Wednesday 17 July 2013

Even Worse


A Coptic Catholic bishop has criticized Egypt’s new amended constitution, which came into force on July 8 by government decree.

“We are concerned,” said Bishop Kamal Fahim Awad (Boutros) Hanna of Minya. “We are ridiculed. The provisions that in the old constitution seemed bad in the eyes of Christians are highlighted in the new text. If we do not speak now, we will not be able to say anything.”

Coptic Christians criticized Egypt’s constitution, adopted by referendum in 2012, for declaring the principles of Sharia to be the “main source of legislation.”

The amended constitution, which Egypt’s new government states is provisional, “adds that the interpretation of the Sharia law should be in accordance with the body of laws developed in the early centuries of Islam,” according to the Fides news agency.

In addition, Article 3 of the 2012 constitution, which discusses the rights of Christians and Jews, has been eliminated.

“For Egyptian Christians and Jews, the principles of their religious law will be the main source in regulating their personal status, matters pertaining to their religion, and the selection of their spiritual leadership,” the article stated.

8 comments:

  1. "Coptic Christians criticized ""Egypt’s constitution, adopted by referendum in 2012, for declaring the principles of Sharia to be the “main source of legislation.”"

    Indeed-why doesn't the Pope speak out against democracy in the Middle East?

    Sure, he'd draw the ire of the liberal Left-but those types hate the Catholic Church anyway.

    Everywhere from Gaza to Iraq, Middle Eastern democracy means intensified persecution of Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, they were better off under democracy and the Brotherhood. Badly off, but then they had been under Mubarak. Yet still better off than this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't really agree with the argument that the Middle Easterners are incapable of having a non-Islamist democracy. Arab socialism, itself largely a creation of Arab Christians, was once a powerful ideology in the Middle East. So was Arab nationalism, also largely an Arab Christian creation.

    Something happened in the 1970s that caused an Islamist revival. I don't know enough about the region’s history to pinpoint what caused this revival. Perhaps the military loses to Israel destroyed the prestige of the secular ideologies?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "They were better off under the Brotherhood"

    Anybody who can write this simply doesn't know anything about the Brotherhood, or the kind of Islamist theocracy they were planning to bring in.

    Like Turkey, Egypt's democratic Government was being temporarily held back from showing its true nature by the Army, but it was only a matter of time...

    Ask the Christians of Iraq (if there are any who haven't fled) or of Gaza, what Middle Eastern democracy means for them.

    Or, indeed, what it wold mean for the Christians of Syria.

    Why doesn't the Pope condemn Arab democracy?

    It's a mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You genuinely, honestly do not have a clue. The problem is that we have the Pub Bores' Party back in office again, in case we had all forgotten what it was like. Mercifully, not for much longer, though. Or, thereafter, ever again. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why should the Pope condemn Arab democracy? What a strange and bizarre idea.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Andrew.

    Because Arab democracy means radical anti-Christian Islamist regimes like the one growing in Turkey right now.

    The Christians of Syria are praying they don't ever get democracy over there, as we speak.

    The poor Christians of Gaza and Iraq have already had quite enough Arab democracy to last a lifetime.

    If the Pope is on their side, he should see the logical conclusion of all this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What would the Coptic bishops know, eh?

    ReplyDelete