I'm with Carson

[dbackjon]

I don't disagree with Carson- in the respect that I don't think anyone who believes their religious laws supercede the Constitution. There SHOULD be a litmus test... do you believe that the Constitution should take a back seat to your religious laws?

At the same time, Carson and the rest of the gang should also answer this simple question.

I get what he is saying, though- there is a not completely unfounded perception that a good number of Muslims believe that sharia law does in fact trump the laws of nations

[YoUDeeMan]

Just when I was thinking Carson has gonads he's backing off and obviously trying to pretend he didn't say what he said. He's talking about "context." Bullshit. He should have stood his ground. There's a damned good case to be made for the position he took and he should have made it.

It has nothing to do with the Constitutional stipulation that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." He didn't say a Msulim shouldn't be qualified to run for the office. The point is that we can vote as thinking people, see that Islam is both a religion and a political system, and not VOTE to put a Muslim into that position.

The reason is simple: A tenant of Islam is that there is no distinction between secular law and Islamic Law. Islamic Law rules. If somebody is following Islam they believe the Constitution should be eliminated and replaced with Islamic law. Or at the very least there is a serious risk of that.

Another thing is that Islam teaches that it's OK to lie to infidels in order to gain advantage (http://muslimfact.com/bm/terror-in-the- ... -bri.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). So if you have a Muslim running for President and he says he does NOT believe Islamic Law should supplant the Constitution you are a fool if you assume he's telling the truth.

So there's no way out. If you vote for a Muslim for President you are either totally unaware of what Islam is or you are a fool. And Carson should be willing to go ahead and say that because it is the truth.

Hey JSO, setting aside that I'm fairly liberal on most topics, would you ever consider voting for me despise the fact that I'm a former Muslim? Or do you think I'm lying about my lack of religion to deceive you?

Actually, JSO would never get the chance to vote for you...if you run for office and publicly state that you are a former Muslin, your former brothers in prayer will kill you.

[YoUDeeMan]

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh. Sandnigger, of course.



You are once again playing dumb while trying to blur the lines when there are clearly identifiable groups. Are there mixes? Yes, more and more with travel. But there are still clearly identifiable groups, and those people clearly have their own abilities and genetic traits.

To deny that is to deny reality. Of course, denying reality is what you do.

SO TYPICAL

Glad you agree.

Of course, that is a typical response to that question...everyone, including you, knew the answer; you just didn't post it first. Don't get mad because you are slow.

[kalm]

Apparently, there are substantial numbers of muslims who feel sharia is open to interpretation and shouldn't apply to non-muslims. The studies were conducted in MRZ's (muslim rich zone) and if you polled American muslims I'm sure the pro-sharia numbers would fall even further.

That's not to say they're worthy of voting for, but not everyone one of them is going to slide into office with the scimitar swinging.

Spoiler: show

I actually think it was a bit of a gotcha question for Carson and his response was not that big of a deal. Also, sorry for adding a dash of reason here.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... ut-sharia/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

oh, klam has spoken

as you were, everybody

again, for the reading impaired: there are legitimate reasons why one would be concerned over a muslim holding the highest office - the very essence of islam is that it is a form of government unto itself

find a poll that asks these supposed moderate muslims whether or not their country's laws should trump those of the religion and then maybe your post will have some relevance

news flash: in predominantly muslim countries they ALREADY have laws that are dictated by the koran - Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Indonesia, even Turkey - there are sacrilegious things you can do in those countries that will get you thrown in jail (if there is a more liberal country than the one I mentioned then feel free to let me know)

but by all means continue to apologize for islam

1). That was part of this poll.

2). Learn the difference between apologizing for Islam and trying to apply some reason instead of emotion to the topic.

[kalm]

Just when I was thinking Carson has gonads he's backing off and obviously trying to pretend he didn't say what he said. He's talking about "context." Bullshit. He should have stood his ground. There's a damned good case to be made for the position he took and he should have made it.

