|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can a Muslim become the President of the United States?
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
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?
Unless the USA suddenly becomes a theocracy I would expect any president to hold their religious beliefs as different from their duties as a secular leader.
You have had RC presidents, they didn't suddenly start running the country according to pronouncments from the vatican - I see no reason why a muslim democrat would be different.
A religous fundamentalist of any faith who wanted to install a theocracy would be a problem.
--------------------
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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.
Yes, and that's the problem. Romney and I are exactly the same age. When I was 16, a bunch of my friends and I met weekly for a while to listen to some young handsome Mormon missionaries. We were very anxious to please, but the day they told us why black people couldn't be leaders in their church we were unanimously appalled and the meetings ended at that moment. Never mind what other churches were doing a generation or two earlier, this was the time of the civil rights movement and our consciousness had been raised. Romney knew better and followed the status quo. That's not the kind of person I would want as president. That is character.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
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.
It's also the country that suddenly executed a number of drug smugglers recently after keeping them in in prison a sort of sentencing limbo for 10 years, under the impression that their risk of being executed had been deferred for so long that it had lapsed.
I don't think Islam had anything to do with that, but it is not the behaviour of a state that claims to be civilised.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
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?
Unless the USA suddenly becomes a theocracy I would expect any president to hold their religious beliefs as different from their duties as a secular leader.
You have had RC presidents, they didn't suddenly start running the country according to pronouncments from the vatican - I see no reason why a muslim democrat would be different.
A religous fundamentalist of any faith who wanted to install a theocracy would be a problem.
Kennedy is not a good example of a Catholic anymore than Nixon is a good example of a Quaker. There are people who follow the religion of their families with very little effect on their lives, but one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to make it more important than those two examples.
I wouldn't elect a devout Catholic and expect abortion to stay legal. I wouldn't expect to elect a Jewish Rabbi and have America start siding with Palestine. I don't think that's bigotry, in fact, for me, it's respect for the person, in my belief that their religion is more than hypocritical lip service to their constituency.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Difference is - I would - because I expect them to represent the people, not themselves.
The labour party has appointed a vegan shadow minister for rural affairs (includes farming), no-one expects a labour government to shut down livestock farming if it comes to power.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
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.
It's also the country that suddenly executed a number of drug smugglers recently after keeping them in in prison a sort of sentencing limbo for 10 years, under the impression that their risk of being executed had been deferred for so long that it had lapsed.
I don't think Islam had anything to do with that, but it is not the behaviour of a state that claims to be civilised.
Sounds just like the US, Enoch, save that in Indonesia there was no question that any of those executed were other than of sound mind. No matter which country carries out the death penalty it is an uncivilised punishment. China, which carries out most of them AFAIK is not an Islamic country (I know, I know, that there are large numbers of Muslims there).
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
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?
Unless the USA suddenly becomes a theocracy I would expect any president to hold their religious beliefs as different from their duties as a secular leader.
You have had RC presidents, they didn't suddenly start running the country according to pronouncments from the vatican - I see no reason why a muslim democrat would be different.
A religous fundamentalist of any faith who wanted to install a theocracy would be a problem.
What countries with muslim leaders can you point me to, though, that 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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Why is that relevant, we are talking about an American president, someone born into American culture ?
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why is that relevant, we are talking about an American president, someone born into American culture ?
Silly DT, Muslims can't assimilate, not possible. No matter how they try, sooner or later every single one will try to initiate Sharia law and the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders will be performing in burkas.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
FWIW here is an example of a respected muslim national leader in a multi-faith demotcratic state: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_Hassanali
I make no major claims for Trinidad & Tobago, but I am fairly sure its issues are not due to having had a muslim president.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
FWIW here is an example of a respected muslim national leader in a multi-faith demotcratic state: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_Hassanali
I make no major claims for Trinidad & Tobago, but I am fairly sure its issues are not due to having had a muslim president.
Oh and here is another muslim president of a multi-faith country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Kalam who was well respected across the faith communities in his country.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And a socially progressive capitalist who promoted religious freedom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Hassan_Mwinyi
--------------------
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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why is that relevant, we are talking about an American president, someone born into American culture ?
