Ben Carson: Islamophobe of the Day

[Anonymous]

^^FWIW, I'd be wary of an evangelical as president for the same reasons.

[jsteele]

A Muslim candidate for President would be an American, born in America. Therefore, I'm not sure what it matters how Muslim rulers are treating non-Muslims in other countries. But, if treatment of minority religions in other countries is used to determine the eligibility for the office of President in the US, doesn't it pretty much rule out Jewish candidates? Shouldn't Bernie Sanders (who I personally love), be ruled out because Israel has never and probably will never have a Christian or Muslim Prime Minister?

I am still waiting for an example of rule by a Seventh Day Adventist so that we can determine Ben Carson's own eligibility. Carson questioned the compatibility of Islam with the Constitution while explicitly stating an unconstitutional position. Therefore, I'd say that by his own criteria, Carson in ineligible regardless of his religion.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:A Muslim candidate for President would be an American, born in America. Therefore, I'm not sure what it matters how Muslim rulers are treating non-Muslims in other countries. But, if treatment of minority religions in other countries is used to determine the eligibility for the office of President in the US, doesn't it pretty much rule out Jewish candidates? Shouldn't Bernie Sanders (who I personally love), be ruled out because Israel has never and probably will never have a Christian or Muslim Prime Minister?

I am still waiting for an example of rule by a Seventh Day Adventist so that we can determine Ben Carson's own eligibility. Carson questioned the compatibility of Islam with the Constitution while explicitly stating an unconstitutional position. Therefore, I'd say that by his own criteria, Carson in ineligible regardless of his religion.

jewishness is different because jewishness can refer to ethnicity and not religious practice.

an athiest jew is fine. a jew that's observant and behaves like schumer and liberman -no thanks.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:A Muslim candidate for President would be an American, born in America. Therefore, I'm not sure what it matters how Muslim rulers are treating non-Muslims in other countries. But, if treatment of minority religions in other countries is used to determine the eligibility for the office of President in the US, doesn't it pretty much rule out Jewish candidates? Shouldn't Bernie Sanders (who I personally love), be ruled out because Israel has never and probably will never have a Christian or Muslim Prime Minister?

I am still waiting for an example of rule by a Seventh Day Adventist so that we can determine Ben Carson's own eligibility. Carson questioned the compatibility of Islam with the Constitution while explicitly stating an unconstitutional position. Therefore, I'd say that by his own criteria, Carson in ineligible regardless of his religion.

I don't agree with Carson's interpretation of the Constitution and it was you who cited the example of India and other countries when it came to "moderate" nations which have Islamic leaders.

The real question is whether any president can separate his faith from the policies he/she will follow. If he cannot as far as I am concerned it would rule him out. It does not matter if it is a Muslim or a Christian.

Also, FWIW, I have a strong discomfort with Jewish legislators who express the sort of affinity with Israel that causes them to be unable to separate their heritage from whatever is in Israel's interests. For this reason I'd never have voted for someone like Lieberman.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:A Muslim candidate for President would be an American, born in America. Therefore, I'm not sure what it matters how Muslim rulers are treating non-Muslims in other countries. But, if treatment of minority religions in other countries is used to determine the eligibility for the office of President in the US, doesn't it pretty much rule out Jewish candidates? Shouldn't Bernie Sanders (who I personally love), be ruled out because Israel has never and probably will never have a Christian or Muslim Prime Minister?

I am still waiting for an example of rule by a Seventh Day Adventist so that we can determine Ben Carson's own eligibility. Carson questioned the compatibility of Islam with the Constitution while explicitly stating an unconstitutional position. Therefore, I'd say that by his own criteria, Carson in ineligible regardless of his religion.

I don't agree with Carson's interpretation of the Constitution and it was you who cited the example of India and other countries when it came to "moderate" nations which have Islamic leaders.

The real question is whether any president can separate his faith from the policies he/she will follow. If he cannot as far as I am concerned it would rule him out. It does not matter if it is a Muslim or a Christian.

Also, FWIW, I have a strong discomfort with Jewish legislators who express the sort of affinity with Israel that causes them to be unable to separate their heritage from whatever is in Israel's interests. For this reason I'd never have voted for someone like Lieberman.

FYI, it wasn't me that mentioned India and other countries.

But, it sounds like what you are saying is that it is not the religion of an individual that it is important to you, but that specific polices of that individual. Given the role of religion in most people's lives, it is almost impossible to expect someone to completely separate his faith from the values he holds and to further separate those values from polices he advocates. But, it is not infrequent for individuals to diverge from specific practices that are common within a faith -- for instance, a Catholic taking a pro-choice position.

I am curious which Muslim beliefs posters in this thread believe should disqualify Muslims from being President? The only examples that have been mentioned -- hanging people from cranes for example -- would never be advocated by a Muslim candidate in the US and, in fact, are not practiced in the vast majority of Muslim countries.

[Anonymous]

Any deviation from the traditional template of a white male Protestant is going to set people on edge cause for far too many different = disaster. Kennedy wasn't exactly lauded for being different (Catholic) and we all know #44 has given people night terrors ever since '08 cause he is so different.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:A Muslim candidate for President would be an American, born in America. Therefore, I'm not sure what it matters how Muslim rulers are treating non-Muslims in other countries. But, if treatment of minority religions in other countries is used to determine the eligibility for the office of President in the US, doesn't it pretty much rule out Jewish candidates? Shouldn't Bernie Sanders (who I personally love), be ruled out because Israel has never and probably will never have a Christian or Muslim Prime Minister?

I am still waiting for an example of rule by a Seventh Day Adventist so that we can determine Ben Carson's own eligibility. Carson questioned the compatibility of Islam with the Constitution while explicitly stating an unconstitutional position. Therefore, I'd say that by his own criteria, Carson in ineligible regardless of his religion.

