Texas County GOP to Vote on Removing Vice Chairman Because He is Muslim

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#1
CNN story

Saw this as a post on the image-only thread and thought it deserved more attention. I am happy to see many GOPers defending him. His ratification was near-unanimous, so I don't think the anti-Muslim group represents a credible threat. But it amazes me this could even go to a vote given the religious protections our government is built upon.
 
Nov 4, 1999
15,919
188
126
#2
CNN story

Saw this as a post on the image-only thread and thought it deserved more attention. I am happy to see many GOPers defending him. His ratification was near-unanimous, so I don't think the anti-Muslim group represents a credible threat. But it amazes me this could even go to a vote given the religious protections our government is built upon.
Anyone who doesn’t have their head in the sand isn’t amazed by the news. However, keep pretending the GOP is a rational body that isn’t tainted by vulgar members.
 

Stokely

Senior member
Jun 5, 2017
576
68
96
#3
It doesn't amaze me in the slightest.

It slightly amazes me that a Muslim person would want to live in Texas.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#4
Anyone who doesn’t have their head in the sand isn’t amazed by the news. However, keep pretending the GOP is a rational body that isn’t tainted by vulgar members.
It's not that. There are ample examples of guys ala Roy Moore who should be openly rejected. There are ample examples of thinly veiled racism like voter suppression moves in Georgia. Other examples of clear religious discrimination like the Muslim travel ban. This one feels different to me because specifically removing a guy from employment expressly because they are Muslim and nothing else is blatantly in violation of religious protection without any attempt to spin it some other way.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#5
Anyone who doesn’t have their head in the sand isn’t amazed by the news. However, keep pretending the GOP is a rational body that isn’t tainted by vulgar members.
Please pretend that because the Republican party IS tainted by vulgar members that there are none in the party not so tainted. If you see a dot of mold on one slice of bread you have to throw the whole loaf in the trash, even if the children are hungry.
 
Nov 4, 1999
15,919
188
126
#6
Please pretend that because the Republican party IS tainted by vulgar members that there are none in the party not so tainted. If you see a dot of mold on one slice of bread you have to throw the whole loaf in the trash, even if the children are hungry.
Two dead children due the actions of republicans are no longer worried about an empty belly.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#7
Two dead children due the actions of republicans are no longer worried about an empty belly.
How many do you think die a day because people don't always cover their mouths when they sneeze?
 
Feb 6, 2002
16,899
321
126
#8
Please pretend that because the Republican party IS tainted by vulgar members that there are none in the party not so tainted. If you see a dot of mold on one slice of bread you have to throw the whole loaf in the trash, even if the children are hungry.
Except the Republicans not only DON'T cut out the dot of mold they openly endorse it. Remember Roy Moore?
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#9
I am eager to see what happens to the mold in this case. I am amazed at this, but I am happy that that the mold isn't trying to be passed off as something else.
 
Oct 18, 2013
11,179
158
126
#11
How many do you think die a day because people don't always cover their mouths when they sneeze?
How many children drown in pools vs school shootings?

I think I get your point though. It appears like you want people to see that its bad, but, not say everything is equally horrible. If that is what you are trying to do, I don't think it can land.
 
Oct 18, 2013
11,179
158
126
#12
I am eager to see what happens to the mold in this case. I am amazed at this, but I am happy that that the mold isn't trying to be passed off as something else.
What do you think about this logic?

We don't think he's suitable as a practicing Muslim to be vice chair because he'd be the representative for ALL Republicans in Tarrant County, and not ALL Republicans in Tarrant County think Islam is safe or acceptable in the U.S., in Tarrant County, and in the TCGOP, and there are big questions surrounding exactly where Dr. Shafi's loyalties lie, vis a vis Democrat and Republican policies," O'Brien said on Facebook.
I know that people will try and justify their actions in veiled ways, but, that is so weak that I can't imagine it will work. By that logic, no representative from a party should ever lead as they would not be a representative for all people in the other party. Weak and strange.
 
