Thread: Can a Muslim become the President of the United States? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029527

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson, was asked this on one of the United States Sunday Morning Shows.

Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.

When pressed further if he would vote for a Muslim he said he would not.

In my view a person's formal religious beliefs have no bearing on whether he or she can be the head of state. (Correct me if I am wrong, doesn't the PM have to be a member of the CofE?) Rather, it matters more to me that I can trust the person's integrity. To be sure a person's integrity includes his or her ability to live out her faith, but that deals more with the individual, not the belief. An example: Nixon was a Quaker in upbringing, but he sure did not act like a Quaker in his governance.

Personally I can see a socialist Jew becoming the next president of the US, even an atheist--though none are apparently running.
 
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :
 
I can't see how the British PM would need to be a member of the CofE. Regarding the President of the United States, whether it would be unconstitutional, I don't know. However, I don't think in the current climate the electorate would vote for a Muslim, or that they would even make it to be the final candidate. The accusations regarding Obama wouldn't be made if they weren't potentially damaging. I seem to remember there being a lot of discussion as to whether Mitt Romney - a Mormon - was a Christian. I'm not even sure a self proclaimed atheist would make it as President.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson, was asked this on one of the United States Sunday Morning Shows.

Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.

I've yet to see much of anything to say he is wrong on this. The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?

quote:
When pressed further if he would vote for a Muslim he said he would not.
Ok.

quote:
In my view a person's formal religious beliefs have no bearing on whether he or she can be the head of state. (Correct me if I am wrong, doesn't the PM have to be a member of the CofE?) Rather, it matters more to me that I can trust the person's integrity. To be sure a person's integrity includes his or her ability to live out her faith, but that deals more with the individual, not the belief. An example: Nixon was a Quaker in upbringing, but he sure did not act like a Quaker in his governance.
You know all that is required is 270 electoral votes. Anyone can go get them regardless of religion, sobriety, hygiene, whatever.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
During the Presidential campaign between Obama and McCain, General Colin Powell was asked if Obama was a Muslim. I think his response was a great one

https://youtu.be/ovW8rBPg_FU
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Mere Nick: The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
The US constitution has no problem with me walking around holding a ball. Does basketball?
 
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :
 
Now I have an image of a team of blokes with long beards on a basketball court called the 'Muslim Globetrotters'.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
I can't see how the British PM would need to be a member of the CofE. ...

There is no requirement for the PM to be CofE. If Jim Callaghan was anything, he was a Baptist. Harold Wilson was Congregationalist as was Asquith. Margaret Thatcher was always assumed to be a Methodist, though there seems to be a suggestion in some places that in later years she conformed to the CofE. Gordon Brown, Campbell-Bannerman and Balfour were CofS, though I think Sir Alec Douglas-Home was a Piskie.

Obviously, I can't speak for the USA. But it would be odd in a country that is officially non-confessional for it to be constitutional impossible for adherents of some religions to become President.
 
Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :
 
Doesn't Article 6 of the consitution make if clear there is no religious requirement for office holders?

It is not that longer ago that it was said by some that Catholocism was incompatible with holding presidential office. The arguments (or those quoted on wikipedia) look eerily familar.

In the UK there is no requirement for the PM to be CofE. The PM is neither head of state nor head of the CofE.

[ 21. September 2015, 20:50: Message edited by: Badger Lady ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Dr. Ben Carson, [..]

Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.

There were a number of questions at the time about JFK's catholicism. Here is his position. I see no reason why a potential Muslim candidate for president couldn't make the same speech.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Dr. Ben Carson, [..]

Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.

There were a number of questions at the time about JFK's catholicism. Here is his position. I see no reason why a potential Muslim candidate for president couldn't make the same speech.
Except for the experience of having a president who is a member of a perfectly normal, mainstream Christian denomination constantly distracted/ attacked based on just the unfounded rumor that he is Muslim. One can only imagine what would happen if it were actually true.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
During the Presidential campaign between Obama and McCain, General Colin Powell was asked if Obama was a Muslim. I think his response was a great one

https://youtu.be/ovW8rBPg_FU

Agreed. Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes indeed.

Gramps, have you not heard Alistair Campbell's famous remark as Blair's spin-doctor, 'We don't do God ...'?

I think you're confusing the role of Prime Minister with that of the Monarch. The British Monarch is required to be a member of the CofE, British Prime Ministers can be of any faith or denomination or none.

