|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can a Muslim become the President of the United States?
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The Southern Baptist Convention was specifically formed to if not promote slavery, then be a church for people who wanted to keep their slaves. That's why it's Southern. A case could certainly be made that no Southern Baptist should be president, but Jimmy Carter, a profoundly superb Christian, redeems them.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I still don't see how it could be argued that a state which is officially non-confessional could have a bar on followers of some religions but not others from being president.
The fact that someone can run for president does not mean that those who don't like or approve of him/her or what he/she stands for are obliged to vote for them.
There's clearly no bar on someone running in spite of their having serious personality defects that make them unsuitable to be president and leader of the free world. Isn't it up to the electors whether they vote for someone or not?
Or am I missing something?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
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.
Why on earth is the religious belief of one person going to be the determiner of whether I think a country is a nice place to be?
I quite like the current American President. I have no intention of moving there.
Nor does it make the slightest sense to suggest that the religion of one person determines the religious attitude of the entire country. When the Prime Minister of India was Manmohan Singh, the country didn't miraculously stop being a predominantly Hindu country just because it's leader was a Sikh.
[ 25. September 2015, 17:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Southern Baptist Convention was specifically formed to if not promote slavery, then be a church for people who wanted to keep their slaves. That's why it's Southern. A case could certainly be made that no Southern Baptist should be president, but Jimmy Carter, a profoundly superb Christian, redeems them.
I'm not so sure about that, given that Carter eventually got fed up with them (though not over their position on racial discrimination).
But yes, he was a member during his time in office.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
As has been said of other leaders, if you find yourself on the opposite side of Jimmy Carter then you know you are a bad guy. He is the one man I can name who I think is pretty well sure to see Jesus.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still don't see how it could be argued that a state which is officially non-confessional could have a bar on followers of some religions but not others from being president.
The claim presented by Dr. Carson is that the fundamental tenets of Islam are incompatible with being US president.
It's like the case of a Catholic being offered communion in an Anglican church. For all Anglicans that I know, communion is open to all baptized Christians who are regular communicants in their own churches. As such, a C of E church (say) places no bar on a Catholic receiving communion.
The Catholic's own dogma, however, does not permit him to take communion in a C of E church. So it is the case that a Baptist or a Methodist could take communion in a C of E church but a Catholic couldn't, but it's not because the C of E has a bias against Catholics.
(I think Carson's claim is false, but if you accept his premise, then it's logically consistent.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still don't see how it could be argued that a state which is officially non-confessional could have a bar on followers of some religions but not others from being president.
The fact that someone can run for president does not mean that those who don't like or approve of him/her or what he/she stands for are obliged to vote for them.
There's clearly no bar on someone running in spite of their having serious personality defects that make them unsuitable to be president and leader of the free world. Isn't it up to the electors whether they vote for someone or not?
Or am I missing something?
I agree. I don't think that it's a question of "can a Muslim run for president?" rather "can a Muslim (realistically at this point) win the office of president?"
To make it so a Muslim is not allowed to be president at all would take a change in the Constitution since it currently says that there may be no religious qualifications put on the holder of the job of president.
At this point, a known and named atheist probably couldn't win the job of POTUS either.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht is Dr Carson (who he? is he someone as a foreigner I ought to have heard of?) arguing that there is something about Islam, rather than the US constitution which would preclude a Moslem from standing for president - rather as though the Pope might be able to forbid a Catholic from doing something?
I'm under the impression there isn't any central authority in Islam that could do that. I supposed someone could issue a fatwa that would authorise any Moslem to murder anyone who stood for president, like with Salman Rushdie. As far as I know that hasn't happened, but is there anyone that has the authority to issue one? And how universally would it be recognised?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Leorning Cniht is Dr Carson (who he? is he someone as a foreigner I ought to have heard of?) arguing that there is something about Islam, rather than the US constitution which would preclude a Moslem from standing for president - rather as though the Pope might be able to forbid a Catholic from doing something?
Yes, that is my understanding of his statements. It's not so much that there's a superior Islamic authority that could issue instructions than that, in Dr. Carson's view, Islam is incompatible with a secular state.
