Ben Carson: Islamophobe of the Day

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

Not the PP but no-I do not. If a religion is contradictory to the constitution, then why bother having a constitution at all? We may as well elect a communist to run our country.

EXACTLY. The tenants of Islam are NOT in line with the Constitution, the laws of this land. If they were, Islamists would not be pushing for Sharia here.

According to Kim Davis, Christianity is not in line with the Constitution. So, I guess Christians should be prohibited from being President.

If a Christian's intention in the Presidency is to run the country according to their own religious laws instead of the Constitution, you would be correct.

[Anonymous]

Seems the good doctor's rational thoughts are limited to poking inside people's brains.

It wasn't a Muslim president that declared a crusade, invaded Afghanistan, invaded and trashed Iraq on a lie kiiling over a million people, displaced millions more, threw the entire region into armed chaos that persists, and bankrupted his country in the process.

It was a Christian fundamentalist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read my comments above, they answer your questions. I'm beginning to believe you are the bigot here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You keep flip flopping between opining about individual belief levels and Religion itself. They are not the same thing. And to try to make a comparison between the two is idiotic. So I'll say this again, hopefully it sinks in this time. I'm only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense, no matter the religion. Get it???????

If not, then start another thread that compares just religions and their political acceptance levels. Take the individual element out of it.

This response really doesn't seem to fit the discussion it followed. Are you sure that you read my post?

This conversation began with me asking for examples of polices that a Muslim President might espouse that were unacceptable. The example provided was a hypothetical restriction on eating pork. I asked if you have the same concern about a Jewish President. Both religions have the same restriction. It is not clear to me why you would not treat both hypothetical examples similarly.

You say you are only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense (I believe you mean common good). If that is the case, do you have this concern about members of all religions, or just those who practice Islam? If it is about members of all religions, we are on the same page. But, then I am not sure why you are debating me.

Not the PP but I've bolded the problem here. The PP means common sense. Since you are a socialist (you support Sanders), you only understand it from the point of view of the common good, so you think that's what he means. The PP understands the issue from the point of view of the individual, not the group.

This must be an odd number post. In your even numbered posts, you cry about people calling you names. In your add number posts, you call people names. I bet you didn't think I would catch on to that pattern.

The poster previously used the phrase "common good". "Common good" actually fits the context of the sentence better than "common sense". Perhaps you might use some "common sense" and let the poster to speak for himself? That would be for the "common good".

Calling you a socialist is calling you names? If you support Bernie Sanders, who says himself he's a socialist, you obviously love socialist philosophies. That's not name calling, it's simply fact. Unless you think being a socialist is something to be ashamed of? I support Ted Cruz. He's a conservative and a Tea Party member. If you called me a conservative or told me I support the Tea Party, you'd be right on both counts. Again, fact.

Being a supporter of the Tea Party and a supporter of Ted Cruz is certainly something you ought to be ashamed of... future histories will have you right in there with peopke like the the Know Nothings and George Wallace, the backward-thinkers...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

Not the PP but no-I do not. If a religion is contradictory to the constitution, then why bother having a constitution at all? We may as well elect a communist to run our country.

EXACTLY. The tenants of Islam are NOT in line with the Constitution, the laws of this land. If they were, Islamists would not be pushing for Sharia here.

According to Kim Davis, Christianity is not in line with the Constitution. So, I guess Christians should be prohibited from being President.

If a Christian's intention in the Presidency is to run the country according to their own religious laws instead of the Constitution, you would be correct.

Yep, Kim Davis might as well have pulled out a zippo and torched the Constitution when she spat on the Equal Protection clause...

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

So no answer to the question in bold?

Oh sorry, I don't understand the question. There is no "official" Islam that one can support or oppose. I am not a Muslim and don't practice Islam. To me, Islam is no different than any other religion. They are all interesting to study and all of them have practitioners with whom I agree and with whom I don't.

Dodge all you want. But I'll answer for you since you won't.

You support your personal views. Your personal views include some religious beliefs but not the entirety of any particular religion. Even if you did totally disagree with a particular religion, say: Satanism, Scientology or Nazism, you would still consider their members as potentially worthy presidential candidates. Anyone who does not support such religions and does not consider their members worthy presidential candidates are bigots.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

So no answer to the question in bold?

