Other way around (as per the post I was replying to): India is less intolerant, China more. That’s my opinion. As you note, in some ways it’s hard to compare.
Edit: ok, I see why it was confusing. I hope the above clarifies.
Note though that the second quote block in your post was not by me. Try to keep the quote tags accurate, please.
Incidentally, there’s been some talk in this thread that there don’t seem to be very many violent fundamentalist Christians around. Talk to some abortion clinics; they might disagree.
Besides which, there’s plenty of oppressive violence in Christian history, and you don’t have to look back very far.
When Kennedy was running for office as a Catholic, I understand that there was some fear that he would overturn U.S. laws if the Pope asked him to: that as a devout Catholic, he would put the orders of the Church above the will of the voters.
It was in some ways a justifiable fear, and in some ways ridiculous.
A similar thing could be said about a Muslim president; a devout Muslim who obeys all the laws of the faith may choose, some might argue, to obey or impose the laws of that faith in preference to the laws of the country. Islam is more than a church that one visits once per week; it has views on banking and usury and economics and trade, on marriage, on food and cleanliness, on gender, and so forth.
Given the current situation in the Middle East, with Israel our ally and the uncertain status of many Arab nations, many would also question whether a Muslim president would see any reason to alter our policy toward Israel. Would he still support an Israeli state? The Jewish vote would be understandably nervous about a Muslim president for that reason (and vice-versa, I suppose, with the Muslim voters about a Jewish president).
Is it an irrational fear? I would say yes, it is: the President cannot wage war himself; and the President cannot unilaterally sweep away the laws of the land lest he be impeached by Congress. Nevertheless, it will take time for that fear to be disproven.
I just want to say to whoever it was in whatever thread, I very much disagree that David Shuster is a “lightweight”. He is in fact one of the few MSNBC anchors who is informed enough to challenge the claims made by talking heads and surrogates.
I don’t see it happening for a while, mainly because Arab-Americans – the most likely to be Muslims – aren’t yet that involved in politics on a state or federal level. One could say the same thing about Vietnamese-Americans, Korean-Americans, Asian Indian-Americans and other ethnic groups that are relative newcomers to the melting poy.
Jews have had a lot of success in politics at all levels, despite Christians being a majority in the US. I think Muslims could have the same level of success, but it would another generation for mainstream Americans to get used to the idea that they’re “just like us”, as with Jews and Catholics. What may hurt is terrorism; it’s still strongly associated with Muslims.
Would you even recognize it if moderate Muslims fighting against the hatred, as you put it?
Doing so would be objectively foolish; that doesn’t make opposing someone like that “intolerant” or bigoted.
Or the victims of gay bashing and Christian “gay cures”. And the ones that beat kids because “spare the rod, spoil the child”. And a fair amount of the support for the attack on Iraq came from the attempt to fulfill Christian prophecy, and in the hopes of sending missionaries ( I recall reading of incidents where Iraqis were told that they had to submit to Baptism to get their water ration ). You don’t qualify as non-violent just because you send an army to do your killing for you.
I would - it would look a lot like Turkey.
Anyway, back to the OP: no, America will not elect a Muslim President. But then, neither will any other non-Muslim country, not India, not Europe (with the exception of Albania, Bosnia and the aforementioned Turkey, obviously) - even though their mulism populations are much larger than that of the U.S., relatively speaking. No Muslim has ever been elected to lead any country without a clear Muslim majority, and I don’t see it happening soon, anywhere.
Americans often hate or fear entire groups, but have less trouble with the exceptional individual (the opposite of the Tall Poppy Syndrome that has been discussed with regard to Australia). Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee, and is likely to become the next president, not because he’s a black man, but because he’s an exceptional man who happens to be black. I have no doubt that at some point in the future, an exceptional Muslim man or woman who rises to a high political position in the U.S. will develop a following of people who would like him (or her) to be president. Maybe he’ll be a governor who leads his state through a crisis, or she’ll be a Senator who makes an inspiring convention speech, or maybe he’ll be chosen as a Vice Presidential nominee and follow a successful president into the White House. In any case, questions will arise about whether a Muslim can get elected, just as they did with Obama. But if the times are right and the person is right, there is no question in my mind that it is entirely possible.
