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

however not all of Islam is defined by Sharia law advocates and not all Muslims would advocate its integration with governance (particularly where there is a strong history of separation of church and state).Not all, no. I've seen estimates between 30 and 60% in western countries. Still worrisome. It makes no more sense to me to assume a Muslim to be a radical extremist than to assume a Christian to be a radical extremist, and to make that assumption is indicative to me of an underlying prejudice because it assumes radicalism as the norm absent any reason to do so.If I bump into a Muslim on the street, of course I don't run screaming in the other direction. Prejudice would imply that I judge all Muslims to be extremists before I even meet them. That's not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is observing the greater abundance of extremism that currently exists (or, at least, is acted upon) in the Middle East. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never said radicalism is the norm; what I am trying to imply is that it 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 - or find themselves victims of it. These things, to me, indicate radical religious extremism. These things are prevalent in Muslim countries, and next to non-existent in Christian countries. So it's not a prejudice so much as an observation of facts. I think your argument that people are not as equally concerned about Christians implementing a national church as they are about Muslims implementing their faith into law to be flawed. Firstly, your comparison is of general Christian religious integration versus an extreme form of Islamic religious integration (i.e. Sharia law);I could make that comparison, but I would need to be comparing a kind of regime that died out hundreds of years ago in Christian countries to the regime that is currently prevalent in most Muslim (and forced into some western) countries. And while I agree that this would make the Sharia Law look better, it would be a pointless comparison, because the Western world got over that kind of brutal and primitive Christian theology hundreds of years ago. Also while I think Sharia Law is extreme in the sense that is callously denies rights to human beings for no reason, I don't think it's an extreme form if Islamic religious integration into the legal system if only because its so prevalent. Extremism kind of implies a radical minority, while brutal Islamic law is commonplace is the majority of Muslim countries. So 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. Again, look at a country with an official established Christian Church: Britain. Look at any Muslim country where Islam calls the shots: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Libya, Sudan, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Iran... which would you rather live in? Actually that should be a very easy question for you specifically to answer, seeing as how you could easily be publicly executed for your gender status in some of the Muslim countries I just listed. Furthermore, I think that a large part of why many westerners do not fear a Christian state as much as they do an Islamic state if quite simply because the majority of them are Christian.I agree. However, I'm a non-Christian and I oppose Islamic politics more than I oppose Christian politics for a reason that kind of ties into your last point:I must say that as a non-Christian I find the idea of a Christian state as worrisome and undemocratic as an Islamic one. A lot of terrible and undemocratic things have been committed by Christian nations, and a considerable number of rights and freedoms have been denied in the name of the Christian faith.Yes. In Christian nations, like the US, we have to fight against radical reactionary Christian republicans trying to deny homosexuals marriage rights or pregnant women abortion rights. And this sucks, and it is in no small part due to Christian ideological brainwashing, I agree. However, most the the things Christian regimes have done that are on par with what Islamic regimes are currently doing is history. Christian nations are not currently torturing women for conversing with unrelated males, or massacring and raping non-Christians in the streets (oftentimes aided by the police and military), or stoning women to death for the crime of being raped, or crudely mutilating the genitals of young girls, or denying homosexuals access to schools and universities (when they're not publicly executing them, that is), or actively discriminating against women, homosexuals, and non-Christians in their legal system, making it impossible for any of these groups to receive justice. This list goes on and on. While Christianity certainly has a brutal history, some of these things are too barbaric for even pious sixteenth century Christian fundamentalists to carry out - and they're currently going on, in abundance. 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.