NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you vote for a muslim president? Assume he has your political views. And he would win if you voted for him.

Be honest.

Depends on who he's running against.

Assume the person he's running against is basically the complete opposite of your views. For example, if your an uber-liberal athiest, he's running against a ultra-conservative who would legislate based on the bible.

Assume the person he's running against is basically the complete opposite of your views. For example, if your an uber-liberal athiest, he's running against a ultra-conservative who would legislate based on the bible.

If I'm an uber-liberal atheist, you're not going to find a muslim who shares my views now, are you?

I'd vote for a Muslim candidate.

If only I wasn't a felon... :(



Oh, and about your sig: There's no such thing as a "voting box". It's called a "ballot box".

If I'm an uber-liberal atheist, you're not going to find a muslim who shares my views now, are you?

They could be an ultra-liberal muslim who wouldn't legislate based on the Qu'ran or his faith.

Also New Ireland, you're a felon? What'd you do? Fight for the IRA? (That'd be kinda cool)

Not really, because one would have to wonder if he really has our best intrest in mind, considering the global political climate of today.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Assuming he didn't put religion above all, but I feel the same way towards Christians and all other religions.




woot! look at my post count!!!

Assume the person he's running against is basically the complete opposite of your views. For example, if your an uber-liberal athiest, he's running against a ultra-conservative who would legislate based on the bible.

The thing is, for this Muslim to agree fully with my views, he wouldn't be a Muslim in the first place. Or of any other religion for that matter...

... but, still, if he shared my political beliefs, he would be liberal and very laissez-faire socially and partially economically liberal (i.e. European liberalism, the proper liberalism), and would never be swayed by Islam, so of course I'd vote for him if he were running against whom you said.

No problems here if he puts the nation above his religion.

I don't care what religion a politician is, as long as he keeps his religion out of politics.

Isn't there a rule against copycat threads? What's next? Would you vote for a NS Generalite for President?

Isn't there a rule against copycat threads? What's next? Would you vote for a NS Generalite for President?

Depends on who it was. :p

Isn't there a rule against copycat threads?

Yes.

What's next? Would you vote for a NS Generalite for President?

Hmmm...that would be interesting to see. :p

Would you vote for a NS Generalite for President?

MTAE. Just so I could say that I lived through the collapse of the US government.

Also New Ireland, you're a felon? What'd you do? Fight for the IRA? (That'd be kinda cool)

IIRC LNI hasn't been to Ireland (sorry, man), and fighting for the IRA would definitely not be "kinda cool" :p

IIRC LNI hasn't been to Ireland (sorry, man),
True.
and fighting for the IRA would definitely not be "kinda cool" :p
Also true.

Also New Ireland, you're a felon? What'd you do? Fight for the IRA? (That'd be kinda cool)

Yeah: kidnapping a man's wife and children and then forcing the man to drive a truck full of explosive to a police checkpoint where he will be killed by the explosion is so fucking kewl.

I'd vote for a Muslim candidate.

If only I wasn't a felon... :(

How is that relevant?

Yeah: kidnapping a man's wife and children and then forcing the man to drive a truck full of explosive to a police checkpoint where he will be killed by the explosion is so fucking kewl.

If anybody's wondering what BWO is on about, see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb)

In America's current two party system and political climate I don't think a Muslim will make it out of the primaries. :(

If one did and I agreed with them of course I would vote for them.



I'd vote for a Muslim candidate.

If only I wasn't a felon...

How is that relevant?
Felons can't vote in the United States.
__________________

Of course. If he or she were a qualified candidate and agreed with my viewpoints, why on earth would I give a rat's ass what god or gods he or she chose to worship?

If he had my views, he wouldn't be Muslim.

Cant say I would. So, nope.:)

Felons can't vote in the United States.

Oh. I forget how zany that country is...

Of course. If he or she were a qualified candidate and agreed with my viewpoints, why on earth would I give a rat's ass what god or gods he or she chose to worship?

Exactly.

Oh. I forget how zany that county is...
Yeah...so "zany" that we actually *GET THIS!?* "PUNISH!!" our criminals.:rolleyes:

What the hell do you guys do, sit them in clases and tell them thats its not their fault they commited a crime...its their social upbringing and the demographics of their society?:rolleyes:

Or do you actually deny Sweden has crime because crime isnt politically correct. Sort of like you're the only country in the world to not post ethnic/crime reports because "the rest of the world is insane":rolleyes:


Sweden is the epitome of retardation and political correctness to the extreme. I cant wait for Sweden to just....die.

Felons can't vote in the United States.
__________________

Depending on the state, you are right. In some states, felonies can vote.

Yeah...so "zany" that we actually *GET THIS!?* "PUNISH!!" our criminals.:rolleyes:

What the hell do you guys do, sit them in clases and tell them thats its not their fault they commited a crime...its their social upbringing and the demographics of their society?:rolleyes:

Or do you actually deny Sweden has crime because crime isnt politically correct. Sort of like you're the only country in the world to not post ethnic/crime reports because "the rest of the world is insane":rolleyes:


I cant wait for Sweden to just....die.
Hey kid, you might want to know that most states in the US allow felons to regain their right to vote after they've served their terms. Florida is one of the few states that makes it very difficult to regain those rights.

Hey kid, you might want to know that most states in the US allow felons to regain their right to vote after they've served their terms. Florida is one of the few states that makes it very difficult to regain those rights.
Hey old guy, (nah, just kidding:p )....thats fine. What I was talking about goes beyond this one incident.

Anyway, I thought it was a life-long loss of voting ability in Florida. They have a chance to get it back?

Doesn't matter if they can vote again, they still can't get a job that allows them to support themselves.

Hey old guy, (nah, just kidding:p )....thats fine. What I was talking about goes beyond this one incident.

Anyway, I thought it was a life-long loss of voting ability in Florida. They have a chance to get it back?They basically have to blow the governor, but yeah, they can get them back. Lately, that's meant that more white-collar criminals have gotten them back than, let's say, darker types.

Yeah...so "zany" that we actually *GET THIS!?* "PUNISH!!" our criminals.:rolleyes:

By abandoning democratic principles and reducing people to second rate citizens. Yes, it's very much zany.

By the way, you asked what we do? We have voting booths in the prison come election time. Or the prisoners get to absentee vote. 'Cause, you see, being a citizen means something here - it gives you political rights that are "inalienable." That's a long word, I know...

Sweden is the epitome of retardation and political correctness to the extreme. I cant wait for Sweden to just....die.

Get in line and take a queue number.

I wouldn't vote against somebody just because they are Muslim.

They basically have to blow the governor, but yeah, they can get them back. Lately, that's meant that more white-collar criminals have gotten them back than, let's say, darker types.
Hot.:rolleyes:

S/he'd be no different from a Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, or Buddhist president.

Hot.:rolleyes:

You asked. Technically, there's a clemency board, but they're appointed by the Governor. In 2004, there were approximately 410,000 Floridians who couldn't vote because of felony convictions. Blacks made up approximately a third of them, even though they're only 15% of the population. Roll your eyes all you want, kid.

Hell, I'd vote for a wooden leg if it had my political views! Beggars can't be choosers.

If I'm an uber-liberal atheist, you're not going to find a muslim who shares my views now, are you?Granted, they're not the majority, but I know quite a few. A couple are even anarchists. My Muslim girlfriend is a good bit left of most of the socialists on here.

But ok.. Muslims are all extremely orthodox totlitarians with wet dreams of massmurder & theocrazy. They can't possibly be as diverse in their political leanings as every other demographic on the planet.

Granted, they're not the majority, but I know quite a few. A couple are even anarchists. My Muslim girlfriend is a good bit left of most of the socialists on here.

How can she be Muslim and atheist?

Hey kid, you might want to know that most states in the US allow felons to regain their right to vote after they've served their terms. Florida is one of the few states that makes it very difficult to regain those rights.
Not just Florida but also Nevada and Washington state. I know felons can't vote in either state.

How can she be Muslim and atheist?

To be fair, atheism isn't really a political viewpoint. "Religion has no place in politics" is, and a Muslim could certainly believe that as much as anyone else could.

MTAE. Just so I could say that I lived through the collapse of the US government.

ROFLMAO

To be fair, atheism isn't really a political viewpoint. "Religion has no place in politics" is, and a Muslim could certainly believe that as much as anyone else could.

The claim was "If I'm an uber-liberal atheist, you're not going to find a muslim who shares my views".

Oh. I forget how zany that country is...

You have no idea until you live here. ;)

The claim was "If I'm an uber-liberal atheist, you're not going to find a muslim who shares my views".

Granted, but in a discussion of potential presidents, one assumes the views being referred to are political, as one's views on, say, what type of cheese is tastiest, whether Latin or ballroom dancing is more fun, and whether Britney Spears is completely talentless or only mostly talentless do not really affect one's ability to govern a country.

How can she be Muslim and atheist?The Mindset was talking about people sharing his/her views. The Muslims I'm friends with all believe that superstitions & the lack of them are rights of the individual.

Since I'm an atheist & have read a fair bit of atheist crap, I think I can safely assume the majority of atheists view superstitions & the lack of them are rights of the individual.

Felons can't vote in the United States.


They get elected instead.

What is the problem? I want my freedom and to keep the government out of my private life. I want to be unsurveilled, I don't want data retention, software patents, closed-source software in governments, corporate welfare and this crumbling education system. What is the problem to vote for someone who guarantees that instead of... well, virtually anyone in current politics. His or her religion is his or her personal affair. Yes, this would even be valid if he or she was satanist or christian. :P

They get elected instead.

:D

I certainly wouldn't mind if Paul O'grady Muslim in fact it would probably help my vote since he would be less likely to have anti-Muslim laws plus it would piss allot of NSG’ers off so that’s a plus

If I agreed with his policies, then yes. Religion's not really an issue for me, as long as it's not one of his policies.

Would you vote for a muslim president? Assume he has your political views. And he would win if you voted for him.

Be honest.

Yes.

However, how many muslim neolibertarians are there?

However, how many muslim neolibertarians are there?

lots?

Well, in this case, I'll surely vote for one if one will run for office.

If I agreed with his policies, then yes. Religion's not really an issue for me, as long as it's not one of his policies.

Ditto.

Sure I would. The fact thet they're Muslim and would cause a ridiculous amount of controversy by running for president would only sweeten the deal.

Sure I would. The fact thet they're Muslim and would cause a ridiculous amount of controversy by running for president would only sweeten the deal.

waiting for the daY ireland has an islamic party. the term that happends, sinn fein will run the government.

:D

I certainly wouldn't mind if Paul O'grady Muslim in fact it would probably help my vote since he would be less likely to have anti-Muslim laws plus it would piss allot of NSG’ers off so that’s a plusPaul O'Grady? You mean the one who isn't Rory Bremner in the picture below? (Rory's on the left)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2003/04/30/comic.jpg

I'm confused.

Cant say I would. So, nope.:)

Why?

If he agrees with one's political views, you vote for him. I fail to see why this is an issue.

I don't care what religion a politician is, as long as he keeps his religion out of politics.

My view exactly.


I cant wait for Sweden to just....die.

Fortunately, Sweden will outlive you.

I don't care what religion a politician is, as long as he keeps his religion out of politics.

Quoted for emphasis

Would you vote for a muslim president? Assume he has your political views. And he would win if you voted for him.

Be honest.

I would not, because I do not believe that a moslem would put the Constitution above the Koran.

