• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support a Muslim for President?

Would you vote for a Muslim candidate for president?

  • Yes, I would still vote for the candidate.

    Votes: 30 44.8%
  • No, I would not vote for the candidate.

    Votes: 19 28.4%
  • Depends (on how less-qualified the other candidates are)

    Votes: 18 26.9%

  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
Allow me to begin by saying that Obama's presidency has nothing to do with this poll. I am in no way implying that President Obama is in anyway personally affiliated with the religion of Islam. I was inspired to create it after posting in a couple other threads which directly tied religious doctrine with support for various presidential candidates, So, here goes:

Let's use our imaginations here........Suppose there were a presidential candidate who was obviously the most experienced and the most qualified among the field of candidates. Also, let's suppose that this particular candidate espoused much or most of the political, economic, social, and moral ideals which were important to you as a voter. Now let us suppose that this candidate just prior to election day, announced publicly that he/she was converting to Islam. Would you give this candidate your support? Please give your reasoning.

*Note: Obviously this poll is directed at non-Muslim voters although anyone is welcome to participate. :shrug:

Until recently, I was represented by a congressman who was Muslim, and I voted for him. I didn't care about his religion at all. Why would I? What does it have to do with anything? The "sharia law" line is garbage. Religion is personal. The first time you heard that Obama was a Christian, did you wonder whether or not he was going to create a federal ban on businesses being open on Sunday?

Seriously, the Sharia law thing is so stupid. Even if a candidate was secretly trying to get into the White House as a conspiracy to apply Sharia Law, what would it matter? The Supreme Court would uphold it? Congress wouldn't care? It's so, so absurd.

And far, far, far right conservatives claim Obama is in league with Muslims in the middle east. No he's not. Did radical islamic terrorists stop plotting against us? Does Obama go down to Guantanamo on Thursday nights to play poker? I know a lot of people - intelligent people, even - are internally divided by this, but let me propose this: the leader of Hamas converts to Christianity. Israel and Pakistan will end their conflict now, right?
 
I have not been proven incorrect.

Exodus 22:18. It's right there in the ****ing Bible. I'm not going to waste my time digging up more quotes where the Jews are exhorted to murder and conquer Gentiles-- in the same books that Christians derive so much of their morality from-- when your idiotic nonsense claim has already been shot down.

No one wants to prevent anyone from worshipping their deity.

No? How else do you explain the active and vocal opposition by Christian groups from allowing pagan soldiers to have appropriate gravesite decorations and services? Family court judges denying custody and visitation rights on the basis of benign religious beliefs?

But when the Church members actively - and we're not talking about thousands of years ago - suborn killing, intimidation and terrorism in the name of their that deity, NO OTHER RELIGION can match that kind of worship.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

What year did Ms. Coulter say that?

Name ANY other RELIGION that commands it's followers to slay disbelievers and make their "religion" dominant over all others on earth.

Plenty of Christian sects do this. Hell, what you're proposing is barely different.
 
Islam is a form of government and has laws which are antithetical to democracy.

So does your form of government, seeing as how you're championining the addition of an amendment that is inherently contradictory to one of the most basic tennets this particular democracy was founded upon and in which you'd specifically ban a segment of the populatoin from the democratic process.

Thankfully for you, the rest of us aren't going to suggest your doom-crier ravings that are antithetical to democracy requires you to be banned.
 
Let's defang Islam. Leave the religious part alone but ban the dangerous, aggressive, rival to democracy.

Islam is the only religion with a theology demanding violence against unbelievers.

Not remotely close. The Bible is full of verses that call for believers to kill others. In fact, there probably aren't many religions worldwide whose "holy books" aren't full of commandments to go out and slay in the name of their gods. What you fail to recognize, purposely, I think, is that it isn't the religion that's any better, it's the society in which that religion exists that has a moderating effect on the violent tendencies of the religious fanatics. Muslims in the U.S. aren't violent, any more than Christians are, because we have a secular society that doesn't allow them to run roughshod over unbelievers. Christian history is long and bloody and has resulted in the murder of millions of people. Today, it happens to be focused in the western, civilized world, which doesn't permit it to act like a bunch of unruly schoolchildren. Islam, on the other hand, is mostly based in the middle east, where secular society has not taken hold and cannot moderate it. However, if you look at outlying areas, like Africa, you find that Christianity is still a terror, murdering people in the name of their religion. Let's not forget the decades-long fighting between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, which hasn't been over all that long, either.

