|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can a Muslim become the President of the United States?
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Pomona, I wasn't thinking of Biden in particular, but of Kerry. This was a well-known issue during his Presidential campaign.
There have been plenty of other cases. This Wikipedia article goes into detail.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Pomona, I wasn't thinking of Biden in particular, but of Kerry. This was a well-known issue during his Presidential campaign.
There have been plenty of other cases. This Wikipedia article goes into detail.
Those who watched the Supreme Pontiff's address to the US Congress will have noted that he sought out Mr Kerry for a handshake. Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was much exercised by Mr Kerry's position, is now responsible for the Order of Malta, other Vatican responsibilities perhaps being deemed too onerous for him.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
See, though, that makes no sense. You make it sound like American Muslims' political beliefs and goals are more like those of Muslims in other countries than their fellow Americans in their own country. And if not, they have to prove it.
Correct. If a muslim gets my vote it will be because he or she is the most classically liberal/libertarian type candidate running. If the candidate can't prove it, I won't vote for them.
quote:
But why would anyone assume that an American Muslim would have the same political beliefs and goals as e.g. an Indonesian or a Nigerian Muslim? That's just dumb, unless the implication is that they are Muslim first and American second, AND that they will govern as Muslims first, not as Americans. Not only is that racist,
It's more of a legitimate question than an assumption. To say Islam is a race is just dumb.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To say Islam is a race is just dumb.
As is ignoring that the basic statement in SM's post is about prejudice.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To say Islam is a race is just dumb.
As is ignoring that the basic statement in SM's post is about prejudice.
No, I addressed it. I won't vote for a muslim unless they meet my criteria.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I won't vote for a muslim unless they meet my criteria.
But that is prejudice. Anyone you vote for should met your criteria. And Christian leaders have a far worse track record, do you vet them as thoroughly?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I won't vote for a muslim unless they meet my criteria.
But that is prejudice. Anyone you vote for should met your criteria.
Right. I don't believe it is likely that a muslim can. A muslim candidate is welcome to prove it, though.
quote:
And Christian leaders have a far worse track record, do you vet them as thoroughly?
If they have a worse track record then I guess I'm surprised that there aren't millions of refugees currently beating a path to the nearest muslim led country.
Do I vet other candidates? Of course.
[code]
[ 29. September 2015, 04:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right. I don't believe it is likely that a muslim can. A muslim candidate is welcome to prove it, though.
This is prejudice, plain and simple.
quote:
quote:
And Christian leaders have a far worse track record, do you vet them as thoroughly?
If they have a worse track record then I guess I'm surprised that there aren't millions of refugees currently beating a path to the nearest muslim led country.
People are beating paths to democratic countries.
[code misattribution fixed]
[ 29. September 2015, 04:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right. I don't believe it is likely that a muslim can. A muslim candidate is welcome to prove it, though.
This is prejudice, plain and simple.
There are certain historical individuals who were so vile in their actions that voting for one of their followers will be a problem for me. Muhammed is one of those characters. You might have a point if I'd never examined him.
Besides all of that, a candidate has to sell me on voting for him. I don't have to sell him on why I'm voting for someone else.
[further code madness fixed]
[ 29. September 2015, 04:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There are certain historical individuals who were so vile in their actions that voting for one of their followers will be a problem for me. Muhammed is one of those characters.
Almost as bad as that God, fellow.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I guess I'm surprised that there aren't millions of refugees currently beating a path to the nearest muslim led country.
I'm taking your quote out of context, which is unfair to you. I just wanted to point out that "millions of refugees" have been "beating a path to the nearest muslim led country":
"More than 4 million refugees from Syria (95%) are in just five countries Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt:
•Lebanon hosts approximately 1.2 million refugees from Syria which amounts to around one in five people in the country
•Jordan hosts about 650,000 refugees from Syria, which amounts to about 10% of the population
•Turkey hosts 1.9 million refugees from Syria, more than any other country worldwide
•Iraq where 3 million people have been internally displaced in the last 18 months hosts 249,463 refugees from Syria
•Egypt hosts 132,375 refugees from Syria"
Source: Amnesty International
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's just dumb, unless the implication is that they are Muslim first and American second, AND that they will govern as Muslims first, not as Americans. Not only is that racist, it's about as accurate as assuming that everyone from Minnesota wants the USA to have a Scandinavian social democratic government. (Well, maybe Al Franken.)
