CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
In recent debates i've seen. The answers seem to be half and half when it comes to debating about religion and Muslim in specific. I personally thought this would be intriguing to see how this one goes.
I have no reason to assume that a politician being a Muslim would make them any more or less crazy then politicians that are Christian or Jewish or Atheist.
Barrack HUSSEIN Obama is a muslim if you didn't know, bruh. See where he brought us. In front of the World War 3. Muslims are evil, they believe in death only and they like to blow people for their fake freedom beliefs.
You have to be a troll....only a fool would say something like "Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a muslim". It shows how ignorant you are to Obama's beliefs. And why capitalize the "hussein" part? Are you trying to imply that he is equivalent to Saddam? He was born with the name his parents gave him 40+ years ago....
An Atheist president or a Christian president would give no understanding to the psychotic acts of the Middle East. A Muslim president would absolutely. They'd understand their literal insanity.
Ouch, two down votes. I was just pointing out there are very few fundamental differences between the main doctrines of both religions, so for a Christian to say that Muslims are bad is hypocritical and demonstrably false.
what you want is a president by the people for the people, been muslim is fine if thats the religion you where indoctrinated in to as a child.
Its converts you can't trust.
Tony Blair converted to Roman Catholicism the day after he stoped been PM. If someone feels that strong about a religion the question always lingers was he acting as he thought the people wanted or as he thought "his god" wanted (Everyone has their own version of god.). He wouldn't have been kept as PM if he had of converted before hand.
so if he can guarantee seperation of church and stae then I would be quite happy, it wouldn't make any difference to muslim enemies though, to them he would be the wrong sort of muslim and therefore still an infidel.
The Catholic religion has always been very good to war criminals, perhaps this is why Mr. Blair felt compelled to convert so shortly after his tenure as a war criminal.
I get so frustrated when conservatives say "oh I think Obamas a Muslim" that's the least of my worries. So what if he was?? Maybe he wouldnt suck so bad. All the Muslims I have met were way nice people.
I don't think it matters what religious views they have, as long as they've got decent policies and good ideas for governing the country I live in then why not?
I find the idea of a Muslim president no more objectionable than that of a president of any other faith. Personally my preference would be an agnostic or atheist president, but so long as a theistic president of any faith does not intend to impose their beliefs upon others through the power bestowed upon them with their office I do not care. It is when the religious identity becomes the primary driving influence of the office holder that I find it problematic. For me, there are more important issues at stake than religious belief - the economy, social equity, etc. If someone's religion does not obstruct their capacity to address those issues then power to them.
Out of curiosity, would you make the same statements about a Christian candidate? Would you voice the same hesitations? I do not want to reach a conclusion without asking, but I have observed it so often that there seems to be undue and unequal reservation regarding Muslims versus Christians.
I don't care about their religious convictions. Ideally, they are suppose to keep that separate from their job as president. So yes, I have no issue with a Muslim president. They could be a Scientologist (one of the newest wackos) for all I care.
I do take issue to any (current or potential) president that violates the Separation of Church and State and integrates their or anyone else's religion into law in any way that goes against the 1st Amendment.
I would be okay with it as long as hes no more extreme about it than past presidents, for instance I don't want to be forced to pray in school. Of course this will not happen for probably 100 years or so
Why not? Muslims may sometimes have same views as other presidents. Although some may be unfair, they choose presidents according to the people (democratic countries) and most likely a muslim would not make it to be a president
Why not? Not like I'm racist or anything to any race. Any president would be okay, as long as they have the ability to govern the country well enough and make the country have a good future. He must also be able to communicate effectively with the people. If that isn't so, then I would not be okay with the president.
I honestly have nothing wrong with an Islamic president. I don't have a problem with anyone of any religion being a president. We live in America. People come here for freedom and the two biggest freedoms there are in the world are freedom of religion and freedom of speech. You cannot simply dislike a president based off his beliefs. As long as he/she meets the requirements to become president, then they should have a fair chance of becoming president.
But with one exception.....Sharia Law is not introduced. Citizens in the United States are equal and Sharia Law berates women and calls for the execution of homosexuals.
You can be a satanist for all I care, I just ask that you don't produce debt at more than a rate of double the last president. cough cough Obama cough cough
"You can be a satanist for all I care, I just ask that you don't produce debt at more than a rate of double the last president. cough cough Obama cough cough"
There's a problem with that. Obama is not a muslim, neither allegedly or otherwise.
He has stated consistently that he is indeed Christian. Do us a favor and do some research. It's clear that you have done none if you want to continue spewing forth republican propaganda.
And even if Obama were muslim, what difference would it make? Is he somehow a lesser being?
You should learn to do some research, this is one of the most spread lies about Obama.
Despite numerous times that Obama has spoken of his committed Christian faith, some Americans still doubt his religion or, incorrectly, view him as a Muslim.
The link for the page is below. It's about 3 paragraphs down.
I think your assuming that when I said "cough cough Obama cough cough" I was hinting at Obama being a Muslim, I'm not, I'm saying that he is not doing good for this country.
I think that someone of the Muslim faith would have a very hard time making it to the Presidency. The reason being, the amount of public religious prejudice which has developed over the last decade or so toward people of the Muslim faith. Just look at Northern Ireland we have seen this before between people of the same bloodlines. I could just imagine the carnage which would ensue if someone of the Muslim faith entered the Presidency!
Just as OK as I would be having a Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu, president/prime minister. While I accept it (religion), and understand how it is different to an inherent belief in something with similar levels of proof (unicorns, or a celestial teapot), that's not to say that I agree with it.
But yes, to what the question's really asking, I don't really care whether or not someone's Muslim, Christian, or whatever, if they were my head of state, then as long as I believed that they would do a good job, then I would be happy.
"then as long as I believed that they would do a good job"
Yes, but there is a difference between you believing they would do a good job, and them actually doing a good job. With the ways the Muslim politics work, they are completely contradictory with that of the American system. That's why most Muslim countries are dictatorships.
As someone living in a Muslim country, I feel you may need to revise your opinion of 'Muslim politics'.
First of all looking at a list of Islamic countries, you should see that the top five countries listed, by population, are all democracies.
Lots of Islamic countries are dictatorships because the vast majority of countries were dictatorships whilst they were not developed - look at Europe, Africa, Asia - dictatorships are not uncommon in the world, democracy is a new ideal, one that is constantly being redefined and adapted. The Middle East has lots of oil, which means that lots of money has gone into the ME, into Islamic countries, in the last 50 or so years, forcing them to develop rapidly. This forgoes social development, and does not bring about political development - a move to democracies. Also, a significant factor is that many Western governments prop up dictators for mutual benefits, even overthrowing democracies.
Finally, Muslim politics are based off of the five pillars of Islam. One of these is charity, so I can understand completely why your American (Republican) politics is not compatible - you guys have spent the last month in a hypocritical and ignorant celebration of individual work, that borders on insulting to the collective society that gave these opportunities. Here in Qatar, the government happily takes care of its people - universal education, healthcare, benefits, the people have it all.
Also, I'm not even going to address the racial message you're trying to give out - because someone's a Muslim, they're unable to do a good job. Is it not sad that these sorts of comments don't even shock me any more?
First of all looking at a list of Islamic countries, you should see that the top five countries listed, by population, are all democracies.
In the sense that N. Korea is a Peoples Democratic Republic, yes, these countries are all democracies.
Also, if you arrange the list by percentage of Muslim population, the list more closely resembles the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, craziest Muslim countries in terms of things like public executions and honor killings. So perhaps being a Muslims country doesn't necessarily mean the country is ripe with barbarism and hate, but apparently there is a direct relationship between the percentage of Muslims in a country and those terrible things, at least in my opinion. This isn't comforting.
Finally, Muslim politics are based off of the five pillars of Islam. One of these is charity
Good for them; that's also a virtue of Christianity, and I would say Muslims practice it about as often as Christians do, and America is the most rabidly religious western country, so I'd have to disagree that Americans don't practice charity. We have a whole political party dedicated to forcing charity, for Christs sake.
And the other four pillars that the politics in Islamic democracies are apparently based off of are: acceptance, worship, and obedience in Mohammad, praying five times a day, starving yourself, and visiting Mecca. Sounds like a great way to ground the values of a democracy except that none of those are democratic values.
