Should Religion Matter in Politics? | Big Think
Ben Carson has recently surged in the polls. Should we be concerned about his apocalyptic visions?
I mean if a Muslim can't hold office because of their beliefs then uh… Neither should this dude because of his.
I think that the crux of the argument is that Sharia Law is incompatible with The Constitution. Islamic ideology is based on Sharia Law, and it is what they believe needs to govern all of the planet (last time a people had an ideology that stated, 'let us expand our capitol until it covers the eight corners of the earth', we fought an almost 4 year war against them).
We have has 43 Presidents who were practicing Christians, and so far, a theocracy hasn't taken root (and other religions haven't been outlawed). I'm not saying that the first Muslim in the White House will change all that, but if he's a traditional Muslim, Sharia Law is what he would like to see in place of our current legal system (though he [or she] would need some help getting it done).
Just look around. There are places all over where Muslims have settled in force and implemented their own domain of Sharia Law. This isn't just a Europe thing, It's been said to be popping up in the States (specifically Washington State).
Dude the Bible is incompatible with the Constitution. It disallowed freedom of speech:
– Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Ex 20:7)
– Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (Ex 20:4) (sorry art, comic books, movies, medical textbooks, etc).
– For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Lev 20:9)
Sexual slavery is perfectly legit under the bible:
– But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. (Exodus 21:5-6) 
– Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. (Lev 25:44)
– “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. “If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. “If he will not do these three thingsfor her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.. (Exodus 21:7-11)
There's NO room for freedom of religion:
– Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Ex. 20:5)
And on and on and on… and the old "Yeah but… Old Testament" blah blah blah cuz Jesus says in Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Theocracy hasn't taken root because our form of government explicitly prohibits it (much to the chagrin of people like Cruz, Huckabee, GW Bush, etc). Not that Christians aren't attempting to impose their religion on the rest of us… look at the Planned Parenthood debate. They supposedly have issue with one service, but instead of changing the laws they want to hold them hostage and remove ALL services provided… primarily to the poorer people in this country. Marriage equality… their beef was that it wasn't "traditional" marriage as per the bible (again, they don't even know their own damned books because there's nothing traditional about the way we conduct marriage comparative to the biblical versions).
So a practicing Muslim COULD hold office but they still have to work within the confines of the Constitution. Just like a Christian.
I personally think religion is a global problem. "The most secular societies today include Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Estonia, Japan, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, Vietnam, Hungary, China and Belgium. The most religious societies include Nigeria, Uganda, the Philippines, Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Colombia, Senegal, Malawi, Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, Jordan, Algeria, Ghana, Venezuela, Mexico and Sierra Leone.
It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women's rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy. (Although there are exceptions, such as Vietnam and China, which have famously poor human rights records.) And those nations with the highest rates of religiosity tend to be the most problem-ridden in terms of high violent crime rates, high infant mortality rates, high poverty rates and high rates of corruption." And that's just the start – http://goo.gl/IS5U6z
+Paul Spoerry
I totally understand that. However as I said, we have not had any of the 43 Christian Presidents attempt (or state that it is their religious mission) to supplant the current system with one based on their religious dogma.
If you ask any Christian politician to state for the public record, that they do not believe the Bible should replace our current code, none would have an issue doing so (I'd be surprised if even that religious nut Cruz would not concur). You might be hard pressed to find a Muslim politician who would do the same (and if they did, they could run the risk of being killed by their more devout fellow worshipers).
To put it in plain language, I would trust a Christian before I'd trust a Muslim. Before You start thinking I've gone off the bigot deep end here me out. This is based on the fact that the members of the Islamic religion have made it a point to state that they believe (and want) Sharia to be the governing law of the world.
Let me put it in an analogy. There are two men. I have to choose one of them to watch over me as I sleep. Man A says, no problem, I'll keep you safe all night. Man B says, yeah….I'm gonna slit your throat as soon as you fall asleep. I think you might guess which one I'm gonna pick. I'm not saying that man A isn't a liar an won't kill me as well, but the other has stated that he will, so it's either a 100% chance of death or a chance I get to wake up.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Maybe it's not perfect, but hey, I'm not perfect.
+West Kagle "You might be hard pressed to find a Muslim politician who would do the same (and if they did, they could run the risk of being killed by their more devout fellow worshipers)." But we've never had a Muslim-American run so I'm not willing to make that leap.
Also… saying Sharia law is applied evenly in all Muslim states is like saying all Christian's are the same. For instance, Turkey is an example of a Muslim-majority nation with a secular system. Some counties follow it in all aspects of the law while others are primarily Muslim yet totally secular. Many others have a mixed form where it only applies to certain aspects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country#Classification
+Paul Spoerry
……but look at the ones where it's not, and Sharia is ruthlessly applied. Not sure about anyone else, but I know those are places I don't want to be stuck in.
Listen, I don't have an issue with the religion of any candidate, but if that person has stated it is their goal to supplant our current system and implement one based on their religion (no matter which religion it is), then I have a problem with them…..a big one.
+West Kagle Someone not born here cannot be our President (unless born out of the country while one parent was a legal citizen). So I don't know that the argument that a radical Muslim extremist from one of those countries would ascend to President of the US.
In Africa there are Christian nations with extremists that are committing ethnic cleansing in the name of religion and/or against those who don't follow their religion RIGHT NOW. Genocide was committed by Bosnian Christians against Muslims in the not to recent past. There are countless examples of this throughout history both recent and ancient history. But we don't hold an expectation that because Christian's THERE are commit horrific acts in the name of their book that a Christian HERE would do the same do we?
What these events demonstrate is the fact that violent extremism isn’t anymore fundamental to Islam than it is to Christianity. The violence committed by Mohammed/Islam is not somehow different than that of the Judeo-Christian stuff. Allow me to point you to the Bible's OT in which genocide very much involved in conquering 'the Promise Land'. This is a story which is intractable from history of the Christian faith. – https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+3%3A3-7&version=NIV
I'm not advocating for Islam. I'm not advocating for Christianity. I'm just saying that it feels xenophobic and that it's not a logical leap to assume that if a Muslim American became President we'd be living under Sharia Law.
+Paul Spoerry
There are devout Muslims that are natural born citizens of this country. They are very much eligible to run. There are also the beginnings of 'no-go zones' here like they have across western Europe. (side note: it's bad enough that there are places in this country where an upstanding citizen is forced to forfeit one of the rights in the constitution, I don't want places where, for all intents and purposes, a religious code is law).
It's not a matter of what each religion says in it's 'good book', what matters is what the individual candidate personally states, and I'm not sure that a devout Muslim would be willing to publicly state that Sharia Law should not govern the country. Even a devout nut job like Cruz (who, by the way, I still wouldn't vote for), would be willing to say that, even though the Bible is the guiding principle in his life, secular law should govern the country. That is the reason for the analogy I gave.
I have a difficult enough time to vote for a candidate I like who is over the top religious, without them already stating that their belief is their religious code should rule the country.
I did say that there was any guarantee that the first Muslim to be POTUS would equal Sharia Law. I just don't believe in going out of the was to look for trouble. I'm not willing to risk the world I live in (meaning my personal, and family's little world), just to avoid making someone feel uncomfortable. I only get one go 'round in this existence (I'm not a Hindu), so I get to be *very* protective of it.
One more thing. I don't hold what Islam had done in the past anymore that I hold Christianity to it's past. What I do hold a religion to is what it does in the present, and I'm sorry for Islam, but it has a much worse PR problem than Christianity does. We have Muslims living in this country right now, who march and protest, advocating the killing of all non-believers, and no one says boo, because they are afraid to be labeled xenophobic. But a Christian group (if the is one) does something reprehensible like that, and the country calls for their burning at the stake.
If this country doesn't change it's culture of radical PC, I guarantee that we will have a country governed by Sharia Law. Not in my life (at least I hope, after all I old as dirt), but it will happen on the current path.
+Paul Spoerry
I will say that I understand what you're saying, and I see your point (I don't have to be 100% on board with something to see it's point). I just hope you can at least see what I'm getting at, even though you don't agree.
Yup. I get it +West Kagle. I hear what you're saying too. Places where any group believes their beliefs trump "law" isn't acceptable.
"We have Muslims living in this country right now, who march and protest, advocating the killing of all non-believers, and no one says boo, because they are afraid to be labeled xenophobic. But a Christian group (if the is one) does something reprehensible like that, and the country calls for their burning at the stake." I dunno… I sure hear Christians bitching about being persecuted more than anybody. Then again… they have the media on their side.
I hear you though about having to be OVERLY sensitive to others beliefs. Over on 'that other social network' I posted something and someone get all bent out of shape, made claims I was saying ALL Christians are "stupid" (I never once used that word), etc. The post was an image that contained the quote from Sam Harris' 'Letters to a Christian Nation' , "Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of the earth, more than half of our neighbors believe that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue."
I'm sorry. I'm not apologizing for saying that if you think the cosmos is 6,000 years old that you're wrong. I'm just not. lol
+Paul Spoerry
Yeah, I;m not sure how anyone can believe that the age of the universe in 6,000 years old. Unless they are saying that somehow the nature of time has fundamentally slowed down over time. IDK.