|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can a Muslim become the President of the United States?
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson, was asked this on one of the United States Sunday Morning Shows.
Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.
When pressed further if he would vote for a Muslim he said he would not.
In my view a person's formal religious beliefs have no bearing on whether he or she can be the head of state. (Correct me if I am wrong, doesn't the PM have to be a member of the CofE?) Rather, it matters more to me that I can trust the person's integrity. To be sure a person's integrity includes his or her ability to live out her faith, but that deals more with the individual, not the belief. An example: Nixon was a Quaker in upbringing, but he sure did not act like a Quaker in his governance.
Personally I can see a socialist Jew becoming the next president of the US, even an atheist--though none are apparently running.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I can't see how the British PM would need to be a member of the CofE. Regarding the President of the United States, whether it would be unconstitutional, I don't know. However, I don't think in the current climate the electorate would vote for a Muslim, or that they would even make it to be the final candidate. The accusations regarding Obama wouldn't be made if they weren't potentially damaging. I seem to remember there being a lot of discussion as to whether Mitt Romney - a Mormon - was a Christian. I'm not even sure a self proclaimed atheist would make it as President.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson, was asked this on one of the United States Sunday Morning Shows.
Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.
I've yet to see much of anything to say he is wrong on this. The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
quote:
When pressed further if he would vote for a Muslim he said he would not.
Ok.
quote:
In my view a person's formal religious beliefs have no bearing on whether he or she can be the head of state. (Correct me if I am wrong, doesn't the PM have to be a member of the CofE?) Rather, it matters more to me that I can trust the person's integrity. To be sure a person's integrity includes his or her ability to live out her faith, but that deals more with the individual, not the belief. An example: Nixon was a Quaker in upbringing, but he sure did not act like a Quaker in his governance.
You know all that is required is 270 electoral votes. Anyone can go get them regardless of religion, sobriety, hygiene, whatever.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
During the Presidential campaign between Obama and McCain, General Colin Powell was asked if Obama was a Muslim. I think his response was a great one
https://youtu.be/ovW8rBPg_FU
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mere Nick: The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
The US constitution has no problem with me walking around holding a ball. Does basketball?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Now I have an image of a team of blokes with long beards on a basketball court called the 'Muslim Globetrotters'.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
I can't see how the British PM would need to be a member of the CofE. ...
There is no requirement for the PM to be CofE. If Jim Callaghan was anything, he was a Baptist. Harold Wilson was Congregationalist as was Asquith. Margaret Thatcher was always assumed to be a Methodist, though there seems to be a suggestion in some places that in later years she conformed to the CofE. Gordon Brown, Campbell-Bannerman and Balfour were CofS, though I think Sir Alec Douglas-Home was a Piskie.
Obviously, I can't speak for the USA. But it would be odd in a country that is officially non-confessional for it to be constitutional impossible for adherents of some religions to become President.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Badger Lady
Shipmate
# 13453
|
Posted
Doesn't Article 6 of the consitution make if clear there is no religious requirement for office holders?
It is not that longer ago that it was said by some that Catholocism was incompatible with holding presidential office. The arguments (or those quoted on wikipedia) look eerily familar.
In the UK there is no requirement for the PM to be CofE. The PM is neither head of state nor head of the CofE.
[ 21. September 2015, 20:50: Message edited by: Badger Lady ]
Posts: 340 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Dr. Ben Carson, [..]
Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.
There were a number of questions at the time about JFK's catholicism. Here is his position. I see no reason why a potential Muslim candidate for president couldn't make the same speech.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Dr. Ben Carson, [..]
Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.
There were a number of questions at the time about JFK's catholicism. Here is his position. I see no reason why a potential Muslim candidate for president couldn't make the same speech.
Except for the experience of having a president who is a member of a perfectly normal, mainstream Christian denomination constantly distracted/ attacked based on just the unfounded rumor that he is Muslim. One can only imagine what would happen if it were actually true.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
During the Presidential campaign between Obama and McCain, General Colin Powell was asked if Obama was a Muslim. I think his response was a great one
https://youtu.be/ovW8rBPg_FU
Agreed. Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes indeed.