I would not, because I do not believe that a moslem would put the Constitution above the Koran.

Why wouldn't they? And it's muslim, no?

Depending on the state, you are right. In some states, felonies can vote.

To be technical, a felon can't vote; an EX-felon can, in some states.

But, as long as you're a felon, you're still incarcerated and can't vote.

Why wouldn't they? And it's muslim, no?

Muslim is an representation of an Arabic word in the english alphabet. Moslim is not incorrect, however Muslim is more normally used.

In the same way Mohammad is also often written Muhammad.

The real sound aimed at is somewhere between an english O and U

A similar thing goes on with the 'lim' and 'lem' at the end of Muslim

Why wouldn't they?

Because I believe that one who identifies as a moslem would be expected to behave accordingly. That means, their religion comes before their government; i.e., the Constitution.

Would a true moslem ignore what he considers a legal - and binding - fatwah to, oh say, make all Americans convert to Islam?

And it's muslim, no?

I do believe that I posted "moslem."

Muslim is an representation of an Arabic word in the english alphabet. Moslim is not incorrect, however Muslim is more normally used.

In the same way Mohammad is also often written Muhammad.

The real sound aimed at is somewhere between an english O and U

Actually, it is because I consider "muslim" to be more PC retardation being forced down our throats. So, I intentionally use "moslem" and refuse to use "muslim."

Actually, it is because I consider "muslim" to be more PC retardation being forced down our throats. So, I intentionally use "moslem" and refuse to use "muslim."

WTF?

How is 'muslim' PC retardation?

Are you saying you intentionally use moslem to cause offence or because you feel it is degrading or a snub?

Because I believe that one who identifies as a moslem would be expected to behave accordingly. That means, their religion comes before their government; i.e., the Constitution.

Would a true moslem ignore what he considers a legal - and binding - fatwah to, oh say, make all Americans convert to Islam?
The OP never said he was a very good muslim. Just one that shares the same political views as you.


I do believe that I posted "moslem."

Whatever.

I would not, because I do not believe that a moslem would put the Constitution above the Koran.

So, for the same reason I assume you'd never vote for a Christian, because that person would be forced to put the bible before the constitution, right?

So, for the same reason I assume you'd never vote for a Christian, because that person would be forced to put the bible before the constitution, right?

But the Bible is more American so to some it makes it alright. Presidents going by the Koran.... well I'm sure we can complete THAT train of thought. The evil Muslims will control us and surrender to teh terrorists! :eek:

A Muslim who are we kidding ourselves? No women have ever been elected as a president in America, nor a man of different race that belongs to the Christian faith. All that aside, a Muslim president in America might have its positives. He/She can fix the disastrous relationship between the Muslim world and America, but, that president might be bias to Israel (negative). Muslims within western nations grow up taking in the ways of life from the society they are in, I'm a Muslim and I am open for women's rights, homosexual rights, and weed rights (:D), separation of religion and politics and education, and I'm against terrorism on all levels (the terrorist activities from the Western world and same goes for the Muslim world and any part of the world that is not Muslim or Christian). I grew up in the West and took in Western ideology in certain things but being compassionate, Just, and honest is not just a Western ideology, its a human thing practiced all over the world. Why can't we discuss about immigrants being voted for presidency? Why Hispanics go for presidency? (I see a lot more debate in that).

http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=5039 (off topic, but interesting nevertheless)

Because I believe that one who identifies as a moslem would be expected to behave accordingly. That means, their religion comes before their government; i.e., the Constitution.

Would a true moslem ignore what he considers a legal - and binding - fatwah to, oh say, make all Americans convert to Islam?Would a true christian kill, maim, stone or burn everyone that fails to abide by leviticus & the ten commandments?
Would a true christian put his (because it couldn't be a her, according to the bible) religious nonsense above the Constitution?

If the answers are no, then why on Earth would a true (whatever that means) Muslim act any differently?I do believe that I posted "moslem."And fortunately for you, the weight of your intellect will never give you flat feet ;)

Yeah I'd vote for someone with my political views.

I wouldn't, like some posters here, not vote for someone just because they're Muslim. That'd be as bigoted and shitty as not voting for someone because they're a Jew. I'm not too fond of emulating the nazis.

Too bad I can't say the same for everyone eh.

If he was an aethist Communist Muslim (about as likely to happen as Bush to get a 3rd term) I would go for him. But even if he wasn't, I really don't see what religion has to do with it. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, whatever.

Because I believe that one who identifies as a moslem would be expected to behave accordingly. That means, their religion comes before their government; i.e., the Constitution.

First rule of running a country: Never put your religion before your duties.

Example: Palestine's new leader used to be part of Hamas, an anti-Israel Liberation terrorist group. But he knows that he can't continue to be a terrorist while running a country or the Americans will be on him before he can say "Death to the West!"

Also New Ireland, you're a felon? What'd you do? Fight for the IRA? (That'd be kinda cool)

Why is the IRA "cool", but Al Quaida are the scum of the earth? Both are terrorist organisations. Both maim and kill innocent civilians to promote their agenda. Both use crime to support and finance their operations. You could even argue that Al Quaida are "cooler" since at least their victims suffer a significantly higher chance of instantaneous death as opposed to the scarred and knee-capped and legless victims of the IRA.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact you're american, would it? And that the IRA with it's Boston PR machine and "aren't-the-irish-downtrodden-but-so-happy-go-lucky-all-round-good-ole-boys-like-us" cause you to overlook the viciousness and terrorism? Or is it simply because they've never maimed an American? (which they surely would have done if you hadn't rolled over, financed them and let them tickle your belly). Wouldn't have anything to do with that - right?

Are you saying you intentionally use moslem to cause offence or because you feel it is degrading or a snub?

I'm saying that I refuse to use "muslim" and kow-tow to PC forces.

Whether "moslem" offends or not is irrelevant to me. It is a word. It's meaning is clear.

If it offends, tough. Grow a skin and get over it.

The OP never said he was a very good muslim. Just one that shares the same political views as you.

I don't care what his political views are. A true moslem will not, I believe, put the Constitution above Islam, no matter what his political whims might be.

Thus, he doesn't get my vote.

Of course, this is moot. The People do not vote in the President. The Electoral College does.

I'm saying that I refuse to use "muslim" and kow-tow to PC forces.

PC forces? More like phonetic accuracy.

Until the late 1980s, the term Moslem was commonly used. Muslims do not recommend this spelling because it is often pronounced "mawzlem" /mɒzlɛm/ which sounds somewhat similar to an Arabic word for "oppressed" (Za'lem in Arabic).[citation needed] The word is pronounced /muslem/ in Arabic, but often /mʊślɪm/ in English. The word is now most commonly written "Muslim".

But don't let facts get in the way of your "It's a politically correct terrorist moslem conspiracy" ranting.

Oh. I forget how zany that country is...

Zany?? It's one of the few things they get right!

Society is a contract. Violate that contract and you should lose your rights bestowed on you by that contract.

So, for the same reason I assume you'd never vote for a Christian, because that person would be forced to put the bible before the constitution, right?

Nope.

A true Christian is told, render unto God that which is God's. Render unto Casear that which is Caesar's.

So, a true Christian would not put the Bible ahead of the Constitution.

Would a true christian kill, maim, stone or burn everyone that fails to abide by leviticus & the ten commandments?

Nope.

Would a true christian put his (because it couldn't be a her, according to the bible) religious nonsense above the Constitution?

I'm sorry, what "nonsense" is that?

If the answers are no, then why on Earth would a true (whatever that means) Muslim act any differently?

A true moslem puts Islam first. Did you miss where I posted that?

And fortunately for you, the weight of your intellect will never give you flat feet ;)

Ah.

Personal insults. Yes, that improves your position tremendously.

PC forces? More like phonetic accuracy.

Then, I am being phonetically accurate when I use "moslem."

But don't let facts get in the way of your "It's a politically correct terrorist moslem conspiracy" ranting.

"Rant?"

Bit sensitive of you, eh?

Then, I am being phonetically accurate when I use "moslem."

Incorrect. But hey, up is down so long as you get to expound on teh evil muslims eh?

Incorrect.

No.

Correct. I pronounce the word with a short "o" sound.

Don't like that?

Meh...

But hey, up is down so long as you get to expound on teh evil muslims eh?

If you like.

Evil who?

No.

Correct. I pronounce the word with a short "o" sound.

That's okay. I pronounce the word "the" with a "assgrabbingcandycane" sound.

I guess we can both be special and unique in our rebellious independence from the evils of politically correct "linquistics" and other liberal malarky!


Don't like that?

Meh...


Well, it's really more of a question of whether you want to sound like an ignorant asshole, or not.

But really, you say "moslem" specifically BECAUSE it's wrong, specifically to piss people off. You might as well say "mohammadan" or "raghead," but I guess that's too un-PC for you.

Nope.

A true Christian is told, render unto God that which is God's. Render unto Casear that which is Caesar's.

So, a true Christian would not put the Bible ahead of the Constitution.

Doesn't cover the eventuality of what you should do when you become Caesar, does it?

A true moslem puts Islam first. Did you miss where I posted that?Are you telling me the Muslims I know, including the woman I'm trying to start a family with, are false Muslims?

Simply asserting something doesn't make it true. But feel free to prove your shite & provide some sort of explanation for just what the hell you think a Muslim is.Personal insults. Yes, that improves your position tremendously.You, by your own admission, attempt to offend several of my friends & the woman I love by calling them moslems. If your skin's too thin to be called stupid when you try to insult people, stop trying to insult people.

But you're right of course. Childish attempts at insulting something like a quarter of the global population, really doesn't do anything to improve your position.

.. Now I'll go find me a baby to eat, because that's what we moslem-loving terrorists do ;)

There are no conceivable circumstances under which I would vote for a Moslem for President of a local gardening club or dog show, let alone President of the United States.

The question itself is based on an impossible premise. No one who characterizes himself as a Moslem could possibly have my political values, or American political values for that matter, since Islam itself is saturated with an alien and oppressive political ideology.

That's okay. I pronounce the word "the" with a "assgrabbingcandycane" sound.

Then, you're wrong.

But really, you say "moslem" specifically BECAUSE it's wrong,

Wrong, eh?

Shall we check?

Let's.

Moslem
One entry found for Moslem.
Main Entry: Mos·lem
Pronunciation: 'mäz-l&m also 'mäs-
-- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moslem

Hmm. Looks like I'm right.

Terribly sorry.

specifically to piss people off.

If it pisses someone off, that's their problem, not mine.

You might as well say "mohammadan" or "raghead," but I guess that's too un-PC for you.

I might, but I don't.

Too many syllables in "mohammadan" and it's too archaic, like "mussleman."

"Raghead" is too crude.

Doesn't cover the eventuality of what you should do when you become Caesar, does it?

Certainly, it does.

A human is not able to become "Casear" in the US.

Our "Caesar" is the Constitution. That is not an elected office.

Next?

Are you telling me the Muslims I know, including the woman I'm trying to start a family with, are false Muslims?

I have no idea, since I don't know her.

You, by your own admission, attempt to offend several of my friends & the woman I love by calling them moslems.

And, this is an insult, how?

If your skin's too thin to be called stupid when you try to insult people, stop trying to insult people.

I've insulted no one.

Deal with it.

.. Now I'll go find me a baby to eat, because that's what we moslem-loving terrorists do ;)

Enjoy.