Oct 18, 2005
13,910
213
136
#13
What’s amusing is if conservative Christians could extract their had from their asses and stop hating on Muslims they would find they probably have many policy goals they and conservative Muslims would agree on.
 
Oct 18, 2013
11,179
158
126
#14
What’s amusing is if conservative Christians could extract their head from their asses and stop hating on Muslims they would find they probably have many policy goals they and conservative Muslims would agree on.
I would say fundamentalist rather than conservative, but, you are correct. Both want to take society back to the dark ages.
 
Dec 7, 2004
12,487
54
126
#15
What’s amusing is if conservative Christians could extract their had from their asses and stop hating on Muslims they would find they probably have many policy goals they and conservative Muslims would agree on.
Conservative Christianity and Islam are barely distinguishable in the "moral" code they want society to follow.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#16
What do you think about this logic?



I know that people will try and justify their actions in veiled ways, but, that is so weak that I can't imagine it will work. By that logic, no representative from a party should ever lead as they would not be a representative for all people in the other party. Weak and strange.
I find her statement refreshingly honest.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
#18
No religious test to hold office. That should pretty well cover it. Trying to remove someone due to the god they worship is anti-constitutional and really un-American at its core.
Now keeping them out of the country altogether due to the god they worship... not a problem.



The GOP has been the party of religious bigotry and Islamophobia for as long as I can remember. In some ways as the OP said it's refreshing to see them own it instead of trying to hide behind dog whistles.
 
Oct 18, 2013
11,179
158
126
#19
I find her statement refreshingly honest.
I believe she is honest, and, that honesty comes from bigotry. But, any amount of thought and it would appear flawed. Nobody agrees 100% with any leader, and the justification is that he does not represent everyone. It just seems so obvious.
 
May 19, 2011
11,956
169
126
#20
Now keeping them out of the country altogether due to the god they worship... not a problem.



The GOP has been the party of religious bigotry and Islamophobia for as long as I can remember. In some ways as the OP said it's refreshing to see them own it instead of trying to hide behind dog whistles.
After reading your post I decided to pull that page from the Internet Archive:

https://web.archive.org/web/2015120...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
7,003
33
126
#21
We must believe that ONE DAY all this crap will end and those that hate and destroy will be driven away, or.... move to France. ;)
One day The Trump's will be no more, and the likes of will be no more, and the people will return back to their senses because.... that is how the human race functions.
During history the simple minded, the racist and hate mongers have temporally taken over.
And during those times, all seemed lost.
But it is in our nature to progress, to succeed, to move forward through science and technology, and through basic common sense.
Never has a devolution succeeded in the long run.
Yes, even Donald Trump and his seventeenth century thinking will eventually fizzle then die off, including all of those that share his simple minded beliefs.
It is our nature to progress and to advance within all aspects of human existence.
Despite the blips that may come along from time to time like denial of science, denial of climate change, and denial in our own abilities.

I look at old video footage and historical records about the simple minded from the past.
The Hitler's, the Mussolini's, the Napoleon Bonaparte's, of all those that would have driven the world back instead of forward.
It is unimaginable such ignorance ever came to power. And that the masses allowed such ignorance to rise to power. Unimaginable and tragic.
And Donald Trump too will one day become nothing more than an unimaginable blip within our history books.
People from generations to come will look back in amazement wondering just how and why the human race allowed such ignorance to rise up and then to create such needless suffering self destruction within society.
Yes, one day people will look back and wonder WOW! How did this come about? How could people have become so insane and self destructive allowing that Donald Trump idiotic moron to see the day of light?
Donald Trump is not the disbelief, it is those people enabling Donald trump to ever have happen.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#22
I believe she is honest, and, that honesty comes from bigotry. But, any amount of thought and it would appear flawed. Nobody agrees 100% with any leader, and the justification is that he does not represent everyone. It just seems so obvious.
Is it? The sentiment seems wrong because our culture and government has strong moral stances on this specific issue. But I don't think a leader can be effective if who they lead are unable to see them as cut from a similar enough cloth. For example, my department has a chair who came over from the West coast and basically has done a lot of good things and is well respected in the field. But he has had trouble gaining respect largely from some degree of culture shock. I had a patient yesterday decline seeing the chaplain because they are trained to work with all faiths and they didn't feel the chaplain represented their faith at all. In all kinds of ways being able to relate to someone who you give influence to is extremely important and doesn't raise red flags as inappropriate.

All that said, things are relative. Clearly we can't isolate only to homogenous groups, and there is advantage to incorporating outside perspectives and experience with our own. So we want difference. We just have to make sure the difference doesn't overwhelm our capacity to integrate it.

In this case, I think what will happen to him is certain. He'll be retained and if not it would be illegal. What bothers me is people think that one side is right and the other is wrong on moral grounds. The conflict isn't going away. Racism and Islamophobia aren't going away. I would hope that, instead, her sentiments would be recognized as important to reconcile with what they are at odds with and to incorporate both sides of the conflict in how it is viewed instead of some fantasy that there is no conflict because we've picked a winner.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#23
Except the Republicans not only DON'T cut out the dot of mold they openly endorse it. Remember Roy Moore?
Except the Republicans not only DON'T cut out the dot of mold they openly endorse it. Remember Roy Moore?
Yes, well I was talking about UberNeuman who is not a Republican.
 
Oct 18, 2013
11,179
158
126
#24
Is it? The sentiment seems wrong because our culture and government has strong moral stances on this specific issue. But I don't think a leader can be effective if who they lead are unable to see them as cut from a similar enough cloth. For example, my department has a chair who came over from the West coast and basically has done a lot of good things and is well respected in the field. But he has had trouble gaining respect largely from some degree of culture shock. I had a patient yesterday decline seeing the chaplain because they are trained to work with all faiths and they didn't feel the chaplain represented their faith at all. In all kinds of ways being able to relate to someone who you give influence to is extremely important and doesn't raise red flags as inappropriate.
I can see coming from the same general ideas, but, that was not her argument. Her argument was that he literally did not represent every Republican. Its one thing to want a representative that you can identify with in terms of morality. Its very different to say that someone cannot be an effective leader because they do not agree 100% with the people they are supposed to represent. That would require people to to agree on all issues which is obviously not how people are.

So, its one thing to want to have a relatable person, its another thing to expect that the person represent 100% of everyone's beliefs.

All that said, things are relative. Clearly we can't isolate only to homogenous groups, and there is advantage to incorporating outside perspectives and experience with our own. So we want difference. We just have to make sure the difference doesn't overwhelm our capacity to integrate it.
I agree as a general rule that its beneficial to get outside perspectives. But, her stance is that a leader must not be of a group/subgroup that 100% of the followers are not.

In this case, I think what will happen to him is certain. He'll be retained and if not it would be illegal. What bothers me is people think that one side is right and the other is wrong on moral grounds. The conflict isn't going away. Racism and Islamophobia aren't going away. I would hope that, instead, her sentiments would be recognized as important to reconcile with what they are at odds with and to incorporate both sides of the conflict in how it is viewed instead of some fantasy that there is no conflict because we've picked a winner.
While the conflict is not going to end here, there is a side that is morally right on this topic. The pro side to the belief that a leader must not be in conflict with any of the people he leads is wrong.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#25
How many children drown in pools vs school shootings?

I think I get your point though. It appears like you want people to see that its bad, but, not say everything is equally horrible. If that is what you are trying to do, I don't think it can land.
I an saying to @UberNeuman that he has taken his moral outrage to the fanatical level, and in such a way that he manifests or has begun to mirror the very things he fears. Were he Donald Trump riffing on this issue he would be focused on finding and catastrophizing about two Muslim children who have sneaked across our Southern border and stole two White kids teddy bears.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY