would you vote for a jewish or muslim President of the U.S.?
- Thread starter BlaznFattyz
- Start date
Get ready to lose your hands, and feet...Sharia law is not kind.
Then get dumped on the street to pan handle...which is another violation...it just keeps getting better....
M
mee
Guest
Daniel 2;44 ............... THE DAY OF JEHOVAH IS NEAR
Q said:
Namaste Q,
Again as far as I know it Sharia Law is not the law of the land in all predominately Muslim countries, yet you imply that one Muslim elected to the office of President would immediately change 200 years of lawmaking.
You of all people, so little faith in the workings of the country?
How is it you experienced the brunt Sharia law? Living where?
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
But would we say that because we're Christian? Someone would probably say the same thing about Christian ideology influencing political processes. They don't like it and I think their sentiments are reasonable. The politician who uses Christian ideology to push his agenda is effectively saying, "I can do this because I am Christian and there are many who support me because they are Christian too." He has more power and support, than say, an atheist making the same decision.
Kind of unfair don't you think?
That's why I said that religion should be kept out of the complications of public office. I am actually offended by a lot of people who claim to follow a Christian agenda when in public office. They claim to speak for all Christians. That, from my point of view, is not just an insult to my beliefs, but also blasphemy and desecration of a tradition of which I am an adherent. If it's based on your own personal belief that you are making a particular decision, say so, but don't claim to be able to speak for all of us. That's just rude and offensive.
Even though I don't live in America I will say this. Your political system is not an subordinate body for God. It is not a priesthood. It is a secular institution. Keep it that way. Priests, pastors and presbyters can say how Christians should live, not Presidents and Governors. Likewise, a Christian will not tell others how to live; he will only tell himself how to live. Presidents and Governors should stop trying to play God. They're not in the God-business. They are in the business of running the country. They don't teach people how to behave. They make policies.
As I said, I couldn't care less if I had a terrorist, wife-beater, murderer, child-abuser or bank robber for a President, as long as he keeps his private life dissociated from the public office. It's the decision-making and outward, diplomatic public personality that is important, not the private personality. If a convicted criminal can make better and more ethical decisions in public office than a law-abiding citizen, I'd choose the convicted criminal.
Francis king
Well-Known Member
a president or a prime minister is but a token, a figurehead, a sweetener for the ppl, someone to blame and dispose of when it all goes wrong...
personally, I would not want an overly religious anything running my country- you want to play religion? be a priest...
personally, I would not want an overly religious anything running my country- you want to play religion? be a priest...
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Unfortunately at this point, the US president is not just a figurehead. He mucks things up plenty and has 1/3 of our Federal government's powers.
I'm still where I was at on p.1 several years ago, by the way. Could care less about religious affiliation. Heck, I know some atheists I'd feel more comfy with in office than our current president. I still just want someone who is intelligent, informed, dedicated to humanitarian and environmental causes, will uphold our rights, etc. If they can fit the bill and agree to serve the nation (not themselves or their religion), I don't care about their religion.
I'm still where I was at on p.1 several years ago, by the way. Could care less about religious affiliation. Heck, I know some atheists I'd feel more comfy with in office than our current president. I still just want someone who is intelligent, informed, dedicated to humanitarian and environmental causes, will uphold our rights, etc. If they can fit the bill and agree to serve the nation (not themselves or their religion), I don't care about their religion.
gp1628
Old Man
Heehee. Thats like saying we would be stoned in the street because Bush is so pro-christian.
A muslim president would not make this a muslim-run country anymore than it has been a christian-run country in the past. It has been dangerously close to it but not to the extreme.
Stand for something my friend, or fall for anything. I do not accept Sharia philosophy. I will not vote for a person who cannot embrace in totality, our constitutional law.
Because Bush is so pro-christian is precisely why no one is stoned.
In the US, the president is the executive branch of a three branch government. There is nothing "token" about the executive branch of our government. I would want a strongly faith based human (faith in Judeao/Christian ways), in charge as our number one servant. The reason is simple, we can see him or her coming for miles. No surprises.
That is one reason why I love this nation of mine, so dearly.
Francis king
Well-Known Member
presidents come and go...
policies change...
who owns the power doesn't...
policies change...
who owns the power doesn't...
In my home land, my friend, that would be "We the people..."
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Ok, there is the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. But then you also have the Armed Forces.
One of the most important concepts in a democracy is the separation of powers. True, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary are "separated." The Judiciary and the Legislature (to some extent) are independent of the Executive.
But what about the Armed Forces? This is where the notion of the separation of powers is violated. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the country's forces. This was why it was so easy to declare war on Iraq. The President should not have the power to declare war. In the same way that the Judiciary is independent of the Executive, the Armed Forces should also be independent of the Executive. The Head of the Armed Forces (as opposed to the President) should have the right to disregard instructions from the President and decide not to go to war. Let judges be judges. Let generals be generals.
The Armed Forces should be restrained by a civilian entity, but not controlled by it, particularly in a country like the U.S. where you have a large military industrial complex. Nor should the Military/Armed Forces be allowed to go to war or engage in military operations unilaterally. They must receive instructions from a civilian authority. The Armed Forces should perhaps be given instructions from the Judiciary and Legislature. This would add some self-control to a trigger-happy military industrial complex.
No, the system you have in the U.S. could be better. You need an Independent Military. What you need is some extra red tape. You need to set up more legal barriers to war.
If war is so important, then you should consult your judges and lawyers about it in case you (the Executive) are sued for damages.
They should make it possible for Iraqi victims to sue George W. Bush for negligence. George better go and speak to his lawyers.You're probably going to tell me the President doesn't need to speak to his lawyers about his conduct during the war. Well then, you have a President who has too much power. His conduct is not even reviewed by the Supreme Court. He's got immunity. Of all the offices in the country, at least one of them won't be the victim of a law suit over negligence. For some reason the President has special privileges. Nah, someone else further down in the hierachy gets busted. Some soldier who didn't believe in the war.....
You can commit manslaughter against your friend in a foreign country and be fined, but if your President does that, he may be heavily criticised, but he won't be fined.
I don't call that justice. Somewhere in your political system there is no justice. Someone is getting away with injustice. Is national security more important than justice?
Strike first? Pull the trigger, ask questions later?
Yes you have impressive weapons, but power should be used responsibly. You can eliminate enemy combatants faster and more efficiently, but this is also an opportunity to minimise unnecessary deaths. Be more responsible in war. If you can't do that, don't go to war.
The Executive is being fined $200 billion for damages due to negligent acts in war. As for you Mr. President, you're fired......all your stuff has to be out by Monday morning. You've become a liability.
Wow, I'm impressed with your knowledge of my government. But there is something you forgot. In this country, "Marshall law" can only be invoked by the Executive branch. This means the military can do nothing unless ordered to do so by the proper authority. Second, the Constitution forbids the Department of Defense to act against the citizens of this nation. It is called "posse comitatus". this means that though a citizen, military members are subject to the populace of the nation's authority.Ok, there is the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. But then you also have the Armed Forces.
One of the most important concepts in a democracy is the separation of powers. True, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary are "separated." The Judiciary and the Legislature (to some extent) are independent of the Executive.
But what about the Armed Forces? This is where the notion of the separation of powers is violated. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the country's forces. This was why it was so easy to declare war on Iraq. The President should not have the power to declare war. In the same way that the Judiciary is independent of the Executive, the Armed Forces should also be independent of the Executive. The Head of the Armed Forces (as opposed to the President) should have the right to disregard instructions from the President and decide not to go to war. Let judges be judges. Let generals be generals.
The Armed Forces should be restrained by a civilian entity, but not controlled by it, particularly in a country like the U.S. where you have a large military industrial complex. Nor should the Military/Armed Forces be allowed to go to war or engage in military operations unilaterally. They must receive instructions from a civilian authority. The Armed Forces should perhaps be given instructions from the Judiciary and Legislature. This would add some self-control to a trigger-happy military industrial complex.
No, the system you have in the U.S. could be better. You need an Independent Military. What you need is some extra red tape. You need to set up more legal barriers to war.
If war is so important, then you should consult your judges and lawyers about it in case you (the Executive) are sued for damages.
You're probably going to tell me the President doesn't need to speak to his lawyers about his conduct during the war. Well then, you have a President who has too much power. His conduct is not even reviewed by the Supreme Court. He's got immunity. Of all the offices in the country, at least one of them won't be the victim of a law suit over negligence. For some reason the President has special privileges. Nah, someone else further down in the hierachy gets busted. Some soldier who didn't believe in the war.....
You can commit manslaughter against your friend in a foreign country and be fined, but if your President does that, he may be heavily criticised, but he won't be fined.
I don't call that justice. Somewhere in your political system there is no justice. Someone is getting away with injustice. Is national security more important than justice?
Strike first? Pull the trigger, ask questions later?
Yes you have impressive weapons, but power should be used responsibly. You can eliminate enemy combatants faster and more efficiently, but this is also an opportunity to minimise unnecessary deaths. Be more responsible in war. If you can't do that, don't go to war.
The Executive is being fined $200 billion for damages due to negligent acts in war. As for you Mr. President, you're fired......all your stuff has to be out by Monday morning. You've become a liability.
Also, the president is a mouth piece for the people he/she represents, that is US. So, if you must point a finger, point at "We the People..." We allowed this to happen. We are to blame, not those that represent us. Because in this country, "We the People" can stop something in a New York second. We've done it before.
Finally, a Muslim President would be at odds with the established law of our land. He/she has no choice in the matter. To counter his/her beliefs would be in direct violation of Sharia. Not going to happen, unless one is a non practicing Muslim, or a moderate, which according to Islam, is the same thing as being an infidel.
Good debate Salt.
v/r
Q
Namaste Q,
Too funny it reminds me of the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" where the priests are telling the crusaders "Killing an infidel is not a sin!!" (hehe I suppose they were referring to moderates) Again, all Muslims and all predominately muslim states do not follow Sharia law. If they did they would have issues residing in this country, I haven't read about any hands being cut off or folks being stoned despite the number of practicing Muslims here.
Lastly back to the first half of the part I quoted. Surely you remember Kent State?
lol, yes you obviously missed the ramifications that ensued. Look it up. I expect a report in the morning.
Gonna listen to me? Didn't think so.
Gonna listen to me? Didn't think so.
This is what Wil said: I appreciate humor. I have issues with those that like to poke fun at other nations, peoples and nationalities, yet cannot take it themselves, something I should work on I suppose. I also like to look at all events with an open mind and try to see it from all sides. And I do find the ignorance found in many of our laws funny, funny and sad.quote=Quahom1;140545]Kent state...ohio, when the Governor of that state used his guardsman to conduct an illegal act and 7 people died because of it...yes I remember.[/quote]So I take it I missed it when the Governor and Guardsmen and officers in the chain of command were jailed for murder, not to mention constitutional violations?
***************
***************