Skip to comments.
Iraq draft says laws must conform to Islam -text
Netscape News ^
Posted on 08/22/2005 11:13:09 AM PDT by Charlesj
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301-305 next last
To: redgolum
Yes, the Mullahs will be dancing in the streets if this passes.
To: Charlesj
Islam is defined as a "a" main source, not "the" main source of state legislation. That leaves enough wriggle room to keep some secular personal status laws, such as those pertaining to women, on the statute books. Its not enough for extremists like Musab al Zarqawi, who view a secular constitution as godless and hold the Koran is the only law Muslims should live under.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
42
posted on
08/22/2005 11:50:52 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: billbears
bill - the operative word in this sentence is
legislate. In other words, the de facto position is neutrality (you advantageously left out that no law cannot be passed which violates human rights - see Iraq the Model). They can't pass a law making Christianity the state religion. They probably can't pass a law establishing state casinos.
If the "human rights" clause holds, they also can't pass laws that do not allow women to drive, vote, etc .
Somebody's gonna get hurt, with your knee jerking like that...
Let's see what gets released in the next hour or so before declaring all is lost.
43
posted on
08/22/2005 11:51:26 AM PDT
by
Warren_Piece
(Large buttocks are pleasing to me, nor am I able to lie concerning this matter)
To: OpusatFR
"I've come to the conclusion that all of them have lead poisoning of some sort"
Or they need it, if you get my drift.
44
posted on
08/22/2005 11:51:41 AM PDT
by
trubluolyguy
(How does He know what you're gonna do? He had a great view from YOUR cross.)
To: kjam22
My remark was not meant as sarcasm. Who else could have done as good a job. Certainly not Clinton.
45
posted on
08/22/2005 11:52:20 AM PDT
by
balch3
To: Modernman
Seriously. Why is anyone surprised? """
I'm not. That's one reason why I opposed this invasion -- and sending American troops to die in Iraq -- from the beginning. The country was a 4th rate military power, didn't have WMDs, wasn't being 9-11, and couldn't be "changed" into a democracy. A lot of blood spilled in behalf of utopian fantasies by policy gurus who almost uniformly don't have any kids or kin in the military.
To: Charlesj
its too early to tell what this means. if we start seeing women losing rights, and mullahs and clerics holding government positions of power - then we will know its gone badly.
To: balch3
Who else could have done as good of a job?? It just depends on what you call an acceptable outcome. I think there are several freepers here who I would have let make the decisions.
48
posted on
08/22/2005 11:54:37 AM PDT
by
kjam22
To: balch3
Hey I defended the war and defended Bush for ever....The Iraqy people have chosen what they want and it ain't us.We did what we could for them...Its time to come home.
49
posted on
08/22/2005 11:55:34 AM PDT
by
TShaunK
To: Charlesj
You guys are a bunch of dopes.
What did you expect? ... Did you think the Iraqi constitution was going to be based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. It's an Islamic country. They are a very religious society, and they are not going to start hang pictures of George Washington and the ten commandment on their court houses.
50
posted on
08/22/2005 11:55:53 AM PDT
by
JeffersonRepublic.com
(There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth.)
To: churchillbuff
A lot of blood spilled in behalf of utopian fantasies by policy gurus who almost uniformly don't have any kids or kin in the military. Yep... if the army wasn't a volunteer army you'd have a lot of people here questioning this deal too.
51
posted on
08/22/2005 11:55:57 AM PDT
by
kjam22
To: coconutt2000
I agree. I am not really that upset about this at this point. Our laws are based on Christian/Jewish laws. That doesn't mean that we are a theocracy. So why should the Iraqi constitution not reflect the basic principles of the primary religion of the region.
As long as they do not impinge upon the belief system of others in the country, and it is very broad language I think it is ok. As with our country, it will be the interpretation that will be vital. Think we'll see huge "supreme court" fights in Iraq in the future?
To: Charlesj
Suppose the Germans decided to institute a government basedon Mein Kampf after we won WW2.
Would we let them?
WE should be dictating the conditions and wording of their Constitution.
This is digusting.
53
posted on
08/22/2005 11:56:43 AM PDT
by
ZULU
(Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
To: Charlesj
Our troops fighting in the name of Islam. Very ironic and sad.
54
posted on
08/22/2005 11:56:47 AM PDT
by
truthandlife
("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
To: balch3
"This is Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld..."
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
55
posted on
08/22/2005 11:57:03 AM PDT
by
trubluolyguy
(How does He know what you're gonna do? He had a great view from YOUR cross.)
To: JeffersonRepublic.com
The WH told us we were going to plant freedom, a democracy... and one that would help end terrorism. That's what I expect them to do (even though I know it's a pipe dream)
56
posted on
08/22/2005 11:57:22 AM PDT
by
kjam22
To: ZULU
WE should be dictating the conditions and wording of their Constitution. This is digusting.
That's the bottom line...
57
posted on
08/22/2005 11:58:08 AM PDT
by
kjam22
To: truthandlife
"Our troops fighting in the name of Islam. Very ironic and sad."
Not me or my son!!!
58
posted on
08/22/2005 11:58:25 AM PDT
by
TShaunK
To: TheDon
don't think for a minute that there aren't forces amongst the Shia, the country's majority, that want to have exactly the Iranian model. there are. the key is whether other forces in the country can stop that, and what leverage the US has over there. our leverage is limited. if US public support for the war was 65%, Bush could tell this interim government to take a hike and we could start over. we can't do that.
To: rob777
60
posted on
08/22/2005 11:58:59 AM PDT
by
zarf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301-305 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson