LA Times Op-Ed

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

There is no doubt that Shiites will be in the majority of Iraq's new government. I think its a stretch to assume that Shiite Majority Iraq = Ayatollahs of Iran.

And the Shi'a of Iraq are different from the Protestants of the US, how?

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by jBirch

And the Shi'a of Iraq are different from the Protestants of the US, how?

I'm guessing that you are referring to the religious majority of a country, and their impact on the politics of the nation????

Hopefully they ink the following into their bill of rights equivalent.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[jBirch]

Pretty much.

People are people the world over. The media seems to like making an issue out of the Shi'a and Sunni muslims (Catholic and Protestant equivalent) and how because one group is under represented in Government that necessitates a theocracy. It strikes me as a gross oversimplification that the issue is all about the buzzword Shi'a vs the buzzword Sunni vs the buzzword Kurd.

There is no more reason to suspect that the constitution writing congress of Iraqis is going to write a constitution that enshrines the rule of the church over the rule of law then there is to assume that a President with strong religious connections is going to place the Pope, John Smith, Martin Luther or the Archbishop of Canterbury in charge of the country. The President and Congress, for example, may enact legislation that is bounded by their religious beliefs, and indeed it is likely that Iraqis will do the same, but they are not going to give up power to what is essentially a foreign body voluntarily.

What I'm hearing in this debate here is that the Shi'a are a new threat by virtue of their religion alone. The assertion is that a Shi'a dominated parliament will enact repressive legislation merely because they are Shi'a. My point was to illustrate that the US has a similar problem, but with a different religious denomination, and that the attitude of classification is fundamentally flawed.

The Shi'a aren't an issue in the same way that the evil Methodists aren't an issue. Or the Catholics. Or the Anglicans. Or the Mormons. It is the hallmark of a functioning democracy that people elect who they think is best. If what they think is best is for a strongly religious body to occupy a particular office, then so be it. If that is who they choose to write a constitution then they are the ones who must accept or reject it. And you better believe that the people of Iraq, especially the women of Iraq, aren't going to sanction a document that will repress them.

I agree with what you're saying generally L.A.O.S. Your post was merely the one that was last when I pushed the quote button. *grin*

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

And the Shi'a of Iraq are different from the Protestants of the US, how?

Well, if you believe that the Religious Right elected Dubya on the basis of "moral values", perhaps there's not that much difference after all.

[miyamoto]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Pretty much.

People are people the world over. The media seems to like making an issue out of the Shi'a and Sunni muslims (Catholic and Protestant equivalent) and how because one group is under represented in Government that necessitates a theocracy. It strikes me as a gross oversimplification that the issue is all about the buzzword Shi'a vs the buzzword Sunni vs the buzzword Kurd.

Great point.

However, the article uses the following quote:

"Public freedom should be regulated based on the country's Islamic character," said a top Sistani aide last week, opening the door to the institution of Islamic law, or sharia, that would lower the legal status of women in all important family matters — from inheritance to their basic rights in a marriage.

Now, It doesn't neccessarily mean what Mr. Scheer thinks it means, but it could definitely lead to a theocracy, especially if this is a widely held view.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by miyamoto

Great point.

Now, It doesn't neccessarily mean what Mr. Scheer thinks it means, but it could definitely lead to a theocracy, especially if this is a widely held view.

Does this not sound familiar?

"Public freedom should be regulated based on the country's Christian character," said a top Bush aide last week

[miyamoto]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Does this not sound familiar?

As a non-christian in the US, it does, and it scares me.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Soldier

...which does not equal having a specifically US-friendly government in place. There's a lot of governments in the world that aren't especially friendly to the US, but also don't sponsor terrorists.

Or, put another way: The USA will have spent thousands of its lives, and billions of its dollars, to create an arab equivalent of France. Not sure that those originally in favor of the war think that that is a good ROI.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Does this not sound familiar?

Quote:
"Public freedom should be regulated based on the country's Christian character," said a top Bush aide last week

Just curious, but where did this quote come from?

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by miyamoto

As a non-christian in the US, it does, and it scares me.

What exactly do you find so frightening about the statement? By the way, are you from Hawaii?

[miyamoto]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

What exactly do you find so frightening about the statement? By the way, are you from Hawaii?

Because I'm not christian. I don't hold those beliefs, they are not mine, and as such hold no boundary over me.

I find the idea of using religion to govern repugnant, especially when this country was founded on the idea of separation of church and state.

[L.O.A.S.]

This country was founded on Judeo-christian values, but with provisions to prevent the government from endorsing one particular belief over another.
In what way is religion being used to govern, or do you find religion in general repugnant? Again what scares you?

[miyamoto]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

This country was founded on Judeo-christian values, but with provisions to prevent the government from endorsing one particular belief over another.
In what way is religion being used to govern, or do you find religion in general repugnant? Again what scares you?

Yes the country was founded by people with judeo-christian values, and they set up provisions to separate church and state.

However, times have changed, the US has grown. The country is full of people who do not subscribe to Judeo-christian values, and the government must respect that. If the government refuses to grow it is like a child who refuses to throw away their jacket that no longer fits them, constrained, and ridiculous looking.

