The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Should a Muslim be able to hold office?

Here is a question I am struggling with.
I am hearing a lot of Christians saying that in the USA no Muslim should be allowed to hold political office.
Yet, is this in keeping with the constitution of the United States?

In case you don't know, there is a movement in the USA that believes Christians should not be allowed to hold office. I believe Senator Bernie Sanders would support the later.


What do you think about this issue?
Tom

Here is the link to a video of a recent incident where Bernie Sanders clearly expresses his anti-christian views. In the case of the USA, I have wondered to what extent "the founding fathers' " ideals of all sorts of freedoms were not the seed for the eventual anti-christian actions that we see today in the US. Is it possible, simply due to the depravity of man, to have within a democratic system a constitution that guarentees that Christians should always hold power? Democracy means the majority rules and the majority can have the same attitude as Mr. Sanders, who, seems to openly hate Christians. Funny enough, hating Christians is not regarded as a hate crime.......... or actually, it should not surprise us!!!

Johan
I am aware that hating Christians is not a crime in Canada or the US. In fact one of the things I do not want is censorship, meaning that people are not allowed to share their views on matters.
As much as what Sanders was wrong in his diatribe against Christianity, I think he has the right to say what he did. However, if I understand the original meaning behind “Separation of Church and State”, it was meant to protect both institutions. In England for example, there was a state Church that made it illegal to practice any religion outside of the official state religion; otherwise known as 'The Church of England. If memory serves me correct, John Bunyan was sent to prison for heading a nonconformist Church; where he eventually wrote the classic, ‘Pilgrim’s Progress”.
In this day and age however, the original meaning of “Separation of Church and State” has been conveniently misinterpreted to accommodate the changing world view of our society. In years past although North America was never truly “Christian”, it never the less both countries were founded on Christian principles; that when used properly helped create a civilized society. Also, I read somewhere, that Calvin’s Geneva became a model for America.
I personally as a Christian have been told by a non-Christian that I as a Christian are dangerous and that Christianity should be illegal. The context of the statement against me and Christianity was when much like the man in the Bernie Sanders video, who defended the Christian College. I defended the right of Trinity Western University to uphold their constitution to act in a biblical manner while they are attending the university. The majority of the people I encountered believed that the university had no right to push their morals on their students and staff.
Tom

Hi Tom,

I recently had a visitor from Trinity Western University here!

I made some changes to my post because it is not only in the US and Canada where Christians are hated.

Cheers

Johan
I am not a big fan of Trinity Western University, but their constitution is in keeping with Scripture in terms of Biblical morals. In fact, the main reason I stood up for them was because for them to compromise their constitution; they could no longer should call themselves a "Christian university". It sure was not a popular thing to do.
Tom

1. Yes, the USA is a democracy, but the political foundation is that of a Republic.

2. The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively..." In short, the government cannot create nor regulate any particular religion. Of course, if one considers "Humanism" to be a religion, then being faithful to that amendment would be near impossible.

3. I believe the founders of the USA would not allow a Muslim to hold office. The Second Amendment guarantees the inalienable right of all citizens to keep/possess and bear/use arms. The original intent of the citizenry to have arms was both for personal defense, attack by foreign enemies AND for defense against tyranny of the country's own government. So, what does have to do with allowing Muslims to occupy offices in the government? Islam, according to its own holy book, the Koran, states in many places that those who do not embrace and practice the Muslim religion are to be punished and even killed. Since Sharia Law is antithetical to the laws and values of the Constitution, the forcing it (religion/political system) upon the people with the threat of death upon failure to conform, this would constitute a direct attack upon the foundational principles of the country. Thus, Islam being a inherently violent religion, although nominal Muslims do not advocate violence despite what the Koran teaches, must be considered an enemy of the State and those who embrace that religion should not be given authority in the government. As long as individual Muslims do not wage war against the State, they should be afforded the freedom to practice their religion, which falls within the freedom stated in the First Amendment. Common Sense (a misnomer due to the fact that it is very uncommon to find in our day) would dictate that anyone who hates the USA and what it stands for should not be allowed a position to be held by that person who would allow the overthrow of the government.

