Able to self-govern?
Submitted by Wayne on Fri, 2005-08-19 09:59.
Islam | Politics
In a recent BreakPoint article, Chuck Colson talks about how the impending Iraqi constitution is looking a lot like an effort to create sharia--Islamic law. I do not believe the Iraqis have what it takes to be self-governed. (This assertion presupposes--and I can prove it--that Islam is not a stable worldview that is capable of any of the ingredients required for an orderly, human society.) I believe the Iraq we'll end up, say 20 years from now, with will be even worse than the one we liberated from Saddan Hussein.
Come to think of it, I am beginning to believe that Americans may no longer possess that which is necessary for self-government. If a Constitutional convention were held today to start over here in America, I believe we'd end up with something far closer to the USSR than the original US.
I believe I know some of what's required to be "worthy" of self-government (most notably, morality), but that's not so much my concern at the moment. What I wonder about is what the alternative to self-government is. Is it a socialist oligarchy, much as we have now? Are we possibly living with the government that is necessary given our seeming inability to self-govern? In other words, do we deserve what we have because it's *necessary*, given our immature, immoral, ignorant condition? How ironic that would be!
I suppose part of what I'm asking is a chicken-and-egg question. It's well-known (among the educated) that a moral society is necessary if it is to be a free one. Will freeing an immoral society necessarily result in a moral one? Or is there no choice but to rule the immoral one with an iron fist until a moral sub-culture gains dominance and rebels?
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/35
Lost another one to Islam
Submitted by Wayne on Mon, 2005-08-22 13:55.
Iraqi constitution a bust after all.
But Bush saw that it was good
Submitted by Dave on Mon, 2005-08-22 14:42.
Bush says the Iraqi constitution is a landmark event, reflecting "Iraqi values and traditions." Hmm... if it reflects the same values and traditions that have been in place in the past, then what is "landmark" about it? Besides, "traditional values" in Iraq has meant suppression and persecution of women, Jews, Christians, and non-Shi'ites. I don't know what "landmark" he is talking about, unless it is marking a mass grave site.
Sharia: worth dying for?
Submitted by Dave on Sat, 2005-08-20 09:20.
You mean Bush sent those kids over there, and they died so the Iraqis could vote in a regime that will keep the women in veils and persecute Christians and Jews? A regime with no hope of a free economy? Cindy Sheehan is a nut case, but the way you demonstrate that is by not doing what she accuses you of doing. If my kid had gone over there and died for sharia, I think I would let Bush hear about it as well.
"[T]he general misfortune of mankind."
Submitted by Wayne on Mon, 2005-08-22 07:06.
"It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind."
-- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 1, 27 October 1787)
Iraqi Constitution
The new Iraqi constitution is looking more Koranic than ever. We may yet end up with Iran II. Cool.