No carleas, I am at odds with saying that it was ever a secular regime, in the run of a few years, turns into a regime brutalizing in the name of religion. IT WAS NEVER A SECULAR REGIME, whether or not it had secular v alues in contrast to other countrties around there, at BEST AT BEST it paraded itself as qausi-secular, which was consistantly exposed as what it was. A lie and deception.
So, regardless… ? it is ridiculous to even imply that it was a secular regime, especially without specifically stating in contrast to other middle-eastern countries, let alone saying that a regime that engaged in genocide with religious justification wasn’t strongly religious before-hand is the height of ridiculousness. Thats whats ugly, telling me what I think on the issue.
Secular regimes don’t just transforms into machines of genocide and religious pandering. Sorry. That was already there.
Now, I’ll agree that due to its position in the Middle East, a fairly “secular” regime there seems religious to us in the West, but compared to other ME countries, his regime was quite secular. Stalin’s anti-semetic pogroms didn’t mean he wasn’t a secularist, just as Saddam’s attacks on the Kurds didn’t mean he wasn’t a secularist. Heck, even the Cato institute is on-board with him being a secularist.
As people have pointed out before and will point out again, one needn’t involve religion to have a genocide.
How do you prove something like that?
For starters, there’s certainly no disagreement with post-Gulf War One, so the scope of sources should be limited to those that refer specifically to a time before 1991
And what does it mean to be secular? Is the US secular, even though there is religious persecution against non-Christians (or against ceratin Christian groups, like the Mormons and the Catholics)? The US also has “In God we trust” printed on all its money, and has the words “Under God” in its national anthem. Also, “George Washington’s second [inaugural] address is the only one to contain no mention of the Christian God.”(wiki)
I suppose it depends exactly what you mean, i’m not one for using the word secular very lightly as it does have a definition thats fairly solid in any context, I honestly don’t think it could possibly be fair to say the regime was ever secular, no matter how secular it was in comparison to other religious countries, and even saying that is a stretch because as we saw, at best it was a cover or veil.
But if the US is to be called “secular”, I don’t think that’s enough. Biblical reference in US politics is practically a requisite. Nixon’s environmental advisor based his policy on his belief that the rapture was immanent, and therefore protecting the environment is unnecessary (according to Dawkins book “The God Delusion”. Barely a month ago, a major candidate for president gave a speech in which he said “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. . . Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” And you’d be hard-pressed to make a case that current policy on stem cells is not religiously motivated.
Basically, my point is that a secular country with a religious cultural heritage could have religious influences but still be considered secular. As Chato pointed out, the country was officially secular (in that its constitution was secular) until 1991 or thereabouts. It’s not enough to point out a reference to the Koran in the name of a military action. I think at least you would need either a law that is clearly religious in nature, or a ruling or decision that came from a government body that specifically references the Koran for justification. That may seem like an unfairly strict burden of proof, but it’s justified because, if the US is secular, Iraq could be doing a whole lot of religiously motivate or titled things, without qualifying as a religious government. The delineation also makes the standards clear. Do you think it’s a fair standard? Can you meet it?
I hope you’re not serious. I can agree that a country can have a seperation of church and state and have huge secular elements or be ‘secular’ while still having a strong religious cultural heritage, which can’t be compared to Iraq or Saddam’s Regime, you can’t compare the US to Iraq in any meaningful way like that. Agreed, here people fight for religious ideaology to stay from law and vice versa, but once again this is not the same as justifying genocide with religious belief, it doesn’t justify the mosque building, the blood-koran, and so forth and so on.
I do think there are problems with calling the states truly secular, though, to give credit, it has done better then most, at least in principle.
Sorry Carleas, but it wasn’t ‘officially secular’ until 91, it was engaging in holy war with religious justification before that, as well as many other things. If the states engaged in genocide with religious justification then we could probably say the same. If a constitution claims a secular state, while that state is engaging in many many many non secular actions, it can’t be called a secular regime.
Once again, look up the word ‘secular’.
I can meet the criteria, because military action, genocide, was taken against another group, and it was justified by the RELIGION, if you think he made no references or speeches or statements to such, I don’t know what to tell you, and even if he DIDN’T, I don’t need it. If the US engaged in genocide and called it project joshua, we might be inclined to say they definatly weren’t secular.
The quaran part it was named after was justification for slaughter of infidels, so… yeah. Do you and Chato know each other personally or somthing? I can’t see why someone would put forward such a fragile claim.
