Which is worse for a Muslim Congressman?

[Reformed_Rob]

The Koran rejects:

Freedom to worship
Freedom to assemble
Freedom to bear arms
Freedom of religion
Freedom of the press
Etc.

My knowledge is limited, but maybe a good Muslim could offer more background here.

On the topic of “freedom of religion” I understand that in India (I think India) the Muslims let the Hindus go on and do their worship. Christians did not extend such freedom to the Hindus.

Also, I am one of those blokes that believes that Islamic society is one which promotes intellectual and scientific progress on a level comparable to Chrisianity. Call me a Catholic, but that’s what I believe.

 

[Peterdiago]

Call me a Catholic

You’re a Catholic

 

[Reformed_Rob]

You’re a Catholic

Thanks, I need to hear that sometimes!

 

[meedo]

''President Bush has not addressed the controversy, even though it was started by one of his appointees — a rabid talk show host named Dennis Prager whom Bush appointed to the prestigious United States Holocaust Museum Board.

“Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned,” Prager wrote, “America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.”

Bush’s silence is curious given his tireless campaign against “Islamofascists,” extremists who seek to force people to conform to their Islamic faith. In this age of hyphenated fascism, what do we call Jews or Christians who want to force non-believers to swear to the Bible? Judeo-Christofascists?

Even in Iran

Of course, the comparison with Islamofascists might not be fair — to Islamofascists. Take the quintessential, Bush-certified Islamofascist regime of Iran. Under Article 3 of the Iranian Constitution, “members representing minority religious groups will take the oath mentioning their own holy books.”

It appears that though the Iranian government denies the Holocaust and calls for the eradication of Israel, it views Prager’s idea of requiring people to swear to someone else’s faith to be … well … extreme. (Iran’s parliament has had a Jewish member, Morris Motamed, for years — though the Jewish population is about 25,000 out of 70 million). Various experts on Iran told me that such tailoring of oaths to religions goes back to early Islam. Indeed, Tehran University professor Hossein Bashiriyeh explained that “an oath taken with a holy book other than one’s own cannot be religiously and morally ‘binding.’ … In effect it will amount to not taking an oath at all.”

‘’

blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/01/the_truth_about.html

 

[StMarkEofE]

''President Bush has not addressed the controversy, even though it was started by one of his appointees — a rabid talk show host named Dennis Prager whom Bush appointed to the prestigious United States Holocaust Museum Board.

“Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned,” Prager wrote, “America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.”

Bush’s silence is curious given his tireless campaign against “Islamofascists,” extremists who seek to force people to conform to their Islamic faith. In this age of hyphenated fascism, what do we call Jews or Christians who want to force non-believers to swear to the Bible? Judeo-Christofascists?

Even in Iran

Of course, the comparison with Islamofascists might not be fair — to Islamofascists. Take the quintessential, Bush-certified Islamofascist regime of Iran. Under Article 3 of the Iranian Constitution, “members representing minority religious groups will take the oath mentioning their own holy books.”

It appears that though the Iranian government denies the Holocaust and calls for the eradication of Israel, it views Prager’s idea of requiring people to swear to someone else’s faith to be … well … extreme. (Iran’s parliament has had a Jewish member, Morris Motamed, for years — though the Jewish population is about 25,000 out of 70 million). Various experts on Iran told me that such tailoring of oaths to religions goes back to early Islam. Indeed, Tehran University professor Hossein Bashiriyeh explained that “an oath taken with a holy book other than one’s own cannot be religiously and morally ‘binding.’ … In effect it will amount to not taking an oath at all.”

‘’

blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/01/the_truth_about.html

I am a regular listener to Dennis Pragers show and this label of rabid is a bit over the top. One only has to listen to his show to see how reasonable he tries to be on all subjects. Prager has written many articles in many national newspapers about his concern of Muslim incrementalism in our country. I agree with his concern even though he may have come across a little too sharp in this particular subject.

All that is asked is that you listen to his program for two weeks and you be the judge whether or not the label is justified.

