Ben Carson Had the Courage

Could Article 6 of the Constitution fracture under a clearly-theoretical supposition of Sharia law? Ben Carson has created a controversy (“firestorm” seems to be some of the media’s preferred term) with his response to Chuck Todd’s question on the acceptability of a Muslim President. He clearly said no, and the response from liberals and progressives was immediate and oh-so-outraged. The third clause of Article 6 deals with the binding by oath of legislators, executive officers, and judges to support the constitution. As almost an appendage, but a vital one, it also states that no religious test shall be “ever required as a qualification” for holding office.

But the second clause of Article 6 deals with the supremacy of the constitution and it's pursuant laws and treaties, as the law of the land. The famous supremacy clause could in fact conflict with the third clause under a obviously-theoretical Muslim presidency and such a president's belief in Shariah law. And Shariah does form the basis of much of the political legislation in Muslim countries. But the tenets of Shariah law clearly conflict with fundamental rights and freedoms embedded in the constitution. In Britain, shariah law has in fact been used in some family court cases. Would America want to allow divorce according to the tenets of Shariah?

Clearly those who loudly support the right of a Muslim president see faith as personal and not a part of public life. Or they merely support diversity at any cost and conveniently don't bother thinking through the consequences of a faithful Muslim who lives by Shariah occupying the White House. Clearly, other sects or faiths do exist that do conflict with certain rights and freedoms. But Shariah goes far beyond this, and insists on occupying public space - in every sense of those words - as a divine prerogative. Unlike even the most devout Christian, or Jewish believer. Who go through the constitution and the courts to protect their right to freedom of worship.

In other words does the third clause of Article 6 threaten the supremacy clause under a theoretical Muslim President who lives by Shariah? This cuts to the heart of what makes America work and Ben Carson had the courage to clearly state his concerns, and defend his position. As a Christian, but as an American above all.

Posted by Keeley at September 22, 2015 4:26 PM
Comments
Comment #398889

“Would America want to allow divorce according to the tenets of Shariah?”


Keeley, if a Muslin president wished to institute Shariah Law in the US our liberals friends would implode. Some might go crazy and purchase firearms.

I applaud Dr. Carson for his understanding of our Constitution as it relates to a president and religion and the courage to declare it publicly.

The Left is constantly in anger-mode over separation of church and state. And yet, they find fault with Dr. Carson when he defends their position.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 4:49 PM
Comment #398890
But the tenets of Shariah law clearly conflict with fundamental rights and freedoms embedded in the constitution.

The same can be said for the Mosaic law found in the Torah. Clearly, there are many Jews and Christians who don’t apply their traditional religious laws in the bronze age context in which they were written. Surely, a Muslim is more than capable of treating the Medieval backwardness of some aspects of Sharia law similarly?

Would America want to allow divorce according to the tenets of Shariah?
We already do. It is common practice for Torah observant Jews to sign a prenuptial agreement to make sure that in the event of a divorce, that the dissolution be handled by the Rabbinic courts according to the Torah. I’m quite sure devout Muslims do the same.

Of course, the difference is that in the US, it is a voluntary act to agree to arbitration by a religious authority. In Saudi Arabia, this is compelled. However, this is not a feature of Islam, but a feature of theocracy.

But Shariah goes far beyond this, and insists on occupying public space
Sharia is no different than the Torah in its occupation of the public space. The difference lies in implementation. Christendom reformed their interpretation of the law and abandoned theocracy. Overseas, Islamdom is still in the process of figuring out how to adjust itself to the modern secular world. However, American Muslims have contentedly continued to keep their religion a private matter.
does the third clause of Article 6 threaten the supremacy clause under a theoretical Muslim President who lives by Shariah
The heart of your question relies upon the premise that Islam uniquely compels its adherents to establish theocracies whenever possible. Your premise is false, which means the rest of your argument is unsound. It is perfectly conceivable for a Muslim to be devoted to his or her religion while still governing a secular country. Dozens of Muslim men in Turkey have done exactly that for almost a century. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 4:50 PM
Comment #398891

“However, American Muslims have contentedly continued to keep their religion a private matter.”

OH, please Warren. Try reading the news from other sources for a dose of reality.

“Dozens of Muslim men in Turkey have done exactly that for almost a century.”

Hmmm…when did Turkey adopt our Constitution?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 4:57 PM
Comment #398894

I am personally acquainted with dozens of American Muslims, none have ever indicated that the government should get involved in religious matters. Perhaps there’s an oddball or two who insist otherwise, but that is no different than any other religion.

when did Turkey adopt our Constitution
My only claim is that Turkey has been a secular nation ever since the fall of the Ottomans a century ago. Apparently, men who have believed in various degrees of sharia law did not impose a theocracy there.