Christianity is no better than Islam and given half a chance today, would be out there happily killing unbelievers alongside the Muslims.

Religion, virtually all religion, is prone to violence if you don't constantly watch it.
 
Also, you have an inadequate understanding of Islam, IMHO.

Only until the POLITICAL component is removed from Islam will we be safe. We are dealing with a deadly viper. Moderation in dealing with Islam without first defanging it is only delaying the inevitable.

Especially as it seems fashionable to hold ill informed opinions about Islam and how best to deal with it, people don't understand what a real moderate philosophy about Islam should be.

I don't see any difference between any religion. They just operate differently. Where Islam is a brutal religion, Chritianity is sadistic, and manipulative. Religion is a posion to this world. It is funny that the COEXIST bumper stickers have religious symbols for the letters, I wonder why that is? hmm
 
I don't see any difference between any religion. They just operate differently. Where Islam is a brutal religion, Chritianity is sadistic, and manipulative. Religion is a posion to this world. It is funny that the COEXIST bumper stickers have religious symbols for the letters, I wonder why that is? hmm

You seem to be reasonable and rational enough. Yet, you also seem to be unable to recognize an obvious difference in the activities between Islamist aggression, violent and non-violent Jihad and Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu non-violent preaching, praying and passivity.

Can you explain why this is?
 
Allow me to begin by saying that Obama's presidency has nothing to do with this poll.


I guess, when you feel like you must initialize your OP by instantiating a negative declaration about that which you also conclude is not an input to your algorithm for who gets elected as President, the rest of what you say might be labored with additional suspicion that you had not initially accounted for, thereinafter.

Your question is laden heavily with bias, assumption, presupposition, insinuation, circular reasoning and prejudice - just to name few of the more 'positive' attributes of your OP. The most weighted of these attributes is not all that clear upon first reading. I was initially struck by the timidity with which you delivered your clear anti-Islamic prose, as you attempted to cloak them in a wading pool of 'what-if' allegoric narration that lead to 'the big surprise' of a candidate for President announcing to the country that he/she was indeed converting to Islam.

I could wax fairly autonomously on that one shielded observation alone and reason singularly to a conclusion that your OP, is really nothing more than a myopic view of a world in which you probably don't have a broader view that extends beyond our Western Culture. Essentially, I could take your OP down a thousand paths and derive the exact same conclusion. So, the mathematics behind your OP is very transparent in that regard.

However, instead, I will simply say this - You will find no utterance anywhere within the United States Constitution that prohibits any U.S. Citizen from voting for a Presidential candidate based on their religious beliefs. In addition, you will find evidence that those who drafted and signed the United States Constitution, did so with every intent to let future generations of U.S. Citizens know the importance of maintaining protocol that allows for the separation of both church and state. Moreover, upon a deep and reflective reading of the Declaration of Independence, you should come away with one of the moral imperatives embedded within, that causes one to become fully aware of the importance in maintaining the heritage of the United States of America, as the world's de facto standard-bearer for multi-cultural tolerance and expressed religious freedoms.

Figuring out whether or not I would vote for a candidate who happens to be Muslim, should now be child's play. Your question is an I.Q. Test, at a minimum and a Hypocrisy Test, just as forcefully - whether you understood it as much or not.

We could expand this thread to explore the real differentials between Mormonism, Islam and Christianity, so that your OP can be full understood for what it is at its core. However, my experience with this board is that no such dialog and/or deep discussion would either be favored, or even tolerated by the forums "elite."

So much for optimal on-line linear dialectic medium for discussion and debate.

The OP has the floor.
 
