What is wrong with having a Muslim as president?

[Koga No Goshi]

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]

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

[rvg]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[rvg]

...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]

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]

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]

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...

[Koga No Goshi]

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.

[rvg]

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]

...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.

[Koga No Goshi]

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]

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]

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

QED.

[rvg]

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.

[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.

[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]

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? :)

[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.

[rvg]

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]

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.