Should Muslims Undergo a Religous Test for Public Office?

[Darias]

Please watch this video about GOP hopeful Herman Cain, as he clarifies his stance on Muslims:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]


1. Is he (Mr. Cain) right? Why? If so, should the Constitution be amended to make exception for people of the Muslim Faith?

2. Does the GOP have any serious candidates who could actually win in 2012? Trump Cain and Palin aside?

[JohnPaul]

MY OWN mistrust came from observation and acute experience. When I first arrived in the middle east I had no preconceptions. None whatsoever. When I left I had many foundational experiences from which to draw an opinion and from which to warn others. Big difference.

ISLAM IS NOT NON-VIOLENT

regarding PARK 51 - the mosque at Ground Zero:
Raymond Ibrahim, a former associate director of the Middle East Forum, said the project and name were not "a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue" but were "allusive of Islamic conquest and consolidation" and that Americans should realize that mosques are not "Muslim counterparts to Christian churches" but rather, "are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization."

"There is no real dialogue, since Muslims never reciprocate the goodwill gestures made by the Christians. The result is we sit down together, and the Christians say what a wonderful religion Islam is, and the Muslims say what a wonderful religion Islam is."
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (Imam of Park 51)

When I say "Never trust", I mean "Never".

That goes without saying. Cultures are fundamentally different. The Western concept of "trust" as a desirable moral value is unknown in the Moslem world. Instead, trust is considered to be a weakness, even among friends and family.

To Moslems, negotiations and diplomacy are considered weapons of war. Internally, they are seen as competive displays of power, and externally as battles, efforts to deceive and mislead the enemy. And make no mistake about it, we "Infidels" are, by definition, the enemy.

Any Western diplomat who does not understand these basic cultural differences is a danger to his own country.

John

[Darias]

The Muslims I've met and studied with are all Americans, and those are the Muslims we are talking about in regards to Cain's cabinet choices. We aren't talking about Afghani warlords, Saudi Arabian sheiks, and Yemeni tribesmen...

We are talking about naturalized and American born Muslims in the U.S.

Just because you had negative experiences with various Muslims in other countries (and who knows how much of that negative reaction came from your own mistrust of Muslims to begin with) it doesn't mean you can logically apply those feelings towards all Muslims everywhere, especially Americans.

You accused me when you knew nothing of my background. Now you know a little and have not decreased your disrespect of what I have learned, where I have been, what disability I now suffer because of it....BUT WHAT TRUTH I AM continuing to attempt to pass on to all readers you also disallow.

MY OWN mistrust came from observation and acute experience. When I first arrived in the middle east I had no preconceptions. None whatsoever. When I left I had many foundational experiences from which to draw an opinion and from which to warn others. Big difference.

Back to your statement above; apparently you trust AMERICAN muslims more than those of any other country. American muslims are somehow different?

NO DIFFERENT.

He (Allah) will vex a great nation (America?) with a foolish people. He will take the things that are weak to confound the things that are mighty, and the base things of the world, and the things which are despised, hath God chosen.
MINISTER LOUIS FARRAKHAN

those who studied the religion (Islam) should not allow our religion to be misrepresented to fit into a scheme that wants to paint the religion of Islam as non-violent. Islam is not non-violent.
MINISTER LOUIS FARRAKHAN

Read it again, please.
ISLAM IS NOT NON-VIOLENT

regarding PARK 51 - the mosque at Ground Zero:
Raymond Ibrahim, a former associate director of the Middle East Forum, said the project and name were not "a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue" but were "allusive of Islamic conquest and consolidation" and that Americans should realize that mosques are not "Muslim counterparts to Christian churches" but rather, "are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization."

"There is no real dialogue, since Muslims never reciprocate the goodwill gestures made by the Christians. The result is we sit down together, and the Christians say what a wonderful religion Islam is, and the Muslims say what a wonderful religion Islam is."
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (Imam of Park 51)

When I say "Never trust", I mean "Never".

First I would like to thank you for serving our country.

Second, I just have to say that stereotyping 1.2 million people because of the injuries you suffered seems to be understandable, but ultimately it's not true. And at the end of the day it's bigoted. There are plenty of good people who are also Muslims and to think that they are all possibly enemies of the state is essentially the same stance America took on Japanese Americans during WWII. It was hypocritical that Americans didn't lock up German-Americans during that same period, but the idea was the same. "Them Japs" can't be trusted. Cause they are all secretly loyal to their emperor -- which you and I know to be complete horses***.

It's also untrue to claim that all Muslims are out to get us, that all wish to kill, and that none can be true Americans -- that's completely absurd. To think that anyone can tell me that with a straight face -- it's laughable.