Dr. Carson is one of the many Republican candidates for President. There's no particular reason why you should have heard of him. He's been polling in second place behind Mr. Trump recently, for whatever that means.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Mere Nick asked for a Muslim country whose constitution was not incompatible with the US constituion.
I asked for a muslim led country that was found appealing. That is, a muslim led country that one would like to live in.
Why on earth is the religious belief of one person going to be the determiner of whether I think a country is a nice place to be?
Because the question of Can a Muslim become the President of the United States has been asked. I'm asking what I did because unless potential muslim candidates are able to point to countries with similar leadership that Americans find appealing then I doubt it will happen. I suspect the candidate would have to show a record of being so committed to individual liberty that Irshad Manji would have to look like a radical fundamentalist Islamist in comparison. As it stands, I don't see how being a muslim would help someone get elected.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[QB] Mere Nick - Fair enough. You're right, you did say that you wanted an example of a mainly Muslim country which you would find appealing. How would you define a 'country you would find appealing'?
I could ramble on for hours in giving a complete answer. To hit the high points, I suppose, it would include the following:
- you get to live your life and make the choices you want as long as you don't mess with other people or their stuff, with you bearing the responsibility of your choices.
- you can be honest about your beliefs and can try to persuade others to them as long as you don't mess with them or their stuff. You can always be honest.
- friendly people.
- good sport, good food, good beer, good coffee.
I'd suppose it would have to have all of those, for starters.
Turkey - I mean, the east's a bit dodgy just at present, but the Islamist ruling party has just had a bit of a slapping in the elections (which will hopefully have clipped their wings a bit) but other than that it fits every single criteria you've put down, including the beer.
It's an awesome country with mostly lovely people. As a Turkish friend said to me once "we're basically CofE Muslims, most of us."
I would agree were it not for the ban on all religious dress in public - doesn't fit in with being able to be honest about one's beliefs.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
The claim presented by Dr. Carson is that the fundamental tenets of Islam are incompatible with being US president
ISTM, the fundamental tenets of Christianity are incompatible with being US president. To be fair, the leader of nearly any country, really.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
The claim presented by Dr. Carson is that the fundamental tenets of Islam are incompatible with being US president
ISTM, the fundamental tenets of Christianity are incompatible with being US president.
As I noted earlier this is unsurprising given that most major world religions (including Christianity) pre-date the kind of political theories and institutions at the heart of American constitutionalism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
The claim presented by Dr. Carson is that the fundamental tenets of Islam are incompatible with being US president
ISTM, the fundamental tenets of Christianity are incompatible with being US president. To be fair, the leader of nearly any country, really.
Yep. The persuasion vs compulsion thing, imo.
--------------------
"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 Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[QB] Mere Nick - Fair enough. You're right, you did say that you wanted an example of a mainly Muslim country which you would find appealing. How would you define a 'country you would find appealing'?
I could ramble on for hours in giving a complete answer. To hit the high points, I suppose, it would include the following:
- you get to live your life and make the choices you want as long as you don't mess with other people or their stuff, with you bearing the responsibility of your choices.
- you can be honest about your beliefs and can try to persuade others to them as long as you don't mess with them or their stuff. You can always be honest.
- friendly people.
- good sport, good food, good beer, good coffee.
I'd suppose it would have to have all of those, for starters.
Turkey - I mean, the east's a bit dodgy just at present, but the Islamist ruling party has just had a bit of a slapping in the elections (which will hopefully have clipped their wings a bit) but other than that it fits every single criteria you've put down, including the beer.
It's an awesome country with mostly lovely people. As a Turkish friend said to me once "we're basically CofE Muslims, most of us."
I would agree were it not for the ban on all religious dress in public - doesn't fit in with being able to be honest about one's beliefs.
Even a nun's habit or a hijab? They don't come across as sneaky identity hiding thingamajigs like a bank robber's mask.
--------------------
"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 Crœsos:
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?
No.
quote:
(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?
Yes, he is the elected representative from his district.
--------------------
"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
Re Dr. Carson:
You wouldn't have heard of him in politics, but *possibly* in medical news. He used to be a wonderful neurologist and brain surgeon--removing brain tumors from babies, separating conjoined twins, etc.
Politically, he's gone as far as saying that Obamacare (for affordable health care) is "worse than slavery"--and he's African-American!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I don't know whether he's always held crazy (IMHO) views, or if something drove him over an edge.
