Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden: "Abortion is always wrong"

Catholics can't be trusted on women's issues.

A more complete statement from Biden:

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am. And I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and--I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court--I'm not going to interfere with that.

And don't forget that Biden came out for same sex marriage before Obama.

I personally think Obama is an agnostic who is forced into professing a religion and being anti-gay marriage for political expediency.

Biden on the other hand is a true believer.

Biden was horrible on so many issues that would make progressives cringe going back to the 80's.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe anyone should be able to run for president regardless of their religious associations. I also believe everyone has the right to disqualify someone based on their religious beliefs. That is where you and I disagree and where you show your own form of bigotry.

No, we don't disagree. I've said this about three times and I don't know why you continually don't get it. Islam encompasses a few core beliefs intertwined with cultural and traditional elements and various schools, off-shoots, etc. It just doesn't make sense to say "a Muslim shouldn't be President" because the range of possible beliefs of that individual can range from the very acceptable to the very unacceptable. If, on the other hand, you decide not to support a specific individual who is Muslim because that individual believes women should be covered head to toe and not educated, that it totally acceptable to me. But, the assumption that any Muslim would have such beliefs is what I find bigoted.

Well, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. But you definitely are coming off as someone who would disqualify Carson and all Islamophobes (which there are probably millions) simply and solely because they are Islamophobes. Keeping in mind this group of Islamophobes are going to be as diverse as Muslims in their range of possible beliefs. Perhaps that wasn't your intention. But if it wasn't then it makes me wonder why you even started this topic.

I would definitely oppose the election of any Islamophobe just as I would oppose the election of any anti-Semite or any white supremacist. While Islamophobes may be diverse, they are united by their hatred of Islam. That is enough for me to oppose them. In 2012, Ben Carson wrote, "It is very important to remember, however, that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and to paint them with a single philosophical brush is just as absurd as trying to characterize the diverse thinking of billions of Christians around the world." In his statement that provoked this thread, he used exactly that single philosophical brush that he had previously described as "absurd". Carson apparently changed his position because it was necessary to remain competitive in the Hate Olympics that is known as the Republican primary. I started this discussion to draw attention to Carson's statement which even by his own reasoning was "absurd".

Carson is supposed to be an intelligent person, but taking this position was not very smart. It was not very clever for the reason Carson himself had previously explained, but in more practical terms, it opens the floor to discussions of his own religion. How much scrutiny of 7th Day Adventism do you believe he would tolerate before screaming about prejudice and unfair treatment?

My main point is you seem to be OK with using that single philosophical brush on some groups but not others. While condemning and calling people bigots for doing the same thing your doing. The only difference being your personal views of each group. Which is fine, it's your right to do that. But it gets back to you can't have your cake and eat it too.

It is entirely accurate to use a single philosophical brush on groups such as anti-Semites or Islamophobes who are united by a single philosophy. Is that really not obvious to you? Sure, there might be anti-Semites, for instance, that disagree on tax policy. But, they are all still anti-Semites and there is not tax policy in the world that is going to excuse their anti-Semitism.

Islam, Christianity, the Democratic Party, etc. cannot so easily be painted with a single philosophical brush because of the heterogeneity of thought within the groups. Some Muslims may hold unacceptable beliefs, but not all do. Similarly, some Christians -- think Westboro Baptist members -- may hold unacceptable (to me) views. But, that does not mean all Christians should be considered anti-gay hate mongers. Some Democrats may favor raising taxes, but not all do. Painting these groups with a single philosophical brush is, as Ben Carson wrote, absurd.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden: "Abortion is always wrong"

Catholics can't be trusted on women's issues.

A more complete statement from Biden:

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am. And I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and--I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court--I'm not going to interfere with that.

And don't forget that Biden came out for same sex marriage before Obama.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
It is entirely accurate to use a single philosophical brush on groups such as anti-Semites or Islamophobes who are united by a single philosophy. Is that really not obvious to you? Sure, there might be anti-Semites, for instance, that disagree on tax policy. But, they are all still anti-Semites and there is not tax policy in the world that is going to excuse their anti-Semitism.

Islam, Christianity, the Democratic Party, etc. cannot so easily be painted with a single philosophical brush because of the heterogeneity of thought within the groups. Some Muslims may hold unacceptable beliefs, but not all do. Similarly, some Christians -- think Westboro Baptist members -- may hold unacceptable (to me) views. But, that does not mean all Christians should be considered anti-gay hate mongers. Some Democrats may favor raising taxes, but not all do. Painting these groups with a single philosophical brush is, as Ben Carson wrote, absurd.

We'll just have to disagree with the notion that there are no common philosophies shared by all followers of Islam. Or if your still mystified by that, break it down to denominations like Sunn? or Shia. Hopefully at least at a denomination level you agree there are universal philosophies. After all, if there isn't anything in common amongst a group why would they even be considered a group. I think it's more the case that you're OK with the common philosophies some groups hold and disagree with some groups.. Your picking and choosing which philosophies are acceptable and unacceptable. Which again is ok, but still just an opinion no matter how common the opinion and the very reason why there is no religious test.

jsteele wrote:
It is entirely accurate to use a single philosophical brush on groups such as anti-Semites or Islamophobes who are united by a single philosophy. Is that really not obvious to you? Sure, there might be anti-Semites, for instance, that disagree on tax policy. But, they are all still anti-Semites and there is not tax policy in the world that is going to excuse their anti-Semitism.

Islam, Christianity, the Democratic Party, etc. cannot so easily be painted with a single philosophical brush because of the heterogeneity of thought within the groups. Some Muslims may hold unacceptable beliefs, but not all do. Similarly, some Christians -- think Westboro Baptist members -- may hold unacceptable (to me) views. But, that does not mean all Christians should be considered anti-gay hate mongers. Some Democrats may favor raising taxes, but not all do. Painting these groups with a single philosophical brush is, as Ben Carson wrote, absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe anyone should be able to run for president regardless of their religious associations. I also believe everyone has the right to disqualify someone based on their religious beliefs. That is where you and I disagree and where you show your own form of bigotry.

No, we don't disagree. I've said this about three times and I don't know why you continually don't get it. Islam encompasses a few core beliefs intertwined with cultural and traditional elements and various schools, off-shoots, etc. It just doesn't make sense to say "a Muslim shouldn't be President" because the range of possible beliefs of that individual can range from the very acceptable to the very unacceptable. If, on the other hand, you decide not to support a specific individual who is Muslim because that individual believes women should be covered head to toe and not educated, that it totally acceptable to me. But, the assumption that any Muslim would have such beliefs is what I find bigoted.

Well, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. But you definitely are coming off as someone who would disqualify Carson and all Islamophobes (which there are probably millions) simply and solely because they are Islamophobes. Keeping in mind this group of Islamophobes are going to be as diverse as Muslims in their range of possible beliefs. Perhaps that wasn't your intention. But if it wasn't then it makes me wonder why you even started this topic.

I would definitely oppose the election of any Islamophobe just as I would oppose the election of any anti-Semite or any white supremacist. While Islamophobes may be diverse, they are united by their hatred of Islam. That is enough for me to oppose them. In 2012, Ben Carson wrote, "It is very important to remember, however, that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and to paint them with a single philosophical brush is just as absurd as trying to characterize the diverse thinking of billions of Christians around the world." In his statement that provoked this thread, he used exactly that single philosophical brush that he had previously described as "absurd". Carson apparently changed his position because it was necessary to remain competitive in the Hate Olympics that is known as the Republican primary. I started this discussion to draw attention to Carson's statement which even by his own reasoning was "absurd".

Carson is supposed to be an intelligent person, but taking this position was not very smart. It was not very clever for the reason Carson himself had previously explained, but in more practical terms, it opens the floor to discussions of his own religion. How much scrutiny of 7th Day Adventism do you believe he would tolerate before screaming about prejudice and unfair treatment?

My main point is you seem to be OK with using that single philosophical brush on some groups but not others. While condemning and calling people bigots for doing the same thing your doing. The only difference being your personal views of each group. Which is fine, it's your right to do that. But it gets back to you can't have your cake and eat it too.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe anyone should be able to run for president regardless of their religious associations. I also believe everyone has the right to disqualify someone based on their religious beliefs. That is where you and I disagree and where you show your own form of bigotry.

No, we don't disagree. I've said this about three times and I don't know why you continually don't get it. Islam encompasses a few core beliefs intertwined with cultural and traditional elements and various schools, off-shoots, etc. It just doesn't make sense to say "a Muslim shouldn't be President" because the range of possible beliefs of that individual can range from the very acceptable to the very unacceptable. If, on the other hand, you decide not to support a specific individual who is Muslim because that individual believes women should be covered head to toe and not educated, that it totally acceptable to me. But, the assumption that any Muslim would have such beliefs is what I find bigoted.

Well, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. But you definitely are coming off as someone who would disqualify Carson and all Islamophobes (which there are probably millions) simply and solely because they are Islamophobes. Keeping in mind this group of Islamophobes are going to be as diverse as Muslims in their range of possible beliefs. Perhaps that wasn't your intention. But if it wasn't then it makes me wonder why you even started this topic.

I would definitely oppose the election of any Islamophobe just as I would oppose the election of any anti-Semite or any white supremacist. While Islamophobes may be diverse, they are united by their hatred of Islam. That is enough for me to oppose them. In 2012, Ben Carson wrote, "It is very important to remember, however, that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and to paint them with a single philosophical brush is just as absurd as trying to characterize the diverse thinking of billions of Christians around the world." In his statement that provoked this thread, he used exactly that single philosophical brush that he had previously described as "absurd". Carson apparently changed his position because it was necessary to remain competitive in the Hate Olympics that is known as the Republican primary. I started this discussion to draw attention to Carson's statement which even by his own reasoning was "absurd".

Carson is supposed to be an intelligent person, but taking this position was not very smart. It was not very clever for the reason Carson himself had previously explained, but in more practical terms, it opens the floor to discussions of his own religion. How much scrutiny of 7th Day Adventism do you believe he would tolerate before screaming about prejudice and unfair treatment?

Anonymous wrote:Biden: "Abortion is always wrong"

Catholics can't be trusted on women's issues.

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am. And I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and--I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court--I'm not going to interfere with that.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about a Scientologist?

only if John Travolta runs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware Nazism was a religion.

It's a debatable topic. Some say yes, some no. But all will say they have/had some religious based undertones.