 

[tskal]

The reason the whole business is a big deal (a Muslim US congressman who takes an oath on the Koran), is the fact that ,the world over, the practitioners of that religion are, truth be told, a direct threat to the safety and security of these United States. The fact that an American has converted to that religion and is now in a seat of political power and influence in the main legislative body in our country, well, that’s reeeaaalll
troubling. Why is it troubling? If any of us read about the founder of that religion, we can see him for what he was–a charlatan, warlord, and a pervert. Why don’t we stop beating around the bush and speak what we know to be the truth. I’m speaking to you Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic. There’s
a new generation of writers out there that can inform you of what you need to know about this Muhammad. They cite, time and again, the writings contained in the so called Hadith that paint a very clear picture of this man who claimed to be “the greatest of the Prophets”. Please…

I suggest, if you haven’t done so to this point, read something about the real Muhammad. Robert Spencer,
Serge Trifkovic, or even better, get a copy of the Life and Religion of Mohammed, the Prophet of Arabia a book written a hundred years ago by the priest JL Menezes ministering among Muslims in India.

I know that, for some of you, this is the height of un charitable. Yeah, I know, but, you know what Jesus said about truth and freedom.

 

[pira114]

Why is he horrible? And your second remark is a criticism of democracy as a whole. Quality votes presumably mean votes you agree with.

Criticizing democracy is not a bad thing, necessarily. It does have its flaws.

Edwin

I’ve already answered this.

But quality votes do not have to be ones I agree with. I’ve fought and now get paid to uphold laws I can’t stand. And I don’t complain at all. It’s what I do and what I’m about.

Quality votes would be informed and educated votes. I believe that anyone who is fairly educated and informed on both this man’s political stances and his religion, would have seen that he was not at all a good choice for our country.

So, I didn’t criticize democracy as a whole, I criticized the way it’s used today.

 

[Peterdiago]

I’ll criticize democracy as a whole (even though it’s off-topic). Democracy is a terrible idea - it is not how the universe is governed at all. Surely our government should reflect the government of God?

 

[KarenNC]

Quality votes would be informed and educated votes.

I’m curious. How would one judge whether someone was sufficiently educated and informed on issues to be allowed to vote?

 

[Peterdiago]

I’m curious. How would one judge whether someone was sufficiently educated and informed on issues to be allowed to vote?

That is very simple. Most of the people who have suggested some sort of “informed” criteria for the franchise have long and involved ideas (either that, or wooly ones). They can, however, be summed up as follows;

“Are you going to vote the way I do?”

Of course, what everyone forgets is that in all democracies and systems of government which use democratic elements (such as the US system) there are judgements on who may or may not vote. They generally begin by saying people must be above a certain age, and not committed of certain crimes, not be judged insane, and - in many places - be of a particular race or gender or religion.

Ultimately, every single democracy makes those judgements.

 

[manualman]

How to make Democracy require voters to be more informed. EASY!

1. Ban straight party tickets.
2. Eliminate paper ballots entirely in favor of voice recognition software and screens that show what the computer heard.
3. Ban bringing any sort of reference material into the poll with you.
4. No list of candidates. Voters must know and remember the names of those for whom they want to vote. Can’t remember his name? Too bad, you must not have cared enough to learn it.
5. Optional write-in (type-in)if the computer doesn’t recognize the name you state (preprogrammed for anyone with more than 2% support in polls)

So you walk into the poll, the computer prompts you for each office. You state the name you want to vote for. The computer displays it on the screen and asks you to verify that it is correct.

This eliminates anybody too apathetic to spend the time to learn who the candidates are.

 

[KarenNC]

Ultimately, every single democracy makes those judgements.

I don’t dispute that at all. The criteria also change over time (ours to admit non-landowners, non-whites, women, etc). Those are usually objective criteria to some extent, however.

I was simply curious as to how Pira suggested selecting the, was it 30%, of the population that would s/he would consider sufficiently informed and educated to vote, as s/he stated that our current system wasn’t sufficient to get “quality” votes.

 

[KarenNC]

This eliminates anybody too apathetic to spend the time to learn who the candidates are.

Actually all this would guarantee is that you know and be able to pronounce (or spell adequately) a candidate’s name and the race for which s/he was running, not that you have any real idea of his or her stand on the issues. I could know that Keith Ellison is running for Congress without knowing anything else about him. Plus, his name might simply be easier to remember for me than his opponent’s or sound more “dependable” or “more like me” (ethnically, racially, socioeconomically, etc). Nothing about his name would indicate that he was African American, or Muslim, with which political party he is affiliated, or how he is likely to vote. It would generally indicate that he was male, but names are not always a good indicator of gender.

Name recognition is already a strategy of the incredible flood of advertising political candidates put out and is aimed at precisely those people who don’t care to read further about issues. One of their goals is to vote for the familiar name. I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall reading about a candidate for a local office somewhere who wanted to change his name to “John Wayne” and was denied because it was deemed a political ploy?