Why would an American President who happened to be any different? It’s not like the US Constitution is going to arouse an otherwise latent compulsion towards forcing sharia law down American throats.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 5:05 PM
Comment #398895

Instead of doing a political dodge of Chuck Todd’s “gotcha” question about Trump, Dr. Carson answered openly and honestly that he would not “advocate” we elect a Muslim as President. That word advocate gets lost somewhere in the firestorm. His answer had nothing to do with the Constitution’s Article 6 as he further clarified in the next answer that Congress was a different matter.

The Presidency is a singular position of authority in Dar al-Harb. Electing a Muslim would have one of two consequences: either they would be compelled to follow their faith and implement Sharia Law or they would be killed as an Apostate. Neither outcome would be beneficial to the United States or to the 3 million or so Muslims living here, serving in the military, etc.

I believe Dr. Carson is too good of a man to President and that his value to society lies elsewhere. He’s certainly not a good enough politician to handle the job. But nothing he said “disqualifies” him to run for the position as CAIR suggests.

Posted by: George in SC at September 22, 2015 5:21 PM
Comment #398896

“I am personally acquainted with dozens of American Muslims, none have ever indicated that the government should get involved in religious matters.”

Warren, why address a totally different subject than the one I commented on?

“My only claim is that Turkey has been a secular nation ever since the fall of the Ottomans a century ago.”

OK, hurrah for Turkey

A Muslim wishing to be president of the US must renounce certain tenets of his/her religion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 5:27 PM
Comment #398897
Instead of doing a political dodge of Chuck Todd’s “gotcha” question about Trump

Ted Cruz and many others had no trouble fielding this “gotcha” question. A simple honest answer should be that the Constitution forbids any religious test being administered for those seeking elected office and that as voters, every American ought to do the same. Judge people by the content of their characters rather than their creed.

he would not “advocate” we elect a Muslim as President. That word advocate gets lost somewhere in the firestorm.
He also said Islam was inconsistent with the Constitution and he implied that Islam is unique in this manner. Also, qualifying his words by saying “not advocate” is not candid. The truth is that Carson would support a Muslim President (as evidenced by his more recent remarks), but he is too afraid of offending his supporters to mention this so he hedges and uses couched language. There is a culture of political correctness on the right that Carson is too terrified to violate.
Electing a Muslim would have one of two consequences: either they would be compelled to follow their faith and implement Sharia Law or they would be killed as an Apostate

Huh? A Muslim elected President of the United States isn’t “compelled” to do anything. He or she will do whatever he or she wants. If he or she decides to violate the Constitution, we have the institutions in place to restrain him or her and possibly remove him or her from office, but I think that scenario is no more likely with a Muslim President than with anyone else. Much more likely, the Muslim President behaves like most Muslim Americans, keeping his or her religion a private matter and governing as a secular leader.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 5:35 PM
Comment #398898

“either they [Muslim president of US] would be compelled to follow their faith and implement Sharia Law or they would be killed as an Apostate. “

Nonsense! As Warren has tried to point out, Turkey is a majority Muslim, democratic, modern, secular country. It has been a member of NATO since the 50s. It does not practice Sharia law. The Muslim presidents of Turkey have not found themselves compelled to implement Sharia law and they have not been killed for failing to do so.

Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2015 5:45 PM
Comment #398899

“There is a culture of political correctness on the right that Carson is too terrified to violate.”

Pure unadulterated nonsense. Study for your exams Warren so you don’t fail them as you have failed in candidate mind-reading.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #398900
Warren, why address a totally different subject than the one I commented on?

I thought my personal experience would be a representative sample, but you are right that anecdote cannot be relied upon to create such generalizations. Pew conducted a poll. 56% of Muslims indicated that Muslim Americans generally want to “Adopt American customs and ways of life”. Only 20% indicated that most Muslims want to “Be distinct from the larger American society”. I think the whole poll backs my original assertion that Muslims generally do not want their religion to become a government matter.

A Muslim wishing to be president of the US must renounce certain tenets of his/her religion.
The same is true for Jews or Christians. We naturally assume anyone seeking elected office renounces aspects of the Torah that are incompatible with a modern secular government such as the US. A Muslim deserves the same latitude. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 5:53 PM
Comment #398901
“There is a culture of political correctness on the right that Carson is too terrified to violate.”

Pure unadulterated nonsense. Study for your exams Warren so you don’t fail them as you have failed in candidate mind-reading.

Then why didn’t Carson say on Sunday that he would have no problem supporting a Muslim President? Why twist himself into a pretzel saying he would not advocate that we elect a Muslim to be President if he wasn’t afraid of speaking his own mind?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 5:58 PM
Comment #398903

Sorry Warren, the pretzel twisting is in your mind. Just as you often fail to read what is written, you fail to hear what is said.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #398904

If Carson wants to be seen as both an advocate for the US Constitution as well as a man liberated from the shackles of conservative political correctness, he ought to clearly state that believes Muslims seeking the Presidency should be treated no differently than Christians seeking the Presidency.

