Would You Vote a Muslim for President?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Carson addressed this on social media today, his response below. This clarifies he meant a strict practicing Muslim which is a reasonable assumption.

The first issue I want to deal with tonight is the stories today about my comments yesterday when I was asked if I would support a hypothetical Muslim candidate for President. I responded ?I would not advocate for that? and I went on to say that many parts of Sharia Law are not compatible with the Constitution. I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive. Know this, I meant exactly what I said. I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.

Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing. Under Islamic Law, homosexuals ? men and women alike ? must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.

I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced?I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

?I also can?t advocate supporting Hillary Clinton either by the way.

There were many questions about this and I wanted everyone to know exactly where I stand.[/quote]

What an idiot Carson (or whoever wrote that, but Carson too) is.

A tenant occupies rented property. A tenet is a fundamental principle. The author of that post confused the two twice, so a typo is unlikely. Either way, you’re supposed to rid correspondence of typos and mistakes before applying to a job as a used car salesman; it would be nice if aspiring commanders in chief (and their staffs) would show the same intellectual rigor.[/quote]

Hmmm.

That’s a bit more venom than I’d expect from you for misspelled words, my friend.[/quote]

Ya, I was a bit surprised myself. I don’t understand how you can call a person like Dr. Ben Carson an idiot over a typo.[/quote]

Why, he is a bigot. I would be pissed of if a Muslim said we shouldn’t have a Christian in charge of the U.S. The founders of this nation far sightedly and rationally put together the best possible system for society, a secular republic with no official state religion and the separation of church and state.

[/quote]

We are specifically talking about SMH getting upset over the misuse of the word tenant…

As to your point, I don’t believe what Carson said and later clarified makes him a bigot. Sharia can’t coexist with the constitution and he wouldn’t support it. That doesn’t make him a bigot. [/quote]

But muslims per the mainstream muslim belief, based on reading of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, don’t believe in Sharia for non muslim nations, so what he said was silly. It is like saying you don’t want a Jew (or is some cases a Christian as some uphold OT law) to be president as they might want to impose Mosaic law on America.

The notion a Muslim could, even if he wanted to, impose Sharia on a majority non-muslim population is ridiculous. Muslims don’t have the power in society, being a minority, to impose sharia, from either a legislative position or a violent revolution.

Add to that any Muslim seeking Sharia as a platform would never be voted in and the only Muslim who has the possibility of being elected is a secular one.

So bringing this up is focusing on a non issue, using it as a reason not to want a Muslim president is indeed bigoted. In fact some Muslim majority nations use this same rhetoric regarding Christians holding government positions. America is better than those nations and I would hope most decent Americans would vote or not vote for a muslim based on his positions, not his religion.

43

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

…America is better…

[/quote]

Really? Why the sudden change of heart?[/quote]

There was no change of heart, I have always thought America is better. Just because i denounce American foreign policy, such as overthrowing the democratically elected leaders of South America and the middle east over and over again and installing puppet regimes, or supporting Jihadists in Afghanistan, does not mean I don’t think the system within the united states is great.

But for you, the super defensive person who takes any criticism of American foreign policy as the demonisation of the U.S and the people who live within it, you wouldn’t understand that.

44

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Carson addressed this on social media today, his response below. This clarifies he meant a strict practicing Muslim which is a reasonable assumption.

The first issue I want to deal with tonight is the stories today about my comments yesterday when I was asked if I would support a hypothetical Muslim candidate for President. I responded ?I would not advocate for that? and I went on to say that many parts of Sharia Law are not compatible with the Constitution. I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive. Know this, I meant exactly what I said. I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.

Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing. Under Islamic Law, homosexuals ? men and women alike ? must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.

I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced?I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

?I also can?t advocate supporting Hillary Clinton either by the way.

There were many questions about this and I wanted everyone to know exactly where I stand.[/quote]

What an idiot Carson (or whoever wrote that, but Carson too) is.

A tenant occupies rented property. A tenet is a fundamental principle. The author of that post confused the two twice, so a typo is unlikely. Either way, you’re supposed to rid correspondence of typos and mistakes before applying to a job as a used car salesman; it would be nice if aspiring commanders in chief (and their staffs) would show the same intellectual rigor.[/quote]

Hmmm.

