E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP
The main candidates, from left: Ahmed Shafiq, Mohammed Mursi, Abdel-Monein Abu al-Fotouh, Amer Moussa and Hamdeen Sabahi.
CAIRO -- The upcoming Egyptian elections have the potential to not only change Egypt, but the entire Middle East. There’s a strong possibility that decades of American policy in the region can be overturned. The elections have huge implications for the United States and even bigger ones for Israel. War and peace may be in the balance.
Here in our Cairo bureau as I listen to the boats float by on the Nile blasting music as revelers enjoy the city before it’s clogged by voting with checkpoints, there’s talk that this could be a moment like 1979 in Iran, a possible 180-degree shift for the country and the Middle East. I’ll start at what’s immediately coming up.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Egyptians go to polls to elect a new president. First off, that’s big statement in itself. Egypt hasn’t elected a truly democratic leader in its 5,000 years of recorded history. This is the land of the pharaohs, the undisputed and often tyrannical God-kings. Then it was the land of the Romans, sultans, Mamluks, Khedives, kings, European-dominated governments and finally military rulers.
There are five main candidates who have a chance of winning the election. Egypt has a presidential system. The president runs the state. Who the president is matters profoundly. In no particular order, the candidates are:
Mohammed Mursi: Mursi is a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, or the Brotherhood for short, is an Islamic group founded in Egypt in 1928. It has been pursuing a secret campaign to take over the government since its creation. The Brotherhood wants a state that is modern, powerful, technologically advanced and Islamic. The Brotherhood is not the Taliban. It does not want to ban music and pull girls from school, but it does believe that Islam must be the core of politics and society. The Brotherhood’s slogan has long been “Islam is the solution.” In practice that means, if there’s poverty, the Brotherhood will look to Islamic principles of helping the poor to solve them. The Muslim Prophet Mohammed was a big believer in charity and firmly established helping those in need as a basis of the religion. If there’s disease, the Brotherhood sees Islam and its traditions as having a solution to that too. In questions of war and peace, the Brotherhood will study Islam and its history to determine if a potential conflict is just and warranted. For the Brotherhood, Islam is always the solution. It’s Islam uber alles. The Brotherhood is a politically astute group. It is calculating and slow moving, believing that the best way to gain power is by gradually winning political and social influence. The Brotherhood is the grandfather of nearly all Islamic movements. It is the mothership from which smaller, often more radical groups were born. Hamas in Gaza, for example, is a faction of the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is also rich. Its finances are murky and secretive. The group has wealthy donors, especially in the Sunni Arab Gulf states.
According to some estimates, the Brotherhood has a million activists in Egypt. Mursi is the official brotherhood candidate, but would likely end up as the group’s “face man.” Mursi is not charismatic. He’s not a dynamic speaker. He wasn’t the Brotherhood’s first choice. The group initially wanted its powerful money man Khairat al-Shater, a business tycoon who manages the group’s wealth, to be its candidate, but he was disqualified on account of his prison record. Egypt’s military-backed presidents, including Hosni Mubarak, imprisoned many Brotherhood members, seeing the group as its biggest existential threat. Analysts say Shater, the Brotherhood’s supreme guide, and its leadership committee would end up being the real force behind Mursi, pulling the strings. Right after the revolution that toppled Mubarak, the Brotherhood said it would not present a candidate for president, but then broke its promise. A Brotherhood victory would be a total about-face for Egypt. Since the late president Anwar Sadat, Egypt has pursued a largely pro-American, Western-leaning policy. Egypt has maintained a peace treaty with Israel since March 1979, following the Camp David accords. The Brotherhood has already threatened to cancel the peace treaty if the United States stops providing the $2.1 billion of military and development aid Egypt has received annually since 1982. The Brotherhood now talks publicly about maintaining good relations with the United States, but at its core the group is not pro-American. The Brotherhood is actively anti-Israel. Egypt’s long-term relations with United States and short-term relations with Israel could be at risk if Mursi becomes president. Egypt is the biggest country in the Middle East. So goes Egypt, so goes the region. A dramatic shift in Egypt’s alignment would have global implications.
