View Full Version : What is wrong with having a Muslim as president?
Banquo's Ghost
10-23-2008, 16:15
This thread is not about the US election per se, but an intriguing question that has arisen from some of the attacks and misconceptions heaped upon Senator Obama. Despite irrefutable evidence otherwise, the charge that he is a muslim appears to have stuck in some circles, and evidently has power to dent, if not derail, his campaign.
But as General Powell so eloquently asked: Why shouldn't it be possible for a muslim American to run for president?
This opinion piece from the Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1023/1224713293091.html) provokes some questions, the answers to which I would interested in reading.
Maybe different groups just take turns at being the victim. Jewish people had a stint, black people are hopefully coming out of theirs, and it looks like the group of the moment are the Muslims. All it took was one or two unhinged groups and a couple of acts of terrorism. Now, one can almost publicly say things like "they don't like us", "they have a violent culture", or "they think we are all infidels and want to take over the West".
What about other groups? If the idea of a Latino or a Muslim in the White House is beyond belief, what does that say of American society? Either the White House is strictly reserved for those who profess to be orthodox Christians (that excludes Mormons like Mitt Romney) and the whole notion of plurality is a lie, or something has gone wrong.
But as General Powell so eloquently asked: Why shouldn't it be possible for a muslim American to run for president? As long as enough of their policy views line up with mine, I don't care what religion or race they are. I think Powell was a little hypocritical in his criticism along those lines. For every time a McCain supporter suggested Obama was a muslim, Obama supporters have just as vehemently tried to shout it down, as though being muslim would be some fatal character flaw. He's not a muslim, he's a christian- but so what if he was? Using his middle name has also become a smear, or even a racist attack- why?
I guess, to answer the question, I personally, don't care what a candidate's specific religion is. But, judged by the reactions on both sides to muslim insinuations on both sides, society as a whole apparently isn't ready for it. :shrug:
yesdachi
10-23-2008, 16:34
I don’t think a true Muslim could be the president of a nation of people that are not Muslims. The religion doesn’t seem to work well with the any kind of multiculturalism.
[Stupid irony/McCainiac's men are dumb as hell]Because Muslims incite to global terrorrism![/stupid irony]
A Muslim president? We cannot have a president that takes orders from Mecca!
Or where ever they take their orders from...
~D
Because people tend to vote for what they know and understand. Islam is still largely and enigma in our society, and the antics put up by various crazies in the middle east do not exactly help its image. A muslim presidential candidate will have serious trouble connecting with the bulk of the voters, and while he might do well in the oval office, there's practically no chance for a muslim to get there.
ICantSpellDawg
10-23-2008, 16:59
In all fairness - the accusations are not simply that he is a Muslim, but that he has been lying about his faith in order to subvert criticism of his Muslim faith. That would be a major concern if the rumors were true.
Other than that, any faith that is outside of the US mainstream brings deeply held beliefs that might be hard for large swathes of society to accept. The more exotic, the more different ideals, the more people will question them.
Look at what they did to Romney over his faith.
Look at what they did to Romney over his faith.
Yes. Tom Cruise too, should never bother running for president.
atheotes
10-23-2008, 17:05
i would say nothing's wrong. I dont think a person's religious beliefs have any bearing on his ability to lead a government..... also i dont think anyone whose defiining chrateristic is his religious belief might not make it as far as becoming a president...:shrug:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-23-2008, 17:06
I think Powell was a little hypocritical in his criticism along those lines. For every time a McCain supporter suggested Obama was a muslim, Obama supporters have just as vehemently tried to shout it down, as though being muslim would be some fatal character flaw.
Angry redneck: I'm not voting for Barack HUSSEIN Obama because he's a muslim!
Obama supporter: Actually, he isn't: *proof*
or
Angry redneck: I'm not voting for Barack HUSSEIN Obama because he's a muslim!
Obama supporter: What's wrong with being muslim?
:laugh4:
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 18:16
For every time a McCain supporter suggested Obama was a muslim, Obama supporters have just as vehemently tried to shout it down, as though being muslim would be some fatal character flaw.
I personally do NOT shout it down when I hear it passed around. I have always responded to the rumor with "And what if he was?"
I think it's a little bit of spin to say Dems are just as endorsing of the idea that "it's bad to be Muslim." I am sure you can find Dems who'd never vote for one (just as you'd find Dems who'd never vote for a black man.) But I think the outrage has a little more to do with the fact that, I dunno, it's a complete lie being made up to hurt our party by playing on ignorance. I think you'd see the same reaction from Dems if they heard from Republicans all the time that Obama had seven toes.
It would not make any difference whatsoever to me. I am not Christian and I have never even had the option of voting for a major party candidate who was not Christian, or at least did not heavily profess to be one. As long as their religious views (be they Sikh or Christian or Muslim or Buddhist) does not underline and inform their policy views on everything and God doesn't tell them which wars to start, my vote is within their potential reach.
I personally do NOT shout it down when I hear it passed around. I have always responded to the rumor with "And what if he was?"...
Realistically, it would likely be the kiss of death for his presidential bid.
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 18:38
Realistically, it would likely be the kiss of death for his presidential bid.
Of course it would. No one denied most Americans are stupid and hypocritically prejudiced, even within the confines of the "freedoms" they profess to stand for.
Of course it would. No one denied most Americans are stupid and hypocritically prejudiced, even within the confines of the "freedoms" they profess to stand for.
Well, I will certainly deny that. People have a very natural tendency to gravitate towards their own kind. There's nothing wrong with that. Thus, Waspy McWaspers will always stand a better chance of getting elected than anyone else, while a muslim's chances will be slim provided that his opponent is not a complete idiot. People out of two similar choices people will always vote for a safer one. That's quite the opposite of being stupid.
yesdachi
10-23-2008, 18:50
Stupid is as stupid does.
Strike For The South
10-23-2008, 18:55
Nothing is wrong with it. Just people in Missouri seem to have a problem with it.
Preventing a muslim from becomming a president would be betraying our system. But I don't want a muslim president for the same reason I don't want a nazi president, it's a sick religion that has brought nothing other then misery and death at worst and backwardness at best. Most muslims are good people but that's a despite not a because, islam is simply evil if you let it be.
Strike For The South
10-23-2008, 19:30
Preventing a muslim from becomming a president would be betraying our system. But I don't want a muslim president for the same reason I don't want a nazi president, it's a sick religion that has brought nothing other then misery and death at worst and backwardness at best. Most muslims are good people but that's a despite not a because, islam is simply evil if you let it be.
Islam is no more evil than anything else. Powerful people have perverted it to make the poor and destitute do there bidding but it is no more evil than anything else. Not to mention people forget the whole concept of blowback. You screw around in someones backyard for 100 years they MAY resent you for it.
Islam is no more evil than anything else. Powerful people have perverted it to make the poor and destitute do there bidding but it is no more evil than anything else. Not to mention people forget the whole concept of blowback. You screw around in someones backyard for 100 years they MAY resent you for it.
Nonsense, islam is imperialistic in nature, there will be expected a lot from an islamic president when dealing with the muslim world. He will be much more vulnerable for moral blackmail, and so will the governments of muslim countries when a muslim president is sitting in the US. Think of the international arena and count the ways of why it is a very very bad idea.
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 19:40
Nonsense, islam is imperialistic in nature, there will be expected a lot from an islamic president when dealing with the muslim world. He will be much more vulnerable for moral blackmail, and so will the governments of muslim countries when a muslim president is sitting in the US. Think of the international arena and count the ways of why it is a very very bad idea.
