What is wrong with having a Muslim as president?

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 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.

Quote:

---

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:

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...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

~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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Look at what they did to Romney over his faith.

---

Yes. Tom Cruise too, should never bother running for president.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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:

One word, takiyya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Stupid is as stupid does.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Why would it be wrong for Islam to become the dominant culture of somewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Another factor is the wealth and size of the middle class, if america slowly became islamic i doubt it would slowly lose it freedoms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

...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.

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]

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

...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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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?

Germany was a Christian nation at the time of WWII... was it not? :)

QED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

De jure discrimination is only one kind. There's also de facto discrimination, which is precisely the topic of this thread.

---

No, not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Reinfeldt has the advantage of looking just like another white guy though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.