Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, May 22, 2011.
Herman Cain says he would not appoint any Muslim in his administration
Another brilliant misstep by the Republican field. I know plenty of qualified Muslims who are good citizens and benefit any organization they are part of in the community.
There should be no litmus test of belief for ability to serve in a national office.
I don't know if he had the potential to be a really viable candidate anyway, but if he did, he doesn't anymore. I agree with him about the Sharia law thing, but you can't make a blanket statement like that about all Muslims. Not without sounding bigoted and ridiculous anyway, which is more than enough to sink any Republican candidacy.
You may be technically correct, but in this day and age a lot of folks may tend to agree with him - and thus guarantee him many votes.
True - religion should not make a difference, but there is a lot of mistrust.
The new national ID cards going to list one's religion? Will "666" be specified for people who decline to name their religion?
But religion does make a difference, which many people in Europe are learning today.
Christians generally believe in freedom of religion, but many (not all) Muslims do not. They think it is their duty to impose their religion on everyone.
So, as Christians we have a problem. We want to give the Muslims freedom to worship as they chose, but they chose (not all, but many) to take away our religious freedom.
At present this is not a big problem, but will be so in the future. I read recently that in Europe the Christian Europeans have a birth rate under 2.0 which means they are decreasing, while the Muslims in Europe have a birth rate over 8.0. This means in a few short years Muslims will become the majority and thus be able to vote themselves (and their laws) into power. They could very well prohibit freedom of religion and many other freedoms as well.
It's nice to be fair, we should try to be fair, but you have to consider that the other side may not be.
So, the ambassador to Saudi Arabia--not a Muslim?
Does Saudi Arabia appoint a Christian ambassador to come to the US? How about a Jewish one to send to Israel?
What a silly argument. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, run by a family. Of course they're not going to appoint a Christian to be an ambassador.
You're going back in my killfile.
Do we really want Saudi Arabia as our example?
Thanks for the useful and thoughtful debate.
Of course not, but we shouldn't have to kowtow to other countries and appoint ambassadors based upon their religion. Did we appoint atheists to the USSR? How about a Nazi to Hitler's Germany?
I have no problem with us reasonably trying to show respect to other nations. We are above their pettiness.
Beside, who better to represent us to a culture than who who knows how to function in that culture.
Appointing people of that ideology would be pandering. Besides, atheism is not a religion. Nazism is not a religion. Neither are they nationalities or races.
Diplomacy is the art of tactfulness and mutual respect. When you say, "we shouldn't have to kowtow to other countries" you are exposing your lack of understanding in this area.
So he thinks there should be a litmus test of religion before you serve? If that is the case, I could not, would not, will not vote for him.