--------------------
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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There is no reason to believe why being smart, even brilliant, at one thing leads to brilliance or even competence in anything else. There is no reason to listen to movie stars endorsing anything. Doctors can make dumb aesthetic or financial or sofa selection decisions just like anybody else.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Mere Nick - yes, all religious dress is banned in public institutions (hospitals, universities, even events like civic balls), including the hijab and religious habits. Hijabis are banned from working in the public sector - actually the wording is that women working in the public sector must be bareheaded, so excludes all kinds of religious headcovering. Women wearing headscarves have been denied medical care because of it.
The countries that I know of where religious dress is banned in public - eg Turkey, France - it's done for reasons of removing religion from public life, not risk from people hiding stuff under there! Certainly banning particular types of Islamic religious dress are from anti-Islam perspectives rather than security ones.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Because the question of Can a Muslim become the President of the United States has been asked. I'm asking what I did because unless potential muslim candidates are able to point to countries with similar leadership that Americans find appealing then I doubt it will happen. ....
See, though, that makes no sense. You make it sound like American Muslims' political beliefs and goals are more like those of Muslims in other countries than their fellow Americans in their own country. And if not, they have to prove it. I believe that's known as prejudice.
But why would anyone assume that an American Muslim would have the same political beliefs and goals as e.g. an Indonesian or a Nigerian Muslim? That's just dumb, unless the implication is that they are Muslim first and American second, AND that they will govern as Muslims first, not as Americans. Not only is that racist, it's about as accurate as assuming that everyone from Minnesota wants the USA to have a Scandinavian social democratic government. (Well, maybe Al Franken.)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Can a publicly self-identified Muslim get enough votes to be elected president? That seems unlikely in the current political mood.
He or she won't get mine without convincing me of being revisionist-cafeteria enough sincerely to reject his faith's lack of distinction between religious and political power. Turkey is an ongoing experiment to test the viability of such a distinction among Islamic peoples. It's having very rough sledding. I suppose it can happen in time, and probably has a better chance of happening in the U.S. than anywhere else. However, worldwide outbreaks of violent extremism in the name of Islam don't do the credibility of such a candidate any favors. We don't owe anyone our vote.
Islam has no monopoly here. I would give a known or suspected Christian reconstructionist an even wider berth for the same reasons. And, unfortunately, Roman Catholic bishops who would excommunicate officeholders for merely making pro-choice statements ought to give new legs to the misgivings expressed by voters in 1960.
[ 29. September 2015, 00:37: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sorry Alogon, but when was Biden excommunicated? Since he has made what effects to pro-choice statements (the whole 'I wouldn't choose it but I won't make it illegal' thing).
Islam is not a homogenous mass, and in terms of doctrine works more like Judaism - very localised. It varies enormously from country to country, culture impacts things as much as religion. A Muslim American is as likely to be theocratic as a Christian American.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Pomona, I wasn't thinking of Biden in particular, but of Kerry. This was a well-known issue during his Presidential campaign.
There have been plenty of other cases. This Wikipedia article goes into detail.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Pomona, I wasn't thinking of Biden in particular, but of Kerry. This was a well-known issue during his Presidential campaign.
There have been plenty of other cases. This Wikipedia article goes into detail.
Those who watched the Supreme Pontiff's address to the US Congress will have noted that he sought out Mr Kerry for a handshake. Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was much exercised by Mr Kerry's position, is now responsible for the Order of Malta, other Vatican responsibilities perhaps being deemed too onerous for him.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
See, though, that makes no sense. You make it sound like American Muslims' political beliefs and goals are more like those of Muslims in other countries than their fellow Americans in their own country. And if not, they have to prove it.
Correct. If a muslim gets my vote it will be because he or she is the most classically liberal/libertarian type candidate running. If the candidate can't prove it, I won't vote for them.
quote:
But why would anyone assume that an American Muslim would have the same political beliefs and goals as e.g. an Indonesian or a Nigerian Muslim? That's just dumb, unless the implication is that they are Muslim first and American second, AND that they will govern as Muslims first, not as Americans. Not only is that racist,
It's more of a legitimate question than an assumption. To say Islam is a race is just dumb.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To say Islam is a race is just dumb.