That “one piece of information” is that they have reached a fundamentally inaccurate conclusion about the world that surrounds them, in spite of the evidence against the idea of an omnipotent, interventionist deity. A willingness to jump to wild conclusions, contrary to any and all evidence, is not a positive trait, especially not for someone in a position of power.
Ah, of course, silly me. I’d forgotten that atheists were perfect and with entirely accurate views of the world. I’d forgotten that political parties embody entire seperate viewpoints on how the world works around them. I’d forgotten that an example of one possible problem on one side means we don’t need to look at the other side to see how bad they are.
Have no fear; from future on, I shall be sure that when one potential electee is religious, I can vote for their opponent in the happy knowledge that I don’t need to know anything about them, nor compare the two - after all, being religious is always worse than anything else, and it is of course the sole position on which people have beliefs.
Did I say that a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible was the only trait that would disqualify a politician in my mind? I would also never vote for someone who believed that Saddam Hussain was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. It has nothing to do with God - it’s because I want the politicians in charge to base their beliefs on evidence.
What evidence have you that there is no deity? None.
Considering that my point was that the one piece of information isn’t enough to condemn solely, and you were disagreeing, I don’t think it was foolish of me to assume you disagreed on that point. I stand corrected.
My point is that you need to know more about a person than just “they’re a Christian Fundamentalist”. That, alone, is not enough to say you’ll never vote for them, nor is it enough that we don’t need to look at them and their policies closely to find out what they do believe. It may well be that we won’t vote for them. But that particular religious belief alone isn’t enough to lose my vote for certain, at least.
What evidence have you that there is? None.
Duh.
I did specify a deity which has both the means (omnipotent) and will (interventionist) to act. While there is not evidence for or against a “hands-off” deity that is either unwilling or incapable of acting, that is not the kind of deity that fundamentalist Christians believe in.
Not so. You may not believe that my life experience is evidence of anything that I’ve perceived, but as far as I’m concerned that’s your problem and not mine.
Being a Christian Fundamentalist DOES mean that you are operating in another, seperate “reality”. One that has little or nothing to do with actual reality. It is perfectly rational to avoid voting for someone who might, for example, decide that the time for the Rapture is now and launch nukes at someone to start a nuclear war. Something that quite a lot of the fundies were pushing for during the Reagan era, and the reason why simply electing Reagan nearly panicked the USSR into launching a nuclear first strike on us.
And while atheists aren’t “perfect and with entirely accurate views of the world” ( which is a gross distortion of what Grumman said ), they DO tend to have a more accurate worldview and better judgement than believers. So, for that matter, do less extreme Christians; still crazy, but less so.
Worse than "everything’ ? No. Worse than most things ? Yes.
The default assumption is that something DOESN’T exist. Especially when there’s no evidence that such a thing is even possible.
And would you defend someone who believed that, say, all women were possessed by aliens from another dimension ? That, if anything, is just as plausible as God; more so than most versions of God. Or is it religious beliefs alone who get the special, “If you can’t utterly disprove it treat it as reasonable !” treatment ? You do realize that outside of mathematics there isn’t anything that can meet that standard of disproof ?
Funny, it looks actual from here. It’s yours that looks weird.
How sane is it to talk to crazy people the way you do? I mean, you’re constantly responding, attempting to make logical arguments, to people whom you believe to have the mental faculties of a tree stump. Do you also argue with tree stumps?
Wow. So we can discard those two premises Einstein used to prove his relativity theories.
It would certainly be a reasonable belief if in fact all women gave testimony that, based upon what they have experienced, they are possessed by aliens. To deny their claims, you would have to assume for yourself a reality that you call “actual” when in fact it differs from the reality that is experienced by the majority of people.
In addition to the amusement your rants against faith generate, there is the somewhat disturbing suggestion that you live in some world of your own creation, and that you have confused subjectivity with actuality. It might behoove you to seek counseling before some idea arises in your head that you give credence to for arbitrary reasons and that is a danger to yourself or others — assuming that has not already occurred.
So you admit that you accept substandard proof of things. Quite honestly, no one seems crazier than extremist atheists.