And in Qatar the government happily takes care of it's people, that is when it's not flogging or stoning them in public, prosecuting them under Sharia, or restricting their diet and worship for religious reasons.
Not saying Qatar is the worst of the bunch - not at all. I just think if you eliminated the Islamist element of that country you'd actually have a place worth bragging about, and not just the lesser of all the evils of the Islamic hellholes.
Hey Libtard..If Islam is peaceful loving and great - put it to the test. Be a real liberator and free spirit kind of person and Start a small Bible Study in your home and invite the locals to share with your new found information in the good book called the bible. Or better yet - go start reading the Torah and sharing it with your neighbors. Come back in a year and tell us how loving and caring they are to you. I too have been to Qatar and all throughout the middle east for the last 17 years and have seen many Americans living in fear because of their faith and thats not right - Islam is not peaceful.
By the way we are all one Race - its the Human Race. There are no other types - the differences are skin tones and genetics.
Be a real liberator and free spirit kind of person and Start a small Bible Study in your home and invite the locals to share with your new found information in the good book called the bible. Or better yet - go start reading the Torah and sharing it with your neighbors.
Did I say that all Muslims are tolerant?
I too have been to Qatar and all throughout the middle east for the last 17 years and have seen many Americans living in fear because of their faith and thats not right
The Middle East has changed hugely in the last 17 years. You can now go to Church in Qatar, for example. These people are not persecuted, they are allowed to do this, and they no longer live in fear because of their faith (neither do I admit that they did 17 years ago). Qatar is not a country where there is complete discrimination against other religions, or beliefs.
I have many friends who will always wear a rosary, or other accessories with links to Christianity. They have never faced discrimination for this.
"Also, I'm not even going to address the racial message you're trying to give out - because someone's a Muslim, they're unable to do a good job."
Wow...did you seriously not read my first post on this debate? Here let me repost it for you:
GAAAAA! Statements like yours ("Not to be seen as racist") kinda frustrate me! Muslims aren't (I repeat) aren't a race. Muslim is the term given to the followers of Islam. It's like saying because I don't like Christians, I must be racist. Well, I'm not. Christians aren't a race any more than Muslims are a race.
Thank you for showing us how much of a moron you are. Muslim's aren't a race dipstick. Arabs are. Not all Arabs are Muslim. Go get educated; you'll find yourself making less idiotic statements or making a fool out of yourself on CreateDebate....dipstick.
As I have already said, I live in an Islamic country, in the Middle East. I know many Muslims, I know Arab Muslims, African Muslims, White Muslims, I realize that 'Muslim' is not a race. But in common context, racism does not just mean discrimination against a race, it means discriminating against a group of people, like Muslims. You ignore my points for no reason at all - just to be a bit fucking semantic. Pointless.
" But in common context, racism does not just mean discrimination against a race, it means discriminating against a group of people"
And you had the audacity to call me naive????? Really???????
Racism has nothing to do with religion you idiot. It's like saying you are racist because I can post links in which you posted negative comments about Christians. After all Christians are a group of people too, and you have discriminated against them; you racist, racist little bastard. ;) HAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, and like you said because there are so many different races of Muslim, it's a completely self defeating argument to call someone racist for discriminating against a Muslim. And that's the best part, is that you defeated your own argument with you OWN post. This is hilarious. We got to put that post on file.
Besides, my college professor backed me up on this one. Racism has nothing to do with religion, but I wouldn't expect any more from an uneducated high school student such as yourself. My college professor went so far as to accuse you of "Internet Trolling" (although, I personally don't think you are a troll; just uneducated). Like I said in my previous post, GET EDUCATED. You are just making yourself look more and more foolish with every most. I can discriminate against Muslims all I want and I will never be racist for doing so. Just sacrilegious.
And if that don't get it though your thick skull, how about that -1 verses my 2 (before you down voted me). So ask anyone else on this site, even iamdavidh. Even HE will agree with me. Racism has nothing to do with religion.
Way to opt out of the debate and launch into a semantic tangent instead. Your opponent presented clear evidence and analysis that you were wrong, you pretended that it did not happen and ridiculed them for being an idiot, and then continued to ignore the fact that your argument fell flat even after it was pointed out. Whenever this happens, I find myself with very little option other than to consider the point conceded. So you can win your little tangent, but you lose the overall argument.
You nitwit. He never called you a racist. He said, "not even to mention the racial issue." He then clarified that he was using race in a cultural rather than literal dictionary context, as do many people. Is it semantically inaccurate? Sure, but ultimately it really has nothing to do with the point he was raising which was that your association of ineptitude with Islamic belief was ignorant. Rather than address that or any other of the valid points raised, you sidestepped into semantics and got your panties into a knot over an imagined accusation that was never made.
You nitwit. He never called you a racist. He said, "not even to mention the racial issue." He then clarified that he was using race in a cultural rather than literal dictionary context, as do many people. Is it semantically inaccurate? Sure, but ultimately it really has nothing to do with the point he was raising which was that your association of ineptitude with Islamic belief was ignorant. Rather than address that or any other of the valid points raised, you sidestepped into semantics and got your panties into a knot over an imagined accusation that was never made.
Wow, you're a moron. Here let me post what he said:
"Also, I'm not even going to address the racial message you're trying to give out - because someone's a Muslim, they're unable to do a good job. "
As you can see, he is clearly affirming that the Muslims are a race. It's a confusion I have run into many times, as people think that Muslims are Arabs. This was no exception. The way this sentence is structured, there is no wiggle room. Instead of saying something like, "Also, I'm not even going to address the culturally biased message you're trying to send out"; he uses the word racial. That's extremely important due to the following, "because someone's a Muslim, they're unable to do a good job."Here he's connecting the term racial with stereotyping. Again, there is no room for using the "cultural" excuse. So quit being an ignoramus fool and tying to say opposite!
Second, he's made posts calling Christians all sorts of derogatory things. So wouldn't that make him racist too?
And finally, let's look at his back-peddle. He makes a last effort attempt to try to save face with this line:
""in a similar way as me insulting Americans will get me labeled as a racist, despite the fact that they are not a race."
Disproven with this:
Billboard Top 100, 2004: "American Idiot"-Green Day
Green Day, which is an United Kingdom band, made fun of the American culture with there album "American Idiot". Not once, (and I repeat) not once have the been called racist.
If you think, that after all this, he wasn't calling me racist; you are one of the most willingly ignorant people on the entire planet. Get educated!! Then you won't make such a fool of yourself. But then again, once a fool always a fool.
Ah, such stinging remonstrance! How shall I ever recover from that magnificent lineup of straw man logical fallacies which you have laid before me? Seriously though, the insults are unnecessary and if you must make them at least be more creative.
As for my purported imbecility, I have already indicated that I quite readily grasp your point and even agree with it. The use of racial language interchangeably with bigotry and prejudice is a personal pet peeve. Regardless, it is such a common misapplication of language that the intention behind the statement is still quite apparent and the rebuttal of your opponent is one you should have been able to understand: namely, that your bigoted comment was prejudiced against Muslim people. That you chose to make a pointless foray into semantics instead of actually refuting the accusation lends credence to the veracity of the same. Your quick anger and dull insults do nothing to bolster your character.
And still, not a single word to refute the earlier rebuttals made to your assertions. Not one word. Your persistent avoidance is rather telling.
Finally, the other debater did not call you a racist. He called your observation a racist (read prejudiced/bigoted) statement. The difference is that it was not a straw man attack, but a direct response to the statement. It is a technical distinction, and one you seem willing to overlook.
I don't think you understand, discrimination is a good thing:
“Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths amongst women and affects over 1.3 million women per year. Breast cancer doesn't discriminate by nationality or race. Do you want to be like breast cancer? Well, do you? If you don't discriminate, you're acting just like breast cancer; you might as well just kill 400,000 women annually. If you think breast cancer is a bad thing and you're against the death of a half million middle-aged women then racism is for you. Remember: racism is not like breast cancer at all. ” -David Duke
And I do not think you are actually willing to engage the real issue of this debate. I am done with this pointless exchange and your avoidance tactics. If you make another post, I do not intend to reply unless you are responding to the actual issues raised at the start of this thread of posts.
