jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (14 posts)

Why should a person of Muslim persuasion be less qualified to be President?

  1. jonnycomelately profile image82
    jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago

    Why should a person of Muslim persuasion be less qualified to be President?

    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.

  2. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    Human nature doesn't follow logic or rules, it is based on primitive thinking and it doesn't stop at religion, politics, race, gender. People notice it more when gender, ethnicity, or race are involved in personal preference, but even among there own kind, there is a prejudice against other people.

    People go up the corporate ladder not by deed or potential, but because they know how to be a chameleon, and and imitator.

    Qualifications don't really apply to politicians, especially the presidency. Being liked by the voters is more important than any other attribute. You can be competent and have a track record but if the voters just don't like you, then you lose.

    As for minorities becoming president, there is a fear that the person will champion their belief above the beliefs and values of the country.

    No American wants Sharia law, making the LGBT the mainstream. Equality doesn't mean acceptance or even a good idea. Minorities are not the focus of a Democratic Republic where the majority is the focus.

    my opinion

  3. LoliHey profile image56
    LoliHeyposted 2 years ago

    Because we don't want Sharia Law!!!!  We don't Islam implemented in our schools!!!!

    1. lovemychris profile image57
      lovemychrisposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You're not under Sharia, you're under Noahide. George Walker Bush, 1991. Public Law 102-14, 102 Congress.

  4. Ericdierker profile image55
    Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago

    For some reason I was under the impression that a Muslim was not supposed to be tolerant of other beliefs and ways of living. But in certain ways the same can be said for a Catholic. I suppose if someone was supportive of differing religions then they would be a fine choice. But like I said I do not think that Muslims are supposed to support ways that are contrary to their religious views. Isn't our constitution pretty much the opposite of Sharia Law?

    1. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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?

    2. Ericdierker profile image55
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  5. aguasilver profile image81
    aguasilverposted 2 years ago

    Irrespective of who or what they are, I presume that anyone who was intent on enforcing anything other than your constitution would be unsuitable for becoming the POTUS.

    Unfortunately, you already seem to have someone who wishes to destroy the constitution as your POTUS, and who in any case (by Islamic understanding) is a Muslim, as he was raised as such.

    If he is not a Muslim now, having been raised as one, then all Islamist's are commanded to kill him as a heretic, and if they have not, then he must be recognized as having the protection of the Islamic rule that allows him to lie in order to advance Islam.

    In any case, it's a dangerous mess, and one which hopefully the American people will clean up next election, if there is one.

    1. Austinstar profile image87
      Austinstarposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Obama is a constitutional scholar and NOT a muslim. Why do you persist in believing these two lies?

    2. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Apply the same rules to those who lie to us in order to protect christism and their political agenda.

    3. aguasilver profile image81
      aguasilverposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    4. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    5. aguasilver profile image81
      aguasilverposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  6. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 2 years ago

    They would be unqualified if they support Shariah law in any form, which is a violation of the Constitution in every way.

 
working