Christianity can't have exactly the same case made against it? I have some ancestors who would like a word with you. And no, they're not from the Middle East.
The U.S. calls itself a "Christian country", Christianity was the overtly given justification for the complete conquest of at least two continents of the planet, and the eradication of much of the existing populations. So coming from a western culture, European post-Christian society, I'd be careful about throwing accusations of religiously-based imperialism around at other people.
Strike For The South
10-23-2008, 19:44
Nonsense, islam is imperialistic in nature, there will be expected a lot from an islamic president when dealing with the muslim world. He will be much more vulnerable for moral blackmail, and so will the governments of muslim countries when a muslim president is sitting in the US. Think of the international arena and count the ways of why it is a very very bad idea.
Im not voting for a man who puts his religion above the people he serves. So that will not be an issue. There are plenty of muslims who Im sure will be able to see through any type of buddy buddy pandering the arab world will give to them. You saying that is like saying JFK was taking orders from Rome. It doesnt hold water.
Banquo's Ghost
10-23-2008, 19:51
I think the Mitt Romney parallel is the more telling. His religion clearly cost him something.
Are we saying that this alleged propensity to only elect leaders directly in step with the majority religion is to be accepted? Would an orthodox Jew be unelectable, for example? It's pretty clear that an atheist would have a torrid time, but what about a Buddhist?
Nonsense, islam is imperialistic in nature, there will be expected a lot from an islamic president when dealing with the muslim world. He will be much more vulnerable for moral blackmail, and so will the governments of muslim countries when a muslim president is sitting in the US. Think of the international arena and count the ways of why it is a very very bad idea.
I understand where you're coming from, and I think that islam is not a threat for as long as it does not become a dominant (or significant) force in the society. Aside from that happening, I would hesitate to brand a muslim candidate as a threat simply because of his religion. After all, that's what they said about JFK. Oh no! He will tapdance to the Vatican's fiddle! Run for your lives! Didn't happen.
I'm sure there are muslims that can be shamed by some whacko cleric into doing just about anything, just as there are muslims that can't be manipulated in this way. I'd hate to think that *all* of them will start bleating in acceptance to any fatwah that comes out of the Arabian peninsula. Heck, a few weeks ago some moron there issued a fatwah declaring mice to be enemies of islam. That included both the household mice and cartoon mice (like Mickey Mouse). Came back from the Disney World a couple of weeks ago. Saw muslims there. They did not try to kill Mickey Mouse.
Strike For The South
10-23-2008, 19:53
Why would it be wrong for Islam to become the dominant culture of somewhere?
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 19:54
I think the Mitt Romney parallel is the more telling. His religion clearly cost him something.
Are we saying that this alleged propensity to only elect leaders directly in step with the majority religion is to be accepted? Would an orthodox Jew be unelectable, for example? It's pretty clear that an atheist would have a torrid time, but what about a Buddhist?
There is no way to stop it, as long as people are stupid and there are so many Americans who think you can't possibly have either American or moral values without being Christian (L O f-L) and will vote accordingly, there is nothing we can do about it.
I understand where you're coming from, and I think that islam is not a threat for as long as it does not become a dominant (or significant) force in the society. Aside from that happening, I would hesitate to brand a muslim candidate as a threat simply because of his religion. After all, that's what they said about JFK. Oh no! He will tapdance to the Vatican's fiddle! Run for your lives! Didn't happen.
I'm sure there are muslims that can be shamed by some whacko cleric into doing just about anything, just as there are muslims that can't be manipulated in this way. I'd hate to think that *all* of them will start bleating in acceptance to any fatwah that comes out of the Arabian peninsula. Heck, a few weeks ago some moron there issued a fatwah declaring mice to be enemies of islam. That included both the household mice and cartoon mice (like Mickey Mouse). Came back from the Disney World a couple of weeks ago. Saw muslims there. They did not try to kill Mickey Mouse.
hehe in the backroom-video thread I posted a video of the good man explaining it, absolutily [insert hyperbole] hilarious, a must see.
Why would it be wrong for Islam to become the dominant culture of somewhere?
I just look at muslim countries and cannot help but notice that most of them are having serious trouble maintaining religious freedom. Turks have managed to do it, Lebanon seems okay, but that's about it. Countries with distinct muslim majorities do not make life easy for non-muslims.
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 20:05
I just look at muslim countries and cannot help but notice that most of them are having serious trouble maintaining religious freedom. Turks have managed to do it, Lebanon seems okay, but that's about it. Countries with distinct muslim majorities do not make life easy for non-muslims.
Aren't we in this thread discussing how people in a Christian dominated country can't get into office unless they're Christian?
Aren't we in this thread discussing how people in a Christian dominated country can't get into office unless they're Christian?
They can. At least in theory. In most muslim countries the opposite is impossible even in theory, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 20:13
They can. At least in theory. In most muslim countries the opposite is impossible even in theory, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
That's not really a feature of Islam. It's a feature of a relatively still young religion, IMHO. People who think it's anything inherently more violent or imperialist about Islam have a remarkable undereducation about western history and Christianity.
LittleGrizzly
10-23-2008, 20:16
Another factor is the wealth and size of the middle class, if america slowly became islamic i doubt it would slowly lose it freedoms
That's not really a feature of Islam. It's a feature of a relatively still young religion, IMHO...
Well, it's a feature of most muslim-dominated countries that are run by muslims. We can argue all day about "why", "what" and "how", but does it really matter? Islam might be younger than Christianity by some 600 years, but it's still almost 1400 years old. Seems to be that it has had plenty of time to evolve into something more palatable.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-23-2008, 20:31
I would have no objection to a muslim serving as president.
Their stance on the issues and probable policy orientation would be of great importance.
As it stands, being a muslim would be a significant disadvantage in national elections.
Louis VI the Fat
10-23-2008, 20:37
Each religion has norms, values, codes of conduct. Subject to time, place and person, but existent nonetheless. And I do not hesitate to have clear political preferences between them. I prefer a humanist liberal over a nationalist or a communist. Likewise, I prefer a Catholic over a Muslim. And a Protestant over a Catholic. A Jew over both. But not an Orthodox one. And most of all, I'd prefer an atheist.
Religions are not all equally peaceful, or tolerant, or conducive to intellectual endevour simply by virtue of being a big, established religion. No more than that all political currents are equally peaceful or tolerant. If religions were all equal, nobody could tell a Muslim apart from a Catholic. As it is though, I can usually tell a Protestant from a mile away.
That is as concerns religion. As for 'Muslim' in the sense of a cultural Muslim, or a person of Islamic origins, I couldn't care less if you are.
For those about to squeak: I prefered the devout Catholic candidate last election. Since, of course, if you leave your religion outside of public policy, I don't care what you believe. If you do drag it into politics (quite apart from my not voting for you exactly because of this) I will consider your religion and I do have my preferences.
yesdachi
10-23-2008, 20:43
That's not really a feature of Islam. It's a feature of a relatively still young religion, IMHO. People who think it's anything inherently more violent or imperialist about Islam have a remarkable undereducation about western history and Christianity.
What the religion is and how it is practiced are two different things and comparing how Christians of today act to how they acted during the crusades is way different than comparing how Muslims of today act to how they have throughout antiquity – they are relatively the same where Christians have changed dramatically.
...And most of all, I'd prefer an atheist...
Wouldn't an Agnostic (as opposed to atheist) be the pinnacle of openmindness? I assume that was your criteria.