As is ignoring that the basic statement in SM's post is about prejudice.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To say Islam is a race is just dumb.
As is ignoring that the basic statement in SM's post is about prejudice.
No, I addressed it. I won't vote for a muslim unless they meet my criteria.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I won't vote for a muslim unless they meet my criteria.
But that is prejudice. Anyone you vote for should met your criteria. And Christian leaders have a far worse track record, do you vet them as thoroughly?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I won't vote for a muslim unless they meet my criteria.
But that is prejudice. Anyone you vote for should met your criteria.
Right. I don't believe it is likely that a muslim can. A muslim candidate is welcome to prove it, though.
quote:
And Christian leaders have a far worse track record, do you vet them as thoroughly?
If they have a worse track record then I guess I'm surprised that there aren't millions of refugees currently beating a path to the nearest muslim led country.
Do I vet other candidates? Of course.
[code]
[ 29. September 2015, 04:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right. I don't believe it is likely that a muslim can. A muslim candidate is welcome to prove it, though.
This is prejudice, plain and simple.
quote:
quote:
And Christian leaders have a far worse track record, do you vet them as thoroughly?
If they have a worse track record then I guess I'm surprised that there aren't millions of refugees currently beating a path to the nearest muslim led country.
People are beating paths to democratic countries.
[code misattribution fixed]
[ 29. September 2015, 04:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right. I don't believe it is likely that a muslim can. A muslim candidate is welcome to prove it, though.
This is prejudice, plain and simple.
There are certain historical individuals who were so vile in their actions that voting for one of their followers will be a problem for me. Muhammed is one of those characters. You might have a point if I'd never examined him.
Besides all of that, a candidate has to sell me on voting for him. I don't have to sell him on why I'm voting for someone else.
[further code madness fixed]
[ 29. September 2015, 04:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There are certain historical individuals who were so vile in their actions that voting for one of their followers will be a problem for me. Muhammed is one of those characters.
Almost as bad as that God, fellow.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I guess I'm surprised that there aren't millions of refugees currently beating a path to the nearest muslim led country.
I'm taking your quote out of context, which is unfair to you. I just wanted to point out that "millions of refugees" have been "beating a path to the nearest muslim led country":
"More than 4 million refugees from Syria (95%) are in just five countries Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt:
•Lebanon hosts approximately 1.2 million refugees from Syria which amounts to around one in five people in the country
•Jordan hosts about 650,000 refugees from Syria, which amounts to about 10% of the population
•Turkey hosts 1.9 million refugees from Syria, more than any other country worldwide
•Iraq where 3 million people have been internally displaced in the last 18 months hosts 249,463 refugees from Syria
•Egypt hosts 132,375 refugees from Syria"
Source: Amnesty International
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's just dumb, unless the implication is that they are Muslim first and American second, AND that they will govern as Muslims first, not as Americans. Not only is that racist, it's about as accurate as assuming that everyone from Minnesota wants the USA to have a Scandinavian social democratic government. (Well, maybe Al Franken.)
Say what now? How did we get from religion to race to country of origin?
I think it's perfectly possible that someone might be Muslim first and American second just as they might be Mormon first and American second or Christian first and American second. I don't call myself racist for that. I call that a belief that many people, myself included put their religion far above their nationality.
I am a Christian first and if, as President, I was asked to sign a bill that I thought might cause me to burn in Hell later on, I wouldn't do it. So it's easy for me to imagine someone else doing the same thing. I think we have had presidents in the past who put what they thought God wanted ahead of what they thought the majority of Americans wanted. I think Lincoln was one.
That's not the only reason I wouldn't vote for someone based on religion. There are hundreds of things to look at when choosing a president and I think an important one is general intelligence. I wouldn't want a dumb president so I probably wouldn't vote for one who believed in and practiced Voo-doo. If that makes me a bigot so be it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Of course, everyone is free not to vote for a candidate who is Muslim. That's your democratic system.
(I'm glad we don't have this problem; we vote for parties, not for candidates ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[QUOTE]I am a Christian first and if, as President, I was asked to sign a bill that I thought might cause me to burn in Hell later on, I wouldn't do it. So it's easy for me to imagine someone else doing the same thing.
