I’m sure you’ve all seen this. Since we on the left aren’t outraged enough about acts of violence, death and destruction, I just thought I’d remind you all of these sobering statistics:
Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group, the two independent researchers behind the study, say the figures in the report should be regarded as the “baseline of the minimum number of deaths”.
It concluded that at least 24,865 civilians were killed up to March 19 this year - 37 per cent died at the hands of American or coalition forces.
The second largest cause of death (36 per cent) was criminal violence, while anti-occupation forces have been responsible for 2353 deaths.
Call me cynical, but this is a very high death toll for a country that has supposedly been ‘liberated’ for the good of its own people. Why have so many civilians been killed by American or coalition forces? Caught in the crossfire? Indiscriminate bombings? Mistaken for insurgents? This report, if accurate, indicates that the insurgents aren’t the ones causing the deaths of Iraqi civilians, as claimed by the British Government.
More good news for women’s rights, too.
The draft chapter, circulated discreetly in recent days, has ignited outrage among women’s groups, which held a protest on Tuesday morning in downtown Baghdad at the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by American marines in April 2003.
One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family’s sect or religion.
Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families’ permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives’ presence.
I don’t think Islam = terrorism and that you can draw a simple link between the religion and acts of terrorism without taking into consideration numerous other historical and cultural factors. Of course, I do not accept what is posited as the inverse position; that any criticism of Islam is invalid, either, before anyone accuses me of being a two-faced lefty.
Some sects of fundamentalist Islam, those who believe in Shariah law, for example, have an appalling record on women’s rights. And certainly, this amendment to the Iraqi constitution does not seem to be designed to protect the rights of women in any way.
It certainly seems as if Islamic fundamentalism is becoming a growing force in Iraq. If democracy manages to get off the ground there, to what extent will religious fundamentalism play a role in the country’s future? And what will be the result for women?
Here’s another worrying report about the newfound freedoms of the Iraqi people, especially women, courtesy of Feministe and DED Space:
“A month ago I was walking from my college to my house when I was abducted in the street by three men. They dropped acid in my face and on my legs. They cut all my hair off while hitting me in the face many times telling me it’s the price for not obeying God’s wish in using the veil,” Hania Abdul-Jabbar, a 23-year-old university student, recounted…
According to local police, dozens of women have had parts of their bodies burned by religious conservatives in a string of incidents throughout the capital in recent weeks. Maj Abbas Dilemi, a senior police investigator in Baghdad, said that most of the acid attacks had occurred in the Mansour and Kadhmyia districts of the city.
“Our sources have found that many children are being used to conduct such violence. The one adult we have arrested for this crime cannot accept Iraqi women wearing Western clothes and walking without veils, alleging that it’s a prohibition by God,” Dilemi said.
Anyway, I think that’s enough from me about Iraq. I don’t have a finely tuned grasp of these events, just a sick feeling in my stomach at the statistics.
The story from Hania certainly gives me a sick feeling in my stomach, Kate.
Excellent post, Kate.
Hopefully those champions of women’s rights, George W. Bush and John Howard, will step in to ensure that women’s freedoms are protected.
Some sects of fundamentalist Islam, those who believe in Shariah law, for example, have an appalling record on women’s rights.
Illegal commentary in Victoria.
“A month ago I was walking from my college to my house when I was abducted in the street by three men. They dropped acid in my face and on my legs. They cut all my hair off while hitting me in the face many times telling me it‚Äôs the price for not obeying God‚Äôs wish in using the veil,” Hania Abdul-Jabbar, a 23-year-old university student, recounted.
But Islam is a religion of peace and freedom!
Only Christians need be feared.
I’m not in a good mood today, C.L., and this is becoming a tedious theme. It’s not, but I won’t allow this thread to be derailed by discussions of Bracks’ legislation. Discuss the substantive themes of the post, or the comments are deleted.
The report found two-thirds of deaths were caused by terrorists, criminals and outsiders. No explanation of how these cohorts were differentiated was provided. But given that terrorists run protection, thieving and kidnapping rackets and conduct illegal business for funding purposes, the difference is probably massively blurred. Nevertheless, the report found that the overwhelming majority of casualities were not caused by the Coalition.
37 per cent of 25, 000 deaths at the hands of the coalition equals what - my maths is or are hopeless - but around, what, 8,000-10,000? In a war that’s lasted three years (is it that long already?). And is there a count on how many of them were enemy combatants?
