Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

I've seen estimates between 30 and 60% in western countries. I have not heard of that statistic before; can you recall a source at all? Also, could you clarify exactly what that is referring to? I am unclear if the % is the number of western countries with Sharia law, the number of those supporting its implementation, etc. [Radicalism] must be greater in Islamic countries, as religious genocide and ideological terrorism is still a current reality in the Middle East, and as anyone verbally criticizing Islam in public can be expected to be threatened with violence. [...] These things are [...] next to non-existent in Christian countries.This reflects more strongly upon the instability of Islamic nations rather than upon the innate character of the religion itself. If nations that were predominantly Islamic had the benefit of a more stable political development with less exterior intervention, then I think we would see a very different manifestation of the faith. That being said, I think you do have a point that currently Islam has a stronger and extreme brand of radicalism. That proclivity aside though it seems that radicalism is not necessarily the norm, and if that is the case then it strikes me as odd to assume radicalism before moderation in a Muslim candidate. The non-desirous trait should be extremism rather than being Muslim, and to conflate the two does seem prejudicial to me. The Western world got over that kind of brutal and primitive Christian theology hundreds of years ago. […] While it might seem an extreme and radical way to run a government to us in the civilized world, it’s actually quite normal and every-day for Islam. Firstly, I think that not all Islamic nations are quite as extreme and pro-Sharia across the board as you portray them to be, although Middle-Eastern affairs are not exactly my strongest suit. I think there is more variation, but letting that argument stand I think that the Western world has benefited from greater political stability and power, with comparatively less external intervention. The West can wage wars (military, economic, etc.) on a scale that Middle-Eastern nations cannot, which rather negates the need for reactionary social dynamics and politics. Perhaps moderation is privilege not so much of the civilized but of the powerful, and extremism is the consequence of subordination and exploitation.I suppose that is a bit tangential though to your point, which was that the current condition of Islam as manifested in the nation-state (however it came about) is what it is and should be evaluated as a concern based upon that reality alone. Correct me if I am wrong. I think that that is valid grounds for general concern over the influence of Islam and the spread/integration of Sharia Law, however it still does not make sense to me to assume that implementing Sharia law would be on the agenda of a political candidate simply because they are Muslim. To state in general that one would not be okay with a Mulsim president indicates a certain level of assumption that is not, in my opinion, warranted even by the reality of a general national/regional trend towards a pro-Sharia stance. All In all I would much rather be fighting for abortion or gay marriage rights by voting in a Christian nation, than be fighting for my life and liberty with physical violence in an Islamic nation, and that's why I despise Islamic nations over Christian ones. I despise both, but I don't even need to consider which I would rather live in. Yes, well argued and I rather see your point so consider that particular point conceded. I think it is fair to say you have persuaded me over to viewing an Islamic state as more of a threat to freedom than a Christian one. To reiterate my sticking point however, why does this mean one would not support a presidential candidate solely because of their religion absent any knowledge of how they view their faith and its relation to the law?