Because a registered voter says 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 Doublethink.:
And a socially progressive capitalist who promoted religious freedom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Hassan_Mwinyi
Well, ok then. It is a possibility. Thanks for finding one. If a muslim is running for president against someone who isn't, I'll vote for the one who is closer to to being a classical liberal or libertarian than the one who is more of a statist. That's the real litmus test for me and I'd never heard of a muslim leader who ever appeared to have even had such thoughts cross his mind.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
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?
Unless the USA suddenly becomes a theocracy I would expect any president to hold their religious beliefs as different from their duties as a secular leader.
You have had RC presidents, they didn't suddenly start running the country according to pronouncments from the vatican - I see no reason why a muslim democrat would be different.
A religous fundamentalist of any faith who wanted to install a theocracy would be a problem.
Actually, we've only had *one* RC president--Kennedy. And I do think it was reasonable to be concerned about how his faith and work would mesh, and how much allegiance he had to the pope. This was pre-Vatican II. Catholic lay people weren't supposed to question. (That was the common perception, and AIUI the reality.) Plus a lot of people probably still had RC radio evangelist Fr. Coughlin on their minds.
Plus a lot of current people think the US is supposed to be a theocracy, and was founded as one, and we've been punished for falling away from that. (I'm *not* one of them.)
I wouldn't ever just assume that a presidential candidate would function as a secular leader. They *should*. But America has a weird mix of separation of church/state, PLUS national religious trappings and mythology, PLUS being religious is a political necessity.
--------------------
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 Enoch:
There's nothing sacrosanct about the US Constitution.
Um...wrong. It is very much sancrosanct, and very difficult to change. Many people hold it close to equal with the Bible. (Due to "manifest destiny" and all that crap.)
Dear H/A: Please delete the half-finished post, just above this one. Thx. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 23. September 2015, 01:51: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
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.
No, I wasn't. Mere Nick asked for a Muslim country whose constitution was not incompatible with the US constituion. Indonesia's constitution has some similarities.
You, and Mere Nick, pointed to examples of human rights violations in Indonesia. Of course, someone shouldn't be jailed for expressing atheism. Indonesia should live up to the promises in its constitution - just like Britain and the US should live up to the promises in our constitutional laws.
As I said, any country made up of humans will fall short of its constitutional standards. That's true for Indonesia - isn't it also true of countries like mine and yours? Shall we discuss the human rights violations by Britain and the United States in recent times? As I mentioned, I admire the constitution of the United States. That admiration doesn't mean that I ignore the ways in which countries such as yours as mine fall short of their ideas.
If you require proof of a mainly Muslim country with no human rights violations before accepting the idea of a Muslim national leader, then do you also require the proof of a mainly Christian country without human rights violations before accepting a Christian as leader? If not, why the double standard?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.
I think MLK's original point was that the judging of any individual's character by their membership of any particular group is fundamentally unfair.
There are limits of course. But to take a Horsey example, I would not expect to be judged on my assumed attitudes to LGBT people because I'm a self-declared evangelical. And on the other hand I accept that folks who don't know me might be suspicious, want to check things out. The central point remains. It is about judging people in advance. Being cautious about folks we don't know is another issue.
[ 23. September 2015, 09:11: 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
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
A couple of observations:
It strikes me as the height of hypocrisy simultaneously to argue that (a) majority-Muslim states are not democratic because they don’t respect religious tolerance and (b) a Muslim cannot be President of a Western democracy on account of his/her religious affiliation. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If Indonesia can’t be a democracy without accepting that a Christian could one day be President, than I don’t see how the USA can be a democracy without accepting that a Muslim could one day be President. What is religious tolerance for the goose is religious tolerance for the gander.
Second observation: why is everyone assuming that a hypothetical Muslim President of the USA would be male? Personally I have a rather charming little fantasy about a Muslim woman becoming the leader of a major Western democracy. It’s kind of a shame Malala Yousafzai isn’t eligible (although I’m guessing she’d rather run for President of Pakistan in any case ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ).