Photoblog: Egypt prepares for the post-Mubarak presidential era
Abdel Monein Abu al-Fotouh. Al-Fotouh was a member of the Muslm Brotherhood for decades. He’s a devoted Islamist. In fact, he was once of member of the even more radical Gamaa Islamiya (Islamic Group), the same organization of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind cleric imprisoned in the United States for masterminding the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center in 1993. Al-Fotouh left the Gamaa Islamiya for the Brotherhood. He then broke from the Brotherhood after the Tahrir Square revolution. The Brotherhood promised at the time not to run a presidential candidate. Al-Fotouh disagreed and launched his own campaign. His disobedience to the Brotherhood’s orders infuriated group’s tightly controlled hierarchy and Al-Fotouh was expelled from the Brotherhood. Since the revolution, Al-Fotouh has been trying to appeal to Egypt’s liberals and secularists. He says he’s still a member of the Brotherhood at heart, but wants a state where religion doesn’t drive all policy. It’s possible Al-Fotouh has a change of heart. Many of the Tahrir Square revolutionaries are taking al-Fotouh at his word. But is he really different, or just changing his tune to appeal to a broader base? Al-Fotouh, like Mursi, speaks about maintaining good relations with world powers, including the United States. During his campaign, however, Al-Fotouh called Israel “an enemy state.” Al-Fotouh is also now backed by hardline Islamists known as Salafists who want to live in a society modeled on the life of the Prophet Mohammed in the 7th century. The Salafists – many of them still followers of al-Fotouh’s old group, the Gamaa Islamiya -- want to roll back rights for woman and Christians. Critics say al-Fotouh is trying to be a candidate for everyone, telling revolutionaries and secularists he’s become one of them, while also appealing hardcore Islamists. He has tried to appeal to Christians and women by promising that he will consider appointing one of them vice president should he win. A victory for al-Fotouh would be a win for Islamists. Is he still member of the Muslim brotherhood in disguise? Would he make peace with the Brotherhood and return to their fold if he became president? Al-Fotouh likes to say Turkey is example Egypt could follow with an Islamist leader, but without Islamic fundamentalists deciding how people should live their daily lives. Critics say its sounds good, but that Egyptian Islamists are much more radical than their Turkish counterparts and that it’s hard to imagine that after decades as a dedicated member of the Brotherhood that al-Fotouh could really have changed fundamentally. The questions about al-Fotouh’s true beliefs are unlikely to become clear unless he wins the election.
Video: A new role for women in post-Mubarak Egypt
Amer Moussa: Moussa is the 76-year-old former Egyptian foreign minister and secretary general of the Cairo-based Arab League. He is a seasoned and internationally respected statesman. He’s well known and generally popular in Washington. Moussa is presenting himself as a steady hand, the candidate who can maintain Egypt’s international relations and not drive the country into isolation or deep into the fold of the Muslim world. Moussa has said publicly he has no intention of changing or eradicating the Camp David accords with Israel. He is dedicated to close ties with the United States. Moussa’s main problem is his association with the former Mubarak regime. Even though he wasn’t involved in the crackdown and killing of activists during the revolution, he was a key Mubarak associate for decades. Critics call Moussa part of the “fulool,” a word that means “remnants.” It is a disparaging term. It is almost like rubbish or trash. Critics say Moussa is just another fulool of the Mubarak regime that the revolution swept away. Moussa’s biggest rivals are the Islamic candidates Mursi and al-Fotouh. Moussa’s Islamist opponents have tried to depict him as a drinker who is close to Israel and the United States. Moussa believes Egypt is at a crossroads and that voters can pick him to promote stability or Islamists to change the country’s course in a precarious new direction.
Ahmed Shafiq: Shafiq is the ultimate “fulool” candidate. He was the last prime minister appointed by Mubarak. Shafiq was, like Mubarak, an air force commander. Shafiq still defends Mubarak. Shafiq is presenting himself as “Mr. Security.” After the revolution Egyptian police were discredited. They were seen as the henchmen of the Mubarak regime. For the past year, the police have largely been absent from the streets. With the police gone, murder, rape, kidnappings, car-jackings and antiquities’ theft have all risen dramatically. Shafiq says he’ll restore order in 24 hours. He’s the strongman candidate. His message appeals to some Egyptians fed up with the deteriorating security situation. Critics say the revolution replaced one dictator in Mubarak and that electing Shafiq would simply be bringing in another one.
Hamdeen Sabahi. Hamdeen Sabahi is popularist. He appeals to the country’s poor. Economically, Sabahi is a socialist who sees Egypt’s greatest strength as its legions of rural and urban poor. Politically, Sabahi is a Nasserist, or a follower of the tradition of the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser was a champion of Arab unity and a believer in pan-Arab power. Nasser firmly believed that if Arabs were to unite, they could become a powerful economic and political bloc that could break free of a Middle East many Egyptians see as dominated by American and Israeli interests. Nasser was no friend of the United States. He aligned Egypt with the communist Soviet Union and launched a failed war against Israel. When Nasser died, his successor Anwar Sadat re-orientated Egypt’s economic and politics policies by building close ties with Washington and forging a peace treaty with Israel. Sabahi’s victory could mean that Egypt’s four-decade-long Western orientation would shift again, reverting to a populist form of pan-Arabism. Sabahi has had a recent surge in popularity and was recently supported by 400 famous Egyptian actors, artists, writers and journalists.
On the first anniversary of the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak's regime, hundreds of thousands poured into the revolution's symbolic center, Cairo's Tahrir Square. NBC's Ayman Mohyeldin reports.