Now that we know that Carson believes the Constitution ought to trump the religious beliefs of an elected official, I wonder how long it will be until he tells Kim Davis to let her deputy issue undoctored marriage licenses.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 6:30 PM
Comment #398905

“If Carson wants to be seen as both an advocate for the US Constitution as well as a man liberated from the shackles of conservative political correctness…”

Wow…what a liberal education you seem to be getting. Liberalism is a dying political philosophy in the US. It is on life support. A huge majority of Americans despise most of what you advocate.

One merely needs to look at the state houses and state legislatures lost by the libs and dems over the past decade or two to know your ideas are not welcome.

With the education you are getting Warren, you will be a patsy for every dumb idea that comes down the liberal pathway. What a pity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 6:41 PM
Comment #398906

Great. Attack me and my background rather than the words I write. I am certain that will be a winning strategy for you.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 6:48 PM
Comment #398907

Rich:

http://justpaste.it/nc1a

Posted by: George in SC at September 22, 2015 6:48 PM
Comment #398908

“Attack me and my background rather than the words I write.”

Please point out the “attack” in “With the education you are getting Warren…”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 6:50 PM
Comment #398909

My status as a student is not relevant to this discussion. The only reason to bring it up is to demean and belittle. I encourage you to keep on doing it. It makes you look great!

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
Comment #398910

Sorry Warren, I wrote about the liberal education you are apparently getting at the expense of becoming a patsy for every stupid and crazy liberal idea that comes down the road.

Poor choices now will yield a miserable future.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 7:07 PM
Comment #398911

Last time I checked, the extreme Left is falsely claiming that Carson wants to do away with the Constitutional prohibition on religious tests for elected office. I, on the other hand, see the nuance in Carson’s comments. He really would support a Muslim presidential candidate if Carson believed said Muslim would not implement any religious laws. The rabid right isn’t capable of such nuance, so Carson bent to political pressure by initially stating that he considered Islam is inconsistent with the US Constitution in a manner that Christianity is not.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 7:14 PM
Comment #398912

Warren, go back to your books. You stink at spinning.

A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right and evil doesn’t become good just because some liberal professor says so and you believe it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2015 7:19 PM
Comment #398913

George in SC,

I don’t doubt that religious fundamentalists in Turkey would like to move the country from a secularist state into a mixed or full sharia law state. In recent years, fundamentalists have democratically gained political power in Turkey.

But, there is a strong secularist push back against them. The huge demonstrations and riots in Turkey about a year ago were modernists and secularists protesting religious intrusions in government and education.

Religious fundamentalism is always a threat to democratic secular governments. In our country, despite the long honored Constitutional concept of separation of church and state, we constantly hear that we are in reality a Christian nation. Many even contend that our Constitution is subservient to Christian religious law. Secularists, humanists, etc., are the enemy of our founding principals.

With all this dust up over Carson’s remarks, there is no outrage over the de facto religious test insisted upon by conservatives, i.e., that a presidential candidate is a practicing Christian. Trump even claims that he regularly reads the bible. Really! But, why should that matter if we are a secular democratic republic?

Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2015 8:09 PM
Comment #398914

RF,

Where is this “liberal professor” nonsense coming from?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 22, 2015 9:02 PM
Comment #398917

Warren, I don’t wish to be confrontational however, when you use phrases such as; “…a man liberated from the shackles of conservative political correctness…” it suggests that someone is filling your head with liberal nonsense.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 1:01 PM
Comment #398918

Wow Keeley, Carson is the man because he doesn’t want a Muslim in the white house because he believes the person would have to infringe upon all Americans because his belief in Shariah law would trump the Constitution? The same could be said, in this day and age, of many Christians, Cruz being one as is around half of the 15 remaining candidates for the repub nomination in the running. Huckabee is another candidate the repubs should disqualify for the same reasons if they believe Carson is right on this issue.

The question isn’t what religion should be allowed to trump the constitution but why should any religion/belief system of the office holder be allowed to trump the constitution.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 23, 2015 1:04 PM
Comment #398919

Actually, it seems as if Carson understands that Islam runs contrary to our Constitution and that even the most ‘moderate’ muslim would have a hard time putting Islam second to the Constitution.

“The same could be said, in this day and age, of many Christians,”

200+ years of our nations history proves you wrong, J2.

“Cruz being one”

BS. Cruz isn’t promoting anything different than that of our founders or most of our past Presidents.

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2015 1:31 PM
Comment #398920

kctim wrote; “200+ years of our nations history proves you wrong, J2.”

Careful tim, you’re giving j2 a headache.

Question. Does traditional practice of Islam conflict with the US Constitution?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 1:58 PM
Comment #398921

Warren, perhaps you can study the failure of liberalism to work in Chicago as a lesson in what is projected (unfunded liabilities) for the entire US if conservative changes are not instituted.

“Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday laid out a stark choice for the cash-strapped city as he proposed a 2016 budget aimed at resolving a financial crisis linked to unfunded pensions — either slash vital public safety and other services, or enact the biggest-ever property tax increase.”