Say what now? How did we get from religion to race to country of origin?
I think it's perfectly possible that someone might be Muslim first and American second just as they might be Mormon first and American second or Christian first and American second. I don't call myself racist for that. I call that a belief that many people, myself included put their religion far above their nationality.
I am a Christian first and if, as President, I was asked to sign a bill that I thought might cause me to burn in Hell later on, I wouldn't do it. So it's easy for me to imagine someone else doing the same thing. I think we have had presidents in the past who put what they thought God wanted ahead of what they thought the majority of Americans wanted. I think Lincoln was one.
That's not the only reason I wouldn't vote for someone based on religion. There are hundreds of things to look at when choosing a president and I think an important one is general intelligence. I wouldn't want a dumb president so I probably wouldn't vote for one who believed in and practiced Voo-doo. If that makes me a bigot so be it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Of course, everyone is free not to vote for a candidate who is Muslim. That's your democratic system.
(I'm glad we don't have this problem; we vote for parties, not for candidates ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[QUOTE]I am a Christian first and if, as President, I was asked to sign a bill that I thought might cause me to burn in Hell later on, I wouldn't do it. So it's easy for me to imagine someone else doing the same thing.
That's precisely what happened to King Baudouin of the Belgians. A devout Catholic, he felt unable to sign into law legislation passed by Parliament that legalised many abortions. As a constitutional monarch, he was bound to follow the advice of the Prime Minister of the day to append his signature as the final stage of the legislative process. A manoeuvre was devised whereby he was declared incapable for a day, the legislation was signed, and the legislation came into effect. I am not sure how that could work in the US.
Another answer would have been that while his signature permitted abortions, it left the decision to others,. Thus HM was not himself sinning. Just the same as SSM really - it permits a civil action to be taken by all.
[ 29. September 2015, 12:19: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I in fact do not want a President, or any public employee, to be a [religion here] first and a public servant second. I want him to do his job, which I am paying him to do. He knew what the work entailed from the outset, and if he didn't feel he was up to it he should not have run for office. (This lets out the King of Belgium, who I assume inherited his role. Neatly done, Belgians, I like your style.)
Otherwise all life is riddled with exceptions, and nothing gets done. Mormons will no longer pour me a coffee in restaurants; Jews will no longer sell me a lobster; Mrs. Davis feels called upon to vet my qualifications for marriage. It's all in or all out, and I say all out.
But I was never going to vote for Rick Santorum anyway.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I guess I'm surprised that there aren't millions of refugees currently beating a path to the nearest muslim led country.
I'm taking your quote out of context, which is unfair to you. I just wanted to point out that "millions of refugees" have been "beating a path to the nearest muslim led country":
"More than 4 million refugees from Syria (95%) are in just five countries Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt:
•Lebanon hosts approximately 1.2 million refugees from Syria which amounts to around one in five people in the country
•Jordan hosts about 650,000 refugees from Syria, which amounts to about 10% of the population
•Turkey hosts 1.9 million refugees from Syria, more than any other country worldwide
•Iraq where 3 million people have been internally displaced in the last 18 months hosts 249,463 refugees from Syria
•Egypt hosts 132,375 refugees from Syria"
Source: Amnesty International
From non-muslim countries to muslim led countries is what I'm talking about. Sorry I didn't make it clear.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right. I don't believe it is likely that a muslim can. A muslim candidate is welcome to prove it, though.