 

[Peterdiago]

1. Ban straight party tickets.

And how is that done? What happens if - for example - I wish to vote for three candidates for the three offices who all happen to be Republican? I am not voting for them because they are Republicans per se, but rather because their policies are closer to mine than the others’.

1. Eliminate paper ballots entirely in favor of voice recognition software and screens that show what the computer heard.

You obviously have far greater faith in technology Voice recognition software can’t even get my credit card number right when I call the bank.

1. Ban bringing any sort of reference material into the poll with you.

So, this makes people more informed by banning information . . . a bold initiative.

1. No list of candidates. Voters must know and remember the names of those for whom they want to vote. Can’t remember his name? Too bad, you must not have cared enough to learn it.

Or you have a poor memory.

1. Optional write-in (type-in)if the computer doesn’t recognize the name you state (preprogrammed for anyone with more than 2% support in polls)

So, anyone supporting a candidate with minimal support is immediately disadvantaged?

So you walk into the poll, the computer prompts you for each office. You state the name you want to vote for. The computer displays it on the screen and asks you to verify that it is correct.

This eliminates anybody too apathetic to spend the time to learn who the candidates are.

It also eliminates anyone who cannot speak, anyone with an accent which is out of the ordinary. It also means that support for Kwaquamina Moquadishalinka may be not entirely as high as it could be.

What you are suggesting at this point is a system which will remove the fundamental principle of democracy - that representation is granted regardless of intelligence or information; it is given to all those within the body politic who have not demonstrated a complete disregard for the rules of the body politic.

The vote of a political science professor and the vote of a redneck who doesn’t even know where Washington is on a map count the same in a democracy or a democratic proceedure. That is the strength of it - and also its weakness. Your policy would result in people voting for the only name they could remember - the afore-mentioned redneck might completely ignore all political adverts and campaigning and would never check the issues.

And if he heard once that a famous person were standing, he may very well remember that name and just say it.

Your policy to produce a more informed electorate begins by removing information from them - this is not how to make someone more informed.

 

[Peterdiago]

I was simply curious as to how Pira suggested selecting the, was it 30%, of the population that would s/he would consider sufficiently informed and educated to vote, as s/he stated that our current system wasn’t sufficient to get “quality” votes.

My post was designed to suggest, sarcastically at least, that Pira’s policy would be to hold a ballot to see who would vote for her party and then allow those people to vote.

As Jeremy Hardy once joked, “If people are going to be this irresponsible with their vote, we need to consider if we can really give it to them.”

 

[Contarini]

How to make Democracy require voters to be more informed. EASY!

1. Ban straight party tickets.
2. Eliminate paper ballots entirely in favor of voice recognition software and screens that show what the computer heard.
3. Ban bringing any sort of reference material into the poll with you.
4. No list of candidates. Voters must know and remember the names of those for whom they want to vote. Can’t remember his name? Too bad, you must not have cared enough to learn it.
5. Optional write-in (type-in)if the computer doesn’t recognize the name you state (preprogrammed for anyone with more than 2% support in polls)

So you walk into the poll, the computer prompts you for each office. You state the name you want to vote for. The computer displays it on the screen and asks you to verify that it is correct.

This eliminates anybody too apathetic to spend the time to learn who the candidates are.

I don’t like the idea of eliminating paper–it makes cheating too easy. And I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “banning straight party tickets.” Also, having read Peterdiago’s and Karen’s objections, I think there’s something to the point that candidates with unusual names would suffer and that your system would actually favor well-known candidates rather than providing for more diversity. But I like where you’re going with this basically–the current system really just amounts to choice between two parties rather than among individual candidates, at least much of the time.

Myself, I prefer the original method of indirect elections, and I think that the “progressive” changes that have made the process more democratic (direct election of senators and the reduction of the electoral college to a formality) were bad. But then I’m a British citizen and a student of the 16th century. I’m a fan of city-state republics myself.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My knowledge is limited, but maybe a good Muslim could offer more background here.

On the topic of “freedom of religion” I understand that in India (I think India) the Muslims let the Hindus go on and do their worship. Christians did not extend such freedom to the Hindus.