Generally speaking, the God-card is played a lot less in British politics.

Also, as Cliffdweller has said, Obama has had so much stick for being a purported Muslim that one wonders what chance a genuine Muslim would stand as President of the US - even assuming they got as far as the primaries ...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One can only imagine what would happen if it were actually true.

I think you're right that a Muslim could not, in practice, get elected President next year, or in 2020, or any time soon. There are two Muslim congressmen, but it probably helps that they're called Keith and Andre, and not Mohammed and Hasan.

But we won't get a Muslim president any time soon because Muslims have cooties, not because being a Muslim is incompatible with being a US president.

[ 21. September 2015, 21:26: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson, was asked this on one of the United States Sunday Morning Shows.

Essentially he said the Muslim beliefs and the US Constitution conflict.

That's true of most world religions, including Dr. Carson's own Christianity. Which isn't terribly surprising given that most world religions came into existence before such things as representative government, free speech, or religious toleration were widespread.

There are two questions at work here. The first is the legal/constitutional question. As Badger Lady notes the U.S. constitution forbids religious tests for holding office, so in that sense there's no reason why a Muslim couldn't be the President of the United States.

The other question is practical. Can a publicly self-identified Muslim get enough votes to be elected president? That seems unlikely in the current political mood.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A couple of Presidents were Unitarian

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was a vestryman in the Episcopal church, but the Unitarians claim him as one of their own.

Adams and Jefferson were Unitarians in the theological sense (rejecting the Trinity and asserting the Unity of God), not the denominational sense. As for Jefferson's position as vestryman in the Episcopal Church, it should be remembered that the Church of England was the official, established religion of the Virginia colony and some sort of position within it was necessary for a political career. The Anglican Church was disestablished in Virginia by the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored (not coincidentally) by Thomas Jefferson and pushed through the state legislature by Jefferson's protégé* James Madison in 1786. This statute served as a template for what would later be known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

It's been speculated that one of the reason America's Founding Fathers put the "No Religious Test" clause in the U.S. Constitution was that so many of them held religiously heterodox views (like Adams' and Jefferson's rejection of Trinitarianism) and wouldn't be able to honestly pass any religious test likely to be established.


--------------------
*A French term meaning "a person who is guided and supported by an older and more experienced or influential person". Just trying to follow the rules.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
As things stand, I doubt that the American people would vote in great numbers for a candidate whom they seriously thought was Muslim. But then, neither would the British people vote for a Muslim PM, IMO.

In theory it might be acceptable, but not in practice. Not yet. Give it time, though.

[ 21. September 2015, 21:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think you're right that a Muslim could not, in practice, get elected President next year, or in 2020, or any time soon. There are two Muslim congressmen, but it probably helps that they're called Keith and Andre, and not Mohammed and Hasan.

I rather strongly suspect that any Muslim presidential candidate's name would more of a factor than their religious affiliation. Not coincidentally, I also suspect that objections to Barack Obama's supposed affiliation with Islam are really secret objections to his name more than to Islam in general.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
alas, W Hyatt is right. There are far too many morons in the US.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Legally, yes, a Muslim could be our president. I don't know if there's anything in *Islamic* law that might present a barrier.

I think it will be a long, long time before a Muslim can a) run for president; b) get the money to do it; c) be safe while doing it; d) actually win; e) not have the whole process sliced and diced afterwards, to make sure they were *actually* elected; f) get the cooperation of Congress; and g) be safe while doing all that.

A lot of that's due to 9/11 and assorted wars. If the violent jihadists would quit and the Middle East in general would quiet down, there'd be a better chance. However, that has a snowball's chance in the Sahara.

I think it would also help for TV shows--both sitcoms and dramas--to have positive portrayals of Muslims who are just trying to get through life, like everyone else.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I rather strongly suspect that any Muslim presidential candidate's name would more of a factor than their religious affiliation. Not coincidentally, I also suspect that objections to Barack Obama's supposed affiliation with Islam are really secret objections to his name more than to Islam in general.

I think a big problem was/is that Obama registers as Different, complete with blinking neon warning lights. Name, skin color, mixed race, father, living overseas, living in Hawai'i (which seems foreign to many people), etc.

IMHO, people have what I call "difference alarms". Stronger in some people than others; and can be triggered by a particular thing, or anything that's different. Some people really need for everything to consistently be one way.