That's precisely what happened to King Baudouin of the Belgians. A devout Catholic, he felt unable to sign into law legislation passed by Parliament that legalised many abortions. As a constitutional monarch, he was bound to follow the advice of the Prime Minister of the day to append his signature as the final stage of the legislative process. A manoeuvre was devised whereby he was declared incapable for a day, the legislation was signed, and the legislation came into effect. I am not sure how that could work in the US.
Another answer would have been that while his signature permitted abortions, it left the decision to others,. Thus HM was not himself sinning. Just the same as SSM really - it permits a civil action to be taken by all.
[ 29. September 2015, 12:19: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I in fact do not want a President, or any public employee, to be a [religion here] first and a public servant second. I want him to do his job, which I am paying him to do. He knew what the work entailed from the outset, and if he didn't feel he was up to it he should not have run for office. (This lets out the King of Belgium, who I assume inherited his role. Neatly done, Belgians, I like your style.)
Otherwise all life is riddled with exceptions, and nothing gets done. Mormons will no longer pour me a coffee in restaurants; Jews will no longer sell me a lobster; Mrs. Davis feels called upon to vet my qualifications for marriage. It's all in or all out, and I say all out.
But I was never going to vote for Rick Santorum anyway.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I guess I'm surprised that there aren't millions of refugees currently beating a path to the nearest muslim led country.
I'm taking your quote out of context, which is unfair to you. I just wanted to point out that "millions of refugees" have been "beating a path to the nearest muslim led country":
"More than 4 million refugees from Syria (95%) are in just five countries Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt:
•Lebanon hosts approximately 1.2 million refugees from Syria which amounts to around one in five people in the country
•Jordan hosts about 650,000 refugees from Syria, which amounts to about 10% of the population
•Turkey hosts 1.9 million refugees from Syria, more than any other country worldwide
•Iraq where 3 million people have been internally displaced in the last 18 months hosts 249,463 refugees from Syria
•Egypt hosts 132,375 refugees from Syria"
Source: Amnesty International
From non-muslim countries to muslim led countries is what I'm talking about. Sorry I didn't make it clear.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right. I don't believe it is likely that a muslim can. A muslim candidate is welcome to prove it, though.
There's an interesting double standard at work here. A Muslim candidate has to definitively prove he's not a traitor (e.g. Glenn Beck's interview with then newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison) in a way that would be considered outrageous if demanded of a Christian candidate. For example, most people would consider it an unwarranted example of prejudice to ask Mike Huckabee if he's a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan because he's a Southern Baptist. But Mike Huckabee is a (white) Christian, so his loyalty is just assumed in a way not applied to the loyalty of the (non-white) Keith Ellison, so Ellison has to field questions from reporters about whether he secretly supports ISIS.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
From non-muslim countries to muslim led countries is what I'm talking about. Sorry I didn't make it clear.
You did make it clear. Now you're just moving goalposts. I imagine if anyone mentions the Rohingya trying to get from (non-Muslim) Myanmar to (Muslim) Indonesia you'll move those goalposts again.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[QUOTE]I am a Christian first and if, as President, I was asked to sign a bill that I thought might cause me to burn in Hell later on, I wouldn't do it. So it's easy for me to imagine someone else doing the same thing.
That's precisely what happened to King Baudouin of the Belgians. A devout Catholic, he felt unable to sign into law legislation passed by Parliament that legalised many abortions. As a constitutional monarch, he was bound to follow the advice of the Prime Minister of the day to append his signature as the final stage of the legislative process. A manoeuvre was devised whereby he was declared incapable for a day, the legislation was signed, and the legislation came into effect. I am not sure how that could work in the US.
Another answer would have been that while his signature permitted abortions, it left the decision to others,. Thus HM was not himself sinning. Just the same as SSM really - it permits a civil action to be taken by all.
There was a similar situation with the Grand Duke of Luxembourg-- why they didn't just abdicate and play krokinole is beyond me.
In any case I have always felt that the strength of the US constitution has always been in what it said; and if says that there are no religious tests for office, then that's what they should do. Almost any of the objections used had already spent years of yeoman service in the form of objections to Roman Catholics.