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/22/chicago-mayor-pushes-massive-tax-hike-over-crippling-cuts/21239657/?cps=gravity_4816_118709275887818642

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 2:11 PM
Comment #398922

Question:

Why does the pope scold capitalism and not condemn communism?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 2:19 PM
Comment #398924

whoops, RF, perhaps you can study the failure of conservatism to work in Kansas as a lesson in what is projected for the entire US if conservative changes are instituted.

He’s your pope, why don’t you ask him?

A little rusty on the formatting.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 23, 2015 3:44 PM
Comment #398925

Well Speak, no comment on Chicago problems brought on by years of mismanagement by liberals. You have no answer so you bring up Brownback as an example of failed conservatism.

Apparently Speaks likes what Chicago has become and would have the entire nation follow this path to economic destruction. Democrats have, for decades, spent wildly in Chicago to buy votes and keep power. Now, the house of cards is crashing and it is the working class that must suffer from their excess.

Brownback’s solution is hardly a conservative policy for governing. Conservative leadership reduces unnecessary spending and regulations to balance a budget and promote growth in the private sector.


“Last spring, Brownback signed off on state spending that exceeded revenues by $628 million over the five-year period that began last July.

His budget now balloons that figure by another $182 million in the current fiscal year and next, increasing deficit spending in these two years alone by 65 percent to a total of $462 million. At this rate, spending in excess of revenues would bloat to over $1 billion for the five-year period, a road map to financial disaster, not renaissance.”

http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/article/20140130/News/140139888

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 4:38 PM
Comment #398926

Well RF, just providing an alternative thought to your pigeon hole approach to economics and the observation of one city and it’s problems as it relates to the rest of the country. Apparently RF doesn’t think that the Kansas tax cuts weren’t such a great idea without other avenues of revenue available. Astute observation. Just as Kansas should not be used as the template for economic reform so Chicago shouldn’t either. I would suggest that each has their own individual problems inherent to the implementation and outcomes of their economic proposals. Pigeon holing is good for pigeons, not so much for economic policy.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 23, 2015 4:45 PM
Comment #398927

Sorry Speak, no agreement with your assessment. The problems in Chicago have resulted in decades of liberal spending to purchase votes. That’s not the case in Kansas.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 4:48 PM
Comment #398928

Sorry RF, no agreement with your assessment either. Chicago has it’s problems to deal with and Kansas has theirs. You just would like to use every instance to say “see there’s the problem, it’s liberalism” for every evil you see in this country. It doesn’t work that way and a man of your age and intelligence should understand that. I might suggest you shouldn’t worry so much about who is filling someone else’s head with things but look to your own head and determine who is filling it with nonsense.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 23, 2015 4:54 PM
Comment #398929

Same old game with Speaks. I answered his example of Kansas. He can’t address Chicago’s problems which are a direct result of pandering political liberalism.


“What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP!

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.

Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing
the same thing over and over again and always
expecting different results.”

“The most fundamental difference between the data that conservatives prefer—that the 10 poorest cities are longtime Democratic strongholds—and the data that liberals will be more inclined to cite—that the 10 poorest states are predominantly Republican, is that conservatives can point to actual policies that Democrats implemented that contributed to the impoverishment of the cities, while the liberals cannot point to specific GOP policies that have caused the poorer states to lag behind.”

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/1912/democrats-run-americas-ten-poorest-cities/#Xqsm6IjHHM21DqLm.99

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 5:28 PM
Comment #398930

Same old game with RF, “it’s all liberals fault”.

Kansas occupies an area of 82,277 square miles and has a population of 2.904 million people.

Chicago occupies an area of 234 square miles and has a population of 2.719 million people.

It’s not exactly an apples to apples comparison, is it?

The 10 major cities you have cited each have their own problems to deal with and overcome. Your incessant pigeon holing displays a very limited understanding of economics.

Tell me why Republican led states seem to require more federal money than Democratic led states? WalletHub

Posted by: Speak4all at September 23, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #398931

Poor Speaks. He doesn’t bother to read deeper and discover that it is not politics that enter into his list of states.

Chicago is a direct result of lousy liberal management for decades.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 6:11 PM
Comment #398932

“Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor”

This of course is absolutely false.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2015 6:57 PM
Comment #398934

9/10 of the poorest states are red, and 97/100 of the poorest counties.

Meanwhile, the GOP continues its very public meltdown. The Pope is in town talking about climate change. That’s no so bad. Conservatives are running as fast as they can to stay away from the Pope, all that talk about love and forgiveness and caring for the poor. At least the Pope diverts attention from Trump and Carson. Fiorina keeps drawing attention for her lie about seeing a gory video about PP. Turns out the video does not exist. But she still insists it does. Normally, it might go away, but with the Republicans threatening a government shutdown over PP, her lie will occupy center stage.

