takoma wrote:To the poster(s) skeptical about Catholic and Muslim presidents:

I'm curious what lesson about Catholic presidents we learned from Kennedy. That they tend to be assassinated in office? Any thoughts about Biden? Is Bush's Catholicism a significant part of how you'd judge him?

More seriously, I had my differences with Kennedy (over Viet Nam, for example), but I don't see that to have been related to his religion.

As to Muslim presidents, India had a Muslim president from 2002 to 2007, despite its a history of Hindu/Muslim tension. Turkey now has a Muslim president, although Turkish Kurds may not feel that he has done much for their democratic rights. Indonesia is anther Muslim Republic.

PS - I assume "tenant" was the result of a spellchecker that thought tenants are more common than tenets?

Hardly the best examples: India's president fulfills a figure-head role much like the queen does in the UK. Turkey had a good example for decades with Ataturk but have been headed into a less tolerant version of Islam with Erdogan. The same is true of Malaysia with Razak who is steering his country into increasing tensions with its non-Muslim minorities. Indonesia has not been exactly been a haven for moderation when it comes to its attitude towards Islam.

So, the record for moderation and being able to separate Islam and the governing of a country is quite abysmal.

The constitution does not prevent a Muslim from becoming president but I'd need to be convinced that a Muslim is able to separate his faith from how he runs the country. This is no less a factor when it comes to a Christian or any other faith but it would be foolish to ignore the track record of nations with Muslim leaders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you realize that your so-called progressive opinion provides the moral justification for carsons?

Yes. Though, my views aren't a blanket ban like carson's.

FWIW I wouldn't want a muslim at potus either - nor would I want an evangelical.

If you wouldn't want "a muslim at potus", your view is exactly like Carson's. That's as absolute as it can get. Hopefully, what you really mean is that you wouldn't want a person of any religion who holds positions that you find abhorrent at POTUS.

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Jeff, do you have the source of the quote? I'm a fiscal conservative so am looking at some of these people, and if reported correctly and in context, this would disqualify Carson from getting my vote.

Source is here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ben-carson-does-not-believe-muslim-should-be-president-n430431

takoma wrote:To the poster(s) skeptical about Catholic and Muslim presidents:

I'm curious what lesson about Catholic presidents we learned from Kennedy. That they tend to be assassinated in office? Any thoughts about Biden? Is Bush's Catholicism a significant part of how you'd judge him?

More seriously, I had my differences with Kennedy (over Viet Nam, for example), but I don't see that to have been related to his religion.

As to Muslim presidents, India had a Muslim president from 2002 to 2007, despite its a history of Hindu/Muslim tension. Turkey now has a Muslim president, although Turkish Kurds may not feel that he has done much for their democratic rights. Indonesia is anther Muslim Republic.

PS - I assume "tenant" was the result of a spellchecker that thought tenants are more common than tenets?

PM is head of government in India - there will never be a muslim PM in india. In fact the opposite has happened, India has gone Hindu nationalist, and is pretty happy with that choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Jeff, do you have the source of the quote? I'm a fiscal conservative so am looking at some of these people, and if reported correctly and in context, this would disqualify Carson from getting my vote.

If you are really a fiscal conservative, there is only one option for you - rand paul. he's the only one that's put out meat-on-the-bones policy that take said stance.

Most fiscal conservatives I know are anything but that however.

Well I want someone who can win, too, PP. Not sure Paul will make it that far.

To the poster(s) skeptical about Catholic and Muslim presidents:

I'm curious what lesson about Catholic presidents we learned from Kennedy. That they tend to be assassinated in office? Any thoughts about Biden? Is Bush's Catholicism a significant part of how you'd judge him?

More seriously, I had my differences with Kennedy (over Viet Nam, for example), but I don't see that to have been related to his religion.

As to Muslim presidents, India had a Muslim president from 2002 to 2007, despite its a history of Hindu/Muslim tension. Turkey now has a Muslim president, although Turkish Kurds may not feel that he has done much for their democratic rights. Indonesia is anther Muslim Republic.

PS - I assume "tenant" was the result of a spellchecker that thought tenants are more common than tenets?

I'd prefer an atheist as president.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of Federal government in order to preserve freedom for the people. Please show me a country under Islamic rule that lives by that tenant.

You are not addressing my question to you. Two countries under Islamic rule are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Neither one of them agrees that with the Islam practiced in the other. As I said, there is no single "official" Islam. Islam is practiced in many ways. Therefore, it is impossible for you to make such a categorical statement about Islam.

But, let's apply your same litmus test to Ben Carson's own religion. Can you show me a country under the rule of a Seventh Day Adventist that lives by the tenant of limiting the Federal government in order to preserve freedom for the people?

Both Saudi Arabia and Iran treat their population as sub-human in many different ways - supported by the tenants of Islam. Women? Gay individuals? There are common threads throughout Islam which would get you jailed by rule of law in the US.

If Seventh Day Adventists ruled a country and treated their people the same way, I'd make similar statements.

Can you show me a country ruled by Islamic law that provides the same freedoms as America provides to its population?

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Jeff, do you have the source of the quote? I'm a fiscal conservative so am looking at some of these people, and if reported correctly and in context, this would disqualify Carson from getting my vote.

If you are really a fiscal conservative, there is only one option for you - rand paul. he's the only one that's put out meat-on-the-bones policy that take said stance.

Most fiscal conservatives I know are anything but that however.

NP here. Jeff, do you have the source of the quote? I'm a fiscal conservative so am looking at some of these people, and if reported correctly and in context, this would disqualify Carson from getting my vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of Federal government in order to preserve freedom for the people. Please show me a country under Islamic rule that lives by that tenant.

which countries under Christian rule meet this goal? Surely not all of the socialist nations in Europe. Not the quasi dictatorships in Latin America.

How many of those nations hang gay people from cranes, push them off buildings, subjugate women, have honor killings, etc. as part of their religious doctrine?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

there hasn't been one since. we've learned the lesson.

Are you opposed to future Catholic presidents?

unless they are extremely progressive, then yes I would rather not have one ceteris paribus.

Do you realize that your so-called progressive opinion provides the moral justification for carsons?

Yes. Though, my views aren't a blanket ban like carson's.

FWIW I wouldn't want a muslim at potus either - nor would I want an evangelical.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of Federal government in order to preserve freedom for the people. Please show me a country under Islamic rule that lives by that tenant.

which countries under Christian rule meet this goal? Surely not all of the socialist nations in Europe. Not the quasi dictatorships in Latin America.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reminds me of the days when no one would trust a Catholic to be President.

there hasn't been one since. we've learned the lesson.

Are you opposed to future Catholic presidents?

unless they are extremely progressive, then yes I would rather not have one ceteris paribus.

It sounds like what matters to you are a candidate's positions, not the candidate's religion. Would you choose an evengelical Protestant Christian over a Catholic automatically, or would you need to know about their specific positions?

Positions matters more, but if candidates are roughly equal in policy views, then definitely I would use it as a tie-breaker. No way, evangelicals would be even further behind unless said evangelical held more progressive beliefs than they hypothetical catholic. I view muslim candidates similar to evangelicals - i.e. they have to be really progressive for me to be 'ok' with them. For example, Keith Ellison is ok in my book even with his religious views - but if he was dlc/third way dem or conservative - hell no.

I guess the best way to describe my views is to think of how elite colleges view SAT scores of various races (Espenshade, 2005). Subsitute religion for race as follows: muslims and evangelicals get -100 pts (i.e. they really have to out perform via their policy views), catholics and jews (-50 points), buddhists/non-practicing hindus and jews (neutral), athiests/agnostics (+100 points).

Just look at the catholics on the bench - 5/6 are not 'ok'.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of Federal government in order to preserve freedom for the people. Please show me a country under Islamic rule that lives by that tenant.

You are not addressing my question to you. Two countries under Islamic rule are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Neither one of them agrees that with the Islam practiced in the other. As I said, there is no single "official" Islam. Islam is practiced in many ways. Therefore, it is impossible for you to make such a categorical statement about Islam.

But, let's apply your same litmus test to Ben Carson's own religion. Can you show me a country under the rule of a Seventh Day Adventist that lives by the tenant of limiting the Federal government in order to preserve freedom for the people?