What is wrong with having a Muslim as president?

[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

[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.

[Don Corleone]

I think the Mitt Romney parallel is the more telling. His religion clearly cost him something.

Are we saying that this alleged propensity to only elect leaders directly in step with the majority religion is to be accepted? Would an orthodox Jew be unelectable, for example? It's pretty clear that an atheist would have a torrid time, but what about a Buddhist?

Roman Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination in America, and we've only had one RC president. Americans have funny ideas about religion. Mainstream protestant (methodist/episcopal) or evangelical protesant are the only acceptable answers.

Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, Buddhist.... all large populations in the United States... always an issue when they run for office. And you're surprised Islam is an issue?

[Proletariat]

Nothing is wrong with it Banquo, and I'm certain America will have a Muslim president long before the EU considers a president with African heritage.

[Strike For The South]

Nothing is wrong with it Banquo, and I'm certain America will have a Muslim president long before the EU considers a president with African heritage.

I see what you did there

[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.

[Strike For The South]

You are absolutely right. The thread has strayed more into discussing societies rather than individuals though.

We wont be importing the president. Something tells me any muslim who is able to get to the upper echelons of American politics wont be swayed by his brothers in faith. American muslims also tend to be well educated and out of poverty so I dont think they will gut us from within.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nothing is wrong with it Banquo, and I'm certain America will have a Muslim president long before the EU considers a president with African heritage.

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.

[rvg]

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.

*takes notes*

learn something new every day. Thank you, sir.

[Strike For The South]

Reinfeldt has the advantage of looking just like another white guy though.

[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?

[Proletariat]

I see what you did there

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Reinfeldt has the advantage of looking just like another white guy though.

Eh, Prince and Mariah Carey don't look particularly 'black' either. But one drop of blood, Strike, one drop of blood. It's what the Americans taught us.

Or rather, what Europeans taught themselves during the large-scale encounter with non-European civilizations in the early modern period. This, the age of discovery, taught Europeans to think of themselves as 'white'. Before that, Africans, Moors and mixed people were not considered all that alien. Foreign, yes. Perhaps even - eeeww! - non-Christian. But not of belonging to a different race. And tought quite fit to lead.

In the South and Southeast of Europe there is a history of intense contact with Africans and Middle-Easterners. And in ancient times, we all sat around the Mediterranean like frogs around a pond. In the modern age, Jesus wouldn't be deemed 'white' in the US.
Obama could've been the Emperor of Rome. Or a Renaissance Italian prince. But he can't be a modern Italian president.

[Strike For The South]

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 you to

[Strike For The South]

Eh, Prince and Mariah Carey don't look particularly 'black' either. But one drop of blood, Strike, one drop of blood. It's what the Americans taught us.

Or rather, what Europeans taught themselves during the large-scale encounter with non-European civilizations in the early modern period. This, the age of discovery, taught Europeans to think of themselves as 'white'. Before that, Africans, Moors and mixed people were not considered all that alien. Foreign, yes. Perhaps even - eeeww! - non-Christian. But not of belonging to a different race. And tought quite fit to lead.

In the South and Southeast of Europe there is a history of intense contact with Africans and Middle-Easterners. And in ancient times, we all sat around the Mediterranean like frogs around a pond. In the modern age, Jesus wouldn't be deemed 'white' in the US.
Obama could've been the Emperor of Rome. Or a Renaissance Italian prince. But he can't be a modern Italian president.

Eh he would be viewed as white here

[Mangudai]

Well, at the risk of getting this thread closed, I will express my opinion which some people will probably consider bigoted. I would not discriminate against anyone for their background. But, I do think a person's religious faith is relevant when they run for political office.

Jesus and Buddha refused to get involved in political matters. Despite the prevalence of religious right in America, the faith itself does not compel any particular political policies. Hinduism, Taoism, etc have little or no political dogmas.

Judaism and Confucianism have a lot to say about political affairs, but the ideas are so dated that I can hardly imagine a Jew who wants to impose the laws of Leviticus on society.

