Ben Carson: Islamophobe of the Day

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Carson is correct in that the Islamic faith is not consistent with the Constitution

How so? There is no "official" Islam. So, how are you able to make such a categorial statement? That is exactly what used to be said about Catholics because a Catholic would be subservient to the Pope. It was wrong about Catholics and is wrong about Muslims.

You are confusing Muslims with Islam as a faith. Yes, Islam as a faith is not consistent with the U.S. constitution. Do Muslims live their lives 100% according to the Quran? Of course they do not. There is no official Islam. That is true. There is, however, a highly official, unchangeable and immutable (to Muslims) a book of Islam that resists change. Quran is not consistent with the Constitution and is not meant to be, just like any other book of scripture. The questions "Is Islam consistent with the U.S. Constitution?" and "Can a Muslim be President?" are not related.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Ben Carson does not believe a Muslim should be President, saying:

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

Asked if "Islam is consistent with the Constitution", Carson replied:

"No, I don't, I do not."

This goes against clear language in the US Constitution. Article VI states:

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So, not only is Carson advocating a clearly bigoted position, but one that is unconstitutional.

Bored today, Jeff? Some reason you trotted out this straw man?

There's plenty of rational reason to detest Islam and the people that follow it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Ben Carson does not believe a Muslim should be President, saying:

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

Asked if "Islam is consistent with the Constitution", Carson replied:

"No, I don't, I do not."

This goes against clear language in the US Constitution. Article VI states:

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So, not only is Carson advocating a clearly bigoted position, but one that is unconstitutional.

Bored today, Jeff? Some reason you trotted out this straw man?

There's plenty of rational reason to detest Islam and the people that follow it.

I'm sure that bigots believe that is true. Very sad.

[Anonymous]

I personally would not want my daughter or any other little girl seeing a First Lady covered head to toe in black cloth with only a small slit for their eyes.
As women in this country, we have come way too far for that. I also do not want my gay friends and family to find themselves again on the outskirts of society after the recent Supreme Court decision. Islam is not compatible with our constitution and our freedoms. I have no interest in shariah law becoming accepted anywhere in this country. I also find it terribly disturbing that liberal society thinks it is OK to discriminate against women and gays as long as you are Muslim. I am not saying all Muslims are bad people, certainly there are many more good Muslims than bad. But the basis of the religion is anti-woman and anti-gay and I am not OK with that. How anyone can deny the obvious is very disturbing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
BTW, the five things I listed that you said would not bother you are basically the only things about which all Muslims agree. If you would rise above your prejudice, you would understand that there is nothing inherently disqualifying about Islam.

No, these are not the only things about which all Muslims agree. You won't find a Muslim to say pork is fine to eat, or that alcohol is OK to drink. Note I didn't say you won't find a pork-eating Muslim or a drinking one, but you will be hard-pressed to find a Muslim who believes these things are halal. You will also have one hell of a time finding a Muslim who believes premarital sex is OK, especially for women, or that Muslim women are allowed to marry non-Muslim men. Again, that's not to say that no Muslims practice these things; it's to say that very few Muslims believe these things are Islamically permitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally would not want my daughter or any other little girl seeing a First Lady covered head to toe in black cloth with only a small slit for their eyes.
As women in this country, we have come way too far for that. I also do not want my gay friends and family to find themselves again on the outskirts of society after the recent Supreme Court decision. Islam is not compatible with our constitution and our freedoms. I have no interest in shariah law becoming accepted anywhere in this country. I also find it terribly disturbing that liberal society thinks it is OK to discriminate against women and gays as long as you are Muslim. I am not saying all Muslims are bad people, certainly there are many more good Muslims than bad. But the basis of the religion is anti-woman and anti-gay and I am not OK with that. How anyone can deny the obvious is very disturbing.

Islam isn't anti-woman and it does not require women to cover head to toe, or wear all black, or cover their faces. No first ladies in Muslim-majority countries look like that, either.

[Anonymous]

So much talk about such a stupid topic--religion.

[Anonymous]

Carson represents christian supremacy the same way that the taliban represents islamic supremacy.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Ben Carson does not believe a Muslim should be President, saying:

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

Asked if "Islam is consistent with the Constitution", Carson replied:

"No, I don't, I do not."

