Easily. There is no way in hell that I would have voted for John McCain. The man had no plausible idea how to address numerous problems, except focusing his entire campaign on the war. We already had that failure in George W., so I didn't any reasoning to make that mistake twice, not that I ever voted for Bush. Religion is not my priority when it comes to voting. Intelligent, decision-making on a global level allows me to sleep better at night. An 80-year-old Christian man, with no relationship to half of Americans, who is also the loudest person in the room with the least to say, is not going to get my vote.
^This. I don't know about the "non-Christian president remark" (weren't some of the founding fathers Deists?) but I know what you mean. This question is somewhat silly, in that A) he's not. and B) it's easy to say 'yes' based on analysis and convictions looking at it through 20/20 hindsight. I really couldn't care less what religion in general any president is, so long as they aren't an idiot and seem to care about doing good for this country and the people, but it's hard to say that at the time I wouldn't have let it affect my decision. I know there is no way he would have won, had this hypothetical situation been the case, but I tell ya honestly it would have been a factor in my reasoning when making an already tough decision. I think I would have come around, but really I don't know. I had many concerns about him already, and that would not have helped. I have no ill will or prejudice against Islam as I can separate the things that the various religious extremists do from the various religions they hide behind, but I admit that had he been muslim it may have given me pause to put him at the head of our country at a time of such turmoil regarding the state of the world and USA events, considering the reservations I already had about him. For anyone to act like it wouldn't have even been a factor is either impressive or in my opinion convenient. I think it's a silly point, in that most will just say "Yes, I have no problems with it and it wouldn't have affected my decision" and that may be true for some, but I honestly don't know if it would have swayed my decision or not. I had a lot of questions about him already, and while I don't know it would have changed my mind, that would not have helped me make my decision either way. Looking back, had something like that made me vote Palin into the white house I'd be sick. I disliked her before the election, but these days she embarrasses me as an American to the point of near anger. Can you imagine if he were, and he had won, the kind of rhetoric we'd be hearing?
The question is if he would have done it. Christian presidents seemed to have done ok separating church and state. There is not an overwhelming amount of evidence of Muslim leaders in the world having done it (yeah, Turkey, but the current Muslim president there clearly tries to erode the separation between church and state). And that might have its roots in the Quran that, at least according to the interpretation by many, would not allow any other belief system (like a constitution) to exist in parallel to it, but only "under" it.
There is a constitution in place that ensures the power of the President is checked. A Muslim president wouldn't have the power to un-separate the state from his church without the consent of the other branches of government.
The constitution does not control the president's everyday actions, or only subjects them to later review. I am talking about what belief system the president is most loyal to when determining his actions. And I claim that the Turkish president Erdogan, a fanatical islamist, is a good example for someone who is clearly more loyal to his understanding of Islam than to any constitution, and this is very problematic. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/t...trengthen-position-of-islamist-ruling-pa.html
That's what the Turks thought, too, and they see Erdogan eroding the whole political system, weakening the army (which, while this is not very democratic, has been the factor that guaranteed a secular system in past decades) and now weakening/attacking the constitutional court. Some poster on that site said: And Erdogan himself said the same. While there are moderate muslims, there is no moderate Islam. It is an illusion. And if someone is an islamist and there is a conflict between what the Sharia/the Quran says (or what he thinks it says) and the constitution, the islamist will have his actions guided by the Sharia/the Quran, not the constitution.
You're looking at a fairly small sampling of Muslim leaders. Suharto and Sukarno were Muslims so was Musharraf, Bhutto and Mubarak. Those leaders cracked down on the Islamic religious groups.
The countries in the world with Muslim leaders do not have a good track record. Even those you mentioned. Turkey as possibly the most "successful" country with a majority Muslim population owes its successes to a secular system, which is just being eroded by Islamists again.
I agree those that I mentioned don't but the reason why has nothing to do with Islam. If anything their hostility towards Islamic organizations is part of why things are so bad. That said though you are trying to argue that there is no such thing as keeping Islam out of government for a Muslim leader when that clearly isn't the case.
It is completely relevant. Malaysia, or more precisely the Islamic Federation of Malaysia, it has a constitution, guarantees many rights, has a diverse society, a thriving economy and doesn't have Sharia law. It goes directly against your categorization that there is no moderate Islam and that an Islamist leader will subvert the Constitution in favor of Sharia.
Of course. I know that from personal experiences in Muslim countries and from knowing many Muslims. Do you think that all Muslims are wild eyed fanatics who cannot reconcile Islam with a Modern diverse society?
No. As I wrote, there are moderate Muslims, probably the vast majority. But conceptually, the concept of "moderate Islam" is an illusion (one that what is called liberals and pseudo-liberals (I'd call myself a liberal, but not necessarily in the sense the term is used in the US) in the US love to cling to). As I said, Erdogan says the same thing. And if they are honest, some of the posters here will tell you the same.
