Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Ergo, there is nothing wrong with muslim's from developed countries being presidents.
I never said there was anything wrong with that, other than the fact that given two similar choices, people tend to vote for the more familiar choice out of habit. The bulk of the discussion was about the disadvantages of having islam as a dominant religion and there my argument still stands.Ergo, there is nothing wrong with muslim's from developed countries being presidents.
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.
The Governor of the state of Louisiana is Bobby Jindal, who parents immigrated to the U.S. from India. But, he is a Catholic convert.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.
To those arguing about NAZIs, I would point out that Bavaria, the birth place of this group, is vehemently Catholic. As are Italy which had fascist government and Spain, which had a semi-fascist government.
If the muslim in question is a Freemason, he's good to go!
Originally Posted by drone:
If the muslim in question is a Freemason, he's good to go!
Let's forget about muslims for a moment here. What if the guy is a Scientologist? Or a Satanist.If the muslim in question is a Freemason, he's good to go!
Let's forget about muslims for a moment here. What if the guy is a Scientologist? Or a Satanist.
The satanist.. fine aslong as he doesn't sacrifice young virgins or anything creepy, the scientologist would have a hell of a job convincing me his religion wouldn't affect his work (though if he did, sure)
The satanist.. fine aslong as he doesn't sacrifice young virgins or anything creepy, the scientologist would have a hell of a job convincing me his religion wouldn't affect his work (though if he did, sure)
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910:
To those arguing about NAZIs, I would point out that Bavaria, the birth place of this group, is vehemently Catholic. As are Italy which had fascist government and Spain, which had a semi-fascist government.
Poland and France are also heavily Catholic, and Pope Pius XII did what he could to help the victims of Nazi Germany. This is, of course, presuming that the Catholic faith was even a large part in the formation of the fascist ideology and that Catholics loved fascism, though Catholic Spain fought a massive civil war and fascists in Germany received less than half of the popular vote in 1933. So congratulations, you've managed to prove absolutely nothing.To those arguing about NAZIs, I would point out that Bavaria, the birth place of this group, is vehemently Catholic. As are Italy which had fascist government and Spain, which had a semi-fascist government.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Let's forget about muslims for a moment here. What if the guy is a Scientologist? Or a Satanist.
Aye, that is the important point for me as well. Surely, a scientologist president would be unthinkable? Never mind a cult that ritually sacrifices children.Let's forget about muslims for a moment here. What if the guy is a Scientologist? Or a Satanist.
Which means that there is a hierarchy of religions thought fit to supply a president from their ranks. Religious views do matter. Especially in the US, where there is little separation of church and state. The best you can hope for in America, is that your cult of choice will be accepted as mainstream, and hence embraced under the gentle protective wings of 'freedom of religion'. This deceptive tool that neither guarantees freedom of religion nor of unreligion - but that serves to protect and to maintain the status of the larger cults at the expense of the smaller and the nonbelievers.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
You won't discriminate on the basis of background... but you will discriminate on the basis of background?
You won't discriminate on the basis of background... but you will discriminate on the basis of background?
No. Background means they grew up in a particular type of household. That's different than an ideology someone clings to today.
Originally Posted by Mangudai:
No. Background means they grew up in a particular type of household. That's different than an ideology someone clings to today.
How the hell is Islam an "ideology" anymore than Christianity is?No. Background means they grew up in a particular type of household. That's different than an ideology someone clings to today.
I guess it needs reminding that we have a President who says God told him to start these wars, and a running VP candidate who says Iraq is a mission from God.
What would you guys be saying if these were Muslim Americans saying similar things?
RVG - I fail to see how an outside observer, watching U.S. politics, especially on the Republican side, would agree with you that Christianity has "renounced" violence anymore than Islam has, in light of how extra super duper Christian Bush, Palin and the rest profess to be the 50% of the time they're not talking about war and Muslim extremists and terrorism.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
RVG - I fail to see how an outside observer, watching U.S. politics, especially on the Republican side, would agree with you that Christianity has "renounced" violence anymore than Islam has, in light of how extra super duper Christian Bush, Palin and the rest profess to be the 50% of the time they're not talking about war and Muslim extremists and terrorism.
War on terror is not a religious war.RVG - I fail to see how an outside observer, watching U.S. politics, especially on the Republican side, would agree with you that Christianity has "renounced" violence anymore than Islam has, in light of how extra super duper Christian Bush, Palin and the rest profess to be the 50% of the time they're not talking about war and Muslim extremists and terrorism.
Originally Posted by rvg:
War on terror is not a religious war.
Um, you need to tell that to Bush and Palin.War on terror is not a religious war.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
How the hell is Islam an "ideology" anymore than Christianity is?
I think the distinction is between Islam and Islamism.How the hell is Islam an "ideology" anymore than Christianity is?