Bush seems intent on breaching the spearation of church and state with faith based initiatives and using his faith to decide what's best for a country that doesn't share that faith is scary as well as repugnant. Even scarier is that some people see nothing wrong with it.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by miyamoto

However, times have changed, the US has grown. The country is full of people who do not subscribe to Judeo-christian values, and the government must respect that. If the government refuses to grow it is like a child who refuses to throw away their jacket that no longer fits them, constrained, and ridiculous looking.

Isn't the USA something like 75-80% self proclaimed christian? I heard a guy on the radio arguing why its unfair that women cannot walk around bare chested, when men could. Very entertaining. What Judeo-christian value do you not feel the need to adhere to?

Originally Posted by miyamoto

Bush seems intent on breaching the spearation of church and state with faith based initiatives and using his faith to decide what's best for a country that doesn't share that faith is scary as well as repugnant. Even scarier is that some people see nothing wrong with it.

Please specify which faith based initiatives are scary and repugnant. What is scary about spending tax payer money on programs meant to help people, just because the people doing the helping is religious?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Nowhere, in my reading of the article, does he say that knows what's going on in the back rooms and mosques in the Middle East.

It's all in the assumptions which underpin his thinking. For example, if he claims that the Iraqi mullahs are conspiring with or acting just like Iranian ones in order to produce result X, the assumption is that he somehow knows what and how both Iraqi and Iranian mullahs think and what they're planning, no? What is his basis for this?

"an Iraqi election that handed power to Shiite ayatollahs who were sponsored for decades by their co-religionists in Iran and who share much of Tehran's vision of religion and politics"

So, how does he know they "share Tehran's vision"? Has he been attending the meetings?

In fact, he says our government is guilty of not understanding the culture fully, and this misunderstanding has the possibilty of creating a country that is closely allied with Iran.

How can he know that the US does not understand it, unless he thinks that he does himself?

In addition, unless you know exactly where he formed his sources, you really can't argue whether he know's what's going on or not. Basing it on his name is just stupid.

Yes, because there are so many good Arabic-speaking Muslim insiders named Scheer....

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Are you seriously trying to argue that if you are not of a certain nationality that you couldn't undertand the culture of that nation?

Hmm, wasn't that just the argument being defended on another thread in support of the proposition that only native US citizens can make good Presidents?

You couldn't have studied it, lived in it, become an expert in it?

Maeve, I know Arabic-speaking Muslims from the Mideast who aren't privy to the inner thoughts and plans of the religious leadership. How is an outsider going to gain more insight?

Maybe Robert's parents were progressive Iranians and named their wise son Robert.

Progressive Iranians named Scheer?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Here's the Friedman article Inq tried to use in his argument above. I'm thinking Friedman isn't a Farouk, so I'm not sure why (using Inq's judgement and prejudice) he thinks this a better op-ed.

I suspect that you're unsure because it's not what I was doing...

My comment on the Friedman piece was:

"why is he any more to be heeded than Scheer? He doesn't really know what's going on, or is going to go on, either."

Was my dubiety about his judgements somehow unclear?

[miyamoto]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Isn't the USA something like 75-80% self proclaimed christian?

How many practice? How many actually want to enforce their values on the country? In addition, 25% is a whole lotta people.

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I heard a guy on the radio arguing why its unfair that women cannot walk around bare chested, when men could.

Yes, and if I were from Africa, I would agree. If I brought up as a friend of mine, I would say that men should not take off their shirts in public.

If I were from Europe, women going topless on beaches on a hot day would be nothing.

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Very entertaining. What Judeo-christian value do you not feel the need to adhere to?

The list is too long for this board.

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Please specify which faith based initiatives are scary and repugnant. What is scary about spending tax payer money on programs meant to help people, just because the people doing the helping is religious?

All are scary. They give federal funds to religious groups, a strict no-no. In addition, many religious groups require that the people who benefit from them have their same faith. Worse, as some of the initiatives have been proposed, almost any cult can claim religious status and recieve the funds.


Bottom line, it's obvious you don't share my view. That's fine. I don't expect you to, nor will I force you to share my view. Don't expect me to share, or live by yours. I won't.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by miyamoto

Bottom line, it's obvious you don't share my view. That's fine. I don't expect you to, nor will I force you to share my view. Don't expect me to share, or live by yours. I won't.

You misunderstand. I am interested in you sharing your views, that I might better understand your (and others) worldview. As to my sharing of views, it is partially just for kicks and is good practice to articulate ones thoughts.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Quote:
"Public freedom should be regulated based on the country's Christian character," said a top Bush aide last week

Just curious, but where did this quote come from?

I took Sistani's quote and replaced Bush's aide for his and Christianity for Islam. Sounds eerie, doesn't it? Especially as the argument is that Sistani's attitudes are going to lead to a theocracy and that is horrendously bad.

My point was to draw the parallels between Sistani and "the Shi'a" government imposing a theocracy and to show that, regardless of a leader's particular faith, giving up power on personal belief won't get past the people, as illustrated in the US case.