To me, this is an absolutely astounding success story for the coalition.
I thought you’d exercised your right to sleep, Rob!
Rob, the key word here is CIVILIAN.
Who started the war, Rob? And how are civilian deaths an “absolutely astounding success story”?
You rightly condemn the atrocities in London but refuse to do the same for the loss of innocent life in Iraq. Telling.
My apologies, Rob. You must have misread because you’re tired. As Kate points out, the report is of civilian deaths, not those of combatants.
Zero of them are military Rob. Civilian death count.
I’d call 8000-10,000 civilian deaths a war crime. So would you if China had done it. Or Iraq.
Pretty hard to judge when so many of the combatants don’t wear uniforms. But a fair point nonetheless. But boy, what a far cry from the 100,000 that was so heavily promoted a while back.
Saddam killed many more civilians deliberately than the Coalition killed accidentally.
Overall, civilian lives have been saved by the invasion because Saddam’s regime would have killed more over the period since March 2003.
However, the Left was not outraged by Saddam’s murders and opposed any attempt to stop him.
Iraq did do it. Kurds, Iranians, Marsh Arabs, dissidents. Toll: probably 500,000.
Saddam killed many more civilians deliberately than the Coalition killed accidentally.
Moral equivalence, EP.
However, the Left was not outraged by Saddam’s murders and opposed any attempt to stop him.
No. THE LEFT opposed war as the only way of stopping him. I was, and am, outraged by Saddam’s murders.
C.L., you have a point in the blurring between criminal activity and the insurgency. (See, I can agree with people too!) I don’t know how to tell between them, or how the difference was indicated, other than possibly in the insurgency claiming responsibility for bombings etc.
The figure doesn’t include Iraqi soldiers or the police forces, either.
I am still disturbed about the 37 percent killed by the coalition, which is a huge minority.
Saddam killed many more civilians deliberately than the Coalition killed accidentally.
Accidental? If you have rules of engagement which are reducible to “if you perceive a threat, shoot first and ask questions later”, then it’s hardly an accident. Going to war is a deliberate decision. It’s well known that there were discussions within the Bush administration about what level of Iraqi civilian casualties would be “acceptable”. Brought to you by the same people who invented the concept of “collateral damage”.
The unintended consequences of creating that which your rhetoric suggests you seek to prevent. Certainly the number of independent body counts are now pointing to a horrific death toll. And this is a just baseline count from a chaotic war zone.
I’ve noticed that there are not many denials coming from the usual suspects any more. I think the dead weight of FACT has shut them up.
Remember….”We must destroy this village in order to save it”. And, “we don’t do body counts”, I wonder why?
And this old ‘you weren’t outraged by xyz’ is so boring, it’s pointless and it gets us nowhere. And C.L. you do it all the time!
I’d like to say I was deeply outraged about Saddam’s brutality in the 80s and 90s, but I was 12 in 1990 so my knowledge of geo-political events of that time was limited to a deep-seated fear of dying by nuclear bomb. Okay? Seriously, if we all spent all our time listing all the things that outraged us, ever, instead of the things that outrage us now and we think are pertinent, we’d never have time for anything else.
Plus: two wrongs and all that, okay? And let’s not forget the US actually funded Saddam when it suited them, even though he was pretty much a horrible dictator back then too.
Actually, Phil, in Vietnam, where there are documented cases of American soldiers saying “we couldn’t tell who was Vietcong in the village so we shot them all”, body counts were deeply controversial because they were manipulated to show that the Americans were winning, particularly after Tet. I think up to a point the US military has just decided that creating a certain “fog of war” muddies things sufficiently to be able to continue to claim success.
There is a big difference between deliberately targeting civilians, as the terrorists do, and accidentally killing civilians while fighting armed enemies.
In fact it is the Left that tries to equate the two as if they were the same. The Left has become incapable of making moral distinctions or judgements of proportionality.
Why are there “armed enemies”, EP?
Me too Kate: and Im equally disturbed by the 36 percent criminal violence. Even allowing for, say, 10% of that to be mixed up with with insurgency somehow, as someone above suggests - thats an awful, awful figure. Thats bladerunner.