That’s a bit more venom than I’d expect from you for misspelled words, my friend.[/quote]

Ya, I was a bit surprised myself. I don’t understand how you can call a person like Dr. Ben Carson an idiot over a typo.[/quote]

Why, he is a bigot. I would be pissed of if a Muslim said we shouldn’t have a Christian in charge of the U.S. The founders of this nation far sightedly and rationally put together the best possible system for society, a secular republic with no official state religion and the separation of church and state.

[/quote]

We are specifically talking about SMH getting upset over the misuse of the word tenant…

As to your point, I don’t believe what Carson said and later clarified makes him a bigot. Sharia can’t coexist with the constitution and he wouldn’t support it. That doesn’t make him a bigot. [/quote]

But muslims per the mainstream muslim belief, based on reading of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, don’t believe in Sharia for non muslim nations, so what he said was silly. It is like saying you don’t want a Jew (or is some cases a Christian as some uphold OT law) to be president as they might want to impose Mosaic law on America.

The notion a Muslim could, even if he wanted to, impose Sharia on a majority non-muslim population is ridiculous. Muslims don’t have the power in society, being a minority, to impose sharia, from either a legislative position or a violent revolution.

Add to that any Muslim seeking Sharia as a platform would never be voted in and the only Muslim who has the possibility of being elected is a secular one.

So bringing this up is focusing on a non issue, using it as a reason not to want a Muslim president is indeed bigoted. In fact some Muslim majority nations use this same rhetoric regarding Christians holding government positions. America is better than those nations and I would hope most decent Americans would vote or not vote for a muslim based on his positions, not his religion.

[/quote]

I don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Carson specifically said Sharia Muslims, not all Muslim, not other Muslims. He specifically used the term Sharia.

Dr. Carson didn’t bring it up and it isn’t bigotry at all. Jesus titty fucking Christ, not everything is bigotry.

45

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Carson addressed this on social media today, his response below. This clarifies he meant a strict practicing Muslim which is a reasonable assumption.

The first issue I want to deal with tonight is the stories today about my comments yesterday when I was asked if I would support a hypothetical Muslim candidate for President. I responded ?I would not advocate for that? and I went on to say that many parts of Sharia Law are not compatible with the Constitution. I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive. Know this, I meant exactly what I said. I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.

Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing. Under Islamic Law, homosexuals ? men and women alike ? must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.

I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced?I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

?I also can?t advocate supporting Hillary Clinton either by the way.

There were many questions about this and I wanted everyone to know exactly where I stand.[/quote]

What an idiot Carson (or whoever wrote that, but Carson too) is.

A tenant occupies rented property. A tenet is a fundamental principle. The author of that post confused the two twice, so a typo is unlikely. Either way, you’re supposed to rid correspondence of typos and mistakes before applying to a job as a used car salesman; it would be nice if aspiring commanders in chief (and their staffs) would show the same intellectual rigor.[/quote]

Hmmm.

That’s a bit more venom than I’d expect from you for misspelled words, my friend.[/quote]

I was half-joking, of course. Or, rather, being hyperbolic.

Still, I would love to see as much care go into a candidate’s public rhetoric as I put into the PWI posts that I tap into my phone on the train. While Carson may in many ways be no idiot – certainly not vis-a-vis his profession – he doesn’t have a stellar track record when it comes to the rigor with which he expresses his thoughts (particularly when those thoughts are written). Little carelessness usually hints at bigger carelessness.

46

As for the question at hand, I mostly agree with Carson. While I would never dream of legally preventing anyone from running, it’s unlikely that I would vote for a Muslim presidential candidate. It’s unlikely that I would vote for any candidate I deem to be “seriously” religious, but a Muslim would have more convincing to do than would a Christian or a Jew. If there were no differences between those three, we wouldn’t have different names for them. Some of the differences are important, and some of them have direct bearing on fitness for office.

47

Inside Edition is investing if the man who asked Trump Muslim question was planted to embarrass him.

48

Yes. The same used to be asked of Catholics.

49

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yes. The same used to be asked of Catholics.[/quote]

Exactly, protestant bigots claiming Catholics would be loyal first and foremost to the papacy, not to the nation. New generation new bigotry.