Westernized Muslims are different. Your culture you were raised in determines how you interpret your religion. In Egypt women don't have to cover their heads, in Afghanistan it's from head to toe -- American Muslims can be just as devoted to their country as American Christians -- there is no difference, and aside from your strong sense of mistrust, you have no evidence that there is. There are too many Muslims who have served our country and died defending it for anyone to honestly accept the lie that ALL Muslims are untrustworthy -- I honestly have a hard time that you actually believe that yourself...

And the only way you can justify that position is by claiming that all "good Muslims aren't really Muslims --- only terrorists are real Muslims" And I must ask, who died and made you king of religious definitions? Saying that is like saying the only true Christians are WBC, or Hutaree, or Branch Davidians -- and you wouldn't say that because Christians = good and Muslim = bad.

This ain't coyboys and indians, cops and robbers -- this is real life sir. Maybe you can associate entire populations with evil (no exceptions), but such thinking is a fantasy. It may be fun to blame an entire race, religion, or creed for what you suffered through, but ultimately it's unfair and untenable.

====

Louis Farrakhan speaks for The Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam is not to be confused with Islam. They are fundamentally different.

Quoting Farrakhan in order to label Islam as evil and Muslims as untrustworthy just because "Islam" is part of the name of "The Nation of Islam" is like quoting Mao Tze Tung to prove that representative government is evil -- simply because "Republic" is in the name "People's Republic of China."

NOI isn't even a sect of Islam; it's Black Nationalism wrapped in a Muslim flag. It's an inherently racist belief system -- racism is forbidden in Islam.

For a full list of stark differences between the two, see here.

Because of this fact, anything coming from Farrakhan is irrelevant.

And Jerry Falwell has said much worse anti-American things, claiming that gays caused God's wrath on 9/11 -- what a joke.

====


As for Imam Rauf, his character and words have been so demonized and taken out of context so many times that it's not even funny anymore. If you want to get a good picture of the man and what he actually stands for, see here. This man is essentially no different on his political views than Ron Paul or Glenn Beck, and all have made similar statements regarding why we were attacked on 9/11.

But the fact that he wanted a Mosque for his community in New York -- well that made him a terrorist for viewers of Fox News.


And as for Raymond Ibrahim, He was a Muslim who opposed Park 51, and his quote was explaining how the mosque would be perceived. He didn't want it to anger Americans and generate more Islamophobia -- even though it's original intention was to teach non-Muslim visitors what Islam was actually about. You can read Ibrahim's article here.

[Woland]

Hello Darias,

Westernized Muslims are different.

I see what you mean, but what exactly do you mean?

Where are the theological views of these people who call themselves Muslims laid out?
Are they consistent with what Islam is - what Muhammad meant it to be, when you look at the texts themselves and their mainstream scholarly interpretations for more than a thousand years?

Where are the equivalents to Christian liberals like you and Slopeshoulder (and mainstream liberal scholars) in the Islamic community? I've been looking for quite some time, quite frankly, and I've only seen a few of these items - and their views were unbelievably theologically indefensible from an Islamic point of view, which partly explains why mainstream Islamic scholars all over the Muslim world STILL defend all sorts of theocratic insanities, and why a large proportion of Muslims STILL is unable to agree to human rights as declared in the UDHR.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual choice, freedom to associate with whomever you want, whenever you want, etc. etc.

I have a question for you, Darias.

What do you think would happen if, as a test attempting to measure whether or not ideas have consequences, you were to ask a Muslim of your choosing (say, the average Westernized Muslim) whether or not Muhammad - a man who massacred and enslaved countless people and whose legacy of bigotry and hatred lives on in near full force to this very day - was a good man?

You want to see how your analogies with the despicable OT characters fail?
Ask yourself or any other liberal Christian whether or not these people qualify as role models. Voila.

Seriously, I know you have good intentions, and I know full well that LOTS of people here in the West call themselves Muslims while respecting human rights etc. but these people aren't good people because they're Muslims, they're good people because they're humans. The less they know about Islam and Muhammad, the better. The more they cherrypick, the better.

Let's just not deny that this is what they need to do if they want to be the kind of people who uphold things like the UDHR. Perpetuating the myth that Islam can ever meaningfully be a "religion of peace" is like trying to repackage Nazism without the Jew-hatred while encouraging people to read Mein Kampf.

And yes, I just compared the Quran (and Hadith) to Mein Kampf. I feel no shame in doing so. The person allegedly responsible for the book has created a theocratic, violent and torturous, totalitarian, supremacist and dogmatic religious ideology which peaceful humans will have to endure for the foreseeable future - homosexuals being abused, atheists and non-Muslims being oppressed and killed, women being deprived of basic freedoms like the right to associate with whoever they want. Anyone who wishes to shame me for saying these blatant truths should shut up and pick up the Quran, some books by the most famous Islamic scholars, some Hadith, and educate themselves.

