Afghan constitution

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-01-08 07:03pm

An analysis

Personally, while there are flaws, I think it's a good start. The equal protection for women and the beginnings of freedom of religion that are guarenteed by the constitution are a good sign.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-08 07:33pm

Very interesting. I'm hoping that the warlords will recognize this constitution and follow it, but seeing as how they all sent delegates, they should acquiesce, but you never know among tribal societies...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-08 07:35pm

*looks at it with a magnifying glass*

Ah and asterisk. "*void where prohibited by the local warlord, may not apply outside of Kabul."

It is a start though. Shame it states that no law can be contradictory to Islamic law.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-08 09:07pm

It's an officially Islamic state. True freedom of religion is impossible in such a place.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-08 09:30pm

Congratulations, Afghanistan. You just selected a Constitution that contradicts itself.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-08 09:39pm

I wonder how long it'll take them to realize that.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-01-08 09:46pm

Durandal wrote:It's an officially Islamic state. True freedom of religion is impossible in such a place.

And how is this different from England? Last time I checked they weren't burning heretics anymore over there. Give Afghanistan time, say 20 years, and they'll be on the road that way as well.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-08 09:52pm

Alex Moon wrote:And how is this different from England? Last time I checked they weren't burning heretics anymore over there. Give Afghanistan time, say 20 years, and they'll be on the road that way as well.

Where in British law does it state that no laws in the United Kingdom may contradict the Anglican church or the Bible? The English haven't burned anyone for being heretics in well over a century. The countries that hold the Sharia to be state law haven't stoned or beheaded anyone for violating Islamic law in days, if that. There is difference there.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-01-08 09:53pm

Crayz9000 wrote:I wonder how long it'll take them to realize that.

What makes you think they don't? This constitution, like every other in history, is a compromise between a lot of differing groups. It's going to have weaknesses. However, these things can be changed as time goes on. The US once allowed slavery, and denied the right to vote to women. Both these things changed with the times. The same thing will happen in Afghanistan. The fact that they already acknowledge the idea of religious freedom in their constitution is already a good sign.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-08 10:10pm

Alex Moon wrote:
Durandal wrote:It's an officially Islamic state. True freedom of religion is impossible in such a place.
And how is this different from England? Last time I checked they weren't burning heretics anymore over there. Give Afghanistan time, say 20 years, and they'll be on the road that way as well.

What do I care about England? If they're an officially Christian state, then yes, they're a religiously bigoted state as well.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-01-08 10:10pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:And how is this different from England? Last time I checked they weren't burning heretics anymore over there. Give Afghanistan time, say 20 years, and they'll be on the road that way as well.
Where in British law does it state that no laws in the United Kingdom may contradict the Anglican church or the Bible? The English haven't burned anyone for being heretics in well over a century. The countries that hold the Sharia to be state law haven't stoned or beheaded anyone for violating Islamic law in days, if that. There is difference there.

Durandals statement was that religious freedom was impossible because Afghanistan was an officially Islamic state. Britian was officially christian, and yet it managed to create some resemblence of religious freedom. I see no reason why Afghanistan won't in time do the same. England may not have burned any heretics for over a century, but the fact that they did proves that at one time, they were really no better than most muslim countries are today.

Afghanistan is just coming out of a decades long era of civil war, in which religious groups played a major role. Much like Europe as it left the Middle Ages, these changes take time. However, the people of Afghanistan have the advantage that they will be influenced by the rest of the civilized world. We can already see this happening. How many other muslim countries would even entertain the idea of freedom of religion in their central legal documents, even if they were counterbalanced by a special place for Islam? How many offer the guarenteed place for women in their governmnets that Afghanistan is offering? These things came from the influence of western powers, and as Afghanistan stabilizes, that influence will only grow.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-01-08 10:17pm

Durandal wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:
Durandal wrote:It's an officially Islamic state. True freedom of religion is impossible in such a place.
And how is this different from England? Last time I checked they weren't burning heretics anymore over there. Give Afghanistan time, say 20 years, and they'll be on the road that way as well.
What do I care about England? If they're an officially Christian state, then yes, they're a religiously bigoted state as well.

Because it's proof that even when the state favors one religion over other religious freedom can still exist. Few in England would suggest executing all Jews or Catholics who don't convert. Likewise, in time the same will happen in Afghanistan.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-08 11:07pm

Darth Wong wrote:Congratulations, Afghanistan. You just selected a Constitution that contradicts itself.

That's what happens when you give democracy to people that don't know how it works.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-09 12:29am

Alex Moon wrote:Because it's proof that even when the state favors one religion over other religious freedom can still exist. Few in England would suggest executing all Jews or Catholics who don't convert. Likewise, in time the same will happen in Afghanistan.

Are you fucking serious? In order for religious freedom to be impugned, the state has to run around executing those who do not conform? That's just fucking hilarious. I suppose there was no such thing as the persecution of black people during the segregation era, either, because they weren't being executed, just treated as second-class citizens.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-09 01:54am

Darth Wong wrote:Congratulations, Afghanistan. You just selected a Constitution that contradicts itself.

That was probably the idea Mike

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-09 01:59am

Durandal wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:Because it's proof that even when the state favors one religion over other religious freedom can still exist. Few in England would suggest executing all Jews or Catholics who don't convert. Likewise, in time the same will happen in Afghanistan.
Are you fucking serious? In order for religious freedom to be impugned, the state has to run around executing those who do not conform? That's just fucking hilarious. I suppose there was no such thing as the persecution of black people during the segregation era, either, because they weren't being executed, just treated as second-class citizens.

