While I am not sure how I would feel about a Moslem president, I do find it interesting in how the Democrats are responding. -A man should be judged on what he stands for not his religion or the color of his skin-. Which leads me to ask, is religion a label or something you actually believe? Democrajavascript: void(0)ts seem to be saying that they believe religion has nothing to do with what you stand for, how you live your life and make decisions, or actually have any influence in who you are. My guess is that most of us would rather have a Christian, Buddhist or Moslem over a person who claims to be a witch or devil worshipper or follower of Charles Manson.

I think religion should play exactly zero part in the administration of our government, from the lowest local office to the President, and I am really dismayed that this country is turning into exactly what was the cause of it becoming a country in the first place...religious nuts trying to control the rest of us.

Fish on...

Todd

I have no problem with a President having a religion. I have no problems if they have deeply held personal beliefs based on that or any other reason. But, when they take the oath of office they pledge to support and defend the Constitution and lead the whole country. Not just those of the same religion, those who voted for them, or and other slice of the nation.

As Todd says, though, far too many see the world in Black and White, my way or the highway, you're with me or agin' me. What the vast majority of politicians fail to grasp is that they represent the district/state/country that elected them and not just the donors who bought them.

Probably pretty naive thought.

We already have one, time for a Christian.

Got actual proof of that claim or does it just fit the narrative?

Can a Muslim be the president? Yes. A-6 verbatim:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Oath: "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter".

Should a Muslim (or any other religion for that matter) be president?
Not if their faith overrules the supreme law of the land. See: Islamic Sharia "Taqiya" and "Kafir". Our country, our rules. Don't like it? GTFO.

I highly advise that if you care about this sort of thing to watch these two videos:

UK

Germany

What you applies equally to followers of any religion. We had the debate with Kennedy as to whether or not he would be dictated to by the Pope. Same comes, as we saw with Davis/marriage license issues that some strands of Christianity collide with the Constitution.

If following the dictates of your religion/belief system collide with the law/Constitution then you should not run for office until you get the law changed.

+1 Agreed. I had typed the JFK example in my first response, but cut it out for brevity.



Not sure if any of this is definitive proof, but it is straight from their own mouths. With my understanding of Taqiyya and Kitman, I've since learned that if it "looks like a duck...."

#1

#2

And where did that narrative start?

#3

From this very morning's MSNBC show...

#4

Also, see the many passages in his own book "The Audacity of Hope". Here's a tasty one I'm sure you heard before..."I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction".

That being said, being a Muslim does not preclude one from being the President as long as they are not practicing Taqiyya (thereby breaking the Oath of Office).

BTW - I lived in Dearborn MI and have many life long Muslim friends, so before anyone accuses me of being a xenophobic racist, I'm only reporting what has been told to me in confidence and behind closed doors by those not practicing Taqiyya. My Muslim friends also believe he's a Muslim for what that's worth.

PS - BTW - I could give a rats arse if he's Muslim or not. Just do your job for all Americans and don't unsurp the Constitution for any religious reasons regardless of whatever religion that may be.

And that will not change as long as corporations are people and money is free speech.

PPS - BTW. My problem with Obama isn't that he may or may not be a Muslim. It's that he doesn't defend ALL Americans equally as a requirement of his Oath. He jumps into Social issues prematurely without having all of the evidence thereby stoking internal race wars (among unsurping parts of the Constitution - another subject all together).

See the Beer Summit, Trayvon, BLM and Ahmed "The Bomb Clock Boy" as examples. Where was he for Kate Steinle? Or the pop tart kid or the dinosaur gun kid or the American flag kid? A white kid shoots up a church and all hell breaks loose. A black guy just did the same thing and....crickets.

Defend the innocent regardless of color or political narrative. DO YOUR JOB. He may or may not be a closet Muslim, but IMO - the dude is a flat out racist. Not that we haven't had any racist Presidents...we most certainly have. Maybe its the white man's comeuppance, but its still ugly and has no part in modern society if we hope to be that shining light on the hill and move past the racial divide.

A President's "faith" has absolutely no bearing on what laws get passed during his/her administration. Once in office, every elected official worships the Almighty Dollar and nothing else. So you see, it's not Allah we have to fear. It's "Dollah."

Here's a question more appropriate to modern America: Would more Americans be up in arms over the President openly being Muslim or Christian?