Last edited:
John Locke said Catholics and atheist should be excluded from public office.
Catholics because they had sworn an allegiance to a foreign crown,
and atheist, because they lacked a moral compass.
I think a Muslim wanting to be President would fit into the same argument.
He would hold the laws of Islam higher than our Constitution.
If the two laws came into conflict, he would have a real jehad(in the other meaning) on his hands.
 
The problem is you really don't know what is in the heart of any Muslim.
 
John Locke said Catholics and atheist should be excluded from public office.
Catholics because they had sworn an allegiance to a foreign crown,
and atheist, because they lacked a moral compass.
I think a Muslim wanting to be President would fit into the same argument.
He would hold the laws of Islam higher than our Constitution.
If the two laws came into conflict, he would have a real jehad(in the other meaning) on his hands.

You ever hear of JFK?
 
You ever hear of JFK?
And John Locke wrote that in 1689, when the church was a real political power.
The concept was that a man cannot serve two masters.
 
The problem is you really don't know what is in the heart of any Muslim.

thats a problem for all men, no matter their religion :shrug:
 
The problem is you really don't know what is in the heart of any Muslim.

What an incredibly racist thing to say. People said the same about the Japanese in WW2. Sad the some people haven't learned a thing from history.
 
You seem to be reasonable and rational enough. Yet, you also seem to be unable to recognize an obvious difference in the activities between Islamist aggression, violent and non-violent Jihad and Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu non-violent preaching, praying and passivity.

Can you explain why this is?

Christian genocide on the Native Americans. Israels killing Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. Buddhist attacks on Christians and Muslims in Sri Lanka.

Sounds passive. All of these things in the name of there religion
 
Christian genocide on the Native Americans. Israels killing Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. Buddhist attacks on Christians and Muslims in Sri Lanka.

Sounds passive. All of these things in the name of there religion

Heaven is in the details. The only thing you conveniently overlook is that only the Koran leaves a lasting marching order for it's followers even thousands of years later to go forth and use any means necessary, even the sword, to make Islam dominant over all other religions.

And of all the religions mentioned on this page, only Muslims actually follow those marching orders today. And of those who do, a small % of them use violence to obey Allah's edicts and emulate Muhammad's example.

Finally, I can't speak with any knowledge of the other examples you listed, but why didn't you specify the Palestinian's everlasting hatred toward the Israelis in the name of Allah, and what they do to prevent peaceful co-existence in that region?

Oh, and one more thing...we mustn't forget the traditional animosity and violence toward Jews, generally, by Muslims, generally.
 
What an incredibly racist thing to say. People said the same about the Japanese in WW2. Sad the some people haven't learned a thing from history.

That's not racist. It's common sense. In a survival situation you'd quickly revise your thinking processes or your priorities or else you'd not last long.
 
I have not yet read the rest of the thread but this is my first thought. I would certainly consider voting for a Muslim. I am currently considering voting for a Mormon, what is the difference?
 
thats a problem for all men, no matter their religion :shrug:

Except that not all religions are part religion and part system of government and laws which command it's followers to kill non-believers. And not any of those religion's followers actually carry out those hateful commands, except u no hu.

So why do you defend such intolerance in a religion and a group of people?

You wouldn't defend ther types of violence and hatered and bigotry, so why do you defend Islamists and Islam?
 
I have not yet read the rest of the thread but this is my first thought. I would certainly consider voting for a Muslim. I am currently considering voting for a Mormon, what is the difference?

If you read the entire thread you'll see the personal post from Jon Stewart and his take on vting for a Muslim.
 
That's not racist. It's common sense. In a survival situation you'd quickly revise your thinking processes or your priorities or else you'd not last long.
Only another racist would not find that racist....sorry....but that is the same mentality that people used to justify the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2. Its sad that some people have learned nothing from history.
 
Heaven is in the details. The only thing you conveniently overlook is that only the Koran leaves a lasting marching order for it's followers even thousands of years later to go forth and use any means necessary, even the sword, to make Islam dominant over all other religions.

And of all the religions mentioned on this page, only Muslims actually follow those marching orders today. And of those who do, a small % of them use violence to obey Allah's edicts and emulate Muhammad's example.

Finally, I can't speak with any knowledge of the other examples you listed, but why didn't you specify the Palestinian's everlasting hatred toward the Israelis in the name of Allah, and what they do to prevent peaceful co-existence in that region?

Oh, and one more thing...we mustn't forget the traditional animosity and violence toward Jews, generally, by Muslims, generally.

I see you have a personnal vendetta towards Islam. I honestly think as I said before that all religions are a pois the world. Let them all kill one another, then maybe will have a peaceful world for ounce. All this blood shed over imaginary friends, false prophets, and belief in a place that doesn"t exist. Some world we live in huh.
 
Only another racist would not find that racist....sorry....but that is the same mentality that people used to justify the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2. Its sad that some people have learned nothing from history.

Please come up with some new talking points DD. The situation is completely different....The Japanese in this country were not trying to blow us up with suicidde bombers...
 
Ideally, and if I can curb my own prejudges, I'd NOT wish to know about the religion of the candidate....It simply does not matter.
But, I real life, with the history of Islam, it may be a thousand years before one could run for office in America..
And 100 years for the Buddha believer....or the Hindu....
The atheist ? 500 years...
Hatred and intolerance are not pretty.
 
I see you have a personnal vendetta towards Islam. I honestly think as I said before that all religions are a pois the world. Let them all kill one another, then maybe will have a peaceful world for ounce. All this blood shed over imaginary friends, false prophets, and belief in a place that doesn"t exist. Some world we live in huh.
I do NOT see Marsden having any "vendetta" against Islam...He is but speaking the truth, in his AND my oipnion..
I guess that you are saying that religions are a poison.......sad but all too true....
Peace will come when people learn to tolerate rather than kill....give this another thousand years....Man is a slow learner.
 
I guess, when you feel like you must initialize your OP by instantiating a negative declaration about that which you also conclude is not an input to your algorithm for who gets elected as President, the rest of what you say might be labored with additional suspicion that you had not initially accounted for, thereinafter.

Your question is laden heavily with bias, assumption, presupposition, insinuation, circular reasoning and prejudice - just to name few of the more 'positive' attributes of your OP. The most weighted of these attributes is not all that clear upon first reading. I was initially struck by the timidity with which you delivered your clear anti-Islamic prose, as you attempted to cloak them in a wading pool of 'what-if' allegoric narration that lead to 'the big surprise' of a candidate for President announcing to the country that he/she was indeed converting to Islam.

I could wax fairly autonomously on that one shielded observation alone and reason singularly to a conclusion that your OP, is really nothing more than a myopic view of a world in which you probably don't have a broader view that extends beyond our Western Culture. Essentially, I could take your OP down a thousand paths and derive the exact same conclusion. So, the mathematics behind your OP is very transparent in that regard.

However, instead, I will simply say this - You will find no utterance anywhere within the United States Constitution that prohibits any U.S. Citizen from voting for a Presidential candidate based on their religious beliefs. In addition, you will find evidence that those who drafted and signed the United States Constitution, did so with every intent to let future generations of U.S. Citizens know the importance of maintaining protocol that allows for the separation of both church and state. Moreover, upon a deep and reflective reading of the Declaration of Independence, you should come away with one of the moral imperatives embedded within, that causes one to become fully aware of the importance in maintaining the heritage of the United States of America, as the world's de facto standard-bearer for multi-cultural tolerance and expressed religious freedoms.

Figuring out whether or not I would vote for a candidate who happens to be Muslim, should now be child's play. Your question is an I.Q. Test, at a minimum and a Hypocrisy Test, just as forcefully - whether you understood it as much or not.

We could expand this thread to explore the real differentials between Mormonism, Islam and Christianity, so that your OP can be full understood for what it is at its core. However, my experience with this board is that no such dialog and/or deep discussion would either be favored, or even tolerated by the forums "elite."

So much for optimal on-line linear dialectic medium for discussion and debate.

The OP has the floor.
Like ? yes and no
Share ? how ?
Comprehend? partially at best
 
Back
Top Bottom