What is wrong with having a Muslim as president?

[rvg]

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]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Strike For The South]

Nothing is wrong with it. Just people in Missouri seem to have a problem with it.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[HoreTore]

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]

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?

[HoreTore]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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]

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)