Louis VI the Fat
10-23-2008, 20:48
No, an agnostic is just as wrong as all you other deluded people. Only we, atheists, are tolerant and openminded.
[Which, I feel the need to point out since these things always go wrong, was a joke]
PanzerJaeger
10-23-2008, 23:15
The very concept of America is at odds with the reality of islam, so it just wouldn't work out. That, and they have a penchant for blowing Americans up - when they're not cutting heads off.
Samurai Waki
10-23-2008, 23:17
As I seem to remember, there were several higher up cabinet members under Saddam Hussein that were Christians... it was only after Gulf War II that most of them fled to greener pastures.
As to the Original Question; I asked myself this when the whole Muslim thing came about; as long as he isn't telling women to cover up, or whatever I don't see what the problem would be... :shrug:
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 23:19
Well, it's a feature of most muslim-dominated countries that are run by muslims. We can argue all day about "why", "what" and "how", but does it really matter? Islam might be younger than Christianity by some 600 years, but it's still almost 1400 years old. Seems to be that it has had plenty of time to evolve into something more palatable.
Do you really want to get into what Christianity was doing when it was 1400 years old?
Molten metal being pored into bodily cavities comes to mind.
My point still stands. To say that it's something "special" or unique to Islam that makes it "violent" or "intolerant" requires one to close one's eyes to western civilization's history.
Do you really want to get into what Christianity was doing when it was 1400 years old?
Molten metal being pored into bodily cavities comes to mind.
My point still stands. To say that it's something "special" or unique to Islam that makes it "violent" or "intolerant" requires one to close one's eyes to western civilization's history.
Are you serious? You actually saying that islam is *entitled* to 600 more years backwardness?
Gregoshi
10-23-2008, 23:23
...and they have a penchant for blowing Americans up - when they're not cutting heads off.
That's only those outside the US and only because they are jealous because we have a state (and an island) full of virginians and they only get 72. :laugh4:
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 23:25
Are you serious? You actually saying that islam is *entitled* to 600 more years backwardness?
I never said that. I said that acting like it's something special about Islam's teachings or dogma or doctrine that makes it, from a post-secularist West's perspective, violent, insecure and intolerant, is making up myth. Try to grasp the point. No one said anything about justifying anything. I said that if you believe Christianity never behaved this way because there is something inherently more lofty and moral about its structure as a religion, you must be blind to history.
I am not sure why it's taken 3 or 4 posts to get this basic point across.
PanzerJaeger
10-23-2008, 23:29
I am not sure why it's taken 3 or 4 posts to get this basic point across.
Maybe because its a) a red herring and b) untrue?
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 23:31
Germany was a Christian nation at the time of WWII... was it not? :)
QED.
As I seem to remember, there were several higher up cabinet members under Saddam Hussein that were Christians... it was only after Gulf War II that most of them fled to greener pastures.
Yes, and there's a Jew and a Zoroastrian in the Iranian madjlis. This thread is about getting elected into *the* office, i.e. president or the equivalent.
Germany was a Christian nation at the time of WWII... was it not? :)
QED.
No, not QED. Nazism vehemently rejected Christianity because of its Jewish origin.
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 23:37
No, not QED. Nazism vehemently rejected Christianity because of its Jewish origin.
Crusades? The Jewish purges throughout all of medieval history when kings got into debt? The burning of witches? The inquisitions? The mission system in the Americas? The encomienda? All carried out by Christian nations, or specifically in the name of the Christian God.
You grasped my point, I am sure. Christianity has no moral monopoly on being a peaceful, war-rejecting or violence-rejecting institution in the larger scope of its history. Nor does Islam have a moral monpoly on the religious use of violence based on what its extremist elements do.
The whole U.S. basically exists because of the Discovery Doctrine, which goes back in its founding ideas to the middle ages. Essentially, that the discovery by any Christian people of non-Christian lands confers superior rights to take and use said land to Christian people. The Discovery Doctrine is, ultimately, the core justification of the genocide carried out against Native Americans here by the U.S. and, indirectly, the basis of all rights to own land and property in the Americas. Before them of course, the Spanish and others had their own legacies, all done, naturally, in the name of spreading Christianity and Christian power.
You grasped my point, I am sure. Christianity has no moral monopoly on being a peaceful, war-rejecting or violence-rejecting institution in the larger scope of its history. Nor does Islam have a moral monpoly on the religious use of violence based on what its extremist elements do.
Your point would be valid up until late 1800s at the latest. It's 2008 now. Christianity has moved on. Judaism had moved on. Islam has not.
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 23:44
Your point would be valid up until late 1800s at the latest. It's 2008 now. Christianity has moved on. Judaism had moved on. Islam has not.
My point is still valid. Nothing superior or unique about Christianity's teachings made it less violent or made it give up violence. The reasons western societies have largely abandoned conventional war and conquest in most cases has nothing to do with Christian values. You could argue the opposite, that one of the "still very Christian" western countries, the U.S., is more violent than nearly the whole rest of the west put together.
There is probably someone over on an Al Jazeera message board posting about how "of course the U.S. is violent, it's still much more Christian than the rest of the west." To some degree you would both be correct. Saying "well is Christianity or Islam worse" is beside the point. Religious influence over geopolitical power would be getting much closer to the point. We do, after all, have an incumbent President AND a woman running for Vice President who both say that Iraq was a mission from God.
CrossLOPER
10-23-2008, 23:46
Your point would be valid up until late 1800s at the latest. It's 2008 now. Christianity has moved on. Judaism had moved on. Islam has not.The constant streams of media depicting Obama as an Islamic aborted baby eater says otherwise. Quit trying to elevate your belief and start with the people that hold that belief.
My point is still valid. Nothing superior or unique about Christianity's teachings made it less violent or made it give up violence. The reasons western societies have largely abandoned conventional war and conquest in most cases has nothing to do with Christian values. You could argue the opposite, that one of the "still very Christian" western countries, the U.S., is more violent than nearly the whole rest of the west put together.
The "violent" American society allows a person of any religious affiliation to get elected into the highest office of the land. Syrian/Pakistani/Iranian/you name it societies do not.
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 23:48
The "violent" American society allows a person of any religious affiliation to get elected into the highest office of the land. Syrian/Pakistani/Iranian/you name it societies do not.
We're comparing western democracies to Middle Eastern dictatorships now and saying the only difference is religion?
You're stretching your argument to the most extreme breaking point, RVG.
P.S. People who never mention God on the campaign trail can be elected to the highest office in Canada and most of Europe. There is no evidence in modern times an American can do the same. Does that make us a religiously intolerant theocracy? Or would that be just a bit more exaggerative than your comparison? :)
The constant streams of media depicting Obama as an Islamic aborted baby eater says otherwise. Quit trying to elevate your belief and start with the people that hold that belief.
Playing dirty politics is one thing. Discrimination via religious minorities via the law of the land is an entirely different story.
We're comparing western democracies to Middle Eastern dictatorships now and saying the only difference is religion?
You're stretching your argument to the most extreme breaking point, RVG.
Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Pakistan just hold a free and democratic election? Did they strike down the muslim-president-only law?
Koga No Goshi
10-23-2008, 23:52
Playing dirty politics is one thing. Discrimination via religious minorities via the law of the land is an entirely different story.
De jure discrimination is only one kind. There's also de facto discrimination, which is precisely the topic of this thread.
It doesn't matter if the law "allows" anyone to be elected, if only someone of the correct religion ever actually "can" be. Just as black people in the 60's who would have banks tell them "no more loans today" and real estate agents redirect them to other neighborhoods continued the process of redlining after it was legally out of the books.
Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Pakistan just hold a free and democratic election? Did they strike down the muslim-president-only law?
Comparing the U.S. to Pakistan and then drawing a broad-blanket conclusion about religion is still incredibly weak, as if the two countries have almost anything in common in how they operate or their cultural backgrounds or political systems or social structures or socioeconomic realities. When the U.S. elects something other than a Christian, you will have a point. Until then you are just talking about how something is theoretically possible in one country and theoretically impossible in another and blaming it on religious differences.
Comparing the U.S. to Pakistan and then drawing a broad-blanket conclusion about religion is still incredibly weak, as if the two countries have almost anything in common in how they operate or their cultural backgrounds or political systems or social structures or socioeconomic realities. When the U.S. elects something other than a Christian, you will have a point. Until then you are just talking about how something is theoretically possible in one country and theoretically impossible in another and blaming it on religious differences.
The fact is that the majority of muslim countries (democratic or otherwise) happen to share the trait of oppressing the religious minorities, while western countries do not have that trait.
De jure discrimination is only one kind. There's also de facto discrimination, which is precisely the topic of this thread.
No, not really.
CrossLOPER
10-24-2008, 00:19
The fact is that the majority of muslim countries (democratic or otherwise) happen to share the trait of oppressing the religious minorities, while western countries do not have that trait.
Don't you think that's based more on society than religion?
Yoyoma1910
10-24-2008, 00:25
There's been one catholic president in America, and they shot him dead like a dog.
Why don't we try having another one of those, and seeing if he lives before we move on to other religious factions?
Can you imagine the international outrage if a Muslim president were assassinated? What a mess.
Don't you think that's based more on society than religion?
Don't you think the two are interconnected and in many cases inseparable?
Strike For The South
10-24-2008, 00:38
First off everyone in this thread is wrong. Islam is not entitled to anything simply because its young. JFK was not killed because he was a catholic and they do not get first dibs on "minorty" president. I find this xenophobia appalling and I would like to point out if we said this about any other group we would all be warned. Simply because a man holds muslim faith makes him no more susceptible to anything than someone who holds another faith. Nor does it mean we should give these extremists a pass because they are young
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-24-2008, 00:41
People might be surprised to read this (they shouldn't be), but I would certainly vote for a Muslim who represented my political viewpoints. Euroskeptic? Awesome. Conservative? Fine. That's great too. Against Islamization and Islamic radicalism (which I'd bet a lot of Muslims are)? Perfect. In fact, the best thing for Islam as a whole would be a strong political figure speaking out against Islamic radicalism.
I'd vote for an atheist, a Lutheran, a Jewish person, an agnostic, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an Orthodox Christian as long as they represented my political viewpoint or I deemed them to be the best candidate, so I'd certainly vote for a Muslim without a problem.*
*On the condition that the person did not involve their religion in politics. At all.
Don Corleone
10-24-2008, 00:54
I think the Mitt Romney parallel is the more telling. His religion clearly cost him something.
Are we saying that this alleged propensity to only elect leaders directly in step with the majority religion is to be accepted? Would an orthodox Jew be unelectable, for example? It's pretty clear that an atheist would have a torrid time, but what about a Buddhist?
Roman Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination in America, and we've only had one RC president. Americans have funny ideas about religion. Mainstream protestant (methodist/episcopal) or evangelical protesant are the only acceptable answers.
Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, Buddhist.... all large populations in the United States... always an issue when they run for office. And you're surprised Islam is an issue?
Proletariat
10-24-2008, 01:15
Nothing is wrong with it Banquo, and I'm certain America will have a Muslim president long before the EU considers a president with African heritage.
:hourglass:
Strike For The South
10-24-2008, 01:22
Nothing is wrong with it Banquo, and I'm certain America will have a Muslim president long before the EU considers a president with African heritage.
:hourglass:
I see what you did there
Simply because a man holds muslim faith makes him no more susceptible to anything than someone who holds another faith.
You are absolutely right. The thread has strayed more into discussing societies rather than individuals though.
Strike For The South
10-24-2008, 01:26
You are absolutely right. The thread has strayed more into discussing societies rather than individuals though.
We wont be importing the president. Something tells me any muslim who is able to get to the upper echelons of American politics wont be swayed by his brothers in faith. American muslims also tend to be well educated and out of poverty so I dont think they will gut us from within.
Louis VI the Fat
10-24-2008, 01:33
Nothing is wrong with it Banquo, and I'm certain America will have a Muslim president long before the EU considers a president with African heritage.
:hourglass:Well I'd be happy if we can convince Europe of the benefit of a president over hereditary clowns before the end of this millenium in the first place.
But...the current Swedish PM, Fredrik Reinfeldt, is of mixed white / black heritage. Afro-American to boot. Not Obama - if he wins - but Reinfeldt is the first Afro-American to become the leader of a predominantly white, protestant country.
Well I'd be happy if we can convince Europe of the benefit of a president over hereditary clowns before the end of this millenium in the first place.
But...the current Swedish PM, Fredrik Reinfeldt, is of mixed white / black heritage. Afro-American to boot. Not Obama - if he wins - but Reinfeldt is the first Afro-American to become the leader of a predominantly white, protestant country.
*takes notes*
learn something new every day. Thank you, sir.
Strike For The South
10-24-2008, 01:35
Reinfeldt has the advantage of looking just like another white guy though.
PanzerJaeger
10-24-2008, 01:43
Germany was a Christian nation at the time of WWII... was it not? :)
QED.
:laugh4:
Oh boy. Read a book about the Nazis.
As usual, you've managed to drag this thread into a broad comparison of islam and Christianity - as with every thread involving anything to do with muslims. If it wasn't you, it would have been someone else. It's a standard red herring that has become particularly boring... and irrelevant. :wall:
In post #21 why did you need to respond to Frag with a general condemnation of Christianity? He did not even mention it for Christ's sake! (pardon the pun.. ~;))
Why does the Left continue to use Christianity's past to somehow try and justify Islam's present?
Proletariat
10-24-2008, 02:03
I see what you did there
The same ole theme gets a little annoying after awhile, Strike. America is really at it's social progression's height right now and it gets no acknowledgment, in fact, it just gets slammed still by Americans and others for being some racist, xenophobic cesspool.
A decade or so ago there was a raging debate about whether or not homosexuals could even join the military, and the issue was outrageous too many. Just a week or two ago I saw a prominent celebrity come out of the closet and on the morning talk shows openly discussing his lifestyle and his role as a gay parent. 40 years ago black people were drinking out of separate water fountains and now one is steam rolling his way to president.
You are 500 times more likely to run into someone in day to day life who says, 'It's disgusting that some idiots are using 'Obama is a muslim' as a smear!' than you are to actually hear someone saying, 'I just won't vote for Muslim scum for President.' I know it's not a sexy or popular thing to say, and many Americans and many Euros are in denial about it, but America really rocks when it comes to resolving bigoted views quickly.
:2thumbsup:
Louis VI the Fat
10-24-2008, 02:04
Reinfeldt has the advantage of looking just like another white guy though.Eh, Prince and Mariah Carey don't look particularly 'black' either. But one drop of blood, Strike, one drop of blood. It's what the Americans taught us.
Or rather, what Europeans taught themselves during the large-scale encounter with non-European civilizations in the early modern period. This, the age of discovery, taught Europeans to think of themselves as 'white'. Before that, Africans, Moors and mixed people were not considered all that alien. Foreign, yes. Perhaps even - eeeww! - non-Christian. But not of belonging to a different race. And tought quite fit to lead.