The likely outcome
What’s likely to happen? None of the five candidates are likely to win an outright majority when voting closes at 8 p.m. Cairo time on Thursday evening. To win, a candidate needs more than 50 percent of the votes. It’s widely expected, however, that each of the five leading candidates will win between 10 to 30 percent of the vote. Mursi for example could win 20-25 percent, Moussa might take another 20 percent, Al-Fotouh perhaps 20 percent and so on. Since none of the candidates would have the more than the fifty percent needed for a victory, there would be a run-off.
The run-off would work as follows: The two candidates with the highest number of votes -- say Mursi with 25 percent and perhaps Moussa or al-Fotouh or Sabahi with another 20 percent or so – would face each other. The run-off election would take place on June 16-17. The winner of the runoff would become Egypt’s next president, starting his four-year term starting on June 30. Once the new president assumes office, the military council – the leadership committee of generals that has been administering Egypt since the revolution – would dissolve. Egypt’s first democratically elected president in its history would then run the country and its powerful, US-armed military.
Who’s winning?
Opinion polls have been all over the map. Many polls put Moussa ahead. The Brotherhood says Mursi is in the lead. The polls do not seem reliable. Political analysts I’ve spoken to believe Mursi, even though he’s uncharismatic, is likely to win enough votes to secure a place in the run-off. After all, the Brotherhood has a million activists get out the vote, a grassroots support base that’s unmatched by any other candidate. The run-off, according to some analysts, would therefore be between the Brotherhood’s Mursi and someone else. It’s anyone’s guess who that someone else might be. That’s when Egyptians’ will have to make an incredibly important choice. Assuming Mursi is a candidate in the run-off, analysts say the tale of the tape might be like this.
If the run off is between the Brotherhood’s Mursi vs Amer Moussa or Ahmed Shafiq, analysts predict Mursi would win. Moussa and Shafiq would simply be too “fulool,” not different enough from Mubarak. It’s possible, however, the voters could have a change of heart and vote for the promise of stability over the certainty of change. It’s very hard to predict.
If the match up, however, is Mursi vs al-Fotouh or Sabahi, analysts say it’s likely Mursi would lose. The Brotherhood already controls parliament and voters might fear giving the long-banned group too much power. Again, no one really knows. What’s certain is that this is a critical time for Egypt, the Arab world, Israel and the United States. Egypt is at a crossroads. The path Egyptians chose is important. Egypt is the most populous Arab nation, the seat of Sunni Islamic doctrine and has tremendous political, religious and social influence on the rest of the region. For better or worse, it will lead the rest of the Middle East by example. So goes Egypt, so goes the region.
Read more on Egypt from NBC correspondents
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Pakistan blocks Twitter -- but fails to stop tweets
- NATO summit prompts little buzz on streets of Kabul
- Chinese fishermen held by North Korea released
- US student dies after going swimming at Scottish beach
- Olympic torchbearers race to cash in
- A random act of kindness lifts spirits in London
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Richard Engel is Chief Foreign Correspondent of NBC News
Leave a Comment:
The islamic terrorist - Thank you President Obama for helping overthrow your friend, Muburak.
mubarek was doomed anyway. The MILITARY forced him out. What, did you want us to invade egypt or something to keep him forcibly in power? how silly.
nazarite,
thanks for showing you have been brainwashed to irrationally fear Islam. As vermontguy said, Mubarak was finished anyway. There was nothing we could do nor sohuld have done to keep him in power. We are not Egypt's caretakers, we are not Israel's caretakers. We have no right deciding the politics of another nation. I will ask this question again:
How would you like having another country deciding the policies of our nation or having a president in power for 40+ years?
The right wing wackos move in mysterious ways ... or perhaps not. Mysterious implies IQ.
America always ... no matter who the president may be ... runs a risk when we support another nation. Many times, the actions of that nation can reflect on us and sometimes, that reflection isn't positive. While we back Israel for instance, that nation has more than once, left us with out mouths hanging open and even backtracking to keep their decisions from casting a negative influence on us.
What is happening in Egypt has been brewing for a very long time. There is no president, good or bad, that could have prevented what will take place. At best, all we can do is react. Hopefully, we don't have a warmonger in office at this time. The key word being hopefully ....
Nazarite ......you give our President way too much credit . All of the middle east is laughing at him
War is inevitable. One would think we could learn from our past, but the truth is, religion in any form is conspicuous by the very doctrines it holds so dear. Islam is unfortunately far more dangerous than most since the majority of the followers are indoctrinated at a very early age, and subsequently that is all they know. It was not so long ago that in England Catholics were tortured and killed, then the Christians went on the Crusades, and different Muslim sects have been killing each other for centuries. How can there possibly be any peace. One thing is certain, this time around any war with Israel that Egypt is foolish enough to embark on will last a lot longer than six days, and the price we all pay will be far greater than it has been in the past.
Actually it is the opposite Blue. Religions are dangerous yes but only when those that have no rational thought process are placed at the helm of powerful organizations. Someone can be religious yet not allow that to affect how they act or the life they lead. Homosexuals can be Christian, Muslims can live side by side with Israelis. It is the fanatics that we should be worried about not the mainstream.
It is the fanatics of any religion that use their religion as the basis for extreme acts. Islam did not knock down the Twin Towers, followers of a radical sect of Islam that preach war, hate, and Jihad did. Every religion has fanatics, even Christianity. The West-borough Baptist Church is one of the more notorious one here in the USA. They use the Bible to say that all homosexuals should be euthanized. Would you say that they speak for the majority?
Obviously not, so why do the Islamic radical sects, like the WBC is to Christianity, speak for all of Islam?
Because most of the people (in place of power to affect opinions) decrying it here do not understand it and because Islam as an effective tool to control via fear. If they could make it look as though Islam was the reason we were attacked then they could use that fear of being attacked to control our opinions and make us more likely to agree to extreme measures to prevent such things from happening. Research the Red Scare and you will see exact parallels to the situation we currently have with people creating irrational fear over Islam.
For example people here in the US would call BS on you if you said that Islam has a charitable side, that it teaches that you should give to the needy and other similar parallels to Christianity. What most people know about the religion is what they have been told or they have only read parts of the Qua'ran and already made up their minds that only the most extreme passages are what are really followed or believe unequivocally instead of researching what people say about Islam.
You are correct though, but for the wrong reason. War is inevitable, but it is not because of ideological differences it is because of falsely created ignorance. If we had less people on new shows or talk radio pushing Islam as the great Satan and encouraging people to study it, to learn about it we would have much different public opinion of Islam them we do today. War because of religion can be put into the ground where it belongs but that can only be done when we stop persecuting people because of their religion; this is true for all humans.
War of resources, sadly, cannot be stopped because as we expand and over populate we become more desperate and thus that desperation leads us into wars over food, water, and land. Until we find ways to create synthetic food and water or find ways to conserve what we have well enough that we have enough resources for everyone we will war over them. Oil is going to be one of the most fought over resources in our history in another 35 to 60 years.
Well said.Geowil!
It is difficult however, to separate religious programming from an early age and the concept of rational thought esp when most religions rely on the absence of rational thought.
" majority of the followers are indoctrinated at a very early age, and subsequently that is all they know"
...just like Christianity and all the other medieval superstitions.
Religion is rarely the problem, though it is frequently the tool to unite the masses. It is always about power and control.
My takeaway on this is the same as it has always been......The Arab Spring is not
good for American and western interests........
our interests are irrelevant, it is not our country, we do not have the right to be influencing their elections.
it's true, it's not our country, so we shouldn't pick up their tab either, i hope we won't...
@ greg-3545730 I completely agree with you, I've been saying the same thing for over a year now.
When you have hatred and bigotry from the people and tyranny from the Government you can never be free. Case in point one towns soccer team fans killing another towns fans (77 murders) because of a stupid game causing hatred between people. Bigotry towards different beliefs and if you took a poll right now in Egypt about the United States or free countries it would mostly be negative and they could care less about freedoms way of life. That is because of all the BS that has been put into their brains for their whole miserable life. When people can live together without imposing their will on everyone through Religious Rhetoric or Political BS the World will be a much better place to live in. 10,000 years and people still can not get it right.
It took France many years and thousands of victims at the guillotines to achieve the new republic. Give credit where credit is due. The Egyptian revolution was largely peaceful, asking for basic human rights and an honest way to make a living. It is going to take a few years before politics in Egypt stabilize and it will NEVER be an Iranian style theocracy simply because the Egyptian military is keeping a watchful eye on its own interests. The worst scenario that could happen is something similar to a Turkish style democracy in the 80s where a revolving door between corrupt civil governments and military rulers will take place. I think Egyptians will do better than the Turks and appoint a government that has Egypt's best interests at heart. The Muslim Brotherhood already lost a lot of credit on the ground because of its failure to accomplish any tangible effect after taking majority rule in Parliament and its constant flip-flopping on major party issues: saying they will partially run for parliament and then going in full force; saying they won't field a presidential candidate and then running with 2 candidates; not supporting the revolution in the beginning and then wholeheartedly taking advantage of its fruits. Egyptians are generally more liberal than the rest of the Middle East and their choices will reflect their views. A moderate Islamist maybe the right answer in the short term to show the people in Egypt that no matter what banner you carry, the core issues of Egypt will not be solved by religious based political power, instead by methodical and well planned approaches to development. Any incoming presidential candidate will be a one term president, and it is better to get an Islamist candidate who will surely fail to accomplish much in one term than to get a secular president who people will say it is more of the same old with the old regime.
Interesting strategy. This assumes of course, that this election will be one of many which can be determined by whomever gets elected. This in effect, be Egypt's first and last election.
Let's see....this is the beginning of the end.
