Surely it is the ability of a person to distance him/her self from any political/religious/commercial bias and to act in the best interests of the Nation as a whole that most befits a Leader. Similarly, a persons sexual orientation should have no bearing provided those non-biased conditions apply....without any backhanders for anyone.
sort by best latest
You're not under Sharia, you're under Noahide. George Walker Bush, 1991. Public Law 102-14, 102 Congress.
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
Obama is a constitutional scholar and NOT a muslim. Why do you persist in believing these two lies?
Apply the same rules to those who lie to us in order to protect christism and their political agenda.
Obama was allowed to attend a Muslim school, has Muslim on his Indonesian passport, he's a Muslim, end of debate.
You get the right to vote out Christians (if they exist politically) if you want, but they tend to want to protect the constitution.
Provided the Constitution is more in favour of Christians and Conservative values than Muslim?
As you are aware, I don't support the existence of a christian or a muslim god, so I am only looking at the practical consequences of religious bias.
No Johnny, provided the POTUS actually supports and defends the constitution, who or what he or she is, is irrelevant, PROVIDED THEY SUPPORT YOUR CONSTITUTION. No constitution, no USA.
I would hope that it is, Eric. But would a very biased Christian President limit my freedoms by virtue of my sexuality? Any better than under Sharia?
This question sure got me thinking of that concept. We want someone who is not hypocritical with their faith. But we don't want their faith dictating what is done. Protecting the rights of abortionists seems to be a clear line. Interesting.