Gramps, have you not heard Alistair Campbell's famous remark as Blair's spin-doctor, 'We don't do God ...'?
I think you're confusing the role of Prime Minister with that of the Monarch. The British Monarch is required to be a member of the CofE, British Prime Ministers can be of any faith or denomination or none.
Generally speaking, the God-card is played a lot less in British politics.
Also, as Cliffdweller has said, Obama has had so much stick for being a purported Muslim that one wonders what chance a genuine Muslim would stand as President of the US - even assuming they got as far as the primaries ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One can only imagine what would happen if it were actually true.
I think you're right that a Muslim could not, in practice, get elected President next year, or in 2020, or any time soon. There are two Muslim congressmen, but it probably helps that they're called Keith and Andre, and not Mohammed and Hasan.
But we won't get a Muslim president any time soon because Muslims have cooties, not because being a Muslim is incompatible with being a US president.
[ 21. September 2015, 21:26: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson, was asked this on one of the United States Sunday Morning Shows.
Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.
That's true of most world religions, including Dr. Carson's own Christianity. Which isn't terribly surprising given that most world religions came into existence before such things as representative government, free speech, or religious toleration were widespread.
There are two questions at work here. The first is the legal/constitutional question. As Badger Lady notes the U.S. constitution forbids religious tests for holding office, so in that sense there's no reason why a Muslim couldn't be the President of the United States.
The other question is practical. Can a publicly self-identified Muslim get enough votes to be elected president? That seems unlikely in the current political mood.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A couple of Presidents were Unitarian
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was a vestryman in the Episcopal church, but the Unitarians claim him as one of their own.
Adams and Jefferson were Unitarians in the theological sense (rejecting the Trinity and asserting the Unity of God), not the denominational sense. As for Jefferson's position as vestryman in the Episcopal Church, it should be remembered that the Church of England was the official, established religion of the Virginia colony and some sort of position within it was necessary for a political career. The Anglican Church was disestablished in Virginia by the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored (not coincidentally) by Thomas Jefferson and pushed through the state legislature by Jefferson's protégé* James Madison in 1786. This statute served as a template for what would later be known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
It's been speculated that one of the reason America's Founding Fathers put the "No Religious Test" clause in the U.S. Constitution was that so many of them held religiously heterodox views (like Adams' and Jefferson's rejection of Trinitarianism) and wouldn't be able to honestly pass any religious test likely to be established.
--------------------
*A French term meaning "a person who is guided and supported by an older and more experienced or influential person". Just trying to follow the rules.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
As things stand, I doubt that the American people would vote in great numbers for a candidate whom they seriously thought was Muslim. But then, neither would the British people vote for a Muslim PM, IMO.
In theory it might be acceptable, but not in practice. Not yet. Give it time, though.
[ 21. September 2015, 21:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think you're right that a Muslim could not, in practice, get elected President next year, or in 2020, or any time soon. There are two Muslim congressmen, but it probably helps that they're called Keith and Andre, and not Mohammed and Hasan.
I rather strongly suspect that any Muslim presidential candidate's name would more of a factor than their religious affiliation. Not coincidentally, I also suspect that objections to Barack Obama's supposed affiliation with Islam are really secret objections to his name more than to Islam in general.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
alas, W Hyatt is right. There are far too many morons in the US.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Legally, yes, a Muslim could be our president. I don't know if there's anything in *Islamic* law that might present a barrier.
I think it will be a long, long time before a Muslim can a) run for president; b) get the money to do it; c) be safe while doing it; d) actually win; e) not have the whole process sliced and diced afterwards, to make sure they were *actually* elected; f) get the cooperation of Congress; and g) be safe while doing all that.
A lot of that's due to 9/11 and assorted wars. If the violent jihadists would quit and the Middle East in general would quiet down, there'd be a better chance. However, that has a snowball's chance in the Sahara.