Some of the reaction to Obama was conscious prejudice, and some was egged on by people with a vested interest. But I think many people heard their difference alarms screaming, and freaked out.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
The US constitution has no problem with me walking around holding a ball. Does basketball?
If you are playing basketball, yes. So?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
[QB] Doesn't Article 6 of the consitution make if clear there is no religious requirement for office holders?

The government can't keep you out because of religion but the voters can.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Except for the experience of having a president who is a member of a perfectly normal, mainstream Christian denomination constantly distracted/ attacked based on just the unfounded rumor that he is Muslim. One can only imagine what would happen if it were actually true.

The Clinton campaign began that during the 2008 primaries, it appears.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Thank you for the information about the PM. I know full well the PM is not the Head of State or the Head of the Church of England.

I agree, there are many Christian teachings that make it difficult for one to be a president too.

I don't think it was because Adams or Jefferson were Unitarian that caused them to include Article 6 in the constitution. I think the writers of the constitution wanted to make it clear that the United States government was ordained by We the People not by a diety.

[ 22. September 2015, 01:11: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I agree, there are many Christian teachings that make it difficult for one to be a president too.

Yes, that appears to be the case.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Some of the reaction to Obama was conscious prejudice, and some was egged on by people with a vested interest. But I think many people heard their difference alarms screaming, and freaked out.

Yes, I think that's a useful insight into what happened - thanks.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
You can add Howard Taft to your list of Unitarians.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
This may help:

Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States (Wikipedia).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've yet to see much of anything to say he is wrong on this. The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?

[Roll Eyes] Please. There are many variations of Muslim belief, just as there are Christian. Carson is ignorant, intentionally pandering to his constituency or both.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?

Yeah, have heard that quote all my life. Seems a lot of people have either not heard it or just disagree.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
The US constitution has no problem with me walking around holding a ball. Does basketball?
If you are playing basketball, yes. So?
Having stricter rules than the constitution in certain situations doesn't mean contradicting the constitution.

[ 22. September 2015, 07:39: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?

Yeah, have heard that quote all my life. Seems a lot of people have either not heard it or just disagree.
That's what Dr. King (rightly) wanted. Doesn't mean it's here.
[Votive]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]I've yet to see much of anything to say he is wrong on this. The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?

[Roll Eyes] Please. There are many variations of Muslim belief, just as there are Christian. Carson is ignorant, intentionally pandering to his constituency or both.
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?
The US constitution has no problem with me walking around holding a ball. Does basketball?
If you are playing basketball, yes. So?
Having stricter rules than the constitution in certain situations doesn't mean contradicting the constitution.
Well, yeah, you have a point. When I was studying the rules for umping fastpitch softball games we did not look at the constitution. Like the koran, though, those rules are and should remain completely irrelevant to the conduct of the federal government.
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]I've yet to see much of anything to say he is wrong on this. The US constitution has no problem with me leaving Islam or saying Muhammed was a rapist, murderer, thief and pedophile and an all around unpleasant fellow. Does Islam?

[Roll Eyes] Please. There are many variations of Muslim belief, just as there are Christian. Carson is ignorant, intentionally pandering to his constituency or both.
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.
Not a country, but the Aga Khan seems like a leader any democratic country'd be lucky to have.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.

This seems to be trivially true of most countries, Muslim or otherwise. The current trend seems to be towards a Westminster-style parliamentary system rather than the separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances U.S. Constitutional system.

For example, the U.K. is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because it maintains an hereditary monarchy, has fairly strict gun control laws, restrictions on the press that would be unconstitutional in the U.S., major differences in the ideas of judicial review, and so on.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
There's nothing sacrosanct about the US Constitution. Most of us who have Westminster ones, think our model works better.

There are though two different issues here. Constitutions are supposed to protect liberty, the rule of law and provide checks and balances. Each one does that in different ways. There are different ways of doing this that work, with strengths and weaknesses.

The US respects those values and has its style of Constitution. The UK, Canada and Australia respect those values but follow a different model. France, Germany and numerous other civilised states respect the same values but have different models yet again.

There are also, alas, many states in the world that have Constitutions that express these sort of truths in high flown words, but where there is little protection of any of those sort of rights.

Some of those constitutions were modelled on the US one. Some were modelled on Westminster. Some followed other models. In all cases, oppressive regimes or corrupt public players have managed to subvert the spirit of what the constitutions are supposed to enshrine.