All right then, let's go back to my original post, the one BenWalters called me a racist about.
"then as long as I believed that they would do a good job"
Yes, but there is a difference between you believing they would do a good job, and them actually doing a good job. With the ways the Muslim politics work, they are completely contradictory with that of the American system. That's why most Muslim countries are dictatorships.
Thank you for bringing it back around to the actual issue, although I still think you are failing to respond to the point the other debater offered already in response to your argument. Not all predominantly Islamic countries are non-democratic, and that there are majority Muslim nations which are democratic disproves your argument that Islam is "completely contradictory" to democracy. Clearly they can and do co-exist.
If you want to argue the "majority of states" stance then I think you have to confront the reality that in recent history most states have not been democratic or republic including the majority of predominantly Christian states. The Islamic religion is not inherently contradictory to democracy any more than Christianity; it merely coexists in some countries with non-democratic forms of government just as Christianity does.
Furthermore, we have Islamic legal representatives who serve in their capacity arguably just as well as any other non-Muslim elected official.
"there are majority Muslim nations which are democratic disproves your argument that Islam is "completely contradictory" to democracy."
Not really, I would call these "dictatorships with some democratic tendencies". With how the Muslim religion is put together, they can only handle a "supreme authority" government body. Whereas Christianity is put together in order to maximize freedom.
"If you want to argue the "majority of states" stance then I think you have to confront the reality that in recent history most states have not been democratic or republic including the majority of predominantly Christian states. The Islamic religion is not inherently contradictory to democracy any more than Christianity; it merely coexists in some countries with non-democratic forms of government just as Christianity does."
No, wrong again. It's the states dominated by Democrats that haven't been free. Just look at the state of Wisconsin. For the past 12 years it's had a Democrat for a governor. They had freedom taken away left and right. Now that Walker's in office, they have more freedom than ever. In fact I heard he even passed a law that allows carry conceal weapons. He gave Wisconsin another freedom, where a Democrat would just take it away. Whether you are for or against gun control, you can't deny that he gave Wisconsin a freedom.
"Furthermore, we have Islamic legal representatives who serve in their capacity arguably just as well as any other non-Muslim elected official."
I'm not as familiar with these as I probably should be. Could you provide information?
Christianity does not have any innately democratic nature to it. For hundreds of years it was directly connected to monarchs and empires that were precisely the opposite of democratic (e.g. The Church of England), and there are non-democratic governments which still remain in operation concurrent with predominantly Christian populations. My point is this: there may be a tenuous correlation between Islam and dictatorships as you claim, however this does not equate causation or speak to an innate characteristic of Islamic faith. By and large, Christianity and Islam have more in common than they do in difference and both have had strong affiliations with non-democratic practices.
When I was using the term "state" I was not referring to the states of the U.S. but to nation-states. My argument remains the same and, I believe, unaddressed.
As far as elected officials who are Muslim, Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL) is the highest ranking official that I am aware of (he holds an office in the U.S. Congress). There are also other more minor officials throughout the U.S. that I have heard of more in passing. The reality is that none of them (at least that I am aware of) have been seen to push Sharia law or attempt to implement an Islamic agenda, and certainly no more so than any Christians in office.
"Christianity does not have any innately democratic nature to it. For hundreds of years it was directly connected to monarchs and empires that were precisely the opposite of democratic (e.g. The Church of England),"
So, the Pilgrims, Puritans, and the Reformers weren't Christians? I think you have a misunderstanding of history. The Church of England was not Christian. It was corrupted and cruel. The actual Christians, the ones that founded America on Christian principles of freedom, are the ones you want to reference. Therefore, I do not believe that Christianity was the cause of empires opposite of that which is democratic, it is the Wolves in Christian clothing that you need to look out for.
Good grief, can you seriously not see the double standard you are pursuing? Your argument is effectively that when Christians abuse the Bible they are not real Christians but that when Muslims abuse the Quran that’s just Muslims for you isn’t it? That would be incredibly convenient for you if it were not a complete and utter logical fallacy.
The Christians of the past used the same Bible as many Americans do today and swore to the same god as they used their religion to oppress dissent, persecute others, and wage holy wars. The same fucking book and the same damn religion. If the Bible preaches peace, it also preaches violence and it is the same for the Quran and any other religious doctrine. The reality is that every religion can be and has been abused, and that at some point in history that abuse has coincided with non-democratic regimes. It is not an innate characteristic of the religion, but reflects the character of the people interpreting and applying the religion to good or ill ends. If there are wolves in Christian clothing, then there are also wolves in Islamic clothing. It is a cop-out to simplify all Muslims into a foreign and unrelatable "other" instead of recognizing that the majority of Muslims are like the majority of Christians – which is to say that they are not extremists or violent or undemocratic and that they want the same thing as most other people which is to live their lives well.
As far as the founding of America goes, sure there was a Christian influence but there was also a very heavy deistic and non-theistic influence deriving from secular Enlightenment Era philosophy. Christianity does not have a monopoly on democracy, and Christians are not the only ones capable of pursuing it (nor of destroying it).
Yes, but when the quran says to kill anyone who won't convert; you don't think that's going too far? The problem with you argument is it's false "Christians" killing other true Christians. Yes, I can see where you might be confused with thinking it's a fallacy, but the fact of the matter is I don't see very many Muslims killing other Muslims because they won't agree with their particular "state-church". And the fact that the quaran says to kill anyone who won't convert kinda sums up the whole group.
"Christianity does not have a monopoly on democracy, and Christians are not the only ones capable of pursuing it (nor of destroying it)."
Technically, yes. But the problem is all other religions that aren't Christian are set up around bureaucratic dictatorships. Christianity is made to give people as many freedoms as they possibly can have by setting up an absolute standard of morality. Not once is government affairs mixed in with Christianity (with the exception to obey your government). So in the founding of our country, Christianity had the strongest influence of anything else in the history of the world. That's why no other country came close to the freedom we enjoy today, because no other country was ever rooted in Christianity. After all, didn't our Founding Fathers start out every meeting with a word of prayer?
I presume that your referring primarily to the use of the term jihad in the Quran. In many western societies this term is frequently translated as “holy war” and has strong connotations with extremist and terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. However, the more accurate translation of the word is to the noun “strive” or struggle” and many Muslims consider the narrow restriction of jihad to violent aggression to be a perversion of their faith. Instead, most practitioners consider jihad and other references to struggle to be a reference to the internal struggle within oneself towards moral perfection. Consequentially, we find that Islam is not inherently violent and that as with Christianity there are myriad interpretations of the religious scripture.
Furthermore, in response to your inter-group violence argument: There is violence between extremist Islamic groups just as there has been between Christian extremists (e.g. Sufi versus Shiite). The religions as they are practiced are really not that different from one another. Moreover, you missed my primary point in bringing up the violence within Christianity and by Christianity towards others which is that very undemocratic practices have co-existed with Christianity and been justified in the name of Christianity by those who considered themselves to be Christians. This empirically demonstrates that there is not any innate quality to Christianity that makes it democratic.
Your argument that Christianity frees people by establishing an absolute standard of morality is simply not true. For one, the myriad interpretations and practices of Christianity are proof that the morality is subjective due to human interpretation rather than absolute. Furthermore, literal and conservative interpretations of Christian doctrine deny equal freedoms to people based upon race (slavery), gender (rights of women), and sexual orientation (rights of homosexuals); these principles are in direct contradiction to the principles of a democratic society.
You state that “not once is government affairs mixed in with Christianity (with the exception to obey your government)” which is flagrantly false. Christianity has a strong presence in U.S. government, and I would argue that it is when it does so that there is the greatest injustice against others. Our definitions of marriage and the extension of rights reflects explicit Christian intervention, as does previous legislation concerning a woman’s’ right to abortion, and so on and so forth. If you want to claim that prayer before meetings demonstrates that Christianity founded American democracy, then you are still faced with the reality that it was in the name of Christianity that slavery was perpetuated, discrimination defended, and rights refused.
"I presume that your referring primarily to the use of the term jihad in the Quran....etc. etc."