I think it would also help for TV shows--both sitcoms and dramas--to have positive portrayals of Muslims who are just trying to get through life, like everyone else.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I rather strongly suspect that any Muslim presidential candidate's name would more of a factor than their religious affiliation. Not coincidentally, I also suspect that objections to Barack Obama's supposed affiliation with Islam are really secret objections to his name more than to Islam in general.
I think a big problem was/is that Obama registers as Different, complete with blinking neon warning lights. Name, skin color, mixed race, father, living overseas, living in Hawai'i (which seems foreign to many people), etc.
IMHO, people have what I call "difference alarms". Stronger in some people than others; and can be triggered by a particular thing, or anything that's different. Some people really need for everything to consistently be one way.
Some of the reaction to Obama was conscious prejudice, and some was egged on by people with a vested interest. But I think many people heard their difference alarms screaming, and freaked out.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
The US constitution has no problem with me walking around holding a ball. Does basketball?
If you are playing basketball, yes. So?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
[QB] Doesn't Article 6 of the consitution make if clear there is no religious requirement for office holders?
The government can't keep you out because of religion but the voters can.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Except for the experience of having a president who is a member of a perfectly normal, mainstream Christian denomination constantly distracted/ attacked based on just the unfounded rumor that he is Muslim. One can only imagine what would happen if it were actually true.
The Clinton campaign began that during the 2008 primaries, it appears.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Thank you for the information about the PM. I know full well the PM is not the Head of State or the Head of the Church of England.
I agree, there are many Christian teachings that make it difficult for one to be a president too.
I don't think it was because Adams or Jefferson were Unitarian that caused them to include Article 6 in the constitution. I think the writers of the constitution wanted to make it clear that the United States government was ordained by We the People not by a diety.
[ 22. September 2015, 01:11: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I agree, there are many Christian teachings that make it difficult for one to be a president too.
Yes, that appears to be the case.
--------------------
"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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Some of the reaction to Obama was conscious prejudice, and some was egged on by people with a vested interest. But I think many people heard their difference alarms screaming, and freaked out.
Yes, I think that's a useful insight into what happened - thanks.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
You can add Howard Taft to your list of Unitarians.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've yet to see much of anything to say he is wrong on this. The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Please. There are many variations of Muslim belief, just as there are Christian. Carson is ignorant, intentionally pandering to his constituency or both.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?
Yeah, have heard that quote all my life. Seems a lot of people have either not heard it or just disagree.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
The US constitution has no problem with me walking around holding a ball. Does basketball?
If you are playing basketball, yes. So?
Having stricter rules than the constitution in certain situations doesn't mean contradicting the constitution.
[ 22. September 2015, 07:39: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?
Yeah, have heard that quote all my life. Seems a lot of people have either not heard it or just disagree.
That's what Dr. King (rightly) wanted. Doesn't mean it's here.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]I've yet to see much of anything to say he is wrong on this. The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
Please. There are many variations of Muslim belief, just as there are Christian. Carson is ignorant, intentionally pandering to his constituency or both.
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
The US constitution has no problem with me walking around holding a ball. Does basketball?
If you are playing basketball, yes. So?
Having stricter rules than the constitution in certain situations doesn't mean contradicting the constitution.
Well, yeah, you have a point. When I was studying the rules for umping fastpitch softball games we did not look at the constitution. Like the koran, though, those rules are and should remain completely irrelevant to the conduct of the federal government.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]I've yet to see much of anything to say he is wrong on this. The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
Please. There are many variations of Muslim belief, just as there are Christian. Carson is ignorant, intentionally pandering to his constituency or both.
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.
Not a country, but the Aga Khan seems like a leader any democratic country'd be lucky to have.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.
This seems to be trivially true of most countries, Muslim or otherwise. The current trend seems to be towards a Westminster-style parliamentary system rather than the separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances U.S. Constitutional system.
For example, the U.K. is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because it maintains an hereditary monarchy, has fairly strict gun control laws, restrictions on the press that would be unconstitutional in the U.S., major differences in the ideas of judicial review, and so on.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There's nothing sacrosanct about the US Constitution. Most of us who have Westminster ones, think our model works better.
