Ben Carson: Islamophobe of the Day

[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.

No doubt - definitely inexcusable.

[Anonymous]

Is this the prevailing position of GOP? Is this why Bobby Jindal converted?

So, according to this logic why not choose Jindal?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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?

Not the PP to whom you addressed your response.

Islam has variations but except for those who are nominal Muslims, there is a strong element of intolerance when it comes to belief systems that are contrary to their faith.

When it comes to other faiths - Judaism or Christianity, for example - there are those who are orthodox in their beliefs and they are no different than Muslims in their intolerance of other viewpoints. The difference is that there are variations within those faiths as to how literally they take some of the main tenets. So you have Reform Jews and various Christian denominations that are relatively tolerant.

When it comes to Islam there those who are quite extreme and then there are those who are less so .... but even with the latter I would not refer to their views as moderate by any means.

The US has been fairly exempt from the sort of extremism that we have seen from Muslims in other countries. There is no point in allowing political correctness to blind us to certain realities.

[Anonymous]

For me it would depend on how devout the Muslim or any religious faction was/is. To me someone with deep seeded religious beliefs where their religion takes priority over all else is unfit to be a leader in a democracy. They would make an excellent dictator though.

[Anonymous]

I can't say he's an idiot because he's a neurosurgeon. But he sure seems ignorant of both the Constitution and human nature. Or at the very worst, he's being a bigot on purpose, as a means to an end.

Denying a whole class of people based on one issue (their religion in this case), is just dumb. Not all black people are the same. If they were, I guess we couldn't elect Carson if we thought #BlackLivesMatter is a terrorist group.

My family is Muslim and we are strongly leaning toward Bernie Sanders. If we dismissed him out of hand because he is Jewish (and therefore might take care of Israel to the detriment of the US), then we would really be missing out on someone who I think is extremely good for this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this the prevailing position of GOP? Is this why Bobby Jindal converted?

So, according to this logic why not choose Jindal?

Jindal is a clown.

There are plenty on this thread that have suggested they wouldn't vote for an evangelical either.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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?

Not the PP to whom you addressed your response.

Islam has variations but except for those who are nominal Muslims, there is a strong element of intolerance when it comes to belief systems that are contrary to their faith.

When it comes to other faiths - Judaism or Christianity, for example - there are those who are orthodox in their beliefs and they are no different than Muslims in their intolerance of other viewpoints. The difference is that there are variations within those faiths as to how literally they take some of the main tenets. So you have Reform Jews and various Christian denominations that are relatively tolerant.

When it comes to Islam there those who are quite extreme and then there are those who are less so .... but even with the latter I would not refer to their views as moderate by any means.

The US has been fairly exempt from the sort of extremism that we have seen from Muslims in other countries. There is no point in allowing political correctness to blind us to certain realities.

There is really nothing worse than an educated bigot. At least the ignorant have an excuse. But, when those who know better still justify prejudice, they do it despite knowing the consequences.

Can you state specifically which polices a Muslim candidate in the US is likely to expose based on her religion that you would oppose? Is it the praying five times a day that you believe would be disqualifying? The chance that the President might go on the Haj? Is it the charity that the President would demonstrate? The fasting? Or, her simple profession of faith? I am having a really difficult time understanding why all Muslims should be unconstitutionally barred from the Presidency.

[Anonymous]

I'll give an example.

I will vote for Keith Ellison for example. He's a progressive who is a muslim.

However if Keith Ellison was not a progressive, but just a middle of the road dem, I would rather vote for a middle of the road dem who is NOT muslim (or evangelical for that matter) than one who is.

Policy comes first.

Religious views are a tie breaker.

It's like how the ivy league holds asians to a higher standard for admissions. I hold muslims and evangelicals to a higher standard - they better be really game changers for me to vote for them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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?

Not the PP to whom you addressed your response.

Islam has variations but except for those who are nominal Muslims, there is a strong element of intolerance when it comes to belief systems that are contrary to their faith.

When it comes to other faiths - Judaism or Christianity, for example - there are those who are orthodox in their beliefs and they are no different than Muslims in their intolerance of other viewpoints. The difference is that there are variations within those faiths as to how literally they take some of the main tenets. So you have Reform Jews and various Christian denominations that are relatively tolerant.

When it comes to Islam there those who are quite extreme and then there are those who are less so .... but even with the latter I would not refer to their views as moderate by any means.

The US has been fairly exempt from the sort of extremism that we have seen from Muslims in other countries. There is no point in allowing political correctness to blind us to certain realities.

There is really nothing worse than an educated bigot. At least the ignorant have an excuse. But, when those who know better still justify prejudice, they do it despite knowing the consequences.