In the South and Southeast of Europe there is a history of intense contact with Africans and Middle-Easterners. And in ancient times, we all sat around the Mediterranean like frogs around a pond. In the modern age, Jesus wouldn't be deemed 'white' in the US.
Obama could've been the Emperor of Rome. Or a Renaissance Italian prince. But he can't be a modern Italian president.
Strike For The South
10-24-2008, 02:22
The same ole theme gets a little annoying after awhile, Strike. America is really at it's social progression's height right now and it gets no acknowledgment, in fact, it just gets slammed still by Americans and others for being some racist, xenophobic cesspool.
A decade or so ago there was a raging debate about whether or not homosexuals could even join the military, and the issue was outrageous too many. Just a week or two ago I saw a prominent celebrity come out of the closet and on the morning talk shows openly discussing his lifestyle and his role as a gay parent. 40 years ago black people were drinking out of separate water fountains and now one is steam rolling his way to president.
You are 500 times more likely to run into someone in day to day life who says, 'It's disgusting that some idiots are using 'Obama is a muslim' as a smear!' than you are to actually hear someone saying, 'I just won't vote for Muslim scum for President.' I know it's not a sexy or popular thing to say, and many Americans and many Euros are in denial about it, but America really rocks when it comes to resolving bigoted views quickly.
:2thumbsup:
:2thumbsup: To you to
Strike For The South
10-24-2008, 02:22
Eh, Prince and Mariah Carey don't look particularly 'black' either. But one drop of blood, Strike, one drop of blood. It's what the Americans taught us.
Or rather, what Europeans taught themselves during the large-scale encounter with non-European civilizations in the early modern period. This, the age of discovery, taught Europeans to think of themselves as 'white'. Before that, Africans, Moors and mixed people were not considered all that alien. Foreign, yes. Perhaps even - eeeww! - non-Christian. But not of belonging to a different race. And tought quite fit to lead.
In the South and Southeast of Europe there is a history of intense contact with Africans and Middle-Easterners. And in ancient times, we all sat around the Mediterranean like frogs around a pond. In the modern age, Jesus wouldn't be deemed 'white' in the US.
Obama could've been the Emperor of Rome. Or a Renaissance Italian prince. But he can't be a modern Italian president.
Eh he would be viewed as white here
Mangudai
10-24-2008, 03:46
Well, at the risk of getting this thread closed, I will express my opinion which some people will probably consider bigoted. I would not discriminate against anyone for their background. But, I do think a person's religious faith is relevant when they run for political office.
Jesus and Buddha refused to get involved in political matters. Despite the prevalence of religious right in America, the faith itself does not compel any particular political policies. Hinduism, Taoism, etc have little or no political dogmas.
Judaism and Confucianism have a lot to say about political affairs, but the ideas are so dated that I can hardly imagine a Jew who wants to impose the laws of Leviticus on society.
Catholics and Mormons raise question marks for me. I have nothing against someone who was raised Catholic, but if someone really believes that the Pope holds the chair of Peter and holds the keys to heaven and hell, then I can't vote for him. If a Mormon really believes that Brigham Young was a prophet with divinely inspired ideas, I can't vote for him. (I don't have major problems with Joseph Smith, just Brigham Young).
Islam is the most political of religions. The idea of separation of church and state are completely foreign to Islam. Sharia law is alive and well at the core of Islam. I could never vote for someone who is a devout Muslim.
I could never vote for someone who is a devout Muslim.
It depends on your definition of "Devout". For me, a devout Muslim is someone who goes to Mosque, celebrates his religious holiday's, reads the Koran before bed. A Muslim, especially in Western society, that campaigns to implement Sharia Law and Caliphate-like system of rule is a radical.
I would vote for a devout Muslim, should his views be something I agree with.
CountArach
10-24-2008, 06:30
Well, at the risk of getting this thread closed, I will express my opinion which some people will probably consider bigoted. I would not discriminate against anyone for their background. But, I do think a person's religious faith is relevant when they run for political office.
You won't discriminate on the basis of background... but you will discriminate on the basis of background?
HoreTore
10-24-2008, 07:41
Well, I will certainly deny that. People have a very natural tendency to gravitate towards their own kind. There's nothing wrong with that. Thus, Waspy McWaspers will always stand a better chance of getting elected than anyone else, while a muslim's chances will be slim provided that his opponent is not a complete idiot. People out of two similar choices people will always vote for a safer one. That's quite the opposite of being stupid.
Uhm...... No, I'd say that's pretty much the definition of stupidity. Choosing your leader because of anything but skill and politics is downright retarded.
Incongruous
10-24-2008, 07:54
Of course it would. No one denied most Americans are stupid and hypocritically prejudiced, even within the confines of the "freedoms" they profess to stand for.
This is one of the issues, people such as yourself who profess to have no problems with Islamic presidents are slitting your own throats.
I find it amusing someone who claims a love of socialism to be so scathing of your fellow taxpayers, where is the respect?
This lack of respect and elitist midset will do nothing but cause your beliefs to fail, if you constantly gaze down at people they will push you over.
CountArach
10-24-2008, 07:58
This lack of respect and elitist midset will do nothing but cause your beliefs to fail, if you constantly gaze down at people they will push you over.
The standard answer to that being that education is not as affordable as it needs to be (It has been shown that as education increases racism decreases) and that a society that has racism deeply embedded within it will find that "trickles down" to the lowest class much better (As people find they have a lack of money they move towards racism and xenophobia, at least that is what some recent analysis down here as shown).
Incongruous
10-24-2008, 07:59
Uhm...... No, I'd say that's pretty much the definition of stupidity. Choosing your leader because of anything but skill and politics is downright retarded.
Don't be so dense, a person's political beliefs are not an independent construct, you and I both know that our backrounds and culture inform our daily lives.
Also, take down the high hand, I would call you a liar if you did not hold prejudices towards a certain group of people and would allow it to (in some degree) inform your view of them as politicians. It is human, dont you love humans?
Incongruous
10-24-2008, 08:03
The standard answer to that being that education is not as affordable as it needs to be (It has been shown that as education increases racism decreases) and that a society that has racism deeply embedded within it will find that "trickles down" to the lowest class much better (As people find they have a lack of money they move towards racism and xenophobia, at least that is what some recent analysis down here as shown).
So, we all get an education and look down on the new lower classes?
Please, most higher education is paper thin, instilling nothing but soundbites, saying that that is the future is a condemnation of human intelligence.
As you get smarter, your prejudices simply get more...
cultured?
Big_John
10-24-2008, 09:39
You are 500 times more likely to run into someone in day to day life who says, 'It's disgusting that some idiots are using 'Obama is a muslim' as a smear!' than you are to actually hear someone saying, 'I just won't vote for Muslim scum for President.'based solely on personal experience, i would say that this is, at the least, a limited perspective. with exactly zero prompting from me i've encountered 4 people i can remember saying something to the effect of 'obama is a muslim, and i don't trust him because of that', in the dark backwoods known as san diego, ca. now i assume most of the people i know would call that "disgusting" etc, but 500:1 is a stretch. more like 20:1.
i can't imagine what that ratio would be back in my home state of oklahoma...
Koga No Goshi
10-24-2008, 09:54
This is one of the issues, people such as yourself who profess to have no problems with Islamic presidents are slitting your own throats.