50

In today’s America, one simply cannot have an opinion outside of which a certain portion of society that has deemed “acceptable”. This cabal has defined, and continues to define, the parameters which we can speak, act and behave in.

It’s stunning really.

If you disagree with Dr. Carson. Fine. Don’t support him. No big deal.

51

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yes. The same used to be asked of Catholics.[/quote]

Exactly, protestant bigots claiming Catholics would be loyal first and foremost to the papacy, not to the nation. New generation new bigotry.[/quote]

Oh, stop it. The problem with so much of Islam is not the religious parts, it’s the commingling of political aspects and legal tenants that go with fundamental Islam. For example:

  • Death to gays
  • Second class citizenship for non-Muslims and women(jizya tax, inability to testify, women punished for being raped)
  • Subservience of secular government to religious edicts
  • Entire banking system incompatible due to inability to charge interest
  • Death to those who leave Islam
  • Tolerance of slavery, child molestation

Etc.

Moreover, Dr. Carson’s entire statement was he was opposed to ANYONE who wanted to impose a theocracy, be it Muslim or Christian.

It just happens that Christianity has embraced Judaism’s separation of Religion and King (aka “Church and State”), while Islam still has a largely unified Church/State.

Dr. Carson even went on to say he would support a heretical Muslim who rejected the above-listed beliefs of Islam (which of course would result in him being killed by true believers, but that’s another issue).

So, stop it with the PC bullshit.

Yes, Dr. Carson is opposed to theocrats of ANY religion. Shocking! That’s basic Constitution 101.

52

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yes. The same used to be asked of Catholics.[/quote]

Exactly, protestant bigots claiming Catholics would be loyal first and foremost to the papacy, not to the nation. New generation new bigotry.[/quote]

Oh, stop it. The problem with so much of Islam is not the religious parts, it’s the commingling of political aspects and legal tenants that go with fundamental Islam. For example:

  • Death to gays
  • Second class citizenship for non-Muslims and women(jizya tax, inability to testify, women punished for being raped)
  • Subservience of secular government to religious edicts
  • Entire banking system incompatible due to inability to charge interest
  • Death to those who leave Islam
  • Tolerance of slavery, child molestation

Etc.

Moreover, Dr. Carson’s entire statement was he was opposed to ANYONE who wanted to impose a theocracy, be it Muslim or Christian.

It just happens that Christianity has embraced Judaism’s separation of Religion and King (aka “Church and State”), while Islam still has a largely unified Church/State.

Dr. Carson even went on to say he would support a heretical Muslim who rejected the above-listed beliefs of Islam (which of course would result in him being killed by true believers, but that’s another issue).

So, stop it with the PC bullshit.

Yes, Dr. Carson is opposed to theocrats of ANY religion. Shocking! That’s basic Constitution 101.[/quote]

I largely agree, Christians simply don’t follow their faith and the bad parts, for example over the last 150 years they have slowly “reinterpreted” their faith and decided they no longer have to uphold the old testament, which is why we no longer see gays set on fire or suspected witches drowned.

However this is true of many millions of secular muslims, millions of them are not literalists. This is the problem. People on here acting as though every single muslim wants Sharia etc.

However I agree Islam poses a bigger challenge to reform as it is believed to be scripturally Inerrant. This was true of many christians and their view of the bible but not as pervasive as in Islam.

If you read my posts in other threads you will see I am not PC, trying to label me as such does a disservice to your argument. I agree Islam is a bigger threat in 2015 than Christianity, I find the doctrine of Islam foul. However I understand nuance and don’t infer all muslims are literalists or that they are all sympathetic to Islamism, or support treating muslim refugees differently than we would any other refugees.

53

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
However this is true of many millions of secular muslims, millions of them are not literalists. This is the problem. People on here acting as though every single muslim wants Sharia etc.
[/quote]

Dr. Carson didn’t say anything about secular Muslims. He specifically said Sharia. Why do you keep ignoring this?

55

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
However this is true of many millions of secular muslims, millions of them are not literalists. This is the problem. People on here acting as though every single muslim wants Sharia etc.
[/quote]

Dr. Carson didn’t say anything about secular Muslims. He specifically said Sharia. Why do you keep ignoring this? [/quote]

[quote]

Asked on Meet the Press by the NBC interviewer Chuck Todd if faith should matter to voters when deciding on a presidential candidate [/quote]

[quote]

I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that. [/quote]

He didn’t mention Sharia, he mentioned muslims and said he would not support any Muslim being president. And seeing as any religion if taken literally is incompatible with the U.S constitution (Mosaic law for jews, Canon law for Christians and Sharia for muslims) his entire premise is a bigotted one, singling out one religion.