There are no conceivable circumstances under which I would vote for a Moslem for President of a local gardening club or dog show, let alone President of the United States.

The question itself is based on an impossible premise. No one who characterizes himself as a Moslem could possibly have my political values

Oh? What about a self-hating muslim?

Then, you're wrong.

Not at all. I pronounce it like that. Therefore it's correct.

Wrong, eh?

Shall we check?

Let's.

Moslem
One entry found for Moslem.
Main Entry: Mos·lem
Pronunciation: 'mäz-l&m also 'mäs-
-- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moslem

Hmm. Looks like I'm right.

Terribly sorry.

Oh, because it can be found in a dictionary, it is the right and proper use of the term? LOL

So, I guess it is right and proper for me to use the term "******" to refer to black people, because "******" is in the dictionary.

Hmm, no, it seems that etymology is a valid thing. The word spelling "muslim" is used because that is how it is pronounced. The word spelling "moslem" is incorrect since it is farther away phonetically from "muslem" which is the arabic pronunciation.

If it pisses someone off, that's their problem, not mine.


Mm, but that doesn't negate the fact that you get off on using the term to piss people off.

It's pretty obvious.


I might, but I don't.

Too many syllables in "mohammadan" and it's too archaic, like "mussleman."

"Raghead" is too crude.


Crude? You mean, not politically correct. You'd be spotted as the bigoted little bitch you are a mile away, whereas using "Moslem" makes you seem almost erudite. ;)

I have no idea, since I don't know her.And thank Dog for that.

You didn't answer though. What is a true Muslim? Are Muslims that just follow the humanistic parts of the Qu'ran - like the majority of Christians, who just follow the humanistic bits of the Bible - not true Muslims?
What about Muslims that live by Sharia (which is a scholar-created legal system & not the least bit divine) not true Muslims?

You must know, right?And, this is an insult, how?Because of your stated intent.I've insulted no one.Ah, but you yourself stated otherwise.

Deal with it.

Nope.

A true Christian is told, render unto God that which is God's. Render unto Casear that which is Caesar's.

So, a true Christian would not put the Bible ahead of the Constitution.
/dripping with sarcasm voice on/ Yes, that would explain why religious interests never enter the picture in American politics. the whole separation of church and state being a terribly clear boundary... but then again, it does say church and state, not mosque and state. /dripping with sarcasm voice off/

Not at all. I pronounce it like that. Therefore it's correct.

I can reference a dictionary entry that substantiates my usage. Can you?

Didn't think so.

Oh, because it can be found in a dictionary, it is the right and proper use of the term?

It is A right and proper use of the term.

So, I guess it is right and proper for me to use the term "******" to refer to black people, because "******" is in the dictionary.

Go for it.

Hmm, no, it seems that etymology is a valid thing. The word spelling "muslim" is used because that is how it is pronounced. The word spelling "moslem" is incorrect since it is farther away phonetically from "muslem" which is the arabic pronunciation.

Nah.

Mm, but that doesn't negate the fact that you get off on using the term to piss people off.

It's pretty obvious.

What pisses you off is not my problem, nor is what you see as obvious.

Crude? You mean, not politically correct.

No, I meant, "crude."

If I'd meant "not politicall correct," I'd've used that term. I didn't, therefore that is not what I meant.

See how that works?

You'd be spotted as the bigoted little bitch you are a mile away, whereas using "Moslem" makes you seem almost erudite. ;)

That desperate, are you?

And thank Dog for that.

Not much good to thank him, I believe he's in jail.

You didn't answer though.

Fancy that.

What is a true Muslim?

Oh, one that places Islam first, oppresses women, follows fatwahs as instructed, etc.

Because of your stated intent.

I stated no intent.

Ah, but you yourself stated otherwise.

Where?

Deal with it.

No problem.

but then again, it does say church and state

Really?

Where?

Please cite where it says, "church and state." If you don't have a copy of the Constitution handy, you can pull up the text online easily. So, it should be no problem for you to find that phrase in there.

how about gorias. can gorias be president? i'll turn into a muslim if you want.

I can reference a dictionary entry that substantiates my usage. Can you?

Yes. Read the entries for Muslim and Moslem.

Didn't think so.

Didn't think what? Oh, you mean your question was meant to be rhetorical. Well, you're just full of incorrect ideas today.

It is A right and proper use of the term.

I guess if you just say this over and over, it looks like an argument.


Nah.


...

Ooh, brilliant rebuttal there! You got me!

What pisses you off is not my problem, nor is what you see as obvious.

No, it's not your PROBLEM. It's what GETS YOU OFF.

You ENJOY IT.

No, I meant, "crude."

If I'd meant "not politicall correct," I'd've used that term. I didn't, therefore that is not what I meant.

See how that works?

Nah.




You meant politically incorrect. You didn't use the term because once again you are intellectually dishonest and cowardly. See how that works?

That desperate, are you?

Nah.

Oh, one that places Islam first, oppresses women, follows fatwahs as instructed, etc.

So, are you Muhammed or Allah?

Yes. Read the entries for Muslim and Moslem.

I did.

I use "moslem."

Now, post your dictionary site that substantiates your incorrect pronunciation of "the."

Didn't think what?

That you could produce a dictionary entry that supports your usage of "the."

I guess if you just say this over and over, it looks like an argument.

Particularly when I'm correct.

Ooh, brilliant rebuttal there! You got me!

I gave it the argument it was worth. If that "gets" you, then you must not have had much of a point in the first place.

It's what GETS YOU OFF.

No. It is merely fact.

You ENJOY IT.

Well, you certainly seem to do so.

You meant politically incorrect.

Once again, no, I did not.

Otherwise, I'd've used that term.

Get your ESP-ometer checked out. It seems the batteries are low.

See how that works?

Afraid not. Try to explain it again and detail how you are aware of my thoughts and intents.

I did.

I use "moslem."

Now, post your dictionary site that substantiates your incorrect pronunciation of "the."

That you could produce a dictionary entry that supports your usage of "the."


Actually, my dictionary entires support the usage of the word "Muslim."


Particularly when I'm correct.

Mm, no, repetition neither makes it look like an argument nor does stating that you are correct constitute an argument.

Try again.

I gave it the argument it was worth. If that "gets" you, then you must not have had much of a point in the first place.

I did have a point, which is why you blurting out "nah" like an imbecile only serves your ulterior goal of being annoying.


No. It is merely fact.

Nah.

Well, you certainly seem to do so.

Nice one. "I'm rubber and you're glue."

You're pretty good at trolling. Get much practice?

Once again, no, I did not.

Otherwise, I'd've used that term.

You're kowtowing to PC forces even right now. Lying, lying and lying to get away from that nasty truth doesn't make it any less true. Maybe you convince yourself. Doesn't work on me.

Afraid not. Try to explain it again and detail how you are aware of my thoughts and intents.

I've had enough experience with bigots like yourself to see the patterns in your behaviour and the obvious psychological motives.

You're all cowards.

Actually, my dictionary entires support the usage of the word "Muslim."

So did mine. It listed it and "moslem" as variants.

I pick "moslem."

Mm, no, repetition neither makes it look like an argument nor does stating that you are correct constitute an argument.

Try again.

Not all that concerned, as you haven't proven me wrong, yet.

I did have a point, which is why you blurting out "nah" like an imbecile only serves your ulterior goal of being annoying.

And, I gave it the consideration it was due.

You're pretty good at trolling. Get much practice?

I'm not trolling. If I were, I'd not still be here.

You don't like that I use "moslem" and that I would not vote for a moslem candidate for president - or any other ofice.

Fine. Not a problem for me, since I don't have the opinion based upon the approval of others.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

You're kowtowing to PC forces even right now. Lying, lying and lying to get away from that nasty truth doesn't make it any less true.

Nope.

Not a single lie. And, I'm not kow-towing to any PC forces.

Maybe you convince yourself.

I don't have to convince myself - I already know.

Doesn't work on me.

Relevancy?

I've had enough experience with bigots like yourself to see the patterns in your behaviour and the obvious psychological motives.

You're all cowards.

Yeah...

That must be it...

Actually, my dictionary entires support the usage of the word "Muslim." Why, oh why do you waste time arguing semantics with the guy?

Wouldn't it be more relevant, not to mention interesting, to discuss his monodimensional view of 21% [Wikipedia] of humanity?

Please cite where it says, "church and state." If you don't have a copy of the Constitution handy, you can pull up the text online easily. So, it should be no problem for you to find that phrase in there.

Granted, the phrase first appears in a letter by Jefferson incorrectly citing the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the doctrine is always referred to in America as the separation of Church and State, and in countries with other state religions, as Mosque and State, Synagogue and State, etc etc (are there Pagoda and States?). So my sarcasm stands.

Why, oh why do you waste time arguing semantics with the guy?

I have lots of time. It must be wasted. What, do you think this time will waste itself? Waste doesn't grow on trees, you know.

Wouldn't it be more relevant, not to mention interesting, to discuss his monodimensional view of 21% [Wikipedia] of humanity?

Relevant? Interesting? Perhaps. But still a waste of time.

Granted, the phrase first appears in a letter by Jefferson incorrectly citing the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the doctrine is always referred to in America as the separation of Church and State, and in countries with other state religions, as Mosque and State, Synagogue and State, etc etc (are there Pagoda and States?). So my sarcasm stands.

And, Jefferson said, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?"
-- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000004----000-notes.html

Just what separation was he talking about?

Further, Jefferson also said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
-- http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/govt.html

This turns our welfare state on its ear, yet no one seems to heed this particular statement of Jefferson's.

Further, Jefferson also said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

This turns our welfare state on its ear, yet no one seems to heed this particular statement of Jefferson's.
Irrelevant to the subject matter, and irrelevant to your arguments. Politicians say lots of things, which cause many or few waves depending on the interest.

The Supreme Court in their ineffable wisdom paid attention to his interpretation of the First Amendment in numerous decisions. Thus it is now accepted that the philosophy of the First Amendment is to prevent state intervention in religion. Notably, the pledge of allegiance still contains God-wording, politicians are threatened with refusal of sacrament based on their voting, the definition of family reverts to the biblical man-and-woman, and the definition of birth reverts to the biblical soul argument. Church and State are not separate.

I must once again reiterate that this was hardly the point of my sarcasm. I was pointing out in apparently uncertain terms the numerous "OMG TEH MOOSLEMS" posts on here where the authors cannot imagine a muslim unable to separate religion from politics... even though many, if not most, US politicians are unable to do so. But it is apparently preferable to have politics stained by the 'Church' rather than the 'Mosque'.

Hell no I wouldn't vote for a Muslim President, they'd probably blow the place up!

just kidding, Of course I would. In fact their policies wouldn't matter that much for me. there's a 99.9% chance I would vote for them on faith alone.

Irrelevant to the subject matter, and irrelevant to your arguments.

The thread digressed a bit. Is that unheard of?

But it is apparently preferable to have politics stained by the 'Church' rather than the 'Mosque'.

If forced to choose, 'Church' wins over 'Mosque' every single time.

Does any of the Muslim Countries want an " American " running their government? I don't think so! So why should we allow a Muslim President?
No Muslim President ... Period

My country doesn't have a president but a queen. So no I would not vote for a Muslim president cuz the situation wont occur.

A Muslim member of parliament? I guess i'd rather vote for an atheist candidate than a religious one. But Muslim or Christian I dont really care .