It has nothing to do with the Constitutional stipulation that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." He didn't say a Msulim shouldn't be qualified to run for the office. The point is that we can vote as thinking people, see that Islam is both a religion and a political system, and not VOTE to put a Muslim into that position.

The reason is simple: A tenant of Islam is that there is no distinction between secular law and Islamic Law. Islamic Law rules. If somebody is following Islam they believe the Constitution should be eliminated and replaced with Islamic law. Or at the very least there is a serious risk of that.

Another thing is that Islam teaches that it's OK to lie to infidels in order to gain advantage (http://muslimfact.com/bm/terror-in-the- ... -bri.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). So if you have a Muslim running for President and he says he does NOT believe Islamic Law should supplant the Constitution you are a fool if you assume he's telling the truth.

So there's no way out. If you vote for a Muslim for President you are either totally unaware of what Islam is or you are a fool. And Carson should be willing to go ahead and say that because it is the truth.

Hey JSO, setting aside that I'm fairly liberal on most topics, would you ever consider voting for me despise the fact that I'm a former Muslim? Or do you think I'm lying about my lack of religion to deceive you?

I'll bet you still want Sharia Law though don't you?

[Chizzang]

I'm going to revert back to this one:

All major world religions have a multitude of "leaders" who renounce their bronze age teachings
leaders who actually speak against their most ancient texts - and ask the world to move forward

This is common among more mature religions
Christianity / Hinduism / Buddhism etc. etc. with one HUGE notable exception

Islam has nobody of any significance who will step forward and offer a pathway for the Religion to mature into a reasonable version of its ancient self - until this happens - Islam is far too dangerous

[kalm]

I'm going to revert back to this one:

All major world religions have a multitude of "leaders" who renounce their bronze age teachings
leaders who actually speak against their most ancient texts - and ask the world to move forward

This is common among more mature religions
Christianity / Hinduism / Buddhism etc. etc. with one HUGE notable exception

Islam has nobody of any significance who will step forward and offer a pathway for the Religion to mature into a reasonable version of its ancient self - until this happens - Islam is far too dangerous

Good point.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm going to revert back to this one:

All major world religions have a multitude of "leaders" who renounce their bronze age teachings
leaders who actually speak against their most ancient texts - and ask the world to move forward

This is common among more mature religions
Christianity / Hinduism / Buddhism etc. etc. with one HUGE notable exception

Islam has nobody of any significance who will step forward and offer a pathway for the Religion to mature into a reasonable version of its ancient self - until this happens - Islam is far too dangerous

Well don't hold your hand on your ass waiting for that to happen, or it'll grow there.

[HI54UNI]

I'm going to revert back to this one:

All major world religions have a multitude of "leaders" who renounce their bronze age teachings
leaders who actually speak against their most ancient texts - and ask the world to move forward

This is common among more mature religions
Christianity / Hinduism / Buddhism etc. etc. with one HUGE notable exception

Islam has nobody of any significance who will step forward and offer a pathway for the Religion to mature into a reasonable version of its ancient self - until this happens - Islam is far too dangerous

You've said this many times and I agree with you. I've always thought our approach to fighting the fanatics has been wrong. Instead of going after all the militant fighters we also need to start going after the preachers that are playing a role in inciting the violence. Maybe a few of them would start to speak up against the violence if they thought they were going to have a missile fly up their ass instead of it flying up somebody else's.

[YoUDeeMan]

Hey JSO, setting aside that I'm fairly liberal on most topics, would you ever consider voting for me despise the fact that I'm a former Muslim? Or do you think I'm lying about my lack of religion to deceive you?

Actually, JSO would never get the chance to vote for you...if you run for office and publicly state that you are a former Muslin, your former brothers in prayer will kill you.

Hey, infinity man, I just realized that this post might have sounded as though I would be happy with you being killed by a Muslin.

That is not true...despite you being an ODU fan, I am a fan of your posts (no homo).

Now, if you were to get killed by a mob shouting, "We don't drink, we don't smoke, nor fuck, nor fuck," it would be a different story, because there is sooooooooooooo much irony in that.