There's an interesting double standard at work here. A Muslim candidate has to definitively prove he's not a traitor (e.g. Glenn Beck's interview with then newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison) in a way that would be considered outrageous if demanded of a Christian candidate. For example, most people would consider it an unwarranted example of prejudice to ask Mike Huckabee if he's a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan because he's a Southern Baptist. But Mike Huckabee is a (white) Christian, so his loyalty is just assumed in a way not applied to the loyalty of the (non-white) Keith Ellison, so Ellison has to field questions from reporters about whether he secretly supports ISIS.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
From non-muslim countries to muslim led countries is what I'm talking about. Sorry I didn't make it clear.
You did make it clear. Now you're just moving goalposts. I imagine if anyone mentions the Rohingya trying to get from (non-Muslim) Myanmar to (Muslim) Indonesia you'll move those goalposts again.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[QUOTE]I am a Christian first and if, as President, I was asked to sign a bill that I thought might cause me to burn in Hell later on, I wouldn't do it. So it's easy for me to imagine someone else doing the same thing.
That's precisely what happened to King Baudouin of the Belgians. A devout Catholic, he felt unable to sign into law legislation passed by Parliament that legalised many abortions. As a constitutional monarch, he was bound to follow the advice of the Prime Minister of the day to append his signature as the final stage of the legislative process. A manoeuvre was devised whereby he was declared incapable for a day, the legislation was signed, and the legislation came into effect. I am not sure how that could work in the US.
Another answer would have been that while his signature permitted abortions, it left the decision to others,. Thus HM was not himself sinning. Just the same as SSM really - it permits a civil action to be taken by all.
There was a similar situation with the Grand Duke of Luxembourg-- why they didn't just abdicate and play krokinole is beyond me.
In any case I have always felt that the strength of the US constitution has always been in what it said; and if says that there are no religious tests for office, then that's what they should do. Almost any of the objections used had already spent years of yeoman service in the form of objections to Roman Catholics.
Up in the frozen northern wastes, our most US-culture city, Calgary, has a Muslim mayor who most recently won re-election with 74% of the votes. We are looking at ways of cloning him for our other cities.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[QB] Mere Nick - Fair enough. You're right, you did say that you wanted an example of a mainly Muslim country which you would find appealing. How would you define a 'country you would find appealing'?
I could ramble on for hours in giving a complete answer. To hit the high points, I suppose, it would include the following:
- you get to live your life and make the choices you want as long as you don't mess with other people or their stuff, with you bearing the responsibility of your choices.
- you can be honest about your beliefs and can try to persuade others to them as long as you don't mess with them or their stuff. You can always be honest.
- friendly people.
- good sport, good food, good beer, good coffee.
I'd suppose it would have to have all of those, for starters.
Turkey - I mean, the east's a bit dodgy just at present, but the Islamist ruling party has just had a bit of a slapping in the elections (which will hopefully have clipped their wings a bit) but other than that it fits every single criteria you've put down, including the beer.
It's an awesome country with mostly lovely people. As a Turkish friend said to me once "we're basically CofE Muslims, most of us."
I would agree were it not for the ban on all religious dress in public - doesn't fit in with being able to be honest about one's beliefs.
I lived in turkey for six years, and I can tell you that there was never a ban on wearing cassocks, beards, hijabs, habits or headscarves in public. It was banned in government buildings and universities when I first got there (to keep religion out of government and acedemia); but is now not banned anywhere, it seems.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Four Presidents did not claim any formal religion
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
Rutherford Hayes
Interesting that three of the four were involved in the civil war era.
A couple of Presidents were Unitarian
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was a vestryman in the Episcopal church, but the Unitarians claim him aw one of their own.
John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft were also Unitarian.
At the time, though, Unitarians generally thought of themselves as (and were generally considered by others to be) Protestant Christians.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's just dumb, unless the implication is that they are Muslim first and American second, AND that they will govern as Muslims first, not as Americans. Not only is that racist, it's about as accurate as assuming that everyone from Minnesota wants the USA to have a Scandinavian social democratic government. (Well, maybe Al Franken.)
Say what now? How did we get from religion to race to country of origin?
I think it's perfectly possible that someone might be Muslim first and American second just as they might be Mormon first and American second or Christian first and American second. I don't call myself racist for that. I call that a belief that many people, myself included put their religion far above their nationality.