There's then the second technical question, is such and such compatible with the letter of X-itania's constitution? Yes, does not automatically make such and such good. No, does not automatically make it bad.

What is more, there are things that are constitutionally OK in a civilised state like the US that are not in a civilised state like the UK and vice versa. That does not make the other state uncivilised.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Show me some countries with muslim leadership that are compatible with the US constitution.

What standard of compatibility are you using? Does the constitution have to be identical to that of the US, or would a constitution requiring a democratic republic with religious freedom, free expression, freedom from discrimination and an independent judiciary be enough?

For example, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. Of course, their constitution isn't identical to the admirable constitution of the US, but there are some similarities.

Their constitution establishes a republic with an elected president as head of state, limited to two terms of office. The constitution requires a democratically elected legislature, a Supreme Court and an independent judiciary. The constitution guarantees religous freedom, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination. The legislature is made up of two directly elected bodies, the Peaple's Representative Council and a Regional Representative Council, representing provinces. Does any of that sounds familiar?

Admittedly, there are clauses in the constitution which reflect different priorities, such as a clause requiring a minimum percentage of the budget to be spent on education, and another requiring the means of production to be owned by the State - as I see it, that's more about left-wing values than the imposition of Islamic orthodoxy.

The current President, Joko Widodo, reportedly "'has a penchant for loud rock music' and once owned a bass guitar signed by Robert Trujillo of heavy-metal band Metallica [and] is a fan of Metallica, Lamb of God, Led Zeppelin and Napalm Death, a grindcore band that is known for their utilitarian, liberal political views" - hardly a stereotypical hater of Western culture!(source)

Since countries are made up of humans, no doubt the ideals of the constitution are not always followed - just as the constitutional laws of my country and yours are not always followed in practice.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
What standard of compatibility are you using? Does the constitution have to be identical to that of the US, or would a constitution requiring a democratic republic with religious freedom, free expression, freedom from discrimination and an independent judiciary be enough?

If a country's constitution says that you can live your life as long as your aren't messing with other people or their stuff, that should be sufficient.

quote:
For example, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. Of course, their constitution isn't identical to the admirable constitution of the US, but there are some similarities.

Their constitution establishes a republic with an elected president as head of state, limited to two terms of office. The constitution requires a democratically elected legislature, a Supreme Court and an independent judiciary. The constitution guarantees religous freedom, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination. The legislature is made up of two directly elected bodies, the Peaple's Representative Council and a Regional Representative Council, representing provinces. Does any of that sounds familiar?

It sounds familiar, but there remain some serious problems. Also from
Wikipedia is the strong suggestion that there is insufficient religious liberty.

"The government generally respects religious freedom for the six officially recognized religions: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. However, ongoing restrictions, particularly on religions not sanctioned by the government and sects of the recognized religions considered deviant, are exceptions. Questioning any of the six above can lead to five years in prison for "insulting a major religion" and six more years if the Internet is used."

That's not near good enough, imo.

quote:
The current President, Joko Widodo, reportedly "'has a penchant for loud rock music' and once owned a bass guitar signed by Robert Trujillo of heavy-metal band Metallica [and] is a fan of Metallica, Lamb of God, Led Zeppelin and Napalm Death, a grindcore band that is known for their utilitarian, liberal political views" - hardly a stereotypical hater of Western culture!
Well, no, he's not a member of the Taliban.

quote:
Since countries are made up of humans, no doubt the ideals of the constitution are not always followed - just as the constitutional laws of my country and yours are not always followed in practice.
I think our government has done a fairly decent job with the third amendment.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What is more, there are things that are constitutionally OK in a civilised state like the US that are not in a civilised state like the UK and vice versa. That does not make the other state uncivilised.

I'm of the opinion that a good first impression whether or not a land is civilized is whether or not one can buy a Guinness and drink it in peace.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I really must avoid reading the comments under things linked to here. Those under the Powell interview, posted in the last few days, are seriously worrying with their triumphant ignorance.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm of the opinion that a good first impression whether or not a land is civilized is whether or not one can buy a Guinness and drink it in peace.

I like that test, but wouldn't it mean the US was not a civilised state from 1920-33?

Mind, if you have ever experienced cask conditioned Guinness as it used to be prepared with a wooden spoon, nowhere has been civilised since.

[ 22. September 2015, 17:02: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] I'm of the opinion that a good first impression whether or not a land is civilized is whether or not one can buy a Guinness and drink it in peace.

