Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

Not the PP but no-I do not. If a religion is contradictory to the constitution, then why bother having a constitution at all? We may as well elect a communist to run our country.

EXACTLY. The tenants of Islam are NOT in line with the Constitution, the laws of this land. If they were, Islamists would not be pushing for Sharia here.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

Not the PP but no-I do not. If a religion is contradictory to the constitution, then why bother having a constitution at all? We may as well elect a communist to run our country.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read my comments above, they answer your questions. I'm beginning to believe you are the bigot here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You keep flip flopping between opining about individual belief levels and Religion itself. They are not the same thing. And to try to make a comparison between the two is idiotic. So I'll say this again, hopefully it sinks in this time. I'm only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense, no matter the religion. Get it???????

If not, then start another thread that compares just religions and their political acceptance levels. Take the individual element out of it.

This response really doesn't seem to fit the discussion it followed. Are you sure that you read my post?

This conversation began with me asking for examples of polices that a Muslim President might espouse that were unacceptable. The example provided was a hypothetical restriction on eating pork. I asked if you have the same concern about a Jewish President. Both religions have the same restriction. It is not clear to me why you would not treat both hypothetical examples similarly.

You say you are only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense (I believe you mean common good). If that is the case, do you have this concern about members of all religions, or just those who practice Islam? If it is about members of all religions, we are on the same page. But, then I am not sure why you are debating me.

Not the PP but I've bolded the problem here. The PP means common sense. Since you are a socialist (you support Sanders), you only understand it from the point of view of the common good, so you think that's what he means. The PP understands the issue from the point of view of the individual, not the group.

This must be an odd number post. In your even numbered posts, you cry about people calling you names. In your add number posts, you call people names. I bet you didn't think I would catch on to that pattern.

The poster previously used the phrase "common good". "Common good" actually fits the context of the sentence better than "common sense". Perhaps you might use some "common sense" and let the poster to speak for himself? That would be for the "common good".

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

So no answer to the question in bold?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

Not the PP but no-I do not. If a religion is contradictory to the constitution, then why bother having a constitution at all? We may as well elect a communist to run our country.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

Actually, this thread is about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn't be President. It actually seems like you who need to go start your own thread. Your responses confuse me because you seem to be vehemently arguing that I am wrong, but then make exactly the same argument that I am making. So, let's make this simple. The US Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding public office. Do support that clause of the US Constitution?

Anonymous wrote:How many times do I have to say ALL??? I'm debating you because you seem to lack the concept that individuals and religions are separate entities. As I said, if you want to debate the political acceptance of a religions, start a thread with that topic. Do you or do you not politically support Religion XYZ? That is the question. Not do you support candidate ABC who may support parts of Religion XYZ. You want to pick and choose parts of a Religion like it's an individual. You can't do that, you have to consider the entirety of the Religion. Which you seem incapable of doing.

Do you support Islam and all that it stands for? If the answer is no, then your calling yourself a bigot along with everyone else.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read my comments above, they answer your questions. I'm beginning to believe you are the bigot here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You keep flip flopping between opining about individual belief levels and Religion itself. They are not the same thing. And to try to make a comparison between the two is idiotic. So I'll say this again, hopefully it sinks in this time. I'm only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense, no matter the religion. Get it???????

If not, then start another thread that compares just religions and their political acceptance levels. Take the individual element out of it.

This response really doesn't seem to fit the discussion it followed. Are you sure that you read my post?

This conversation began with me asking for examples of polices that a Muslim President might espouse that were unacceptable. The example provided was a hypothetical restriction on eating pork. I asked if you have the same concern about a Jewish President. Both religions have the same restriction. It is not clear to me why you would not treat both hypothetical examples similarly.

You say you are only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense (I believe you mean common good). If that is the case, do you have this concern about members of all religions, or just those who practice Islam? If it is about members of all religions, we are on the same page. But, then I am not sure why you are debating me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.”

can we not find some other people to lead? do we really want to follow Islam down the rabbit hole.

Seems to me that for hundreds and hundreds of years, that too was the legacy of the Catholic church.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read my comments above, they answer your questions. I'm beginning to believe you are the bigot here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You keep flip flopping between opining about individual belief levels and Religion itself. They are not the same thing. And to try to make a comparison between the two is idiotic. So I'll say this again, hopefully it sinks in this time. I'm only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense, no matter the religion. Get it???????

If not, then start another thread that compares just religions and their political acceptance levels. Take the individual element out of it.

This response really doesn't seem to fit the discussion it followed. Are you sure that you read my post?

This conversation began with me asking for examples of polices that a Muslim President might espouse that were unacceptable. The example provided was a hypothetical restriction on eating pork. I asked if you have the same concern about a Jewish President. Both religions have the same restriction. It is not clear to me why you would not treat both hypothetical examples similarly.

You say you are only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense (I believe you mean common good). If that is the case, do you have this concern about members of all religions, or just those who practice Islam? If it is about members of all religions, we are on the same page. But, then I am not sure why you are debating me.

Not the PP but I've bolded the problem here. The PP means common sense. Since you are a socialist (you support Sanders), you only understand it from the point of view of the common good, so you think that's what he means. The PP understands the issue from the point of view of the individual, not the group.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read my comments above, they answer your questions. I'm beginning to believe you are the bigot here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You keep flip flopping between opining about individual belief levels and Religion itself. They are not the same thing. And to try to make a comparison between the two is idiotic. So I'll say this again, hopefully it sinks in this time. I'm only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense, no matter the religion. Get it???????

If not, then start another thread that compares just religions and their political acceptance levels. Take the individual element out of it.

This response really doesn't seem to fit the discussion it followed. Are you sure that you read my post?

This conversation began with me asking for examples of polices that a Muslim President might espouse that were unacceptable. The example provided was a hypothetical restriction on eating pork. I asked if you have the same concern about a Jewish President. Both religions have the same restriction. It is not clear to me why you would not treat both hypothetical examples similarly.

You say you are only concerned about an individual putting religion above common sense (I believe you mean common good). If that is the case, do you have this concern about members of all religions, or just those who practice Islam? If it is about members of all religions, we are on the same page. But, then I am not sure why you are debating me.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been struck by the irony of organizations like CAIR demanding that Carson should withdraw from seeking the nomination because of his statement about excluding Muslims since that is contrary to the constitution?

Of course, they happily ignore the fact that Carson was exercising his first amendment right to express his opinion.

The way one resolves this is for Carson to continue to seek the nomination if he so wishes and those who find his viewpoint objectionable just don't vote for him.

It is the way things work in a democracy.

Carson's position is that if your beliefs are inconsistent with the Constitution, you should not be President. Carson's belief that there should be a religious test in order to be President is inconsistent with the Constitution. Therefore, Carson is ineligible to be President based on his own criteria. I can't speak for CAIR, but I think Carson should withdraw in order to show his commitment to his own beliefs. But, in lieu of his withdrawing, I am quite happy to see Carson get stomped in the primary. He has already fallen behind Fiorina.

I guess when Christianity declares Jihad on America, we can make those judgment calls - which is what Carson was doing. Islam is indeed non-compatible with the Constitution. If it wasn't, they would not be trying to set up Sharia law here.