Stupid NY Times Story of the day...

Secular Iraqis Say New Charter May Curb Rights, says the title, but right under it, "President Bush, however, asserted that the Iraqi document guaranteed women's rights and freedom of religion."

Now let us first say that George W. Bush is either over optimistic or being disingenuous and I'd suspect intentionally so.

Here is the constitution. It says pretty plainly:

CHAPTER ONE: Basic Principles

Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.

Article (2): First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

Second, this constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people, and the full religious rights for all individuals, and the freedom of creed and religious practices.

Now those secular Iraqis might know of which they speak. What is not clearly expressed - what remains vague here- are all kinds of issues which courts rule in the US.

The big example in my head here: what about apostasy?

Clearly secular Iraqis must have that in mind above all. And it seems pretty clear: you can't really have an Islamic state without some sanctions for apostasy, and if you have that, freedom of religion is out the window.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's how it looks to me. Maybe religious Iraqis will merely feel a "powerful sense of rage" in response to apostates, and let the alone.

But I suspect that's not the case.

With all the reports about the agitation for Islamic law in Iraq, if I were a secular Iraqi, I'd take no comfort in armchair 101st keyboarders hailing the Iraqi draft consitutiton as a "decent compromise."