I've actually not said that, at least that I remember. Though I've seen it said in places, it's not something that I think is solid. What I've written about is that Sistani is going to sway the now majority Iraq Gov't, and he's a member of the long-oppressed minority, and is a member of a fundamentalist belief that is anti-secular, and therefore, anti-democratic and against the beliefs of this nation.
But nevertheless, the Republican hawks, desperate to salvage something good coming out of this fiasco of invading Iraq and wasting $300 Billion and 1500 of our soldiers, have siezed onto creating this election as their salvation.
All I'm trying to point out, is how fucking dumb this Bush-led idealism is in realization.
"What I've written about is that Sistani is going to sway the now majority Iraq Gov't, and he's a member of the long-oppressed minority, and is a member of a fundamentalist belief that is anti-secular, and therefore, anti-democratic and against the beliefs of this nation."
I think that you have made some leaps there which are rather unfair, and that really do exemplify the mindset I am concerned about. Namely, that the belief that one cant have their politics informed by their religion, or that being anti-secular is anti-democratic. Being secular is perfectly copmpatible with democracy - especially in Islam.
Im not out to write a polemic here, Im trying to point out just what the implications of that bolded statement above are.
Agree that Bush is a bonehad but that is tangential to the issue of whether sistani is a force against democracy. Ultimately I believe that a functioning Iraqi, Shi'a dominated but constitutionally liberal state (not neccessarily a democracy, mind you, but read Fareed Zakaria's new book ...) will be the one piece of good to come out of an otherwise boneheaded legacy of the present administration. But the issue of iraqi domestic politics is exactly what i am trying to separate from the issue of US domestic politics.
I should have explained where I was leaping. Secular in the sense of a separation between Church and State. Nowadays, conservatives equate secular with athiest or anti-spiritual. What I mean by Secular, and this seems in line with the normal definition of the word in a political sense, is a government not bound by religious restrictions. ie, a government that doesn't try and meld together chuch and state, rather than keep them separate-- at this point is where the absolutists get confused with only their either-or mentality.
Also yes, that sort of non-secular government is very anti-democratic, as anytime a government has a religious doctrine infusing its governing, it means that anyone of a different religious doctrine is excluded.
My point is that religion is not a litmust test for who can be in a government. It is often instead a guiding set of principles for the internal structure of that government. No one need be excluded and history proves the point.
Separation of chrch and state can be abused. I am not suggesting otherwise. But neither am I going to accept that lack of separation is automatically abuse.
And "democratic" ness is simply whether citizens can particip[ate in government. But democracy is just one mechanism at work within a nation - in fact, the US itself is only partially democratic, by design. There are grossly undemocratic institutions as well - ignore the elctoral college, just look at the Legislative branch. And teh Senate used to be also before the 17th amendment.
The real goal is not democracy for democracys sake, but constitutional liberalism. Theres a huge distinction. The latter is a means of ensuring that individual freedoms are preserved. The former is just a means of doing so, to some degree.
There were no discriminated groups of people in those times and places? I'm sure there were, and odds are, the basis of their rationale for such, was the religious doctrine they adhered too.
The goal? I think one could argue that the goal is democracy as an end, and I think the obvious "undemocratic institutions" are there for the changing, and that "constitutional liberalism" is an ideological byproduct of ultimate democracy.
But as to the chicken and egg qiuestion of democracy vs constitutional liberalism, I think that again you have to look at historical evidence. Democracy is o guarantee of freedom. In fact, there are many illiberal democracies, and many liberal non-democracies. I freely confess to having been enormously influenced by Fareed Zakaria's recent book which I do believe is essential reading if we are to discuss and informedly critique the Bush Administration's rhetoric of freedom on the march. I will try to review the book, and focus heavilyt on the issue of democracy vs liberty (and how these concepts are not synonymous) as Zakaria presented it. If you are still running the book club thing here at mydd, do think about adding that one to the rotation. Even if you fervently disagree with everything that is said, it will still be hugely useful. Its opened up entire realms of criticism of the Bush Administration for me!
ps jerome, its a pleasure to chat with you again. Its been far too long. Your daughter's loveliness matches her name's. get some sleep!!!!
