Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?

At the risk of being reprimanded for engaging in a "pissing match", let me just say that your response is typical for those who are too ill-informed to actually be able to provide actual evidence for their delusions.

Lazy and busy maybe, not ill-informed. Unfortunately I have a lousy file system and it makes a lot of work for me keeping track of material even when I've covered it many times before. Later I may try to track down the information for you, but you should be able to find some of it yourself unless of course you're so allergic to conservative information you go hysterically blind when you encounter it or something. You won't find this on liberal/leftist sites, but plenty of conservative sites have it. Not Christian, mind you, conservative.

A front for what?

JIHADISTS. ISLAMISTS.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-06-2005 03:24 PM

Yes, I got the impression they were islamists but jihadists? are you sure? You may well be right, but it seems unlikely. I'm not sure I believe in jihadists.

Well I'm being politically correct using the term "Islamists" because it supposedly separates the fanatics from moderate Muslims, and from a practical viewpoint it's a fair separation since there certainly are moderate Muslims, only it muddies the fact that Islam itself contains all the support for violent jihad any fanatic needs, and can inspire others to become fanatics.Here's some background on CAIR:http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=...

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with the claims made by a few fringe groups about Islam. I'm not sure why I should believe the baseless assertians by a small group of wackos over the reasoned opinions of the majority of people who actually know something about the subject. I was hoping that you could actually provide some sort of substantiation.

I guess you have no stomach for actual facts, you'd rather just call people wackos. Great. Well, enjoy Islam.

Well seeing as the basic meaning of Jihad is "to struggle/strive" CAIR can be called jihadists in that they're struggling against hate and striving for civil rights. Jihad can be applied to what is called a "holy war" but it is not the only application of the term.CQ Press: Connection. Quality. Purpose. | SAGE Publications IncThis message has been edited by DrJones*, 06-06-2005 04:56 PM

---

*not an actual doctor

CAIR is, indeed, a subversive organization that fronts for AL-Qaeda/Taliban/Wahabbi Islamist groups in the ME and elsewhere (Islamism being a fascist religious/political ideology claiming to represent true Islam and its Allah-given directive to conquer, subjugate and convert all the world to Islam). There are a few excellent, democratically minded Islamic groups in the US. Do not in any way confuse the two.Here's more on CAIR:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=...

Historically Jiahd has meant martial war against non Muslims. There are a n umber of specific references to this in the Koran, but only one anywhere in the faith that can be seen as spiritual. More on that here from Harvard scholar, Daniel Pipes:Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

I will again point out that your response was devoid of any substance. You are correct about the wacko part, though -- I apologize. Let me rephrase my question: why should I believe a minority opinion whose facts and expertise are disputed over the majority opinion of people who are more directly involved in studying these issues?At any rate, let's try to get back on topic. The question is whether a Muslim should be elected president of the US.You, I think, have admitted that there are moderate Muslims. Would you be against a moderate Muslim as president? Why?Second, why do you think that a Muslim president would be able to even contemplate imposing her Muslim beliefs on the government, seeing how a majority of Congress are avowed Christians, the courts have consistently backed the separation of church and state? Further, what powers does the federal government have to enforce such religious laws?Finally, let me make up a fantasy scenario: suppose that in the next election the Republican candidate was a Muslim. Suppose she fully supported free-market enterprise, she was in favor of a strong and vigorous military defence, even favoring unilateral action over the objections of the UN and the European allies if necessary. Suppose that she was committed to national security, even to the point of supporting Israel, and advocating a harsh line against Iran and Syria and whoever the current Mideast bete noir is. Suppose that she was against abortion, for abstenance education, and was in favor of promoting Judeo-Christian-Islamic values. Suppose, basically, that she was pretty much George Bush, but worships in a mosque instead of a church.Suppose that the democratic candidate was a Christian, a practicing Baptist, like Bill Clinton.Who would you vote for?

Yes it can be applied that way but it isn't the only application, as I mentioned in my post.

---

*not an actual doctor

A front for Al Qaeda/Taliban/Islamists - who believe it is their Allah-given mission to conquer, subjugate and convert all the world to Islam (Read the Koran's war verses, if you want to understand). They believe democracy is evil, as it is man ruling man rather than Allah ruling man through Sharia Law, carried out by men.

But that is, overwhelmingly, its preponderant historic meaning, as is referenced in the Koran, Hadith and elsewhere. And it is what the Islamists - a powerful movement in Islam that controls Iran, Sudan, did control Afghanistan, and is a powerful 5th column throughout the Islamic world - mean by Jihad. It is the belief of Hezbollah, which just won a victory in the lebanese preliminary election. It is what the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia mean by Jihad. It is what CAIR means, no matter how carefully they skate around the issue.