Election in Egypt on May 24th
Runoff on June 16-17
New Radical Islamic Egyptian President by June 30th
Radical Islamic Governemt by July 31st
All previous Agrements with Israel eliminated by August 31
Islaminc uprising against the "Zionist" September, October and November
Islamic invasion of Israel beginning December
Eradication of Isalmic countries around Israel using Nuclear Weapons by Israel shortly after
Russia Responds with Nukes against Israel
We respond Against all others with Nukes
China Nukes USA
We Nuke China
End of the World on 12-21-2012
Damn, who would thought the Mayans had it right?
I guess propping up Mubarak wasn't such a bad idea after all.
we're not going to see a RADICAL islamic gov't in egypt, at least not one that controls the military, so your scenario is farfetched.
If "radical islam" wanted to attack isreal, they could have done so for many years now.
Not to far fetched considering the parliment (i.e. the Government) is already Rdical Islamists.
Did you not read the article?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
except the military isn't "radical" and isn't just going to go "ok, i'll attack isreal, sure, why not".
and no, they arent RADICAL islamists. They are islamists, but not radical ones. Egypt is not a hotbed of RADICAL islamists
i'm sure your fantasy DID seem pretty straightforward to you. :)
Wow! You are naive. The "Muslim Brotherhood"....A Radical Islamic organization, controls the parliment.
They are about to elect a Muslim Brotherhood member/past member as their President.
We can only HOPE the military refuses to follow orders.
But hey, keep your head in your ass and hope for the best.
Because all those other radicalized Islamic countries out there have been holding off on invading Israel until they had Egypt in their clutches.
Ouch, just because the Brotherhood is a semi-radical group does not mean if they win they are going to launch right into a war against Israel. Our obligations to Israel should end where the exceed those of an ally. Would we go to all this trouble to protect Japan, for example? Taking over the Governments of the nations around Japan to protect it? I would not think so, so why is Israel so special?
Israel is just another nation on this world, it is not some mystic holy land or in anyway more important then any of our other allies. I am not saying we should just let those that would attack Israel to roam freely but I do think that we are too protective of them. The sole reason we put Mubarak into power and kept him there for 40 years was because he said he would not attack Israel. Is that a healthy reason for suspending a country's democracy?
The Mayan calendar doesn't end on December 21st. They found more of it recently. Just thought I'd clarify that. Carry on.
Thing is with the Mayan Calender it never took into account leap years..so it is way off...
I heard they didn't account for leap years because theirs was supposedly more accurate than ours.
A few things in the Ouch scenarion that I don't agree with.
First of all, Egypt was at war with Isarel three times and three times Israel won, without any nukes, only one of those times was with help from USA and even that was cash only.
Second, there is no way Russia is going to nuke Isarel over a few Arab states.
As someon who was born in Russia, still has plenty of friends there and still watches Russian news, I can tell you there is no pro-Arab attitude there. Too many people lost loved ones to Afgans and Chechens and too many people have friends and family in Israel.
Russian government enjoys selling all the weapons left over form Cold War to Iran, because they really-really-really love money, but there is not much money in actually participating in war now days, selling weapons from the side-lines is much better. So if a war does breack out, that's exactly what Russia is going to do.
And third, I don't know as much about China, but considering that every other thing I buy has the words "made in China" on it, I find it very hard to believe that they would wont to go to war against USA.
I see muchmilder picture:
Israel at war with two or three aRab states, just like in the 70s.
USA helping formt he sidelines, trying not to look too involved.
All the western media screaming at the top of their lungs how much they don't support Isael, thus upholing the proper appearence.
A few terrorist organization blwoing a few things up in US and other countries, trying to make the war spread.
Israel winning wins, as usual.
The terrosts release their frustrations by blowing up a few things elsewhere.
A few organizations try to punish the jews for bringing the trouble to them, others try to punsh arabs for the crimes of other arabs.
A few riots, a few manhunts, a few other disturbances, pretty much all over the world.
Everyone calms dow after enough windows and noses are broken.
The muslim brotherhood are the only people that can implement Obama's style of Democracy.
yeah, the US looks just like a muslim theocracy.
oh wait, that's what a lot of the GOP candidates want..rule by religious laws.
fail.
Spoken like a true liberal from Vermont, No God, No good....blah, blah, blah. Let me get you a tissue.
spoken like a true silly person. What can I say? obama and the US is NOTHING like the muslim brotherhood, its just another one of those inane "lets put obama and muslim in the same sentence because it feels so good" kind of posts, so common's post was stupid..and since you seem to be defending it..well, i'll let you draw your own conclusion. :)
You've miss diagnoised my conclusion, but yours is quite apparent. I'm not suggesting Obama and Muslims are tied together (false assuption on your part), but that some how Christians (GOP Christians at that) seem to want a theocracy led gov't is far from reality. So, how about getting over yourself and your liberal view, that by the way, is debt laiden and morally bankrupt (now please conclude that).
what can I say? the MB wants laws based on a religious book, which party in the US comes closest to that? Want me to give you a clue? :)
PS - talk about "getting over yourslef", you should take your own advice, since you know nothing about my morality nor views on debts. Be careful about being a "legend in your own mind" and making ASSumptions. :) lol.
