Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

"I presume that your referring primarily to the use of the term jihad in the Quran....etc. etc."I suppose, but Islam is far more violent and over-reactive than Christianity. For example, turn on the news and watch as our ambassador gets violently killed over a movie trailer. Or Yahoo! search about how South Park made fun of Mohammad and Muslims were given permission to kill the writers of South Park if they met any. Christians never killed ambassadors because that country made a movie trailer making fun of Jesus. Nor did they threaten to kill the writers of South Park when they made fun of Jesus many times. So yes, I find that Islam is inherently violent."Moreover, you missed my primary point in bringing up the violence within Christianity and by Christianity towards others which is that very undemocratic practices have co-existed with Christianity and been justified in the name of Christianity by those who considered themselves to be Christians."I don't think violence in itself makes a country "undemocratic". So just because there has been violence associated with Christianity doesn't make them "undemocratic". Second of all, my point was it was non-Christians persecuting true Christians. Because it was Church of England (a bunch of popes trying to get rich and powerful) persecuting Pilgrims (actual believers) I don't think the same principles apply. And I doubt that these corrupted religious leaders actually considered themselves to be Christian, so no; it was non-Christians using the name of Christianity to persecute actual Christians."Furthermore, literal and conservative interpretations of Christian doctrine deny equal freedoms to people based upon race (slavery), gender (rights of women), and sexual orientation (rights of homosexuals); these principles are in direct contradiction to the principles of a democratic society."First of all, there is no where in the New Testament that states slavery is OK. Second, even the slavery mention in the Old Testament stated you had to free the slave after seven years of work giving him provision and funds necessary to make it on his own. Third, the "rights of women" argument is disputable. For example, some people (even atheists) argue that abortion kills children. And lastly, I argue that homosexuality is immoral, therefore shouldn't be a right. After all, laws against murder hinder someone's right to kill someone. As ridiculous as that example was, I hope you see my point in that you need a standard by which to back morality. "You state that “not once is government affairs mixed in with Christianity (with the exception to obey your government)” which is flagrantly false. Christianity has a strong presence in U.S. government"LOL, no silly. I don't mean that Christianity isn't mixed with government affairs, I mean that government affairs aren't mixed with Christianity. For example, the Bible doesn't give any instructions on how to run a country allowing man to set up a country any way he wants. The Bible doesn't tell you how to run a country, that's mans job. Our Founding Fathers set this up this country using Christian principals in order to maximize freedom. After all, you want to see how well a atheistic rooted country works? Go to Russia and see how well they have been doing.