I am a Christian first and if, as President, I was asked to sign a bill that I thought might cause me to burn in Hell later on, I wouldn't do it. So it's easy for me to imagine someone else doing the same thing. I think we have had presidents in the past who put what they thought God wanted ahead of what they thought the majority of Americans wanted. I think Lincoln was one.
That's not the only reason I wouldn't vote for someone based on religion. There are hundreds of things to look at when choosing a president and I think an important one is general intelligence. I wouldn't want a dumb president so I probably wouldn't vote for one who believed in and practiced Voo-doo. If that makes me a bigot so be it.
Wow. Calling all adherents of an ancient religious practice 'dumb' just because you don't believe in it? Surely that is monumentally stupid and bigoted? What about people who think you're 'dumb' because you're a Christian?
Whatever happened to voting for a President based on their policies?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's an interesting double standard at work here. A Muslim candidate has to definitively prove he's not a traitor (e.g. Glenn Beck's interview with then newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison) in a way that would be considered outrageous if demanded of a Christian candidate. For example, most people would consider it an unwarranted example of prejudice to ask Mike Huckabee if he's a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan because he's a Southern Baptist. But Mike Huckabee is a (white) Christian, so his loyalty is just assumed in a way not applied to the loyalty of the (non-white) Keith Ellison, so Ellison has to field questions from reporters about whether he secretly supports ISIS.
...
Each elector, in the booth with his or her pencil in their hand, wondering where to put their X, is entitled to take anything into account that they please.
It is entirely wrong to say that journalists or whoever may not ask some questions because they are too embarrassing, discriminatory or whatever. If some electors might be asking those questions in their heads in the polling both, then it's fair that the questions are put to the candidates.
If some electors may be thinking candidate X secretly supports Isis, candidate Y is a secret member of the KKK, or candidate Z was born in Canada, however improbable both may be, those questions are not off limits.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I'm sure there are many people, I've already heard from lots of them on the internet, who think I'm dumb for being a Christian. That's their prerogative just as it would be mine to find the idea of an American President burning his enemies in doll form to be rather dumb. Lots of ancient things would seem dumb today. Applying leeches for disease, for example. Science has proven both leeches and Voo-doo doll burning to be mostly ineffective. To continue to believe in and practice these things seems dumb to me. Fortunately we don't have thought police yet, so I'm free to think that.
Of course we should pay attention to policies but I think we should consider other available information as well. Does he spend every moment of leisure time gambling? Does he get drunk at the end of every day? These things might prove problematic some time during his term of office.
If we follow Brenda's method of making sure the president puts country before his religion then we're going to only have presidents who are only giving hypocritical lip service to their religion or who are sincere but lukewarm over it. That's like saying anyone from any religion can be president, so long as he doesn't take said religion very seriously.
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is entirely wrong to say that journalists or whoever may not ask some questions because they are too embarrassing, discriminatory or whatever.
No, it's a form of journalistic ethics. Asking questions about baseless and insane conspiracy theories is an abdication of a journalist's role, both because just asking the questions lends legitimacy to the idea that the moon landing was faked (or whatever) and because it takes time away from asking actual relevant questions.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If some electors may be thinking candidate X secretly supports Isis, candidate Y is a secret member of the KKK, or candidate Z was born in Canada, however improbable both may be, those questions are not off limits.
I'd argue that the repetitious and bad-faith way in which certain questions are asked is why one in five Americans believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya (to pick a rather obvious example); because the question keeps getting asked so there must be something to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.
Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? And what are they assimilating to, given that American culture is largely patched together out of ideas and customs imported from elsewhere? It seems bit odd that the real sticking point is that Muslims worship some strange, Middle Eastern religion when they should (apparently) be worshiping that other Middle Eastern religion.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm sure there are many people, I've already heard from lots of them on the internet, who think I'm dumb for being a Christian. That's their prerogative just as it would be mine to find the idea of an American President burning his enemies in doll form to be rather dumb. Lots of ancient things would seem dumb today. Applying leeches for disease, for example. Science has proven both leeches and Voo-doo doll burning to be mostly ineffective. To continue to believe in and practice these things seems dumb to me. Fortunately we don't have thought police yet, so I'm free to think that.
