Anonymous wrote:Sadly, I didn't have to move the bar very far to make my point but thanks for your efforts. It's pretty obvious for the vast majority of Muslim women and again GAYS!, oppression is a way of life. And oppression has no place here in our country. We are a nation still trying to right the wrongs of slavery, we don't need more wounds. If Islam evolves as a religion, then I will change my opinion, but until then I would have to agree with Dr. Carson.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Jews have the same restriction. Do you oppose Jewish presidents? Catholics are not supposed to eat meat on Friday. If you like to eat meat on Friday, do you oppose Catholic presidents?

Again, if an individual candidate espouses positions that you oppose, don't vote for him. What I don't understand is that Ben Carson and many posters here oppose a Muslim candidate regardless of any political positions that candidate had simply due to her religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Poor example.
No way in hell such a bill would even make it to the floor.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:Nice glamour shots photo shot inside a studio. I am sure she isn't walking around outside in public in her country like that without her head or her legs covered. You are the one who is an idiot. Or you just don't care very much for the women in your life.

Anonymous wrote:Here you go, pig.

Anonymous wrote:

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?