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
I think the distinction is between Islam and Islamism.
I'm struggling to see the difference between people who use Islam as a means of control and political power, and people who use a litmus of "Christian values" issues as a means of control and political power. We don't have a "Christian Sharia state", this is true. But 49-51% of the U.S. electorate turns out every 4 years to vote for a party essentially promising to do their best to make one.I think the distinction is between Islam and Islamism.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
I'm struggling to see the difference between people who use Islam as a means of control and political power, and people who use a litmus of "Christian values" issues as a means of control and political power. We don't have a "Christian Sharia state", this is true. But 49-51% of the U.S. electorate turns out every 4 years to vote for a party essentially promising to do their best to make one.
Little thick on the drama today. I'm struggling to see the difference between people who use Islam as a means of control and political power, and people who use a litmus of "Christian values" issues as a means of control and political power. We don't have a "Christian Sharia state", this is true. But 49-51% of the U.S. electorate turns out every 4 years to vote for a party essentially promising to do their best to make one.
Originally Posted by yesdachi:
Little thick on the drama today.
Well? Do you see any difference between the religions in terms of their double-dippage for use as political ideologies? I don't.Little thick on the drama today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Left
The notion that the Republican Party is going to create a Christian theocracy is laughable at best.
The notion that the Republican Party is going to create a Christian theocracy is laughable at best.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
Well? Do you see any difference between the religions in terms of their double-dippage for use as political ideologies? I don't.
I think there is a fringe percentage that would like a Christian theocracy but for the most part I don’t think Americans even the ones that are relatively religious (say republicans 50 % of the population) are looking for a fundamental change in the country whereas I see a Muslim/Islamic dominated country being more interested in crossing the separation of church and state.Well? Do you see any difference between the religions in terms of their double-dippage for use as political ideologies? I don't.
Originally Posted by yesdachi:
I think there is a fringe percentage that would like a Christian theocracy but for the most part I don’t think Americans even the ones that are relatively religious (say republicans 50 % of the population) are looking for a fundamental change in the country whereas I see a Muslim/Islamic dominated country being more interested in crossing the separation of church and state.
Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing hardwired in, or out, of either religion, which prevents their use as a rallying cry for political power. I don't know how either of you got "the U.S. and the Middle East share identical political systems" out of my statement.I think there is a fringe percentage that would like a Christian theocracy but for the most part I don’t think Americans even the ones that are relatively religious (say republicans 50 % of the population) are looking for a fundamental change in the country whereas I see a Muslim/Islamic dominated country being more interested in crossing the separation of church and state.
Originally Posted by :
The notion that the Republican Party is going to create a Christian theocracy is laughable at best.
So what? They pander to the myth that they will. And that brings them in voters.The notion that the Republican Party is going to create a Christian theocracy is laughable at best.
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar:
So, we all get an education and look down on the new lower classes?
Please, most higher education is paper thin, instilling nothing but soundbites, saying that that is the future is a condemnation of human intelligence.
As you get smarter, your prejudices simply get more...
cultured?
Actually, there's a tendency for higher educated people to have weaker prejudices, maybe it's simply more cultured, but there's a general benefit if people react less upon thier prejudices and try more to keep it fair.So, we all get an education and look down on the new lower classes?
Please, most higher education is paper thin, instilling nothing but soundbites, saying that that is the future is a condemnation of human intelligence.
As you get smarter, your prejudices simply get more...
cultured?
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.
To be fair, that's 1/64 Afro-American blood, although an interesting curiosa story (that I didn't know about 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.
), but circus director to prime minister in a few generations is quite impressive.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.
Except when it comes to religion, that's one of those odd thingies you don't get from a European perspective. Here (atleast in northern Europe) if you're Christian or whatever fine no problem, but you don't talk about it. If you seek guidance from God, Jesus, Allah, Kali, the Flying Spagetti monster, three midgets or whatever you don't talk about it. Simply put, it's a private matter. Sure it might affect your politics, but then we see it there and not when you proclaim your faith.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.
To put it differently, I don't know the (lack of?) religious faith of our PM or any other minister or party leader, even if I can guess in some cases (like that the leader of the Christian democrats are probably Christian and the leader of the Left party is probably atheist).
Originally Posted by rvg:
Yes, violent and oppressive stuff can be found in the holy texts of all major religions. The difference is that in this day and age most Christian societies ignore the oppression and violence, while most Muslim societies follow it. Religion is only as good as its followers.
A correct statement. However, the USA isn't a muslim society. Therefore that sentence is irrelevant.Yes, violent and oppressive stuff can be found in the holy texts of all major religions. The difference is that in this day and age most Christian societies ignore the oppression and violence, while most Muslim societies follow it. Religion is only as good as its followers.