Posted by: phx8 at September 23, 2015 7:10 PM
Comment #398935

” The Pope is in town talking about climate change. “

Nothing wrong with the pope having an opinion. Liberals sure are anxious to spend a few trillion on junk science.

I expect the pope might have some things to say that libs won’t care for.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 7:33 PM
Comment #398936

I wonder why the pope choose MMGW as a main topic when tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims are being murdered around the world.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2015 7:45 PM
Comment #398939
kctim wrote; “200+ years of our nations history proves you wrong, J2.”

No it doesn’t. You are suggesting past presidents would be as hard right on religious issues as those we have today and that just doesn’t hold water. We have people today who tell us God’s law is the law of the land. The issue is the conservative interpretation of the bible and the insistence that it must trump the law of the land. Conservative Muslims and conservatives Christians are the same except they read a different book to get their justifications.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/01/mike-huckabee-s-christian-sharia-law.html

Careful tim, you’re giving j2 a headache.

Royal, really! Why not try an intelligent comment instead. Here is some food for thought for you.

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/10/12/ted-cruz-dominionism-and-jesus/

Posted by: j2t2 at September 24, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #398940

J2, I am not suggesting anything, I am stating a fact that even an atheist like myself must acknowledge: 200+ years of Christians respecting the US Constitution on this issue while running this country.
To state that is due only to past Presidents not being as religious as current politicians, is beyond ridiculous.

“The issue is the conservative interpretation of the bible and the insistence that it must trump the law of the land.”

That isn’t an issue, it’s a fabrication created to instill fear and garner support for left-wing policy in order to satisfy emotions.

“Conservative Muslims and conservatives Christians are the same except they read a different book to get their justifications”

BS.
Christians have evolved and advanced with the times, muslims have not. To even try and equate those who support traditional marriage to those who stone and toss gays off roofs, is nothing more than disgusting partisanship.

Posted by: kctim at September 24, 2015 12:31 PM
Comment #398941

j2t2; “We have people today who tell us God’s law is the law of the land.”

Really, our Founders wrote; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2015 1:18 PM
Comment #398942
To state that is due only to past Presidents not being as religious as current politicians, is beyond ridiculous.

Wasn’t what I said kctim. The religious beliefs, who had more faith is not the issue here’ It is the current attempts by the far right to gain power for their religious beliefs over the beliefs of others that is the issue.

That isn’t an issue, it’s a fabrication created to instill fear and garner support for left-wing policy in order to satisfy emotions.

No it is the results of the phony culture war conservatives started in the 80’s to gain power. It is the phony religious freedoms the far right hides behind. The interpretation of the bible that is extreme. It is personified in Cruz and Huckabee and their comments as linked to above.

Christians have evolved and advanced with the times, muslims have not. To even try and equate those who support traditional marriage to those who stone and toss gays off roofs, is nothing more than disgusting partisanship.

Once again kctim you have missed the mark. This is not partisanship on my part we are talking a matter of degrees here. It seems some Christian would like to stone others but they shoot them instead, is this what you mean keeping up with the times? Or is it the conservatives braying against the Pope for prioritizing the issues as he tries to keep the Catholics in the modern times? The issue isn’t just gay marriage either. Anyone that favors a theocracy is party of the problem, those that interpret their bible as conservatively as some Muslims do and as some Christians do are the issue.

SO what Royal that doesn’t imply we have to codify the religious beliefs of others, to make a theocracy that is what they, the founding fathers, wanted to get away from after all. It isn’t the exercise of religion that is the problem it is the quest for a dominate religion and the codification of religious beliefs into laws for everyone.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 24, 2015 1:54 PM
Comment #398943
it suggests that someone is filling your head with liberal nonsense.
Royal Flush,

Please. I alone am responsible for what I write. If you are going to take offense, please say so instead of dreaming up concocted fantasies regarding liberal professors. I am not going to claim that I write in a vacuum. There are writers who I admire that I read regularly. Kevin Drum, Megan McArdle and Tyler Cowen being my favorites. If anything, these people have for more influence than any of the faculty in my department.

Same old game with Speaks. I answered his example of Kansas. He can’t address Chicago’s problems which are a direct result of pandering political liberalism.
You seriously expect us to believe a blog post derived from a chain email? I know Memphis, TN has a poverty rate greater than many of those 10 cities so I don’t know where the author got that garbage.