This goes against clear language in the US Constitution. Article VI states:

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So, not only is Carson advocating a clearly bigoted position, but one that is unconstitutional.

Bored today, Jeff? Some reason you trotted out this straw man?

There's plenty of rational reason to detest Islam and the people that follow it.

I'm sure that bigots believe that is true. Very sad.

Seriously, dude. Are you drinking? Have a fight with your wife and decide to take it out on us? What's up with this sad, pathetic thread that seems engineered for you to call people names?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nothing wrong with my comprehension of the English language .... despite your attempt to deflect with your rather simplistic reasoning.

My contention is that although Carson is wrong about the constitutionality of a Muslim being president, it would be understandable if people are wary of a Muslim becoming president given the inclination of many Muslims to bring their faith into how people should live their lives. Someone who has concerns about this is not necessarily bigoted or racist.

Why do you think many Muslim countries are theocracies? How many non-Muslim countries are theocracies?

Being a progressive is all well and good but you need to recognize certain realities. I see the very same lack of reality in your tirade in defense of the kid who went to school with a home made clock. Yes, a white Christian kid would not have drawn the same sort of reaction but how many young white kids or young black kids become suicide bombers?

It appears that your prejudices have clouded your thinking. Many people of all faiths bring their faith into how people should live their lives. Indeed, two of the major issues of our day are gay rights and abortion. Faith plays a major role in the positions many take with regard to these issues. You continue to bring up what happens in other countries. But, should we judge American Christians by what happens in Uganda or Russia where Christianity has resulted in strident homophobia?

Clearly voters should judge candidates by the positions the candidates hold, regardless of whether those positions are derived from faith or otherwise. It makes no sense to judge all members of an entire religion when there are vast differences among those who practice the religion.

You asked about suicide bombings. I am not aware of a single suicide bombing in an American school. How many Muslim kids have conducted mass killings in schools within the US? How many white kids? Moreover, how many suicide bombings have been conducted without bombs? Remember, nobody involved believed this was a bomb. The entire reasoning behind the police interrogation which was clearly stated by the police is that Ahmed did not provide a "wider explanation". He kept saying the device was a clock.

But, why are you providing justifications for prejudice when you strongly deny having such prejudices? If you want to hold prejudices against Muslims and feel that you can justify those prejudices, that is your right. But why do you then get upset when called on it?

You have a blind spot when it comes to this issue. Let me try one more time to explain it though I will probably not succeed.

My brother-in-law is a Muslim-American. He also has a medical condition which does not allow him to go through the usual scanner at airport security. He asks the TSA to search him instead - in effect, to frisk him. He is asked whether he would like it to be done away from public sight and he declines the offer. So while he is going through the process with the TSA agent he notices other passengers - usually white passengers - gazing his way at the sight of this brown-skinned "foreigner" being closely checked out by the TSA. He often jokes that they are probably wishing and praying that he will not be on his flight.

But ........ and this is the part that you will not understand - your blind spot. He understands why they react that way. As he puts it when 9/11 occurred it was nine Muslim men some who looked like him, who crashed airliners against buildings. So, of course, they view a brown-skinned man being searched by the TSA as a potential suspicious character although the only reason he is undergoing the body search is because he requested it. He does not think those looking towards him with concern are racists or bigots because it is a natural reaction.

Fast forward to the kid with his home made clock. We have all heard of kids who have been suicide bombers outside of the US. There are also news reports that ISIS has infiltrated the US with potential terrorists and it is a major concern of our security services. No kid has been involved in a suicide attack in the US but can one blame a teacher for feeling uncomfortable that a Muslim kid - an innocent kid - comes to the school with a home made clock that she thinks might be a bomb? It does not make her a bigot because she reacted the way she did. I don't think Maher who commented about this kid is a bigot either - he is voicing a legitimate and reasonable point.

Now to your charges of my alleged prejudice: unfortunately, progressives and conservatives use a litmus test of sorts to determine if someone is a "true believer". It is asinine beyond belief. One does not need to subscribe to every item in a progressive or conservative agenda. Life is more complicated and nuanced than some on this forum think.