Catholics and Mormons raise question marks for me. I have nothing against someone who was raised Catholic, but if someone really believes that the Pope holds the chair of Peter and holds the keys to heaven and hell, then I can't vote for him. If a Mormon really believes that Brigham Young was a prophet with divinely inspired ideas, I can't vote for him. (I don't have major problems with Joseph Smith, just Brigham Young).

Islam is the most political of religions. The idea of separation of church and state are completely foreign to Islam. Sharia law is alive and well at the core of Islam. I could never vote for someone who is a devout Muslim.

[KarlXII]

I could never vote for someone who is a devout Muslim.

It depends on your definition of "Devout". For me, a devout Muslim is someone who goes to Mosque, celebrates his religious holiday's, reads the Koran before bed. A Muslim, especially in Western society, that campaigns to implement Sharia Law and Caliphate-like system of rule is a radical.

I would vote for a devout Muslim, should his views be something I agree with.

[CountArach]

Well, at the risk of getting this thread closed, I will express my opinion which some people will probably consider bigoted. I would not discriminate against anyone for their background. But, I do think a person's religious faith is relevant when they run for political office.

You won't discriminate on the basis of background... but you will discriminate on the basis of background?

[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]

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.

This is one of the issues, people such as yourself who profess to have no problems with Islamic presidents are slitting your own throats.
I find it amusing someone who claims a love of socialism to be so scathing of your fellow taxpayers, where is the respect?

This lack of respect and elitist midset will do nothing but cause your beliefs to fail, if you constantly gaze down at people they will push you over.

[CountArach]

This lack of respect and elitist midset will do nothing but cause your beliefs to fail, if you constantly gaze down at people they will push you over.

The standard answer to that being that education is not as affordable as it needs to be (It has been shown that as education increases racism decreases) and that a society that has racism deeply embedded within it will find that "trickles down" to the lowest class much better (As people find they have a lack of money they move towards racism and xenophobia, at least that is what some recent analysis down here as shown).

[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?

[Incongruous]

The standard answer to that being that education is not as affordable as it needs to be (It has been shown that as education increases racism decreases) and that a society that has racism deeply embedded within it will find that "trickles down" to the lowest class much better (As people find they have a lack of money they move towards racism and xenophobia, at least that is what some recent analysis down here as shown).

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?

[Big_John]

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.'

based solely on personal experience, i would say that this is, at the least, a limited perspective. with exactly zero prompting from me i've encountered 4 people i can remember saying something to the effect of 'obama is a muslim, and i don't trust him because of that', in the dark backwoods known as san diego, ca. now i assume most of the people i know would call that "disgusting" etc, but 500:1 is a stretch. more like 20:1.

i can't imagine what that ratio would be back in my home state of oklahoma...

[Koga No Goshi]

This is one of the issues, people such as yourself who profess to have no problems with Islamic presidents are slitting your own throats.
I find it amusing someone who claims a love of socialism to be so scathing of your fellow taxpayers, where is the respect?

This lack of respect and elitist midset will do nothing but cause your beliefs to fail, if you constantly gaze down at people they will push you over.

I have no patience whatsoever for people who remain willfully stupid and uneducated, preferring to believe that just about everyone outside of the U.S. irrationally hates us and that none of the rules we apply to others seem to apply in quite the same way to ourselves.

I would wager, for instance, that the number of Americans most vehement in their condemnation of Islam includes many Americans who have never actually interacted with a Muslim in any direct fashion. These are people on message boards flaming away and "teaching" the silly naive people like me about how all Muslims want to kill me and Middle Easterners all hate America. I don't need to consult people on the internet to learn about Muslims or Middle Easterners. I have met, known, and worked with many in my real life. All of them have failed to kill me or "slit my throat."

That is not to say Islam doesn't have its issues and many Middle Eastern societies do not have problems. But I do have a problem with this pride we Americans take in how we accept difference and tolerate dissent and uphold respect for and freedom of religion and consider ourselves exceptional and the best nation in the world for it--- while tagging someone with the title of "Muslim" would disqualify them from President and a lot of people are happy to jump on a self-righteous horse that their religion is better and more moral and less violent than someone else's.

