Thursday, December 25, 2008
Iraq makes Christmas an official holiday
Iraq keeps surprising the gloomsters. Once, it was received wisdom among the anti-war intelligentsia -- and some erstwhile supporters of the war -- that Iraq ought to be busted into at least three parts. Nobody believes that today, especially not Iraqis. Another canard was that Americans were, in effect, dying to establish Islamic law, an "Islamic Frankenstein monster." Now, the democratic government, looking forward to having to face voters at the ballot box and govern the country without help from the Americans, has declared Christmas a national holiday. American defeatists have found reason to be churlish even about this, but none respond to the essence of the story: that it is now politically advantageous for the government of Iraq, which has demonstrated an acute sensitivity to public opinion (such as over the status of forces agreement), to recognize the holiday of Christmas, not to curry favor with Christians or the United States, but as an unmistakeable gesture of reconciliation. Reconciliation attracts votes. Is that not powerful evidence that the counterinsurgency has prevailed and the jihadi scheme to blow the country apart has failed? What's not to like about that? Other than, of course, the confusing possibility that George W. Bush might not have done everything wrong.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Dec 25, 01:19:00 PM:
Biden has recanted his "split Iraq into three parts" idea?
I doubt it. In order to do so he would first have to admit he was wrong.
By , at
Thu Dec 25, 01:51:00 PM:
Iraq's constitution makes Sharia law the highest law of the land. Since making any infidel celebration an official holiday violates Sharia, and frequent murderous attacks against Christians continue unabated, I conclude this was done for how it plays in Western press rather than genuine belief in the principle of indefinite and peaceful coexistence with infidels as equals.
By 
torabora, at
Thu Dec 25, 02:31:00 PM:
I'm sure Biden plagiarized the concept. Made it sound like something he thought of while riding Amtrack. What a tool.
By JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly, at
Thu Dec 25, 04:00:00 PM:
No doubt the Christians that were persecuted out of Iraq would like to have seen it divided into however many parts it took to keep them in their homes and fellow Christians from being murdered Tiger. But now that they're all gone you and George and Dick can claim victory.
By Mrs. Davis, at
Thu Dec 25, 04:44:00 PM:
I'll wait to see what happens after the donks stab them in the back as they did the Vietnamese.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Dec 26, 12:34:00 AM:
Iraq's constitution makes Islamic law the primary 'source' of law. To make it the highest law would essentially be the establishment of a theocratic state.
"But now that they're all gone you and George and Dick can claim victory."
I suppose you missed the public Christmas celebration that those MIA Christians had in Baghdad the other day, hmm?
If you're going to contribute, some of us prefer more than a half-clever one-liner premised on a falsehood. FYI, kthx.
By Gary Rosen, at
Fri Dec 26, 02:06:00 AM:
"... the confusing possibility that George W. Bush might not have done everything wrong."
Judging from some of these responses it is indeed very confusing.
By , at
Fri Dec 26, 02:44:00 AM:
Iraq's constitution makes Islamic law the primary 'source' of law. To make it the highest law would essentially be the establishment of a theocratic state.
Exactly. From the Iraqi Constitution, article 2:
"Islam is the official religion of the state and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A: No law that contradicts the established principles of Islam may be established".
If no law can contradict Sharia, isn't Sharia the "highest law"? In addition since Islam is the official religion of Iraq, and "this Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people", which can't be guaranteed except through official indoctrination and violent intimidation of anybody who might entice Muslims to change religions, in what meaningful way is Iraq not a theocratic state? To be sure, the Iraqis put on a good show, but do you honestly think they'll keep the masks on if the money stops?
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/20704/11332732681iraqi_constitution_en.pdf/iraqi_constitution_en.pdf
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Dec 26, 10:32:00 AM:
"If no law can contradict Sharia, isn't Sharia the "highest law"?"
No, because they don't force people to live by it. But that's really just quibbling over definition.
Allowing the point, then that contradicts your other assertion that recognizing Christmas is a violation of said law. Either the Iraqis violated their own constitution in order to give the Christians their holiday, (man they love those guys!) or doing so does not, in fact, violate Islamic law.
"this Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people", which can't be guaranteed except through..."
You seem to be approaching this as an American Constitutional lawyer, who places extraordinary emphasis on a single word because it supports his case.
First of all, the possibility is moot. Iraq is less than 3% Christian. It is 97% Muslim. That's about 27,000,000 Muslims and less than 800,000 Christians, or a ratio of more than 33 to 1. Any idea that Iraq is going to be anything other than majority Muslim for at least the next 100 years is sheer fantasy.
Secondly, in the *very same* Article of the Constitution are the following:
"B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established."
"C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established."
In the very same *sentence* as the excerpt that you gave is an explicit guarantee of free religious practice for Christians.
"Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans."
Additionally, Article 36 lists some of the rights which are guaranteed by Article 2: "Article 36: The state guarantees in a way that does not violate public order and morality:
A. Freedom of expression, through all means.
B. Freedom of press, printing, advertisement, media and publication."
I suppose you could say that 'when the chips are down, the Muslim majority would gladly eat the Christian minority' and be correct, but that's true of any population.