I suppose, but Islam is far more violent and over-reactive than Christianity. For example, turn on the news and watch as our ambassador gets violently killed over a movie trailer. Or Yahoo! search about how South Park made fun of Mohammad and Muslims were given permission to kill the writers of South Park if they met any. Christians never killed ambassadors because that country made a movie trailer making fun of Jesus. Nor did they threaten to kill the writers of South Park when they made fun of Jesus many times. So yes, I find that Islam is inherently violent.
"Moreover, you missed my primary point in bringing up the violence within Christianity and by Christianity towards others which is that very undemocratic practices have co-existed with Christianity and been justified in the name of Christianity by those who considered themselves to be Christians."
I don't think violence in itself makes a country "undemocratic". So just because there has been violence associated with Christianity doesn't make them "undemocratic". Second of all, my point was it was non-Christians persecuting true Christians. Because it was Church of England (a bunch of popes trying to get rich and powerful) persecuting Pilgrims (actual believers) I don't think the same principles apply. And I doubt that these corrupted religious leaders actually considered themselves to be Christian, so no; it was non-Christians using the name of Christianity to persecute actual Christians.
"Furthermore, literal and conservative interpretations of Christian doctrine deny equal freedoms to people based upon race (slavery), gender (rights of women), and sexual orientation (rights of homosexuals); these principles are in direct contradiction to the principles of a democratic society."
First of all, there is no where in the New Testament that states slavery is OK. Second, even the slavery mention in the Old Testament stated you had to free the slave after seven years of work giving him provision and funds necessary to make it on his own. Third, the "rights of women" argument is disputable. For example, some people (even atheists) argue that abortion kills children. And lastly, I argue that homosexuality is immoral, therefore shouldn't be a right. After all, laws against murder hinder someone's right to kill someone. As ridiculous as that example was, I hope you see my point in that you need a standard by which to back morality.
"You state that “not once is government affairs mixed in with Christianity (with the exception to obey your government)” which is flagrantly false. Christianity has a strong presence in U.S. government"
LOL, no silly. I don't mean that Christianity isn't mixed with government affairs, I mean that government affairs aren't mixed with Christianity. For example, the Bible doesn't give any instructions on how to run a country allowing man to set up a country any way he wants. The Bible doesn't tell you how to run a country, that's mans job. Our Founding Fathers set this up this country using Christian principals in order to maximize freedom. After all, you want to see how well a atheistic rooted country works? Go to Russia and see how well they have been doing.
If Islamic nations are currently more reactionary than western nations, this is not primarily a consequence of the religion but of the political history of western intervention in the Middle-East (e.g. establishing and supporting Saddam Hussein in Iraq prior to the invasion). There is not an equitable degree of recent state-sanctioned action by Middle-Eastern/Islamic countries towards western countries so of course the reaction to insults is not as strong.
You have completely overlooked my larger argument that as with Christianity there are myriad interpretations of Islam, and that many (if not a majority) of adherents to Islam believe in a non-violent interpretation of their faith and view the violence of other Muslims as a perversion of their faith. The reality is that any faith can be used to justify violence, and that all faiths have been used to that end.
Regarding violence, I think that it is intrinsically connected to democracy especially as the violence we have been discussing pertains most often to the persecution of other groups. With respect to Christianity I have already pointed out that you cannot just say that some of them were true Christians and some were not; very convenient but a logical fallacy as I explained already. For further analysis, consider that the Christians persecuting each other switched between the same sects which each oppressed the other during their respective times in power. So which were the “true” Christians?
Regarding the use of Christianity to oppress people: (1) You argue that the New Testament does not condone slavery, however the Old Testament does (even with restrictions); were the Christians who lived before the New Testament just not “real” Christians then? Does the Old Testament count for nothing? Was Christianity never used to defend slavery? The reality is that as recent as the last century Christianity was used to justify racial discrimination (e.g. denying the right of inter-racial couples to marry). (2) You limit “women’s rights” to abortion which was not at all my intention; the rights of women have been restricted based upon religious interpretations of the role of women in society and religion was and continues to be used to justify denying equal enfranchisement among other basic democratic rights. (3) Your personal moral (read religious) view on homosexuality alone is not an adequate basis for making same-sex marriage illegal. The reason we have laws against murder is because killing other people has a clear harm to others and to society at large; those harms do not exist in any form whatsoever with same sex marriage. The sole basis of denying equal rights is religious.
Christianity was also used to justify the Conquests of the Americas and to oppress the Native American population as settlers pursued their divine right to westward expansion. I could go on listing examples, but it is an incontrovertible fact that undemocratic acts of oppression and violence have been justified using Christianity for as long as Christianity has existed. It is not uniquely Christian to be democratic or undemocratic; just as it is not uniquely Islamic to be democratic or undemocratic.
Finally, consider the absolute fact that there are many Muslims who are born citizens of the U.S. who believe in and practice democracy concurrently with their faith. Clearly this is proof that the two are not antithetical to one another.
It amounts to the same thing. If the country is rooted in Christian principles as you claim (which I still contest amidst your silence on the rebuttal) and the dominant view of Christian morality within the faith is integrated into and influences our laws and legal system then there is a connection which is adequate grounds for the argument I was making.
The Soviet Union was not rooted in atheism, it was rooted in communism and Marxism and that only in theory rather than practice. The secular practices of the state and its attempts to obliterate religion were driven by a political ideology rather than a theological one. Furthermore, there is more than one view and practice of atheism and of secular governance and pointing to one failed nation is inadequate proof that atheism cannot work (Christian nations have failed before as well). Also, for all that the founding generation had its Christian influences they still included the freedom of and freedom from religion, and the separation of church and state. At its roots, this country is a secular government comprised of a religious populace.
Calling me stupid then failing to understand what I'm saying ... for fucks sake.
I am not saying that, semantically, insulting Muslims is racist, because yes, they are not a race. I am saying that under common usage, the meaning of the word 'racist' has changed - in a similar way as me insulting Americans will get me labelled as a racist, despite the fact that they are not a race. Racism can be used to mean discriminating against any group of people for certain arbitrary features. And finally, I did not call you racist, I said that your post speaks of racism - meaning that it's similar to racism, not that it strictly speaking is.
I'm not claiming that I was correct in my terminology, but your reaction is disproportional to the slight mistake I made. I also didn't downvote you, I only downvote when I see something that makes me think that someone's especially unintelligent, while also annoys me, you've just showed me you're marginally obsessive. And if you think who gets what vote matters, that every individual on this site that can be said to be an absolute authority, then think again.
"I am saying that under common usage, the meaning of the word 'racist' has changed"
No, just your perception off it. I've never heard anyone say something so ridiculous in my life.
"And finally, I did not call you racist, I said that your post speaks of racism - meaning that it's similar to racism, not that it strictly speaking is."
Nice back-peddle , but still completely wrong. Here let me post your original statement"
"Also, I'm not even going to address the racial message you're trying to give out - because someone's a Muslim, they're unable to do a good job. "
You flat up called me racist in that post. There's no beating around the bush about it, you called me racist and now your trying to save as much face as you can. But the fact of the matter is, you simply saw my Confederate Flag, and thought, "Oh, Confederate! I think I'll call him racist." Well, like I said, get educated. You may actually learn something.
"in a similar way as me insulting Americans will get me labeled as a racist, despite the fact that they are not a race."
Again, nice back-peddle, but still wrong. I can disprove this ludicrous statement with one line:
Billboard Top 100, 2004: "American Idiot"-Green Day
I've never heard Green Day called racist. Just quit back-peddling and admit you were wrong. There's no shame in that. Are you really so pretentious?
Here is one example of someone saying that making judgements' about people from one religion (Islam again) is racist. Didn't even have to look for it or anything. So if you maintain that I am alone in my usage of the word racist, then you're an ignorant fool. Which I don't think you are, I just think you're trying to win an argument through unconventional means, and failing.
Just to make sure you don't misunderstand:
I am not saying that it is, strictly speaking, correct.
I am saying that it is done, and people understand what I mean.
True, but just because another person made the same mistake doesn't mean it's correct. If I said that 2+2=5, and found someone who agreed with me; would that mean 2+2 really equals five? Of course not! It's just that now two people are incorrect. And to be fair, you're going to bring a guy who misspells every word and writes his posts as a huge run-on sentence as an educated debater?