[CID1990]

oh, klam has spoken

as you were, everybody

again, for the reading impaired: there are legitimate reasons why one would be concerned over a muslim holding the highest office - the very essence of islam is that it is a form of government unto itself

find a poll that asks these supposed moderate muslims whether or not their country's laws should trump those of the religion and then maybe your post will have some relevance

news flash: in predominantly muslim countries they ALREADY have laws that are dictated by the koran - Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Indonesia, even Turkey - there are sacrilegious things you can do in those countries that will get you thrown in jail (if there is a more liberal country than the one I mentioned then feel free to let me know)

but by all means continue to apologize for islam

1). That was part of this poll.

2). Learn the difference between apologizing for Islam and trying to apply some reason instead of emotion to the topic.

Why don't you show us a predominantly muslim nation that DOESN'T have any koran based indecency or blasphemy laws because those are the only ones where your poll would have any relevance at all.

Go ahead- name them

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, you edited from sharia law to "koran based indecency or blasphemy laws"... so, not sure how to respond

Plenty of predominantly muslim countries don't have sharia law and have even elected women as heads of state. Just look outside of the Middle East. And, that's probably why you edited...

But, it's pretty damn vague whether a country has "koran based indeceny laws." There are laws in this country that could be viewed as "Bible based indecency laws."

And, a liberal Western European country like Switzerland has blasphemy laws:

In Switzerland, Article 261 of the penal code titled "Attack on the freedom of faith and the freedom to worship" (Störung der Glaubens- und Kultusfreiheit) criminalizes:[115]

public and malicious insult or mockery of religious convictions of others
malicious desecration objects of religious veneration
malicious prevention, disruption or public mockery of an act of worship
malicious desecration of a place or object that is intended for a religious ceremony or an act of worship

[LeadBolt]

Well, you edited from sharia law to "koran based indecency or blasphemy laws"... so, not sure how to respond

Plenty of predominantly muslim countries don't have sharia law and have even elected women as heads of state. Just look outside of the Middle East. And, that's probably why you edited...

But, it's pretty damn vague whether a country has "koran based indeceny laws." There are laws in this country that could be viewed as "Bible based indecency laws."

And, a liberal Western European country like Switzerland has blasphemy laws:

In Switzerland, Article 261 of the penal code titled "Attack on the freedom of faith and the freedom to worship" (Störung der Glaubens- und Kultusfreiheit) criminalizes:[115]

public and malicious insult or mockery of religious convictions of others
malicious desecration objects of religious veneration
malicious prevention, disruption or public mockery of an act of worship
malicious desecration of a place or object that is intended for a religious ceremony or an act of worship

Is the Swiss law which protects all religions equivalent to Sharia law that protects one religion and persecutes others?

Do the Swiss laws carry the death penalty like the Sharia based laws do? Wouldn't a comparison of penalties be appropriate or is a fine and/or a minor sentence the equivalent of the death penalty?

[Skjellyfetti]

Is the Swiss law which protects all religions equivalent to Sharia law that protects one religion and persecutes others?

Do the Swiss laws carry the death penalty like the Sharia based laws do? Wouldn't a comparison of penalties be appropriate or is a fine and/or a minor sentence the equivalent of the death penalty?

I'm not talking about Sharia law.

I'm talking about the more liberal muslim countries that do no have Sharia law (and there are many - hence Cid's edit).

For instance, this is Turkey's "anti-blasphemy" law. It reads much like Switzerland's.

Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code ("Provoking people to be rancorous and hostile") criminalizes blasphemy and religious insult, as well as hate speech. The article, which is in the fifth section of the Turkish Penal Code ("Offenses Against Public Peace") is as follows:

Article 216. – Provoking people to be rancorous and hostile
(1) Any person who openly provokes a group of people belonging to different social class, religion, race, sect, or coming from another origin, to be rancorous or hostile against another group, is punished with imprisonment from one year to three years in case of such act causes risk from the aspect of public safety.
(2) Any person who openly humiliates another person just because he belongs to different social class, religion, race, sect, or comes from another origin, is punished with imprisonment from six months to one year.
(3) Any person who openly disrespects the religious belief of a group is punished with imprisonment from six months to one year if such act causes potential risk for public peace.[116]

[kalm]

1). That was part of this poll.

2). Learn the difference between apologizing for Islam and trying to apply some reason instead of emotion to the topic.

Why don't you show us a predominantly muslim nation that DOESN'T have any koran based indecency or blasphemy laws because those are the only ones where your poll would have any relevance at all.

Go ahead- name them

I'm sorry you've decided to take a ride on the struggle bus here, so let me reframe the issues and perhaps you'll feel a little better about things:

1) Islam is bad
2) Islam is dangerous
3) Sharia Law is bad
4) Sharia Law is dangerous
5) Islam and Sharia Law are far worse and more bad than Western religions and laws
6) All indecency and blasphemy laws are stupid

See? Quite a bit of common ground for us. I just don't feel compelled to defend/apologize for islamophobic hyperbole. I prefer reason over jingoism.

Now...please carry on.

[CID1990]

Well, you edited from sharia law to "koran based indecency or blasphemy laws"... so, not sure how to respond

Plenty of predominantly muslim countries don't have sharia law and have even elected women as heads of state. Just look outside of the Middle East. And, that's probably why you edited...

But, it's pretty damn vague whether a country has "koran based indeceny laws." There are laws in this country that could be viewed as "Bible based indecency laws."

And, a liberal Western European country like Switzerland has blasphemy laws:

In Switzerland, Article 261 of the penal code titled "Attack on the freedom of faith and the freedom to worship" (Störung der Glaubens- und Kultusfreiheit) criminalizes:[115]

public and malicious insult or mockery of religious convictions of others
malicious desecration objects of religious veneration
malicious prevention, disruption or public mockery of an act of worship
malicious desecration of a place or object that is intended for a religious ceremony or an act of worship

You're willfully ignorant and missing the point

blasphemy and indecency laws are a part of sharia -

NO country (at least no recognized country) has full sharia law - not even Saudi Arabia

but your straw man aside


I'll say it again: polling of people in predominantly muslim countries as to how they feel about sharia law which shows a plurality of muslims being against it is disingenuous

every single predominantly muslim country in the entire world (including constitutionally secular Turkey) have koranic based religious laws - which are part and parcel of sharia law, even though sharia does not fully exist anywhere

so basically, "moderate" muslims in predominantly muslim countries, much like you and klam, are full of sh1t

[AZGrizFan]

1) Islam is bad
2) Islam is dangerous
3) Sharia Law is bad
4) Sharia Law is dangerous
5) Islam and Sharia Law are far worse and more bad than Western religions and laws
6) All indecency and blasphemy laws are stupid

See? Quite a bit of common ground for us. I just don't feel compelled to defend/apologize for islamophobic hyperbole. I prefer reason over jingoism.

Now...please carry on.

So, you agree with Carson and JSO.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

[JohnStOnge]

Hey JSO, setting aside that I'm fairly liberal on most topics, would you ever consider voting for me despise the fact that I'm a former Muslim? Or do you think I'm lying about my lack of religion to deceive you?

That is a good question and the answer is no. I would not take the risk. I would not know you are lying but that risk that you are would be high enough to lead me not to consider voting for you.

Maybe if I'd known you personally all your life and knew that the only reason you were ever a Muslim is because you were born into a Muslim family and that as soon as you got old enough to think for yourself you rejected Islam. Maybe.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I don't have a problem with the concept of people who are sincere in their religion saying that if it comes right down to it and they have to choose between God's Law and Man's Law they are going to go with God's Law. If you sincerely believe in God (or Gods or something like that) it would make no sense for you to think that Man's Law would reign supreme. There are historical cases even in our own history where, in retrospect, most would have no problem with what people did in that regard. Take the Abolitionists. They routinely violated United States Law pertaining to slavery because they believed a higher law, God's Law, said they should.