Can you state specifically which polices a Muslim candidate in the US is likely to expose based on her religion that you would oppose? Is it the praying five times a day that you believe would be disqualifying? The chance that the President might go on the Haj? Is it the charity that the President would demonstrate? The fasting? Or, her simple profession of faith? I am having a really difficult time understanding why all Muslims should be unconstitutionally barred from the Presidency.

You are being deliberately obtuse and don't be so quick to accuse people of bigotry because they disagree with you.

None of the items you listed in the last paragraph would bother me. But someone who is a conservative, observant Muslim would seek to implement other aspects of Islam that would be unacceptable in the US. Fortunately he would be prevented from doing so by Congress and the courts but that would not prevent divisiveness.

As to what specific things he may seek to do if he follows one of the more conservative variations of Islam, just check out what happens in some Muslim countries and see if they would be acceptable in the US.

If you ever get a chance - and can find it - check out what Kenneth Kaunda once said about Islam and why it is so immensely appealing to Africans. Kaunda was a Christian.

[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.

We've had Muslim citizens try and go join ISIS. We've had Muslim citizens attack our military. We've had Muslim citizens bomb innocents at the Boston Marathon. There will be more Muslim citizens attacking here. Being born here or arrived here and became a citizen clearly makes no difference when it comes to their religious beliefs.

It IS about Islam, no matter how much you want to try and dodge and sway around it.

Good you admitted to being a Socialist/Marxist. Was waiting for your endorsement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Note the words RULE OF LAW the PP used. Their countries are run based on their religion. Ours, on the other hand, is not.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Can you state specifically which polices a Muslim candidate in the US is likely to expose based on her religion that you would oppose? Is it the praying five times a day that you believe would be disqualifying? The chance that the President might go on the Haj? Is it the charity that the President would demonstrate? The fasting? Or, her simple profession of faith? I am having a really difficult time understanding why all Muslims should be unconstitutionally barred from the Presidency.

NP here

I'll give a simple example. Muslims due to religious reasons do not consume pork. If they supported a policy banning or restricting pork products I would be opposed. It really boils down to how willing said person is to imposing their believes onto the general public. Nothing wrong with them practicing their believes as an individual. There is only an issue when/if they impose their religious beliefs onto the general public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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?

Not the PP to whom you addressed your response.

Islam has variations but except for those who are nominal Muslims, there is a strong element of intolerance when it comes to belief systems that are contrary to their faith.

When it comes to other faiths - Judaism or Christianity, for example - there are those who are orthodox in their beliefs and they are no different than Muslims in their intolerance of other viewpoints. The difference is that there are variations within those faiths as to how literally they take some of the main tenets. So you have Reform Jews and various Christian denominations that are relatively tolerant.

When it comes to Islam there those who are quite extreme and then there are those who are less so .... but even with the latter I would not refer to their views as moderate by any means.

The US has been fairly exempt from the sort of extremism that we have seen from Muslims in other countries. There is no point in allowing political correctness to blind us to certain realities.

There is really nothing worse than an educated bigot. At least the ignorant have an excuse. But, when those who know better still justify prejudice, they do it despite knowing the consequences.

Can you state specifically which polices a Muslim candidate in the US is likely to expose based on her religion that you would oppose? Is it the praying five times a day that you believe would be disqualifying? The chance that the President might go on the Haj? Is it the charity that the President would demonstrate? The fasting? Or, her simple profession of faith? I am having a really difficult time understanding why all Muslims should be unconstitutionally barred from the Presidency.

You are being deliberately obtuse and don't be so quick to accuse people of bigotry because they disagree with you.

None of the items you listed in the last paragraph would bother me. But someone who is a conservative, observant Muslim would seek to implement other aspects of Islam that would be unacceptable in the US. Fortunately he would be prevented from doing so by Congress and the courts but that would not prevent divisiveness.

As to what specific things he may seek to do if he follows one of the more conservative variations of Islam, just check out what happens in some Muslim countries and see if they would be acceptable in the US.

If you ever get a chance - and can find it - check out what Kenneth Kaunda once said about Islam and why it is so immensely appealing to Africans. Kaunda was a Christian.

Don't be so sure of this. I know some would try and stop it. I can see many, many others in position of power doing otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Note the words RULE OF LAW the PP used. Their countries are run based on their religion. Ours, on the other hand, is not.

I keep getting confused. Is this a Christian nation or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Note the words RULE OF LAW the PP used. Their countries are run based on their religion. Ours, on the other hand, is not.

I keep getting confused. Is this a Christian nation or not?

Nope.