Save The Children Quiz May 2024
Quizzes & Puzzles9 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
andy-hughes
Once again it was you who started this particular "opening of the sort of exchanges that you and I batted across the ether for days on end".
Take a look back at my 15.53 post, you intervened unnecessarily with your 15.56 post, forcing me to comment at 16.05 only then for you to falsely accuse me of being personal.
My point in the very first instance was pointing out the reason that I presumed mikey4444 actually posted his thread, which by his very answers proved me right.
If you didn't want this to turn into another andy-hughes versus anotheoldgit exchange, you should have left it to mikey to defend himself instead of you once again needlessly intervening.
Once again it was you who started this particular "opening of the sort of exchanges that you and I batted across the ether for days on end".
Take a look back at my 15.53 post, you intervened unnecessarily with your 15.56 post, forcing me to comment at 16.05 only then for you to falsely accuse me of being personal.
My point in the very first instance was pointing out the reason that I presumed mikey4444 actually posted his thread, which by his very answers proved me right.
If you didn't want this to turn into another andy-hughes versus anotheoldgit exchange, you should have left it to mikey to defend himself instead of you once again needlessly intervening.
AOG - //If you didn't want this to turn into another andy-hughes versus anotheoldgit exchange, you should have left it to mikey to defend himself instead of you once again needlessly intervening.//
Just to draw a line under this - and I am dipping out of this exchange - I did not 'needlessly intervene', I merely posted an opinion.
There are no rules saying that one AB'er cannot comment on a post directed to another AB'er - I, and indeed you, and indeed everyone, does it all the time.
It's not 'intervening' - it's just adding to the debate.
Just to draw a line under this - and I am dipping out of this exchange - I did not 'needlessly intervene', I merely posted an opinion.
There are no rules saying that one AB'er cannot comment on a post directed to another AB'er - I, and indeed you, and indeed everyone, does it all the time.
It's not 'intervening' - it's just adding to the debate.
andy-hughes
/// That is a simplistic view which I know from experience that your mind is unlikely to encompass. ///
You are at it again, this time you are not only being personal but at the same time very rude.
/// If we are going to say that all Muslims are 'bogeymen', then we will have to adopt the same broad-brush approach to Christians - who have done entirely their fair share of unpleasant things, as history will confirm. ///
Yes as history will confirm, back in the 12th century, some of us are living in the 21st century now, we no longer behead people, treat females as property, throw homosexuals off tall buildings etc, etc.
/// Just because Christians are taking a breather from rampaging across other countries and using military force to enforce a democratic system that the recipients don't understand and don't want doesn't mean that they can automatically assume the 'good guy' corner in perpetuity. ///
And here we go again, another attack on Christians and also your own countrymen all in your quest to apologise for Muslims.
I'd rather be a 'good guy even with a gun, in the quest at trying to persuade them to take on that 'good guy' role, than be one of those savages I have earlier pointed out,
/// That is a simplistic view which I know from experience that your mind is unlikely to encompass. ///
You are at it again, this time you are not only being personal but at the same time very rude.
/// If we are going to say that all Muslims are 'bogeymen', then we will have to adopt the same broad-brush approach to Christians - who have done entirely their fair share of unpleasant things, as history will confirm. ///
Yes as history will confirm, back in the 12th century, some of us are living in the 21st century now, we no longer behead people, treat females as property, throw homosexuals off tall buildings etc, etc.
/// Just because Christians are taking a breather from rampaging across other countries and using military force to enforce a democratic system that the recipients don't understand and don't want doesn't mean that they can automatically assume the 'good guy' corner in perpetuity. ///
And here we go again, another attack on Christians and also your own countrymen all in your quest to apologise for Muslims.
I'd rather be a 'good guy even with a gun, in the quest at trying to persuade them to take on that 'good guy' role, than be one of those savages I have earlier pointed out,
"He said that Islam is inconsistent with the US constitution. In order for his position to stand, he would have to believe that every single Muslim American is unable to uphold the constitution.
or your criticism to stand he would have to have said: everyone who claims to be a Muslim".
Well his assertion is arguably true, SP. Which of the majority Muslim countries today uphold the principles of freedom of speech and equality before the law which are enshrined in the Constitution? There are a few out there. When you've found one please tell me where it is, and how many gays celebrated the last Gay Pride Day there.
or your criticism to stand he would have to have said: everyone who claims to be a Muslim".
Well his assertion is arguably true, SP. Which of the majority Muslim countries today uphold the principles of freedom of speech and equality before the law which are enshrined in the Constitution? There are a few out there. When you've found one please tell me where it is, and how many gays celebrated the last Gay Pride Day there.
