Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Muslim Can't Be President Apparently
http://
Carson is a highly educated man. It wasn't so long ago that people were saying that about black people, and as a black person, he should really know better than to try to replace one form of prejudice with another.
Carson is a highly educated man. It wasn't so long ago that people were saying that about black people, and as a black person, he should really know better than to try to replace one form of prejudice with another.
Answers
AOG - "Now what do we have here, Mikey's opposition to a US Republican Party member, that I can understand to a certain extent, taking into consideratio
13:27 Mon 21st Sep 2015
Now what do we have here, Mikey's opposition to a US Republican Party member, that I can understand to a certain extent, taking into consideration his left-wing views, but then going on further to criticise this person who happens to be Black, is there no boundaries in his continuous support of the Islamic faith?
AOG - "Now what do we have here, Mikey's opposition to a US Republican Party member, that I can understand to a certain extent, taking into consideration his left-wing views, but then going on further to criticise this person who happens to be Black, is there no boundaries in his continuous support of the Islamic faith?"
I would suggest that the thrust of mikey's point is against prejudice in general, rather than in support of Islam in particular.
I would suggest that the thrust of mikey's point is against prejudice in general, rather than in support of Islam in particular.
James II was not a secret catholic, he was an open one. Attempts were made during his brother's reign to exclude him from the succession. He was tolerated as king because he was already 56 when he acceded to the throne and both his daughters were protestants. Suddenly he produced a son and the proverbial hit the fan.
vetuste - "Do you have reasons (other than Pavlovian) for endorsing Mikey's unsubstantiated accusation of bigotry, Andy?"
If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I advised my view of mikey's point - nowhere does it say that I endorse the point he made.
Do you have reasons (other than Pavlovian) for jumping in and criticising my point before you have taken the time to read and understand it correctly?
If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I advised my view of mikey's point - nowhere does it say that I endorse the point he made.
Do you have reasons (other than Pavlovian) for jumping in and criticising my point before you have taken the time to read and understand it correctly?
In fairness to Carson (until further information is available) he may have taken the question to mean a Muslim who was not naturally born in the U.S. or has not lived in the U.S. for 14 years, which is required by the Constitution (The only qualifications required of presidents by the Constitution are that they be natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have resided in the country for at least 14 years.)
I've heard Carson speak on numerous occasions and the last thing I'd assciate with him is bigotry...
I've heard Carson speak on numerous occasions and the last thing I'd assciate with him is bigotry...
vetuste_ennemi
mikey4444 is not accusing Carson of being a bigot. He's accusing him of prejudice.
These are not synonyms (although on the face of it they seem to be).
A bigot is "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."
But prejudice is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason"
Now, many of us on AB fall into the former category - I know I do.
But prejudice is something different. Carson is prejudging a Muslim's ability to lead the U.S. based on a sweeping generalisation.
These are exactly the same sweeping generalisations that lead to some heated debates on AB, and exactly the same sweeping generalisations that many would have had in the 1960s if they were told that in 50 years time an African American family would be moving into the White House.
mikey4444 is not accusing Carson of being a bigot. He's accusing him of prejudice.
These are not synonyms (although on the face of it they seem to be).
A bigot is "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."
But prejudice is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason"
Now, many of us on AB fall into the former category - I know I do.
But prejudice is something different. Carson is prejudging a Muslim's ability to lead the U.S. based on a sweeping generalisation.
These are exactly the same sweeping generalisations that lead to some heated debates on AB, and exactly the same sweeping generalisations that many would have had in the 1960s if they were told that in 50 years time an African American family would be moving into the White House.
But on the general question of whether a Muslim could become President, I think that right now Carson is 100% correct.
It's inconceivable that this would happen in our lifetime.
No...not our lifetime...the lifetime of several generations.
The order in which it will happen will be:
1. Female President
2. Latino President
3. Non-U.S. born President
4. Gay President
5. Alien President*
6. Muslim President
(*would have to be from a planet with strong ties to America).
It's inconceivable that this would happen in our lifetime.
No...not our lifetime...the lifetime of several generations.
The order in which it will happen will be:
1. Female President
2. Latino President
3. Non-U.S. born President
4. Gay President
5. Alien President*
6. Muslim President
(*would have to be from a planet with strong ties to America).
I think there’s a considerable difference between objecting to someone taking a particular position because of the colour of their skin (which they cannot control) and objecting to someone because of their adherence to a religion which has some fairly unpleasant aspects (which they can).
Of course, “bigotry” will be cited because objection to someone because they are Muslim necessarily means that you object to all of them on the grounds of their religion. However, we’re not talking about refusing an individual admission to a night club or refusing to bake them a specific type of cake. We’re talking about him becoming the president of the USA.
For very good reasons the UK has a law preventing the throne being occupied by a Catholic. Until recently the heir to the throne or the monarch could not marry a Catholic. The law was revised a couple of years ago (in my view to accommodate one individual – never a good move). There is clearly antagonism between many, many Muslims and “the West” of which they see the USA as the very devil incarnate. They would be very unwise to select a Muslim as their president because I imagine (though cannot be sure) that his loyalties may be somewhat divided. Best for them not to take that chance.
Of course, “bigotry” will be cited because objection to someone because they are Muslim necessarily means that you object to all of them on the grounds of their religion. However, we’re not talking about refusing an individual admission to a night club or refusing to bake them a specific type of cake. We’re talking about him becoming the president of the USA.
For very good reasons the UK has a law preventing the throne being occupied by a Catholic. Until recently the heir to the throne or the monarch could not marry a Catholic. The law was revised a couple of years ago (in my view to accommodate one individual – never a good move). There is clearly antagonism between many, many Muslims and “the West” of which they see the USA as the very devil incarnate. They would be very unwise to select a Muslim as their president because I imagine (though cannot be sure) that his loyalties may be somewhat divided. Best for them not to take that chance.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank29 mins ago
Crosswords31 mins ago
ChatterBank58 mins ago
ChatterBank111 mins ago
News113 mins ago