities some of their rights ONLY 30+ years ago. Know your history...
Democracy is literally a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates, for instance, was put through a democratic trial and ordered executed. This only because the majority simply did not like him. Gladly, we live in a Republic in which individual rights are protected from the majority. This is guaranteed by the Constitution. Unfortunately however, there have been many amendments since the formation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that aim to strip individuals of their inherent rights. The Federal Reserve Banking Act, Gay Marriage amendment, etc. I guess the Mob always finds a way to get their way. Interesting that we keep trying to push 'democracy' on certain countries. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan don't have democratic forms of government to say the least. Israel's theocratic form of government hasn't seemed to bother us. And on the other hand, we appear to be against democratic forms of government in Venezuela and Haiti. Damn you'd think with all our taxpayer funding, the Federal Office of Propaganda could at least come up with slightly more cogent soundbytes and messages to describe our foreign policy
Our Constitution wasn't perfect, why do you think we have all these amendments? One thing no one has EVER accused US foreign policy of being is "consistent", so no worries there.
If the president has done something about abortion, Hollywood or p*rn, again I missed it. I don't listen to talk, rhetoric or political speeches and I try not to listen to lies. If he is moral then why are we in Iraq? Have you seen any reversal of immorality in America, it is worsening. Modern Conservatives especially the TV and radio stars may be concerned about those hot button issues but that is not where my own highest priority is. I don't put much stock in those who claim "morality", "born again", or "conservative", excuse my skepticism but anybody and everybody can get in that boat just by saying the right buzz words. Now if the administration or any of these politicians wanted to PRACTICE honesty, responsibility, conviction, liberty and morality I would call them conservative by definition and be the first to stand up for them. Until then, I wait.... Inserting Jesus or God into anything is useless and a sure sign that it is phony. When Americans say they want morals they mean their marriages are falling apart, their kids are mostly in trouble, families are breaking down and they won't take personal responsibility or don't know how. Anyone who thinks the government will make America moral is deceived. We deserve much worse than we have in government (we the people usually get what we deserve) and it's pretty bad as it is in my opinion. The key word is practice, the govts. actions scream far louder than their rhetoric.
Agreed, I think we are on the same page here, I was obviously refering to their rhetoric and what the public seems to want, whether Bush and his cronies can do it or not is certainly debatable, but there is no question they are ateempting their best to "legislate" morality (i.e. proposing an amendment to ban gay marriages, installing SC justices to possibly attempt and overturn Roe v. Wade, etc.). I understand what you are saying though, and I agree with what you said above.
All legislation promotes morality, just depends on what side of the fence you sit on whether you like it or not.
Well, I'll make a semantic distinction to that. Laws are supposed to protect people from becoming victims. If you do something amoral but there is no victim, it's hard to pass a law preventing it. Although we try real hard anyways and sometimes suceed.