Your too easy, your love of Obama tells us enough about your political stance (tax and spend and yes....more debt) and as for morals, the "religious book" if your refering to the Holy Bible, does indicate your lack of respect for it and what its message is, so yes, I believe the assumptions are pretty good, but keep on smiling and I'll continue to pray for you.
American, actually you are wrong about that theocracy bit. The Evangelical party, or the most radical of them, have been attempting for years to place someone into the White House and politicians in Congress that will build a quasi-theocracy where religion has a large part in the running of the country. It has been their pipe dream for a while and they almost partially succeeded this year with Rick Santorum.
As to Common's post, it is a typical "Islam is the devil" type comment build off of the lies we have heard about mainstream Islam from those in the power to move opinions in this country. Mainstream Islam is no different then mainstream Christianity, just different names for the same God/disciples and different methods of worship. What people think is caused by Islam is really because of cultural differences. Sharia Law started out as a principle of Islam but is is a cultural principle now. Even if Islam vanished tomorrow Sharia Law would still be in place in many Mid Eastern states because that is how they have lived for centuries. Old habits, especially the bad ones, die hard.
Geowil, are you a Christian? If not, your perception is based on a lack of evidence and a potential bias to conservative people of faith and most likely construded from liberal media that paint Christianity with a false reality. What I have observed is how liberals spin what Christians say to suit their own degrading desires, far from any wholesome values. If you are a Christian, which based on your comparision of and liking God as the same forChristianity and Islam, indicates your probably not, then please study up on the New Testament and decide whether I'm wrong or right and more importantly, a better understanding between the two, because they're not even close.
American, that is why I said the "most radical of them". Christianity has radical sects just like Islam does that want similar things to those Islamic radical sects. And I am an Atheist/Agnostic with an unbiased view of all religions. Is do not favor Christianity over Islam or Judaism of Buddhism. All religions are the same. They want the same things and teach the same things and all of them have those in their fellowship that want to use that religion as an excuse to commit acts of violence, hatred, and repression. There is no exclusion from this truth.
Geowil, as I suspected, but with regards to being unbiased, your comments don't vendicate that and Christianity isn't really a religion, its about a relationship with Jesus Christ, so in that regard you may confer that. However, you clearly haven't studied the New Testament, or you would know your statement about the Christian fellowship is not inline with acts of violence, hatred, opression and repression. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Him....and that my friend is the truth; there is no one else that can make that claim and no other relationship, or for sake of this lesson, any other religion. So, they're not all the same.
There is a minority in this country that wants to bring it down..The U.S. was founded on Christian beliefs and is still a Christian Nation, regardless of what Obama says.those who are trying to bring the country down are those who are non believers...It all started with a mother who claimed her son was an atheist, and do you know what became of that young child...He is a Baptist minister...No your wrong that religion is an excuse to commit acts of violence, it is not the religion it is those who claim to be right when it comes to their religion...No religion is perfect, and those who follow a particular religion do so because they feel it fits their needs...
We are not and have never been a "christian" nation, and Obama didn't declare that. The Founding Fathers and the supreme court declared it. As the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That goes for all religions, including Christianity. It's plain to read and easy to understand.
Toby, I had this same discussion with others and honestly, the first amendment is to protect religious liberty along with preventing the gov't from nationalizing it. Please remember, of the 54 delegates, all were Christian say three and decidely their values are woven into our constitution, which I'm willing to bet the founders meant for, but draw your own conclusion, everyone else seems too.
Stan the minority is you. The founding fathers fled from Britain to escape the religious totalitarianism that you are advocating for. America is a secular nation with secular laws. We have no national religion and anyone can practice any religion they want to so long as they do not break laws in doing so, or practice no religion at all.
We have separation of church and state to keep the Church from inflicting religious oppression via the laws created in this country and to keep the Government from dictating that we have a national religion of the expression of said religions in religious settings.
The founding fathers meant for complete personal freedom from what you wanted your future to be to what you worshiped, you cannot do that in anything but a secular nation where there is no major religion calling the shots from the top.
American, denying the existence of radical sects and some of the hypocrisy of Christianity is the problem I have with the religion and those that practice it. Just because you say they are not Christians does not excuse or overrule the fact that they have interpreted the Bible differently then you have. This is the exact same case with Islam. The radical sects of Islam have interpreted the Bible in a different way then the mainstream Muslims have.
Now in reply to that comment a religious individual might shoot back if denying something does not prove it doesn't exist so you cannot prove God does not exist, I am talking about tangible proof. We have tangible proof the the WBC is a sect of Christianity. We have proof that while everyone says Christianity is about tolerance and love that they have actively discriminated against Homosexuals because it deviates from the Bible's morals. These are all facts, objective unbiased facts.