Originally Posted by fragony:
Would like to point out something else, the bible is a collection of events and not written in a imperative nature. Christianty -> god was with us Islam ->do this. The nature of islam is wildly different from other world religions, it needs no justifications for what it has done, but only for what it has to do.
I am willing to bet my entires savings on how you have never ever, ever even read three pages of Quran. Just for the record, it is stupid to talk about something you have never read, and give your opinion as if you knew how it was written. You see, the opinion you just voiced about how the Quran is written is exactly what the terrorrists say. And I can tell you that since old times, the CHURCH also said that the Bible only had ONE INTERPRETATION. Just "do this". And what do you call the Ten Mandaments? The Ten BASIC Mandaments? Aren't they mandatory? Aren't they your "do this" type?Would like to point out something else, the bible is a collection of events and not written in a imperative nature. Christianty -> god was with us Islam ->do this. The nature of islam is wildly different from other world religions, it needs no justifications for what it has done, but only for what it has to do.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
Actually, there's a tendency for higher educated people to have weaker prejudices, maybe it's simply more cultured, but there's a general benefit if people react less upon thier prejudices and try more to keep it fair.
Ok, sorry to derail, but that is bollocks. Just because you know more does not change your human reactions, just the fom they appear in, thus you will still have prejudice, it might be wrapped up in a well written book though, instead of poorly constructed sentences.Actually, there's a tendency for higher educated people to have weaker prejudices, maybe it's simply more cultured, but there's a general benefit if people react less upon thier prejudices and try more to keep it fair.
The most dangerous bigots are the ones with a uni education.
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910:
To those arguing about NAZIs, I would point out that Bavaria, the birth place of this group, is vehemently Catholic. As are Italy which had fascist government and Spain, which had a semi-fascist government.
Uhuh, you think the Catholic peasants of Spain should have gone along with the vehemently anti-Catholic Communists instead? Yeah they really sorted Russia out, what a load...To those arguing about NAZIs, I would point out that Bavaria, the birth place of this group, is vehemently Catholic. As are Italy which had fascist government and Spain, which had a semi-fascist government.
It was not a much of choice was it? Fascists or Communists?
Care to start up another thread about the civil war in Spain? I would be glad to discuss the Catholocism of Franco with you
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar:
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.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?
Oh, and my most recent political love affair has been with a a colonial(black) frenchie, Manuela Ramin Osmundsen.
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar:
Ok, sorry to derail, but that is bollocks. Just because you know more does not change your human reactions, just the fom they appear in, thus you will still have prejudice, it might be wrapped up in a well written book though, instead of poorly constructed sentences.
The most dangerous bigots are the ones with a uni education.
I'm quite bigoted against people who have every form of access to information and choose to remain ignorant. But I consider that quite a different thing from, for example, being bigoted against someone just because of the race or social class they were born into, or what nation their parents came from. Ok, sorry to derail, but that is bollocks. Just because you know more does not change your human reactions, just the fom they appear in, thus you will still have prejudice, it might be wrapped up in a well written book though, instead of poorly constructed sentences.
The most dangerous bigots are the ones with a uni education.
You could say someone who has a strong negative reaction to wifebeaters is bigoted, also... *shrug*
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.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.
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)
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)
Originally Posted by Jolt:
A correct statement. However, the USA isn't a muslim society. Therefore that sentence is irrelevant.
I am willing to bet my entires savings on how you have never ever, ever even read three pages of Quran. Just for the record, it is stupid to talk about something you have never read, and give your opinion as if you knew how it was written. You see, the opinion you just voiced about how the Quran is written is exactly what the terrorrists say. And I can tell you that since old times, the CHURCH also said that the Bible only had ONE INTERPRETATION. Just "do this". And what do you call the Ten Mandaments? The Ten BASIC Mandaments? Aren't they mandatory? Aren't they your "do this" type?
Maybe you're right about the Koran but you're just as bad with the Bible, since the foundation of Christianity allegorical interpretation has been at the centre of Biblical scholarship, almost all the modern tools of literary criticism were invented , or rediscovered, to disect the Bible. The "single" interpretation is a facet of the Reformation and Biblical litteralism is even more recent.A correct statement. However, the USA isn't a muslim society. Therefore that sentence is irrelevant.
I am willing to bet my entires savings on how you have never ever, ever even read three pages of Quran. Just for the record, it is stupid to talk about something you have never read, and give your opinion as if you knew how it was written. You see, the opinion you just voiced about how the Quran is written is exactly what the terrorrists say. And I can tell you that since old times, the CHURCH also said that the Bible only had ONE INTERPRETATION. Just "do this". And what do you call the Ten Mandaments? The Ten BASIC Mandaments? Aren't they mandatory? Aren't they your "do this" type?
In that sense modern Evangelical christianity is younger than the current mainstream strands of Islam.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO