Should we have in Iraq hard separation between religion and life (state..etc)?
111029
I think that the more church is separated from the state, the better. There are maters of religion, and matters of the phisical world. \nPhisical world should be sorted out by pure reason. \nReligion can not be (please anote that I don't mean that religion is something wrong or stupid - merely, that many things in religious matters are a matter of faith).\n\nOf course, religion always does influence the local culture, and that can't be avoided. \n\nIn the case of Iraq, I think it would be a good idea to separate the worldly and religious matters. As Julius Caesar once said, "What belongs to God, give to God. What belongs to Emperor, give to Emperor". \nHowever, taking into consideration the way Islam covers both mundane and religious issues (I'm not a Muslim, nor an expert on the topic, but got interest in the subject to claim that I have an idea of what I'm talking about :)), it would be very, very hard to divide those two matters. Not something that can be done quickly.\n\nNevertheless, I think it would be a good goal to go for.
701437
I don't believe that two separate countries is the best solution, especially considering that there are 3 major groups within Iraq that need to be taken into consideration (the Sunni's, Shiite's and the Kurds). A three state (as opposed to three country) solution might be workable but it would involve either going to war with Turkey or somehow managing to get Turkey to peacefully co-exist with a Kurdish state on its border; a serious issue considering their severe repression of their own Kurdish minority. If Iran and Syria are brought into the fold and are allowed to help quell the violence then that would be a beneficial way to start, but the problem is that it is more than likely that one or both will want something in return for their participation and assistance in helping secure Iraq.\nA three state solution also has other issues, relocation of Shiite's and Sunni's into their newly formed states would be a difficult task, as would the working of the govt. Oil and division of oil profits btw the three states would also have to be worked out.\nBut even with all the issues that must be worked thru, a three state solution with the participation of surrounding nations is the quickest and most viable in the long term. Even if there is a need for a UN presence in the country for a period.
790520
I would think that each man must make this choice for himself.  One cannot choose for an entire nation or religion.  Each must choose their own path.  I cannot speak for you nor you for me.
304488
No, apparently Muslims are as divided as most other religions.  In Iraq the Sunni neighborhoods are making the Shites leave under threat of death and visa versa.   The differences between them stem from each sect believing in different lines of succession from the prophet Muhammad.  Under big daddy Saddam the Sunni enjoyed favoritism, Shites were persecuted although both sects are followers of Islam.
111310
No.......if thr has to b one religion then it should b only humanity. people should not make any difference on the grounds of religion and should live as one.
966209
Oh, we most certainly need separation of church and state. If we didn't have that principle or the First Amendment, there would be nothing to stop this country from becoming a corrupt theocracy like those our forefathers left when they founded America.\n\nWith the First Amendment and the separation of church and state, we're all guranteed the right to believe as we so choose, including the right NOT to believe in anything at all. We're guranteed the right to our own deep, personal beliefs. Without the First Amendment, the government could TELL us what our beliefs have to be, whether we agree and truly believe in them or not. The government could arrest us or worse for daring to secretly practice a religion other than what it sanctions.\n\nThat's why the First Amendment and separation of church and state is so delicate and precious. It's not guaranteed for one or two select groups. It's for EVERYBODY, whether you like it or not. It safeguards your beliefs as well as those you don't agree with. Without such protection, your beliefs are in just as much danger as mine or anyone else's.\n\nWithout it, there's no guarantee that we'll be able to hold fast to our own beliefs, no guarantee that the government can't up and decide to become a religious nation and do away with those who can't obey without question. To keep that from happening, to preserve our personal rights, we have that separation. We have the First Amendment to guarantee our personal beliefs and protect them from being violated by the government, which cannot tell us to believe or not to believe. Only we can decide that.
255658
ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE SOON... iraq is on the verge of all out civil war: shiite muslims fighting sunnis muslims within the country. situation there would be best assessed by US army intel operating within iraq.\n\nI feel it would be irresponsible, even catastrophic if US troops were to be pulled out now.
761513
Dividing between the Sunni and Shia/Kurd will not work.  The majority of oil wealth is in the Shia and Kurd areas and the Sunni would not let themselves be cut out.  This has already been proposed (Federalist states for each of the three) and been rejected by the Sunni.\n\nI agree in general with your assessment of the situation and see no really workable solution since I do not believe that the Islamic religious leaders will ever allow any form of democracy to work.  I think we will eventually see another Islamic Theocracy in Iraq.
338239
ABSOLUTELY.  The US government was founded on Christian principles.  Its the turning away from them that is destroying us.  The so-called separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution, but the opinion of a handful of people.  Further, it was designed to keep the government from having a church sponsored religion, like the church of england when we were colonies....not to remove religious principles.
740474
There is no separation of church and state mentioned anywhere in our constitution.  The Constitution states that the government shall not mandate a state religion.  No one is forced to celebrate Christmas, and no one can be prohibited from celebrating it.  As most of us in the US celebrate Christmas, if federal offices stayed open on Christmas, they would be too empty to get anything done anyway, so the only fiscally responsible thing to do is to close them on Christmas.
688037
We have a government that is supposedly "for the people, by the people". So I guess that if the majority of the people want religion as part of their government, it should be. We shouldn't seclude people of other faiths, though, and there is where the problem lies. Our founding fathers ensured us freedom of religion, and what that means entirely in the eye of the beholder-in this case, the eyes of the majority of American people and voters. It would eliminate alot of problems to completely remove all religious aspects from government, to completely separate church from state (including the "In God we trust"), but there are many people out there to which religion is a huge part of their lives and would hate that. I myself am a Buddhist in the Air Force, and I have to deal with Christian-specific prayers and events regularly, but I'm not very bothered by it, and consider it just part of our "Freedom of Religion".
1139508
Because Bush thinks (?) in terms of politics, not religion.  He wants politicly reliable people running Iraq, because he will have better control over them.  Political sanctions dont work on someone deeply religious.
784204
Very good question. I expect to be bashed for it but here it goes anyway.\n\nThere is no plan, no idea, no twinkling idea in our eyes of taking God, Jesus, Vishnu, Buddha, or anything else away from anyone. We only want the government to be neutral towards any religious views. Most of us are religious, and we respect and honor anyone's point of view.\n\nWe have no plan to remove churches, stop anyone from praying, remove bibles, religious displays, etc... on private property. We do object to overt religious displays that only show one religious point of view - on government property.\n\nMany of us are afraid that our personal religious convictions will be swamped in a government that promotes one religion over another, which is why the founders made the wall of separation between church and state. \n\nNow wait. Before you jump to conclusions about this, please consider the reasons the founders did this. At the time it was written, the constitution was designed to prevent the religious wars that had destroyed Europe several times over, because each nation had it's own official religion, and people get very passionate about their religious views, sometimes to the point of craziness. Witness the terrorists today. \n\nThe founders were close to England, some were born there, and most went to school there. The Church of England was the official religion and most of them didn't want the same kind of oppression the English practiced against non-members. It just made sense to them to create a government that wouldn't have those kinds of problems. \n\nSo to tie it all together, we don't hate or dislike any religion. We just want to practice ours, and you practice yours without having to have any problems with each other. It really is no more than that.\n\nThanks for the great question, please don't hesitate to post more like this. We want to clear this up as much as you do.\n\nAdd: I went back and read your question again. Honestly, there is no locomotive. Please don't take it that way. If you feel threatened by us I apologize. We are all americans, and if you've read my posts here you know I feel very strongly about our great country and what it stands for. Freedom. That we share equally, and I want to make sure we agree on that first. We disagree about Iraq, we disagree about how to fight the terrorists. None of us want to see any more american lives lost to them. We just disagree about how to do it. I hope you understand we would fight together with you if anyone came here to destroy or hurt us.\n\nAdd2: We share exactly the same fear. Neither of us want our faiths, or our right to freely practice them disturbed in any way. We both wholeheartedly believe the real danger could come from the government. That is why I hope we agree it should not be in government at all. I think the balance is delicate between the government staying out, but at the same time not disturbing our right to freely practice our faiths. The line is a grey area, and we may occasionally clash over where it is exactly. I sincerely believe it is in both of our best interests to respect that grey area and tread lightly. Agreed?
700895
Yes and no (although Mosque and state would be more appropriate).  I would say it's more of a hybrid.\n\nBangladesh's originial constitution of 1971 established it as a secular republic.  Since then, two successive military governments have ammended the constitution to make Islam the state religion.  None of the 3 democraticaly elected governments rolled back these ammendments.\n\nIn practice, most laws are secular.  There are some notable exceptions including:\n     1. Difficulty in obtaining alcohol.  Only select clubs, hotels, and associations may legally serve it (you can also buy it in the Airport duty free).  In reality, it's readily available in the black market, and not enforced for private occasions.\n     2. Certain portions of the Islamic code apply for inheritance.   Individuals have the right to opt out.  Religious minorities are exempt.\n     3. The blasphemy law is enforced on occasion (highly politicized).  Interestingly, it's a carry over of British common law from the colonial days, but I mention it since it is currently use to suppress publications deemed un-Islamic.  The courts have the right to overturn judgements and have done so.
1038273
I think the government should stay out of Religion and Marriage since it is usually a religious act.  On the other hand, every religion in the world has a set of morals (minus the demonic types or extremists) which involve not killing others and be nice to people, which I think the governments of the world should take notice of. Does that make since?  \nSo, yes, religion is a personal belief and should not affect the government in such a way as it currently is.  I also feel that a candidate's religion should not be public so that people will vote for him or her based on their intentions for the US rather than "oh he's a good Christian man"
1187778
Iraq must split up into three sectarian states --Kurdistan, a Shi'ite province of Iran, and a Sunni landlocked nation.\n\nNo one will die for the geographical "Iraq" as a whole, so the group will keep killing each other until they are separate geopolitical entities.\n\nThe United States should have realized this when then invated in 2003; the US should have invaded and partitioned.  They WERE warned but the warnings were dismissed.\n\nIraq as a united country defending itself does not exist and will not come into existance.
574111
No. Iraq will, if at all it sustains democracy, take at least 3 decades to understand the system and get into main stream democratic countries. Religion will be a great hindrance to fully open up like a normal democracy. Situation does not change dramatically and I am not sure if any change at all will be possible.