I would like to submit this post as supporting evidence for Rhad. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3783222&postcount=1
Discussing then, not arguing. Regarding Huckabee: As the Constitution provides for a process for adding Amendments, and as the President cannot actually do this all by his lonesome, and taking into account that his own views are also shared by a very large percentage of the American population, I don't see why this bothers you so much, apart from the idea that his religious beliefs would inform his morals and his desires to see such an Amendment enacted. Hardly anything to get upset about, and certainly not outside the bounds of the elected position. Regarding Bush's referenced statement: You think maybe he was just talking to some people in their own context, trying to communicate with them in the same kinds of concepts that they themselves deal in every day? Again, whether or not you take the statement to mean you believe he literally speaks to God, and that God literally told him to do all that (which would be a kind of silly thing to take literally, don't you think?), again, the elected office allows for the President to take an active role in brokering peace in addition to carrying the big stick, and has for decades. In any case, none of that really supports the notion that either gentleman believes that the Constitution is not the highest authority in the land, or that they would somehow work against the best interests of the United States in favor of some sort of religious government entity or something.. Also, out of curiosity, can you tell me which Presidents we have had who did not openly declare their religious affiliation, and which ones did not subsequently 'bend' in some direction because of their spiritual beliefs? Lastly, since islam clearly declares that the entire world MUST be brought under islamic control, by any means possible, either by the sword or by subversion, and that it is not only permissible to lie to unbelievers, but it is encouraged if it furthers islam's growth and control.. do you *really* believe that there is no distinction between Christianity and islam 'in that respect' ?
Well I figured that.. I meant that since the article sort of implies that Obama's only exposure to islam was after his mother moved to Indonesia to be with his step-father, it left me confused as to what went on before, seeing as how the arabic 'Hussein Obama' name must have been there prior to that relationship ever existing with Soetoro. The article doesn't reference anything prior to that time, and that was where my curiosity was then pointing. Did his father die? Or was it a divorce, or what? My own step-daughter has never undergone a name-change, so for over ten years, her last name has been different from mine. Maybe that is why he has the last name of Obama now, instead of Soetoro.. Would be interesting to know the story on that issue.. And I guess the curiosity is now regarding his actual father, and not his step-father. The article says they moved to Indonesia when he was 6, but it does not indicate anything about the time prior.. was his actual father muslim as well? The name certainly implies it, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
This is a large and previously discussed-to-death topic but simply stating that the majority is in favor of something is a daffy justification for discrimination, particularly in a document like the constitution that is quite firmly centered on equality. Frankly, I'm perturbed that you would not find such a statement abhorrent. I really don't care why, how or what motive Bush had for saying something so enormously stupid. If any of his justification for committing US troops to war was based on such flimsy rationale as "god told me to" he is (at a minimum) abusing the authority vested to him under careful guidelines. Perhaps not. In any case, it certainly points to a penchant religious people have for acting in accordance with what they feel is "righteous" in the eyes of their particular flavor of deity. That is worrisome. Is it usurping? Not necessarily, and I will retract that choice of language (although I think it applies to Huckabee's gaffe). As Jackie put it earlier, being religious is not inherently troublesome to me as a voter, but being staunchly or vehemently religious is certainly a concern. I'd wager all of them have been influenced by religion (although perhaps not Jefferson). As I said earlier, it's not the bending per say, it's the degree of bending. More to my original point, any religious person is capable of this sort of anti-secularist activity. I think many people more versed in Islam than I would find the above statement exaggerated and open to interpretation. I won't comment on it directly - I don't feel prepared to defend or agree with it. However, being that christians feel all non-christians are going to hell, and therefore need to be converted - no, I don't think there is a difference. You could argue it semantics, or we could reach back into history and determine that it took many centuries for christians to transcend such thoughts of "conversion at all costs" in favor of the more civilized notion of "seperation of church and state". As such, it's not that christianity is tolerant of other religions - it's precisely and definitively intolerant. Rather, western society has grown past religious dogma as a modus operandi of government and/or societal acceptance in favor of a more liberal attitude espoused best by John Locke and adapted here in the US by Thomas Jefferson.
If he were running on the Muslim value system then I would not elect him. I like Bacon too danged much..... DD
Can a Muslim be an American President? I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply: Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia. Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran). Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day. Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan. Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34). Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt. Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names. Therefore after much study and deliberation...perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish...it's still the truth. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The war is bigger than most Americans know or understand.
I voted yes. But not because I am voting for him now, but mostly because I would vote for anyone as long as I believed they would do what is right for our country. They could believe in 1,274,123,875,430 gods if they wanted to, just don't f*** the country up.