I don't agree with Carson's interpretation of the Constitution and it was you who cited the example of India and other countries when it came to "moderate" nations which have Islamic leaders.

The real question is whether any president can separate his faith from the policies he/she will follow. If he cannot as far as I am concerned it would rule him out. It does not matter if it is a Muslim or a Christian.

Also, FWIW, I have a strong discomfort with Jewish legislators who express the sort of affinity with Israel that causes them to be unable to separate their heritage from whatever is in Israel's interests. For this reason I'd never have voted for someone like Lieberman.

FYI, it wasn't me that mentioned India and other countries.

But, it sounds like what you are saying is that it is not the religion of an individual that it is important to you, but that specific polices of that individual. Given the role of religion in most people's lives, it is almost impossible to expect someone to completely separate his faith from the values he holds and to further separate those values from polices he advocates. But, it is not infrequent for individuals to diverge from specific practices that are common within a faith -- for instance, a Catholic taking a pro-choice position.

I am curious which Muslim beliefs posters in this thread believe should disqualify Muslims from being President? The only examples that have been mentioned -- hanging people from cranes for example -- would never be advocated by a Muslim candidate in the US and, in fact, are not practiced in the vast majority of Muslim countries.

This will not answer your question directly but - and this based on frequent contact with Muslims in the US and abroad - Muslims find it difficult to separate their faith from aspects of lifestyle and views about social and other issues. This is a problem for me and a Muslim candidate would have a higher hurdle to overcome before I would be satisfied as to the extent he would be able to separate his faith from how he would function as president.

Again, this is not just outright bigotry, because I feel the same way about some evangelicals. For example, I'd never feel comfortable with someone like Huckabee or Santorum for the same reason.

Both groups are prone to a certain intolerance when it comes to issues that violate some tenet of their faith.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Both groups are prone to a certain intolerance when it comes to issues that violate some tenet of their faith.

If an individual holds positions which that individual attributes to his faith and you do not support those positions, then you should not support that individual. That is true regardless of the individual's faith. If you are pro-choice, you should not support an pro-life Muslim, a pro-life Christian, or a pro-life Atheist (the late Christopher Hitchens was an example). My issue is with a blanket statement such as "I wouldn't support a Muslim" because that support is not based on anything beyond the individual's religion. It is no different than saying "I wouldn't support a woman" or "I wouldn't support a black person" or "I wouldn't support a Catholic". Not all Muslims are the same just as not all women, black people, or Catholics are the same.

[Anonymous]

All of these politicians are pitching to their constituency right now so all kinds of generic blanket statements are gonna be getting tossed around.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:All of these politicians are pitching to their constituency right now so all kinds of generic blanket statements are gonna be getting tossed around.

None of them should be excused. You know full well that making the same blanket statements about other groups would be career-ending. Bigoted statements should not be excused simply because they are targeted at the powerless.

[Anonymous]

Just like we have white supremacists, this looks like a case of Christian supremacy. These are the religious bigots.

[Anonymous]

I am still waiting for an example of rule by a Seventh Day Adventist so that we can determine Ben Carson's own eligibility. Carson questioned the compatibility of Islam with the Constitution while explicitly stating an unconstitutional position. Therefore, I'd say that by his own criteria, Carson in ineligible regardless of his religion.

http://associationsnow.com/2015/07/seventh-day-adventist-politicians-gain-community-new-association/
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST POLITICIANS GAIN COMMUNITY WITH NEW ASSOCIATION

Elder Ted N.C. Wilson, president of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, spoke at the event and encouraged the leaders to remain motivated by their faith when making decisions.

“You are the Esthers, the Josephs, the Daniels of our world,” Wilson said, according to a news release. “You make a difference in an arena that most of us never touch. And never forget you are there for a purpose; you are where God has placed you. Yes, you serve your country, or a particular legislature. But most importantly, because you are a Seventh-day Adventist, you are working under the very highest authority: Jesus Christ our Savior. You are called to be unusual ambassadors for Christ.”

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these politicians are pitching to their constituency right now so all kinds of generic blanket statements are gonna be getting tossed around.

None of them should be excused. You know full well that making the same blanket statements about other groups would be career-ending. Bigoted statements should not be excused simply because they are targeted at the powerless.

Islam is not an identity; it is a belief system, like white supremacists, or communists. In much of the world Islam is anything but powerless, in almost all of those places a whole lot of things incompatible with western values are implemented by force of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these politicians are pitching to their constituency right now so all kinds of generic blanket statements are gonna be getting tossed around.

None of them should be excused. You know full well that making the same blanket statements about other groups would be career-ending. Bigoted statements should not be excused simply because they are targeted at the powerless.

Islam is not an identity; it is a belief system, like white supremacists, or communists. In much of the world Islam is anything but powerless, in almost all of those places a whole lot of things incompatible with western values are implemented by force of law.

Is that the same way that Christianity is a belief system?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these politicians are pitching to their constituency right now so all kinds of generic blanket statements are gonna be getting tossed around.

None of them should be excused. You know full well that making the same blanket statements about other groups would be career-ending. Bigoted statements should not be excused simply because they are targeted at the powerless.

Islam is not an identity; it is a belief system, like white supremacists, or communists. In much of the world Islam is anything but powerless, in almost all of those places a whole lot of things incompatible with western values are implemented by force of law.

Again, Islam is not homogeneous. Every time that you suggest that is the case, you are exposing both your ignorance and your bigotry. What groups besides Muslims do you believe it is acceptable to cast blanket statements about?

The US Constitution -- a document that many believe espouses Western values -- explicitly prohibits religious tests for holding public office. Why would you excuse any candidate that opposes that Western value?