I find it amusing someone who claims a love of socialism to be so scathing of your fellow taxpayers, where is the respect?
This lack of respect and elitist midset will do nothing but cause your beliefs to fail, if you constantly gaze down at people they will push you over.
I have no patience whatsoever for people who remain willfully stupid and uneducated, preferring to believe that just about everyone outside of the U.S. irrationally hates us and that none of the rules we apply to others seem to apply in quite the same way to ourselves.
I would wager, for instance, that the number of Americans most vehement in their condemnation of Islam includes many Americans who have never actually interacted with a Muslim in any direct fashion. These are people on message boards flaming away and "teaching" the silly naive people like me about how all Muslims want to kill me and Middle Easterners all hate America. I don't need to consult people on the internet to learn about Muslims or Middle Easterners. I have met, known, and worked with many in my real life. All of them have failed to kill me or "slit my throat."
That is not to say Islam doesn't have its issues and many Middle Eastern societies do not have problems. But I do have a problem with this pride we Americans take in how we accept difference and tolerate dissent and uphold respect for and freedom of religion and consider ourselves exceptional and the best nation in the world for it--- while tagging someone with the title of "Muslim" would disqualify them from President and a lot of people are happy to jump on a self-righteous horse that their religion is better and more moral and less violent than someone else's.
I also think that, while yes, some people in the Middle East hate the U.S. just because they've been taught to, and not for any personal or rational reason per se, I think that its counterpart in the U.S. of merely assuming that anyone who DOES hate us must necessarily be irrational and have no legitimate cause whatsoever is fully ignorant of our foreign policy, or doesn't care. They're just Arabs, if we blow them up or prop up dictators in their countries, well, they're no worse off than they'd be anyway right? They're just Arabs. I think that when America's foreign policy comes back to bite us we have a tendency to assume the role of the innocent victim and some of this is from ignorance and some of this is from a belief that their lives aren't worth as much as ours are.
And for the record, Strike, I never argued anyone got a pass for being a young religion. That was a perversion of my point by RVG and Panzer. But I did say, and still say, that anyone who believes there is something inherently written into the "code" of Islam which "makes it violent", which isn't present in Christianity and virtually every other religion, is just being ethnocentric and holding a double standard. The U.S. and every other country in North and South America only exist in their present forms precisely because Christians were willing to come over and kill people or deprive them of their land and basis for survival because they were non-Christian "savages."
But I did say, and still say, that anyone who believes there is something inherently written into the "code" of Islam which "makes it violent", which isn't present in Christianity and virtually every other religion, is just being ethnocentric and holding a double standard.
Yes, violent and oppressive stuff can be found in the holy texts of all major religions. The difference is that in this day and age most Christian societies ignore the oppression and violence, while most Muslim societies follow it. Religion is only as good as its followers.
LittleGrizzly
10-24-2008, 14:20
Why does the Left continue to use Christianity's past to somehow try and justify Islam's present?
Look its pretty simple really, the places where islam is dominant are mainly backwards societys which have various foriegn powers eyeing them threateningly, look at places where christianity was predominant when our countrys where at the level most muslims countrys are now
Anyone who somehow thinks christianity is somehow better than islam has just deluded themselves into thinking they are somehow better, if islam was predominant in the west and christianity in the middle east (basically the opposite of now) it would be a bunch of smug muslims here telling us how christianity is so backwards and thats why we can't have a christian president...
No, not QED. Nazism vehemently rejected Christianity because of its Jewish origin.
Incorrect, the nazis very much used christianity to thier advantadge, as with most bad world leaders they realised they could use it as a form of control and a call to arms.... infact extremely similar to what some modern muslims do today...
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/p/NaziChristian.htm
ill try and find a better one...
The opposition of many adherents of traditional religions to Nazism is only one side of the issue. Within the Lutheran Churches in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism_by_region#Germany), the most prominent members of the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Church)), Martin Niemöller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer), opposed Nazism. They were, however, (as of 1932) in the minority in the Evangelical Church in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Church_in_Germany), compared to the Deutsche Christen (German Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians)), who supported National Socialism and cooperated with the Nazis. However, even the "Confessing Church made frequent declarations of loyalty to Hitler".[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#cite_note-6)
from wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Both men had ceased to attend Catholic services or to take Confessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession) long before 1933, but had neither left the church nor refused to pay their church taxes.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#cite_note-SG2003-XV-8) They could thus be classified as nominally Catholic.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#cite_note-SG2003-XV-8)
Methodist Bishop F. H. Otto Melle (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F._H._Otto_Melle&action=edit&redlink=1) took a far more collaborationist position that included apparently sincere support for Nazism. He felt that serving the Reich was both a patriotic duty and a means of advancement. To show his gratitude, Hitler made a gift of 10,000 marks in 1939 to a Methodist congregation to purchase an organ
The leader of pro-Nazi segment of Baptists was Paul Schmidt. Hitler also led to the unification of Pro-Nazi Protestants in the Protestant Reich Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church) which was led by Ludwig Müller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_M%C3%BCller). The idea of such a "national church" was possible in the history of mainstream German Protestantism, but National Churches devoted primarily to the state were generally forbidden among the Anabaptists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists), Jehovah's Witnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses), and in Catholicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism).
In the right situation christianity is every bit the backward religion that islam is, people try and deny the links between the nazi's nd christianity and these same people will then link islam and terrorism and tell us how backwars islam is, im sick of this hypocritical attitude, christianity and christians are every bit as easy to subvert as islam and muslims given the right circumstances.
in a bit of a rush ill post up some more later
It is well known that the church mainly went along with hitler, they where at one point perhaps the last thing that could have stopped him, but religion as usual showed its true colours in extreme circumstances and went along with the nazis.
Religion is only as good as its followers.
And they're followers are only as good as the wealth and education levels of thier populace, also a religion is less likely to experience a religious enlightment with an outside presence to point at as a threat instead
Yes, violent and oppressive stuff can be found in the holy texts of all major religions. The difference is that in this day and age most Christian societies ignore the oppression and violence, while most Muslim societies follow it. Religion is only as good as its followers.
Would like to point out something else, the bible is a collection of events and not written in a imperative nature. Christianty -> god was with us Islam ->do this. The nature of islam is wildly different from other world religions, it needs no justifications for what it has done, but only for what it has to do.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-24-2008, 15:37
Yes, violent and oppressive stuff can be found in the holy texts of all major religions. The difference is that in this day and age most Christian societies ignore the oppression and violence, while most Muslim societies follow it. Religion is only as good as its followers.
Ergo, there is nothing wrong with muslim's from developed countries being presidents.
Ergo, there is nothing wrong with muslim's from developed countries being presidents.
I never said there was anything wrong with that, other than the fact that given two similar choices, people tend to vote for the more familiar choice out of habit. The bulk of the discussion was about the disadvantages of having islam as a dominant religion and there my argument still stands.
Yoyoma1910
10-24-2008, 16:03
The same ole theme gets a little annoying after awhile, Strike. America is really at it's social progression's height right now and it gets no acknowledgment, in fact, it just gets slammed still by Americans and others for being some racist, xenophobic cesspool.
A decade or so ago there was a raging debate about whether or not homosexuals could even join the military, and the issue was outrageous too many. Just a week or two ago I saw a prominent celebrity come out of the closet and on the morning talk shows openly discussing his lifestyle and his role as a gay parent. 40 years ago black people were drinking out of separate water fountains and now one is steam rolling his way to president.