There are though two different issues here. Constitutions are supposed to protect liberty, the rule of law and provide checks and balances. Each one does that in different ways. There are different ways of doing this that work, with strengths and weaknesses.
The US respects those values and has its style of Constitution. The UK, Canada and Australia respect those values but follow a different model. France, Germany and numerous other civilised states respect the same values but have different models yet again.
There are also, alas, many states in the world that have Constitutions that express these sort of truths in high flown words, but where there is little protection of any of those sort of rights.
Some of those constitutions were modelled on the US one. Some were modelled on Westminster. Some followed other models. In all cases, oppressive regimes or corrupt public players have managed to subvert the spirit of what the constitutions are supposed to enshrine.
There's then the second technical question, is such and such compatible with the letter of X-itania's constitution? Yes, does not automatically make such and such good. No, does not automatically make it bad.
What is more, there are things that are constitutionally OK in a civilised state like the US that are not in a civilised state like the UK and vice versa. That does not make the other state uncivilised.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.
What standard of compatibility are you using? Does the constitution have to be identical to that of the US, or would a constitution requiring a democratic republic with religious freedom, free expression, freedom from discrimination and an independent judiciary be enough?
For example, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. Of course, their constitution isn't identical to the admirable constitution of the US, but there are some similarities.
Their constitution establishes a republic with an elected president as head of state, limited to two terms of office. The constitution requires a democratically elected legislature, a Supreme Court and an independent judiciary. The constitution guarantees religous freedom, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination. The legislature is made up of two directly elected bodies, the Peaple's Representative Council and a Regional Representative Council, representing provinces. Does any of that sounds familiar?
Admittedly, there are clauses in the constitution which reflect different priorities, such as a clause requiring a minimum percentage of the budget to be spent on education, and another requiring the means of production to be owned by the State - as I see it, that's more about left-wing values than the imposition of Islamic orthodoxy.
The current President, Joko Widodo, reportedly "'has a penchant for loud rock music' and once owned a bass guitar signed by Robert Trujillo of heavy-metal band Metallica [and] is a fan of Metallica, Lamb of God, Led Zeppelin and Napalm Death, a grindcore band that is known for their utilitarian, liberal political views" - hardly a stereotypical hater of Western culture!(source)
Since countries are made up of humans, no doubt the ideals of the constitution are not always followed - just as the constitutional laws of my country and yours are not always followed in practice.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
What standard of compatibility are you using? Does the constitution have to be identical to that of the US, or would a constitution requiring a democratic republic with religious freedom, free expression, freedom from discrimination and an independent judiciary be enough?
If a country's constitution says that you can live your life as long as your aren't messing with other people or their stuff, that should be sufficient.
quote:
For example, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. Of course, their constitution isn't identical to the admirable constitution of the US, but there are some similarities.
Their constitution establishes a republic with an elected president as head of state, limited to two terms of office. The constitution requires a democratically elected legislature, a Supreme Court and an independent judiciary. The constitution guarantees religous freedom, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination. The legislature is made up of two directly elected bodies, the Peaple's Representative Council and a Regional Representative Council, representing provinces. Does any of that sounds familiar?
It sounds familiar, but there remain some serious problems. Also from
Wikipedia is the strong suggestion that there is insufficient religious liberty.
"The government generally respects religious freedom for the six officially recognized religions: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. However, ongoing restrictions, particularly on religions not sanctioned by the government and sects of the recognized religions considered deviant, are exceptions. Questioning any of the six above can lead to five years in prison for "insulting a major religion" and six more years if the Internet is used."
That's not near good enough, imo.
quote:
The current President, Joko Widodo, reportedly "'has a penchant for loud rock music' and once owned a bass guitar signed by Robert Trujillo of heavy-metal band Metallica [and] is a fan of Metallica, Lamb of God, Led Zeppelin and Napalm Death, a grindcore band that is known for their utilitarian, liberal political views" - hardly a stereotypical hater of Western culture!
Well, no, he's not a member of the Taliban.
quote:
Since countries are made up of humans, no doubt the ideals of the constitution are not always followed - just as the constitutional laws of my country and yours are not always followed in practice.