It seems like too much of a nonsensical hypothetical to me. If he was Muslim, he'd be a completely different person. The things about him that appeal to me would be transformed. Maybe he'd appeal to me for different reasons, but I don't know what they'd be.
Both of my nieces have Islamic names (Ali'ah Amani and Jaelah) although the spelling varies I believe. Their mother, who is not and has not ever been associated with Islam, picked their names after looking through numerous books and websites.
He didn't attend a Muslim school. It was a non-religious type in Indonesia. And how was he technically born a Muslim? Because of his name? He was named after his father.
I dont deny your conversation with a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years or so but you have to understand that not all muslim countries follow Islam like the Saudis do. Saudi Arabia only consists of max 20 million muslims. Even India has more muslims than Saudi Arabia. I have an uncle that works in Saudi Arabia now.
fact is if Obama was muslim no one would be voting for him because he wouldn't have even made it to the primaries. fact is, unless you are christian - you don't run for president of a country that is 80% christian.
Well, the Constitution allows for it, that's all I am saying. That is how our laws are made, after all - our Representatives *represent* the will of their constituents, and if the majority of constituents want a Representative to do something a certain way for them, then he either does it or someone else is elected who will. Thus, laws are made in exactly that manner - 'majority rule' - and it is then left to the Supreme Court to deliberate if the new law is then Constitutional. Same basic system for amending the document itself - all such actions are (or are supposed to be) simply a reflection of the will of the people. I was not saying I particularly agreed with the specifics of Huckabee's statements, but merely that his words did not indicate that he would somehow attempt to abrogate his elected responsibilities in favor of his own religious views. In fact, similar efforts to amend have already failed. Actually, since you don't care for his viewpoint, you should be glad that the system works as it does. He made his viewpoint clear, and the voters spoke, and chose someone else. But the mechanism for Amendment remains, albeit it is (and should be) extremely difficult to do, and for good reason. Well, since we all know that that is not the reason he did anything, and was merely speaking to people within their own idiom, you don't have to worry about it. And hence the ballot box. But in a democracy, with free elections, we also must be prepared to live with the consequences of elections, even if 'our guy' loses. I may not *like* Obama's politics, but I am prepared to support him as our leader as best as I can stomach, if he wins. (I doubt he will, but we'll see.) However, this is really now, instead of stating that their religious views would equate to a usurpation of power but rather just a declared distaste for their religious views and how those views may inform their decisions, just a matter of differing opinions. I agree with you that 'staunchly of vehemently religious' is in fact a concern, which is in fact what my whole original point was - that your assertion that there is no distinction between islam and Christianity is simply innaccurate, based upon that very criteria. 'Staunchly or vehemently religious' is a far more accurate description of islam today than christianity. The other side of the coin, of course, since freedom of religion is Constitutionally guaranteed, is the fact that the secularists are having much greater success trampling on the rights of the religious these days, in particular Christianity. In any case, yes, you are right, any religious person is *capable* of anything at all, as is any non-religious person. I am *capable* of climbing the NY Times Building naked, but I don't. Just being *capable* of something, in your opinion, shouldn't really equate in your mind to their crazed religion-blinded minds going berserk and trying to take over the world, laughing maniacally while creating New Baptist Heaven in Washington DC. Frankly, it's rather a bigoted viewpoint, they deserve a little more credit than that. To the first part of this section: Actually, there is a big difference. Any of the bad things done 'in the name of Christianity' many centuries ago were done BY men, were efforts ruled BY men, created BY men, and done only FOR men. There is nothing, I repeat, *nothing* in the Bible (perhaps I should say New Testament, since a lot of people enjoy trotting out Old Testament quotes as though they have something directly to do with Christianity), nothing in Christianity itself which would ever call for or warrant such behavior. This is in contrast with islam, in which the dictates mentioned earlier are clear and specific within their holy book itself. There is no comparison there, none. As for the rest of it, again, as mentioned to someone else in the thread, one of the central tenets of Christianity is Free Will. It is not that Christianity has 'grown' (although it clearly has) as much as it is a reflection of the fact that people are supposed to be presented with a *choice*, which they then freely make, and then deal with the consequences in the next plane of existence. Islam has nothing akin to this - it is all about 'Do this, in exactly this way, forever, in perpetuity, or else you must be punished'. In fact, your 'convert or die' axiom is much more a tenet of islam than anything else. And yes, the Founding Fathers knew that the government needed to be a separate entity from religions, because they knew well that too many people believed too many divergent things for a successful nation to be in the religion business. By the way, I respect people who can disagree and still have a civil discourse about it. Thank you. It's refreshing.