The reason, though, that I nit picked the issue in the first place is because Democrats tend to play the race card whenever they can't win an argument rationally. I wish you never played the race card in the first place. Whenever people start shouting "racist", it usually shows a weak mindset. Especially when they are not even talking about an actual race.
Look, all I want is you to at least admit that my argument wasn't racist. That's all. No beating around the bush, no "I didn't come out and directly call you racist" cover up, just a "No your argument wasn't racist." That's it. Like I said, I respect you stance, I just don't like the "racist" accusation.
Semantically, yes, I was wrong, your argument was not racist.
It was, however, very discriminatory and offensive to huge numbers of people, and had little to back it up in the way of arguments. My choice of words were incorrect, but I stand by the overall tone of what I said.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I am very happy now.
But as far as the argument goes, I respect your stance, just on the opposite side. Me (I?) and Jace are debating the issue right now. Were kinda at a stand still, though. I think we agree to disagree.
Even though most of all of our presidents turn out to be Jewish. We have had some catholic like J.F.K. and they turned out to work out very well despite the assassination. Now with a Muslim the controversy would never end. 300 years of Jews and Catholics and we have turned out fine. With some bumps along the way with scandals and impeachments we have had our fair share of problems; but aslong as were not under a monarchy, dictatorship, or communist. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
GAAAAA! Statements like yours ("Not to be seen as racist") kinda frustrate me! Muslims aren't (I repeat) aren't a race. Muslim is the term given to the followers of Islam. It's like saying because I don't like Christians, I must be racist. Well, I'm not. Christians aren't a race any more than Muslims are a race.
I know this is reeeeeaaaaaaaally off topic but you're right. In my school if you make any jokes about Jews ( non WWII related) people all get upset saying " you can't say that you Nazi, you're racist" however you tel the exact same joke, but use a christian, people just think 'lol'
I know right? I tell ya, there is more wrong with todays "politically correct" society than ever in the history of the USA. In a sense, political correctness in almost actually incorrect.
You do realize that there is at least an equitable amount of controversy surrounding the Christian/western world, yes? Christianity does not exactly have the best track record, past or present. It makes no more sense to assume the character of a Muslim person based upon their faith identity than it does to do so for a Christian person based upon their faith identity. If you would extend your logic to include all controversial faiths then I would say your argument might have merit, otherwise it truly is just prejudiced.
This country is founded in principles that go against the Muslim belief. I'm not saying they can't live here, but I am saying that a Muslim, as president, would not be a good choice for us (at the moment).
I'm not saying they can't live here, but... No, of course not. You are merely implying that Muslims go against the founding principles of the country, which in turn would imply that they do not truly belong here but we will tolerate them in the name of "diversity" and "plurality". Truly, bravo.
Seriously though, what founding principles go against Muslim belief? If you mean to imply that the country was founded upon Christian principles you are incorrect; while there was a Puritan influence in political thought there is not a single specific reference to Christianity in the founding legal documents and the language used primarily reflects philosophical publications of the enlightenment era. Islam is no more against those principles than Christianity is, and the separation of church and state makes Christian belief as irrelevant as Islamic belief in the realm of law.
I wouldn't be ok with a Muslim President because all he/she has to do is have the Sharia law come in on the U.S and then we would be forced to believe in "allah"
I love how someone down-votes me without any response it brings laughter to me whoever down-voted me because they don't have the guts to reply to me and then they down-vote me.
You didn't get my point did you. I just explained the difference between the Islamic God and Jesus and you still continue to say that allah is arabic for god no its not. They say God or they say Jesus.
This is what the defintion say from dictionary.com says:
Whatever, its not what allah means because in school they teach it and its says a name for the Islamic god. I don't believe Christians would say that. I think they would etheir say Yahweh, Jehovah, and also Jesus or God.
The bible says kill gays, people who work on the sabbath, unbelievers who wont convert, witches, adulterers, heretics, and the list goes on. Do they do it? No, because most of them live in modern societies where they CANT do it. I believe that alot of christians are crazy enough to do it if they could.
Also the bible directly contradicts itself in many places (www.evilbible.com --> contradictions in the bible). If your own bible cant agree with itself between books then how can you say they should be exactly the same? once again, HIPOCRITE
The bible says kill gays, people who work on the sabbath, unbelievers who wont convert, witches, adulterers, heretics, and the list goes on. Do they do it? No, because most of them live in modern societies where they CANT do it. I believe that alot of christians are crazy enough to do it if they could.
What you just stated was from the Old Testament and the Old Testament is for the Jewish people it has stories from what happened in Israel and that is called history. , Christians don't follow the New Testament. They follow the New Testament because it talks about how Jesus came down and saved us from our sins and that He rose from the grave and He taught us how to live.
Where does it say in the Bible in the New Testament that Jesus said to kill people in His name? No where is it stated.
Also the bible directly contradicts itself in many places (www.evilbible.com --> contradictions in the bible). If your own bible cant agree with itself between books then how can you say they should be exactly the same? once again, HIPOCRITE
Some of those contradictions on that site aren't contradictions at all.
Wow, Jesus directly says to follow the OT's laws. He is the flesh embodiment of the stone (10 commandments). The NT is based on the OT and it's the same god!! What just because you don't like the OT u forget it entirely and focus on only the stuff that makes you feel good? The NT is also filled with immoral BS like self mutilation! Not to mention a virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection is ABSURD. but we've already been over this and you don't bother to listen.
Ah HA! Reguardless you can not deny the vast majority ARE contradictions! And how do you address those hmm? Explain?
The Old Testament was for the Jewish people they only thing Christians do follow from there are the Ten Commandments and read some of the prophecies of when He comes back for His second coming. You don't see Christians killing homosexual, or killing people who murder people or doing all sort of things now do you?
The New Testament is new testimony but with 4 authors of the Gospel who recorded what happened when Jesus was alive and what He did for us on the cross and that He rose again fro the grave. People in the Bible were witnesses of the Resurrection.
I didn't completely forget about it, I know a lot of things about the OT. Sometimes I even read how God created the earth and other things but I don't completely abandon it.
I do listen why do you think I am mostly replying to your argument right now?
Most of those contradictions were taken out of context and the people who published it didn't read the verse before it or after the verse it proclaimed the supposed contradiction.
Prophecies FROM the OT. Again Jesus even said to follow the OT's laws. And of course you don't see them killing gays and witches ect.! 1) It still SAYS TO which should be a moral red flag and by not doing so you are directly disobeying your god. And 2) because it's the 21sr century! You think any of them could do it In this society? Of course not! Theyd be thrown in prison! A few century's ago and back further they WERE doing it! It was the actual LAW. The point I was making was if they wouldn't get in trouble, a lot of Christians would be crazy enough to do it just because god said so.
WRONG. The gospels were NOT eyewitness accounts. They were published over 6 decades after his supposed death! Also, and I've said this before, there were historians alive during that time and nobody wrote a single word about him or his miracles or the resurrection. NOTHING. Don't you think someone that amazing and influential would have HUNDREDS writing about him? Like "dear diary a man freaking cured blind man Joe today it was amazing!" but no. The only thing bridging that 60 year gap is the letters of Paul. And he only learned from word of mouth and included NOTHING about miracles, the virgin birth, yada yada yada. Just his life and crucifixion. The gospel authors never met Jesus in their lives whoever they were.
Also back to your comment "the OT is for Jews". It's the same god, so is can you not actively read and follow the laws of the OT? It even says "this is the word of god and it will stand forever". It is for ALL god believers.
Aaaaaand for my argument you have yet to acknowledge:
I watched some stuff on Evan Craig on YouTube including a debate between him and Prof. Erhman (look that up) and he never gave any archeological evidence for anything important or really hard to believe. And in the debate between him and Prof. Erhman, he gives no evidence for anything archeological or otherwise, and doesn't even respond to prof. Erhmans questions. Also he starts with "I believe". Right away that's a red flag. If this guy had any convincing evidence he would use it clearly right away. He does not.