I also think that, while yes, some people in the Middle East hate the U.S. just because they've been taught to, and not for any personal or rational reason per se, I think that its counterpart in the U.S. of merely assuming that anyone who DOES hate us must necessarily be irrational and have no legitimate cause whatsoever is fully ignorant of our foreign policy, or doesn't care. They're just Arabs, if we blow them up or prop up dictators in their countries, well, they're no worse off than they'd be anyway right? They're just Arabs. I think that when America's foreign policy comes back to bite us we have a tendency to assume the role of the innocent victim and some of this is from ignorance and some of this is from a belief that their lives aren't worth as much as ours are.

And for the record, Strike, I never argued anyone got a pass for being a young religion. That was a perversion of my point by RVG and Panzer. But I did say, and still say, that anyone who believes there is something inherently written into the "code" of Islam which "makes it violent", which isn't present in Christianity and virtually every other religion, is just being ethnocentric and holding a double standard. The U.S. and every other country in North and South America only exist in their present forms precisely because Christians were willing to come over and kill people or deprive them of their land and basis for survival because they were non-Christian "savages."

[rvg]

But I did say, and still say, that anyone who believes there is something inherently written into the "code" of Islam which "makes it violent", which isn't present in Christianity and virtually every other religion, is just being ethnocentric and holding a double standard.

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

Why does the Left continue to use Christianity's past to somehow try and justify Islam's present?

Look its pretty simple really, the places where islam is dominant are mainly backwards societys which have various foriegn powers eyeing them threateningly, look at places where christianity was predominant when our countrys where at the level most muslims countrys are now

Anyone who somehow thinks christianity is somehow better than islam has just deluded themselves into thinking they are somehow better, if islam was predominant in the west and christianity in the middle east (basically the opposite of now) it would be a bunch of smug muslims here telling us how christianity is so backwards and thats why we can't have a christian president...

No, not QED. Nazism vehemently rejected Christianity because of its Jewish origin.

Incorrect, the nazis very much used christianity to thier advantadge, as with most bad world leaders they realised they could use it as a form of control and a call to arms.... infact extremely similar to what some modern muslims do today...

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhit...iChristian.htm

ill try and find a better one...

The opposition of many adherents of traditional religions to Nazism is only one side of the issue. Within the Lutheran Churches in Germany, the most prominent members of the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church), Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, opposed Nazism. They were, however, (as of 1932) in the minority in the Evangelical Church in Germany, compared to the Deutsche Christen (German Christians), who supported National Socialism and cooperated with the Nazis. However, even the "Confessing Church made frequent declarations of loyalty to Hitler".[7]


from wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

Both men had ceased to attend Catholic services or to take Confessions long before 1933, but had neither left the church nor refused to pay their church taxes.[9] They could thus be classified as nominally Catholic.[9]
Methodist Bishop F. H. Otto Melle took a far more collaborationist position that included apparently sincere support for Nazism. He felt that serving the Reich was both a patriotic duty and a means of advancement. To show his gratitude, Hitler made a gift of 10,000 marks in 1939 to a Methodist congregation to purchase an organ
The leader of pro-Nazi segment of Baptists was Paul Schmidt. Hitler also led to the unification of Pro-Nazi Protestants in the Protestant Reich Church which was led by Ludwig Müller. The idea of such a "national church" was possible in the history of mainstream German Protestantism, but National Churches devoted primarily to the state were generally forbidden among the Anabaptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and in Catholicism.

In the right situation christianity is every bit the backward religion that islam is, people try and deny the links between the nazi's nd christianity and these same people will then link islam and terrorism and tell us how backwars islam is, im sick of this hypocritical attitude, christianity and christians are every bit as easy to subvert as islam and muslims given the right circumstances.

in a bit of a rush ill post up some more later

It is well known that the church mainly went along with hitler, they where at one point perhaps the last thing that could have stopped him, but religion as usual showed its true colours in extreme circumstances and went along with the nazis.

Religion is only as good as its followers.

And they're followers are only as good as the wealth and education levels of thier populace, also a religion is less likely to experience a religious enlightment with an outside presence to point at as a threat instead

[Fragony]

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.

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

Ergo, there is nothing wrong with muslim's from developed countries being presidents.