This was a crude attempt to gain populist jingoist supporters via the Donald Trump method of attacking minorities. Now he is back peddling and claiming he thinks the same of Christian theocracy, despite not mentioning cannon law or sharia but just saying:

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Never mentioned a fundamentalist muslim, or an extremist muslim, or mentioned he would also oppose Christian fundamentalists. He simply said one more time:

********** "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

56

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
However this is true of many millions of secular muslims, millions of them are not literalists. This is the problem. People on here acting as though every single muslim wants Sharia etc.
[/quote]

Dr. Carson didn’t say anything about secular Muslims. He specifically said Sharia. Why do you keep ignoring this? [/quote]

Because why would he bring up Sharia when asked about a potential muslim presidential candidate he said Islam was incompatible with the constitution. Seeing as the majority of American Muslims don’t want sharia and that he wasn’t asked about Sharia but whether “faith should matter to voters”

He then brought up Sharia and said he would not support a Muslim presidential candidate, Christian literalists who want to implement Christian theocracy exist, yet he never brought that up and said he supported some faiths but not the Muslim one. He didn’t say I don’t support any fundamentalist or any theocracy, he only brought up Muslims.

Now the buffoon is back peddling and saying he does not support Christian fundamentalism too. Yet when asked about faith he only brought up Muslims and Sharia. He also said he wouldn’t support a muslim running for president full stop, he didn’t specify a fundamentalist, he didn’t say, I would support a moderate mainstream muslim.

He was simply fishing for jingoistic voters, getting in on that trump idea of attacking minorities to whip up jingoist populist support. Ironic his stance on a muslim presidential candidate, being at odds with the founders.

Your argument is absurd. If Carson said he wouldn’t suport that Taliban government and left it at that would you say, oh wait he must support Assad’s government because he didn’t condemn him to? Of course you wouldn’t because that would be silly. The question was obviously related to the whole Trump Muslim controvery and Carson answered it. He would not support a Sharia Muslim. That is what he said. You are making something out of nothing and labelling him a bigot at the same time. It’s absurd.

57

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
He simply said one more time:

********** "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.[/quote]

This is completely out of context and disingenuous at best.

Start at 8 minutes.

58

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
He simply said one more time:

********** "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.[/quote]

This is completely out of context and disingenuous at best.

Start at 8 minutes. [/quote]

I took nothing out of context i gave you his exact answer.

No one would be pissed if he said, I don’t support fundamentalists of any faith, he said he would not support a muslim, in general. You know what he said and no amount of him trying to backtrack will stop anyone watching the original video.

If Obama was asked in 2008 if faith should matter to voters and he said:

“I would not advocate that we put a Christian in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” what would the reaction be?

Would him then backtracking and saying how wouldn’t support a Muslim theocrat either get you to forget his original statement, which didn’t mention theocracy of any faith but rather simply said he would not support a Christian being president?

59

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
He simply said one more time:

********** "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.[/quote]

This is completely out of context and disingenuous at best.

Start at 8 minutes. [/quote]

I took nothing out of context i gave you his exact answer.

No one would be pissed if he said, I don’t support fundamentalists of any faith, he said he would not support a muslim, in general. You know what he said and no amount of him trying to backtrack will stop anyone watching the original video.

If Obama was asked in 2008 if faith should matter to voters and he said:

“I would not advocate that we put a Christian in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” what would the reaction be?

Would him then backtracking and saying how wouldn’t support a Muslim theocrat either get you to forget his original statement, which didn’t mention theocracy of any faith but rather simply said he would not support a Christian being president?[/quote]

You very clearly have taken that one sentence out of context. The video of the interview poves this.

60

8 minute mark.

“Should a Presidents faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?”

“Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the value and principles of America then of course it should matter.”

This is the context you’re either ignoring or missing. He was talking about Sharia Muslims. Unfortunately, I think Dr. Carson is learning you have to break everything down Barney style in today’s world.