You know as well as I do that the FEW items that could be construed as being "peaceful" in the Quran came BEFORE Muhammad was in power (and you KNOW what came after that happened), whereas Christians - let's at least give them that - really do tend to focus on the "loving message" of the N.T., and theologies (that aren't extremely liberal) backing this view are only mildly riddled with holes compared to what it takes for someone to call Islam a religion of peace and tolerance when using the average educated Westerner's understanding of these terms.

Let's not kid ourselves here. I can agree that it would be a good thing if most Muslims suddenly became like our good old "Western Muslims". I just don't see it happening anytime soon (or possibly ever or at least not without MASSIVE and entirely superfluous bloodshed) because of the WAY this ideology is packaged - a way that can, as you can readily observe, easily get a good grasp on someone's mind, with social conditioning (euphemism), empty threats, and promises of rewards (and the delusion of being "the best of people" while others are damned forever). Combine this with a near-dogmatic reluctance on the part of Western politicians and "intellectuals" to address the fundamental and vital issues at the core of this religion, a reluctance typically borne out of fear for their lives and/or projection/ignorance, and you have a very serious problem on your hands.

People, flame away if you must, at least I'll have had the satisfaction of saying what I think of all this - what I think as a peace-loving secular humanist fully conscious of the fact that there are countless good people who call themselves Muslims.

Let's not thank their religion for their being the sort of people who enjoy, appreciate and defend what its founder wouldn't even let them - probably under pain of death by torture or beheading.

I urge anyone and everyone reading this to [strike]consider my words[/strike] put in the hours and do their own research into this matter.

Read the Quran.
Read a bunch of Hadith.
Read what mainstream scholars have to say on items you find distasteful contained in both of the above.
Read the history of Islam - as narrated by Muslim historians.
Read about what ancient famous Muslim scholars have to say.

-Woland

[Wootah]

Louis Farrakhan speaks for The Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam is not to be confused with Islam. They are fundamentally different.

When is it ever Islam?

[Murad]

Muslims are honest, but you can't trust them.

It isn't bull, it's reality.

WAKE UP AMERICA. PAY ATTENTION.

I think American Conservative Christians in general have a weird personality complex when they hear the word "muslim". Lets be honest here, even though atheists find all concepts of religion "false", atleast by their nature of non-belief they don't (as a majority) attribute "Satan/Lucifer/NWO/Covert-Invasions etc... to Islam.


For those who don't know me, i work for a government organisation in Australia (ASIO) as an intelligence analyst & a systems engineer & Australia does TRUST me enough to allow me to analyse classified intelligence & fix/maintain government networking which can potentially be exploited to jeopardize foreign policy.


Muslims should not be treated any differently from a Christian or a Jew; especially in a secular nation.

richardP when you keep repeating phrases like:

Never trust a Muslim.

& receive donations from other Christians for the post, i really find it disturbing.

Let's not forget the fact that Christians have been the most violent people in history; WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades. Did all these originate from a muslim civilisation?

[Wootah]

For those who don't know me, i work for a government organisation in Australia (ASIO) as an intelligence analyst & a systems engineer & Australia does TRUST me enough to allow me to analyse classified intelligence & fix/maintain government networking which can potentially be exploited to jeopardize foreign policy.


Muslims should not be treated any differently from a Christian or a Jew; especially in a secular nation.

I would prefer you didn't reveal details like that. It boggles belief and raises more questions than answers which I doubt you can or should answer online.

Let's not forget the fact that Christians have been the most violent people in history; WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades. Did all these originate from a muslim civilisation?

Oh so now those societies were Christian and not secular. Convenient.

Most of them did originate in response to Islamic aggression.

[Murad]

For those who don't know me, i work for a government organisation in Australia (ASIO) as an intelligence analyst & a systems engineer & Australia does TRUST me enough to allow me to analyse classified intelligence & fix/maintain government networking which can potentially be exploited to jeopardize foreign policy.


Muslims should not be treated any differently from a Christian or a Jew; especially in a secular nation.

I would prefer you didn't reveal details like that. It boggles belief and raises more questions than answers which I doubt you can or should answer online.

Well im going to get into Australian Law here.
There are certain restrictions in the privacy clearance under the ASIO act; all employees(with exceptions) are allowed to reveal their true occupation to anyone at anytime. But obviously we are not allowed to get into deep detail.

Let's not forget the fact that Christians have been the most violent people in history; WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades. Did all these originate from a muslim civilisation?

Oh so now those societies were Christian and not secular. Convenient.

Most of them did originate in response to Islamic aggression.

This is the most ridiculous claim i've seen on this forum.