I like that test, but wouldn't it mean the US was not a civilised state from 1920-33?
Positively philistine.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?

Yeah, have heard that quote all my life. Seems a lot of people have either not heard it or just disagree.
Sure. I'm asserting that it is the right standard to apply. I got it then and I get it now. So, I think, does Colin Powell, to judge by that link. Still a Republican apparently. Here's a quote from him when someone asked him why.

quote:
“I’m still a Republican. And I think the Republican Party needs me more than the Democratic Party needs me. And you can be a Republican and still feel strongly about issues such as immigration, and improving our education system, and doing something about some of the social problems that exist in our society and our country. I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent with this.”


[ 22. September 2015, 18:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
I have heard it said that Islam is incompatible with democracy, because Muslims are answerable to God alone, and not to their fellow citizens. So a Muslim would never seek to lead the USA. I don't how widely that's held; if it's just an extremist view, or a Daily Mail caricature.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:

For example, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. Of course, their constitution isn't identical to the admirable constitution of the US, but there are some similarities.

If you're going to hold up Indonesia as "better than most other Muslim countries", I probably wouldn't argue with you. But this is a country that jailed someone for two and a half years for expressing his atheism on facebook.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Whatever happened to "content of character" trumping "colour of skin", or any other ethnic or religious or gender issue?
For some people religion comes under "content of character." JFK could truthfully say that he could separate his religion from his job and that the Pope couldn't tell him what to do. That's the kind of statesman and the kind of Catholic he was. That's not true for everyone. Some people put their religion far above politics, position or patriotism. Those people might actually risk the well-being of the country they're leading if they believe it is what God wants and part of their religious duty.

I believe a Muslim can run for president and possibly be elected but I would never vote for one for the same reason I would never vote for Lindsey Graham -- too militant. Of course there are lots of hawkish Christians and lots of peaceful Muslims, but the two religions have very different founders. Jesus seemed very much a pacifist (to me) while Mohammed was a military man and it shows throughout the Koran (to me.)

I think the content of a man's character shows in many ways and his religion is one of them. I wouldn't have voted for Romney because of his Mormonism. He was a young missionary at a time when his religion was still teaching that Black people were inferior and bore the mark of Cain. Character.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
I'm sorry, not "will muslim rule" but "with muslim rule" . . .
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Why is that relevant, we are talking about an American president, someone born into American culture ?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
And a socially progressive capitalist who promoted religious freedom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Hassan_Mwinyi
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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]

[ 23. September 2015, 01:51: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Done.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
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] ).
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Well, it could certainly happen - even Pakistan managed Benazir Bhutto.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
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? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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 ...
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Yup, Trinidad and Tobago it is then.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
In some of your criteria it performs exceptionally well, especially friendly people, sports and coffee.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
...good beer...


A tall order! Looks like your stuck with northern England.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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!]

I don't know whether he's always held crazy (IMHO) views, or if something drove him over an edge.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
restrictions on religious freedom in Turkey
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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] )
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
.


quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.

Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? And what are they assimilating to, given that American culture is largely patched together out of ideas and customs imported from elsewhere? It seems bit odd that the real sticking point is that Muslims worship some strange, Middle Eastern religion when they should (apparently) be worshiping that other Middle Eastern religion.
I did not say that I thought the devout Muslim was a traitor-in-waiting or disloyal to America in any way. I did not suggest that anyone be put in a camp (are you kidding me?) and I did not talk about assimilation through religion as a good thing, In fact I said I admired the people who come to this country and don't assimilate just to fit in or to better their success in business the way so many Americans have done in the past.

Every word you just wrote, making assumptions about my feelings about Muslims and my reasons for not voting for a Muslim, is entirely false and entirely indicative of your prejudice against anyone who doesn't think exactly like you. You think I'm a bigot? Your false assumptions and eagerness to hate anyone who doesn't want to vote exactly like you, to call them ugly and attribute horrible motives to them, is far more bigoted and narrow minded than anything I've said here.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Up in the frozen northern wastes, our most US-culture city, Calgary, has a Muslim mayor who most recently won re-election with 74% of the votes. We are looking at ways of cloning him for our other cities.

