Why couldnt a muslim become President?

[Der_Trihs]

@Liberal

Funny, it looks actual from here. It’s yours that looks weird.

You mean things like believing in evolution, that actual human lives matter more than souls, that nuclear war and apocalypse in general is bad, that women are the equal of men, that gays should be treated decently, that it’s wrong to beat your children are “weird” ? Well, then I’m happy to be weird.

@Liberal

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.

Ah, and when I wasn’t looking the religious people of the world suddenly all agreed on what they supposedly “know” about God ? They no longer wildly disagree with one another ? They even agree that there IS a God, and not a Goddess, multiple gods, or none at all ? And this massive merger of beliefs failed to make the news ?

When the religious act like people who are perceiving something objectively real, and not like millions of people pulling millions of fantasies out of their own egos and insisting that everyone else take them seriously, you might have a point.

@Liberal

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.

You are projecting your own faults onto me. You are describing the essence of religion; the denial of the real world in favor of your own fantasies. I’m not the one insisting that subjectivity overrides actuality, I’m not the one who lives in a world of my own creation; that’s you and your fellow believers.

@Liberal

So you admit that you accept substandard proof of things. Quite honestly, no one seems crazier than extremist atheists.

Alll sane people accept “substandard” proofs of things. Including the people who lie and claim otherwise, in order to pretend that religion is the intellectual equal of science, or the equal of trial and error even.

And I note your conclusion that I’m crazier than people who kill themselves flying into buildings, or kill their children because God tells them to, or cut themselves up with knives, or kidnap people and eat them. But then, as a religious person my mere existence as an atheist is an utter abomination to you; to a believer like yourself, an atheist is worse than a mass murderer, worse than a cannibal, worse than a genocidal maniac, worse than anything. As you have just admitted.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Der_Trihs

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.

But therin lies the problem. How can we seperate such people from the more sane religious potential Presidents? I’m sure you’ll step in with a remark about oxymorons, but the problem is that there’s no guarantee that non-religious, or non-fundamentalist, or non-Christian leaders won’t choose to launch nukes at someone for some reason. Christian fundamentalism alone isn’t enough to rule out voting altogether, nor is it enough to assume any opponent is superior.

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.

Nonsense. Being an atheist myself, I certainly agree that we have a more accurate worldview - on that one issue. But atheism and religion do not, alone, make up a worldview; the two current Presidential candidates, for example, are both Christians, but that doesn’t mean therefore that any other differences in their worldviews are tiny. And better judgement? Bollocks. We’re as credulous as anyone else.

And I did not claim that I was paraphrasing Grumman. Mainly because it was more of a sarcastic pointing out, and not hyperbole applied to his position.

Worse than "everything’ ? No. Worse than most things ? Yes.

I’m glad you agree that Christian Fundamentalism alone is not enough to guarantee we condemn someone.

[Uzi]

@Liberal

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.

Not a couple of posts earlier you said,

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.

No one should have to listen to any accusation from you that they live in a world of their own creation. Look in the mirror sometime, bub.

[Uzi]

@Revenant_Threshold

…but the problem is that there’s no guarantee that non-religious, or non-fundamentalist, or non-Christian leaders won’t choose to launch nukes at someone for some reason.

Ah, but what we can guarantee is that God won’t have told them to do so. One less reason is a good thing, don’t you think? Especially, a reason based upon delusions.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Uzi

Ah, but what we can guarantee is that God won’t have told them to do so. One less reason is a good thing, don’t you think? Especially, a reason based upon delusions.

By the same token, it could be suggested that a person otherwise predisposed towards letting slip the dogs of war might be motivated towards peace by their religious faith. It goes both ways.

[tagos]

@Revenant_Threshold

By the same token, it could be suggested that a person otherwise predisposed towards letting slip the dogs of war might be motivated towards peace by their religious faith. It goes both ways.

No it doesn’t. Sometimes war is necessary. Nobody who uses any other method than Reason for arriving at decisions has any business running for high office. God has no place in the Oval Office.

[Revenant_Threshold]

I’m confused; you’re saying that war is only sometimes necessary? Surely it’s best at every opportunity possible to meander off into weaker countries to loot. As long as we can justify it diplomatically and economically, i’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that war might be a bad thing from.

[Der_Trihs]

@Revenant_Threshold

But therin lies the problem. How can we seperate such people from the more sane religious potential Presidents?

Because pretty much everything else is more sane. Someone who likely thinks the end of the world is a great idea shouldn’t be allowed near a nuclear arsenal.

@Revenant_Threshold

I’m sure you’ll step in with a remark about oxymorons, but the problem is that there’s no guarantee that non-religious, or non-fundamentalist, or non-Christian leaders won’t choose to launch nukes at someone for some reason.

No, it’s not. But just about any other belief is less likely to do so.

@Revenant_Threshold

Christian fundamentalism alone isn’t enough to rule out voting altogether, nor is it enough to assume any opponent is superior.

It’s certainly enough to assume that the vast majority of opponents are.