The Church does both good and bad things, both sides of the Church have to be viewed in order to form an unbiased opinion of it. If you deny that the Church has ever done anything wrong or that while the radical sects are not mainstream they are Christian sects it is you that have the biased opinion. Christianity is a religion so long as it is organized. You comments that it is a relationship with Jesus would make sense if each individual was free to interpret the bible and live by the scripture that they wanted to believe but tat is not the case. There is a defined way that the majority of Christians follow the Bible; it is not a personal relationship it is a communal gathering where followers reaffirm their ideological views. A true religion that is a personal conversation are religions that are no organized, where no one is at the top dictating how you should worship.
Christianity is a dictatorship, to compare it to a Government. The Pope is your dictator. He sets the scripture and the ideology of the time. They expect the majority of Christians to follow what the Pope says. The reality is that a majority of Christians do follow the basic structure of the religion but almost no one follows it exactly. They have abortions, use contraception, drink, do drugs, have premarital sex, have affairs, get divorces, and many other things that go against the Bible.
Then we have those like Stan that think we are a theocracy where Christianity calls the shots and should control this country. He is part of the radical crowd, part of one of the radical sects of Christianity that is separated from the mainstream portion of the religion.
All organized religions follow this structure of power.
But let's get onto the subject of your reply to Toby. What makes you think that our laws are based upon the teachings presented in the Bible? The fact that we put in God we Trust on our money? Our laws against murder?
I hate to break it to you but that is up for interpretation. For example I could tell you that religious morals have nothing to do with the law against murdering someone. My basis for stating this is within the constitution itself. It grants every human, not just American, the right to life. By murdering someone you are denying them that right and are b reaching their personal contractual rights with the constitution. You can also reach this law by presenting a logical argument:
Question: Would you like it if someone killed you?
Answer: No
Logical Conclusion: Therefore you should not kill others
Q: Would you like it if someone stole your car?
A: No
LC: Therefore you should not steal from others
Q: Would you feel good about yourself if your spouse cheated on you?
A: No
LC: Therefore you should not cheat
Q: Would you appreciated it if someone tried to save you from a life or death situation?
A: Yes
LC: Therefore you should try to save people who are in eminent danger of dying
Our laws are based upon the supposed golden rule, do not do to others that which you would not have done unto yourself. In reality it was not religion that created this notion by modern civilization's philosophers, both religious and otherwise, that brought our understanding of humanity to where it is today; that all human life, and all life in general, is to be respected for what it is. That no human is of less value then another regardless of any differences in lifestyle, religion, ideology, or physical characteristics. One persons life is not worth more then someone else's. That is the basis of the New Testament and why it was created to replace the Old Testament, because our personal understanding of Humanity had changed and the Old Testament no longer reflected our understanding of Humanity.
Stan want to apologize ahead of time if you were making statement about that minority. Sentence structure made me think you were saying that the minority were the "nonbelievers".
But to your last comment I never said that was what religion was for (if the above is not true) I said that there are individuals within religion that uses it as a shield for their heinous acts. Groups like the West-borough Baptist Church, groups like the Taliban.
I am actually optimistic about the direction of the brotherhood and what they want for their people. I see another Turkey in the making over the next 15 years, definitely not another Iran. Turkey is a prosperous country democratically led by Islamists, yet they are a proud nation never allowing either the west or the East to trample their sovereignty. The most important thing accomplished here is that the Egyptian people are unlikely to be afraid of their rulers again be they Islamist or secularists. Its their bed, let them make it and sleep in it. Nothing to see here folks, just move a long.
I agree. And sovereignty is definitely what the most disruptive "countries" in the mideast lack, being just areas with a bunch of feudal warlords and a titled slapped on it such as "Iraq".
Common Man-3493893,
One never knows about Muslim Brotherhood and Obama's "style of Democracy." But if inviting Muslim Brotherhood to the White House says anything about our president - chances are you maybe right.
Hopefully Egypts new president will not align itself with the US or Israel, hopefully they will do what is right for the citizens of Egypt instead of what Washington or Israel wants. In the past Washington was pleased with a dictator that would do as told by the US government without thought for their own citizens. No body loves or respects everybody so if Israel is unhappy with the Egyptian president to bad. If Israel leaves Egypt alone Egypt will leave Israel alone. If Egypt wants neclear weapons, Israel needs to respect their decision intstead of threating them. This is a new beginning for Egypt, so Israel needs to mind its own business. Israel first strike policy will force more middle east countries to obtain neclear weapons so they don't have to live under the threat of wars that the Israel government loves.
As long as Middle Eastern nation states, for example in Egypt continues to threaten Israel and United States with destruction it is not in our best interest to allow nuclear programs to flourish in that part of the world. Nonetheless, I do wish the good people of Egypt the best and hope for peace in the Middle East.
N la,
how many of those people yelling for that are mainstream Muslims? How many are fanatic Islamists and Governments run by those fanatic Islamists? What of the Muslim countries that do not want to do that? Are you saying that those countries are going against their religion?
