Thursday, September 01, 2005Rude Pundit talks a little dirty, but he puts his finger on the main point of cultural conservatism in this post. Apparently the new Iraqi constitution, after excluding women from its preamble (repeating our mistakes), includes a provision stating that individual liberties are contingent on "general morality." In addition, all laws must be consistent with Islam. This means that the eventual imposition of an Iranian-style theocracy is all but inevitable.
Is this what our people are bleeding and dying for? Is this why we are spending astronomical sums? So that we degrade women and oppress dissenters?
One could wonder why the Christian Republican Party would be in such a hurry to help radical mullahs impose their beliefs on Iraq. But such curiosity would betray a real ignorance about the motivations of the Theocons. Their definition of "liberty" is the medieval definition: freedom is the freedom to follow God's will (defined my me). As I've said before, their beliefs are other-regarding - they are about what other people should do. Which don't make them personal beliefs but public ones, the religious nature of which bars them from the public forum. Apparently these morons can't read the First Amendment any better than they can read the bible.
So the reason that Pat Robertson etc. aren't up in arms attacking the new Iraqi constitution isn't that they're afraid to criticize Dear Leader. It's that they think we should do the same thing here.