Not really, because one would have to wonder if he really has our best intrest in mind, considering the global political climate of today.

Exactly!

Exactly!

what? why? because being Muslim means you can't be American and a patriotic one at that? please.

Does any of the Muslim Countries want an " American " running their government? I don't think so! So why should we allow a Muslim President?
No Muslim President ... Period

I'm going to assume that this is a joke, considering that there are Muslim Americans.

No, a Muslim-dominated country wouldn't want an American running their government. That would remove control from their own government and place it in the hands of another.

However, the US government should be headed by a US citizen. It is perfectly possible that this citizen might be Muslim.

Would you vote for a NS Generalite for President?

Nope.

Would you vote for a muslim president? Assume he has your political views. And he would win if you voted for him.

Be honest.

does he portray himself to be the better candidate than his opponents?

if so, then yes.

If his views were the same as mine, I would vote for him. Purely because I've never met anyone with the same or even vaguely similar political beliefs as myself and if someone with them could get into power I would definitely support them, whatever their religion. That being said, I can't really imagine any muslim (or any other mainstream religious follower for that matter) with the same beliefs as myself.

I would be just as inclined to vote for a muslim as a christian, which is admittedly not much, but I don't guess America has too many non-religious followers up for election.

The thread digressed a bit. Is that unheard of?

nope, pretty standard. it's the post digressing that i was pointing out.


If forced to choose, 'Church' wins over 'Mosque' every single time.
or, as John Adams said, "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general principles of Christianity in which all the sects were united. And the General Principles of English and American liberty. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."
Should one vote for a government that states it does not follow one's beliefs, on the basis that sharing a religion must imply a sharing of beliefs? Somewhat paradoxical, no? Voting 'no' means that you don't believe in democracy, but that is not unexpected.

I'm going to assume that this is a joke, considering that there are Muslim Americans.

This is no joke!

No, a Muslim-dominated country wouldn't want an American running their government. That would remove control from their own government and place it in the hands of another.

My point exactly ... If that person lives his live according the dictates that I read in the curan that someone posted on NS the other day then he or she could not be trusted to run this country.

However, the US government should be headed by a US citizen. It is perfectly possible that this citizen might be Muslim.

I disagree for the reasons stated above. Every since I saw the portion of the curan that was posted in a thread here the other day. I think it would be stupid and suicidal to make anyone a political leader in any non muslim country who believes that killing people just because they aren't Muslim is OK! Beyond that do you really believe if we were allowed to live in a muslim country that we could hold their highest political office?

This is no joke! Every since I saw the portion of the curan that was posted in a thread here the other day. I think it would be stupid and suicidal to make anyone a political leader in any non muslim country who believes that killing people just because they aren't Muslim is what God expects of them to get to heaven. Beyond that do you really believe if we were allowed to live in a muslim country that we could hold their highest political office?Ever read the bible? We should never have had a christian president by that standard. Not everyone that follows a certain religion beleives in absolutely everything in that book. I'm sure Bush doesn't consider stoning a viable option for rebellious youths.

Would you vote for a muslim president? Assume he has your political views. And he would win if you voted for him.

Be honest.
If I agree with his political platform and he is qualified for the job, of course I would vote for him.

Church----------------------------Separation-------------------State
One man's religion-----------Nothing to do with-----------The nation's politics

But then, I'm used to voting for people who don't share my religion.

This is no joke! Every since I saw the portion of the curan that was posted in a thread here the other day. I think it would be stupid and suicidal to make anyone a political leader in any non muslim country who believes that killing people just because they aren't Muslim because they think God expects it of them to get to heaven. Beyond that do you really believe if we were allowed to live in a muslim country that we could hold their highest political office?
Yes there are such passages, and there are passages that are directly the opposite, that (e.g.) prohibit the killing of children and women. In the strictest teachings of Islam, suicide bombers are all hell-bound, a point which some Islamic scholars have pointed out. But the texts have been warped to justify the actions of a society at war, which Christianity obviously did as well. Also, be careful of accepting anyone's translations of any document, since there are many, and linguistic subtleties are often lost.
A wonderful interpretation of Genesis follows from God saying "And it was Good" after every day except the creation of Adam. Instead, on that day God looked at everything, and not specifically Adam, and said it was very good. This could be interpreted as evidence not even a perfect God can create humans to be perfect. The corollary to this is the use of the comparative term 'very', possibly implying God had tried before, and failed, to make an existence as good as our current one. But evidently not even this one is perfect. However, this interpretation is often obscured by current christian versions of Genesis, standing out most in the original Hebrew. Moral of the story: bibles are open to interpretation, subtlety, more interpretation, some more subtlety, and some dogma on the side. Form your opinions yourself, and not off of one passage. Second moral of the story, I am procrastinating studying for exams.

If I agree with his political platform and he is qualified for the job, of course I would vote for him.

Church----------------------------Separation-------------------State
One man's religion-----------Nothing to do with-----------The nation's politics

But then, I'm used to voting for people who don't share my religion.

Yo tambien. And I agree completely- whereas right now the church is virtually institutionalized. By the way, I like your church...seperation...state text graphic. I think it was a very intelligent design.

Ever read the bible? We should never have had a christian president by that standard.

Don't even insult me like that! I am Christian and I would never kill anyone because they don't wish to be Christian. Killing according to Jesus Christ is wrong and is forbidden. According to the Curan Prophet muslims are to kill the unbeliever. So don't you dare try to play me like that bub!

Not everyone that follows a certain religion beleives in absolutely everything in that book.

If Christians don't then they may not be as Christian as they say.

I'm sure Bush doesn't consider stoning a viable option for rebellious youths.

What Bush thinks is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned because I'm still not convinced that he is Christian. I think he wants Christians to believe he is, but the Bible says you will know them by there fruits, in other words by their actions. By this standard I have many reasons to question his faith.

Yo tambien. And I agree completely- whereas right now the church is virtually institutionalized. By the way, I like your church...seperation...state text graphic. I think it was a very intelligent design.
:fluffle: back at ya. Feel free to use the graphic. Open copyright on that one.

Don't even insult me like that! I am Christian and I would never kill anyone because they don't wish to be Christian. Killing according to Jesus Christ is wrong and is forbidden. According to the Curan Prophet muslims are to kill the unbeliever. So don't you dare try to play me like that bub

If they don't then they may not be as Christian as they say.

What Bush thinks is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned because I'm still not convinced that he is Christian. I think he wants Christians to believe he is, but the Bible says you will know them by there fruits, in other words by their actions. By this standard I have many reasons to question his faith.Simple question then: Do you believe that rebellious youths should be stoned to death?

Don't even insult me like that! I am Christian and I would never kill anyone because they don't wish to be Christian. Killing according to Jesus Christ is wrong and is forbidden. According to the Curan Prophet muslims are to kill the unbeliever. So don't you dare try to play me like that bub!



If they don't then they may not be as Christian as they say.



What Bush thinks is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned because I'm still not convinced that he is Christian. I think he wants Christians to believe he is, but the Bible says you will know them by there fruits, in other words by their actions. By this standard I have many reasons to question his faith.
Nice try, K, but what you are doing here is choosing to ignore violent messages in your own holy book while using the corresponding violent messages in the Qu'ran to declare Muslims unfit for public service in the US. That's called a double standard, and it is not a valid way to make such decisions. US law guarantees freedom of religion. Therefore, religion is not a basis on which to disqualify anyone from holding political office or any other job or position in society.

Yes there are such passages, and there are passages that are directly the opposite, that (e.g.) prohibit the killing of children and women. In the strictest teachings of Islam, suicide bombers are all hell-bound, a point which some Islamic scholars have pointed out. But the texts have been warped to justify the actions of a society at war, which Christianity obviously did as well.

Not this Christian ... and that is money in the bank.

Also, be careful of accepting anyone's translations of any document, since there are many, and linguistic subtleties are often lost. A wonderful interpretation of Genesis follows from God saying "And it was Good" after every day except the creation of Adam. Instead, on that day God looked at everything, and not specifically Adam, and said it was very good. This could be interpreted as evidence not even a perfect God can create humans to be perfect.

He could if Satan didn't have any influence over the world.

The corollary to this is the use of the comparative term 'very', possibly implying God had tried before, and failed, to make an existence as good as our current one. But evidently not even this one is perfect. However, this interpretation is often obscured by current christian versions of Genesis, standing out most in the original Hebrew. Moral of the story: bibles are open to interpretation, subtlety, more interpretation, some more subtlety, and some dogma on the side. Form your opinions yourself, and not off of one passage.

Have you read the Ten Commandments? Is the one that states " Thou shall not Kill " open to interpretation as well, I think not. :rolleyes:

Second moral of the story, I am procrastinating studying for exams.

Well don't blame me if you don't do as well as you would like on your exams because you should have been studing now. ;)

Nice try, K, but what you are doing here is choosing to ignore violent messages in your own holy book while using the corresponding violent messages in the Qu'ran to declare Muslims unfit for public service in the US. That's called a double standard, and it is not a valid way to make such decisions. US law guarantees freedom of religion. Therefore, religion is not a basis on which to disqualify anyone from holding political office or any other job or position in society.

Nice try Murry, could it be that your interpretation of the Bible is flawed? There is nowhere in the Bible where it says that Christians must kill unbelievers in order to be taken to heaven like the Qu'ran does! So no it isn't a double standard, and it is a a valid way to make such decisions. Does US law guarantee freedom of a religion that requires it's practitioners to kill every citizen of the entire world that doesn't believe in the Qu'ran's teachings? If it does then it should be changed for the good of every non muslim everywhere.

I disagree for the reasons stated above. Every since I saw the portion of the curan that was posted in a thread here the other day. I think it would be stupid and suicidal to make anyone a political leader in any non muslim country who believes that killing people just because they aren't Muslim is OK! Beyond that do you really believe if we were allowed to live in a muslim country that we could hold their highest political office?

The Qu'ran does not state that "killing people just because they aren't Muslim is ok." It states that, if a person is being oppressed or punished for their faith, they should strike back. However, the Qu'ran clearly states that Muslims are to live in harmony with Jews and Christians (something many have chosen to break). In fact, there is a statement made by Muhammed that any Muslim making an enemy of the other two faiths will answer for it at judgement.

And no, I would be unlikely to hold the highest political office in any theocracy. But the US isn't a theocracy. A person's religion does not matter in whether or not they can serve their country by holding public office.

Nice try Murry, could it be that your interpretation of the Bible is flawed? There is nowhere in the Bible where it says that Christians must kill unbelievers in order to be taken to heaven like the Qu'ran does!

There is nowhere in the Qu'ran that says Muslims must kill unbelievers in order to be taken to heaven. In fact, doing so in any situation other than when that unbeliever is attacking believers will get a Muslim the opposite fate.

Meanwhile, there are quite a few Biblical passages that advocate killing those of other faiths. The genocide of an entire society, according to the OT, was ordered by God. Stoning was a common punishment for all sorts of religious infractions. A Christian who believes the entire Bible truly is God's word must accept that God advocates genocide, slavery, and all sorts of atrocities.

Have you read the Ten Commandments? Is the one that states " Thou shall not Kill " open to interpretation as well, I think not. :rolleyes: What about the primary of the ten commandments, you know, the one about worshipping any other god(s) being a deathsentence? Is that open to interpretation? Because if it isn't, your holy book demands you murder the majority of the peoples on Earth, just like the Qu'ran commands Muslims do the same for the same damn reason.