Of course we should pay attention to policies but I think we should consider other available information as well. Does he spend every moment of leisure time gambling? Does he get drunk at the end of every day? These things might prove problematic some time during his term of office.
If we follow Brenda's method of making sure the president puts country before his religion then we're going to only have presidents who are only giving hypocritical lip service to their religion or who are sincere but lukewarm over it. That's like saying anyone from any religion can be president, so long as he doesn't take said religion very seriously.
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.
Umm.....that's not how Vodou works. Please read up on actual Vodou and not superstition - in many ways Haitian Vodou (assuming you mean that and not Hoodoo which is an entirely separate thing, as is New Orleans Voodoo) is very Catholic. Vodou does not use 'voodoo dolls'. If you want to discriminate against people because of their religion, something Americans are supposed to stand against, at least be informed about that religion first. Also leeches are actually medically useful and are now used in some modern treatments.
Also assuming that devotion to faith in non-Christians would lead to problems for Christians says far more about American Islamophobia and how Christians have caused problems for non-Christians than it does about Muslims. I think it is very insulting to Presidents like Jimmy Carter, who is neither lukewarm in his faith nor a theocrat. Being moderate in one's faith does not equal being lukewarm. Your average devoted Episcopalian or Methodist is not going to have a problem with being President.
This level of ignorance is frightening.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? ...
You mean like Washington, place in County Durham, England, Lincoln, also place in England, Roosevelt, sounds Dutch, Eisenhower, sounds vaguely German, Kennedy, clearly Irish.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? And what are they assimilating to, given that American culture is largely patched together out of ideas and customs imported from elsewhere? ...
You mean like Washington, place in County Durham, England, Lincoln, also place in England, Roosevelt, sounds Dutch, Eisenhower, sounds vaguely German, Kennedy, clearly Irish.
Exactly so. There are all kinds of hidden threats to those trying to maintain their 100% American identity.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.
Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? And what are they assimilating to, given that American culture is largely patched together out of ideas and customs imported from elsewhere? It seems bit odd that the real sticking point is that Muslims worship some strange, Middle Eastern religion when they should (apparently) be worshiping that other Middle Eastern religion.
I did not say that I thought the devout Muslim was a traitor-in-waiting or disloyal to America in any way. I did not suggest that anyone be put in a camp (are you kidding me?) and I did not talk about assimilation through religion as a good thing, In fact I said I admired the people who come to this country and don't assimilate just to fit in or to better their success in business the way so many Americans have done in the past.
Every word you just wrote, making assumptions about my feelings about Muslims and my reasons for not voting for a Muslim, is entirely false and entirely indicative of your prejudice against anyone who doesn't think exactly like you. You think I'm a bigot? Your false assumptions and eagerness to hate anyone who doesn't want to vote exactly like you, to call them ugly and attribute horrible motives to them, is far more bigoted and narrow minded than anything I've said here.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Up in the frozen northern wastes, our most US-culture city, Calgary, has a Muslim mayor who most recently won re-election with 74% of the votes. We are looking at ways of cloning him for our other cities.
That kind of track record is all that I, and probably Mere Nick, are asking for. I have to apologize for imagining that the question would be whether to put a Muslim in the Oval Office bolt-out-of-the-blue. That's not usually the way it works with anyone-- although these days it seems that anything could happen. At least three current candidates have never held a significant political office, yet some consider them qualified. Normally, statesmen have come up through the ranks. Voting for a Muslim as mayor wouldn't bother me, and then for higher office if he or she deserves it.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think it is very insulting to Presidents like Jimmy Carter, who is neither lukewarm in his faith nor a theocrat. Being moderate in one's faith does not equal being lukewarm. Your average devoted Episcopalian or Methodist is not going to have a problem with being President.
This level of ignorance is frightening.