Up in the frozen northern wastes, our most US-culture city, Calgary, has a Muslim mayor who most recently won re-election with 74% of the votes. We are looking at ways of cloning him for our other cities.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[QB] Mere Nick - Fair enough. You're right, you did say that you wanted an example of a mainly Muslim country which you would find appealing. How would you define a 'country you would find appealing'?
I could ramble on for hours in giving a complete answer. To hit the high points, I suppose, it would include the following:
- you get to live your life and make the choices you want as long as you don't mess with other people or their stuff, with you bearing the responsibility of your choices.
- you can be honest about your beliefs and can try to persuade others to them as long as you don't mess with them or their stuff. You can always be honest.
- friendly people.
- good sport, good food, good beer, good coffee.
I'd suppose it would have to have all of those, for starters.
Turkey - I mean, the east's a bit dodgy just at present, but the Islamist ruling party has just had a bit of a slapping in the elections (which will hopefully have clipped their wings a bit) but other than that it fits every single criteria you've put down, including the beer.
It's an awesome country with mostly lovely people. As a Turkish friend said to me once "we're basically CofE Muslims, most of us."
I would agree were it not for the ban on all religious dress in public - doesn't fit in with being able to be honest about one's beliefs.
I lived in turkey for six years, and I can tell you that there was never a ban on wearing cassocks, beards, hijabs, habits or headscarves in public. It was banned in government buildings and universities when I first got there (to keep religion out of government and acedemia); but is now not banned anywhere, it seems.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Four Presidents did not claim any formal religion
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
Rutherford Hayes
Interesting that three of the four were involved in the civil war era.
A couple of Presidents were Unitarian
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was a vestryman in the Episcopal church, but the Unitarians claim him aw one of their own.
John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft were also Unitarian.
At the time, though, Unitarians generally thought of themselves as (and were generally considered by others to be) Protestant Christians.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's just dumb, unless the implication is that they are Muslim first and American second, AND that they will govern as Muslims first, not as Americans. Not only is that racist, it's about as accurate as assuming that everyone from Minnesota wants the USA to have a Scandinavian social democratic government. (Well, maybe Al Franken.)
Say what now? How did we get from religion to race to country of origin?
I think it's perfectly possible that someone might be Muslim first and American second just as they might be Mormon first and American second or Christian first and American second. I don't call myself racist for that. I call that a belief that many people, myself included put their religion far above their nationality.
I am a Christian first and if, as President, I was asked to sign a bill that I thought might cause me to burn in Hell later on, I wouldn't do it. So it's easy for me to imagine someone else doing the same thing. I think we have had presidents in the past who put what they thought God wanted ahead of what they thought the majority of Americans wanted. I think Lincoln was one.
That's not the only reason I wouldn't vote for someone based on religion. There are hundreds of things to look at when choosing a president and I think an important one is general intelligence. I wouldn't want a dumb president so I probably wouldn't vote for one who believed in and practiced Voo-doo. If that makes me a bigot so be it.
Wow. Calling all adherents of an ancient religious practice 'dumb' just because you don't believe in it? Surely that is monumentally stupid and bigoted? What about people who think you're 'dumb' because you're a Christian?
Whatever happened to voting for a President based on their policies?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's an interesting double standard at work here. A Muslim candidate has to definitively prove he's not a traitor (e.g. Glenn Beck's interview with then newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison) in a way that would be considered outrageous if demanded of a Christian candidate. For example, most people would consider it an unwarranted example of prejudice to ask Mike Huckabee if he's a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan because he's a Southern Baptist. But Mike Huckabee is a (white) Christian, so his loyalty is just assumed in a way not applied to the loyalty of the (non-white) Keith Ellison, so Ellison has to field questions from reporters about whether he secretly supports ISIS.
...
Each elector, in the booth with his or her pencil in their hand, wondering where to put their X, is entitled to take anything into account that they please.
It is entirely wrong to say that journalists or whoever may not ask some questions because they are too embarrassing, discriminatory or whatever. If some electors might be asking those questions in their heads in the polling both, then it's fair that the questions are put to the candidates.