I don't agree with Carson's contention that it is constitutional to exclude a Muslim assuming he said this. But I can certainly relate to Carson or anyone else saying that he is not comfortable with a Muslim as president given aspects of what some Muslims believe and practice as part of their faith. I don't think Carson is a bigot or prejudiced and given choices I have made in my life, no one who knows me would accuse me of being a bigot or prejudiced.

Everything in life is not as cut and dried as you think - there are nuances and subtleties that have to be taken into consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would not want my daughter or any other little girl seeing a First Lady covered head to toe in black cloth with only a small slit for their eyes.
As women in this country, we have come way too far for that. I also do not want my gay friends and family to find themselves again on the outskirts of society after the recent Supreme Court decision. Islam is not compatible with our constitution and our freedoms. I have no interest in shariah law becoming accepted anywhere in this country. I also find it terribly disturbing that liberal society thinks it is OK to discriminate against women and gays as long as you are Muslim. I am not saying all Muslims are bad people, certainly there are many more good Muslims than bad. But the basis of the religion is anti-woman and anti-gay and I am not OK with that. How anyone can deny the obvious is very disturbing.

Islam isn't anti-woman and it does not require women to cover head to toe, or wear all black, or cover their faces. No first ladies in Muslim-majority countries look like that, either.

Oh really? Yes they are required to cover head to toe and that's just the beginning. Show me one picture of a Muslim first lady whose hair is not covered and who is showing her legs. Just one. Please! Let's talk about honor killings, arranged marriages, women not being allowed to divorce abusive husbands. Pre-marital sex is considered a CRIME against Islam. I wouldn't want a sitting President in office who might be quietly sympathetic to any of these customs. And the liberal left is so up in arms over women's rights as far as abortion when it comes to Christianity. Notice you didn't mention Islam's stance on gays. Hypocrits. I agree with Ben Carson, I don't want a Muslim in office anymore than I would want a Religious zealot like Huckabee in the Presidency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam

[Anonymous]

The First Ladies of Jordan and Syria do not cover their heads or legs. In fact they are extremely fashionable.in a Western sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Show me one picture of a Muslim first lady whose hair is not covered and who is showing her legs. Just one. Please!

Here you go, Mr or Ms. Moron:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me one picture of a Muslim first lady whose hair is not covered and who is showing her legs. Just one. Please!

Here you go, Mr or Ms. Moron:

Np. And the legs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would not want my daughter or any other little girl seeing a First Lady covered head to toe in black cloth with only a small slit for their eyes.
As women in this country, we have come way too far for that. I also do not want my gay friends and family to find themselves again on the outskirts of society after the recent Supreme Court decision. Islam is not compatible with our constitution and our freedoms. I have no interest in shariah law becoming accepted anywhere in this country. I also find it terribly disturbing that liberal society thinks it is OK to discriminate against women and gays as long as you are Muslim. I am not saying all Muslims are bad people, certainly there are many more good Muslims than bad. But the basis of the religion is anti-woman and anti-gay and I am not OK with that. How anyone can deny the obvious is very disturbing.

Islam isn't anti-woman and it does not require women to cover head to toe, or wear all black, or cover their faces. No first ladies in Muslim-majority countries look like that, either.

Oh really? Yes they are required to cover head to toe and that's just the beginning. Show me one picture of a Muslim first lady whose hair is not covered and who is showing her legs. Just one. Please! Let's talk about honor killings, arranged marriages, women not being allowed to divorce abusive husbands. Pre-marital sex is considered a CRIME against Islam. I wouldn't want a sitting President in office who might be quietly sympathetic to any of these customs. And the liberal left is so up in arms over women's rights as far as abortion when it comes to Christianity. Notice you didn't mention Islam's stance on gays. Hypocrits. I agree with Ben Carson, I don't want a Muslim in office anymore than I would want a Religious zealot like Huckabee in the Presidency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam

Women aren't required to dress all in black or cover their faces. This is what you said originally.

Arranged marriages are arranged for men and women. Men don't like them any more than women do.

Premarital sex is a crime in Islam for both men and women.

Plus, you're kind of an idiot for challenging us to show an uncovered Muslim first lady, when there are so many examples of them.