From the moment that the ‘official’ Iraqi army was routed it was common tactics for Ba’athists to discard their uniforms and use the protection of civlians and civil institutions as a cover to continue the fight. Add to this the presence of ‘unoffical’ combatants such as foreign jihadis, who did the same thing. It’s been an everyday fact of life in Iraq ever since the army folded: the adoption of classic asymmetric warfare tactics. Civilians deaths will be high if combatants use ambulances, hospitals and mosques as cover. Horrible, and sad, but true and inevitable.
Why are there “armed enemies”, EP?
Because there are bad people in the world, Mark.
And sometimes they will try to kill you, no matter how much you apologise for daring to exist.
And sometimes the only choices boil down to either submitting to the bad people, or fighting them.
In Leftworld, only democratic countries can be bad, and it’s always wrong for democratic countries to fight anyone. In Leftworld, if anyone attacks democratic countries, it’s always the democratic countries’ fault.
Over the last four years, more people are migrating from Leftworld to Realworld.
The report - here [PDF] - says 81.7 per cent of casualties were men, 8.7 per cent women and elderly, 9.3 per cent children, 0.4 per cent babies. Prima facie, these figures do not support the argument that Coalition attacks were as indiscriminate as they’re claimed to have been. If they were, the figures would be significantly higher amongst women and children.
EP, my point is that there wouldn’t be an insurgency if there had been no war. The most bizarre recent justification is Bush’s - the terrorists are all in Iraq fighting us there so we don’t have to fight them here. Imagine what else you could justify with such an approach.
It’s worth remembering that when Big US media made the claim about Westmoreland fiddling with body count figures, he sued them. They wimped out and withdrew the claim.
Good point, CL.
And it’s likely that most of those male casualties were combatants rather than civilians. Insurgents don’t wear uniforms.
C.L., please see my comment above about the rules of engagement. I don’t know that anyone has said the attacks are indiscriminate in that sense - they are certainly indiscriminate in the sense that the criterion is perceived rather than actual threat. It is understandable that there’s difficulty in differentiating between combatants and civilians, and I acknowledge that, but that doesn’t remove the overall moral responsibility for the creation of the situation, nor the responsibility for calibrating rules of engagement such that these deaths can be avoided if possible.
There’s also a fair amount of concern that a lot of the reservists are badly trained and ill equipped to make judgements about who is and isn’t a combatant.
Mark, there wouldn’t be a war if terrorists hadn’t attacked the US on 11/9/2001.
But there is a war. And people die in wars.
So far, compared to almost any other major war in history, very few people have died. But that could change.
Mark, there wouldn’t be a war if terrorists hadn’t attacked the US on 11/9/2001.
No doubt, EP, but the War on Iraq was not an appropriate response to those attacks. Afghanistan, yes, Iraq, no.
But what has happened to the earnest promoters of the 100,000 deaths figure (did that include combatants? I don’t think so, but may be wrong)? We now seem to have a figure of around one tenth of that or less.
Well, C.L., to an extent I agree, but there’s also the fact that women and children do not have the same public life in Iraq as they do in countries like Australia. They aren’t out on the streets and moving around, where they’re presumably greater targets.
EP, now you’re just being silly. That’s not just a straw man, it’s a great big bale of hay.
I was all for the military occupation of Afghanistan. I still think that country requires a great deal of attention. It’s just that Iraq is a separate issue, ok, and always has been.
Do you reckon you’d spot the moral difference if your house was shredded by cluster bombs EP?
Cluster bombs are no better than a crazy with a semtex backpack. They disperse and indiscriminately destroy any and all bodies within a range. They are in no sense targeted at military - or at anything - they are flesh shredders. calling it “accidental” when an non-uniformed humans get killed by this when dropped on populous area is simply a political abuse of the word.
And dont get me started on depleted uranium shells, because thats some very, very sick shit. Its chemical warfare. Slow burn WMDs.
Rob, I was always wary of the 100,000 figure because it was so imprecise.
However, the promoters of this report indicate that this is a baseline figure. It could be and probably is much higher, and doesn’t count actual combatants, members of the military in Iraq or the police forces.
It also doesn’t count people who have died from seconday causes such as sickness and starvation, which has no doubt been quite large. Do we count these as casualties of war?
Iraq is not a separate or irrelevant issue. It’s all part of a global war between Islamism/totalitarianism and democratic society.
The Left is in denial about this, and tries to pretend that these things are unrelated. The Left believes that Western civilisation is by its very nature always wrong, and therefore it cannot bring itself to admit that there is an enemy that must be fought.
