Carson: Islam not consistent with Constitution; no Muslim should ever be President

[TastesLikeChicken]

Ok, so when the original question was, "should a presidents faith matter", to you, that means he was really just asking about Muslim religion by itself?

Ok...my bad, I thought the adults were talking.

Of course he was asking about Muslim religion by itself. Read the lead-in sentence that prefaced the question:

"Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?"

Context. It's all about context; oh, and reading comprehension, where you don't just take the snippets you feel relevant and disregard the rest.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course he was asking about Muslim religion by itself. Read the lead-in sentence that prefaced the question:

"Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?"

Context. It's all about context; oh, and reading comprehension, where you don't just take the snippets you feel relevant and disregard the rest.

Holy fuck you are dumb!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Holy fuck you are dumb!

Holy fuck you don't understand the first thing about context or journalistic phrasing. It has to mean exactly what YOU say it means because you'll stomp your foot if it doesn't.

What a moron you are.

 

[Blanky]

When I think of this question more I'm reminded of all the heavily muslim countries that are such bastions of freedom. Except they don't exist. Even if you excuse all the failed states of which there are many, and look at the "successful" ones such as saudi arabia and the UAE, there is no such thing as freedom of speech--something that all western countries just take for granted now (a problem solved long ago). They are basically uncivilized countries that if not for being over the oil we use would still consist of a tent-dwelling population (as they were until a generation or two ago, in fact).

The US constitution has significant overlap with most western nations, the biggest disparity probably being the 2nd amendment. But none of the significant muslim countries have similar laws.

 

[werepossum]

When I think of this question more I'm reminded of all the heavily muslim countries that are such bastions of freedom. Except they don't exist. Even if you excuse all the failed states of which there are many, and look at the "successful" ones such as saudi arabia and the UAE, there is no such thing as freedom of speech--something that all western countries just take for granted now (a problem solved long ago). They are basically uncivilized countries that if not for being over the oil we use would still consist of a tent-dwelling population (as they were until a generation or two ago, in fact).

The US constitution has significant overlap with most western nations, the biggest disparity probably being the 2nd amendment. But none of the significant muslim countries have similar laws.

Unfortunately the dominant force in American politics today is incapable of recognizing any evil that does not start and end with America and Christianity. Thus people who are against gay marriage are seen as evil whereas people who actually execute homosexuals as government policy are merely misunderstood, because America is an evil racist homophobic Islamophobic nation. It would be sad except that instead of the tiny insane minority this should represent, it's becoming the norm in what passes for American thought.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Are any of you old enough to remember the to-do over a Catholic running for president?

 

[Jaskalas]

Yeah and? Oppression isn't unique only to religion so I fail to see your point.

Those who are devout would typically do just that. I am merely providing a description. You might as well be trying to argue that Pedos are okay running a daycare because child abuse isn't unique only to Pedos. You haven't addressed the point that they're simply not acceptable.

My argument continues to be that modern Presidents are more secular than religious and that when you look at the context of Carson's speech he used such qualifiers more than once during that interview.

 

[ivwshane]

Those who are devout would typically do just that. I am merely providing a description. You might as well be trying to argue that Pedos are okay running a daycare because child abuse isn't unique only to Pedos. You haven't addressed the point that they're simply not acceptable.

My argument continues to be that modern Presidents are more secular than religious and that when you look at the context of Carson's speech he used such qualifiers more than once during that interview.

Ah the old Muslims are like pedos analogy. Of course there is one big difference you failed to acknowledge, pedophilia is illegal, being a Muslim not only isn't illegal but having any such religious test is expressly prohibited by the constitution. So again, it doesn't matter what the presidents faith is or how devoted he is to it, so long as he upholds the constitution there isn't a problem.

I'm not sure why you and others keep ignoring this point. Just come out and say you guys think the constitution is a piece of crap and doesn't need to be followed or just admit to being a bigot at least you'd still have honesty.

