--- maurice dmello <[email protected]> wrote: > Attacks on Christian churches in Iraq are symptomatic of the general insecurity that Christians (about three percent of the population, around 800,000 people) face in the post war occupied country. The interim constitution states "Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation" and while recognizing religious freedom "respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people." For some, Islamic identity means the imposition of Muslim morality.
Mario asks: Aren't the attacks on Christians coming from the Sunni Baathist insurgents and their "foreign" cohorts who are desperately trying to derail the nascent democracy in Iraq? As you say, the new interim Iraqi constitution is based on an Islamic identity but recognizes religious freedom. Did you expect anything different from a country that is 97% Muslim? Are you inclined to give them a chance, or are you suggesting we go back to the wonderful secular days of Saddam's regime when you could get your tongue cut out, or your wife or daughter raped in front of you at the slightest provocation? Maurice writes: > The irony here, of course, is that Saddam's Iraq was a secular state, (I mean really secular, not just namesake), ruled by the Baath Party. The Iraqi regime, although suspicious of and sometimes brutal towards the Shiite majority, protected Shiite and Sunni mosques, Assyrian and Chaldean Christian churches, and even the sparsely attended Baghdad synagogue, while forbidding proselytization in general. Saddam appointed Tariq Aziz, a Christian, to top posts; Christians had by far the most religious freedom until Saddam�s fall, throughout the middle east and similar to Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. (It was believed Saddam�s food taster was a Christian). Mario replies: Yes, it is ironic that Saddam was secular, and had a Christian Foreign Minister, yet was willing to sacrifice another Christian to a potential poisoner. You seem impressed. Yet, I'm sure you have heard of the continuing discovery of mass graves filled with the bones of his political adversaries. And I'm sure you are following the investigations on the oil-for-food scandal, where Saddam was looting his own people, depriving them of food and medicines and building palaces. In Italy the fascists still pine for the wonderful days when Mussolini made the trains run on time. Maurice writes: > It is hard to imagine if American imposed democratic set-up under occupation in Iraq will be successful by power sharing by three major ethnic communities, belonging to three different sects of Islam. Pres. Bush accomplished second term, but for the remainder of his second term, he will be inclined to be more attentive to important personal goals before his term comes to an end. It is to be seen if the foreign policy that he initiated, would be continued. Already some countries are becoming bolder, have even test-fired missiles. Mario replies: You say it's "hard to imagine" but it seems you don't want to imagine a successful democratic Iraqi government. The American-led coalition deposed Saddam and made it possible for the Iraqis to experience freedom and democracy for the first time, and they are developing their own system without any input from America other than in security issues. You seem resentful of this development and pessimistic of its outcome. Did you feel the same way after WW-II when there was chaos in Germany and Japan? It took from 4 to 7 years to pacify and democratize those two countries. Or do you feel that Muslims are different and cannot handle power sharing among their communities. Regarding the countries who are becoming bolder, by which I suppose you are referring to N. Korea, I wonder if you have noticed that there are countries in far more danger from this renegade country than America, like China, S. Korea, and Japan. Each of these are quite capable of crushing N. Korea, and Condi Rice just clarified that the US is quite prepared to "deter" N. Korea if necessary. In the meantime 6-party talks will continue. Perhaps you have overlooked the countries who have become less "bold", like Libya, and more recently Syria, for example, which has withdrawn from Lebanon, and growing sentiment in Egypt and even Saudi Arabia towards the benefits of elections, which may be the slippery slope to more freedom for the people. As the experience of Iraq showed once again, the US never intervenes until after the UN has failed to settle a conflict, after passing several resolutions sanctioning the country in default, and imposing a final ultimatum. In Iraq's case that was UN resolution 1441. So be patient. We have a long way to go with these "bold" countries. Finally, Maurice, if you prefer the stability of a brutal dictatorship to the chaos of freedom and democracy, I think you are in for a lot of heartburn because the world is moving away from you. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * G * O * A * N * E * T *** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Make your mother in Goa happy on Mothers' Day. http://www.goa-world.com/goa/expressions/mothersday/ Limited "Mother's Happiness" packages. First come, first serve. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