As such, the Left plays the role of “useful fool” in hampering the efforts of democratic civilisation to defend itself.
”There is a big difference between deliberately targeting civilians, as the terrorists do, and accidentally killing civilians while fighting armed enemies.”
Such a big difference we can be sure the ”accidentally” dead would attest to EP.
You know, EP, it’d be really nice if for once you could point to any actually existing Lefties who think in the way that you claim, as opposed to THE LEFT.
Jesus Christ I’m getting tired of reading some of this. What the fuck is it with the EPs and CLs of this world? “In Leftworld, only democratic countries can be bad”…!
Fer fuck’s sake Mark, I come here everyday to read some interesting commentary, and seemingly without fail, the Two Ronnies come in and hijack the show. I know you don’t want to do a Tim Blair, but really, some things EP/CL say are simply not worthy of being carried on this blog. Time to start deleting some of their shit from now on, says I…
Peter, your inability to comprehend the moral issues involved in war is noted.
The Left lacks any historical or geopolitical perspective. All it can do is mindlessly criticise the society that sustains its own existence.
The figures suggest the cluster-bomb hysteria was entirely fabricated. Otherwise, women and children in houses, schools, hospitals and suburbs would have been killed at rates approaching 50-60 per cent. I’m surprised no-one has picked up on this gender analysis that the IRB slipped into its report. Reporters, like most of us, don’t care much for PDF download times it seems.
Your frustration is understandable, Youie. The comments policy might need a rethink.
Anyway, as usual, the RWDBs in question are not addressing the points Kate made about what sort of “freedoms” are being spread through Iraq. Just as they didn’t on an earlier thread.
Unless I missed the memo, and the neo-con justification no longer holds so it doesn’t matter if anti-woman interpretations of Shariah law take hold in Iraq.
Kate, these figures do seem to be based on good science, unlike the Lancet’s claims. Yet the latter are now swathed with the (illusry) authority of legend.
Can I be a contararian and say I did not agree with the invasion of Afghanistan either? I think the US should have sent a wave of cruise missiles into Kabul and Kandahar as soon as it became clear that AQ was behind it, as a quickfire reprisal for maxiumum impact. Then they should have used their special forces to destabilise the regime without the need for open warfare. Just sayin’….
No warmonger me.
Mark, I point to Peter Kemp, Kim, Lefty Elitist, and various others who havwe no sense of history or proportion and can only criticise the democracies.
Youie need not fear greatly for his/her precious intellectual virginity. I’m growing tired of banging my head against the brick walls of ignorance and denial here.
I’m old enough to remember the last global conflict imagined as ‘democracy’ vs. ‘totalitarianism’, EP. I don’t remember it being won through the invasion of Eastern Europe, the occupation of China or airstrikes on Moscow.
…anyway back to reading microfilm from the 1970s, what the fuck would I know
Not the two Ronnies but the two old balcony blokes from the Muppet Show.
Anyway, Westmoreland died this week and Antony Loewenstein has a relevant and interesting quote and link to a story on him.
liam, can you explain that? Who invaded whom and when and to what effect?
Mark: you;re now hammering Sharia Law? Isn’t that, um, bigotry?
‘Youie’ is the smoking nom de ploom of Steve Bracks. Bracksy, you sly old dog!
There were plenty of invasions and airstrikes in places like Korea and Vietnam during the last great conflict against totalitarianism, Liam. So much for your historical recollection.
As for people’s concern for women’s rights being threatened by Islamic fundamentalism, I can only point out that this wasn’t much in evidence yesterday:
Yet now Kim is worried about Islamic oppression of women in Iraq. What a difference a day makes!
No it’s not, C.L., because I’m not making essentialist statements about an entire religion being “evil” but being critical of an aspect of some of its practices (and one particular rigid interpretation thereof) that I find inconsistent with the freedoms and rights of women. Just as I do with canon law.
My guiding light on these matters is Popper.
Whoops, I’m mixing up Kim and Kate.
All you people look the same to me.
Yet now Kim is worried about Islamic oppression of women in Iraq. What a difference a day makes!
Worried about it yesterday, today, and tomorrow, EP. My point yesterday was your selectivity in which groups you see as dangers to “our society”.
All you people look the same to me.
That’s because we don’t have gravatars back yet. All grey cats are black in the night.
I say again: Bin Laden wants nothing better than to provoke a simplistic ‘clash of civilisation’ crusader ideology in the West. Its the best way to radicalise moderate Muslims. Outsource it to your more powerful enemy.
