I fear that won’t happen in practice, at least not for very long.

We are spending our blood and money to foster democracy, and I believe that we have a duty to ensure that Iraq’s new government IS (in word and deed) a democracy for and by the people, and not a democratic theocracy, run by Muslim clerics.

I see your point, too, John about the parallel between our Constitution and the one being written. But there is a difference between laws that are grounded in religious tradition, and laws that are based upon (and have their source in) religious law.

The difference may seem narrow, but it is immense. Laws against robbery are based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic “Thou shalt not steal,” but it is understood that the crime is against a fellow man, or against society. However, when laws are based along the lines of “It is against the Will of Allah to steal” then it is implicit that you are not just offending man, but directly sinning against god.

I think the difference there is pretty profound, and I believe that if the Iraqi’s don’t shield themselves from such a religious/legal mindset, then there exists a very real danger that extremist Islamic culture against which we now fight, will eventually permeate the new Iraq.

I like the perspective provided in a WSJ editorial on 8/25, “Iraq’s Federalist Papers.” See… http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007157

Remember, Jeremy and Ken, that our own constitution started out decidedly imperfect in regard to such huge matters as slavery and women’s rights, but it established a polity and a process within which those matters could be addressed and rectified in course of time.

I’ll bounce this off some of our Claremont scholars, but I guarantee you it’s the very argument made by Claremont’s Harry Jaffa in his magisterial book on Lincoln and the Civil War, “New Birth of Freedom.”

Some of the key arguments from that Journal editorial are as follows:

“Take the role of Islam, which is designated as ‘a’ (not ‘the’) ‘basic source of legislation.’ Some critics see this as evidence of incipient theocracy. But in what Western democracy are laws not generally in accord with the Judeo-Christian moral heritage? In any case, interpretation of that clause will be up to elected representatives.

“The same holds true for family law. There has been much American huffing and puffing about a provision that might allow matters such as divorce to be handled by religious courts if individuals so choose. But the same clause begins with a strong affirmation of individual rights, and does not itself rewrite Iraq’s current family laws but merely paves the way for a future parliament to do so. No doubt some Iraqis will want to establish the primacy of Shariah law, but they will have to prevail in a diverse parliament and in a society in which women have asserted themselves since the fall of Saddam.”

My problem with Iraq is the pending proposed constitution, with specific reference to Islamic law.

The establishment clause is being applied by courts here against our Judeo-Christian heritage — in my Daughter’s schools and in our courthouses — I don’t want my tax dollars being used to “establish” an Islamic state somewhere else. Maybe one of John’s constitutional scholars at Claremont could clarify that one for me.

Ironic that both ACLU & ACL&J appear silent on this. If we help establish an Islamic state, I want my $200 billion back. Oil credits would be suffient