Cyrene, why do you say thinks like “I hope you’re not serious” and “I can’t see why someone would put forward such a fragile claim”? They don’t bolster your argument, they just make the discussion hostile. Isn’t it possible to discuss the secularity of Iraq dispassionately, respectfully, without being condescending?
You point to the definition of secular, and that’s all well and good, except that the US, which is widely considered to be secular, is not areligious: religion plays a major role in US politics. It’s not cut and dry: US leaders are overtly religious. When being sworn in in US courts, you still respond to a question that ends “So help you god?”. Until very recently, there was a monument of the ten commandments in a US courthouse.
Naming a campaign “The Spoils of War,” and referencing a culturally relevant literary work, may not be enough to disqualify a government as secular. And, based on their constitution, Iraq was officially secular until at least 1990. There is a question as to whether the name of one campaign, and the building of mosques, is enough to make your case. Based on the laws, based on the constitution, it seems to have been secular in theory.
Perhaps all that needs to be clarified is the theory/practice distinction. I think there’s a good case that neither Iraq before 1990, nor the US today, are secular in practice, though in theory they are.
Its not meant to make it hostile, its meant to call into question what possible agenada you have for making claims which are obviously falsified or falsifiable.
I will try, I probably cross the line from time to time, sorry.
Again and again Carleas, you cannot sensically compare the two, we’re talking about saddam’s regime here, and none of the US regimes really compare to that in terms of justification through religion.That being said, the US constitution stresses seperation from church/state in such a way that almost no other countries do, this is why its considered secular, not because of its current state of affairs or whether religion has an effect on politics.
It does, but america’s constitution is set up in such a way as to minimalize the effect of religion on public policy, this obviously doesn’t work very well, but to actually say the ‘bush adiministration is secular’ is just as erroneous. The bush administration isn’t secular, whether it works in a countrry with a secularized constitution.
No one would argue that the bush administration was secular sensically, and yet you and Chato are comfortable arguing that Saddam’s regime was… ?
This is why its hard not to be condescending. It was named after a religious slaughter and THAT was the justification. it would be like the US engaging in a war, calling it project joshua, and justifying it by killing infidels. thats the comparison that would be accurate to make with what happened in iraq. okay?
it was secular in compariso to other nations in theory, not overly secular overall. The name of one campaign? it was a genocide named after a religious holocaust of infidels…
it might be more accurate to say in principle they were supposed to be but at best it was a hollow or shallow viel or curtain, I never said anything otherwise, just the factual reality of whether they were secular before 91 isn’t a huge question for any objective historian… which brings me back to the point of why would anyone make such a invalid arguement as to call into question the name of the operation/its justification. I think thats at best decietful, whether deliberatly or not.
But someone’s agenda doesn’t matter. That’s a circumstantial ad hominem argument. Regardless my reasons, my arguments may be valid.
I don’t have any problem with saying that the secularism was a veil. But the veil was there. That could be historically significant, because it forced the government to come up with justifications that were at least ostensibly secular. Such demands could instill in the country a respect for the secularism of government. It’s a stretch, I’ll admit, but it’s an example of a possible significance. Personally, I don’t see how it’s any less significant than any other historical debate.
Well, I could have just said that Chato was obscuring or simplifying the issue so bad that it could accurately be reffered to as burying the truth with a shovel and that you were qausi-supporting that by actually debating what really isn’t a debatable issue histoically , but I don’t see how that is anymore polite and i’m not sure how to specifically show that this is the case when people continously either 1. Ignore the points or 2. basically decietfully cover up the truth and repeat tired old statements.
Like we can both agree the secularism if it was there at all before 91 IS historically significant as any random factoid is, but they did not have to justify to themselves or anyone else and suggesting such is far-fetched. Saddam didn’t need to justify his actions, he needed to cover them up, and maybe thats what the secularism was, a cover-up on his rise to power, regardless it was a thin viel at best and quoting the constitution all chato wants is just decietful, and i mean that honestly decietful at best.
And we all know why, because that damn genocide was justified by religion, theres no denying this, and thats one extreme example…
Historically significant sure, but as to say seriously in a debate that it was secular before 91 is just horse-shit. Straight-up. Thats a decietful claim all around.