I can't imagine why you think I insulted Jimmy Carter. If I had to name an example of someone whose religion didn't seem to influence his presidency and was "lukewarm," I would say Nixon.
I don't agree with you that Jimmy Carter put his country ahead of his God. Carter is my favorite president partly because I think he managed to be a good president without compromising his religion. I wouldn't call him either lukewarm or moderate. I think he is very devout.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Calm down folks; it's been getting a mite personal hereabouts with some edging over Commandment 3 guidelines. Stick to critiquing posts, please.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Mere Nick asked for a Muslim country whose constitution was not incompatible with the US constituion.
I asked for a muslim led country that was found appealing. That is, a muslim led country that one would like to live in.
Why on earth is the religious belief of one person going to be the determiner of whether I think a country is a nice place to be?
Because the question of Can a Muslim become the President of the United States has been asked. I'm asking what I did because unless potential muslim candidates are able to point to countries with similar leadership that Americans find appealing then I doubt it will happen.
This continues to not make sense, and I think the reason that it doesn't make sense is that you're blurring "show me a country" with "show me a leader".
In fact, the two separate bits from you that I've quoted say different things. One says "show me a country" and the other says something about a country's leadership.
And I'm basically saying that the two are not equivalent. As mentioned, India has had a Sikh leader, but India was still a Hindu country. Looking at Muslim countries as the source of models for Muslim leaders is just inaccurate (as demonstrated by the example since given of a Muslim mayor of Calgary).
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That kind of track record is all that I, and probably Mere Nick, are asking for.
Yes, that and being a better advocate of classical liberalism, libertarian type of government than the opponents.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That kind of track record is all that I, and probably Mere Nick, are asking for.
Yes, that and being a better advocate of classical liberalism, libertarian type of government than the opponents.
I fear that Mayor Nenshi of Calgary may be a tad bolshie for your tastes, although he has long been admirable as a promoter of citizen involvement in public life. He still lives in his parents' basement.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That kind of track record is all that I, and probably Mere Nick, are asking for.
Yes, that and being a better advocate of classical liberalism, libertarian type of government than the opponents.
I fear that Mayor Nenshi of Calgary may be a tad bolshie for your tastes, although he has long been admirable as a promoter of citizen involvement in public life. He still lives in his parents' basement.
I looked him up on wikipedia and one thing I noticed that sounded good was "For his campaign platform, Nenshi proposed to abolish the $4,800 granted to home builders, aiming to save the city $33 million per annum. According to Nenshi, the subsidy over a decade contributed to the municipal debt of $1.5 billion. Nenshi wants the free market factors to take hold of the housing market and developers to contribute to funding infrastructure to far reaching suburbs by paying levies." I don't see a reason for homebuilders to get public dough.
He is for the pipeline, too, it appears. So, I don't really see anything so far that would cause me to think he's some kind of red commie scum or a practitioner or supporter of islamic supremacism.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? ...
You mean like Washington, place in County Durham, England, Lincoln, also place in England, Roosevelt, sounds Dutch, Eisenhower, sounds vaguely German, Kennedy, clearly Irish.
Roosevelt IS Dutch. So is Van Buren. Eisenhower IS German (although americanized from "Eisenhauer", so there's that). And let's not forget Buchanan, clearly Scot.
At least the British royal family was patriotic enough to change its surname to "Windsor" (after another English place), having intentionally abandoned the German "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". (But why do Will and Harry call themselves "Wales" rather than "Windsor"?)
[ 30. September 2015, 12:50: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, could call himself Wales.
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, couldn't.
In the cricket team sense: When aristos play cricket they are named for their title without the rank.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, could call himself Wales.
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, couldn't.
In the cricket team sense: When aristos play cricket they are named for their title without the rank.
Enlighten a benighted Yank. Is there more than one prince of Wales? I thought only Charles held that title.
If indeed Charles's children can also hold the title, wouldn't firstborn William be both a prince of Wales AND the Duke of Cambridge?
In any event, both Harry and William did use Wales as their surname when they served in the Army. Why not Windsor?