Regardless, only the most naive of people would expect the argument that Democratic Mayors are responsible for poverty in those cities. Correlations does not imply causation and cities are multi-faceted entities that cannot be studied on a simple linear metric. ALL Cities tend to elect Democratic Mayors because urban areas are more likely to embrace statism. A list of poor cities will be dominated by Democrats just as much as list of wealthy ones would. Also, there are enormous regional differences in how city administrative boundaries are defined. In New York, the large urban area across the East River from Manhattan is considered a part of New York City, but the urban area across the Hudson River from Manhattan is not. Parts of Los Angeles county include the desolate San Gabriel mountains where hardly anyone lives. There is too much diversity to make sense of anything. A comparison on a metropolitan or state level is much better.

kctim,

Christians have evolved and advanced with the times, muslims have not

What evidence do you have to support this claim? Specifically, can you cite examples of attempts by American Muslims to change the American legal system in order to make non-Muslims obey Islamic teachings? Because I can certainly cite examples of Christians changing American law to make non-Christians obey Christian teachings.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 24, 2015 2:47 PM
Comment #398944

“phony religious freedoms”

Can you be more specific j2?

“It seems some Christian would like to stone others but they shoot them instead”

Voted the dumbest statement this month.

“conservatives braying against the Pope”

Examples please or just another stupid comment of yours.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2015 2:49 PM
Comment #398945

Kevin Drum is a liberal American political blogger and columnist.

Megan McArdle wrote “The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well Is the Key to Success.” A good read and hardly a tome for liberalism. Good for you Warren

Tyler Cowen is a moderate libertarian with interesting ideas.

Just a suggestion Warren, you may wish to read some conservative writers to balance your reading. William Buckley comes to mind.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2015 3:14 PM
Comment #398946

“It is the current attempts by the far right to gain power for their religious beliefs over the beliefs of others that is the issue”

It’s actually the reverse, J2. Special interest groups have been using government to force their beliefs over the religious beliefs of individuals for a while now.
Government was not meant to dictate where an individual could or could not exercise their religion. It now does, and that is fact.

“It is the phony religious freedoms the far right hides behind.”

Phony? Government dictating where people can and cannot exercise their religion is relatively new, J2. Government mandating people pay for birth control - new. Government mandating people contribute to gay marriage - new.
What you are calling phony religious freedoms are actually freedoms that ALL Americans always had before.

“It seems some Christian would like to stone others but they shoot them instead, is this what you mean keeping up with the times?”

Sickening hyperbole.
There is no proof that Christian nations are stoning or shooting others in the name of Christianity. There is however, plenty of proof that muslim nations abuse women, stone them, and murder homosexuals.

“Anyone that favors a theocracy is party of the problem,”

Not when your definition of a theocracy differs so much from what theocracy really means and what is actually going on.
For Christ sake’s J2, you’re not living in anything close to a theocracy simply because people want limits on abortion, believe in traditional marriage, or want a cross on a grave.

“those that interpret their bible as conservatively as some Muslims do and as some Christians do are the issue”

Tell you what J2, when Christian nations start sanctioning the abuse and murder of women, the torture and murder of gays, the annihilation of infidels, and Christians silently and openly support a massive religious army called the ‘Christian State (CS)’ destroying nations and slaughtering innocents, you might have a point.
Until that happens, your comparison will remain laughable.

Posted by: kctim at September 24, 2015 3:14 PM
Comment #398947

Warren

“What evidence do you have to support this claim?”

Secular western nations that are majority Christians vs. Islamic states ran by muslims. Which would you prefer to be a woman, homosexual or non-believer in?
And please don’t use your Turkey example, I have actually been there and seen what life is like there.

“Specifically, can you cite examples of attempts by American Muslims to change the American legal system in order to make non-Muslims obey Islamic teachings?”

They don’t have the numbers to change the American legal system in such a way. Right now, the best they can do, and indeed are doing, is demanding special treatment just like every other special interest group.

“Because I can certainly cite examples of Christians changing American law to make non-Christians obey Christian teachings.”

Please do. I could cite a few myself. Of course, we both know that our examples would be trivial when compared to Islamic teachings.

Posted by: kctim at September 24, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment #398948
Secular western nations that are majority Christians vs. Islamic states ran by muslims. Which would you prefer to be a woman, homosexual or non-believer in?

We aren’t talking about Islam overseas. We are talking about Islam in the United States. Remember the poll I shared above? American Muslims are assimilating into our culture. Any Muslim running for President will be by definition a natural born citizen. They will be more similar to other Americans than they are with Muslims overseas.

250 years ago, it was unthinkable that we would ever create a nation as secular as is now common in the US and Europe, yet it still happened. I do not believe Muslims face any impediments today that Christians did not face 250 years ago.

They don’t have the numbers to change the American legal system in such a way.
Christians many times don’t have the numbers either, but that doesn’t stop them from trying.
Right now, the best they can do, and indeed are doing, is demanding special treatment just like every other special interest group.
If it is just like every other interest group, the treatment they are demanding must not be that special, right?
Please do. I could cite a few myself. Of course, we both know that our examples would be trivial when compared to Islamic teachings.
Regardless of severity, neither are consistent with the US Constitution. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 24, 2015 5:51 PM
Comment #398951
“phony religious freedoms”

Can you be more specific j2?

Sure Royal, for starters the freedom to discriminate against others is a phony religious freedom. Kim Davis is a perfect example of this.

“It seems some Christian would like to stone others but they shoot them instead”

Voted the dumbest statement this month.

Typical conservative Royal, restricting the vote to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2015 1:44 AM
Comment #398952
“conservatives braying against the Pope”

Examples please or just another stupid comment of yours.

tsk tsk Royal don’t you ever learn?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/13/climate-change-conservatives-catholic-teaching

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/09/10/pope-francis-visit-2016-candidates/71575872/

Seems to me the Pope has done more to encourage conservatives to keep religion out of politics than anyone else that comes to mind.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2015 1:45 AM
Comment #398953

Phony religious freedom j2? The only thing phony is most of your stupid comments. It’s called sincerely held religious beliefs it may be phony to you but not a Christians. As far as religion staying out of politics I agree it should stay out of politics.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 25, 2015 8:51 AM
Comment #398954

Warren

We are talking about Christianity and Islam. In fact, our discussion began with you asking how one has evolved more than the other. How is that relevant to you asking about ‘American’ muslims? Well, that is where our differences are.

You believe they are assimilating into our culture, I do not. They accept our culture, but they do not embrace it as they do Islam.

“I do not believe Muslims face any impediments today that Christians did not face 250 years ago.”

How is that any different than saying muslims have not evolved as Christians have?

“If it is just like every other interest group, the treatment they are demanding must not be that special, right?”

Those other special interest groups are not based on religion, Warren.

“Regardless of severity, neither are consistent with the US Constitution”

Even if true, only one has proven that it can co-exist with our Constitution.
Tell me Warren, would our country change at all if 70-80% of American’s woke up tomorrow as followers of Islam?

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2015 10:05 AM
Comment #398957
It’s called sincerely held religious beliefs

Yes KAP I know what it is called but what it is is phony religious beliefs. It is used to discriminate against others it isn’t a real religious belief.

It is this simple, a real religious belief is “I don’t want an abortion” a phony religious belief is “I don’t want anyone to have an abortion because it is against my beliefs”. The same can be said for the Kim Davis phoniness, “I don’t believe in same s*x marriage, fine don’t marry a person of the same s*x. The phoniness is when she uses her religious belief and position in the government to stop others from having a same s*x marriage.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2015 11:25 AM
Comment #398958
It’s actually the reverse, J2. Special interest groups have been using government to force their beliefs over the religious beliefs of individuals for a while now.

Such nonsense kctim. No one in this country has to have an abortion, they can choose to have one. The phony claim of religious belief is used to keep others not yourself from having an abortion.

Government was not meant to dictate where an individual could or could not exercise their religion. It now does, and that is fact.

Exactly kctim. it wasn’t meant to dictate where an individual could not exercise their religion. Yet it is used by the religious right to inflict upon others the “religious beliefs” of the religious right.

The problem comes in when those on the religious right want to codify into law their religious beliefs, and when they selectively choose passages from the bible to codify into law their discrimination of others and that is a real fact, not a phony religious belief fact.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2015 11:36 AM
Comment #398959
Government mandating people pay for birth control - new.

This is one of them phony religious rights we are talking about kctim. Your business entity doesn’t have a soul so it can’t have a religious belief, instead the religious right must fall back upon the religious belief of the head of the company to force their will upon those employed by the company. If your religion tells you birth control is wrong don’t use birth control, also don’t inflict upon others your religious beliefs by refusing to insure employees so they can have the option to choose.


What you are calling phony religious freedoms are actually freedoms that ALL Americans always had before.

Wow kctim, then why have gays been fighting for their right to marry for years when they had the right before? Why is Kim Davis denying others the right to marry based upon her beliefs and not the law?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2015 11:45 AM
Comment #398960

j2, Would you call Islam’s beliefs Phony? Why should MY tax dollars go for some women’s birth control? Why should I have to have a portion of MY tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood? I don’t care what you want YOUR tax dollars to go for. If you want to help pay for Planned Parenthood go for it. If you want to help pay for every woman in the worlds birth control meds Go for it. If you want to issue marriage licenses to every gay in the world go for it. But don’t call my religious beliefs phony. You can believe what you want to believe in I don’t care.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 25, 2015 12:17 PM
Comment #398961
Would you call Islam’s beliefs Phony?

If they should want to subject others to their beliefs by codifying their prejudices into law, yes I would. KAP lets get this cleared up, I am not saying all Christian beliefs are phony, I am saying some “belief” used to justify their discrimination, are phony. They are not beliefs but instead are tools of the propagandist used to force others into their belief system.

Why should MY tax dollars go for some women’s birth control?

You mistakenly believe you are the only one paying taxes. Why should her tax dollars go into paying for your Viagra? Why isn’t her taxes going into paying for her birth control?

Why should I have to have a portion of MY tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood?

Why should my tax dollars go to fund your wars and the debt from charging the wars on a credit card, KAP?