The problem is that we compare Islam to Christianity when we have no sample sizes of a completely theocratic state controlled by Christianity. A theocracy controlled by radical Christianity is just as dangerous as a state controlled by radical Islam. Iran is under the control of a radical Islamist Government by most accounts, and so is Palestine by most accounts. No at Muslim countries want to see Israel or the USA destroyed, just the ones that are yelling the loudest because of how radicalized their Governments have become.
Radicalization is not a function of Islam just as it is not a function of Christianity, it is a culture process that corrupts the fundamentals of a religion and uses that religion as a shield for protection from backlash caused by their violent acts; something that no religion was ever intended to be used for. The problem with religion is that it requires blind faith and those that are heavily religious will believe a priest, imam, or rabbi. If an imam says that Allah was us destroyed those who devoutly worship Islam and that do not apply a rational examination of what these radical imams are saying will be swayed quite easily.
It can happen in any religion; radical ideological shifts are only as possible as the number of people who are willing to believe without introspection into what these ideological changes mean.
The average Iranian does not care about Israel because they are more concerned about how to get by each and every day due to the economical sanctions the world has placed on their country that have caused everyday needs to skyrocket in price. Iran is a perfect example of a Government that does not care about its citizens only about gaining something it wants. If it cared about its citizens they would abandon their crusade for nuclear power or make a deal to end the sanctions that are causing the citizens of Iran much pain.
Governments are made by the people and for the people. When a Government stops being for the people it is time for that Government to either be replaced or to be changed fundamentally. Here in the USA we are starting to head that direction. Congress is no longer acts for the good of the country but acts upon ideological suppositions without compromising on anything. This will become much more apparent as we get closer to the elections and probably even greater after the elections no matter what happens if we still have the same leaders in place there.
Religion is not a government and government is not a religion. When one tries to be the other, people die. Islam must lose this so that Egypt may thrive.
Come on secularism! And down the stretch! It's Islam! It's secularism! Secularism! Islam! And it's secularism by a nose! The World can only hope.
If Amer Moussa is not elected, I am afraid for this world! Mark my words,,,if anyone but he is elected, we will be in the next world war by next year,,,,,I'm scared , not for myself, but for my children and especially my grandchildren!!!!!
If there is a world war next year, you probably won't have any grandchildren.
Just please stop with the doom and gloom. After awhile it becomes annoying to hear. Let's just own up to the fact that we don't what's going to happen in the future and that we should just live our lives, okay?
*Know*
Egypt's battle is similar to the Untied States battle. Progressives versus conservatives.
It appears that the Muslim Brotherhood has the inside track here. Since they already control the Egyptian parliament, and there is a groundswell of popular support for Shari'a law. I am hoping that Egyptian will ultimately chose Amer Moussa but I do not see that happening.
Grey beard...how does it feel to be blind? I'm tired of paying "your" way.
This will be a disaster. Plain and simple.
As always, we, Americans stick our nose into someone’s business. This is Egypt, their country, their election, their way of choosing who will them whether islamist or otherwise, whether they will be friend with Israel or not. That is for Egyptians to choose. Why we don’t mind our business. We are fighting useless and endless wars, our economy is deteriorating and we are in the highest national debt. Let us discuss in these instead.
My opinion though, islamist will win, like or not based on the fact on the ground, in Egypt not what someone says in America or Israel.
By that logic, I guess we should have not meddled in Nazi Germany's affairs and then again those imperialistic japanese who invaded China in the '30's were just minding their own business.
His tyranical ways notwithstanding, when Mubarak fell, so did the alliance with Israel and the USA. In Egypt, it's 'out with the Pharrohs and in with the Phanatics'.
#29.1 Geowil: One of the finest posts I have seen!
Egypt should go back to the Pharaoh type of government. They achieved more under the Pharaohs than they have over the past 2,000 years.
Islam=murder, rape, female submission, violence, sodomy, hate, domination, terrorism, false religion, wait............did I mention murder? Oh yeah.
I'm sure the list could go on and on and on but I think I'm limited here to 500 characters, or something like that.
I think all that could apply to a million other organized religions too.
Jack....substitute christianity for islam and the message is the same.
The problem is not one particular religion, but all religions.
It sounds like this election has the potential to turn Egypt into another Iran. If that happens, it will shorten the time before there is a shooting war between the Islamic world and the civilized world. Then Egypt can turn the billions of dollars of military equipment the U.S. gave them against us, much as the taliban used the weapons the U.S. gave the mujaheddin during the Soviet occupation.
Be vewy, vewy quiet.
Here in our Cairo bureau as I listen to the boats float by on the Nile blasting music as revelers enjoy the city before it’s clogged by voting with checkpoints, there’s talk that this could be a moment like 1979 in Iran, a possible 180-degree shift for the country and the Middle East.
if they vote to go back to the cave
they wont be listening to music on the nile
unless they are looking to get shot by the taliban
rofl
hope they use their heads instead of wetting their pants because they are scared to stand up againt the extremist idiots
iether way its their choice i just say no democracy no help from a democracy
pretty simple way of staying out of middle east killing bs