Face it, you selectively read your Bible. The vast majority of Christians do. Muslims likewise selectively read the Qu'ran, though they do tend to abide by more of their holy book than you Christians do of yours.

Simple question then: Do you believe that rebellious youths should be stoned to death?

I believe I have answered that question already. :rolleyes:

Don't even insult me like that! I am Christian and I would never kill anyone because they don't wish to be Christian. Killing according to Jesus Christ is wrong and is forbidden.

Regardless of whether you stone someone to death or use some other method it is clearly wrong! This is the problem I have with the Muslim or any other faith, certain warmongers may have changed the Quran teachings to fit their ideas, but I don't read minds, I don't know who does and who doesn't. Should I trust every muslim because not all believe as the warmongers do? What if I do and I'm wrong and the person I trusted is a member of the warmongers. Could I live with myself when the warmonger kills again knowing that I am responsible because I could have stopped it? No I couldn't.
Let me make myself perfectly clear, I am against those that kill, regardless of what name they go by.
If you are muslim and are not a member of the warmongers then we don't have a problem personally, I would welcome you into my country. But because I have no way of knowing that about you for sure I feel I must protect my country against the possibility that you are. So maybe you should speak to the warmongers among you, because they won't listen to me. My one wish is that all human beings would stop this petty bickering and be friends. It is my belief that this simple wish cannot be realizied until Jesus Christ returns for the final time and causes mankind to love each other. Unforunately he has yet to do that... so the bickering continues.

Have you read the Ten Commandments? Is the one that states " Thou shall not Kill " open to interpretation as well, I think not. :rolleyes:

"Thou shalt not kill" is horribly qualified. Jews and heathens are usually exceptions. I believe the Church of England also reinterpreted the 6th Commandment to allow for killing in the defense of property and England, certainly religion tends to be a bit shaky where self-defense is concerned, besides revering the Slaughter-Saints.

Well don't blame me if you don't do as well as you would like on your exams because you should have been studing now. ;)
Your blame will remain open to interpretation!

I wouldn't vote for him/her, just as I wouldn't vote for any ethnic candidate in either my constituency, or for government offices. Seems a tad harsh, but I don't consider them British, and happen to be a patriot.

Would you vote for a muslim president? Assume he has your political views. And he would win if you voted for him.

Be honest.

If I believed he had the best Character and would be a strong leader, and effective I would vote for him if didnt have all my political views, and as far as the "would win" thing....people who base who they vote for on that are the reason we cant get third party canidate elected.

I wouldn't vote for him/her, just as I wouldn't vote for any ethnic candidate in either my constituency, or for government offices. Seems a tad harsh, but I don't consider them British, and happen to be a patriot.

What does skin color have to do with the ability to govern?

If he was a Muslim and had my views, he wouldn't be a Muslim. Regardless, if he did have my views, I'd vote for him. You'd have to be an idiot to not vote for somebody if they were willing to do everything you wanted them to do. I definitely wouldn't vote for a Muslim, however, if he in any way sympathized fanatic Islam or anything.

What does skin color have to do with the ability to govern?

I never maintained it impeded them, mentally or intellectually, in any form. I simply dispute their being legitimate British citizens, and thus their right to stand as candidates.

"Thou shalt not kill" is horribly qualified.

And it's actually a mistranslation. It should be, "Thou shalt not murder."

You two are aware that Muslim, as in Islam is not a race, skin color, ethnicity, national origin, flavor of ice cream...its a religion that actively seeks to convert all manner of race, ethnicity, national origin to its fold, so--therefore where in hell are you getting Skin color from?

Someone who could trace their lineage to Charlemagne or Cromwell if you like, could be Muslim....wow.

You two are aware that Muslim, as in Islam is not a race, skin color, ethnicity, national origin, flavor of ice ceam...its a religion that actively seeks to convert all manner of race, ethnicity, national origin to its fold, so--therefore where in hell are you getting Skin color from?

Someone who could trace their lineage to Charlemagne or Cromwell if you like, could be Muslim....wow.

I'm dealing with both here.

Incidentally, how original. Playing the "race can't be defined" card, vey good. You should be in politics.

I believe I have answered that question already. :rolleyes:

So you don't believe the entire Bible is the word of God?

Regardless of whether you stone someone to death or use some other method it is clearly wrong!

So, was God telling people to do things that were wrong? Or is the Bible not the word of God?

This is the problem I have with the Muslim or any other faith, certain warmongers may have changed the Quran teachings to fit their ideas, but I don't read minds, I don't know who does and who doesn't.

Ah, so now you admit that the Qu'ran itself does not order these things, but that some have twisted it.

Should I trust every muslim because not all believe as the warmongers do? What if I do and I'm wrong and the person I trusted is a member of the warmongers. Could I live with myself when the warmonger kills again knowing that I am responsible because I could have stopped it? No I couldn't.
Let me make myself perfectly clear, I am against those that kill, regardless of what name they go by.

Some of them are Christian. Are you going to not vote for any Christian because some of them advocate hate and killing? In fact, you can't vote for any person at all. Every person is, in some way, a part of a group that has members who advocate such things.

The premise of the OP's question was that your views coincided with those of the candidate. I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't have views that coincided with a fundamentalist, warmongering member of any religion, right?

If you are muslim and are not a member of the warmongers then we don't have a problem personally, I would welcome you into my country. But because I have no way of knowing that about you for sure I feel I must protect my country against the possibility that you are. So maybe you should speak to the warmongers among you, because they won't listen to me. My one wish is that all human beings would stop this petty bickering and be friends. It is my belief that this simple wish cannot be realizied until Jesus Christ returns for the final time and causes mankind to love each other. Unforunately he has yet to do that... so the bickering continues.

It makes no sense that you apply this to Muslims, but not to Christians. There are Christians who have committed genocide in the name of Christ.

By your logic, you can't vote for anyone at all.

I wouldn't vote for him/her, just as I wouldn't vote for any ethnic candidate in either my constituency, or for government offices. Seems a tad harsh, but I don't consider them British, and happen to be a patriot.

You don't consider them British, eh? So only white, blonde, blue-eyed members of the Anglican church get to be British, or what?

What if the Muslim candidate wasn't "ethnic" at all, but came from a long line of British politicians? What if a member of the royal family converted?

So you don't believe the entire Bible is the word of God?



So, was God telling people to do things that were wrong? Or is the Bible not the word of God?



Ah, so now you admit that the Qu'ran itself does not order these things, but that some have twisted it.



Some of them are Christian. Are you going to not vote for any Christian because some of them advocate hate and killing? In fact, you can't vote for any person at all. Every person is, in some way, a part of a group that has members who advocate such things.

The premise of the OP's question was that your views coincided with those of the candidate. I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't have views that coincided with a fundamentalist, warmongering member of any religion, right?



It makes no sense that you apply this to Muslims, but not to Christians. There are Christians who have committed genocide in the name of Christ.

By your logic, you can't vote for anyone at all.



You don't consider them British, eh? So only white, blonde, blue-eyed members of the Anglican church get to be British, or what?

What if the Muslim candidate wasn't "ethnic" at all, but came from a long line of British politicians? What if a member of the royal family converted?

Royal family can't stand for public elections, to my knowledge.

In any case, don't play the Nazi card by alluding to aryan characteristics. It's another part of the multicultural trope that gets tedious after a little time.

Were they genuinely "British" in mentality as well as race, they wouldn't convert in any case, having better taste than to prostitute themselves to an anachronsim.

What if the Muslim candidate wasn't "ethnic" at all, but came from a long line of British politicians? What if a member of the royal family converted?

I think converting would de-royal them.

I'm dealing with both here.

Incidentally, how original. Playing the "race can't be defined" card, vey good. You should be in politics.

MUslim isnt a race you moron its a CHOICE, anyone can decide to become MUSLIM, so you are saying once someone who is British decides to convert they are no longer british because they changed their religion....
I should be in politics and you should be in 1940 Germany.

MUslim isnt a race you moron its a CHOICE, anyone can decide to become MUSLIM, so you are saying once someone who is British decides to convert they are no longer british because they changed their religion....
I should be in politics and you should be in 1940 Germany.

However, you either presuppose that every British person is religious, or that half-arsed agnosto-atheism is a faith.

I appear to have stated repeatedly that Islam (you used the wrong article in any case, and can't spell correctly either) is indeed no more of a race than Jedi or Flying Spaghetti Monster, however I consider the tenets and exigencies of Islam to be an anathema to Britian and the necessities of being British.

However, you either presuppose that every British person is religious, or that half-arsed agnosto-atheism is a faith.

I appear to have stated repeatedly that Islam (you used the wrong article in any case, and can't spell correctly either) is indeed no more of a race than Jedi or Flying Spaghetti Monster, however I consider the tenets and exigencies of Islam to be an anathema to Britian and the necessities of being British.

Whatever you win.

how do you make a poll:confused:

Royal family can't stand for public elections, to my knowledge.

In any case, don't play the Nazi card by alluding to aryan characteristics. It's another part of the multicultural trope that gets tedious after a little time.

Were they genuinely "British" in mentality as well as race, they wouldn't convert in any case, having better taste than to prostitute themselves to an anachronsim.

So British people can't possibly seek religion now? Or is it that anyone with a "British" mentality (whatever that means) can only see the Anglican church as the one true religion?


I think converting would de-royal them.

I dunno. A lot of things that are supposed to have that effect don't actually seem to. And even a member of the royal family who will never take the throne is still followed rather closely by the media.

however I consider the tenets and exigencies of Islam to be an anathema to Britian and the necessities of being British.

In what way?

Id vote for anyone who shared at least a good amount of my polititcal veiws and if i thought they would do a good job. so yeah i would doesnt matter what religion.

If he/she mostly agreed with me on the issues of the day, and his/her opponent disagreed, the choice is obvious, I'd vote for him/her. The fact that she/he's muslim is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

So British people can't possibly seek religion now? Or is it that anyone with a "British" mentality (whatever that means) can only see the Anglican church as the one true religion?



I dunno. A lot of things that are supposed to have that effect don't actually seem to. And even a member of the royal family who will never take the throne is still followed rather closely by the media.



In what way?

Not the anglican church. I didn't state that either.

Islam extols loyalty to an entity beyond the realm of the UK, is mysogynistic, encourages sectarian hatred and violence, and renders British governments second to the Koran in all affairs.

Not the anglican church. I didn't state that either.

The Anglican Church is about as British as you get, though.

Islam extols loyalty to an entity beyond the realm of the UK,

As does any religion.

is mysogynistic,

In certain forms, yes, but not as a whole. And most religions, depending on who you talk to, have mysogynistic forms.

encourages sectarian hatred and violence,

No more than any other religion.

and renders British governments second to the Koran in all affairs.

No more than any other religion's adherence to its holy book.

It would seem, in fact, that you think any religious person cannot be British. How interesting.

I dunno. A lot of things that are supposed to have that effect don't actually seem to. And even a member of the royal family who will never take the throne is still followed rather closely by the media.


Oh, I don't mean they would become anonymous. But I'm almost certain it would take them out of the line of succession. And they'd probably lose their title.

If I knew a muslim would be prepared to put their obligation to the country ahead of their religion, every time, even if the two are contradictory, I would vote for them. But as they appear to hold their faith above all things, I imagine I would not.

If I knew a muslim would be prepared to put their obligation to the country ahead of their religion, every time, even if the two are contradictory, I would vote for them. But as they appear to hold their faith above all things, I imagine I would not.

