Shi'ite crowds denounce federalism at Baghdad demo

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK940668.htm

BAGHDAD, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Several thousand supporters of a radical Shi'ite cleric marched through Shi'ite areas of Baghdad after prayers on Friday, denouncing federalism as an attempt to divide Iraq and calling for national unity.

Followers of Moqtada al-Sadr, a young preacher who has led two uprisings against U.S. forces, gathered in one of their largest demonstrations in recent months as Iraqi leaders haggled over a new constitution.

Federalism -- the granting of legislative and other powers to autonomous regions -- has become one of the major sticking points in negotiations over the charter, which much be completed by an Aug. 22 deadline.

"No! No! to division", "Yes! Yes! to unity" chanted the crowds as they marched through the poor Sadr City neighbourhood of northeastern Baghdad and Khadamiya and Bayaa, two other mainly Shi'ite districts. snip

An Iraqi judge last year issued a warrant for Sadr's arrest in connection with the murder of another Shi'ite preacher in Najaf shortly after the U.S. invasion in 2003, but it appears to have been dropped.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Federalism is a recipe for civil war!

Let the reader beware that we are not speaking here of an American style federalism. The federalism the Iraqis are talking about, and that the Kurds and some Shias are demanding, is one in which the rich oil producing provinces will keep all their oil profits to themselves sharing none of it with the rest of the country.

I guess the provinces with water can then do the same with water and so on and so forth. Even our puppet Allawi, who is now in opposition, is against federalism.

Imagine American troops having to fight an insurgency while being caught in the crossfire of a civil war...

[bribri16]

2. Uh oh, this freedom and democracy shit is getting out of hand.

Some people actually believe they have it.

[bemildred]

3. Dang, they left out "firebrand" again. nt

[goforit]

4. Does Democracy work with Federalism???.....I don't think so.

As evidenced from the last two elections.

[Roland99]

5. Hmm...a pleasant surprise.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. They also don't want federalism because they want total control

Submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law.

The Shiites have been biding their time. Some have done so sincerely, hoping for a workable multi-cultural solution, but many have just been waiting for the moment to exert their sizable majority.

The neocons truly believed it would all be easy; how sad that ignorant conservatives paid no heed to the realities there. What a bunch of tone-deaf bulls in the proverbial china shop.

Hitler said the Soviet Union would be easy; all they'd have to do was kick the door in and the whole rotten thing would fall to the ground. Funny thing about conservatives: they're so sure their belief systems and culture are infinitely superior that they often don't even bother to learn about others.

We've screwed up much worse than even the most pessimistic of us probably think, and there's only so long that the lid can be kept on it.

By the way, how's that constitution going? That was a pretty complete failure, wasn't it?

All I can do is hang my head in shame for what we've done to the world, and hope that enlightened locals can muster the wisdom and maturity that we absolutely lack.

[brentspeak]

7. Islam is not exactly compatible with democracy

It was naive of Bush and the neocons to think so.

[IndianaGreen]

8. and neither is Christianity for that matter

any religion that believes itself to have a monopoly on truth, or to offer the only path to some "salvation" is inherently against freedom, democracy, science, and reason.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Suck as it undeniably does, Christianity has a built-in secularism

Boy, ya really gotta work at it to get me to defend the Christers, but there IS a bit of precedent with that "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." schtick.

Christianity is still a rapacious, world-conquering mindset that brooks little tolerance; it only looks warm and fuzzy when compared to extreme primitive certainty like Islam.

Mercifully, this built-in dichotomy has been and is still used to keep some sanity in public life. Government and social agreements should be based on provable reality and accommodation of the vagaries of life; cocksure fantasies based in the supernatural which scorn mortal existence demand to never be held to account. That's anti-pluralist and monarchic by nature.

I'd argue that the back door provision for some sense is what has allowed the sheer idiotic poppycock of Christianity to be able to sustain itself and flourish. All workable societies have a few "outs" to accommodate reality, and this is a very shrewd operation.

Of course, the basic thrust of your approach is obviously true.

We don't really stand a chance, do we? With decreasing resources and increasing competition as everything changes around us, people will flock to ever-increasing forms of fundamentalism to ward off the spookiness of change.

[LiberalAmerican]

10. ...agreed, it worked for the ancient Romans!

[IndianaGreen]

12. Paganism was multi cultural

Monotheistic religions all suffer from delusions that they alone hold a truth that no one else has. Pagan societies, particularly the Romans, respected all religious views and even subsidized the building of temples for different gods.

Monotheistic religions always had the nasty habit of destroying the temples of everyone else that did no share the "true faith" however that was defined.

[IndianaGreen]

11. A Jewish perspective on "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..."

I wanted to add to your fine post something about Jesus's much misunderstood saying about "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." Let me make one thing clear, Jesus did not advocate a separation between Church and State. Assuming the Gospel account is historically accurate, Jesus was challenged with a question about whose authority one must submit to, G-d's or Caesar's. Jesus's answer was incredibly clever, far more clever than even a fundamentalist Christian could imagine. Allow me to explain.

Rome was the evil empire of its day, the USA of the ancient world. Israel was Roman occupied territory, an occupation which was as brutal and cruel as any of the occupations of modern times. As in today's Middle East, you had an intelligentsia and ruling class that collaborated by deed or omission with the Roman authorities. They had it better than their countrymen.

Jesus was a religious Jew. Even the Christian Gospels spoke of Jesus faithfulness in keeping Shabat and in performing good deeds, among other things. As a religious Jew, Jesus was not different from other religious Jews that did not recognize Roman authority over Israel. Only G-d had authority over Israel and the Jewish kings of old served under G-d's authority (the title "Son of G-d" was one of the titles of Jewish kings. The title did not imply divinity!).

Anyhoo, when Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to G-d what is G-d's" what he was really saying was this: Caesar gets nothing! G-d gets everything!