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, it could certainly happen - even Pakistan managed Benazir Bhutto.
--------------------
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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?
Martin Luther King Jr.'s actual quote was:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Who knows how he would have felt about religious or gender issues.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Twilight
Sure, it's an extension of MLK's original comment. I'm arguing it is a reasonable one.
MLK was protesting about one particular form of prejudice, within which people's individual character was judged on the basis of one aspect only. In the Civil Rights movement, the focus was skin colour. Why can the principle not be extended to other judgments of character based on one aspect only? It seems reasonable to me.
All prejudice is the assertion that a perceived group characteristic is a universal characteristic of all members. At its heart, it contains a refusal to see that such pre-judgments are unfair to any individual within any group. Prejudice is always a form of arrogance. A judgment without proper foundation.
I think you can argue for greater levels of suspicion, for example, when considering folks who are members of the KKK, or the BNP. And a democratic government may wish to attach legal costs to certain forms of prejudice in action.
But the key point is "in action". Innocent until demonstrably guilty is a pretty good way to look at other folks, wherever they come from, whoever they associate with. Reasonable grounds for suspicion are another matter. But suspicion is not judgment.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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 la vie en rouge:
[QB] A couple of observations:
It strikes me as the height of hypocrisy simultaneously to argue that (a) majority-Muslim states are not democratic because they don’t respect religious tolerance and (b) a Muslim cannot be President of a Western democracy on account of his/her religious affiliation. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If Indonesia can’t be a democracy without accepting that a Christian could one day be President, than I don’t see how the USA can be a democracy without accepting that a Muslim could one day be President. What is religious tolerance for the goose is religious tolerance for the gander.
It's perfectly legal for a muslim to become our president. I don't see a possibility for that happening in the US unless and until enough US voters see muslim led countries that they admire. Even then, it would probably take a muslim candidate who is the most libertarian or classical liberal candidate running.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
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.
Is that what you asked for? I thought you asked for an example of a country with Muslim leadership which was compatible with the US constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.
[fixed typo]
[ 23. September 2015, 13:09: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
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.
Is that what you asked for? I thought you asked for an example of a country with Muslim leadership which was compatible with the US constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.
[fixed typo]
Ah, ok, I did. I've asked for both, though.
A muslim led country that someone finds appealing, that one would even like to live in, is the more important one, istm.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Indonesia should live up to the promises in its constitution - just like Britain and the US should live up to the promises in our constitutional laws.
The explicit point is that atheism is not protected in Indonesia's constitution. You are (at least in theory) free to be Muslim, or Christian, or Buddhist, but you are not free to be an atheist. The first principle of Pancasilia from the Indonesian constitution is "Belief in the one and only God".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Indonesia should live up to the promises in its constitution - just like Britain and the US should live up to the promises in our constitutional laws.
The explicit point is that atheism is not protected in Indonesia's constitution. You are (at least in theory) free to be Muslim, or Christian, or Buddhist, but you are not free to be an atheist. The first principle of Pancasilia from the Indonesian constitution is "Belief in the one and only God".
It seems to me that folks should have a right to be honest.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
If you require proof of a mainly Muslim country with no human rights violations before accepting the idea of a Muslim national leader
I don't. As I have said earlier in the thread, I see no reason at all why a Muslim couldn't make a speech similar to the ones that JFK made about his catholicism when he was a candidate for president. There are plenty of Muslims who could not honestly make such a speech, but there are plenty who could.
I agree with everyone who has been saying that the American people are unlikely to elect a Muslim any time soon, but Dr. Carson's claim was that merely being a Muslim was fundamentally incompatible with being US president, and I find that to be false.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
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'?
Leorning Cniht - That's a fair point. Their constitution doesn't protect atheism; it should. For you, does the reference to God in the Indonesian Constitution mean that Muslim Americans should not be President of the US? Britain has an established Christian church including reserved seats for Anglican religious leaders in our unelected House of Lords. Yet I don't hear anyone saying that Christian Americans should not be President of the US.