This is what has been proven about the bible: a couple people actually existed (Jesus included), the places in the bible existed, and a few minor events POSSIBLY happened. Now if these things are true does that mean the whole bible is true? Of course not! Just cuz Jerusalem exists that means the world was flooded by god? Just cuz a man named Jesus existed he was everything they say he was and performed impossible things? No! There's ZERO evidence for the bulk of it. The only evidence that exists is for the underlying settings or people these fabricated stories were based on. In fact, archeological study shows the world couldn't possibly have flooded due to countless reasons.
There were historians living during Jesus's time. If he was so widely known and so important, why is he now noted in any of these historians writings? No miracles, no resurrection, nothing. But all this in depth knowledge of Jesus were supposed to take as truth from some anonymous guy? And even look at the old testament, how could anybody know how god created the universe? Or the story of Adam and eve? Nobody could ever have observed these things!
Basically the bulk of what I'm saying is even if you can prove historically that some things happened and some people existed (and so far that's extremely few) that doesn't make the bibles claims about magic sky daddies and miracles true or even reasonable.
What most evidence proposes is that a man existed (whether his name is Jesus or not is unknown) and was a teacher of morals who had followers. He was executed by the Romans for this reason. That's it. People have taken this and exaggerated it. For example, a 16th century newspaper showed a story of a farmer who killed a snake in his field. In reality and the story the snake was like 2 ft long max. But the front page photo showed a 8+ft long beast with huge fangs breathing fire. People make stuff up. Human imagination blows things up naturally and invents fake but exciting things. This is likely what happened with Jesus. Seeing as the authors of the gospels never met Jesus in their lives. The gospels were written 6 decades after his supposed death. The authors couldntve possibly known him! And why wait so long to write about him if he's so important? If it were true we'd see tons of texts from historians or average people giving their own accounts on what they witnessed. Instead we have stories from people learning about him by word of mouth decades later. It doesnt add up. This decades gap is only bridged by the letters from Paul that are poorly preserved an roughly translated. Reguardless, Paul, whom more likely met or witnessed Jesus than the gospel authors only talks about his moral teachings and crucifixion. That's it. No miracles, no resurrection. Speaking of moral teachings, the ones included in the bible are not the only gospels that were written. Take for example, the gospel of timothy. In this one as well as the others not included in the bible, they show Jesus as more of a man and teacher than a god and have far less bold statements like the miracles and rising to heaven on a cloud. It is because of this that the catholic church chose not to include them when they made the bible. It is likely that these gospels are more accurate than the bible's.
Also, one can look as what the bible has plagiarized from texts before it. Mithra, Dionysus, Horus, 3 of about a dozen god's that share traits with Jesus such as: the birthday of december 25, a virgin mother, children of larger god's, performing miracles such as water to wine, walking on water, and healing the blind, having 12 diciples, being called names like "the truth", "the light", "the savior". These god's share all these things with jesus (not all 3 have all of them but they do have most, Horus does in fact share all traits with Jesus). And they ALL died, and rose on the third day. This is clear plagiarism from religions presaging Christianity. Satan comes from the earliest pagan forms of satanism which many historians believe was one of humanities first real religions. In sanskrit Satan means truth but in Hebrew it means enemy, Hebrew came after Sanskrit, it's not just a coincidental mis translation. It wad clearly altered to fit the religion. Also look at the holidays. Easter, why the eggs and rabbits? They're pagan symbols for fertility. During spring early pagans would celebrate the rebirth of the land after the dead of winter. Death. Rebirth. Sounds familiar doesn't it? And it just happens to be exactly when jesus dies and is reborn. Christmas, clearly the celebration of the winter solstice. Also any word ending in mass- is based in pagan roots. There's tons more things, even stories in the bible that were taken from old religions and slightly altered, I just can't remember em but look it up. It's out there. Here's where I got most of this:
Erhman did a good job of arguing it in the 1st part of the videos on the debate between him and Craig. The bible is unreliable in many ways and that being said should not be taken as sufficient evidence of any kind for anything Christianity says. Erhman also said before starting that the audience must keep an open mind during the debate. I suggest you do the same. Open your eyes to the evidence. The scale has been tipped so far to our side by our metric to s of evidence that it's fallen over.
All of what I've just said is things I've read in my history of research on the bible and Christianity from sources I do not remember. However search the Internet for it and you'll find it, it's pretty common knowledge.
Sorry Srom but not all Muslims and not all Muslim Countries have Sharia law and your argument about Muslims killing non-believers is a bit of a broad generalisation do you know any Muslims? And the Bible talks about stoning Women and Children and "Christians" have committed many attrocities throughout history all in the name of their faith so really having a Christian President is as bad as having a Muslim one
And the Bible talks about stoning Women and Children
Yes it does but the stoning of people was the law of the Jewish people and Israel not Christians.
"Christians" have committed many attrocities throughout history all in the name of their faith
No real Christians would never kill in the name of Jesus because it says that you will know what real Christians are.
Yes there have been people who said they were Christian but they act totally the opposite of what Jesus taught them (which there are many today who think they are Christian but they are not), unlike Islam who teaches if you do not believe what they believe they you should be killed. Christ never said to go out and preach my name and if they don't believe in me kill them.
Yes that is what I am saying. Jesus did not teach true Christians to go to war for HIM or to take Jerusalem for His name sake because He said He would take care of Israel and Jerusalem. He said to to preach His name and if they do not believe just walk away and go to the next town.
No, I would not be happy with a Muslim President. I voted for Obama thinking it was only right that someone other than an "old white guy" had an opportunity to lead the nation; I now realize that was a terrible mistake. Regardless of what color the President is he should be a real American, with moderate conservative values. Let's face it Obama is not and neither are most Muslims. I personally don't want the US to transform into the Republic of Wadiya so I won't vote for Admiral General Aladeen, lol.
Cannot tell if troll or ignoramus. Only those with moderate conservative values are "real Americans"? This country was founded by a revolution and premised upon plurality. Besides which, electing a Muslim will not lead to the imposition of Sharia law. Only a knee-jerk alarmist would truly believe that.
Well then the knee jerk alarmists are onto something. Sharia law is already practiced (and sanctioned by the host government) in several western countries. Last I checked, Britain had almost 100 Sharia courts operating within its boarders. These are courts where, for example, a raped woman must be able to provide four male Muslim witnesses in order to prove the rape charge. These are courts, lets remind ourselves, that openly discriminate based on sex and sexuality, and courts that dish out some of the most brutal and primitive sentences. And they do this with the full support of the legitimate legal system of Britain. So you'll understand why people feel strongly about resisting Sharia Law; it's opposed to every value we hold in the West, and it has already shown that it can, in fact, impose itself on a nation.
Not saying that electing a Muslim would automatically put us under Sharia, but I think it's a more valid concern than you give it credit for, and it's also something that doesn't require a Muslim in the executive branch to occur.
I recognize that Sharia law has been introduced in other western countries, but I see it as an altogether separate issue from the candidate. We do not worry about a Christian candidate establishing a national church, so why is there such suspicion that a Muslim candidate would establish Sharia law? It is an assumption that seems highly invalid in my view and unsupported by probability.
The implementation of Sharia law within other countries was not a consequence of a PM or other elected official being Muslim; it was a consequence of distinct cultural and legal practices and customs of the respective countries with respect to their attitudes towards religion, diversity, and rights. Preventing Sharia law in the U.S. or other Western countries is not a matter of refusing to vote for someone because they are Muslim; it is a matter of safeguarding our civil rights and liberties from a particular brand of extremism that is prevalent in multiple other faiths and political groups.
Well Britain has an established Christian Church; it is officially a Christian nation. But it is still just and civilized. It might not be preferable, but western democracy can operate under such conditions, and perhaps this is why people don't worry about Christian PMs instituting a national church as much as a Muslim instituting Sharia Law.
Look at any country where Sharia calls the shots and you will see that Sharia is diametrically opposed to democracy and, for that matter, civil liberties. That is why it scares people more than a national Church, for example. And Muslims involved in the governing process at a position significantly below PM have managed to get Sharia instituted in Western nations, already; what damage do you think a Sharia-supporting PM could do?
Given what has already been allowed to happen to our freedom as a direct result of Islamist extremism, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be on high alert for any creeping Islamic values (including Sharia) into our government.