[ 30. September 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
... But why do Will and Harry call themselves "Wales" rather than "Windsor"?
I suppose it's because their father is the Prince of Wales (the title Prince William will assume when his father becomes king). AIUI their full titles are Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales.
Sorry - cross-posted with Fausto. There's only one Prince of Wales (at the moment it's Prince Charles. When he becomes king, Prince William will become Prince of Wales.
[ 30. September 2015, 13:42: Message edited by: Piglet ]
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I did not say that I thought the devout Muslim was a traitor-in-waiting or disloyal to America in any way.
Really? Because claiming that Muslims will "work against the Christians* in this country" if they ever gain any kind of political power sounds kind of like an accusation of disloyalty. It would definitely be a betrayal of the current American Constitution's standards of equality before and impartiality of the government. Could you expand on how a President (or other public official) can "work against" the majority of citizens based on religious partiality and have it not constitute a betrayal of their office?
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
In fact I said I admired the people who come to this country and don't assimilate just to fit in or to better their success in business the way so many Americans have done in the past.
"Admiration" that takes the form of "wow, you're so devoted to your faith I bet you'd work against the Christians in this country if anyone ever trusted you with a position of authority" is, at best, a backhanded complement. It's also not one that's typically applied to non-Muslims. For example, I've never heard anyone (outside various hate groups) suggesting that Bernie Sanders is unqualified to be President because he's Jewish, or that he'd "work against the Christians in this country" if elected, as demonstrated by his refusal to assimilate to the majority religion.
One of the more interesting assumptions being made here (and not just by Twilight) is that religious devotion can be measured by oppression inflicted. So Tomás de Torquemada (to use a Catholic example likely familiar to everyone here) is obviously an exemplar of Catholic ideals and teachings while someone like Giovanni di Bernardone (ibid.**) is some "revisionst-cafeteria" squish who doesn't really understand Catholicism. And yet for some reason the Catholic Church got it backwards and sainted the wrong guy!
--------------------
*Presumably this would apply to all non-Muslims, not just Christians, but for some reason anyone falling outside the Muslim/Christian paradigm doesn't seem to merit a mention in your analysis.
**Abbreviation for the Latin ibidem meaning "in the same place", here referring back to the previous parenthetical note. Translation provided in accordance with the rules.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Twilight
It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the effect of this latest post by Croesos. If you wish to continue along the lines of your earlier riposte viz.
quote:
You think I'm a bigot? Your false assumptions and eagerness to hate anyone who doesn't want to vote exactly like you, to call them ugly and attribute horrible motives to them, is far more bigoted and narrow minded than anything I've said here.
then take it to Hell.
As a matter of Hosting, IMO Croesos' latest post does not infringe normal Purgatorial guidelines, though I could well understand why you might be pissed off with it. If so, you know what to do.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Enlighten a benighted Yank. Is there more than one prince of Wales? I thought only Charles held that title.
There is indeed only one Prince of Wales, and his name is Charles. His children were Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales. Now that William is Duke of Cambridge in his own right, he doesn't use his father's territorial designation.
Similarly, the children of the Duke of York are Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, and the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are Prince George of Cambridge and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.
It would be quite wrong to refer to the "Princess of York" or "Prince or Princess of Cambridge".
Another example is Princess Michael of Kent. Her name isn't Michael, it's Marie Christine, but her title is Princess Michael (because it derives from her husband: Princess Marie Christine would be someone who was royal by birth). And Prince Michael is "..of Kent" because his late father was the Duke of Kent. (The current Duke of Kent, Prince Edward, is Prince Michael's brother.)
ETA: Note that Prince Charles is not "Prince Charles of Wales". If you want to include his name (because you need to distinguish between the current Prince of Wales and previous holders of that title), you can refer to "Charles, Prince of Wales".
[ 30. September 2015, 22:36: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
About as sensible as the stuff which led to my mother having post addressed to Mrs Edward ******** when her name was Margaret.