And I would assume, then, that you would not vote for a Christian/Hindu/Jew/Animist/etc/etc/etc who held his faith above all things?

I'm kinda scared that 26 out of 106 people said no...

however I consider the tenets and exigencies of Islam to be an anathema to Britian and the necessities of being British.
In what way?
They'd let Turkey into the EU?

Nice try Murry, could it be that your interpretation of the Bible is flawed? There is nowhere in the Bible where it says that Christians must kill unbelievers in order to be taken to heaven like the Qu'ran does! So no it isn't a double standard, and it is a a valid way to make such decisions. Does US law guarantee freedom of a religion that requires it's practitioners to kill every citizen of the entire world that doesn't believe in the Qu'ran's teachings? If it does then it should be changed for the good of every non muslim everywhere.
I'm not interpreting the Bible at all. It's not my holy book, so it's not up to me to interpret its meaning. Just like the Qu'ran is not your holy book, so it's not up to you to interpret its meaning for Muslims. (For the record, the Qu'ran is not my holy book, either.)

All I am doing is looking at the content of the book. I don't care a whit which people are targeted for killing by which god of which religion. You cannot deny that there is lots and lots of violence in the Bible. You cannot deny that there are plenty of wars, genocides, executions, and other acts of violence in the Bible which are depicted as approved by the God of Abraham. You cannot deny that all of those approved killings were approved by saying that the victims were against God in some way, including just being hated by him.

All you are doing is picking out from among the equally violent messages in the Qu'ran, the ones that you say have a particular message that you don't like, and on the basis of that alone declaring it to be something that should disqualify a Muslim for becoming president in the US.

And on the basis of comparing your statement about the content of the Qu'ran with what is commonly known to be the content of the Bible, I say you are applying a hypocritical double standard.

Your attempts to wiggle out of this by saying that a Christian doesn't buy into all that violence, but a "good" Muslim has to is also disingenuous, at best. First off, you don't get to sidestep the violence in your own religion by simple denial of the fact. Second, it is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It is not up to you to define what a "good" Muslim is. And third, if a Christian can be non-violent despite all the God-approved violence in the Bible, then why can't a Muslim likewise be non-violence despite violent verses in the Qu'ran? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if you can do it, so can the other guy.

I'm not interpreting the Bible at all. It's not my holy book, so it's not up to me to interpret its meaning. Just like the Qu'ran is not your holy book, so it's not up to you to interpret its meaning for Muslims. (For the record, the Qu'ran is not my holy book, either.)

No interpreting was needed by me or anyone else, for the parts of the Qu'ran that was posted here. The meaning was crystal clear to anyone with a little sense.

All I am doing is looking at the content of the book. I don't care a whit which people are targeted for killing by which god of which religion. You cannot deny that there is lots and lots of violence in the Bible. You cannot deny that there are plenty of wars, genocides, executions, and other acts of violence in the Bible which are depicted as approved by the God of Abraham. You cannot deny that all of those approved killings were approved by saying that the victims were against God in some way, including just being hated by him.

I never said that there is no violence in the bible. I said you can't show me where Jesus mandates that killing is something that must be done to go to heaven, the Qu'ran does. Beyond this the only thing God hates is SIN, the scripture says that he wants all men to be saved. He has even given us free will! If he was like some have suggested, that he trys to force his religion on us then we wouldn't even be having this discussion ... because he wouldn't allow us too. Logically since we are having this discussion and he has allowed it to continue for quite a while now, I would say that he isn't forcing anything on us.

All you are doing is picking out from among the equally violent messages in the Qu'ran, the ones that you say have a particular message that you don't like, and on the basis of that alone declaring it to be something that should disqualify a Muslim for becoming president in the US.

I didn't pick out those parts, I have never even looked the Qu'ran up on the internet. You can thank someone else for that. The only reason I am against any muslim running for President is the possiblity that the US might be governed by someone who wishes to destroy this country from the inside. Now can you tell me that the terrorist in question have never thought of that remote possiblity. Beyond that can you tell me that we should not guard ourselves against the possibliity.

And on the basis of comparing your statement about the content of the Qu'ran with what is commonly known to be the content of the Bible, I say you are applying a hypocritical double standard.

Upon comparing the section of the Qu'ran that I read with the Bible, I still
say you can't show me a Bible scripture where " JESUS " mandates that killing someone will in fact get you into heaven. Can you say the same about the Qu'ran? So there is no hypocritical double standard being applied.

Your attempts to wiggle out of this by saying that a Christian doesn't buy into all that violence, but a "good" Muslim has to is also disingenuous, at best.

I believe I said in an earlier post that I would welcome a truely good muslim into my country. The problem is being able to tell a good one from a bad one. I have no way of doing this, so until I can ... I must aways be on guard because of the agenda's of the terrorist. The terrorist have made it quite clear that they want us all dead. So are you telling me that I shouldn't try to protect my country from a hostile takeover from the inside? If you are then
you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

First off, you don't get to sidestep the violence in your own religion by simple denial of the fact.

I will not be held accountable for what other people that claim to be christian say or do, I can only speak for myself. If I knew of Christains that were going around committing violate acts in the name of the lord I would attempt to be the peacemaker in that situation. There is no denial in that!
I believe I asked the good muslim people to attempt to be a peacemaker between us by talking to the bad muslims aka the terrorist ... in the hopes that the terrorist will listen to them.

Second, it is not up to you to define what a "good" Muslim is.

Sure it is ... and I'll do that right now ... a good muslim is someone who doesn't go around killing innocent civilians like in the attack on the twin towers because they don't like what those civilians government is doing. Now lets expand that by asking a question shall we. This is a What if question by the way. What do you think would happen ... if ... a terrorist posing as a good muslim was elected to the highest political office of the US?

[QUOTE=Muravyets;12038569]And third, if a Christian can despite all the God-approved violence in the Bible, then why can't a Muslim likewise be non-violence despite violent verses in the Qbe non-violent u'ran? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if you can do it, so can the other guy.

I never said that good Muslims couldn't be non violent, I only asked how do I tell the difference ... to that point that I am able to know with out a shadow of a doubt that they aren't a terrorist pretending to be good so he can become the President ... No sauce intended.

Nope. I don't trust 'em. Sorry.

Nope. I don't trust 'em. Sorry.

This is a good example of how you're not a bigot because you only discriminate against extremist terrorist Muslims and not the entire religi- oops. N/m.

This is a good example of how you're not a bigot because you only discriminate against extremist terrorist Muslims and not the entire religi- oops. N/m.
I wouldn't vote for an evangelical Christian either. Their ideas conflict with mine. Why the hell would I vote for a person who's likely to impose their religious law on me through force of government?

i said yes to the poll.

I've never known the religion of any of the people i've voted for. What difference would it make?

I wouldn't vote for an evangelical Christian either. Their ideas conflict with mine.

You'd vote for a Christian, which is what is comparable with a Muslim. Comparison of an religion with a sub-set or sect is erroneous at best.

Why the hell would I vote for a person who's likely to impose their religious law on me through force of government?

Why the hell would you vote for someone of a religion whose members you automatically assume are all extremists?

I wouldn't vote for an evangelical Christian either. Their ideas conflict with mine. Why the hell would I vote for a person who's likely to impose their religious law on me through force of government?

so i assume you voted democrate at the last elections? :D

(assuming your a yank)

You'd vote for a Christian, which is what is comparable with a Muslim. Comparison of an religion with a sub-set or sect is erroneous at best.



Why the hell would you vote for someone of a religion whose members you automatically assume are all extremists?

If the "Muslim" candidate is about as Islamic as Bill Clinton was Southern Baptist I guess I wouldn't have a problem with him, but if he's a very religious Muslim I wouldn't vote for him.

What do you mean by extremist? I don't assume that all Muslims want to blow shit up, but I think most of them, like the evangelical christians, want to use the power of government to spread their faith and enforce some of their religious laws.

so i assume you voted democrate at the last elections? :D

(assuming your a yank)

Yes I did.

This is a good example of how you're not a bigot because you only discriminate against extremist terrorist Muslims and not the entire religi- oops. N/m.

I've never said I approve of most Muslim cultures. In fact, I have often called them backwards and barbaric. I don't think people who happen to believe in Allah are inferior in their abilities but I've always said I believe western cultures to be superior to most Muslim cultures.

Yes I did.

so if the democratic leader had been muslim, i assume carey (i think) was a christian and not a athiest, you would not have voted for him?

curious

so if the democratic leader had been muslim, i assume carey (i think) was a christian and not a athiest, you would not have voted for him?

curious
If he was a very religious Muslim, no. I would have found a third party to waste my vote on. If he was Muslim like Bill Clinton was Southern Baptist, then yes.

No interpreting was needed by me or anyone else, for the parts of the Qu'ran that was posted here. The meaning was crystal clear to anyone with a little sense.
Just as clear as the violence in the Bible.

I never said that there is no violence in the bible. I said you can't show me where Jesus mandates that killing is something that must be done to go to heaven, the Qu'ran does. Beyond this the only thing God hates is SIN, the scripture says that he wants all men to be saved. He has even given us free will! If he was like some have suggested, that he trys to force his religion on us then we wouldn't even be having this discussion ... because he wouldn't allow us too. Logically since we are having this discussion and he has allowed it to continue for quite a while now, I would say that he isn't forcing anything on us.
You are really, essentially, just repeating yourself. Your argument still boils down to what I said it did before: You say that that a Muslim can't be trusted because his religion contains violent messages, and a Muslim can't be trusted not to follow and act on those messages. You also claim that a Christian is exposed to similarly violent messages in his own holy texts but can be trusted not to follow or act on them because Jesus tells him not to. And how do you know that Jesus tells the Christian not to be violent? Because it's in the Bible. Right next to the messages condoning and encouraging violence on behalf of God. Yet you think a Christian is able to pick from among those conflicting messages well enough to be trusted as US president. On the other hand you ignore the fact that the Qu'ran also contains many verses that are anti-violence and pro-peace, right next to the pro-violence verses, just the same as the contradictions in the Bible, yet you claim that that a Muslim cannot be trusted to make the same distinctions as a Christian. Yet you show no reason for this. You show us no reason why we should trust the Christian but not the Muslim -- beyond the fact that the Christian is a Christian, that is. i'm sorry, but that's not good enough for me.

Personally, I do not trust any extremely religious person, of any persuasion, but in practice, when it comes to voting, you have shown me no reason why I should trust a Muslim American less than a Christian American.

I didn't pick out those parts, I have never even looked the Qu'ran up on the internet. You can thank someone else for that.
I was giving you credit for having looked up (and misinterpreted) something about the Qu'ran, even though you did not post any links to sources. Now I see that your argument about the Qu'ran is based only on hearsay. Even more reason for me to dismiss you.

The only reason I am against any muslim running for President is the possiblity that the US might be governed by someone who wishes to destroy this country from the inside. Now can you tell me that the terrorist in question have never thought of that remote possiblity. Beyond that can you tell me that we should not guard ourselves against the possibliity.
Funny, but I have the exact same feeling about Christian extremists in American politics such as Senator Sam Brownback. Links:

http://brownback.senate.gov/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator/

Brownback has no need to be ashamed of his religiosity, of course, but I see him as a man who is not capable of separating his personal religious beliefs from his duty to the public, and who seeks to make the US government match his religion in ways that will be to my detriment in terms of reproductive rights, civil rights for various groups, and my right to freedom of religion, both to the extent that my religion will be protected and to the extent that I should not be forced to conform my life to his religious beliefs. I also distrust his religious group's agenda in terms of international policy, the waging of war, environmental issues, and the preservation of the Constitution. Sam Brownback is thinking of running for president in 2008. Why should I trust a man who makes all his political decisions based on his religion, rather than on the Constitution?