You are 500 times more likely to run into someone in day to day life who says, 'It's disgusting that some idiots are using 'Obama is a muslim' as a smear!' than you are to actually hear someone saying, 'I just won't vote for Muslim scum for President.' I know it's not a sexy or popular thing to say, and many Americans and many Euros are in denial about it, but America really rocks when it comes to resolving bigoted views quickly.
:2thumbsup:
The Governor of the state of Louisiana is Bobby Jindal, who parents immigrated to the U.S. from India. But, he is a Catholic convert.
To those arguing about NAZIs, I would point out that Bavaria, the birth place of this group, is vehemently Catholic. As are Italy which had fascist government and Spain, which had a semi-fascist government.
If the muslim in question is a Freemason, he's good to go!
If the muslim in question is a Freemason, he's good to go!
Let's forget about muslims for a moment here. What if the guy is a Scientologist? Or a Satanist.
LittleGrizzly
10-24-2008, 17:18
Let's forget about muslims for a moment here. What if the guy is a Scientologist? Or a Satanist.
The satanist.. fine aslong as he doesn't sacrifice young virgins or anything creepy, the scientologist would have a hell of a job convincing me his religion wouldn't affect his work (though if he did, sure)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-24-2008, 18:18
To those arguing about NAZIs, I would point out that Bavaria, the birth place of this group, is vehemently Catholic. As are Italy which had fascist government and Spain, which had a semi-fascist government.
Poland and France are also heavily Catholic, and Pope Pius XII did what he could to help the victims of Nazi Germany. This is, of course, presuming that the Catholic faith was even a large part in the formation of the fascist ideology and that Catholics loved fascism, though Catholic Spain fought a massive civil war and fascists in Germany received less than half of the popular vote in 1933. So congratulations, you've managed to prove absolutely nothing.
Louis VI the Fat
10-24-2008, 18:35
Let's forget about muslims for a moment here. What if the guy is a Scientologist? Or a Satanist.Aye, that is the important point for me as well. Surely, a scientologist president would be unthinkable? Never mind a cult that ritually sacrifices children.
Which means that there is a hierarchy of religions thought fit to supply a president from their ranks. Religious views do matter. Especially in the US, where there is little separation of church and state. The best you can hope for in America, is that your cult of choice will be accepted as mainstream, and hence embraced under the gentle protective wings of 'freedom of religion'. This deceptive tool that neither guarantees freedom of religion nor of unreligion - but that serves to protect and to maintain the status of the larger cults at the expense of the smaller and the nonbelievers.
Mangudai
10-24-2008, 20:17
You won't discriminate on the basis of background... but you will discriminate on the basis of background?
No. Background means they grew up in a particular type of household. That's different than an ideology someone clings to today.
Koga No Goshi
10-24-2008, 21:03
No. Background means they grew up in a particular type of household. That's different than an ideology someone clings to today.
How the hell is Islam an "ideology" anymore than Christianity is?
I guess it needs reminding that we have a President who says God told him to start these wars, and a running VP candidate who says Iraq is a mission from God.
What would you guys be saying if these were Muslim Americans saying similar things?
RVG - I fail to see how an outside observer, watching U.S. politics, especially on the Republican side, would agree with you that Christianity has "renounced" violence anymore than Islam has, in light of how extra super duper Christian Bush, Palin and the rest profess to be the 50% of the time they're not talking about war and Muslim extremists and terrorism.
RVG - I fail to see how an outside observer, watching U.S. politics, especially on the Republican side, would agree with you that Christianity has "renounced" violence anymore than Islam has, in light of how extra super duper Christian Bush, Palin and the rest profess to be the 50% of the time they're not talking about war and Muslim extremists and terrorism.
War on terror is not a religious war.
Koga No Goshi
10-24-2008, 21:41
War on terror is not a religious war.
Um, you need to tell that to Bush and Palin.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-24-2008, 21:44
How the hell is Islam an "ideology" anymore than Christianity is?
I think the distinction is between Islam and Islamism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism)
Koga No Goshi
10-24-2008, 21:47
I think the distinction is between Islam and Islamism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism)
I'm struggling to see the difference between people who use Islam as a means of control and political power, and people who use a litmus of "Christian values" issues as a means of control and political power. We don't have a "Christian Sharia state", this is true. But 49-51% of the U.S. electorate turns out every 4 years to vote for a party essentially promising to do their best to make one.
yesdachi
10-24-2008, 21:51
I'm struggling to see the difference between people who use Islam as a means of control and political power, and people who use a litmus of "Christian values" issues as a means of control and political power. We don't have a "Christian Sharia state", this is true. But 49-51% of the U.S. electorate turns out every 4 years to vote for a party essentially promising to do their best to make one.
Little thick on the drama today. :rolleyes:
Koga No Goshi
10-24-2008, 21:58
Little thick on the drama today. :rolleyes:
Well? Do you see any difference between the religions in terms of their double-dippage for use as political ideologies? I don't.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-24-2008, 22:16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Left
The notion that the Republican Party is going to create a Christian theocracy is laughable at best.
yesdachi
10-24-2008, 22:47
Well? Do you see any difference between the religions in terms of their double-dippage for use as political ideologies? I don't.
I think there is a fringe percentage that would like a Christian theocracy but for the most part I don’t think Americans even the ones that are relatively religious (say republicans 50 % of the population) are looking for a fundamental change in the country whereas I see a Muslim/Islamic dominated country being more interested in crossing the separation of church and state.
Koga No Goshi
10-24-2008, 22:57
I think there is a fringe percentage that would like a Christian theocracy but for the most part I don’t think Americans even the ones that are relatively religious (say republicans 50 % of the population) are looking for a fundamental change in the country whereas I see a Muslim/Islamic dominated country being more interested in crossing the separation of church and state.
Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing hardwired in, or out, of either religion, which prevents their use as a rallying cry for political power. I don't know how either of you got "the U.S. and the Middle East share identical political systems" out of my statement.
The notion that the Republican Party is going to create a Christian theocracy is laughable at best.
So what? They pander to the myth that they will. And that brings them in voters.
Ironside
10-24-2008, 23:15
So, we all get an education and look down on the new lower classes?
Please, most higher education is paper thin, instilling nothing but soundbites, saying that that is the future is a condemnation of human intelligence.
As you get smarter, your prejudices simply get more...
cultured?
Actually, there's a tendency for higher educated people to have weaker prejudices, maybe it's simply more cultured, but there's a general benefit if people react less upon thier prejudices and try more to keep it fair.
Well I'd be happy if we can convince Europe of the benefit of a president over hereditary clowns before the end of this millenium in the first place.
But...the current Swedish PM, Fredrik Reinfeldt, is of mixed white / black heritage. Afro-American to boot. Not Obama - if he wins - but Reinfeldt is the first Afro-American to become the leader of a predominantly white, protestant country.
To be fair, that's 1/64 Afro-American blood, although an interesting curiosa story (that I didn't know about :shame:), but circus director to prime minister in a few generations is quite impressive.
The same ole theme gets a little annoying after awhile, Strike. America is really at it's social progression's height right now and it gets no acknowledgment, in fact, it just gets slammed still by Americans and others for being some racist, xenophobic cesspool.
A decade or so ago there was a raging debate about whether or not homosexuals could even join the military, and the issue was outrageous too many. Just a week or two ago I saw a prominent celebrity come out of the closet and on the morning talk shows openly discussing his lifestyle and his role as a gay parent. 40 years ago black people were drinking out of separate water fountains and now one is steam rolling his way to president.