[cross-posed with the following]
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I agree with everyone who has been saying that the American people are unlikely to elect a Muslim any time soon, but Dr. Carson's claim was that merely being a Muslim was fundamentally incompatible with being US president, and I find that to be false.
Fair enough, you've already answered my question.
[ 23. September 2015, 13:44: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... It's also the country that suddenly executed a number of drug smugglers recently after keeping them in in prison a sort of sentencing limbo for 10 years, under the impression that their risk of being executed had been deferred for so long that it had lapsed.
I don't think Islam had anything to do with that, but it is not the behaviour of a state that claims to be civilised.
cf. the War on Drugs. I see Indonesia's executed drug smugglers and I raise mass incarceration, three-strikes-and-you're-out, life AND death sentences for the mentally ill and handicapped, murderous police, prisons-for-profit, and racist courts. Nope, definitely not civilized.
And Mere Nick, you are sort of correct in that if I were choosing another country to live in, it is unlikely that it would be Afghanistan or Nigeria. But neither would it be Chile or Spain (Roman Catholic) or Russia (Orthodox) or India or China (everything under the sun). I might consider Norway or Sweden (Lutheran). There's only two criteria that matter to me: money and women's rights, and we can all see the USA is going backwards on those - working people's real wages keep going down, and the GOP is seeking control of every uterus in the country.
But getting back to the Muslim President, oh yeah: it would be soooo awesome to see a Muslim president take on the banking system. Maybe Elizabeth Warren can convert?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
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?
Unless the USA suddenly becomes a theocracy I would expect any president to hold their religious beliefs as different from their duties as a secular leader.
You have had RC presidents, they didn't suddenly start running the country according to pronouncments from the vatican - I see no reason why a muslim democrat would be different.
A religous fundamentalist of any faith who wanted to install a theocracy would be a problem.
Kennedy is not a good example of a Catholic anymore than Nixon is a good example of a Quaker. There are people who follow the religion of their families with very little effect on their lives, but one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to make it more important than those two examples.
I wouldn't elect a devout Catholic and expect abortion to stay legal. I wouldn't expect to elect a Jewish Rabbi and have America start siding with Palestine. I don't think that's bigotry, in fact, for me, it's respect for the person, in my belief that their religion is more than hypocritical lip service to their constituency.
Not President, but Biden is a Catholic and whaddya know, abortion is legal. That's because personal views do not mean you get to impose a theocracy. He has spoken about how his faith works with keeping abortion legal - I suggest you watch it. Strangely enough, religious people are capable of not imposing their views on others.
And uh, there are plenty of Jewish people who side with Palestine. Jewish =/= Zionist.
--------------------
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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Pomona quote:
Not President, but Biden is a Catholic and whaddya know, abortion is legal. That's because personal views do not mean you get to impose a theocracy. He has spoken about how his faith works with keeping abortion legal - I suggest you watch it. Strangely enough, religious people are capable of not imposing their views on others.
I don't need to watch it because I'm well aware that religious people are capable of not imposing their views on others. I all ready mentioned two examples of that with Nixon and Kennedy. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that just because such separation of church and state happens and is desirable, that it will happen in every case. I heard Fiorina talk about Planned Parenthood and she was fairly frothing at the mouth. Do you think, if she was president, she would keep those feelings separate from whatever she thought the majority of Republican wanted?
Barnabas: I think it's safe to imagine that MLK would extend his "content of character," theme to gender and sexual identity because, like skin color, it's the way a person is born. Religion is not the same as race or gender because it's a choice and looking askance at someone who chooses a racist, sexist religion, or a group like KKK,or a church that pickets gay funerals? I don't call that prejudice. If I say I wouldn't vote for someone who belonged to that group, it's not because I think everyone in the group is the same, or all equally bad. I am using evidence before me that, at least in one area, they have demonstrated very poor thinking.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
If she was a good President, that's exactly what she would do - and more to the point, the US isn't a dictatorship, the President can't just impose laws willy-nilly.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Even if the US had a Muslim as president, it wouldn't therefore become a 'Muslim-led state' like those in the Middle East or Asia.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
As an example of a "good Muslim-led country", let me give you Trinidad and Tobago. It isn't the richest country in the world of course, and it has its problems, but you can't fully blame that on having been led by a Muslim. In terms of human rights it is doing reasonably well, including women's rights, freedom of the press ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Yup, Trinidad and Tobago it is then.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
As an example of a "good Muslim-led country", let me give you Trinidad and Tobago. It isn't the richest country in the world of course, and it has its problems, but you can't fully blame that on having been led by a Muslim. In terms of human rights it is doing reasonably well, including women's rights, freedom of the press ...