@Revenant_Threshold

Nonsense. Being an atheist myself, I certainly agree that we have a more accurate worldview - on that one issue. But atheism and religion do not, alone, make up a worldview; the two current Presidential candidates, for example, are both Christians, but that doesn’t mean therefore that any other differences in their worldviews are tiny. And better judgement? Bollocks. We’re as credulous as anyone else.

No, we aren’t, or we’d be religious as well. And religion may not be all of most people’s worldview, but it heavily distorts everything it’s dogma comes into contact with. And in a very dangerous and destructive fashion.

@Revenant_Threshold

I’m glad you agree that Christian Fundamentalism alone is not enough to guarantee we condemn someone.

I didn’t say that. I most certainly consider it a good reason to condemn someone. I would never give such a person any trust.

@Revenant Threshold

By the same token, it could be suggested that a person otherwise predisposed towards letting slip the dogs of war might be motivated towards peace by their religious faith.

In theory, but unlikely, especially since warfare is exactly how Christianity achieved it’s present position. It’s a very aggressive, xenophobic, brutal and ruthless religion that has been shaped for centuries as a tool for encouraging and excusing aggression and tyranny.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Der_Trihs

Because pretty much everything else is more sane. Someone who likely thinks the end of the world is a great idea shouldn’t be allowed near a nuclear arsenal.

And this is the case with all Christian Fundamentalists? And not the case with all non-CFs?

No, it’s not. But just about any other belief is less likely to do so.

Well, this is a start. Would you agree that at least a predisposition is not a guarantee? To the extent that it is worth further investigation?

It’s certainly enough to assume that the vast majority of opponents are.

Really? Yet the vast majority of Americans, and thus opponents, are religious. Surely if we may assume the vast majority of opponents are superior, then doing so is to accept the wide range in superiority amongst the religious?

No, we aren’t, or we’d be religious as well. And religion may not be all of most people’s worldview, but it heavily distorts everything it’s dogma comes into contact with. And in a very dangerous and destructive fashion.

The first part is nonsense. If we accept religion as comparable to a conspiracy theory, we can see that not all conspiracy theorists accept all conspiracy theories (or are religious, for that matter). Simply being credulous is not guarantee that you will believe every credulous thing - for one matter, quite a few of them are contradictory.

And every worldview heavily distorts everything it comes into contact with. And I tend to disagree with it always being dangerous and destructive, but I have no illusions of convincing you on that particular point.

I didn’t say that. I most certainly consider it a good reason to condemn someone. I would never give such a person any trust.

My mistake. I should have said rather that you do agree that there could be worse opponents, and thus that it is not guaranteed you would vote against such a person.

In theory, but unlikely, especially since warfare is exactly how Christianity achieved it’s present position. It’s a very aggressive, xenophobic, brutal and ruthless religion that has been shaped for centuries as a tool for encouraging and excusing aggression and tyranny.

Would this be by the credulous, insane folk? I wouldn’t have thought they’d have that kind of handle on things.

[Uzi]

@Der_Trihs

In theory, but unlikely, especially since warfare is exactly how Christianity achieved it’s present position. It’s a very aggressive, xenophobic, brutal and ruthless religion that has been shaped for centuries as a tool for encouraging and excusing aggression and tyranny.

And Christianity has the example of the (most likely fictional) Jesus Christ as its basis. What hope for Islam which had a warlord for its?

[Sitnam]

If it was 60 years ago, we wouldn’t elect someone with German ancestry either.

[Liberal]

@Uzi

No one should have to listen to any accusation from you that they live in a world of their own creation. Look in the mirror sometime, bub.

How you drew the inference that perception of reality and creation of reality are somehow the same is unclear.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Sitnam

If it was 60 years ago, we wouldn’t elect someone with German ancestry either.

We did 56 years ago, though.

[Uzi]

@Liberal

How you drew the inference that perception of reality and creation of reality are somehow the same is unclear.

Your perception of reality leads you to believe in imaginary beings (or indemonstrable beings to be more specific). Thus, you create your own reality.

[mks57]

I’m not going to vote for someone whose religion classifies me, at best, as a second-class citizen (dhimmi), and at worst, someone to be slaughtered.

[Sitnam]

@Captain_Amazing

We did 56 years ago, though.

Touche. Japanese?

[Alessan]

@Captain_Amazing

We did 56 years ago, though.

Sure, but he had to defeat Germany first to qualify.

[Ramira]

@mks57

I’m not going to vote for someone whose religion classifies me, at best, as a second-class citizen (dhimmi), and at worst, someone to be slaughtered.

Very clearly by such standard, no Hindu or Muslim should ever vote for Christians, as the religion believes their faiths are false and the old texts call for death to unbelievers, etc. The bigotry and hypocrisy in this area is very amazing.

[jackdavinci]

What’s the highest office a Muslim has been elected to in the US so far?

[Larry_Borgia]

@jackdavinci

What’s the highest office a Muslim has been elected to in the US so far?

House of Representatives