The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Would You Ever Accept A Muslim UK Prime Minister?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by uob
As long as they acted in a secular manner.


This. I don't care what religion they are, if they bring it into politics I'm not interested.
Original post by HumanSupremacist
Would you ever accept a Muslim UK Prime Minister?
Similarly, would you ever accept a radical Christian UK Prime Minister?
(Emphasis on the radical for the latter PM.)
Thoughts?
P.S. Note that this Muslim PM could be of any ethnicity.

Yes, as long as his/her private beliefs didn't intrude into public affairs.
NO. (That is, no to a strongly religious prime minister of any belief system).

Original post by TritonSails
Depends on whether or not their policies reflect that faith. And, if so, in what ways. In itself I don't think religion is a positive or negative attribute in a leader.


In principle I agree with you, but I think that if you genuinely believe in God, and follow your religion faithfully as opposed to simply culturally, there is no way it will not impact your policies.

I was brought up religious (I'm an atheist), and have been to several alpha courses and conversion meetings as a matter of pure interest, and the most common phrase I have heard is "I thought if this is true it is the most important thing in the world". I hear this a lot. I have also heard extremely tolerant Christan panels, when pushed, admit that they think missionaries are a good thing because "these tribes are happy in life, but that doesn't mean they will be happy in death". These are only a few examples.

The very nature of religion makes it black and white - if there is a God there is an objective morality, a set of rules to follow and how could that not impact everything you do? However, viewed from the outside religion is simply a character trait, and it's easy to mistake it for something benign that can be simply pushed to the side. From the inside it's an entirely different world view.

I have nothing against religious people, but I genuinely believe that the only way to have a tolerant and impartial government is for the majority, and most importantly the prime minister, to either be only mildly religious (can you be that?), willing to go against their own strong belief system (which is dodgy in itself), agnostic or Atheist. The great abrahamic religions are, in their very nature, not tolerant.

As I said, I have nothing against religious people - I think religion does a lot of good. However it is naive to think that a strongly religious leader is good for a society that claims to be tolerant. Anyone feel free to debate any of these points :smile:
Original post by HumanSupremacist
But, surely, if somebody really truly believed in something, that faith and whatnot would affect every aspect of their lives? How exactly could a world leader separate their faith from their politics and whatnot unless they were only half-hearted in their belief in the first place?


I don't think it's necessary for a politician to separate their religious beliefs and their politics; after all, the two are just different forms of opinion and conviction. If I agree with what they stand for politically, I'll vote for them, and if I don't, then I won't. I couldn't care less whether or not their political opinions are inspired by their religion: if they're good policies, why should it matter?
Original post by HumanSupremacist
Would you ever accept a Muslim UK Prime Minister?

Similarly, would you ever accept a radical Christian UK Prime Minister?

(Emphasis on the radical for the latter PM.)

Thoughts?

P.S.
Note that this Muslim PM could be of any ethnicity.


Providing their religion didn't interfere with their politics then sure. Latter one no because it would. I wouldn't want a radical of any religion in power.
Original post by MAINE.
Willing to bet that the UK will never ever have a PM who isnt Christian or secular.


Let's hope.
Original post by HumanSupremacist
But, surely, if somebody really truly believed in something, that faith and whatnot would affect every aspect of their lives? How exactly could a world leader separate their faith from their politics and whatnot unless they were only half-hearted in their belief in the first place?


It's possible to believe in something but respect that others don't. I mean an example would be believing in no sex before marriage, you can accept that for you that's the way to go but recognize other's don't have that belief and respect them by not shoving it down their throats. I don't mind anyone of any religion providing they're not to evangelise me.
Reply 27
Avatar for Enavor
Enavor
11
Original post by HumanSupremacist
Would you ever accept a Muslim UK Prime Minister?

Similarly, would you ever accept a radical Christian UK Prime Minister?

(Emphasis on the radical for the latter PM.)

Thoughts?

P.S.
Note that this Muslim PM could be of any ethnicity.


As a democrat, if the people voted for such a leader then I would have to respect the outcome.

Plus, this hypothetical Muslim prime minister would still have to follow UK / EU law which means:

No Apostasy,
No Death Penalty,
Universal rights for women,
etc...

There isn't a problem =)

Luke.
Original post by HumanSupremacist
But, surely, if somebody really truly believed in something, that faith and whatnot would affect every aspect of their lives? How exactly could a world leader separate their faith from their politics and whatnot unless they were only half-hearted in their belief in the first place?