And whoever awarded secular human beings divine titles like Majesty and Grace (that's Dukes, not bishops)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Enlighten a benighted Yank. Is there more than one prince of Wales? I thought only Charles held that title.
There is indeed only one Prince of Wales, and his name is Charles. His children were Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales. Now that William is Duke of Cambridge in his own right, he doesn't use his father's territorial designation.
Similarly, the children of the Duke of York are Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, and the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are Prince George of Cambridge and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.
It would be quite wrong to refer to the "Princess of York" or "Prince or Princess of Cambridge".
Another example is Princess Michael of Kent. Her name isn't Michael, it's Marie Christine, but her title is Princess Michael (because it derives from her husband: Princess Marie Christine would be someone who was royal by birth). And Prince Michael is "..of Kent" because his late father was the Duke of Kent. (The current Duke of Kent, Prince Edward, is Prince Michael's brother.)
ETA: Note that Prince Charles is not "Prince Charles of Wales". If you want to include his name (because you need to distinguish between the current Prince of Wales and previous holders of that title), you can refer to "Charles, Prince of Wales".
Thanks, although if you were to quiz me with hypothetical examples I'm still not sure I would pass the test.
In any event, why did the boys use the surname "Wales" in the Army? Isn't Windsor their actual surname? Or if they do alternatively also call themselves "Wales", wouldn't the correct usage be "of Wales" -- similar to, say, the German "von Hohenzollern"? Prince Michael is "Michael of Kent", not "Michael Kent", yet their Army names were "William Wales" and "Henry Wales".
[ 01. October 2015, 16:07: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
In any event, why did the boys use the surname "Wales" in the Army? Isn't Windsor their actual surname?
No - they don't actually have a surname. Various of the royals have used Windsor, or Mountbatten-Windsor, as a surname from time to time, but royal Princes and Princesses don't technically have surnames.
quote:
Prince Michael is "Michael of Kent", not "Michael Kent", yet their Army names were "William Wales" and "Henry Wales".
Not quite. Prince Michael is "Prince Michael of Kent" - he is not a person called "Michael of Kent" who happens to be a prince. If he were to use a surname for anything, he might well call himself "Michael Kent".
Note that peers also often refer to themselves by their titles rather than their surnames. Imagine a man called "George Smith" who was Duke of Someshire. His name is "George Smith" but he would often use the name "George Someshire" (or just "Someshire").
[ 01. October 2015, 20:00: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
Thank you. It's much clearer now. I think.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
Someone has been reading the Boy Scout's diary, or was it Debrett's?
A Godly ruler (don't ask me to define it) will govern a nation for the benefit of all its citizens.
Examples from English History Liz I and Charlie II.
American, Kennedy - RC
NZ. Julius Vogel, Premier (Head of Government). Jewish by faith and race.
These people can be contrasted with Queen Mary and Oliver Cromwell who tried to impose their religious beliefs on the nation.
What little I know of Islamic history suggests that Islam has produced such Godly rulers.
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
Someone has been reading the Boy Scout's diary, or was it h?
A Godly ruler (don't ask me to define it) will govern a nation for the benefit of all its citizens.
Examples from English History Liz I and Charlie II.
American, Kennedy - RC
NZ. Julius Vogel, Premier (Head of Government). Jewish by faith and race.
These people can be contrasted with Queen Mary and Oliver Cromwell who tried to impose their religious beliefs on the nation.
What little I know of Islamic history suggests that Islam has produced such Godly rulers.
Don't agree about Charles II. He wasn't too bad a King, but he was a cynic, and his main motivation was his desire 'not to go on his travels again'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Martin Luther once remarked that he thought the perfect prince (ruler) would be an atheist prince because the atheist would not be burdened with ethical problems a Christian prince would have.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Martin Luther once remarked that he thought the perfect prince (ruler) would be an atheist prince because the atheist would not be burdened with ethical problems a Christian prince would have.
No, he didn't. He didn't say anything like that. If you are referring to this supposed quote, much loved of many Lutherans:
quote:
I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian
then you should know there is no evidence that Luther said or wrote this. Source here.
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