If some electors may be thinking candidate X secretly supports Isis, candidate Y is a secret member of the KKK, or candidate Z was born in Canada, however improbable both may be, those questions are not off limits.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I'm sure there are many people, I've already heard from lots of them on the internet, who think I'm dumb for being a Christian. That's their prerogative just as it would be mine to find the idea of an American President burning his enemies in doll form to be rather dumb. Lots of ancient things would seem dumb today. Applying leeches for disease, for example. Science has proven both leeches and Voo-doo doll burning to be mostly ineffective. To continue to believe in and practice these things seems dumb to me. Fortunately we don't have thought police yet, so I'm free to think that.
Of course we should pay attention to policies but I think we should consider other available information as well. Does he spend every moment of leisure time gambling? Does he get drunk at the end of every day? These things might prove problematic some time during his term of office.
If we follow Brenda's method of making sure the president puts country before his religion then we're going to only have presidents who are only giving hypocritical lip service to their religion or who are sincere but lukewarm over it. That's like saying anyone from any religion can be president, so long as he doesn't take said religion very seriously.
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is entirely wrong to say that journalists or whoever may not ask some questions because they are too embarrassing, discriminatory or whatever.
No, it's a form of journalistic ethics. Asking questions about baseless and insane conspiracy theories is an abdication of a journalist's role, both because just asking the questions lends legitimacy to the idea that the moon landing was faked (or whatever) and because it takes time away from asking actual relevant questions.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If some electors may be thinking candidate X secretly supports Isis, candidate Y is a secret member of the KKK, or candidate Z was born in Canada, however improbable both may be, those questions are not off limits.
I'd argue that the repetitious and bad-faith way in which certain questions are asked is why one in five Americans believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya (to pick a rather obvious example); because the question keeps getting asked so there must be something to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.
Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? And what are they assimilating to, given that American culture is largely patched together out of ideas and customs imported from elsewhere? It seems bit odd that the real sticking point is that Muslims worship some strange, Middle Eastern religion when they should (apparently) be worshiping that other Middle Eastern religion.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm sure there are many people, I've already heard from lots of them on the internet, who think I'm dumb for being a Christian. That's their prerogative just as it would be mine to find the idea of an American President burning his enemies in doll form to be rather dumb. Lots of ancient things would seem dumb today. Applying leeches for disease, for example. Science has proven both leeches and Voo-doo doll burning to be mostly ineffective. To continue to believe in and practice these things seems dumb to me. Fortunately we don't have thought police yet, so I'm free to think that.
Of course we should pay attention to policies but I think we should consider other available information as well. Does he spend every moment of leisure time gambling? Does he get drunk at the end of every day? These things might prove problematic some time during his term of office.
If we follow Brenda's method of making sure the president puts country before his religion then we're going to only have presidents who are only giving hypocritical lip service to their religion or who are sincere but lukewarm over it. That's like saying anyone from any religion can be president, so long as he doesn't take said religion very seriously.
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.
Umm.....that's not how Vodou works. Please read up on actual Vodou and not superstition - in many ways Haitian Vodou (assuming you mean that and not Hoodoo which is an entirely separate thing, as is New Orleans Voodoo) is very Catholic. Vodou does not use 'voodoo dolls'. If you want to discriminate against people because of their religion, something Americans are supposed to stand against, at least be informed about that religion first. Also leeches are actually medically useful and are now used in some modern treatments.
Also assuming that devotion to faith in non-Christians would lead to problems for Christians says far more about American Islamophobia and how Christians have caused problems for non-Christians than it does about Muslims. I think it is very insulting to Presidents like Jimmy Carter, who is neither lukewarm in his faith nor a theocrat. Being moderate in one's faith does not equal being lukewarm. Your average devoted Episcopalian or Methodist is not going to have a problem with being President.
This level of ignorance is frightening.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? ...
You mean like Washington, place in County Durham, England, Lincoln, also place in England, Roosevelt, sounds Dutch, Eisenhower, sounds vaguely German, Kennedy, clearly Irish.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? And what are they assimilating to, given that American culture is largely patched together out of ideas and customs imported from elsewhere? ...
You mean like Washington, place in County Durham, England, Lincoln, also place in England, Roosevelt, sounds Dutch, Eisenhower, sounds vaguely German, Kennedy, clearly Irish.
Exactly so. There are all kinds of hidden threats to those trying to maintain their 100% American identity.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