I looked it up and was surprised to learn it has the 3rd highest per capita gdp in the western hemisphere. Muslims appear to make up only about 5% of the population, are even outnumbered by Hindus over 3-1. It appears to have most every religion well represented except for the Devout Elvis Impersonator sect. The weather's too hot, though.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
In some of your criteria it performs exceptionally well, especially friendly people, sports and coffee.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Barnabas: I think it's safe to imagine that MLK would extend his "content of character," theme to gender and sexual identity because, like skin color, it's the way a person is born. Religion is not the same as race or gender because it's a choice and looking askance at someone who chooses a racist, sexist religion, or a group like KKK,or a church that pickets gay funerals? I don't call that prejudice. If I say I wouldn't vote for someone who belonged to that group, it's not because I think everyone in the group is the same, or all equally bad. I am using evidence before me that, at least in one area, they have demonstrated very poor thinking.
I agree. I was trying to make a different point, but probably not very well.
I think what I had in mind was a difference of kind illustrated very well in a famous (post 9/11) episode of "The West Wing".
From memory, something like this.
"Terrorist is to mainstream Muslim as KKK member is to mainstream Christian".
Here is the philosophy of the KKK. It sees its aim as the preservation of Christian Civilisation via White Supremacy.
I agree with you that all members demonstrate bad judgment and it is not a prejudice to say so. It is a considered moral opinion of the deep flaws in their philosophy.
But, by extension of that logic, it is not fair to find all Muslims guilty of bad judgment or criminal intent. The assumption that they share the values of extremist Islamic terrorists is clearly wrong. As wrong as it would be to assume KKK values in mainstream Christians.
I agree the parallel is not exact, but it is close enough to inform moral decision-making about content of character.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well, it could certainly happen - even Pakistan managed Benazir Bhutto.
We haven't even managed a woman *vice-president* yet, let alone a president.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I'm not sure it is valid to claim that people choose their religion as if that makes it different from skin colour, handedness and so on. It obviously is different from genetically determined inheritance, but for people born into certain styles of religion, choice may not be an option. The children I taught who had Exclusive Brethren parents were sheltered as far as possible from being aware that there could be a choice, and they were fairly mild as religious groups go. (The church did have attempts to retreat to home schooling, or schooling within their community, but without much success.) A child born into the Phelps clan, or among polygamous Mormons would have to be very tough minded to recognise the possibility of choice,and then to exercise it.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[...] 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.
Your list sounds good to me. I'd want to live somewhere with those too.
I might interpret them differently. For example, I wouldn't count paying for a National Health Service through tax - so that health care is available on the basis of medical need, not financial status - as 'messing with people's stuff'. Do you? Would Britain fail your test of a country which you'd find appealing, for that reason or another reason?
I imagine that, in practice, it would be possible for you or me to live somewhere like Indonesia or Turkey and - probably - enjoy the things you've listed. Of course, there are reports of human rights violations in countries such as those. As I said before, there are reports of human rights violations involving Britain. Britain has an established church, an unelected head of state and an unelected upper house with seats reserved for leaders of the established church. Despite this, I've not heard it said that a Christian American cannot be the President of the US. Most people in Britain can live freely - but very bad things have happened to some individuals.
As I see it, no country can 100% guarantee the things which you listed to everyone, 100% of the time. Countries are made up of humans and humans do terrible things sometimes. Even America, with its warm and friendly people, well-respected Bill of Rights and excellent coffee (among other great things) falls short of its ideals, some of the time.