I hope you are not suggesting that Britian treats non Anglicans as second class citizens?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-01-09 03:09am

Durandal wrote:What do I care about England? If they're an officially Christian state, then yes, they're a religiously bigoted state as well.

This has been a source of much amusement to me, Finland also has a state church, making it a christian nation, this is not uncommon in scandinavia, yet religion here has such a incredibly weak hold on society compared to the US govt. which practises separation of church and state.

Look at our president for the most blatant example, female, not married but living together with a guy, she was also on stage jiving it out with James Brown when he was in Finland

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-01-09 03:38am

Durandal wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:Because it's proof that even when the state favors one religion over other religious freedom can still exist. Few in England would suggest executing all Jews or Catholics who don't convert. Likewise, in time the same will happen in Afghanistan.
Are you fucking serious? In order for religious freedom to be impugned, the state has to run around executing those who do not conform? That's just fucking hilarious. I suppose there was no such thing as the persecution of black people during the segregation era, either, because they weren't being executed, just treated as second-class citizens.

You missed my point. Attitudes in England changed, even though the Church and State were and are to this day mixed. Where once heretics were second class citizens, they became full citizens. The same thing will happen in Afghanistan. As time passes, and as the country absorbs more influences from the outside world, religious freedom will become something more than simply an idea, it will become a reality.

And for the record, black people were being executed during the era of segregation. It was called lynching.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-01-09 04:06am

His Divine Shadow wrote: This has been a source of much amusement to me, Finland also has a state church, making it a christian nation, this is not uncommon in scandinavia, yet religion here has such a incredibly weak hold on society compared to the US govt. which practises separation of church and state.

That is because it is the people that determine whether the state is secular and any amount of government legislation won't turn back the tide, if enough of the populace wants a religious state then they will support such ideas.

Britain has active laws that do discriminate based upon religion (the head of state can't be catholic for example) and no dividing line between church and state in schools (all schools must have Christian themed assemblies by law) however because the people in eh country are by and large secular we don't have people complaining about evolution being taught and thus also leads to people no the other side of the issue not getting bent out of shape by 30 seconds of prayer a day. The very idea that evolution shouldn’t be taught boggles the mind and if you mentioned it to the average Briton that evolution should be left out for religious reason they would look at you gone out.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-09 04:07am

Darth Wong wrote:Congratulations, Afghanistan. You just selected a Constitution that contradicts itself.

The Pakistani constitution is similar in this respect. There can be no laws that contradict sharia. The constitution goes as far as declaring Pakistan an Islamic state. However in practice Pakistan is hardly Iran or Saudi Arabis.

The exception is the blashphemy law which is enforced from time to time. The last time it was enforced two christians were executed for allegedly writting on a Mosque wall.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-09 10:52am

Stuart Mackey wrote:I hope you are not suggesting that Britian treats non Anglicans as second class citizens?

I'm suggesting that a state-established religion leaves the door open for legal persecution. Britain's government enforces its religion in public schools, which is perfectly legal if there is an official state church.

The Afghan constitution goes one step beyond establishing an official state religion by saying that no law can contradict that religion. So now, every law is judged against the whatever interpretation of a religious text is most prevalent.

Alex Moon wrote:You missed my point. Attitudes in England changed, even though the Church and State were and are to this day mixed. Where once heretics were second class citizens, they became full citizens. The same thing will happen in Afghanistan. As time passes, and as the country absorbs more influences from the outside world, religious freedom will become something more than simply an idea, it will become a reality.

England still has laws in place which treat the Anglican religion as preferred and that cater to Christianity in general. Such laws are perfectly legal. You don't see a problem with this?

And for the record, black people were being executed during the era of segregation. It was called lynching.

Ah, so it was the government doing the lynching? Wow, that's new.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-09 10:56am

Oh, by the way, is the Afgan constitution written on a blanket?
<ducks>

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-10 11:07pm

Durandal wrote:Oh, by the way, is the Afgan constitution written on a blanket?
<ducks>

Toilet paper would be my guess.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-01-11 12:16am

Despite our best efforts, some people are just destined to fuck themselves over. The people of Afganistan are such an example.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-11 06:38am

Durandal wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:I hope you are not suggesting that Britian treats non Anglicans as second class citizens?
I'm suggesting that a state-established religion leaves the door open for legal persecution. Britain's government enforces its religion in public schools, which is perfectly legal if there is an official state church.

British law also allows the Queen to appoint the PM and cabinet ministers..sell Scotland, disband the navy, and go to war with Fiji.

If you want to seriously suggest that Britian would or could percecute people on religeius ground I would suggest you look up the events that removed all[i/] legal impediments to people of various faiths from a career of their choice{excepting the Monarchy}. Britians remaining religious laws are a historic hangover from the time of Henry V111 and the events of the Civil war/interregnum and the Glorious Revolution, and are no more than a hangover and one with little, if any, real effect on people. Such laws would probably be removed from the books if they appared to conflict with human rights.

The Afghan constitution goes one step beyond establishing an official state religion by saying that no law can contradict that religion. So now, every law is judged against the whatever interpretation of a religious text is most prevalent.

Of cource, it was designed that way.
Your British example has absolutly no relivance to this as British practice does not allow for what you claim.