My point yesterday was your selectivity in which groups you see as dangers to “our society”.
My selectivity is based on relative danger.
When Christian fundamentalists start a world-wide campaign of bombing random civilians, and start stoning gays and women to death, I’ll be equally concerned about them.
The Osmonds might take out a highrise in Salt Lake City any day.
How about bombing abortion clinics? I suppose you’d argue that the nurses and doctors injured and killed are not “innocent”.
EP, I think we’re all in agreement here about the threat of fundamentalist Islam.
All in agreement, say aye? Quick count of hands, yep, that’s everyone.
It’s how to deal with it. That’s the tricky bit. If I had all the answers I’d be on the phone to little Johnny toot sweet.
On another note, I just received an email from someone in Iran wanting to subscribe to my magazine! Do you think he’s really a terrorist trying to infriltrate the liberal media?
I say, chaps. A couple of recent comments have precipitated a crisis of conscience. This is Mark’s blog after all and he’s set it up as progressivist. Lately we RWDBs have been doing an awful lot of proliferating around here, and people who come here looking for the progressive flavour in life probably find it a bit tiring. I like being an occasional or intermittent incubus but a plague is what we seem to be turning into. I know I’m one of the worst.
I mean, Mark closed one thread and we immediately started up the same old business on the next one. Not fair to Kate, who put up a pretty good post.
Just sayin’….and probably just tired. I’ll feel much more vicious in 10 hours from now.
It’s a fair cop, Rob. On some days the RWDBs outnumber the LWSMs.
Perhaps there is a solution. I invite all RWDBs to the Australian Political Animal Forum, which is jointly managed by myself and a leftie. Discussion is very free-wheeling, and at the moment there are more left than right commentators.
Thus we could leave Mark’s blog unmolested while serving an argumentative purpose elsewhere.
LWSM? Don’t know that one. I’ve always been in favour of ‘Left Wing Pirate of Love’ (LWPL). But then I’m a Dave Graney fan.
You can choose from “Surrender Monkey”, “Socialist Moron”, or a range of other descriptive epithets I have yet to conceive.
It’s worth remembering, though, Rob that I’ve always made a habit of praising all of LP’s posters for various of their efforts: Phil, Kate, Mark, Kim etc. I do the same at all blogs - and all leftist blogs - I frequent. But, yes, you’re generally right and I’m retiring from these pages as of now.
Sado-Masochist? That’s what keeps me stoushing with you, EP.
How about RW “Dickhead Blogger”…?
Now now, let’s all be nice in the brief moment of calm and stillness.
Ohhh, I’d miss EP and Rob. C.L., your retirements from blog comments have been prematurely announced in the past. You’ll be back, pipe in mouth.
I do think, EP and C.L., you could make more of an effort to engage with the subject matter and what people actually write. Rob’s normally good on that, except when he gets carried away by the STOUSH!
I like Zoe’s LWLB.
Yes, but is Missy Higgins a lesbian?
If she is, I can cure her.
*bans self from blogosphere*
Can someone do something about her lack of originality as a songwriter, though?
*offers self-banning software to EP*
From observation of the sequence of posts, I conclude that this self-banning software is ineffective.
How long did C.L.’s vow not to post at Troppo last? Ha!
Anyway, apologies to Kate for the turn this thread has taken.
Perhaps in the tradition of the ‘Swear Jar’ from the Simpsons, the RWDBs could donate a dollar to the charity of Mark’s choice every time they mention radical Islam.
A simultaneous left-wing equivalent would have to be found, of course. EP, CL, Rob, your thoughts?
I’ve always been against the Iraq war and still am, but trying to look at it comparitively I think that the US took the country and killed less than 7000 civilians in the initial invasion is actually remarkably light. If parts of the Iraqi army had tried to make a stand in Bagdad, we’d probably be looking at a figure several times that. The history of fighting wars amongst a civilian population is terrible. The Russians appear to have killed upwards of 50,000 civillians in a couple of years of the Chechnya war.
Looking at the report since then, US killings of civillians has been low, excepting the two battles over Falluja when aerial bombing was used. These contributed around another 1500 civillian deaths.
On the other hand the deaths due to insurgents/criminals have been steadily growing. However, I certainly think that the US bares co-responsibility for these deaths as well given the justification of the war on humanitarian grounds - you need to consider the full consequences of what you are kicking off, and the fact that it might attract an ongoing conflict was not unexpected except for the most starry-eyed neo-cons.