Oh sorry, I don't understand the question. There is no "official" Islam that one can support or oppose. I am not a Muslim and don't practice Islam. To me, Islam is no different than any other religion. They are all interesting to study and all of them have practitioners with whom I agree and with whom I don't.

Dodge all you want. But I'll answer for you since you won't.

You support your personal views. Your personal views include some religious beliefs but not the entirety of any particular religion. Even if you did totally disagree with a particular religion, say: Satanism, Scientology or Nazism, you would still consider their members as potentially worthy presidential candidates. Anyone who does not support such religions and does not consider their members worthy presidential candidates are bigots.

Can you clarify for me whether Satanists, Scientologists, or Nazis have a wide spectrum of differing beliefs that mean that is it impossible to paint them all with the same brush? I am probably not as well informed as you about those groups, but I thought that their members pretty much agreed upon on everything. In contrast, Islam comes in so many different forms that the different factions are often at war with each other.

Also, since I answered your question, can you please answer mine about whether or not you support the prohibition in the US Constitutional on religious tests for holding public office?

[Anonymous]

I wasn't aware Nazism was a religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware Nazism was a religion.

It's a debatable topic. Some say yes, some no. But all will say they have/had some religious based undertones.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

So no answer to the question in bold?

Oh sorry, I don't understand the question. There is no "official" Islam that one can support or oppose. I am not a Muslim and don't practice Islam. To me, Islam is no different than any other religion. They are all interesting to study and all of them have practitioners with whom I agree and with whom I don't.

Dodge all you want. But I'll answer for you since you won't.

You support your personal views. Your personal views include some religious beliefs but not the entirety of any particular religion. Even if you did totally disagree with a particular religion, say: Satanism, Scientology or Nazism, you would still consider their members as potentially worthy presidential candidates. Anyone who does not support such religions and does not consider their members worthy presidential candidates are bigots.

Can you clarify for me whether Satanists, Scientologists, or Nazis have a wide spectrum of differing beliefs that mean that is it impossible to paint them all with the same brush? I am probably not as well informed as you about those groups, but I thought that their members pretty much agreed upon on everything. In contrast, Islam comes in so many different forms that the different factions are often at war with each other.

Also, since I answered your question, can you please answer mine about whether or not you support the prohibition in the US Constitutional on religious tests for holding public office?

I believe anyone should be able to run for president regardless of their religious associations. I also believe everyone has the right to disqualify someone based on their religious beliefs. That is where you and I disagree and where you show your own form of bigotry.

And yes, I believe the US Constitution not requiring a religious test is a good thing. It protects those who are religiously affiliated, those who are not, and those who denounce certain religions. You seem to be advocating it should not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

So no answer to the question in bold?

Oh sorry, I don't understand the question. There is no "official" Islam that one can support or oppose. I am not a Muslim and don't practice Islam. To me, Islam is no different than any other religion. They are all interesting to study and all of them have practitioners with whom I agree and with whom I don't.

Well put. Freedom of Religion includes the freedom to find religion contemptable. Anyone's religion.
Dodge all you want. But I'll answer for you since you won't.

You support your personal views. Your personal views include some religious beliefs but not the entirety of any particular religion. Even if you did totally disagree with a particular religion, say: Satanism, Scientology or Nazism, you would still consider their members as potentially worthy presidential candidates. Anyone who does not support such religions and does not consider their members worthy presidential candidates are bigots.

Can you clarify for me whether Satanists, Scientologists, or Nazis have a wide spectrum of differing beliefs that mean that is it impossible to paint them all with the same brush? I am probably not as well informed as you about those groups, but I thought that their members pretty much agreed upon on everything. In contrast, Islam comes in so many different forms that the different factions are often at war with each other.

Also, since I answered your question, can you please answer mine about whether or not you support the prohibition in the US Constitutional on religious tests for holding public office?

I believe anyone should be able to run for president regardless of their religious associations. I also believe everyone has the right to disqualify someone based on their religious beliefs. That is where you and I disagree and where you show your own form of bigotry.