Upon comparing the section of the Qu'ran that I read with the Bible, I still say you can't show me a Bible scripture where " JESUS " mandates that killing someone will in fact get you into heaven. Can you say the same about the Qu'ran? So there is no hypocritical double standard being applied.
It is applied in your nitpicking. JESUS did not write the Bible. He did not even write the gospels. The New Testament is a book ABOUT Jesus, not by Jesus. And according to what I hear from most fundamentalist Christians, the Bible -- all of it, not just certain parts -- was created/inspired/dictated/whatever by God himself. The Father, not the Son. That's a pretty strong argument for taking the book as a whole, not cherrypicking which parts you'd rather use to push any given point.

Yet you have as little problem dismissing whole sections of the message of your own God as you do picking and choosing which parts of the Qu'ran Muslims must abide by. YOU decide that Christians ignore all the violent parts of the Bible, and YOU decide that Muslims ignore all the non-violent parts of the Qu'ran. YOU decide that you can trust a Christian because of what you think he is thinking about his religion, and YOU decide that you cannot trust a Muslim because of what you think he is thinking about his religion. There is nothing in your argument but your own prejudice.

I believe I said in an earlier post that I would welcome a truely good muslim into my country. The problem is being able to tell a good one from a bad one. I have no way of doing this, so until I can ... I must aways be on guard because of the agenda's of the terrorist. The terrorist have made it quite clear that they want us all dead. So are you telling me that I shouldn't try to protect my country from a hostile takeover from the inside? If you are then you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
You don't get to decide what a "truely [sic] good muslim [sic]" is or is not. And you don't get to decide who is welcome in your country or not. And you don't get to decide who is fit to run for public office or not, or why.

The only thing you get to decide is where to place your vote, and if you choose to make that decision based on religious bigotry rather than an examination of the individual candidate, that is your right. But don't expect me to buy into your shallow and paranoid rantings.

Just as with Sam Brownback, when I compare your arguments to the values and ethics of my country, and what I consider to be the best interests of my country, and what I consider to be my own best interests, I consider you to be a more clear threat to my nation and to myself than any randomly selected Muslim. I do not consider people like you or people like Sam Brownback to be a threat because of your religion. I think this way about you and him because of your individual statements and actions -- your arguments here; his public statements and voting record. There are plenty of devout Christians in US politics I do not feel threatened by.

In other words, I oppose you and him not because of a prejudice against Christians but because an examination of your records leads me not to trust you as individuals.

I will not be held accountable for what other people that claim to be christian say or do, I can only speak for myself.
Another "No True Scotsman" argument, this time applied to what a Christian is.

If I knew of Christains that were going around committing violate acts in the name of the lord I would attempt to be the peacemaker in that situation.
Easy to say what one would do. Also irrelevant to this discussion.

There is no denial in that! I believe I asked the good muslim people to attempt to be a peacemaker between us by talking to the bad muslims aka the terrorist ... in the hopes that the terrorist will listen to them.
If you believe you said that, then you are mistaken. This is the first time you said any such thing. This is the first time you made any referenc to any expectation of action by an Muslim other than an expectation that they will seek to destroy the US.



Sure it is ... and I'll do that right now ... a good muslim is someone who doesn't go around killing innocent civilians like in the attack on the twin towers because they don't like what those civilians government is doing. Now lets expand that by asking a question shall we. This is a What if question by the way. What do you think would happen ... if ... a terrorist posing as a good muslim was elected to the highest political office of the US?
No, it is not your place to define "Muslim" any more than it is my place to define "Christian." Not your religion = not your place to define.

As for your ridiculous "what if" -- What if Timothy McVeigh had run for office? Or how about some less fantastical notions: What if a theocrat who puts Jesus before everything got elected to a Senate seat? What if we had an Attorney General who publicly stated that the US "has no king but Jesus"? What if we had public policy pundits arguing that allowing an elected senator to take his ceremonial vow of office on the Qu'ran instead of the Bible is a threat to the nation, even though the Constitution clearly states that there shall be no religious test for office holders?

Do not waste my time with your paranoid "what if" fantasies. You want to assume that any given Muslim would immediately upon taking office turn our own guns against us or start replacing all our other officials with his buddies from the mosque and rewriting all our laws into sharia law, or whatever it is that haunts you at night. And you want to insist that this could never happen with a Christian in office. Stuff and nonsense. Aside from the fact that such could never happen in the first place, you have shown no reason why we should assume a Muslim American would do this any more than a Christian one would.


I never said that good Muslims couldn't be non violent, I only asked how do I tell the difference ... to that point that I am able to know with out a shadow of a doubt that they aren't a terrorist pretending to be good so he can become the President ... No sauce intended.
Silly child. You tell the difference between a trustworthy Muslim and an untrustworthy one the exact same way you tell that difference with Christians, Jews, atheists, and every other group on the planet -- by careful examination of the individual. Not by blindly following the dictates of bigotry.

If he had my political views he'd kill himself , I personally want to cleanse the earth of the islamic filth

If I'm reading all this rubbish right, true Muslims are as orthodox as Fred Phelps. Good Muslims are about as orthodox as Bill Clinton, and just about the total opposite is true for Christians?

In case some of you Christian posters haven't noticed, the contents of the Bible & Qu'ran is all but identical. The two big differences is Jesus & the amount of deity brown-nosing. Muslims don't have as much of the former & quite a bit more of the latter. In all other respects, both are rooted in the OT & unsurprisingly, equally violent & immoral

Yes, Muslims tend to be more orthodox than Christians these days. It doesn't mean all Christians don't blindly follow a revolting bronze-age moral code of obscure origins, and it doesn't mean all Muslims do it. Both groups are made of millions & millions of individuals, and like all other individuals, they differ in ethics, appearance, beliefs, ideology & just about everything else you can think of. Many of either abrahamic sub-sect are proponents of secular democracy. And many are not. Religion in & of itself gives no more indication of political leanings than lack of religion does.

But holy shit there's a lot of prejudiced cunts on this forum.

I wouldn't vote for an evangelical Christian either. Their ideas conflict with mine. Why the hell would I vote for a person who's likely to impose their religious law on me through force of government?

Why are you painting all Muslims as wishing to impose religious law on you while pointing out that only some Christians have that wish?

Guess what, only some Muslims would attempt to do this. I've met quite a few who are more vocal proponents of separation of church and state than many Christians, evangelical or not.

If the "Muslim" candidate is about as Islamic as Bill Clinton was Southern Baptist I guess I wouldn't have a problem with him, but if he's a very religious Muslim I wouldn't vote for him.

Does being very religious automatically mean that one would force that religion on others?

In case some of you Christian posters haven't noticed, the contents of the Bible & Qu'ran is all but identical. The two big differences is Jesus & the amount of deity brown-nosing. Muslims don't have as much of the former & quite a bit more of the latter. In all other respects, both are rooted in the OT & unsurprisingly, equally violent & immoral.

Have you even bothered to read the Koran? Your statement is so absurd that it can only be grounded in profound ignorance of the subject.

Among other things, the "they both worship the same God" argument is preposterous on its face and clearly refuted by the alleged immutable Word of Allah:

"Say: O ye unbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship,
And ye do not worship that which I worship;
I shall never worship that which ye worship,
Neither will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your religion; to me my religion." (Sura 109)

BTW: the last line is contradicted throughout the Koran, e.g.:

"Fight then against them [the "infidels"] till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's [i.e., Islam]." (Sura 8:40).

Of course, the usual motley crew of useful idiots and Islamic apologists will surely have an excuse for the foregoing, no doubt the plaintive wail of "out of context!" They remind me of the woman who, when caught in flagrante delicto with her lover, denied everything and demanded, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?!"

But holy shit there's a lot of prejudiced cunts on this forum.
Yes, there are, from raging anti-Muslims, to those who hate all religion, and those who hate Christians above all.

If he had my political views he'd kill himself , I personally want to cleanse the earth of the islamic filth

You are the filth. Although I am not muslim, I come from Iran, and my entitre extended famil is muslim. Do you want to kill my 96 year old grandfather, who hates terrorists and loves peace? Do you want my aunt, who never showed anything but kindness to anyone, to be "cleansed"? If so, then you are not a human being. You are a monster on the level of TFHR.

-SNIP-

Then why do Arab Christians refer to god as allah?

Also, christians are not disbelievers; pagans, polytheists, and atheists are. Christians are referred to as "people of the book" the Qur'an says that they did in fact receive the word of god but corrupted it over time through editing as well as translation.

"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

You are the filth. Although I am not muslim, I come from Iran, and my entitre extended famil is muslim. Do you want to kill my 96 year old grandfather, who hates terrorists and loves peace? Do you want my aunt, who never showed anything but kindness to anyone, to be "cleansed"? If so, then you are not a human being. You are a monster on the level of TFHR.

What? What's wrong with wanting to kill people 'cause they think different then you? Huh?

I don't care what religion a politician is, as long as he keeps his religion out of politics.

That would be kind of hard since Islam is more than a religion, but rather an entire way of life. The Muslims in America would disown him as one of their own.

That would be kind of hard since Islam is more than a religion, but rather an entire way of life. The Muslims in America would disown him as one of their own.

Can you read tomorrow's stock report with that crystal ball of yours?

That would be kind of hard since Islam is more than a religion, but rather an entire way of life. The Muslims in America would disown him as one of their own.

You seem to have a rather dim view of muslims.

Then why do Arab Christians refer to god as allah?

Also, christians are not disbelievers; pagans, polytheists, and atheists are. Christians are referred to as "people of the book" the Qur'an says that they did in fact receive the word of god but corrupted it over time through editing as well as translation.

Mohammed said that the greatest sin that was totally unforgivable was associating anything with Allah as his equal. He accused Christians of doing this because he mistakenly believed that the Trinity was 3 gods instead of one in 3 manifestations. This only revealed his ignorance.

Have you even bothered to read the Koran? Your statement is so absurd that it can only be grounded in profound ignorance of the subject.

Among other things, the "they both worship the same God" argument is preposterous on its face and clearly refuted by the alleged immutable Word of Allah:

"Say: O ye unbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship,
And ye do not worship that which I worship;
I shall never worship that which ye worship,
Neither will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your religion; to me my religion." (Sura 109)

BTW: the last line is contradicted throughout the Koran, e.g.:

"Fight then against them [the "infidels"] till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's [i.e., Islam]." (Sura 8:40).

Of course, the usual motley crew of useful idiots and Islamic apologists will surely have an excuse for the foregoing, no doubt the plaintive wail of "out of context!" They remind me of the woman who, when caught in flagrante delicto with her lover, denied everything and demanded, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?!"
Whaddya know? An ancient "holy" book has internal contradictions. Reminds me of another book (http://www.biblegateway.com/) I've read. :rolleyes:

Have you even bothered to read the Koran? Your statement is so absurd that it can only be grounded in profound ignorance of the subject.

Have you? I would be shocked if the answer is yes.