Flea - personally, I would change your first line to read "should not have any bearing", but other than that, I agree with you. Trump has his current legs because he is only candidate that cannot be readily bought. The Right see this and likes it...a lot. You would think the Left would be all over that considering their hatred for Citizens United. News Break: the Right hates it too!

Right now in today's media driven PC political environment, I'd say Christian. Even thought most in this country ID as Christian. The overt PC pendulum has swung and that's why the Right at the moment has the "silent majority". The Dems are going to lose this cycle in the same way the Repubs lost it after Bush. The "last guy sucked and did nothing for the country or for me". Moderates and Blacks are going Repub this go around. Clinton is toast. O'Malley is a non factor. The Berns is too extreme and only speaks to hard core leftists. Biden is the wild card, but I think Moderates and Blacks have been burned too many times in the last 7 years to endorse an Obama policy 3rd term. This is why the Dems are pushing for Amnesty. They know they've lost Moderate and Black vote which put O in office twice.

I'm still waiting for a Dem debate to hear their positions. The Dems threw the baby out with the bath water by pushing aside everyone except Hillary. That decision will haunt them next cycle. Being an Indy Moderate, I voted Obama his first term and elected not to vote the last cycle. I could not abide by either Obama or Mitt and I refused to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils. That being said, I'll probably go Rebub this go around due to the reasons listed above. Maybe. Or I may not vote again this cycle. It depends on the Repub. I had really high hopes for Carson, but the guy for as smart as he is supposed to be, just doesn't get it.

FML. Shoot me now....

There might be some wishful thinking in there, but I'm pretty adept at this sort of thing for an armchair QB. I could be completely wrong too, but I ain't afraid to stick it out there!

What we need are the Dem debates. The reason the Dem numbers are so high at the moment is for lack of debates and this is 100% by plan. Once the platform is out and debated, especially Amnesty - there goes a good portion of Black vote or at least enough to swing the winning % from 2012. The Dems haven't done a thing for the Black vote in 7 years. O isn't running this go around, so it doesn't really matter what the Black vote thinks of him right now. Other than Carson & Biden, there are no Black candidates in this next cycle.

Trump is gonna Trump. I know lots of Moderates that are interested specifically because he cannot be bought and is a beltway outsider. LOTS. If it gets to s Trump and Hillary debate (which I think it will), Trump is going to put her head on a Pike. Too much baggage with the Hills. The top 3 things in the polls concerning Hill. Liar, Dishonest, Untrustworthy. She isn't going to win.

Biden is the wild card and he will run. Its no secret that there is no love lost between O & the Clintons. Methinks O has even more up his sleeve than letting VJ go after Hill with emails. Watch.

Carly isn't getting anywhere near the Presidency. Too much of a Hawk AND she's a CIA insider. She's been on the inside for a long time, she's just trying to portray herself as an outsider. Plus that face!

Yep CIA. HP sold millions in PC's and HW to Iran using a shell corp. to get around the sanctions.

"What Mrs Fiorina lacks in formal experience, she makes up with a business tenure and relationships with worldwide contacts during her time at HP. After her departure, former CIA Director Michael Hayden selected Mrs Fiorina to chair the CIA's External Advisory Board. In 2007, she warned Mr Hayden that his spy agency would need to adapt to the public’s expectations of transparency".

source: UK

She's an insider. All tech giants are. It comes with the territory post 9/11.

No - I'm not sure of that. I'm not in the CIA that I know of.....

Nick, you'd do well on the Sunday morning shows.

When you typed that thought I would think that you would realize that the truth of your statement hinges on the definitions of administration, and of religion. So I did a Google search of religion and this is what came up as a definition for religion.

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe."

And when I searched administration I got this,
ad·min·is·tra·tion
noun
noun: administration; noun: admin.; plural noun: administrations

1.
the process or activity of running a business, organization, etc.
"the day-to-day administration of the company"

If you meant what you said in your post that I have quoted, then how can you support the founding of our nation, and how can you support the Obama administration?

I proceed to your next thought,"I am really dismayed" that this country is turning into exactly what was the cause of it becoming a country in the first place"----- One must only must read your posts for a short time to realize that you are often dismayed.

Your closing thought was, " religious nuts trying to control the rest of us"

Now Is this not that an excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black?
Our just who is trying to control who?

Ya Sure, ya Betcha.

I learned how to use different colors to sort thoughts so that people that possessed skills not in the mainstream might be able to comprehend thoughts expressed differently than they were used to.


Perhaps you can do it better.