After their historic election, the Iraqis are about to pick their prime minister. The leading candidate is Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

His party, the Dawa Party, supports in principle the enforcement of sharia or holy law in Iraq. Once again the American government is nervous, and no doubt some government majors in the state department are rushing to explain to Jaafari the importance of Jefferson’s doctrine of separation of church and state.

Yes, separation of church and state has worked reasonably well in America, but it is not a universal principle. Indeed there are other Western nations, such as Great Britain, which have religious establishment (the Anglican church) and yet have religious toleration. So why can’t Muslim countries make a democratic choice to govern themselves according to Islamic principles, even if those principles include the “holy law”?

True, religious establishment and “holy law” have a perilous history in the West. The Catholics and the Protestants used the power of the state to slaughter many thousands who did not share their particular creed. But the Shia and the Sunni in the Muslim world are not Catholics and Protestants. Their theological differences are, well, nonexistent. The main difference between the Sunni and Shia has to do with two views of legitimate Islamic succession, arguments one may say about the Islamic “family tree.” Islam is not a creedal religion anyway, but rather (like Judaism) a religion of law and practice. Islam has never had religious wars of the type that nearly destroyed Europe, and it is senseless to issue calls (as we sometimes hear in the West) for an “Islamic reformation.”

We in America may not like all the verdicts that Islamic holy law pronounces upon the Iraqi people. The National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union may be troubled to discover that women inherit less than men, or that husbands can divorce wives more easily than wives can divorce husbands, or that homosexuality will be illegal and thus plans for Gay Pride Week in Baghdad will have to be canceled.

Some Americans may object to such choices, but welcome to democracy! We have asked the Iraqi people to choose, and they cannot always be expected to choose our way.

But what about the rights of women and minorities and non-Muslims? These are things the Iraqis will have to work out. Our best hope is that they will do so within a framework of tolerance and pluralism. There is a precedent for both in Islamic history. Under the great Islamic empires, whether the Abbasid empire or the Mughal empire or the Ottoman empire, Muslims had sharia and yet they allowed Jews and Zoroastrians and Christians to live peacefully and to worship freely. Religious minorities were discriminated against in some ways, and yet they enjoyed tolerance. The Ottoman empire was not a model of pluralism, but it was a pluralist society.

Before America lectures the Iraqis on the virtues of pluralism, which the Iraqis admittedly need, we would do well to reflect on the absence of pluralism in this country. In the past few decades we have seen a radical secularism that has sought to deprive Americans of the rights of self-government and to drive all vestiges of religion—even of morality—from the public square. The right of self-government is paramount in a democracy, and yet on a whole range of issues (abortion, school prayer, homosexual marriage, pornography) the zealots in our culture and our courts seek to thwart Americans from making the rules under which they live.

In an equally radical move, the secularists are trying to remove all references to religion from America’s public domain. These persistent attempts to prevent moral self-government and to empty the public square of all traces of religion are no less intolerant and monolithic than anything the Iraqis are contemplating in their country.

Look at it this way: If it’s wrong for devout Muslims to occupy the public square all by themselves, using law as an instrument of Muslim goals, and pushing everyone else into the background, why isn’t it equally wrong for devout secularists to occupy the public square all by themselves, using law as an instrument of secular goals, and pushing everyone else into the background? (At least the devout Muslims are a majority. On a whole range of issues such as school prayer and gay marriage, the radical secularists often use the courts to trump the will of the American majority.)

If the public square belongs to all citizens, then shouldn’t a commitment to pluralism and tolerance mandate the admission of a wide range of beliefs and perspectives into the public arena? This is no violation of Jeffersonian principles; it only violates the perverted and illiberal understanding of Jefferson that is promoted by the secularists and unfortunately shared by many courts.

Bill Maher Converts to Secularist Faith

This week, on news show "Scarborough Country", comedian Bill Maher preached his anti-gospel message.

We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it's something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age. And you really can't be responsible when you are a kid for what adults put into your head.

"The former host of "Politically Incorrect" said the lack of enlightenment of so many Americans means the nation actually has more in common with its enemies than one might think."

Maher made news in 2002, when ABC cancelled his show "Politically Incorrect" for outrageous comments made on air after 9/11. Slamming the United States military Maher quipped,

We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.

More recently Maher charged that Christians are irrational at best and crazy at worst. But maybe his frequent rants against Christians are more of an emotional continuation of his fight with the nuns he encountered as a young boy than the fruit of thoughtful consideration. Maher has been very public about his criticism of the church and freely shares his worst memories of his Catholic upbringing.

I remember vividly once when I was preparing for my first communion…I remember I was sitting, my arms were on the pew in front of me. I was slumped over. And I remember a nun said to me, "The boy who is slumped over is going to go to hell. For slouching."

Now Maher uses his notoriety to respond in kind.

Allawi challenge for top Iraq job

"Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi says he is forming a new coalition to oppose the Shia alliance that won last month's election. His announcement came a day after Daawa Party chief Ibrahim Jaafari was named as the Shia list's candidate for the position of prime minister. Mr Allawi said he was forming a broad coalition with other minority groups that won seats in the election. He said it would be a group that "believes in Iraq and its principles". Mr Allawi, a secular Shia, called Mr Jaafari an "honourable man, a fighter and a good brother" when asked if he feared the winning alliance would impose Islamic rule in Iraq."

BBC News

Progress Toward Peace in Palestine Continues

The release of 500 Palestinian prisoners by Israel is a welcome boost to newly elected Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who has just gained approval for his new cabinet. "Winning their freedom has become a top priority for the new president, Mahmoud Abbas. It is one of the ways he hopes to convince Palestinians that negotiations are a better strategy to end occupation than violence. "We are very happy with the release of this first group, but it is only the start," Mr Abbas told some of the recently freed prisoners who visited the presidential headquarters in Ramallah."

BBC News

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.