That kind of track record is all that I, and probably Mere Nick, are asking for. I have to apologize for imagining that the question would be whether to put a Muslim in the Oval Office bolt-out-of-the-blue. That's not usually the way it works with anyone-- although these days it seems that anything could happen. At least three current candidates have never held a significant political office, yet some consider them qualified. Normally, statesmen have come up through the ranks. Voting for a Muslim as mayor wouldn't bother me, and then for higher office if he or she deserves it.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:




I think it is very insulting to Presidents like Jimmy Carter, who is neither lukewarm in his faith nor a theocrat. Being moderate in one's faith does not equal being lukewarm. Your average devoted Episcopalian or Methodist is not going to have a problem with being President.

This level of ignorance is frightening.

I can't imagine why you think I insulted Jimmy Carter. If I had to name an example of someone whose religion didn't seem to influence his presidency and was "lukewarm," I would say Nixon.

I don't agree with you that Jimmy Carter put his country ahead of his God. Carter is my favorite president partly because I think he managed to be a good president without compromising his religion. I wouldn't call him either lukewarm or moderate. I think he is very devout.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Calm down folks; it's been getting a mite personal hereabouts with some edging over Commandment 3 guidelines. Stick to critiquing posts, please.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Mere Nick asked for a Muslim country whose constitution was not incompatible with the US constituion.

I asked for a muslim led country that was found appealing. That is, a muslim led country that one would like to live in.

Why on earth is the religious belief of one person going to be the determiner of whether I think a country is a nice place to be?
Because the question of Can a Muslim become the President of the United States has been asked. I'm asking what I did because unless potential muslim candidates are able to point to countries with similar leadership that Americans find appealing then I doubt it will happen.
This continues to not make sense, and I think the reason that it doesn't make sense is that you're blurring "show me a country" with "show me a leader".

In fact, the two separate bits from you that I've quoted say different things. One says "show me a country" and the other says something about a country's leadership.

And I'm basically saying that the two are not equivalent. As mentioned, India has had a Sikh leader, but India was still a Hindu country. Looking at Muslim countries as the source of models for Muslim leaders is just inaccurate (as demonstrated by the example since given of a Muslim mayor of Calgary).
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That kind of track record is all that I, and probably Mere Nick, are asking for.

Yes, that and being a better advocate of classical liberalism, libertarian type of government than the opponents.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That kind of track record is all that I, and probably Mere Nick, are asking for.

Yes, that and being a better advocate of classical liberalism, libertarian type of government than the opponents.
I fear that Mayor Nenshi of Calgary may be a tad bolshie for your tastes, although he has long been admirable as a promoter of citizen involvement in public life. He still lives in his parents' basement.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That kind of track record is all that I, and probably Mere Nick, are asking for.

Yes, that and being a better advocate of classical liberalism, libertarian type of government than the opponents.
I fear that Mayor Nenshi of Calgary may be a tad bolshie for your tastes, although he has long been admirable as a promoter of citizen involvement in public life. He still lives in his parents' basement.
I looked him up on wikipedia and one thing I noticed that sounded good was "For his campaign platform, Nenshi proposed to abolish the $4,800 granted to home builders, aiming to save the city $33 million per annum. According to Nenshi, the subsidy over a decade contributed to the municipal debt of $1.5 billion. Nenshi wants the free market factors to take hold of the housing market and developers to contribute to funding infrastructure to far reaching suburbs by paying levies." I don't see a reason for homebuilders to get public dough.
He is for the pipeline, too, it appears. So, I don't really see anything so far that would cause me to think he's some kind of red commie scum or a practitioner or supporter of islamic supremacism.
 
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Assuming that anyone who doesn't Americanize the family name is a traitor-in-waiting is a longstanding national tradition, albeit one with some ugliness to it. Exactly how much assimilating does someone have to do to be considered loyal, in your opinion? ...

You mean like Washington, place in County Durham, England, Lincoln, also place in England, Roosevelt, sounds Dutch, Eisenhower, sounds vaguely German, Kennedy, clearly Irish.
Roosevelt IS Dutch. So is Van Buren. Eisenhower IS German (although americanized from "Eisenhauer", so there's that). And let's not forget Buchanan, clearly Scot.

At least the British royal family was patriotic enough to change its surname to "Windsor" (after another English place), having intentionally abandoned the German "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". (But why do Will and Harry call themselves "Wales" rather than "Windsor"?)

[ 30. September 2015, 12:50: Message edited by: fausto ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, could call himself Wales.

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, couldn't.

In the cricket team sense: When aristos play cricket they are named for their title without the rank.
 
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, could call himself Wales.

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, couldn't.