I do not disagree that Sharia law is oppositional to democracy, however not all of Islam is defined by Sharia law advocates and not all Muslims would advocate its integration with governance (particularly where there is a strong history of separation of church and state). It makes no more sense to me to assume a Muslim to be a radical extremist than to assume a Christian to be a radical extremist, and to make that assumption is indicative to me of an underlying prejudice because it assumes radicalism as the norm absent any reason to do so.
I think your argument that people are not as equally concerned about Christians implementing a national church as they are about Muslims implementing their faith into law to be flawed. Firstly, your comparison is of general Christian religious integration versus an extreme form of Islamic religious integration (i.e. Sharia law); I would argue that if we were comparing two extreme versions of religious integration the fear would be relatively equitable. Furthermore, I think that a large part of why many westerners do not fear a Christian state as much as they do an Islamic state if quite simply because the majority of them are Christian. I must say that as a non-Christian I find the idea of a Christian state as worrisome and undemocratic as an Islamic one. A lot of terrible and undemocratic things have been committed by Christian nations, and a considerable number of rights and freedoms have been denied in the name of the Christian faith.
however not all of Islam is defined by Sharia law advocates and not all Muslims would advocate its integration with governance (particularly where there is a strong history of separation of church and state).
Not all, no. I've seen estimates between 30 and 60% in western countries. Still worrisome.
It makes no more sense to me to assume a Muslim to be a radical extremist than to assume a Christian to be a radical extremist, and to make that assumption is indicative to me of an underlying prejudice because it assumes radicalism as the norm absent any reason to do so.
If I bump into a Muslim on the street, of course I don't run screaming in the other direction. Prejudice would imply that I judge all Muslims to be extremists before I even meet them. That's not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is observing the greater abundance of extremism that currently exists (or, at least, is acted upon) in the Middle East. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never said radicalism is the norm; what I am trying to imply is that it must be greater in Islamic countries, as religious genocide and ideological terrorism is still a current reality in the Middle East, and as anyone verbally criticizing Islam in public can be expected to be threatened with violence - or find themselves victims of it. These things, to me, indicate radical religious extremism. These things are prevalent in Muslim countries, and next to non-existent in Christian countries. So it's not a prejudice so much as an observation of facts.
I think your argument that people are not as equally concerned about Christians implementing a national church as they are about Muslims implementing their faith into law to be flawed. Firstly, your comparison is of general Christian religious integration versus an extreme form of Islamic religious integration (i.e. Sharia law);
I could make that comparison, but I would need to be comparing a kind of regime that died out hundreds of years ago in Christian countries to the regime that is currently prevalent in most Muslim (and forced into some western) countries. And while I agree that this would make the Sharia Law look better, it would be a pointless comparison, because the Western world got over that kind of brutal and primitive Christian theology hundreds of years ago.
Also while I think Sharia Law is extreme in the sense that is callously denies rights to human beings for no reason, I don't think it's an extreme form if Islamic religious integration into the legal system if only because its so prevalent. Extremism kind of implies a radical minority, while brutal Islamic law is commonplace is the majority of Muslim countries. So while it might seem an extreme and radical way to run a government to us in the civilized world, it's actually quite normal and every-day for Islam. Again, look at a country with an official established Christian Church: Britain. Look at any Muslim country where Islam calls the shots: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Libya, Sudan, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Iran... which would you rather live in? Actually that should be a very easy question for you specifically to answer, seeing as how you could easily be publicly executed for your gender status in some of the Muslim countries I just listed.
Furthermore, I think that a large part of why many westerners do not fear a Christian state as much as they do an Islamic state if quite simply because the majority of them are Christian.
I agree. However, I'm a non-Christian and I oppose Islamic politics more than I oppose Christian politics for a reason that kind of ties into your last point:
I must say that as a non-Christian I find the idea of a Christian state as worrisome and undemocratic as an Islamic one. A lot of terrible and undemocratic things have been committed by Christian nations, and a considerable number of rights and freedoms have been denied in the name of the Christian faith.
Yes. In Christian nations, like the US, we have to fight against radical reactionary Christian republicans trying to deny homosexuals marriage rights or pregnant women abortion rights. And this sucks, and it is in no small part due to Christian ideological brainwashing, I agree. However, most the the things Christian regimes have done that are on par with what Islamic regimes are currently doing is history. Christian nations are not currently torturing women for conversing with unrelated males, or massacring and raping non-Christians in the streets (oftentimes aided by the police and military), or stoning women to death for the crime of being raped, or crudely mutilating the genitals of young girls, or denying homosexuals access to schools and universities (when they're not publicly executing them, that is), or actively discriminating against women, homosexuals, and non-Christians in their legal system, making it impossible for any of these groups to receive justice. This list goes on and on.
While Christianity certainly has a brutal history, some of these things are too barbaric for even pious sixteenth century Christian fundamentalists to carry out - and they're currently going on,in abundance. All In all I would much rather be fighting for abortion or gay marriage rights by voting in a Christian nation, than be fighting for my life and liberty with physical violence in an Islamic nation, and that's why I despise Islamic nations over Christian ones. I despise both, but I don't even need to consider which I would rather live in.
I've seen estimates between 30 and 60% in western countries.
I have not heard of that statistic before; can you recall a source at all? Also, could you clarify exactly what that is referring to? I am unclear if the % is the number of western countries with Sharia law, the number of those supporting its implementation, etc.
[Radicalism] must be greater in Islamic countries, as religious genocide and ideological terrorism is still a current reality in the Middle East, and as anyone verbally criticizing Islam in public can be expected to be threatened with violence. [...] These things are [...] next to non-existent in Christian countries.
This reflects more strongly upon the instability of Islamic nations rather than upon the innate character of the religion itself. If nations that were predominantly Islamic had the benefit of a more stable political development with less exterior intervention, then I think we would see a very different manifestation of the faith. That being said, I think you do have a point that currently Islam has a stronger and extreme brand of radicalism. That proclivity aside though it seems that radicalism is not necessarily the norm, and if that is the case then it strikes me as odd to assume radicalism before moderation in a Muslim candidate. The non-desirous trait should be extremism rather than being Muslim, and to conflate the two does seem prejudicial to me.
The Western world got over that kind of brutal and primitive Christian theology hundreds of years ago. […] While it might seem an extreme and radical way to run a government to us in the civilized world, it’s actually quite normal and every-day for Islam.
Firstly, I think that not all Islamic nations are quite as extreme and pro-Sharia across the board as you portray them to be, although Middle-Eastern affairs are not exactly my strongest suit. I think there is more variation, but letting that argument stand I think that the Western world has benefited from greater political stability and power, with comparatively less external intervention. The West can wage wars (military, economic, etc.) on a scale that Middle-Eastern nations cannot, which rather negates the need for reactionary social dynamics and politics. Perhaps moderation is privilege not so much of the civilized but of the powerful, and extremism is the consequence of subordination and exploitation.
I suppose that is a bit tangential though to your point, which was that the current condition of Islam as manifested in the nation-state (however it came about) is what it is and should be evaluated as a concern based upon that reality alone. Correct me if I am wrong. I think that that is valid grounds for general concern over the influence of Islam and the spread/integration of Sharia Law, however it still does not make sense to me to assume that implementing Sharia law would be on the agenda of a political candidate simply because they are Muslim. To state in general that one would not be okay with a Mulsim president indicates a certain level of assumption that is not, in my opinion, warranted even by the reality of a general national/regional trend towards a pro-Sharia stance.
All In all I would much rather be fighting for abortion or gay marriage rights by voting in a Christian nation, than be fighting for my life and liberty with physical violence in an Islamic nation, and that's why I despise Islamic nations over Christian ones. I despise both, but I don't even need to consider which I would rather live in.
Yes, well argued and I rather see your point so consider that particular point conceded. I think it is fair to say you have persuaded me over to viewing an Islamic state as more of a threat to freedom than a Christian one. To reiterate my sticking point however, why does this mean one would not support a presidential candidate solely because of their religion absent any knowledge of how they view their faith and its relation to the law?
There was a similar study I remember seeing done in the US, but I can't seem to dig it up. And this is referring to the percentage of Sharia advocates, in this case, among a student population in Britain.