Did muslims secretly infiltrate the catholic & protestant church's to make Christians slaughter themselves for the "Light of Christ"? Did muslims send advisors to hitler to make a Christian nation(Germany) slaughter millions of Jews creating a bloody precedent of genocide? Did muslims purposely choose to be the minority in World War 1 compared to the larger number of military personnel originating from Christian countries? Or what about World War 2, why do the Axis & Allies mainly consist of Christian nations?


Christians have killed more people in history than any other religion, inarguably. You claiming that Christian massacres originated from "Islamic Aggression"(tm) is absurd;... ridiculous at best. You should learn your history, wikipedia is a good start.

[Choir Loft]

richardP when you keep repeating phrases like:

Never trust a Muslim.

& receive donations from other Christians for the post, i really find it disturbing.

Let's not forget the fact that Christians have been the most violent people in history; WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades. Did all these originate from a muslim civilisation?

I think we've beaten the Muslim thing to death here. Anyone who can read knows my attitude whether they like it or not.

That being said I'd like to address two issues.

The first one being whether a Muslim should be questioned about his or her religion prior to serving in government facilities. I disagree with Mr. Beck's assertion in this matter. The constitution of the united States makes specific restrictions upon congress about religion. Congress shall not make any regulations. Since the Federal bureaucrats are somewhat regulated by congres it follows that our elected representatives should keep their hands out of another persons heart. It's bad enough that their slippery fingers are on our wallets all the time (as well as in somebody else's pants).

The second issue is your erroneous assertions that Christendom was responsible for WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the Inquisition and the Crusades.

Taking the last one first, the Crusades were a response to Islamic invasion of Europe through North Africa into Spain. The invasion was halted and successive Popes authorized a return invasion of Islamic territory. The ensuing wars were clumsily planned, executed and ultimately failed. If it wasn't for the efforts of Saladin history would have been written differently. Muslims started the wars and when the fighting was over their armies were the only ones standing on the field.

The armies of Islam won the Crusades, what are you complaining about?

The inquisition was an internal political affair conducted by the Papacy. It was primarily a control issue. I grant that the reasons and causes of it were unjust, but the number of deaths were actually relatively small compared to the wars of Napoleon and the twentieth century.

WWII and the holocaust were caused by atheistic governments. Joseph Stalin persecuted Jews and the church years before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. You've probably read that the NAZIs sent six million Jews to their deaths, but you probably don't know that another six million Christians were also murdered by them. The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were pseudo-atheistic in nature. Religion was never an issue during that war - except as an excuse to murder innocents.

It should be noted that during WWII no Muslim raised a finger to defend their own country against NAZI invasion. The defense of those lands was conducted by the British army initially with the assistance of the American army toward the end of the campaign. It has been suggested by some historians that the Muslims were NAZI sympathizers and thus traitors to the cause of liberation of their own countries.

WWI was a primarily a political war in Europe, WHICH INCLUDED THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (Muslim) and was started in a Muslim country. It was geo-political and economic in nature, not religious.

With the possible exception of the Roman Catholic inquistion, which really wasn't a war, none of the conflicts you mentioned were started by Christians. Christians participated in them all, but under the flag of their respective political nationalities and not the banner of Jesus (the armies of the Crusades fought under the banner of the papacy a political entity at the time - just in case you were wondering). Only Muslims fight under the religious banner of Islam.

Moving to the present age we see that Muslim aggression has been responsible for continual attacks upon Israel, for displacing the Hindu population in Pakistan and other countries and for persecution of Christians everywhere. The cause of Islam is violent and non-compromising. If one were to create a religion for vicious wild animals, Islam would be it.

Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

[lo_rez]

Taking the last one first, the Crusades were a response to Islamic invasion of Europe through North Africa into Spain.

Military theorists, to this day, contend that the best way to protect Spain is by invading the Eastern Mediterranean and reclaiming Jerusalem under the Pope's explicit instructions.

[WinePusher]

richardP when you keep repeating phrases like:

Never trust a Muslim.

& receive donations from other Christians for the post, i really find it disturbing.

If you wish to indirectly call out another poster for not abiding by your donating standards, at least get the facts right. I donated to richardP's post 35, the quote you list above is found in richardP's post 33. For future reference so you can avoid making errors such as this, look to the top of the post where a gold emblem can be found, this indicates which post has and hasn't been donated to. Also, when one donates to another, there is generally a description expressing why the person felt the need to donate. If you actually had read my description, you would have seen that no where did I address the statement "never trust a muslim" and no where did I state that that statement was the reason I donated to him. Retract your statement.

And Darias, I rebutted your post in my post 37 and pointed out your errors and factual inaccuracies. Going off of your silence, can I just assume that you concede those points and aren't able to defend them or justify them? This is troubling since Believing Christians get hammered so many times for "disappearing from debates" but when a liberal does it I guess the forum community just goes with it.