In the cricket team sense: When aristos play cricket they are named for their title without the rank.

Enlighten a benighted Yank. Is there more than one prince of Wales? I thought only Charles held that title.

If indeed Charles's children can also hold the title, wouldn't firstborn William be both a prince of Wales AND the Duke of Cambridge?

In any event, both Harry and William did use Wales as their surname when they served in the Army. Why not Windsor?

[ 30. September 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: fausto ]
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
... But why do Will and Harry call themselves "Wales" rather than "Windsor"?

I suppose it's because their father is the Prince of Wales (the title Prince William will assume when his father becomes king). AIUI their full titles are Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales.

Sorry - cross-posted with Fausto. There's only one Prince of Wales (at the moment it's Prince Charles. When he becomes king, Prince William will become Prince of Wales.

[ 30. September 2015, 13:42: Message edited by: Piglet ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One reason I wouldn't vote for a Muslim is that I think fewer of them are lukewarm than most typical "Christian," politicians. The very fact that they've stuck to their beliefs in this country rather than assimilate into the religion of the majority proves how much they care. I respect and admire that level of devotion, but I think it could work against the Christians in this country if it became the religion in power.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I did not say that I thought the devout Muslim was a traitor-in-waiting or disloyal to America in any way.

Really? Because claiming that Muslims will "work against the Christians* in this country" if they ever gain any kind of political power sounds kind of like an accusation of disloyalty. It would definitely be a betrayal of the current American Constitution's standards of equality before and impartiality of the government. Could you expand on how a President (or other public official) can "work against" the majority of citizens based on religious partiality and have it not constitute a betrayal of their office?

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
In fact I said I admired the people who come to this country and don't assimilate just to fit in or to better their success in business the way so many Americans have done in the past.

"Admiration" that takes the form of "wow, you're so devoted to your faith I bet you'd work against the Christians in this country if anyone ever trusted you with a position of authority" is, at best, a backhanded complement. It's also not one that's typically applied to non-Muslims. For example, I've never heard anyone (outside various hate groups) suggesting that Bernie Sanders is unqualified to be President because he's Jewish, or that he'd "work against the Christians in this country" if elected, as demonstrated by his refusal to assimilate to the majority religion.

One of the more interesting assumptions being made here (and not just by Twilight) is that religious devotion can be measured by oppression inflicted. So Tomás de Torquemada (to use a Catholic example likely familiar to everyone here) is obviously an exemplar of Catholic ideals and teachings while someone like Giovanni di Bernardone (ibid.**) is some "revisionst-cafeteria" squish who doesn't really understand Catholicism. And yet for some reason the Catholic Church got it backwards and sainted the wrong guy!


--------------------
*Presumably this would apply to all non-Muslims, not just Christians, but for some reason anyone falling outside the Muslim/Christian paradigm doesn't seem to merit a mention in your analysis.

**Abbreviation for the Latin ibidem meaning "in the same place", here referring back to the previous parenthetical note. Translation provided in accordance with the rules.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Twilight

It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the effect of this latest post by Croesos. If you wish to continue along the lines of your earlier riposte viz.

quote:
You think I'm a bigot? Your false assumptions and eagerness to hate anyone who doesn't want to vote exactly like you, to call them ugly and attribute horrible motives to them, is far more bigoted and narrow minded than anything I've said here.
then take it to Hell.

As a matter of Hosting, IMO Croesos' latest post does not infringe normal Purgatorial guidelines, though I could well understand why you might be pissed off with it. If so, you know what to do.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Enlighten a benighted Yank. Is there more than one prince of Wales? I thought only Charles held that title.

There is indeed only one Prince of Wales, and his name is Charles. His children were Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales. Now that William is Duke of Cambridge in his own right, he doesn't use his father's territorial designation.

Similarly, the children of the Duke of York are Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, and the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are Prince George of Cambridge and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.

It would be quite wrong to refer to the "Princess of York" or "Prince or Princess of Cambridge".

Another example is Princess Michael of Kent. Her name isn't Michael, it's Marie Christine, but her title is Princess Michael (because it derives from her husband: Princess Marie Christine would be someone who was royal by birth). And Prince Michael is "..of Kent" because his late father was the Duke of Kent. (The current Duke of Kent, Prince Edward, is Prince Michael's brother.)

ETA: Note that Prince Charles is not "Prince Charles of Wales". If you want to include his name (because you need to distinguish between the current Prince of Wales and previous holders of that title), you can refer to "Charles, Prince of Wales".