I think our government has done a fairly decent job with the third amendment.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What is more, there are things that are constitutionally OK in a civilised state like the US that are not in a civilised state like the UK and vice versa. That does not make the other state uncivilised.
I'm of the opinion that a good first impression whether or not a land is civilized is whether or not one can buy a Guinness and drink it in peace.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I really must avoid reading the comments under things linked to here. Those under the Powell interview, posted in the last few days, are seriously worrying with their triumphant ignorance.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm of the opinion that a good first impression whether or not a land is civilized is whether or not one can buy a Guinness and drink it in peace.
I like that test, but wouldn't it mean the US was not a civilised state from 1920-33?
Mind, if you have ever experienced cask conditioned Guinness as it used to be prepared with a wooden spoon, nowhere has been civilised since.
[ 22. September 2015, 17:02: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] I'm of the opinion that a good first impression whether or not a land is civilized is whether or not one can buy a Guinness and drink it in peace.
I like that test, but wouldn't it mean the US was not a civilised state from 1920-33?
Positively philistine.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?
Yeah, have heard that quote all my life. Seems a lot of people have either not heard it or just disagree.
Sure. I'm asserting that it is the right standard to apply. I got it then and I get it now. So, I think, does Colin Powell, to judge by that link. Still a Republican apparently. Here's a quote from him when someone asked him why.
quote:
“I’m still a Republican. And I think the Republican Party needs me more than the Democratic Party needs me. And you can be a Republican and still feel strongly about issues such as immigration, and improving our education system, and doing something about some of the social problems that exist in our society and our country. I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent with this.”
[ 22. September 2015, 18:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
I have heard it said that Islam is incompatible with democracy, because Muslims are answerable to God alone, and not to their fellow citizens. So a Muslim would never seek to lead the USA. I don't how widely that's held; if it's just an extremist view, or a Daily Mail caricature.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That is roughly the same argument that used to be made for anti-catholic bigotry - their primary loyalty lay with the pope so they could not be trusted with responsible office. It was crap then, and its crap now.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
For example, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. Of course, their constitution isn't identical to the admirable constitution of the US, but there are some similarities.
If you're going to hold up Indonesia as "better than most other Muslim countries", I probably wouldn't argue with you. But this is a country that jailed someone for two and a half years for expressing his atheism on facebook.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?
For some people religion comes under "content of character." JFK could truthfully say that he could separate his religion from his job and that the Pope couldn't tell him what to do. That's the kind of statesman and the kind of Catholic he was. That's not true for everyone. Some people put their religion far above politics, position or patriotism. Those people might actually risk the well-being of the country they're leading if they believe it is what God wants and part of their religious duty.
I believe a Muslim can run for president and possibly be elected but I would never vote for one for the same reason I would never vote for Lindsey Graham -- too militant. Of course there are lots of hawkish Christians and lots of peaceful Muslims, but the two religions have very different founders. Jesus seemed very much a pacifist (to me) while Mohammed was a military man and it shows throughout the Koran (to me.)
I think the content of a man's character shows in many ways and his religion is one of them. I wouldn't have voted for Romney because of his Mormonism. He was a young missionary at a time when his religion was still teaching that Black people were inferior and bore the mark of Cain. Character.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That is roughly the same argument that used to be made for anti-catholic bigotry - their primary loyalty lay with the pope so they could not be trusted with responsible office. It was crap then, and its crap now.
What nations will muslim rule do you find appealing?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I'm sorry, not "will muslim rule" but "with muslim rule" . . .
--------------------
"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 Twilight:
I think the content of a man's character shows in many ways and his religion is one of them. I wouldn't have voted for Romney because of his Mormonism. He was a young missionary at a time when his religion was still teaching that Black people were inferior and bore the mark of Cain. Character.
To be fair, that was a commonplace belief among American Protestants as well up until about the last third of the 20th century (though in their version it was usually portrayed as the Mark of Ham). The Mormons just held on to that dogma longer than most.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