As Barnabas62 said, what matters is the content of someone's character. There are Muslim leaders whose countries do evil things; it seems unfair to treat them as representing Islam without taking into account Muslims who oppose oppression - and without recognizing that there are Christian leaders whose countries do bad things too. The line between good and evil goes through every human heart, not between Christians and Muslims.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
...good beer...
A tall order! Looks like your stuck with northern England.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not sure it is valid to claim that people choose their religion as if that makes it different from skin colour, handedness and so on. It obviously is different from genetically determined inheritance, but for people born into certain styles of religion, choice may not be an option.
Wow! I clicked reply to agree with you and then spent a few dizzying moments arguing with myself on the balance of conditioning, control, human nature and agency in general.
I would happily debate/discuss the level of actual choice,* but I do agree with your general statement.
*That would be better done on another thread, though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.
Yes, and that's the problem. Romney and I are exactly the same age. When I was 16, a bunch of my friends and I met weekly for a while to listen to some young handsome Mormon missionaries. We were very anxious to please, but the day they told us why black people couldn't be leaders in their church we were unanimously appalled and the meetings ended at that moment. Never mind what other churches were doing a generation or two earlier, this was the time of the civil rights movement and our consciousness had been raised. Romney knew better and followed the status quo. That's not the kind of person I would want as president. That is character.
It's this kind of self-serving revisionism that makes me despair. According to his public biography, Mitt Romney was sixteen in 1963. You make the rather astonishing claim that by that time racist doctrine was a thing of "a generation or two earlier" by that date for virtually all white Protestant churches in the U.S. Given such devotion to integration among America's devout you certainly wouldn't expect to see pro-segregationist with signs claiming "Integration is UnChristian" or equating "Race Mixing" with the "March of the Anti-Christ" or citing Bible verses in support of segregation. No, of course something like that could never happen in 1963 America! Everyone had had their consciousness raised by then, except those horrible, hate-filled Mormons who still had that mote of racism stuck in their metaphorical eye.
So, fast forward to the 1970s. In 1978 the Mormon church announced that God had changed His mind about black people. What were America's white Protestant churches doing around this time? Well, if they were of a more Evangelical bent they were starting and running segregation academies and laying the groundwork for what would become the religious right, dedicated to maintaining (insofar as possible) segregation. If your church was more mainstream it was probably busily trying to ignore what their Evangelical co-religionists were doing. ("Bob Jones University? Never heard of it!") That and concentrating on one line from one speech by Dr. King that could make them feel good about themselves without having to do anything in particular. I've noticed that "content of character" gets quoted a lot more frequently than any of the "promissory note" parts of that speech.
Interestingly the Southern Baptists couldn't bring themselves to denounce segregation (and their enthusiastic and active support of it) until 1995. I note that Mike Huckabee was significantly older in 1995 than Mitt Romney was (or you were) in 1978, and yet I've never heard anyone suggesting that his being a Southern Baptist preacher demonstrates some kind of deep-seated character flaw that should disqualify him from the Presidency.
Getting back to the topic at hand, historically there have always been groups considered so intrinsically alien that they could never be considered loyal Americans. Sometimes this was on racial or ethnic grounds (blacks, Asians, or, most recently, Hispanics). Other times it was a matter of religion (Catholicism, Judaism, and now Islam). This kind of nativism is almost always regarded with embarrassment in retrospect.
A more interesting (and relevant) question than what other countries the U.S. should be emulating is the question of whether someone like Keith Ellison (to pick the highest ranking Muslim currently serving in an elected position within the federal government) should be barred from the presidency through additional barriers besides those specified in the Constitution? (Mr. Ellison was born in Detroit, MI and is currently 52 years old, which means he clears all Constitutional barriers to holding the office of President.) Conversely, if Mr. Ellison's loyalty is considered insufficient to hold the Presidency due to his religious beliefs, should he even be allowed to serve in the House of Representatives?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Thanks, lilbuddha. I suspect the sort of people who would inherit the sort of mindset that allowed for argument would not find that their parents had chosen to be in the sort of religion that didn't.
[ 25. September 2015, 16:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
