Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (84795)	9/16/2008 11:04:46 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541503

Let Muslims do likewise. Many of them do a good deal more than we do. Saddam for example (well, not anymore). Mubarak and Assad for other examples. In fact, under Bush, we've adopted a lot of these unsavory characters approaches to dealing with the problem, like suspending our due process, using torture, etc. I'm still left with the impression that you would not vote for ANY Muslim running for high office because you lump them all in one basket. I would evaluate any individual on what I can of their own merits, just the same as I would if a Jew, Mormon, Catholic, or whatever were running. In America, most of us belief in the separation of church and state, so the private religious beliefs of anyone running for office should not be a factor, UNLESS said individual seems to indicate that they think otherwise. That is what scares me. Currently in the USA, the single group that is the most obvious about pushing that approach are the Evangelical Christians (i.e. Palin) who have made no bones about the fact that they would like to weaken the current separation of church and state because they find it "hostile" to their religion. In their view, "hostile" is anything that restricts their practice of religion in public spheres (government, schools, business, etc). Sorry, religion in the USA is private, not public.