What is wrong with having a Muslim as president?

[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.

[rvg]

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]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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

[rvg]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.