[ 30. September 2015, 22:36: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
About as sensible as the stuff which led to my mother having post addressed to Mrs Edward ******** when her name was Margaret.

And whoever awarded secular human beings divine titles like Majesty and Grace (that's Dukes, not bishops)
 
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Enlighten a benighted Yank. Is there more than one prince of Wales? I thought only Charles held that title.

There is indeed only one Prince of Wales, and his name is Charles. His children were Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales. Now that William is Duke of Cambridge in his own right, he doesn't use his father's territorial designation.

Similarly, the children of the Duke of York are Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, and the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are Prince George of Cambridge and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.

It would be quite wrong to refer to the "Princess of York" or "Prince or Princess of Cambridge".

Another example is Princess Michael of Kent. Her name isn't Michael, it's Marie Christine, but her title is Princess Michael (because it derives from her husband: Princess Marie Christine would be someone who was royal by birth). And Prince Michael is "..of Kent" because his late father was the Duke of Kent. (The current Duke of Kent, Prince Edward, is Prince Michael's brother.)

ETA: Note that Prince Charles is not "Prince Charles of Wales". If you want to include his name (because you need to distinguish between the current Prince of Wales and previous holders of that title), you can refer to "Charles, Prince of Wales".

Thanks, although if you were to quiz me with hypothetical examples I'm still not sure I would pass the test.

In any event, why did the boys use the surname "Wales" in the Army? Isn't Windsor their actual surname? Or if they do alternatively also call themselves "Wales", wouldn't the correct usage be "of Wales" -- similar to, say, the German "von Hohenzollern"? Prince Michael is "Michael of Kent", not "Michael Kent", yet their Army names were "William Wales" and "Henry Wales".

[ 01. October 2015, 16:07: Message edited by: fausto ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

In any event, why did the boys use the surname "Wales" in the Army? Isn't Windsor their actual surname?

No - they don't actually have a surname. Various of the royals have used Windsor, or Mountbatten-Windsor, as a surname from time to time, but royal Princes and Princesses don't technically have surnames.

quote:
Prince Michael is "Michael of Kent", not "Michael Kent", yet their Army names were "William Wales" and "Henry Wales".
Not quite. Prince Michael is "Prince Michael of Kent" - he is not a person called "Michael of Kent" who happens to be a prince. If he were to use a surname for anything, he might well call himself "Michael Kent".

Note that peers also often refer to themselves by their titles rather than their surnames. Imagine a man called "George Smith" who was Duke of Someshire. His name is "George Smith" but he would often use the name "George Someshire" (or just "Someshire").

[ 01. October 2015, 20:00: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
Thank you. It's much clearer now. I think.
 
Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :
 
Someone has been reading the Boy Scout's diary, or was it Debrett's?
A Godly ruler (don't ask me to define it) will govern a nation for the benefit of all its citizens.
Examples from English History Liz I and Charlie II.
American, Kennedy - RC
NZ. Julius Vogel, Premier (Head of Government). Jewish by faith and race.
These people can be contrasted with Queen Mary and Oliver Cromwell who tried to impose their religious beliefs on the nation.
What little I know of Islamic history suggests that Islam has produced such Godly rulers.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
Someone has been reading the Boy Scout's diary, or was it h?
A Godly ruler (don't ask me to define it) will govern a nation for the benefit of all its citizens.
Examples from English History Liz I and Charlie II.
American, Kennedy - RC
NZ. Julius Vogel, Premier (Head of Government). Jewish by faith and race.
These people can be contrasted with Queen Mary and Oliver Cromwell who tried to impose their religious beliefs on the nation.
What little I know of Islamic history suggests that Islam has produced such Godly rulers.

Don't agree about Charles II. He wasn't too bad a King, but he was a cynic, and his main motivation was his desire 'not to go on his travels again'.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Martin Luther once remarked that he thought the perfect prince (ruler) would be an atheist prince because the atheist would not be burdened with ethical problems a Christian prince would have.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Martin Luther once remarked that he thought the perfect prince (ruler) would be an atheist prince because the atheist would not be burdened with ethical problems a Christian prince would have.

No, he didn't. He didn't say anything like that. If you are referring to this supposed quote, much loved of many Lutherans:
quote:
I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian
then you should know there is no evidence that Luther said or wrote this. Source here.

"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0