If nations that were predominantly Islamic had the benefit of a more stable political development with less exterior intervention, then I think we would see a very different manifestation of the faith.
Yes. I very much agree. And perhaps if the serial killer and mass rapist hadn't been himself beaten and raped as a child, he wouldn't be a serial killer and mass rapist, but you can't expect this to excuse his crimes, can you?
That proclivity aside though it seems that radicalism is not necessarily the norm, and if that is the case then it strikes me as odd to assume radicalism before moderation in a Muslim candidate. The non-desirous trait should be extremism rather than being Muslim, and to conflate the two does seem prejudicial to me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is ever a point I made. I know I interjected into a debate you were having specifically on this issue, but I tried to be careful to not make the point that I wouldn't vote for or support a Muslim candidates right to run for president. Actually I wouldn't vote for one, but that's because of my views on voting, and has nothing to do with religion.
Firstly, I think that not all Islamic nations are quite as extreme and pro-Sharia across the board as you portray them to be, although Middle-Eastern affairs are not exactly my strongest suit.
You're part right. A lot of the countries I listed don't fully practice Sharia Law, but all of them at least incorporate elements of it into the governing process, and in my humble opinion any Sharia is too much Sharia.
Perhaps moderation is privilege not so much of the civilized but of the powerful, and extremism is the consequence of subordination and exploitation.
An interesting and perhaps true observation, but again, what does this change?
And the state of the Islamic world today, one of the cradles of civilization, was not entirely decided by the actions of a country that only started meddling in foreign affairs in the 1900s. Exploitation played its part in shaping the area, no doubt, but that only really picked up around the Cold War, no? Western Christian nations were some 200 odd years past their brutal religious past at this point. Why were Muslim nations so far behind as to be susceptible to such exploitation?
... is what it is and should be evaluated as a concern based upon that reality alone. Correct me if I am wrong.
More or less. I find debating about the origins of the issue mildly interesting, but it's not a pressing problem in the world today. There's something to be said for learning from the mistakes of history, I think, but that doesn't solve or even address what I consider to be the issue at hand.
however it still does not make sense to me to assume that implementing Sharia law would be on the agenda of a political candidate simply because they are Muslim.
I don't assume that and if I implied that it wasn't my intent. What I did mean to imply is that is should certainly be a consideration, that we should make sure that it is not on the agenda of any Muslim candidate lucky enough to make the ballot, because as I said before the wages are our freedom and safety.
Yes, well argued and I rather see your point so consider that particular point conceded. I think it is fair to say you have persuaded me over to viewing an Islamic state as more of a threat to freedom than a Christian one.
I was a militant atheist who spent a lot of his time attacking Christianity, partly for the barbarism in its religious text, and then when I started studying the influence of religion worldwide and looked at the Islamic world, I thought, "Holy shit, it's like all the barbarism from Christian texts is still going on." What I mean to say is that it's easy to criticize Islam in this context because Islam is an easy target. I think you're points about why the Islamic world is this way contain some truth are are defiantly worth consideration, but still, a rotten apple is a rotten apple; no matter how it got rotten, I'm not eating it.
To reiterate my sticking point however, why does this mean one would not support a presidential candidate solely because of their religion absent any knowledge of how they view their faith and its relation to the law?
I don't think it should mean that, and looking back over my posts (as this is a reoccurring issue) I never said that. ARMYANT, the guy you were debating with when I interjected, said that, but I didn't. I did state as a fact that it doesn't take a Muslim president or prime minister to have Sharia Law implemented in a country. And I asked what damage a radical Islamist president or prime minister could do. And I said we should be on the lookout for creeping Sharia. But none of these things were meant to state or imply that I wouldn't vote for a Muslim on the basis that he is a Muslim and Sharia Law is an aspect of Muslim society. That would be a prejudice and intolerant statement based on a very weak association.
I think I did conflate your arguments with those of ARMYANT, so my apologies for harping on a point that was not really at issue. You wrote that the current manifestation of Islam being the consequence of various factors did not make it any more excusable than serial killers or mass rapists being the consequence of various factors. I think that you are right, yet for me the both situations (the religious and the criminal) indicate a larger issue at hand than the immediate symptom. I realize now that I have gone rather tangential to the original matter of the discussion, but I do think it goes beyond mere thought exercises. I think there is a practical value to understanding what has caused Islam to be practiced and viewed as it is today, because that knowledge has to be a part of formulating the response/solution to extreme manifestations of Islam.
P.S. Thanks for digging up the statistic source - an interesting read!
These are courts where, for example, a raped woman must be able to provide four male Muslim witnesses in order to prove the rape charge. These are courts, lets remind ourselves, that openly discriminate based on sex and sexuality, and courts that dish out some of the most brutal and primitive sentences. And they do this with the full support of the legitimate legal system of Britain.
News to me and I live here.
Sharia courts can be used as an arbitration service (think TV court). They have NO jurisdiction on issues in regards to criminality. there would be no point in a woman using them for a rape case as they have no jurisdiction they couldn't even pass it to HM courts they would have to pass it to the police.
They also have the power to disolve islamic mariages something UK courts don't recorgnise.
Unfair to women in our/my view yes but not criminal.
I have seen reports of Sharia courts dealing with domestic violence, something regarded as a criminal offense in western culture, and it wasn't handled the same way in Islamic courts (i.e. not a criminal offense) so it seemed fair to assume that Sharia courts both handle criminal matters and that they do so the Sharia way, not the legal way.
Upon further research I haven't seen a British Sharia court that handled a rape case. So my classification was baseless.
I think you'll agree with my critique of the way real Sharia handles rape cases, even if Britain hasn't allowed their Islamic courts quite so much freedom yet. I might have even been originally referring to Sharia in Islamic countries, but my post wasn't very clear and I honestly don't remember.
And regardless of my mistake, I think any court that discriminates based on gender should not be allowed, with the support of the government, to operate within the borders of any western democracy.
All in all I think you corrected an element of my post but didn't refute the point I was trying to make. I don't know if you were, but that's where I think we stand.
Eh. We all make mistakes, or are unclear sometime or other. If I went online to verify every single thing I ever typed or said I'd have time for nothing else, so I don't; I'm bound so say something untrue every now and again. And I appreciate people calling me out on it; it helps me stay informed. So thanks for that, and thanks for your compliment.
"boy" is not a racial epethet you racist liberal and as for the "natives" they attacked the seetlers first the natives on the east coste where smart they played nice (most of them) and enjoyed the benifits of haveing powerful friends but as we went west the saveges on the plains started shit they couldn't finish so we taught those blood thirsty barbareins a lesson they will do well to remember I notice you said "we" so you're white then huh? Liston man don't be ashamed of your history there's nothin wrong with pride
There is something wrong with pride and thats the fact that murder is not good at all in any circumstances, i know the indians in the west didnt like the americans but thats because we tried taking their land, so thats why they attacked, they had their pride too, so stop being a hypocrite
Yes they did they had there pride and they let there pride lewd them into rash action and they paid the price ya they lost there land but the onLu reason any one gives a dam is because they lost it to white peaple and there not whit so don't bull shit me all through history europein nations have gained anl lost land empires have rissen and fallen but do you hear anyone crying for THEM no you don't
IM crying for them, not just them, but everyone these days, we as a people are having our own fucking land stolen right from beneath us and its sickening
It is called Sharia law, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that a Muslim president would be more likely to implement Sharai law in the U.S. than would a Christian president be to implement a national Church. I do not want Sharia law in the U.S., but I do not confuse that issue with the candidate's viability. In other western democracies where Sharia law has been slowly implemented this did not arise because the PM or other elected officials were Muslim, it happened because the citizens were not safeguarding their civil rights and liberties against one particular type of extremism (and mind you there are many - in all religions and within political groups as well).
The U.S. Constitution could not stand as the law of the land under Islamic Rule. It guarantees of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness a direct opposition to Sharia Law. The day that happens the USA will cease to exist as a free nation.
Ever see Happy people in an Islamic Country? Better question: Ever see happy non-muslim (Christian, Jewish) people in an Islamic Country - oh thats right there are none - they are all killed for their beliefs.