With all the seemingly never-ending debates about Iraq and Afghanistan, at least most people here in America can agree on one thing: We don't want the future leaders of those nations to implement Islamic-inspired law, or sharia.

We in the Western world hear the words "Islamic law" and think of brutality. Sharia conjures up images of women stoned to death for adultery, thieves with amputated hands, blood money, "honor" killings and other eye-for-an-eye justice that makes our collective stomach turn. American authorities have made it abundantly clear that while they want to give Afghanistan and Iraq autonomy, sharia is out of the question.

In February, American administrator Paul Bremer, who is currently in charge of Iraq and the transition from occupied state to free nation, said he would block any Iraqi government based solely on Islamic law.

I'm a big fan of separation of church and state, so I agree with President Bush (that might be the only time I ever utter those words) that sharia is not appropriate for post-war Iraq or Afghanistan. However, while we strive to convince these nations to keep religion out of their constitutions, these same officials are fighting to put religion into our Constitution.

As these politicians enumerate the potential human rights violations of sharia, they continue to push religion on American citizens.

Recently, Bush has come out (pun intended) in support of a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. He stated, "The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," and religious arguments continue to form the base of his rejection of gay marriage. True, Bush uses "all" religions and not just Christianity, but nevertheless, he is using religion to form secular law.

By using religious arguments to get what he wants, Bush is doing the exact opposite of what he is telling Iraqi lawmakers to do.

England, one of our main allies in the war in Iraq, has avoided this kind of hypocrisy. Last week, England began to put in motion plans to recognize same-sex partners. Of course, England's Civil Partnership Bill will not grant marital status, but it is at least a step toward marriage. I officially grant English officials the right to tell Iraq to keep religion out of the law.

Bush still needs to earn that right. Also, by endorsing a Constitutional amendment that would trump any state law granting homosexuals the right to marry, Bush is also violating his promises to protect states' rights -- but that's another column altogether.

While I do not oppose religion itself, I do oppose any attempt to force religion on someone, be it sharia law (which, incidentally, is only supposed to be applied to Muslims, leaving non-Muslims subject to different legal codes) or American-brand Judeo-Christian law. Similarly, Bush's appointments of fundamentalist Christians to key cabinet positions also contribute to his efforts to force religious rule on his own people. For instance, Bush appointed former Republican congressman Tom Coburn to be the co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Committee on HIV and AIDs. Coburn is an anti-condom activist and, upon taking his position, stated that he would try to dispel the myth that condom use can prevent HIV.

Bush's proposed amendment and his cabinet appointments make it clear that he sincerely believes in his faith. His religious conviction is admirable; as president, he faces situations and makes decisions that would make many people weep, and his faith must be a comfort to him in those tough times.

However, religion is highly personal; if belief in a higher power helps him make it through the day, that's great. But, Bush needn't attempt to make the entire nation live by his morals.

It may seem that there is a vast difference between Bush's religion-based laws and the Islamic extremists' religion-based laws. But, the fact remains that both groups are using peaceful religions to justify tyranny and rob people of personal freedom. If Bush continued to use religious arguments to amend our Constitution, he might also forbid sex before marriage, adultery and divorce, because the Bible frowns on them even more strongly than gay marriage -- there's no commandment against gay marriage, but there is one against adultery.

As the Iraqis come closer and closer to finishing their constitution, Americans are becoming more and more nervous about the state of affairs over there. American soldiers are dying, money seems to be evaporating into the dry desert air and the threat of violence constantly hangs overhead. As we hope and, yes, pray that democracy takes root there, we need to think about the kind of democracy we are exhibiting. If we as a nation are going to allow religious laws to run our personal lives, we must also let the Iraqis use sharia as the guiding force of their upcoming constitution.

So, you want to keep religious law out of Iraq?

Let's start by keeping it out of America.