If this was all going to result in a happy free democratic Iraq in the near future then it could be worth it. Unfortunately I think its more likely its going to end badly in bloody intercene conflict and/or an authoratarian state thats possibly drifting towards a fundamentalist state. Its looking like a real blood shambles and I really hope I’m wrong.
Yes, good for you, Kate!
I acknowledge C.L.’s point, but continue to maintain that his argumentative style is selective, unfair, and hyperbolic.
EP - just a pussycat! No-one ever suffered any harm from a tomcat who likes to grizzle a bit sometimes.
And I still have intellectual respect for Rob
Troppo post, Mark? What, pray tell, are you referring to?
That didn’t take long, C.L.!
You vowed at Troppo at one point to stop commenting on those pages.
And in the spirit of conciliatory niceness, C.L., you know that I have a lot of respect for you. But very little for your views on Islam which I think you need to reconsider calmly.
What Mark said.
Steve’s right except that the drift has gone further than he thinks.
Kim,
Yes perhaps it has, but its difficult to tell from afar and from what we see in reports here and there.
That’s true, Steve, but it seems particularly in the Shi’ite South, a theocratic regime is being imposed no matter what the legal situation is.
And I for you Kim, really, which is by way of being a belated apology. Raging on blogs is fun and all, but one should be nice, even if it doesn’t come naturally.
Apology accepted graciously, Rob
“Some sects of fundamentalist Islam, those who believe in Shariah law” - my understanding was that a lot of the support for Shariah and/or a parallel court for personal matters (divorce, inheritance etc) is coming from the Shi’ites rather than the Sunni or Kurds (and unlikely to be coming from other minorities like the Assyrian Christians etc). Al Sistani has certainly been a prime mover if not for the former, certainly the latter. That was always going to be the biggest ‘risk’. Sometimes I think that at best, Iraq in 50 years time will look something like Pakistan does now. I hope not for the Iraqis sake, but just sayin’.
As a p.s.: I also think one needs to look at how the voting for the constitution is rigged; and finally if Islamic law - however it is framed or administered - is the will of the Iraqi people based on their own democractic exercise of a vote, who if anyone should oppose it and why?
saint, that’s an interesting one. One of the classic arguments from the 19th century in favour of secularism was that it’s impossible to form a genuine public will when that will is subject to influence and/or direction by religious bodies.
One of the classic arguments from the 19th century in favour of secularism was that it’s impossible to form a genuine public will when that will is subject to influence and/or direction by religious bodies.
That’s prejudiced nonsense.
If it’s impossible to form a “genuine public will” — whatever that is — when the public is subject to influence from religious bodies, then it is equally impossible to do so when the public is subject to influence from non-religious bodies (trade unions, political parties, and so on).
There is absolutely no objective basis to this false distinction between religious and non-religious influences on the public.
So you’d support a theocracy in Iraq, EP? I’m surprised at you.
Of course there is a difference. Political parties and trade unions are there to aggregate and shape a public political position. Religious bodies bind people under the guise of private morality to a public political position.
There’s a contradiction between this comment and your claim elsewhere of support for liberal democratic society. You can’t have a liberal democratic society worth its name unless people are free to decide what is good for them rather than having religiously determined norms imposed on them.
It’s absolutely basic.
Straw men, Mark.
The existence of a church doen’t make a society into a theocracy, any more than the existence of a trade union makes it a socialist state.
The influence exerted by a religion is fundamentally no different from the influence exerted by a political ideology. You are simply trying to demonise one type because it is not secular.
Of course, religions vary in their influence just as secular grous do. There is a difference between conventional Anglicanism and radical Islam, just as there is a difference between the ALP and the Communist Party.
Of course religion is a complex and variegated phenomenon, EP, but the normative principle of secularism is fundamental to liberalism.
I draw no fundamental distinction between the influence of non-religious ideologies and that of religious ideologies. They’re both ideologies.
Thus, a political party that supports a particular policy on Christian grounds is morally equivalent to a political party that supports a policy for Socialist grounds.
The point of liberalism, EP, I repeat is that it allows people to make their own choices about the good, free of unreasonable coercion - including moral coercion by religious bodies not voluntarily accepted. For a defender of “liberal democracy”, you have a very impoverished understanding of what it entails.