4. Bernie Sanders is a Communist. He has openly supported many Communist regimes and organizations. It is no wonder, at least to me, that the Democratic Party allowed him to run under their banner since the more radical Leftists within that Party are Socialists and have sympathies with the tenets of Communism, which Socialism carried through to its logical end is the result.

Tom, I know very little about TWU. Actually, I was just playing host to the visitor. Someone else invited him.

All depends on whether they uphold Shria Law, if they do, no way to hold office, as they would place Islam laws above our own!

A Muslim by definition upholds Shariah. Shariah is regarded in Islam as divinely given and therefore claims supremacy over all other "man-made" laws, including the Constitution.

Therefore the answer is no. Never. Whether there are Muslims in office has no bearing on this question. The answer is an unequivocal "No!".

Shariah should be outlawed at the federal level. Any state that understands the issues is also obligated to outlaw Shariah. Let the Muslims worship, sans Shariah. If they do not like this, the door is always open.

A good test for the Permanent Residence or Naturalization interview is to ask: What would you do if your wife or children decided to leave Islam and become a Buddhist/Christian/Hindu/atheist, etc. Another: What would you do if you met a cartoonist who caricatured the "Prophet" Muhammad?

Alas, all things being equal, this will never be. The Lord has blinded us for continually provoking Him to wrath.

The town where I grew up and where Jonathan Edwards was born, South Windsor, Connecticut has a muslim mayor. ??? I think it is terrible.

But does that mean they should not be able to hold office if that is what the people want according to the US system?
That is the dilemma that I see. I believe all Muslims want Sharia Law. The Western ones want to do it by peaceful stealth; where they gradually are able to do that by getting into office. Whereas, the more violent ones, such as ISIL do not care how it is obtained. They will even kill fellow Muslims to try to do it.

Just had a thought, given the fact that all Muslim's believe Allah is the one true God. Given what Bernie Sanders said about Christianity; what would he say about Islam? He is probably ignorant of that fact anyway.
Anyone hear about the recent Bill that was passed in Canada?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vote-1.4038016

Tom

Pilgrim
Just noticed you're reply. Very helpful and informative and the kind of response that I was hoping for. Now, seeing how this is the case and seeing what is happening in the US how can this be enforced?
Tom

What SHOULD BE and what CAN BE are two different things. If a Muslim were to run for POTUS, and if that person were to get the needed electoral votes, then that person would occupy the high office of the US. It is not likely that such a scenario would happen any time soon, although I would be very foolish to try and second guess God. Leaders of countries can be raised up and taken down in a matter of moments, so it is certainly possible this could happen in the USA. It is more likely, however, that America will become just another European clone, i.e., become Socialist or worse. The situation is most surely indicative of that given the education system is run by Leftists and the curricula is Leftist, especially in the Universities. Immorality is the norm, vulgarity is used more and more for open expression of hedonism, etc. etc... But, there is no denying that Muslims are intent on destroying the US and taking over the world once again. The advantage the US has is its armed citizenry, unlike Europe and Australia which have all but totally disarmed its citizens and thus are "easy pickins" by any who would launch any type of takeover.

As mentioned before, there are Muslims who already hold political offices in the US, albeit of lower levels. But Obama had several Muslims in he appointed to powerful offices in his regime. If another radical Leftist such as Obama is elected to the POTUS, doubtless more Muslims will have serious power and civil war would be a real possibility. It would not be reasonable, however, that Islam would succeed here in a total talkover. There is just too much "fire power" among those who love and who would defend the country at all cost.

I think though that not all Muslims actually want to be under Shria Law, as there are some nations under that Law, while many others are under a desular government, so it would depend if they accepted secular law as the basis to govern or not!