What is wrong with having a Muslim as president?

[Koga No Goshi]

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

QED.

[rvg]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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? :)

[CrossLOPER]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Koga No Goshi]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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

QED.

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.

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?