And yes, I believe the US Constitution not requiring a religious test is a good thing. It protects those who are religiously affiliated, those who are not, and those who denounce certain religions. You seem to be advocating it should not.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I believe anyone should be able to run for president regardless of their religious associations. I also believe everyone has the right to disqualify someone based on their religious beliefs. That is where you and I disagree and where you show your own form of bigotry.

No, we don't disagree. I've said this about three times and I don't know why you continually don't get it. Islam encompasses a few core beliefs intertwined with cultural and traditional elements and various schools, off-shoots, etc. It just doesn't make sense to say "a Muslim shouldn't be President" because the range of possible beliefs of that individual can range from the very acceptable to the very unacceptable. If, on the other hand, you decide not to support a specific individual who is Muslim because that individual believes women should be covered head to toe and not educated, that it totally acceptable to me. But, the assumption that any Muslim would have such beliefs is what I find bigoted.

[Anonymous]

How about a Scientologist?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe anyone should be able to run for president regardless of their religious associations. I also believe everyone has the right to disqualify someone based on their religious beliefs. That is where you and I disagree and where you show your own form of bigotry.

No, we don't disagree. I've said this about three times and I don't know why you continually don't get it. Islam encompasses a few core beliefs intertwined with cultural and traditional elements and various schools, off-shoots, etc. It just doesn't make sense to say "a Muslim shouldn't be President" because the range of possible beliefs of that individual can range from the very acceptable to the very unacceptable. If, on the other hand, you decide not to support a specific individual who is Muslim because that individual believes women should be covered head to toe and not educated, that it totally acceptable to me. But, the assumption that any Muslim would have such beliefs is what I find bigoted.

Well, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. But you definitely are coming off as someone who would disqualify Carson and all Islamophobes (which there are probably millions) simply and solely because they are Islamophobes. Keeping in mind this group of Islamophobes are going to be as diverse as Muslims in their range of possible beliefs. Perhaps that wasn't your intention. But if it wasn't then it makes me wonder why you even started this topic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe anyone should be able to run for president regardless of their religious associations. I also believe everyone has the right to disqualify someone based on their religious beliefs. That is where you and I disagree and where you show your own form of bigotry.

No, we don't disagree. I've said this about three times and I don't know why you continually don't get it. Islam encompasses a few core beliefs intertwined with cultural and traditional elements and various schools, off-shoots, etc. It just doesn't make sense to say "a Muslim shouldn't be President" because the range of possible beliefs of that individual can range from the very acceptable to the very unacceptable. If, on the other hand, you decide not to support a specific individual who is Muslim because that individual believes women should be covered head to toe and not educated, that it totally acceptable to me. But, the assumption that any Muslim would have such beliefs is what I find bigoted.

Well, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. But you definitely are coming off as someone who would disqualify Carson and all Islamophobes (which there are probably millions) simply and solely because they are Islamophobes. Keeping in mind this group of Islamophobes are going to be as diverse as Muslims in their range of possible beliefs. Perhaps that wasn't your intention. But if it wasn't then it makes me wonder why you even started this topic.

I would definitely oppose the election of any Islamophobe just as I would oppose the election of any anti-Semite or any white supremacist. While Islamophobes may be diverse, they are united by their hatred of Islam. That is enough for me to oppose them. In 2012, Ben Carson wrote, "It is very important to remember, however, that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and to paint them with a single philosophical brush is just as absurd as trying to characterize the diverse thinking of billions of Christians around the world." In his statement that provoked this thread, he used exactly that single philosophical brush that he had previously described as "absurd". Carson apparently changed his position because it was necessary to remain competitive in the Hate Olympics that is known as the Republican primary. I started this discussion to draw attention to Carson's statement which even by his own reasoning was "absurd".

Carson is supposed to be an intelligent person, but taking this position was not very smart. It was not very clever for the reason Carson himself had previously explained, but in more practical terms, it opens the floor to discussions of his own religion. How much scrutiny of 7th Day Adventism do you believe he would tolerate before screaming about prejudice and unfair treatment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about a Scientologist?

only if John Travolta runs