Poll: Would you elect a Muslim candidate?

[Politesse]

In another thread, a question surfaced about Obama's alleged Mohammedan leanings and American attitudes toward the same, and I became curious as to what SC posters feel about having Muslims in office. I'm sure few of you would make your decision solely based on a candidate's religious affiliation, but would it be something you considered when you were going to the voting booth? I have subdivided the poll by nationality, since the US was particularly under discussion. It is anonymous, so please vote.

[rog]

I say no; all things being even, policy is what counts.

[Schneibster]

Makes no difference to me if it's anonymous. Interesting question. No, I don't care; if I cared about religion, I'd vote against all of 'em, but unfortunately that wouldn't leave me any candidates.

[Octavia]

I'd be much less likely to vote for them. I'm much less likely to vote for any religious candidate.

If they're that likely to accept things without evidence, then they're already in the habit of gullibility when it comes to things like, for example, getting involved in wars on baseless grounds, or pushing their moral agendas through legislation.

But then, the last two NZ prime ministers have been agnostic, and the Christian party polls at less than 2%.

[Alethias]

I'm skeptical that a muslim president would be able to garner enough support to be effective at forming coalitions and encouraging collaboration and drawing people together.

But at the same time. If someone was good enough to surmount the struggles he'd face in this country to be major contender for the role, He'd have to be pretty damn impressive.

Tough question.

I don't doubt that a Muslim could be sufficiently capable to lead this country, but I do indeed doubt the ability of the country to accept the leadership of a Muslim.

[trendkill]

but would it be something you considered when you were going to the voting booth? I always consider any beliefs a candidate has that seem like they could affect their choices on policy issues, so if I found out a candidate had a religiously-motivated belief in blasphemy laws, or something along those lines, then his religious beliefs could make me less likely to vote for him. On the other hand, such a general religious categorization as "Muslim" would not have the slightest effect on whether I'd vote for someone. As the poll specifically mentions "affiliation" as the criterion, I voted "US: no".

[Politesse]

I don't doubt that a Muslim could be sufficiently capable to lead this country, but I do indeed doubt the ability of the country to accept the leadership of a Muslim.

Interesting thought. Though honestly, I'd have said the same of a educated half-black Illinois democrat with an estranged Kenyan father who spent his childhood in Indonesia, so who knows?

[Berthold]

It depends (voted non-US, no). A Social Democrat with Turkish roots surely is eligible to me.

After all, I vote, necessarily, for registered Christians, too.

[Haswell]

It would depend how devout he was and if it interfered with democratic process.

[Notta]

Makes no difference to me if it's anonymous. Interesting question. No, I don't care; if I cared about religion, I'd vote against all of 'em, but unfortunately that wouldn't leave me any candidates.This was what I thought, too.

[Goodchild]

Well, there's already a Muslim Congressman in America, Keith Ellison, and I tend to think he's doing a much better job than most Democrats anyway. I dislike religion in any candidate, but it's pretty much a necessary evil if you're going to vote as most candidates will espouse some religious view or other.

To me, being muslim is no worse or better than being christian or hindu or jewish or whatever. I'd vote for a socialist muslim over an atheist republican any day.

[richardtheatheist]

What an utterly ridiculous thread question.

[Politesse]

What an utterly ridiculous thread question.
How so? I'm finding the results and the responses quite interesting so far.

[Garnet]

I vote for candidates who I think will do the best job (or the least harm). Religion doesn't enter into it unless I think that their religion has a negative impact on their ability to do the job or if their platform is based on religion. For example, I'd be very disinclined to vote for Pat Robertson or his ilk. Likewise, I wouldn't vote for a Muslim who ran on a platform of invoking sharia law.

So, yes, I would vote for a Muslim candidate if I thought he or she was a good candidate.

[Garnet]

Oh dammit. I didn't read the poll correctly. I voted for the first option when I really meant to vote for the third.

[richardtheatheist]

What an utterly ridiculous thread question.
How so? I'm finding the results and the responses quite interesting so far.

You're asking a forum full of atheists and secularists if they would vote for a Muslim. If people are voting for Christians, they are presumably doing so because they lack any other option. In an America (for example) where a Muslim runs for office, why should his religious background be any more tolerable than the Christian one? People would most likely vote for the person they could get behind the most, which includes a vetting of their religious beliefs. I'd be more likely to vote for a progressive, liberal Muslim who just gives lip service to his religion than a conservative Christian. How does this end up being an indicator of religious tolerance in any meaningful way?

[Politesse]

You're asking a forum full of atheists and secularists if they would vote for a Muslim. If people are voting for Christians, they are presumably doing so because they lack any other option. In an America (for example) where a Muslim runs for office, why should his religious background be any more tolerable than the Christian one? People would most likely vote for the person they could get behind the most, which includes a vetting of their religious beliefs. I'd be more likely to vote for a progressive, liberal Muslim who just gives lip service to his religion than a conservative Christian. How does this end up being an indicator of religious tolerance in any meaningful way?It doesn't, necessarily.

Do you think that most atheists consider all religion affiliations to be equivalent?

[Schneibster]

I'm not sure they're atheists if they don't.

I saw a quote: "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

ETA: After thinking a bit, I suppose one might classify them as to whether they get atheists confused with debbil worshippers or some such horseshit that makes them behave like assholes toward us.

[richardtheatheist]

You're asking a forum full of atheists and secularists if they would vote for a Muslim. If people are voting for Christians, they are presumably doing so because they lack any other option. In an America (for example) where a Muslim runs for office, why should his religious background be any more tolerable than the Christian one? People would most likely vote for the person they could get behind the most, which includes a vetting of their religious beliefs. I'd be more likely to vote for a progressive, liberal Muslim who just gives lip service to his religion than a conservative Christian. How does this end up being an indicator of religious tolerance in any meaningful way?It doesn't, necessarily.

Do you think that most atheists consider all religion affiliations to be equivalent?

Not if they're smart. What is the purpose of this question?

[Octavia]

You're asking a forum full of atheists and secularists if they would vote for a Muslim. If people are voting for Christians, they are presumably doing so because they lack any other option.

Interesting point, especially as the poll really doesn't take into account different political environments.

In the US, for example, overt Christianity seems to be a distinct advantage in getting yourself elected.

On the other hand, looking at the NZ pollies, it seems to be that overt religiosity is a disadvantage if you want to be elected. (After all, close to 40% of the population here has no religion.) If a politician wants to be religious, that's fine, as long as it's played down - religion is a private matter. Those that openly campaign on religious grounds are very unlikely to be elected. So if Joe Bloggs is running for parliament, and he pushes his religion to the point where I know what it is, it's an indicator to me that not only does he dabble in delusions, but that he also has very little ability to assess the political climate. Or he can assess it, and wants to push his religious affiliations anyway... which indicates that's he's going to want to continue pushing said beliefs if he gets into office. No, thank-you.

That's not to say that I would never vote for someone who I knew to be religious, but they'd have to have a proven record in social liberalism far above their direct competitor for me to consider it.

Which makes for two very different voting environments. It's seems to me that politicians professing a deep religious feeling is a necessary box to be ticked in the US, but in NZ it reads as more of a challenge to the status quo.

[Rie]

Our future Prime Minister is on the record as cheerfully dismissing a question re did she believe in a God. Onya Julia!
But for me and my little world, I can't truly say anything about Islam until I've chatted some more with the trolley stacker at the supermarket.
He looks dark and fierce but then I look small and malleable.

[columbus]

I voted USA/ yes/ negative. But it is darn near a toss up.

On the one hand, a politician in the USA describing himself as Muslim must really buy the "sky fairy" nonsense. Any politician describing himself as a Christian might be taking religion off of the political table by saying what people expect, without actually believing the nonsense. In the USA, you never know what a Christian means by anything. It is the equivalent of nodding and smiling. Claiming to be a Muslim is much more of a statement.

On the other hand, a politician who claims Islam in the USA is a confident person. S/he must be quite confident that there is no dirt to be brought up, no vague accusations to be made, they are standing on their record and principles. If not, they know what "people" like Palin, Limbaugh, Coulter, and the many politainers who make a living trashing the political system will do.

So I would check them out to see what they had to say, knowing that they are being held to the highest standards of integrity by what passes for the USA mainstream media. A Muslim running for office in 2010 USA won't get away with anything, will get no free passes on ethical failings. So a Muslim who mounts a credible campaign for office here must be a person of unimpeachable integrity, despite their sky-fairy nonsensical failings.

This would be a hard one for me. Fortunately I live in rural Bible-Belt USA, no Muslim or any other non-Christian will ever have the slightest chance of getting elected to anything what-so-ever. Not in my life time, any way.

Tom

[David M Payne]

If he was any kind of fundamentalist Muslim, then no. If he was a moderate Muslim who put country ahead of religion and was the best candidate, then maybe.

David

[columbus]

If he was any kind of fundamentalist Muslim, then no. If he was a moderate Muslim who put country ahead of religion and was the best candidate, then maybe.

David

Suppose one candidate were a fundamentalist Muslim, and the other a fundamentalist Capitalist. The Muslim argues for aid to the poor, and the Capitalist argues that poor people should just die off.

The problem with discussing voting issues is that you never have more choices than are presented. I would like to vote into power a "King of the World" who agrees with me about everything. But I keep getting stuck with candidates who have far less wisdom and far more ability to get support from people I disagree with. So I always wind up voting for somebody I don't like, or even despise, because they are less worse than the alternative.

I didn't want to vote for Obama. I didn't think he had what it takes to get things done in Washington and take on the entrenched power elite. I believe that the last year or so has proven me right. But the other choice was McCain/Palin. I was forced to vote for somebody I didn't like.

Tom

[LoneWolf]

No, no more than if they are Christian. Though if they are a fundamentalist, regardless of religion, they aren’t likely going to get my vote.

[Alethias]

Interesting point, especially as the poll really doesn't take into account different political environments.It specifically takes into account US vs. Non-US.

With a few minor exceptions, one of the easiest ways in US politics to guarantee no political backing in either major party and that you won't get elected is to be anything other than at least nominally christian.

In some place you can get as high up as Mayor or State Representative, but even getting that high up in politics without some type of official christian affiliation wouldn't be possible in most states. Some places in the states would rather you not be a fundy, but most any would prefer some type of non-fundy christianity in their elected officials.

[Politesse]

Interesting point, especially as the poll really doesn't take into account different political environments.It specifically takes into account US vs. Non-US.

With a few minor exceptions, one of the easiest ways in US politics to guarantee no political backing in either major party and that you won't get elected is to be anything other than at least nominally christian.Though being too Christian is also a mistake, especially if you belong to an actual denomination, like Catholicism. Politicians have to be vaguely Christian-ish, without admitting to any particular convictions that might offend anyone. You'll never hear a politician describing their faith aside from non-specific references to "God's guiding hand" or general "moral guidance". Even Jesus seldom gets a public mention. American politics are funny.

[richardtheatheist]

It's almost like you didn't live in America during the reign of Bush II. Because he wore his religion on his sleeve from day one -- including mentioning that he starts every day on his knees, asking God's guidance -- and he managed to get elected. His opposition to stem cell research, his expansion of faith-based initiatives, his feelings on abortion, and his belief in the guiding hand of divinity as it regarded the Iraq war are all ridiculously overt Christian sentiments. Your thesis does not appear to agree with reality.

[Politesse]

It's almost like you didn't live in America during the reign of Bush II. Because he wore his religion on his sleeve from day one -- including mentioning that he starts every day on his knees, asking God's guidance -- and he managed to get elected. His opposition to stem cell research, his expansion of faith-based initiatives, his feelings on abortion, and his belief in the guiding hand of divinity as it regarded the Iraq war are all ridiculously overt Christian sentiments. Your thesis does not appear to agree with reality.
Yes. But always vague, non-specific. Bush is actually a perfect case in point for the kind of political deism I'm talking about. The politician wants to manipulate the Christian majority without getting perilously tied to any one part of it.

[Ray Moscow]

I said "yes, negatively", but I'd treat it basically like adherence to any other crazy religion.

Of course a particular Muslim might be much more reasonable and friendly to secular concerns than a particular Christian.

[richardtheatheist]

It's almost like you didn't live in America during the reign of Bush II. Because he wore his religion on his sleeve from day one -- including mentioning that he starts every day on his knees, asking God's guidance -- and he managed to get elected. His opposition to stem cell research, his expansion of faith-based initiatives, his feelings on abortion, and his belief in the guiding hand of divinity as it regarded the Iraq war are all ridiculously overt Christian sentiments. Your thesis does not appear to agree with reality.
Yes. But always vague, non-specific. Bush is actually a perfect case in point for the kind of political deism I'm talking about. The politician wants to manipulate the Christian majority without getting perilously tied to any one part of it.

What on Earth are you talking about? He was not a "deist," he was a Christian. Are you being intentionally dishonest, or are you dumb?

[Octavia]

It specifically takes into account US vs. Non-US.

Neither of those two are really uniform conglomerates though, are they? Both are so varied as to be effectively meaningless descriptors. It'd be interesting to run a similar poll linked to personal ideology or political party affiliation, but SC might be too politically homogenous to get much variation there.

[columbus]

It's almost like you didn't live in America during the reign of Bush II. Because he wore his religion on his sleeve from day one -- including mentioning that he starts every day on his knees, asking God's guidance -- and he managed to get elected. His opposition to stem cell research, his expansion of faith-based initiatives, his feelings on abortion, and his belief in the guiding hand of divinity as it regarded the Iraq war are all ridiculously overt Christian sentiments. Your thesis does not appear to agree with reality.
Yes. But always vague, non-specific. Bush is actually a perfect case in point for the kind of political deism I'm talking about. The politician wants to manipulate the Christian majority without getting perilously tied to any one part of it.

What on Earth are you talking about? He was not a "deist," he was a Christian. Are you being intentionally dishonest, or are you dumb?

I suspect that the difference is where you two got your news, during the Bush Administration. The MSM didn't make a big deal out of Bush' religion, many other news sources did. Rovian politicos knew where to play up Bush' praying, and where not to.

Bush would have knelt at an altar to Satan if it was deemed necessary to win the 2004 election, because he was totally beholden to The Powers That Be who demanded a win. Trillions of dollars hung in the balance, Bush would have sucked Satan's cock if Cheney had so ordered him.

Maybe he did. Who knows?:dunno: Haliburton won the election, and could well afford to erase the evidence.

Tom

[Roo St. Gallus]

A Muslim should be able to catch dogs just as well as any Christian.

[MattShizzle]

If he was otherwise good I would.

[crazyfingers]

As with all votes that I cast, the person's commitment to secular government is a major factor. A Muslim who is committed to secular governmental could easily get my vote.

I did not vote in this poll because none of the options really fit.

[Eudaimonist]

As long as this Muslim proved to me that he was in favor of the values of a liberal democracy, he would at least on the table for consideration. Naturally, I wouldn't vote for someone I thought was a theocrat.


eudaimonia,

Mark