Tuesday, September 18, 2012


The state of nature is governed by a law that applies to all. Reason teaches any who will consult the law that no one ought to harm another in life, health, liberty or possessions. There is enough providence for each to obtain provisions for basic needs. There cannot be supposed any such subordination among us to authorize the destruction of another or others.

This is the basic reasoning that supports the law against killing. Killing is identified as the crime of murder because it deprives another of any privilege and all liberty associated with life. Murder is now regarded as a capital crime insofar as it eliminates the ability to render restitution to the offended party.
Wars of aggression, genocide and mass murder stand as aggravated offenses that are greater in damage than the homicide of any individual. Nevertheless, punishment in the modern age requires proportionate restitution.

This restitution is not to be rendered in the brute form of an eye for an eye. It is given in the form of providing payment for treatment affiliated with the party who had suffered damage. Since health insurance supplies a large part of the payment for medical treatment, some monetary retribution is still regarded as a form of punishment in cases that are not as severe as murder.
The freedoms of expression and assembly are believed to be protected when people are protesting policies that are harmful to the community. The condition is that the protest is expressed in a non-violent way. When these freedoms are treated as non-existent, it is a cause for concern.

When the exercise of these freedoms is identified as terrorism and punished with death by the state, the state has been made into an instrument for murder. It is a high crime. When the state exists in dependence upon crime, it is not credible as a representative of human rights for the people. The constitution for the state has to be re-written in a way that affects a change that restores faith in the ability of the leadership to lead in representation.
The current government in Syria stands in desperate need of correction. It has been conducting a war of terror on the people of the majority population.

The US can arm rebels according to Chinese and Russian foreign policy provided, the US adopt a policy of non-aggression.

The recent protests surrounding the video “Innocence of Muslims” was a planned event. It was planned to protest the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The destructive events in the US on 9/11/01 were used to promote the “global war on terror” in the Middle East.
Muslims can protest the video. They have the right to do so. Civil authority asserts that they don’t have the right to protest violently. The administration for the US has changed. Reparations have been made in the invaded countries. Military presence is only being kept until the government of the country can govern without civil war.

Afghanistan has a constitution with rights.
It is well written. It is better than the US bill of rights in the comprehensive composition of expression. It has an explicit provision against discrimination. It has a provision against torture and punishment contrary to human integrity. It proposes to provide education up to the BA level. It has documented all our rights and added some. The only flaw is expressed in Article 45:

“The state shall devise and implement a unified educational curriculum based on the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam, national culture, and in accordance with academic principles, and develops the curriculum of religious subjects on the basis of the Islamic sects existing in Afghanistan. (Ch.2, Art.22)

This is comparable to asserting that the US educational curriculum should be based on the provisions derived from Christianity. It is not an affirmation of freedom of religion. It is a restriction to Islam that institutes sectarianism as a national right. The provision should affirm the right of a non-sectarian education.

Islam is the predominant religion. Provisions from it will be used in education. It is not  good to limit the plan for national government to one religion. Where is the representation for minority religions? Where is the representation for the minority Islamic sects? If the plan for government does not represent the minority groups, there will be problems with discrimination.

Article 149 is also lacking support for freedom of religion.

The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended.

Their constitution is so good it could be used as a model for revising the US bill of rights except for the lack of freedom of religion in the provision for education and the provision against amending Islam as the state religion.

The Iraqi constitution is well-written as well, but it has similar problems regarding freedom of religion. It also has a requirement for absolute agreement that is problematic. Will the majority agree with minority populations when the minorities are more correct or is the expectation that the minorities will always agree with the majority because that is what they would expect if they were the majority? If the majority uses weapons to force consensus, then the “absolute” consensus was not chosen. Where is the liberty in that law?

The west has leadership in regards to the provisions for correction and freedom of religion, but we need to adopt the non-aggression pact. Invading foreign nations to solve their problems for them is not in the best interest of international cooperation. This said, there is the provision against invasion that allows for defense of allies.

Let liberty in the law rule.

Steve K.


No comments:

Post a Comment