India is majority Hindu, though I believe it also has more Muslims than any other country in the world. The Muslim invaders (in the Middle Ages) actually treated the Hindus brutally, but some later rulers such as Akbar were very tolerant (Akbar was considered dubiously Islamic by many, in part for this reason). The British actually tolerated Hinduism, though once the government took over from the East India Company (early 19th century I believe, or maybe late 18th) they did encourage Christian missionaries and they clamped down on certain traditional customs (such as the burning of widows and temple prostitution). Call them intolerant if you want to. . . .

By and large, I think Muslims and Christians have similar records for tolerance until modern times, when Western/Christian countries have become much more tolerant. Arguably medieval Christians were a bit worse than Muslims (Christianity lacked an official rule concerning tolerance, which the Muslims did have), but as far as I can tell the basic procedure was similar (don’t ban the other religion outright, but put it under severe disabilities).

Edwin

 

[KarenNC]

India is majority Hindu, though I believe it also has more Muslims than any other country in the world.

In terms of sheer numbers, Indonesia has more but is India is second.

factbook.net/muslim_pop.php

 

[manualman]

Banning straight party votes doesn’t mean you can’t vote for everyone in the same party. It just means you can’t punch ONE box and have it apply to every contested office. It would reduce the ability of propagandists to control people’s behavior via idiot-proof instructions.

Right now, today, you need a certain number of names on a petition to get your name on a paper ballot. My 2% rule for preprogramming of the computer would be no more burdensome (and perhaps less) than the petition system now in use in most places.

Electronic means do not preclude paper record. Upon voter final review, the machine could simply produce a printout which would then later be optically scanned and the tally compared to the digital results for accuracy checks.

Your use of the term “name recognition” misses the fact that voters would NOT be presented with any names to be recognized. This would greatly REDUCE the effectiveness of ‘name recognition’ campaign methods compared to today where an ignorant voter might simply check the box whom he had heard of vaguely.

Perhaps those with complicated names would be disadvantaged slightly. Big deal. I have a 5 syllable name myself and see it as a lesser problem than today’s system.

My proposal does not deny anyone any information. It merely requires that they demonstrate committment to learning the issues and cadidates BEFORE they show up at the poll. It is fairer than any other system I have heard of that attempts to create a democratic process open to anyone who has put thought into their vote, but discourages ignorant voting. Other systems have been tried (land ownership, literacy tests, men only (!?!), whites only (!!), etc. All of them were inherently unjust in that they denied certain qualified intelligent and knowledgeable citizens the right to vote. Mine arguable harms an illiterate mute, but this seems a bit like splitting hairs compared to the flaws of past systems.

I forget which founding father worried that (to paraphrase) “democracy will only work until the masses realize that they can vote to give themselves money.” That is precisely what is wrong with our democracy today and we need to think of SOMETHING to help fix it. Mine may not be the best idea, but its the best I’ve come up with that reduces the problem without undue discrimination. And I DO think it better than the English system of indirect election (with the notable exception of the electoral college, which is more about checks and balances on big states than true indirect elections)

 

[Peterdiago]

Banning straight party votes doesn’t mean you can’t vote for everyone in the same party. It just means you can’t punch ONE box and have it apply to every contested office. It would reduce the ability of propagandists to control people’s behavior via idiot-proof instructions.

And it would also, for example, render people unable to vote totally for a single party because they feel that politics should be based on parties. They would have to remember names.

What you are suggesting is a system where people have to determine who they vote for based on YOUR criteria. You are resticting how they form their decision. This is not democratic.

If someone wishes to vote based on the fact that the person is a Democrat, then they can. If they wish to vote based on the fact they are black, white, Catholic, Hindu, disabled, a Vietnam Vet, or have a name which does not contain the letter “E” they can. If they want to decide to vote on whomever their pen happens to land on as they randomly swing it around, that is okay too.

That is democracy - people have one vote which is free. All those who are members of the body politic in good standing can vote. And no-one can tell them which way to vote, or how to decide which way to vote.

Your system would not restrict who voted, nor would it encourage people to vote for a particular candidate - but it would mean that there was only a single process for making the choice; namely, “Who do I remember as being best for me?”

Not only would your system fail to elect good men (were I a candidate, I think I would try to get involved in some scandal or other newsworthy event which would give me a lot of “TV time” and hence get my name so-well known people would just slap it up there) but it would also deny a large number of people the option of chosing their candidate based on the criteria they wish to use.

That is not democracy or democratic. I have little love for either system, but I’m not about to let you suggest something that would destroy them while claiming it still is them.

You sound surprisingly Democratic