Blair the Catholic, Thatcher the Methodist, Disraeli the Jew, the list goes on and on...

Are any of these people known for their faith over their convictions?
As long as they don't let it impact on their policy decisions. I mean Cameron is a Christian, yet some Christians dislikes his pushing of the gay marriage legislation. I hardly think Cameron has been biased towards the Church of England in any policies.

I mean even if a Muslim became PM and wanted to create discriminatory policies, you have to remember what the rest of their cabinet is formed of. If a Muslim MP rose the ranks and became PM in 10 years, they'd be in a tiny minority being a Muslim, it would be highly unlikely that any of their cabinet would also be Muslim, maybe one or two, but that's it. So they'd have no ability to push forward legislation bias towards Muslims anyway as it would be opposed by both parties and the likes of home secretary, education minister etc, are going to be familiar faces.
Reply 30
Avatar for nespix
nespix
OP I don't understand why the comparison you're making is against a 'radical Christian'...that would be going by the generalised assumption that all Muslims are radical, which they're not. Also I don't see why religion should be relevant. As long as it doesn't mix with with politics to the extent it's a problem, there shouldn't be any discrimination regardless of what their faith is.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 31
Avatar for Plainview
Plainview
2
Whatever faith the prime minister is makes no difference to me. As long as (s)he does not do anything to promote his faith.
I feel it would all depend on their party's policies and keeping their duties as a prime minister separate from their private beliefs.
Original post by Mathaddict
Are you trying to equate Muslim to "radical Christian"? :lolwut: Just so you know, not all Muslims are fanatic clerics looking to impose their beliefs on others.


No.

Did I explicitly state that? Clearly not. I am well aware that extremist Muslims are not Muslims in general, just like I am well aware that the Fred Phelpses of the world do not represent Christians in general.

Please do not put words into my mouth. :smile:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by nespix
OP I don't understand why the comparison you're making is against a 'radical Christian'...that would be going by the generalised assumption that all Muslims are radical, which they're not. Also I don't see why religion should be relevant. As long as it doesn't mix with with politics to the extent it's a problem, there shouldn't be any discrimination regardless of what their faith is.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I am not making a comparison. Where have I made a comparison?

People need to stop erroneously inferring things that are not there. :smile:
Reply 35
Avatar for Ambulare
Ambulare
1
It depends. Although just because i'd accept them both it doesn't mean i'd vote for either of them.
Reply 36
Avatar for Bookie123
Bookie123
Original post by Mangaka
No to a Muslim and no to a Christian. I personally don't want anymore religious Prime Minsters... But we all know that aint happening soon.



Why is that?

Surely, someone that was religious would be much better, if they were properly religious, they would have certain morals that they feel they have to keep and thus would be a better PM surely. They wouldn't lie, or cheat people, they would aim to sort out all the poverty and what not, they wouldn't start wars with other countries nor invade them for oil...etc. They would be honest and just...surely. So why not a religious person? an atheist won't have the fear of God and can actually just do whatever they like..ofc not every atheist is corrupt, but some are and they have their own subjective morality where as religion gives the fear of God and thus an objective morality which says not to do these things.

Why is atheist PM better? Out of curiosity :smile:
Reply 37
Avatar for pjm600
pjm600
18
I would prefer non religious to either. I would prefer modern muslim to radical christian. Radical christian and radical muslim have the same level of preference.
Reply 38
Avatar for Bookie123
Bookie123
Original post by tjf8
Whatever faith the prime minister is makes no difference to me. As long as (s)he does not do anything to promote his faith.



What if it were the things of his faith that were morally acceptable in this society? For example, lots of religions are for feeding the poor, and everyone should be giving and what not and eradicating interest to increase the wealth of the people within the society. If he only tried to impose the good parts of his religion that benefited society, but he ( OR SHE....! ) didn't try and convert anyone or punish people for not being of the same religion, or didn't impose things like kill homos...would you still be against it? Because surely any PM would know not to impose those things. It's just not sensible in this society, they would only want to propose good.
It wouldn't happen suddenly; there would be a long build-up, first they would stand for election as party leader, then a long period in opposition (presumably), then a general election - so everyone would get used to them, their views and policies would be thoroughly explored and so would their faith. Against that background, it's implausible they would be elected unless they were pretty widely accepted and considered acceptable, so the issue of their religion would also by that time have been accepted.

I say all this because the simple way OP puts the question makes it sound totally hypothetical but it also opens the door to simplistic, abusive posts denigrating Islam, which presumably was OPs intention all along, as we've seen from his many similar posts.

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you