Among other things, the "they both worship the same God" argument is preposterous on its face and clearly refuted by the alleged immutable Word of Allah:

"Say: O ye unbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship,
And ye do not worship that which I worship;
I shall never worship that which ye worship,
Neither will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your religion; to me my religion." (Sura 109)

Its not talking about jews or Christians. Its talking about pagans, polytheists, and others. The God of jews and Christians is certainly the same God as Muslims.


Of course, the usual motley crew of useful idiots and Islamic apologists will surely have an excuse for the foregoing, no doubt the plaintive wail of "out of context!"

Context is everything. You cite one passage of the Qur'an that meets your agenda and leave out everything that gives the passage meaning.

Mohammed said that the greatest sin that was totally unforgivable was associating anything with Allah as his equal. He accused Christians of doing this because he mistakenly believed that the Trinity was 3 gods instead of one in 3 manifestations. This only revealed his ignorance.

man can not be God.

Mohammed said that the greatest sin that was totally unforgivable was associating anything with Allah as his equal. He accused Christians of doing this because he mistakenly believed that the Trinity was 3 gods instead of one in 3 manifestations. This only revealed his ignorance.
Yes, ladies and gentleman, THIS is why we have separation of church and state: Kohlstein would not vote for a Muslim president because a Muslim doesn't understand the trinity. Meanwhile, Kohlstein doesn't seem to understand that the trinity has shit-all to do with the US government.

:rolleyes:

Who gives a rat's ass if a candidate doesn't understand the frigging trinity? I want to know if he understands international relations and how the US government works, not whether he can recite someone else's goddamned catechism!

If he was a very religious Muslim, no. I would have found a third party to waste my vote on. If he was Muslim like Bill Clinton was Southern Baptist, then yes.

ok

Would you vote for a muslim president? Assume he has your political views. And he would win if you voted for him.

Be honest.

Yes I would likely vote for him if he had the same views as me. As I am against religion taking any further role in the state or the laws that would mean nothing to worry about.

If he truly beives in separation of church and state then I don't give a damn if he is Christian, Muslim or the Orthodox Turnip believer.
Hell, truly secular Muslim would be a bunch better then Bush who balantly propagates bapthist views.

Its not talking about jews or Christians. Its talking about pagans, polytheists, and others.

Even then, the polytheists it refers to in this case were the ones that had, themselves, begun a fight against Islam at the time, and that had nice customs like human sacrifice, not your usual atheist or wiccan.

But don't let that stop neocons from de-contextualizing as an excuse for hatred.

I wouldn't vote for an evangelical Christian either. Their ideas conflict with mine. Why the hell would I vote for a person who's likely to impose their religious law on me through force of government?


Does it surprise you that I say I agree? It isn't a Christians place to force others to practice the Christian Faith. Our only responsiblity is to talk to people about the Lord and then allow them to make up their own minds. That is what free will is all about. Which is exactly the point I am trying to make where the Muslim religion is concerned. I am open to talking to you about the Muslim Religion, just as long as you realize that I am and always will be a Christian and love my country. Thats not to say I agree with everything my government does, in fact I am upset with the US Government because I would like to feel free ( and I don't ) to be able to read the Koran, so I could say that I k now for a fact what the entire book says. Not because I wish to become Muslim, and certainly not because I wish to help the terrorist, but because I think it would go a long way to improving relations between everyone if we all took the time to get to know the other better. If after doing this and we still can't fnd any common ground on which to build a lasting peace then at least when we stand before the Lord we can say that we gave it our best effort.

You are really, essentially, just repeating yourself.

Well Murry don't think it hasn't been fun, even though it really hasn't. But
essentially, you are repeating yourself too. Further I have explained how I feel and don't really care if you like it or not. Scripture says not to argue with the world about Christian values, so I won't. You can continue if you wish but I'm done discussing this with you. I will just ask that we agree to disagree.

Yes, ladies and gentleman, THIS is why we have separation of church and state: Kohlstein would not vote for a Muslim president because a Muslim doesn't understand the trinity. Meanwhile, Kohlstein doesn't seem to understand that the trinity has shit-all to do with the US government.

:rolleyes:

Who gives a rat's ass if a candidate doesn't understand the frigging trinity? I want to know if he understands international relations and how the US government works, not whether he can recite someone else's goddamned catechism!


Murry is that kind of speech really necessary?

Of course, the usual motley crew of useful idiots and Islamic apologists will surely have an excuse for the foregoing, no doubt the plaintive wail of "out of context!"

"Useful" idiots? Well well. Useful to whom? The Islamic 5th Column Anti-White Genocide Force?

I think I know why you only make half-hearted posts like this in threads nowadays, never to return again to bother defending your inane statements. Not (just) because you're a troll, but because you're spending so much time ranting about conspiracy theories on Myspace or some other lame-ass venue where you feel like you're the center of the universe.

They remind me of the woman who, when caught in flagrante delicto with her lover, denied everything and demanded, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?!"

You remind me of a nazi too politically correct to admit that what he'd really like is mass executions of minorities based on religion. Even on this anonymous forum, you're a chickenshit.

America only elects presidents who are Male, White, and Christian.
It's sexist, racist, and bigoted. And I would love to see it change.

Its not talking about jews or Christians. Its talking about pagans, polytheists, and others. The God of jews and Christians is certainly the same God as Muslims.


woulg you agree nature is god? or least god invented nature?
pagans worship nature, by worshiping they are worship your same god. they may use multiple gods to worship multiple aspects of nature. note hindus also have multiple gods.
wether you worship one god, any one god; or many god; or gods at all; aslong you do good it doesnt matter. does your have big enough an ego to need praise? after read different texts, he sounds like a guy who is big that.

Mohammed said that the greatest sin that was totally unforgivable was associating anything with Allah as his equal. He accused Christians of doing this because he mistakenly believed that the Trinity was 3 gods instead of one in 3 manifestations. This only revealed his ignorance.

Actually, the view that the Trinity represents different manifestations of God is a heretical viewpoint according to the ancient Christian church (and most churches today). The Trinity is to be viewed as wholly one and wholly 3 separate entities, just as Christ is to be viewed as wholly divine and wholly human.

Actually, the view that the Trinity represents different manifestations of God is a heretical viewpoint according to the ancient Christian church (and most churches today). The Trinity is to be viewed as wholly one and wholly 3 separate entities, just as Christ is to be viewed as wholly divine and wholly human.

you know where the whole trinity thing comes from right? its a pagan belief. in irish paganism thier was three holy mothers. three godesses of ireland, one of which ireland is named after. three gods of health. three gods of punishment, one of which is esus, which is how spanish pronounce jesus, and esus was a peasant god who was a carpender. most things came in threes.

you know where the whole trinity thing comes from right? its a pagan belief. in irish paganism thier was three holy mothers. three godesses of ireland, one of which ireland is named after. three gods of health. three gods of punishment, one of which is esus, which is how spanish pronounce jesus, and esus was a peasant god who was a carpender. most things came in threes.

At the point at which the Church adopted the view of the trinity, there was very little contact with Ireland or its peoples. The doctrine of the Trinity very well may have been influenced by pagan beliefs, as many doctrines have been, but I highly doubt it was specifically Irish belief.

That said, it is rather irrelevant to my point. Kohlstein is trying to say that Muhammed was "ignorant" for espousing a heretical viewpoint, while Kohlstein's viewpoint would have been seen as equally heretical, at least at that time.

but I highly doubt it was specifically Irish belief.


i didnt say specifically an irish belief, i'm just more of an expert on irish paganism. the surounding pagan beliefs were simular. walse also had the trinity of the holy mother.
i just find it funny the irish god esus was very simular to jESUS. accetpt he was about hanging criminals.

Well Murry don't think it hasn't been fun, even though it really hasn't. But
essentially, you are repeating yourself too. Further I have explained how I feel and don't really care if you like it or not. Scripture says not to argue with the world about Christian values, so I won't. You can continue if you wish but I'm done discussing this with you. I will just ask that we agree to disagree.

Agreed. Chasing in circles is boring.

EDIT: Though, now that I think of it, I was not arguing "Christian values" at all. I was arguing about your assertions about Muslims. Are you suggesting it is a Christian value to distrust Muslims?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to -- unless you see a way to de-circle-ize the debate by following up on this.

you know where the whole trinity thing comes from right? its a pagan belief. in irish paganism thier was three holy mothers. three godesses of ireland, one of which ireland is named after. three gods of health. three gods of punishment, one of which is esus, which is how spanish pronounce jesus, and esus was a peasant god who was a carpender. most things came in threes.

Pagans came up with the trinity?

http://www.segag.org/mcgangs/pagan.html

Murry is that kind of speech really necessary?
Yes, it is. Thanks for asking. Have a nice day.

"Useful" idiots? Well well. Useful to whom? The Islamic 5th Column Anti-White Genocide Force?

I think I know why you only make half-hearted posts like this in threads nowadays, never to return again to bother defending your inane statements. Not (just) because you're a troll, but because you're spending so much time ranting about conspiracy theories on Myspace or some other lame-ass venue where you feel like you're the center of the universe.



You remind me of a nazi too politically correct to admit that what he'd really like is mass executions of minorities based on religion. Even on this anonymous forum, you're a chickenshit.
Oh, he's not too politically correct to admit that. Let's just be grateful that he has apparently learned (the hard way, I hope) to pace himself on that issue around here.

Agreed. Chasing in circles is boring.

EDIT: Though, now that I think of it, I was not arguing "Christian values" at all. I was arguing about your assertions about Muslims. Are you suggesting it is a Christian value to distrust Muslims?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to -- unless you see a way to de-circle-ize the debate by following up on this.

This is my final response to you Murry ...

Murry, Murry, Murry ... Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I have explained my views repetedly ... as you yourself have pointed out. I believe myself to be a good communicator and have endeavored to make my views known & understood. It is an unforunate human trait to hear only what they wish to hear. I believe we are at an empass here, because I tire of speaking to someone who obviously isn't hearing my message in the spirit that I am sending it. I fear we are wasting our time and effort in continuing this as I believe I stated in my last post. Frankly Murry I have better things to do with my time then continuing to involve myself in this disagreement. Now can we PLEASE just agree to disagree?

I voted no, but my views changed the moment after I clicked.

This is my final response to you Murry ...

Murry, Murry, Murry ... Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I have explained my views repetedly ... as you yourself have pointed out. I believe myself to be a good communicator and have endeavored to make my views known & understood. It is an unforunate human trait to hear only what they wish to hear. I believe we are at an empass here, because I tire of speaking to someone who obviously isn't hearing my message in the spirit that I am sending it. I fear we are wasting our time and effort in continuing this as I believe I stated in my last post. Frankly Murry I have better things to do with my time then continuing to involve myself in this disagreement. Now can we PLEASE just agree to disagree?
I don't know what words you think I'm trying to put in your mouth. You spoke your views about Muslims and stated a basis for them. I challenged that basis. You came back with some vague reference to Christian values. I was trying to figure out what that had to do with anything, since I was not talking about your values, only your statements about Muslims.

Of course we can agree to disagree. We'd be hard pressed to do otherwise, considering how much we disagree. But, Korry, I will not agree to let statements such as yours go unchallenged in this thread or any other. My interest in debating is to challenge and expose bigotries and fallacies, so I will continue to do that. Don't take it personally. I do not challenge your religious beliefs, or what you say about yourself. I only challenge your arguments per topic, and what you assert to be facts about others.