You are 500 times more likely to run into someone in day to day life who says, 'It's disgusting that some idiots are using 'Obama is a muslim' as a smear!' than you are to actually hear someone saying, 'I just won't vote for Muslim scum for President.' I know it's not a sexy or popular thing to say, and many Americans and many Euros are in denial about it, but America really rocks when it comes to resolving bigoted views quickly.
:2thumbsup:
Except when it comes to religion, that's one of those odd thingies you don't get from a European perspective. Here (atleast in northern Europe) if you're Christian or whatever fine no problem, but you don't talk about it. If you seek guidance from God, Jesus, Allah, Kali, the Flying Spagetti monster, three midgets or whatever you don't talk about it. Simply put, it's a private matter. Sure it might affect your politics, but then we see it there and not when you proclaim your faith.
To put it differently, I don't know the (lack of?) religious faith of our PM or any other minister or party leader, even if I can guess in some cases (like that the leader of the Christian democrats are probably Christian and the leader of the Left party is probably atheist).
Yes, violent and oppressive stuff can be found in the holy texts of all major religions. The difference is that in this day and age most Christian societies ignore the oppression and violence, while most Muslim societies follow it. Religion is only as good as its followers.
A correct statement. However, the USA isn't a muslim society. Therefore that sentence is irrelevant.
Would like to point out something else, the bible is a collection of events and not written in a imperative nature. Christianty -> god was with us Islam ->do this. The nature of islam is wildly different from other world religions, it needs no justifications for what it has done, but only for what it has to do.
I am willing to bet my entires savings on how you have never ever, ever even read three pages of Quran. Just for the record, it is stupid to talk about something you have never read, and give your opinion as if you knew how it was written. You see, the opinion you just voiced about how the Quran is written is exactly what the terrorrists say. And I can tell you that since old times, the CHURCH also said that the Bible only had ONE INTERPRETATION. Just "do this". And what do you call the Ten Mandaments? The Ten BASIC Mandaments? Aren't they mandatory? Aren't they your "do this" type?
Incongruous
10-25-2008, 05:41
Actually, there's a tendency for higher educated people to have weaker prejudices, maybe it's simply more cultured, but there's a general benefit if people react less upon thier prejudices and try more to keep it fair.
Ok, sorry to derail, but that is bollocks. Just because you know more does not change your human reactions, just the fom they appear in, thus you will still have prejudice, it might be wrapped up in a well written book though, instead of poorly constructed sentences.
The most dangerous bigots are the ones with a uni education.
Incongruous
10-25-2008, 05:45
To those arguing about NAZIs, I would point out that Bavaria, the birth place of this group, is vehemently Catholic. As are Italy which had fascist government and Spain, which had a semi-fascist government.
Uhuh, you think the Catholic peasants of Spain should have gone along with the vehemently anti-Catholic Communists instead? Yeah they really sorted Russia out, what a load...
It was not a much of choice was it? Fascists or Communists?
Care to start up another thread about the civil war in Spain? I would be glad to discuss the Catholocism of Franco with you:2thumbsup:
HoreTore
10-25-2008, 07:44
Also, take down the high hand, I would call you a liar if you did not hold prejudices towards a certain group of people and would allow it to (in some degree) inform your view of them as politicians. It is human, dont you love humans?
The first part is most likely true, the second one is definitely not. Why? Because I don't want a bloody "leader", I want a skilled administrator who does what I want him to. As such, his culture, his charisma, his whatever means absolutely zero to me. It doesn't matter at all whether a person cheats, lies, has a thing for 20-year old playthings in weird costumes, likes to tap feet at public bathrooms or whatever. As long as they're skilled and doesn't put money in their pockets, it's all good to me. Why should ethnicity play a part? The days when people favoured "their own" at the expense of others are, thankfully, gone.
Oh, and my most recent political love affair has been with a a colonial(black) frenchie, Manuela Ramin Osmundsen.
Koga No Goshi
10-26-2008, 06:25
Ok, sorry to derail, but that is bollocks. Just because you know more does not change your human reactions, just the fom they appear in, thus you will still have prejudice, it might be wrapped up in a well written book though, instead of poorly constructed sentences.
The most dangerous bigots are the ones with a uni education.
I'm quite bigoted against people who have every form of access to information and choose to remain ignorant. But I consider that quite a different thing from, for example, being bigoted against someone just because of the race or social class they were born into, or what nation their parents came from.
You could say someone who has a strong negative reaction to wifebeaters is bigoted, also... *shrug*
Seamus Fermanagh
10-26-2008, 14:02
Uhm...... No, I'd say that's pretty much the definition of stupidity. Choosing your leader because of anything but skill and politics is downright retarded.
Which doesn't preclude it being perfectly correct.
Kralizec
10-28-2008, 12:04
Before being confronted with a formidable army of strawmen, let me emphasize that I'm not a christian or ever have been one.
It's true that Christianity has a pretty impressive record of vile deeds being done in its name, and it took time and great effort to overcome such dogmas as Divine Right. Islamic countries might take more time to reach enlightenment not because it's 600 years younger, but because they're less developed mostly due to historical influences wich have little to do with theological differences.
However I don't think that they're completely irrelevant either. Wearing veils used to be the norm for women in many eastern christian communities (including Byzantium, I believe) before the Islamic invasions but the practice was never universally adopted.
The Bible is a collection of texts; many texts from the same timeframes aren't included because they didn't survive or were refused for reasons either religious or political. The Qu'ran claims to be handed literally, word for word, to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel. It claims that it's the final, infallible product of Gods word, that there will be no other prophets after Muhammed until final judgement. The Bible tells you to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and developed the doctrine of two swords; while on the other hand Islam was slated not just as a religion but as a way of life and governance. The Bible is (in itself) a loose collection of vague moral imperatives and metaphorical tales, the Qu'ran is an exhaustive code to live by. With this in mind you could make the case that a devout muslim will need a lot more creative thinking to embrace things like the seperation of religion and state than a devout christian.*
That said, religions as such don't kill or opress people, only followers do. It's perfectly possible for a politician of a muslim background to have modern ideas and I'll give anyone the benefit of doubt regardless of how they grew up. I also accept that a persons (religious) background will always shape that persons beliefs to a certain degree. However as soon as said person starts defending second-rate treatment of women or starts advocating for (parts of) the Sharia code to be implemented on top of our existing legal system they're disqualified as far as I'm concerned.
(*maybe this whole paragraph will be proven wrong in a century or so, but we'll just have to wait and see)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-28-2008, 15:02
A correct statement. However, the USA isn't a muslim society. Therefore that sentence is irrelevant.
I am willing to bet my entires savings on how you have never ever, ever even read three pages of Quran. Just for the record, it is stupid to talk about something you have never read, and give your opinion as if you knew how it was written. You see, the opinion you just voiced about how the Quran is written is exactly what the terrorrists say. And I can tell you that since old times, the CHURCH also said that the Bible only had ONE INTERPRETATION. Just "do this". And what do you call the Ten Mandaments? The Ten BASIC Mandaments? Aren't they mandatory? Aren't they your "do this" type?
Maybe you're right about the Koran but you're just as bad with the Bible, since the foundation of Christianity allegorical interpretation has been at the centre of Biblical scholarship, almost all the modern tools of literary criticism were invented , or rediscovered, to disect the Bible. The "single" interpretation is a facet of the Reformation and Biblical litteralism is even more recent.
In that sense modern Evangelical christianity is younger than the current mainstream strands of Islam.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.