If someone has an agenda its not an attack against there person to point out the likely source or production of there statements/propaganda or beliefs. The reason we both know its not a significant historical debate is because its shallow and pretensious and has little or no evidence to support it, AS we seen when the regime showed its true colors LONg BEFORE 91. people who support it do so for specific reasons, and historical truth likely isn’t one of them, because people who care about truth abandon the belief instead of coming up with flimsy justification like saying that the name of one campaign doesn’t show the regime wasn’t non-secular… when it obviously did.
I think you overstate your case when you use words like “obviously”, or say that by disagreeing we must be “deceitful” or “ignoring the points”. The points you’ve made, as I understand them are that Iraq engaged in a genocidal military offensive named after a section of the Koran prior to 1990, and that the government built mosques. Their actions aside, on paper it was a secular government. Your allegation is that their secularism was a ploy, meaning that they made an effort to appear secular, which makes it a non-obvious claim. So, it needn’t be deceitful to claim for Chato or I to claim it was secular. In some sense, it was secular, and you’ve acknowledge that: “in principle they were supposed to be but at best it was a hollow or shallow viel or curtain”.
Historical significance is somewhat subjective. In a military sense, Alan Turing’s homosexuality is just a “factoid”, but in an historical review that is interested in the historical perception of homosexuality, it is extremely significant. Similarly, though a political factoid, if one is interested in religion in government, it is significant that the Iraqi government thought it useful to appear secular.
Attacking sources and propaganda are one thing, but that’s good practice no matter my agenda. Even if our ultimate aims are the same, it is a requirement of intellectual honesty that you decry any bogus source I present. It is not my agenda that is the issue, then, but the quality of my source. And so far, I’m relying mostly on Wikipedia, so take from that what you will. . .
I’m not over-stating my cause because it was more then named after a section of the koran and thats part of the simplification/deciet, it was justified that way as well. On paper, they still did these things, just like on paper their constitution had secular elements, that doesn’t bear on the question of whether Saddam’s regime was secular, just like people can say the bush administration hasn’t really taken much on secular stances.
I acknowledged that they weren’t secular and saying such in the face of religious genocide is decietful, and is obvious.
sigh they didn’t think it was useful which is why it was largely abandoned when Iran called out ‘infidel’. Before that the constitution had secular elements, which doens’t bear what so ever on whether or not the regime could realistically be called secular.
My apologies then, but still, I think it is historically obvious that saddam’s regime wasn’t secular before 91, and is essentially decietful to say. Whats more importantly, the facts reflect that as well.
Was it their ostensible justification, or their inferred justification? That is, did official documents support the action by religious motives, or are we drawing the conclusion from the fact it was a genocide and its name referenced a Koranic genocide? That’s not to say the inferrence is incorrect, but rather to question the obviousness of the inferrence.
Similarly, it questions the deceitfulness of the counter argument. Even if the inferred justification is correct, one can honestly maintain that Iraq was a secular nation, though the regime in power was not secular. Even if Bush is waging war in the Middle East right now as part of some crusade, the US is still a secular nation, and the war is justified secularly.
It’s somewhat beside the point, though, because even if it’s obvious, even if our argument is intentionally deceitful, we may make valid arguments, using valid sources, and thus produce true conclusions. It simply doesn’t matter why we’re presenting the sources and arguments that we’re presenting; it matters what the information and argument combine to demonstrate. And what has been shown is that there was some effort, for whatever reason and to whatever degree of success, to appear secular prior to 1990. That may very well have historically significant implications.
I think we could find justification in the form of statements or speeches, but if we can’t it wouldn’t be right-out obvious and I should apologize for being so critical, I am sorry for that, but again, if a person doesn’t have an in-depth understanding of saddam’s regime, why are they making statements as to whether it was or was not a secular before 91 and etc?
Also, that being said, it would be outright decietful to support it in light of the facts which we have established, and I believe, Chato does, though I could be wrong.
it was secular till the americans and british came and installed a more religious government( although the most hardcore fundamentalists are anti western). a pretty good way to make sure the distribution of wealth doesn’t happen in the country and goes straight into the pockets of the imperialists
you mean saddam’s regime? saddam’s regime was more of a nationalist one( he fancied himself a bit of a nasser i presume), he used history as an excuse to invade Kuwait( an Islamic regime wouldn’t do so, as Islamic countries are not allowed to invade Islamic soil blabla etc etc). the new iraqi constitution which chato brought to my attention in another topic, contains more elements of islamization. it’s easier to create division among religious lines in iraq thus keep control and it will also allow for a kurd minority dominated government