Can anyone enlighten me, please? I am under the impression that not only can an R.C. not accede to the throne, but also that the P.M. is under the same stricture. I'm certain that this used to be the case, I don't recall the law being changed and I thought that that was why Blair waited until he was out of power to convert officially. If that's so, then I can't see why the USA should not also declare certain religions unacceptable. I'm happy to be corrected in case I missed something, perhaps while I was out of the country.
-- answer removed --
I don't think the faith of the Prime Minister matters a jot, although I'm ready to be corrected on that. In the US, though, it is a different system since their constitution has articles that a) separate church and state (so that the President does not also have an official role as head of some Church, as here where the Queen is the head of the Church of England); and b) enforce that no rest based on religious beliefs may be carried out on anyone wishing to enter a public office.
Hence, in theory, Ben Carson is exactly wrong, constitutionally. In practice, I have little expectation of there being a Muslim POTUS in the near future, but that's not what Carson was saying.
Hence, in theory, Ben Carson is exactly wrong, constitutionally. In practice, I have little expectation of there being a Muslim POTUS in the near future, but that's not what Carson was saying.
"Hence, in theory, Ben Carson is exactly wrong, constitutionally.".
He's wrong constitutionally if the religious belief IS NOT HOSTILE TO the Constitution which the President swears to defend, Jim.
If you don't believe that all citizens should be equal under the law (which would be the case if you believe that the Sharia is God's law and supercedes all human law, and would also been the case until quite recently if you were a Mormon) then you can't in good faith be President, can you?
He's wrong constitutionally if the religious belief IS NOT HOSTILE TO the Constitution which the President swears to defend, Jim.
If you don't believe that all citizens should be equal under the law (which would be the case if you believe that the Sharia is God's law and supercedes all human law, and would also been the case until quite recently if you were a Mormon) then you can't in good faith be President, can you?
Perhaps, but that's imposing a further condition that isn't really in the constitution. In particular, that the president is a Muslim doesn't automatically mean that he is likely to impose Sharia Law over the constitution (and anyway, good luck with that when Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court are all there to act as checks and balances, and of course you have to win the election in the first place, sneaking your secret desire to subjugate all non-Muslims past the electorate for basically a couple of decades).
So yes, he is wrong in theory. In practice, it isn't likely to come up, though.
So yes, he is wrong in theory. In practice, it isn't likely to come up, though.
OK, forget who can run and what constitutional impediments there are or ought to (e.g. no RC monarch here), you do concede that some religious beliefs might disqualify you for the top job, Jim? I think Carson's argument (he hasn't elaborated it as far as I can see, so I'm only guessing) is that there is an ideological opposition between strict Islam and constitutional democracy.
mikey4444 /// Interesting follow-up BBC link here ::::
http://
It quite plainly indicates why the Republicans are unlikely to gain the White House in 2018.///
Unlikely ? Bit of an understatement there, mikey boy. ;D
http://
It quite plainly indicates why the Republicans are unlikely to gain the White House in 2018.///
Unlikely ? Bit of an understatement there, mikey boy. ;D
vetuste_ennemi
I'm a bit confused by your follow-up. Was he saying that a Muslim could not be President, or that Islam is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore a Muslim could not be President, and uphold the Constitution?
Your reference to Gay Pride in Islamic states is a bit of a dead end.
Gays are persecuted in the Middle East (Islam), Russia (Orthodox Church) and wherever fundamentalism takes hold.
Acceptance of gay people and the strive for equality for gay people is as much as an anathema to Christians as it is to Muslims.
America has a Constitution which celebrates the equality of man, but how many States in the Bible Belt have annual Gay Pride parades?
I'm a bit confused by your follow-up. Was he saying that a Muslim could not be President, or that Islam is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore a Muslim could not be President, and uphold the Constitution?
Your reference to Gay Pride in Islamic states is a bit of a dead end.
Gays are persecuted in the Middle East (Islam), Russia (Orthodox Church) and wherever fundamentalism takes hold.
Acceptance of gay people and the strive for equality for gay people is as much as an anathema to Christians as it is to Muslims.
America has a Constitution which celebrates the equality of man, but how many States in the Bible Belt have annual Gay Pride parades?
" I think Carson's argument (he hasn't elaborated it as far as I can see, so I'm only guessing) is that there is an ideological opposition between strict Islam and constitutional democracy. "
Perhaps Carson should have said this, then -- and, in particular, the clarification of strict/ fundamental, extremist, that he neglected to mention. With that qualification the statement becomes unarguable, as ISIL are busy demonstrating.
Perhaps Carson should have said this, then -- and, in particular, the clarification of strict/ fundamental, extremist, that he neglected to mention. With that qualification the statement becomes unarguable, as ISIL are busy demonstrating.
Just to clarify. I've looked it up and whilst there is no law straitly forbidding an RC from being P.M., there is one (1829) which forbids an R.C. from advising the monarch on various subjects. This would make the position untenable, which is probably why Blair waited (and confirmed my opinion of his hypocrisy). Just thought I'd let you know - carry on chaps. :)
"I'm a bit confused by your follow-up. Was he saying that a Muslim could not be President, or that Islam is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore a Muslim could not be President, and uphold the Constitution? "
I think he was saying the latter, SP. Concerning the former, in the Svejk transcript the words Carson used were not "could not be", but "I wouldn't advocate".
I accept full responsibility for the confusion caused.
"Your reference to Gay Pride in Islamic states is a bit of a dead end.
Gays are persecuted in the Middle East (Islam), Russia (Orthodox Church) and wherever fundamentalism takes hold."
Dead end? I don't think you're slow on the uptake: why do you think Western societies have a pretty good record on gay rights, while countries where Islam has been a dominating aspect of the culture going back in some case 1300 years such a poor one? I could ask the same question about women's rights and freedom of speech.
I think he was saying the latter, SP. Concerning the former, in the Svejk transcript the words Carson used were not "could not be", but "I wouldn't advocate".
I accept full responsibility for the confusion caused.
"Your reference to Gay Pride in Islamic states is a bit of a dead end.
Gays are persecuted in the Middle East (Islam), Russia (Orthodox Church) and wherever fundamentalism takes hold."
Dead end? I don't think you're slow on the uptake: why do you think Western societies have a pretty good record on gay rights, while countries where Islam has been a dominating aspect of the culture going back in some case 1300 years such a poor one? I could ask the same question about women's rights and freedom of speech.
This article, published just today (9/21) helps to clarify Carson's position and it pretty clearly enunciates Muslim's tenants of the faith that would persecute certain behaviors, which would be unconstitutional here in the U.S. and on that basis Carson could not support a Muslim office holder... not unreasonable, having witnessed the results of those beliefs in other parts of the world...
http://
http://
As a Muslim is unlikely to be selected by either party as a candidate, then I guess what Carson said somewhat academic. But a member of one minority community being prejudiced about another minority member still looks bad to me. This affair hasn't improved the Republicans chances of getting into the White House next time around one little bit.
Quote from http://
"It is worth looking back at the major piece of work that the Republican leadership undertook after the party's defeat in the 2012 general election, and the reasons why people had shunned it. One of the conclusions of this major piece of research, called the Growth and Opportunity Project, was as follows:
"Public perception of the Party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. When someone rolls their eyes at us, they are not likely to open their ears to us."
Hoisted by their own petard, it would seem....again. Last time it was the Magic Underpants...this time its insulting minorities.
With Trump's buffoon impersonation growing larger every day, will the Republicans never learn ?
Quote from http://
"It is worth looking back at the major piece of work that the Republican leadership undertook after the party's defeat in the 2012 general election, and the reasons why people had shunned it. One of the conclusions of this major piece of research, called the Growth and Opportunity Project, was as follows:
"Public perception of the Party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. When someone rolls their eyes at us, they are not likely to open their ears to us."
Hoisted by their own petard, it would seem....again. Last time it was the Magic Underpants...this time its insulting minorities.
With Trump's buffoon impersonation growing larger every day, will the Republicans never learn ?
vetuste_ennemi
I don't accept the argument that western countries have a good record on gay rights.
Countries which are not beholden to religious fundamentalism have a massively improved record on gay rights, but those who adhere to whatever church is dominant don't.
We should be wary of patting our backs so soon. It's only relatively recently that equal rights have hit a tipping point in this country, and in the West in general. We should also avoid using ISIS dominated regions as a yardstick for gay rights.
There's a new cliche which has recently hit the Internet which goes something like this:
Person A states: It's a disgrace that a Sue Perkins' doctor told her that being a lesbian means that finding out she can't have kids makes it easier to bear.
Person B counters with: Try living in XYZ where they throw gays off buildings.
I implore anyone who might write that to think twice. It's as bad as saying to Rosa Parks, "Look...I don't know what all this bus fuss is about...at least we're not lynching you!"
I hope you see my point.
I don't accept the argument that western countries have a good record on gay rights.
Countries which are not beholden to religious fundamentalism have a massively improved record on gay rights, but those who adhere to whatever church is dominant don't.
We should be wary of patting our backs so soon. It's only relatively recently that equal rights have hit a tipping point in this country, and in the West in general. We should also avoid using ISIS dominated regions as a yardstick for gay rights.
There's a new cliche which has recently hit the Internet which goes something like this:
Person A states: It's a disgrace that a Sue Perkins' doctor told her that being a lesbian means that finding out she can't have kids makes it easier to bear.
Person B counters with: Try living in XYZ where they throw gays off buildings.
I implore anyone who might write that to think twice. It's as bad as saying to Rosa Parks, "Look...I don't know what all this bus fuss is about...at least we're not lynching you!"
I hope you see my point.
Latest Posts
Crosswords14 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Save The Children Quiz May 2024
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago