Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.

And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.

I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.

To be fair... sharia is incompatible to US laws.

Unless you're okay with Jizya, honor killing and all that...

Well, so's biblical law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I've said it before on other threads, that if America starts treating its Muslim citizens as a fifth column, then there will be nothing but trouble and strife in the future. Carson should know better than to spout garbage like that.

IIRC Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion. Although in the US it's Atheism/no religion.

Which one?

Touche.


That is always the problem with religious laws, especially with the Abrahamic ones. There's so many different versions.

 whembly wrote:

To be fair... sharia is incompatible to US laws.

Unless you're okay with Jizya, honor killing and all that...

Only if you make the wild (and incorrect) assumption that sharia law is this specific well defined thing. It's not. 'Sharia' means "path to be followed." Calling it 'law' is something of misnomer produced by media outlets. Sharia in itself is simply a religious interpretation of Mohammed's life based on the Quran and Hadith. Figh (jurisprudence) is based on scholarly interpretations of Sharia which produces Madhhab (doctrine) which is what is appropriately described as 'Islamic Law.'

Asking a Muslim to ignore Sharia is like asking a Christian to denounce Jesus Christ and burn their copy of the Bible. 'Sharia' is only a problem if we make wildly incorrect assumptions about what Muslims believe and how their beliefs are applied to their daily lives.

 LordofHats wrote:
'Sharia' is only a problem if we make wildly incorrect assumptions about what Muslims believe and how their beliefs are applied to their daily lives.

Would that happen in the OT? Never.

Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.

 whembly wrote:
Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.

That's what we throw around the phrase "Sharia law" to mean, but its lead to confusion about what the word 'Sharia' actually means in Islamic faith, and an overtly misleading oversimplification of how Islamic law is developed and derived (as well as the false notion that all 'Sharia law' involves things like honor killing and stoning infidels and what not). There are numerous interpretations of Sharia, ranging from "She's walking around without her head covered BURN THE WITCH" to the rather familiar "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (aka Mark 12:17)."

Again, you might as well pretend that every Christian who believes the Bible is the word of god is Guy Fawkes and demand every Christian denounce the Nicene Creed.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.

That's what we throw around the phrase "Sharia law" to mean, but its lead to confusion about what the word 'Sharia' actually means in Islamic faith, and an overtly misleading oversimplification of how Islamic law is developed and derived (as well as the false notion that all 'Sharia law' involves things like honor killing and stoning infidels and what not). There are numerous interpretations of Sharia, ranging from "She's walking around without her head covered BURN THE WITCH" to the rather familiar "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (aka Mark 12:17)."

I know that... but we're talking about what attributes we look into our candidates when voting.

We vote for whatever we damn please.

It's like the US will never vote for a full-on evangelical like Huckabee.

Same thing.

Besides, Carson clarified his statement:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/254330-carson-doubles-down-on-no-muslims-in-the-white-house

In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”



“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

 LordofHats wrote:

Again, you might as well pretend that every Christian who believes the Bible is the word of god is Guy Fawkes and demand every Christian denounce the Nicene Creed.

Wait... we don't?

 whembly wrote:

Wait... we don't?

Well, you'd probably confuse the hell out of all the Christians who don't believe in the Nicene Creed at all, but I imagine Catholics and some Angelicans would be pretty livid.

 whembly wrote:
Besides, Carson clarified his statement:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/254330-carson-doubles-down-on-no-muslims-in-the-white-house

In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”



“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

So by "clarifying" his insanely stupid comment, he made another insanely stupid comment by saying in more words, "feth you, Constitution... specifically Article VI."

Once again proving that people like him only choose the parts of the Constitution they like and ignore the rest. Despite his calm and quite demeanor, Carson is the most extreme candidate in the field (and like the rest, has no real shot at actually becoming President).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Besides, Carson clarified his statement:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/254330-carson-doubles-down-on-no-muslims-in-the-white-house

In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”



“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

So by "clarifying" his insanely stupid comment, he made another insanely stupid comment by saying in more words, "feth you, Constitution... specifically Article VI."

Once again proving that people like him only choose the parts of the Constitution they like and ignore the rest. Despite his calm and quite demeanor, Carson is the most extreme candidate in the field (and like the rest, has no real shot at actually becoming President).

Ah... so you'd feel that way about folks who didn't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?

Or, even for poeple voting for Obama simply because he's black?

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Besides, Carson clarified his statement:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/254330-carson-doubles-down-on-no-muslims-in-the-white-house

In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”



“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

So by "clarifying" his insanely stupid comment, he made another insanely stupid comment by saying in more words, "feth you, Constitution... specifically Article VI."

Once again proving that people like him only choose the parts of the Constitution they like and ignore the rest. Despite his calm and quite demeanor, Carson is the most extreme candidate in the field (and like the rest, has no real shot at actually becoming President).

Ah... so you'd feel that way about folks who didn't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?

Or, even for poeple voting for Obama simply because he's black?

Holy gak dude, you couldn't be more off the mark if you tried. Did you even read what you wrote? Do you understand it?

How a voter personally feels about a candidate is nowhere close to saying that a candidate should publicly reject parts of their faith. Voting in a secret ballot against Obama because you don't like black people (or like when people voted against Kennedy because of his Catholicism) isn't unconstitutional, but requiring someone to denounce their faith is. I mean for feth's sake, even Ted Cruz understands that.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Besides, Carson clarified his statement:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/254330-carson-doubles-down-on-no-muslims-in-the-white-house

In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”



“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

So by "clarifying" his insanely stupid comment, he made another insanely stupid comment by saying in more words, "feth you, Constitution... specifically Article VI."

Once again proving that people like him only choose the parts of the Constitution they like and ignore the rest. Despite his calm and quite demeanor, Carson is the most extreme candidate in the field (and like the rest, has no real shot at actually becoming President).

Ah... so you'd feel that way about folks who didn't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?

Or, even for poeple voting for Obama simply because he's black?

Holy gak dude, you couldn't be more off the mark if you tried. Did you even read what you wrote? Do you understand it?

How a voter personally feels about a candidate is nowhere close to saying that a candidate should publicly reject parts of their faith. Voting in a secret ballot against Obama because you don't like black people (or like when people voted against Kennedy because of his Catholicism) isn't unconstitutional, but requiring someone to denounce their faith is. I mean for feth's sake, even Ted Cruz understands that.

Calm down scooty... show me where Carson is advocating a Constitutional religious test.

 whembly wrote:

Calm down scooty... show me where Carson is advocating a Constitutional religious test.

Don't condescend me, Whembly.

You seem unfamiliar with what is being discussed, so here is what the clause in Article VI says:

[...] no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Having to publicly denounce any part of your faith more than qualifies as a religious test. A voter deciding whether or not to vote for a candidate based on the color of his skin is not in any way related to this.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Calm down scooty... show me where Carson is advocating a Constitutional religious test.

Don't condescend me, Whembly.

Honestly not trying too... sorry mang...

You seem unfamiliar with what is being discussed, so here is what the clause I. Article VI says:

[...] no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Having to publicly denounce any part of your faith more than qualifies as a religious test. A voter deciding whether or not to vote for a candidate based on the color of his skin is not in any way related to this.

And you seem to think that Carson himself actually meant that as a legal requirement. I'm just pointing out that it's his own personal opinion (ie, "I would not advocate" / "I absolutely would not agree" / etc...).

Like it or not, we all discriminate. The only difference is that in some mindsets, only some are to be punished for it.

 whembly wrote:


Like it or not, we all discriminate. The only difference is that in some mindsets, only some are to be punished for it.

Because that's always been a wonderful excuse for all kinds of things.

 whembly wrote:

I know that...

You plainly don't, as you just said...

 whembly wrote:
Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.

...which is completely incorrect, as was explained to you.

Though, I highly doubt Mr. Carson knows what Sharia actually is either. He also likely doesn't care, as virtually no one who would vote for him cares. Rather they care about what they think Sharia is, and what they think it is likely isn't far from what you just stated. Of course, Mr. Carson might also know exactly what Sharia really is, and was simply looking for a politically expedient way to state that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim.

 whembly wrote:

...but we're talking about what attributes we look into our candidates when voting.

We vote for whatever we damn please.

Very true, but it is often worth pointing it out when a particular reason is bad. That's how discourse works.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Like it or not, we all discriminate. The only difference is that in some mindsets, only some are to be punished for it.

Because that's always been a wonderful excuse for all kinds of things.

I'm not sure I'm excusing it Lordy... only that it happens.

 whembly wrote:

Like it or not, we all discriminate. The only difference is that in some mindsets, only some are to be punished for it.

Of course we all discriminate. Discrimination is essentially the basis for decision making. The question at hand is whether or not the form that discrimination takes is justifiable.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I know that...

You plainly don't, as you just said...

 whembly wrote:
Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.

...which is completely incorrect, as was explained to you.

Though, I highly doubt Mr. Carson knows what Sharia actually is either. He also likely doesn't care, as virtually no one who would vote for him cares. Rather they care about what they think Sharia is, and what they think it is likely isn't far from what you just stated. Of course, Mr. Carson might also know exactly what Sharia really is, and was simply looking for a politically expedient way to state that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim.

So you'll have Wiki and other publications fix that, right?

 whembly wrote:

...but we're talking about what attributes we look into our candidates when voting.

We vote for whatever we damn please.

Very true, but it is often worth pointing it out when a particular reason is bad. That's how discourse works.

 whembly wrote:

So you'll have Wiki and other publications fix that, right?

I can't really have Wikipedia fix anything, and inaccuracy regarding widely misunderstood topics is one of the major issues with websites like Wikipedia. This is especially true regarding topics which many people believe do not require a great deal of technical knowledge to understand: e.g. topics related to political science, philosophy, religion, psychology, and the like.

As to other publications, sure. Unfortunately that would essentially amount to a full-time, unpaid, job. I have more valuable things to do with my time.

 whembly wrote:
And you seem to think that Carson himself actually meant that as a legal requirement. I'm just pointing out that it's his own personal opinion (ie, "I would not advocate" / "I absolutely would not agree" / etc...).

Yes, even though he feths up sometimes, Carson generally knows how to say the right things when getting his point across.

The clause in Article VI doesn't say anything about an "official" religious test, it just says no religious test shall ever be required. Carson pretty plainly disagrees with the Constitution on that matter, as his opinion is that a Muslim should have to publicly renounce parts of his faith that Carson disagrees with. He's using his words to call for one indirectly, which is the same thing that Kennedy went through during his run for president and is equally as bad (if not worse).

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So you'll have Wiki and other publications fix that, right?

I can't really have Wikipedia fix anything, and inaccuracy regarding widely misunderstood topics is one of the major issues with websites like Wikipedia. This is especially true regarding topics which many people believe do not require a great deal of technical knowledge to understand: e.g. topics related to political science, philosophy, religion, psychology, and the like.

As to other publications, sure. Unfortunately that would essentially amount to a full-time, unpaid, job. I have more valuable things to do with my time.

For the best. Here's what happens when you try to fix something on Wikipedia; You notice a factual error on Wikipedia. You delete it.. Two hours later, the original editor of that citation reverts your change, accuses you of lying/being a plat for some obscure conspiracy/trying to twist facts. Being a reasonable person, you go back to your source, explain what it says and why it is correct. Ten editors then say your wrong, citing the incorrect information already in the article, cause if it's on Wiki it must be true. Still being a reasonable person, you investigate the cited source on Wiki to try and see what it says only to find it doesn't say what Wiki says it says/has nothing to do with the subject matter at all/doesn't even exist. You return to Wiki with your discovery and restore you're original change.Two hours later the original editor has again reverted your changes, asked his friendly moderator to lock the page from further changes, and has reported you to ANI (administrator's noticeboard incidents) where the editor has accused you of being a liar, a troll, and threat to Wikipedia.

^Note I've seen the above happen for things a stupid as whether or not to include a coma before the word 'and.' Wikipedia members will then spend the next few hours arguing about whether or not you really are a liar, a troll, and a threat to Wikipedia (with whoever first accused you of such no doubt operating several sock puppets to perpetuate the debate) all the while the page is locked and unchangeable with the factual error still present for all to read. You try to defend your actions, but no one really cares because by now they're all just trying to get editors they don't like banned by the admins over things that have nothing to do with the original article you tried to edit. Maybe if you're lucky, the article will be unlocked in three days and you can repeat the process all over again.

Please note the above process becomes even more insane if you attempt anything more complicated than correcting punctuation and spelling. There's another phrase for "fixing wikipeida'; Flame War. There's a reason I never became an editor. I'll leave that to masochists and sadists.

I thought he said that he could not support a Muslim running for POTUS due to that individual view unless that Individual renounce that aspect of his/her religion. He gave his opinion. An opinion I can of agree with but an opinion. A view. A stance.

The "I kind of agree with" bit is the individual decisions in office might have the perception of being influence by his/her upbringing under "Sharia"

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And you seem to think that Carson himself actually meant that as a legal requirement. I'm just pointing out that it's his own personal opinion (ie, "I would not advocate" / "I absolutely would not agree" / etc...).

Yes, even though he feths up sometimes, Carson generally knows how to say the right things when getting his point across.

The clause in Article VI doesn't say anything about an "official" religious test, it just says no religious test shall ever be required. Carson pretty plainly disagrees with the Constitution on that matter, as his opinion is that a Muslim should have to publicly renounce parts of his faith that Carson disagrees with. He's using his words to call for one indirectly, which is the same thing that Kennedy went through during his run for president and is equally as bad (if not worse).

The Constitution sets limits on the Federal Gov't, and sets up what they can do/are responsible for doing. I find it difficult to see any part of it, to include Article VI as NOT covering 'official' acts allowed or not allowed by the Federal gov't. Of course it is saying the Fed gov't cannot require a religious test. Which has no bearing what so ever on what individual voters may or may not require for them to vote for or against any person.

I find it mildly ironic that a portion of the conservative base are doing exactly what they claim they are afraid of about Muslims/Sharia: having an inability to separarate religious doctrine from secular law. Carson wants to base the tax system on tithing. A number of them flat out reject the supreme court's ruling on gay marriage, going so far as to say they will rather follow "the laws of nature or the laws of nature's God."--Mike Huckabee. All of them reject the law of the land in terms of abortion rights.

They are projecting in thinking that a Muslum would not be able to make a distinction between personal faith and Constitutional law. Which is weird when all they would have to do is look across the aisle and see a number of the people in the other party seem to be able to handle it just fine. Of course those people aren't real believers though.

Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.

Define "large". Because I don't think most liberals care as long as as they don't force their religion into law.

 Frazzled wrote:
Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.

As someone who might be seen to fall into this category, its not really people of faith. It's zealots (people like Cruz) who I'm scared of.

In other words, people who believe in their religion really, really bad. I'd be nervous with such a person in charge of the arsenal whether they were a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or any other kind of zealot. The religion in question is fairly immaterial to me.

 Frazzled wrote:
Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.

Then of course there are people who believe that 'large portions of liberals' believe that.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.

Then of course there are people who believe that 'large portions of liberals' believe that.

then of course there are people who believe there are people who believe that large portions of liberals believe that.