But in general I think that Christianity can co-exist with the Constitution. At least the Constitution as it is written and how each bit of language in it was generally understood when it was ratified. I don't think that's the case with Islam. Right off the bat Islam cannot co-exist with the idea that there can be no national law with respect to the establishment of religion. In Islam Church and State have to be the same thing.

[dbackjon]

I think Cheney said that before invading Iraq...

[DSUrocks07]

BTW I don't have a problem with the concept of people who are sincere in their religion saying that if it comes right down to it and they have to choose between God's Law and Man's Law they are going to go with God's Law. If you sincerely believe in God (or Gods or something like that) it would make no sense for you to think that Man's Law would reign supreme. There are historical cases even in our own history where, in retrospect, most would have no problem with what people did in that regard. Take the Abolitionists. They routinely violated United States Law pertaining to slavery because they believed a higher law, God's Law, said they should.

Or a Kim Davis at the other end of the spectrum.

Which is more to the point that singular religious beliefs as a basis of government is a flawed concept. The Abolitionists operated outside of the government as a form of protest. Davis, on the other hand, desires to operate as a integral part of that same government apparatus as her form of protest. That cannot work. A successful government must be inherently secular and without bias to survive.

[JohnStOnge]

Or a Kim Davis at the other end of the spectrum.

Which is more to the point that singular religious beliefs as a basis of government is a flawed concept. The Abolitionists operated outside of the government as a form of protest. Davis, on the other hand, desires to operate as a integral part of that same government apparatus as her form of protest. That cannot work. A successful government must be inherently secular and without bias to survive.

Would you have been saying back in the day when inter racial marriage was prohibited by State law that a county clerk who ignored the law and issued marriage licenses to inter racial couples because that's what her religious beliefs told her to do was "wrong?"

I suspect that most of the people who are saying she should follow "the law" (as defined by Federal Court edict) now would have lauded her as a courageous hero if, before the Federal Court issued its edict, she had decided to issue licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of Law saying that marriage licenses can only be issued to people with normal sexual orientations.

[YoUDeeMan]

Or a Kim Davis at the other end of the spectrum.

Which is more to the point that singular religious beliefs as a basis of government is a flawed concept. The Abolitionists operated outside of the government as a form of protest. Davis, on the other hand, desires to operate as a integral part of that same government apparatus as her form of protest. That cannot work. A successful government must be inherently secular and without bias to survive.

Would you have been saying back in the day when inter racial marriage was prohibited by State law that a county clerk who ignored the law and issued marriage licenses to inter racial couples because that's what her religious beliefs told her to do was "wrong?"

I suspect that most of the people who are saying she should follow "the law" (as defined by Federal Court edict) now would have lauded her as a courageous hero if, before the Federal Court issued its edict, she had decided to issue licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of Law saying that marriage licenses can only be issued to people with normal sexual orientations.

Love him or not (and I do, but no homo), JSO can volley with the best of them.

[Chizzang]

Or a Kim Davis at the other end of the spectrum.

Which is more to the point that singular religious beliefs as a basis of government is a flawed concept. The Abolitionists operated outside of the government as a form of protest. Davis, on the other hand, desires to operate as a integral part of that same government apparatus as her form of protest. That cannot work. A successful government must be inherently secular and without bias to survive.

Would you have been saying back in the day when inter racial marriage was prohibited by State law that a county clerk who ignored the law and issued marriage licenses to inter racial couples because that's what her religious beliefs told her to do was "wrong?"

I suspect that most of the people who are saying she should follow "the law" (as defined by Federal Court edict) now would have lauded her as a courageous hero if, before the Federal Court issued its edict, she had decided to issue licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of Law saying that marriage licenses can only be issued to people with normal sexual orientations.

John that technique of debate ^ I like to call Reverse Hypothetical Conjecture
The situation is Kim Davis applied for a government job and swore an oath to her country
She should resign her post - obviously - done end of debate

Side note:
She disregards certain parts of the Bible and reveres others...
I wonder why she thinks she can disregard some of Jesus teachings and uphold others..?

Oh I know why because the ones she disregards apply directly to HER
the ones she adheres to apply to others - classic religious narcissism