Could/Should a Muslim be President of the U.S.?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Sep 21, 2015.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    I personally have no problem with a Muslim as president, or a Jew, or an atheist, or whatever. But I'm a squishy, feel-good liberal. I'm far less interested in where a person places their faith, and far more interested in their positions on public policy. So long as they accept that government should be secular, their personal faith doesn't matter to me.

    What do some of the other members here think?
     
  2. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #2
    Could? Eh, I doubt there could even be a Jewish president.

    Should? Sure, as long as they respect the fact that not everyone believes as they do.
     
  3. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #3
    Many factors come into play when choosing to support someone for president. It shouldn't be a religious litmus test.
     
  4. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    I think what everyone here thinks is irrelevant.

    Let's take a look at the good book, shall we?

    The person elected could be Muslim, Atheist, Pagan, Rastafarian, Pastafarian, or worships green beans, chocolate cake, lawn mower exhaust, and the scent of baby diapers on every 19th Sunday of every year that is made up of a prime number. Their religious background really doesn't matter.

    Now, as far as where they view public policy, that should also be independent from their religion. This is where Kim Davis got her arse into trouble, as she decided to apply her religious beliefs to public policy. If anything, that falls straight down the line of separation between church and state.

    That doesn't disqualify any Muslim from running for any office. So with as much fearmongering that is going on (read: Ben Carson), religious background should be a non-issue.

    BL.
     
  5. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
    No there should not be only because we would even see worse then we do with a black president. people suffer enough because of the bigotry of having a black president. we need to see more evolving before people could handle anyone but a christian. I mean those same people can't see Obama as a christian how much worse would it be? We wonder why the rest of the world see's us so badly.
     
  6. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #6
    From the Quran

    (12:40) ...All authority to govern rests only with Allah...

    (3:154) ...asked: 'Have we any say in the matter?' Tell them: 'Truly, all power of decision rests solely with Allah.' Indeed, they conceal in their hearts what they would not reveal to you, saying: 'If we had any power of decision, we would not have been slain here...

    (61:9) He it is Who has sent forth the Messenger with the Guidance and the True Religion that He may make it prevail over all religion, however those that associate aught with Allah in His Divinity might dislike this.
     
  7. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #7
    From the Bible:

    Romans 13 New Living Translation (NLT)
    Respect for Authority
    13 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
     
  8. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    Haven't read the Constitution, have you?

    BL.
     
  10. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #10
    Actually, the Constitution defines who is eligible to become president. It does not prohibit citizens from voting their conscious.
     
  11. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #11
    Part of the reason I dislike both of these religions so very much.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Kinda very much against the spirit of the first amendment though to have a view on which religion makes the best president.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Well the first amendment makes it clear the US doesn't follow that.
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    The Constitution also indicates that no religious test or qualification will be used qualification for assuming a role of office, including POTUS. Voting via conscious is a different issue altogether than a person being of a particular religion being elected to office.

    BL.
     
  15. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #15
    A better question is Could/Should a Blithering Idiot Be President of the U.S.?
     
  16. Solomani macrumors 68030

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #16
    Even a Mormon candidate couldn't get the Presidency. A Jewish or Muslim President is out of the question.
     
  17. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #17
    To the contrary, voting for someone whom you believe more closely aligns with your values is actually what the first amendment is ultimately about. The first amendment allows us to share our values publicly and voting allows us to exercise them.
     
  18. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #18
    Not sure I understand why. The spirit of the 1A is that you may believe as you see fit. That some may believe that religion determines (within their own mind) a necessary quality for a president, is will within that spirit. That it may or may not fall within the bounds of the subscribed religion is another matter.

    I believe that all people, unless indicated in an advance directive, should be obligated to vote when conscious. No power of attorney or dead people in my book.

    All can and should vote their conscience. Directed or coerced voting is an undermining of the Republic and, in my mind, therefore a treasonable offense. As a result, religion, or choice thereof, may be a litmus test for any individual or group of voters. However, it may not be used to determine qualification for eligibility to that position.

    What we need to take care to avoid, however, is litmus by proxy. Intentional or unintentional restricting of eligibility based on a factor other than religion, even without officially restricting religion, is another improper and coercive practice. As an example, if we declared that military service was required to qualify to run for president, it would become a litmus test to screen Quakers and other pacifist religious groups.
     
  19. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #19
    If said Muslim understands that his religious beliefs should play no part in policy, or in any way allows him to override the constitution, then yeah. The same goes for anyone else of any other religion or lack thereof.
     
  20. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #20
    I assume you are referring to the should (and not the could - two strikingly different questions)?
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Christians or atheists shouldn't be using their religion in policy either...
     
  22. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    Yeah, the should. The could is another story altogether. In this day and age, a Muslim running for president has about a snowballs chance in hell of being elected.

    ...though depending on who you talk to, we already have a Muslim president.
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    besides the ones that have been already elected?
     
  24. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    it's pinko commie Muslim sympathizer ...........yes, it depends who you ask.
     
  25. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    While it's understandable why people aren't likely to elect a Muslim, what's the issue with Jews?

    Why couldn't a Jew be president?
     

Share This Page