 

[shira]

/sigh

Abortion is not really any different than gay rights when it comes down to Christian support. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans are against overturning Rove v. Wade. So, like gay rights, plenty of Christians support it. Are there those who would like to overturn it? Sure. And it is within their rights to try to do so, within legal parameters.

Strange how you contrast "fundamentalist" Christians against "Islamic Americans" too. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to contrast fundamentalists of one religion against the fundies of the other? We both know that in that case there is no question which group is more hostile to...just about everything, even other Muslims who don't bend to their will.

You're missing the point: Righties are falling all over themselves passing laws in red states to reduce access to abortion clinics. Righties are falling all over themselves passing laws in red states making it more difficult for minorities to vote. And righties in government tell us they support "religious freedom," when what that really means is private people and government officials having the "freedom" to discriminate against gays and same-sex couples.

That is the reality of righties in office: Making laws not consistent with the Constitution. Supporting actions not consistent with the Constitution.

But righties keep telling us that we should fear ISLAMIC Presidents and ISLAMIC legislators because it's ISLAM that's inconsistent with the Constitution.

It doesn't matter what the "majority" Christians want, or even what the "majority" of Americans want. It's what righties are actually doing with their power in office.

Get it?

 

[realibrad]

Ah the old Muslims are like pedos analogy. Of course there is one big difference you failed to acknowledge, pedophilia is illegal, being a Muslim not only isn't illegal but having any such religious test is expressly prohibited by the constitution. So again, it doesn't matter what the presidents faith is or how devoted he is to it, so long as he upholds the constitution there isn't a problem.

I'm not sure why you and others keep ignoring this point. Just come out and say you guys think the constitution is a piece of crap and doesn't need to be followed or just admit to being a bigot at least you'd still have honesty.

Are you trying to say that the executive branch does not do anything that is not allowed in the constitution? Yes, the laws defer to the constitution on what powers the executive branch has, but presidents have gotten into trouble for doing things they were not supposed to do.

I think beliefs are important and should be considered.

Beliefs can come from many places, religion being one. If your argument is that a president is constrained by the laws we have, then you would be right. History says that sometimes presidents rewrite laws to get around them. The first off the top of my head is GWB rewriting what torture was so the CIA could do torture. In that case, the executive branch did not even break a law.

GWB was motivated by his belief that we had to stop the terrorists at any cost. Its not crazy to think that if a president had religious beliefs they would not influence policy and actions. Hell, go back to GWB and look at his faith based activity, his stance on marriage, his stance on stemcell.

Do you honestly believe that religious beliefs did not guide GWB? Would a Muslim president somehow be immune?

 

[justoh]

He's trying to say that he doesn't understand what Jaskalas had written, probably because he's an idiot.

 

[ivwshane]

Are you trying to say that the executive branch does not do anything that is not allowed in the constitution? Yes, the laws defer to the constitution on what powers the executive branch has, but presidents have gotten into trouble for doing things they were not supposed to do.

I think beliefs are important and should be considered.

Beliefs can come from many places, religion being one. If your argument is that a president is constrained by the laws we have, then you would be right. History says that sometimes presidents rewrite laws to get around them. The first off the top of my head is GWB rewriting what torture was so the CIA could do torture. In that case, the executive branch did not even break a law.

GWB was motivated by his belief that we had to stop the terrorists at any cost. Its not crazy to think that if a president had religious beliefs they would not influence policy and actions. Hell, go back to GWB and look at his faith based activity, his stance on marriage, his stance on stemcell.

Do you honestly believe that religious beliefs did not guide GWB? Would a Muslim president somehow be immune?

You know what? I'm going to concede. I was wrong. I took what chuck Todd was saying a different way and your post made it clear.

Thanks.

 

[ivwshane]

Holy fuck you don't understand the first thing about context or journalistic phrasing. It has to mean exactly what YOU say it means because you'll stomp your foot if it doesn't.

What a moron you are.

You were right, I was wrong. I'm an idiot and I super failed at reading comprehension.

To quote the great rick perry, "oops!"

 

[shira]

Are you trying to say that the executive branch does not do anything that is not allowed in the constitution? Yes, the laws defer to the constitution on what powers the executive branch has, but presidents have gotten into trouble for doing things they were not supposed to do.

I think beliefs are important and should be considered.

Beliefs can come from many places, religion being one. If your argument is that a president is constrained by the laws we have, then you would be right. History says that sometimes presidents rewrite laws to get around them. The first off the top of my head is GWB rewriting what torture was so the CIA could do torture. In that case, the executive branch did not even break a law.

GWB was motivated by his belief that we had to stop the terrorists at any cost. Its not crazy to think that if a president had religious beliefs they would not influence policy and actions. Hell, go back to GWB and look at his faith based activity, his stance on marriage, his stance on stemcell.

Do you honestly believe that religious beliefs did not guide GWB? Would a Muslim president somehow be immune?

Of course not. But isn't it the height of hypocrisy to single out Islam as THE threat to the Constitution when it's abundantly clear that non-Islamic Presidents and legislators use THEIR beliefs to rationalize all sorts of actions "inconsistent" with the Constitutional?

 

[realibrad]

Of course not. But isn't it the height of hypocrisy to single out Islam as THE threat to the Constitution when it's abundantly clear that non-Islamic Presidents and legislators use THEIR beliefs to rationalize all sorts of actions "inconsistent" with the Constitutional?

Probably. I only jumped in here because I was confused about his point.

To be fair though, the other major religious have gone through changes that have made them more moderate. I would assume that if a Muslim were to win, they would also be filtered like Christians and be more moderate. Its far more likely that a non-muslim would get elected and their religious views influence their policy.

It just did not make sense that he would argue that beliefs would not influence policy, because that is stupid.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You're missing the point: Righties are falling all over themselves passing laws in red states to reduce access to abortion clinics. Righties are falling all over themselves passing laws in red states making it more difficult for minorities to vote. And righties in government tell us they support "religious freedom," when what that really means is private people and government officials having the "freedom" to discriminate against gays and same-sex couples.

That is the reality of righties in office: Making laws not consistent with the Constitution. Supporting actions not consistent with the Constitution.

But righties keep telling us that we should fear ISLAMIC Presidents and ISLAMIC legislators because it's ISLAM that's inconsistent with the Constitution.

It doesn't matter what the "majority" Christians want, or even what the "majority" of Americans want. It's what righties are actually doing with their power in office.

Get it?

And what, exactly, is it "righties" are doing? Overturning Roe v. Wade? Because they haven't. Preventing homosexuals from having equal rights? Because they haven't.

You seem to be seeing some great force of the right making changes where none are present. This society continues to march leftward as it has done for, well, since its inception, at least in fits and starts. So you are making much ado about nothing and any point you are trying to make falls flat on its face in the process.

And Islam IS inconsistent with the US Constitution. Even most lefties in here have, at least begrudgingly, agreed with that statement. At the very least they haven't refuted it. You surely have not.

 

[ivwshane]

And what, exactly, is it "righties" are doing? Overturning Roe v. Wade? Because they haven't. Preventing homosexuals from having equal rights? Because they haven't.

You seem to be seeing some great force of the right making changes where none are present. This society continues to march leftward as it has done for, well, since its inception, at least in fits and starts. So you are making much ado about nothing and any point you are trying to make falls flat on its face in the process.

And Islam IS inconsistent with the US Constitution. Even most lefties in here have, at least begrudgingly, agreed with that statement. At the very least they haven't refuted it. You surely have not.

You are thinking too big. Righties aren't making changes at the federal level, they are doing it at the state and local level. They can't kill row v wade, they can't pass a federal law making marriage between a man and a woman, so they are doing the next best thing. They are making places that provide abortions services difficult to even stay in business, then they add ridiculous limitations and requirements if women are still determined to have an abortion. There are some republicans at the local level who are just outright not offering marriage licenses or outright refusing to give out licenses to gay couples.

 

[shira]

And what, exactly, is it "righties" are doing? Overturning Roe v. Wade? Because they haven't. Preventing homosexuals from having equal rights? Because they haven't.

You seem to be seeing some great force of the right making changes where none are present. This society continues to march leftward as it has done for, well, since its inception, at least in fits and starts. So you are making much ado about nothing and any point you are trying to make falls flat on its face in the process.

And Islam IS inconsistent with the US Constitution. Even most lefties in here have, at least begrudgingly, agreed with that statement. At the very least they haven't refuted it. You surely have not.

True or false: Right-wing legislators in red states have passed numerous laws in that require abortion clinics to meet the conditions of hospital in-patient surgical centers AND require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The effect of these laws is to close-down abortion clinics and reduce access of women to abortion services.

True or false: Right-wing legislators in red states have passed numerous laws requiring government-issued ID cards as a prerequisite to registering to vote. The effect of these laws is to disproportionately reduce the number of registered minority voters.

True or false: Right-wing legislators in red states have passed numerous laws "Religious Freedom Restoration" laws. The INTENT of these laws is to allow Christian-run businesses to refuse service to gays.

Don't play games with your answers. Don't bother claiming that the abortion-clinic laws being passed have as their main purpose the "protection of women's health." You and I know both know that's bullshit.

Don't bother claiming that the main purpose of voter-ID laws being passed are to "protect elections" from non-existent voter-ID fraud. You and I both know that's bullshit.

Don't bother claiming that "Religious Freedom Restoration" are not about allowing discrimination against gays. You and I both know that's bullshit.

So given your TRUTHFUL answers, you and I both know that right-wingers will do all they can to undermine Constitutional freedoms (as defined by the Supreme Court) because righties claim that those freedoms aren't really legitimate.

But righties tell us it's Islam that's at odds with the Constitution.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You are thinking too big. Righties aren't making changes at the federal level, they are doing it at the state and local level. They can't kill row v wade, they can't pass a federal law making marriage between a man and a woman, so they are doing the next best thing. They are making places that provide abortions services difficult to even stay in business, then they add ridiculous limitations and requirements if women are still determined to have an abortion. There are some republicans at the local level who are just outright not offering marriage licenses or outright refusing to give out licenses to gay couples.

Yes they are doing those things; and they can do those things legally...for now. But that isn't any different than what the opposition to progress has done for decades. They can throw up roadblocks, but they are temporary. They always have been. Sometimes it slows social progress but it never defeats it.

I believe my response above also addresses shira's next post as well. iow, you guys are too much of a worry-wart. Chill hombres. Time heals all wounds.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes they are doing those things; and they can do those things legally...for now. But that isn't any different than what the opposition to progress has done for decades. They can throw up roadblocks, but they are temporary. They always have been. Sometimes it slows social progress but it never defeats it.

I believe my response above also addresses shira's next post as well. iow, you guys are too much of a worry-wart. Chill hombres. Time heals all wounds.

Says the guy who is worried about a Muslim president?

Yeah let's not worry about things that are actually happening! We need to worry about something that has never happened (a Muslim president) and if it did happen it would more than likely change nothing.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Says the guy who is worried about a Muslim president?

Yeah let's not worry about things that are actually happening! We need to worry about something that has never happened (a Muslim president) and if it did happen it would more than likely change nothing.

Worried? Not really. I won't see one in my lifetime and it's unlikely you'll see one in yours. When the US is ready to elect a Muslim as president either Islam will have changed or Islam will be the predominant religion in this country. You probably don't pray (I don't either) so you can cross your fingers for whichever outcome above suits your tastes for your progeny on down the road, assuming you've found a woman willing to have sex with you to produce progeny in the first place. Good luck.

:thumbsup: