Anyone who's been paying even the remotest attention knows that Obama is a Christian since he was blasted for remarks made by the pastor of his now former church but what of it?

Why is it important that Obama is not a Muslim? We live in a free country and freedom of religion is enshrined in the bill of rights. What's more the Constitution states that there should be "no religious test" for holding office. Why then is this such a big deal?

Is Obama pledging to try to make discriminatory laws against certain groups because of what his faith teaches? No.

Is he trying to force us to pray in school? No.

Is he trying to replace established scientific theory with a creation myth? No.

Religion should be a private matter and yet now it seems that there is an unwritten law that any candidate running for president has to proclaim their Christian faith to have a shot at winning. In other words what amounts to a de-facto religious test for office.

The questions we should be asking is what are the candidates qualifications and where do they stand on issues important to us. Their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Exactly.I wouldn't give a crap if he was an atheist as long as he's trying to move this country in a direction opposite of the one that we've been headed to in the last 8 years.Geez.

You are absolutely right: religion should be a non-issue. Unfortunately, for Muslims there can be no separation of Faith from State - unlike other religions, Islam is not accommodating of alternative beliefs - i.e., you are with us, or you are against us.

It is bad enough dealing with fundamentalist Christian cults like Scientologists and Mormons. However, because Islam is totally incompatible with both democracy and the concept of freedom of religion, it should actually be reclassified, not as a Religion, but like Communism, as a potentially dangerous and treasonous political association.

Quijote wrote the following post at 07/03/2008 10:02 AM:

You are absolutely right: religion should be a non-issue. Unfortunately, for Muslims there can be no separation of Faith from State - unlike other religions, Islam is not accommodating of alternative beliefs - i.e., you are with us, or you are against us.

Really? That must be news to the people of Egypt, Turkey and (under Saddam) Iraq. I am not a Muslim but as I understand it Islam is tolerant of other "people of the book" such as Christians and Jews.

Please show me the evidence that supports your claim that Islam is not like other religions.

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting Islam with. I married a Muslim, and have at no time been compelled to convert by her or any member of her family, and have been embraced by them to boot. How does that jive with "you are with us, or you are against us?"

Just as there are Christians that aren't Evangelical or particularly militant about their faith, there are plenty of Muslims in the world that are happy to live and let live. Islam isn't even a proselytizing faith, unlike Christianity.

And to reiterate, the point should not be "he's not a Muslim, he's a Christian", it should be "why does it matter?" Separation of church and state and all, someone's faith has no bearing on their ability to perform in government.

Tolerant, in Islam, means to allow them to practice their religion without actually killing them (unlike Hindus and Budhists, who are fair game). I does not mean they are not descriminated against actively, nor are members of such groups allowed to seek converts under Islamic law.

I would no more vote for Obama if he were indeed a Mohammadan than I would vote for a Mormon like Mitt Romey. Those belief systems are too antithetical with my own to ever support a practicing member of either for supreme executive office.

Conversely, I also realize that my own views about religion make me unelectable to even the lowliest political office, despite a BA in Poli Sci and a JD.

Let's talk about what we're really talking about here. People are persistently spreading the rumors about Obama being Muslim because ever since 9/11, Arabs and Muslims have been the one group of people against whom Americans can more or less openly express racism and bigotry without consequences. When the likes of Ann Coulter uses the word "raghead" at the CPAC convention and gets invited back to speak the following year, you know that hateful epithets against Muslims are acceptable. If she'd used the "N-word," even CPAC would have had to disown her remarks. So, since they can't use the "N-word" (as Lee Atwater lamented), the inheritors of his famous "southern strategy" have to use the M-word. That's all that's really going on here.

Exactly right Tyrannasaura,

The "rumors" of Obama's religion are a play to religious bigotry and intolerance.

Tyrannasaura hit the nail on the head.

I suppose I thought this was so obvious it didn't need to be mentioned, but it's vindicating to see it in print.

The difficulties experienced by the people in your three examples prove my point exactly.

Obviously we read the news differently. Not killing on sight is not the same as tolerance and acceptance.

It is gratifying to read about your personal experience, but it is not the norm. There are multiple reported cases of Muslim females being seriously harmed as a consequence of consorting with the infidel. You know this.

I agree that Christianity, through the good auspices of the Jesuits and their ilk, made a good attempt to bring the world under their aegis. But that was then. Islam doesn't need to proselytise - it bans anyone who doen't agree with it, and kills its apostates.

We don't have 800 years to wait for Islam to join the civilized world.

So, to reiterate, the point is not whether or not Obama is a Christian, but that Islam is not a religion, and that it must not be allowed to infiltrate democratic government.

Ok, time to be widely politically incorrect. I'm going to get in so many people's crosshairs today....I will certainly agree there are many muslims who are decent people, who are happy to live alongside other people of different faiths. However, Islam does have more incompatibility problems than other faiths I would say. Much of it probably being because of the historical outcome of the middle east. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Islam has a permanent problem with this. For example, American muslims are much more moderate than in many other places, and often have very western ideas when it comes to issues such as seperation of church and state. Unfortuantly, although I give Islam all due credit for being a good source of advancement, especially in math and the arts in it's early history, the middle east itself pretty much became stuck somewhere in the 1300's (approximately). The west had the reformation, the enlightenment, the modern idea of seperation of church and state came about, etc. The middle east got the Ottomans, stagnation and the ideas of sharia law. Unfortuantly, it does appear that much of this is still an influencial force within the Islamic faith.

Right. Not that you would want my endorsement...

Incidentally, my observation is European, albeit my perspective is Canadian.

Of course Obama isn't Muslim, and the rumours are just "Good Old Boy" flamethrowing.

But it was a two part discussion: what if he was?!

So because some Muslims think women are inferior, or that their faith is the one true faith, or that violence is acceptable against people who don't agree with them - all Muslims believe these things? Besides, many Christians believe women are inferior to men. And that their faith is the one true faith. And that their use of violence is God's will. That doesn't mean I think all Christians are backwards crazies.