I don’t care what you want YOUR tax dollars to go for. If you want to help pay for Planned Parenthood go for it. If you want to help pay for every woman in the worlds birth control meds Go for it.

But you do care KAP, by insisting your tax dollars go anywhere but into a general fund and then become the US governments dollars. I find it funny/phony the arguments are monetary for someone with closely held religious beliefs BTW.

If you want to issue marriage licenses to every gay in the world go for it. But don’t call my religious beliefs phony.

One again when you use certain beliefs to discriminate against others by codifying into law your discrimination I consider these beliefs phony. If your religious belief tell you gay marriage is wrong don’t marry another man KAP, but to use this belief to tell the people down the street they can’t marry is wrong. You are forcing your beliefs upon others not practicing your religion.

You can believe what you want to believe in I don’t care.

Would you say that if I believed all marriages should be gay marriages and worked to codify into law just that?
Do your religious beliefs include not paying taxes at all? What if your neighbors religious beliefs included not paying taxes and cutting off the hands of his neighbors that do pay taxes? Sounds phony to me but hey it’s his closely held belief right?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2015 1:00 PM
Comment #398962

j2 Your wrong I don’t give a rats A** what you want your TAX dollars to go for, that’s why you elect the people you want to leadership positions to designate what you want them to do be it spending money on PP or whatever. “What would you say that if I believed all marriages should be gay and worked to codify into law” If that is what you want j2 fight for it and I’ll fight against it. Jesus said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s” I pay my Taxes. But when congress spends money foolishly then I fight and IMO PP is foolish when there are Hospitals and female Doctors everywhere and Obamacare to pay for the visits and the 1/2 billion to PP could be used in better places to Help women. As far as Davis is concerned I wrote a comment that she should resign if her beliefs prevented her from doing her job. But I do commend her for being brave enough to fight for her beliefs.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 25, 2015 1:39 PM
Comment #398963

Five out of nine Supreme Court justices, not elected by voters, decided that gay marriage was a right found in our Constitution.

Liberals hail this as infallible wisdom and justice and well…just good politics.

On keenly held liberal beliefs, which the Supreme Court doesn’t recognize, we are told that they are in error.

Should conservative then claim liberals or atheists are holding to some phony belief system?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 25, 2015 2:37 PM
Comment #398964
I don’t give a rats A** what you want your TAX dollars to go for, that’s why you elect the people you want to leadership positions to designate what you want them to do be it spending money on PP or whatever

Exactly right KAP, we agree. What it seems we disagreed on is the use of tax dollars as an argument for religious beliefs.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2015 2:38 PM
Comment #398965

Voted best laugh of the week.

“…Clinton biographer David Maraniss says it’s becoming obvious that while Bill is an “authentic phony,” the hapless Hillary is just a “phony phony.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424619/democrats-wake-how-bad-liar-hillary-john-fund

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 25, 2015 3:41 PM
Comment #398966

j2, tax dollars as an argument for religious beliefs, NO. Moral beliefs YES.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 25, 2015 4:01 PM
Comment #398967

j2 even atheist have Morals.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 25, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment #398969


“j2 even atheist have Morals.”

But, apparently the particular intent of this thread and the responses of the dolts from the right to prove that Muslims do not.

“In other words does the third clause of Article 6 threaten the supremacy clause under a theoretical Muslim President who lives by Shariah? This cuts to the heart of what makes America work and Ben Carson had the courage to clearly state his concerns, and defend his position. As a Christian, but as an American above all.”

It takes no courage to be a xenophobe in today’s America.

And, as a point of fact, all we have been hearing lately is just how much more xenophobic our erstwhile candidates from the right would have us, as Americans, be.

We can only assume that our “brain surgeon” candidate could pass an 8th grade civics exam. We can also assume that this same rocket scientist is merely showing off his biases for the benefit of the meat eater stiffs that inhabit the far right of the political spectrum in a desperate effort to overtake the xenophobe’s xenophobe, Donald Trump, to see just who will win the race to the bottom of the barrel.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 26, 2015 8:32 AM
Comment #398970

Rocky, Morals, some on the right do not have any, some on the left do not, some Christians do not, some Muslims do not. The problem arises when all are lumped together in groups and stereotyped as such. The sins of the few and the whole group takes the blame, Right Rocky?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 26, 2015 8:55 AM
Comment #398971

Kap,

The theme of this thread seems to be integrity, how Muslims are incapable of having it, and how Carson is somehow “courageous” for having pointed this out.

The overwhelming response from the right, not just here, but out there in the real world as well, has been that Carson, the “brain surgeon”, is correct in his assessment.

I call Bullshit! This is utter crap.

And any person with any cognitive capacity would call it for what it is as well.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 26, 2015 9:59 AM
Comment #398972

Rocky, Up until JFK was elected President the same thing was happening to Catholics. Nobody wanted to elect a Catholic because they were afraid that the Pope would take over. Now it’s Muslims and being afraid he/she would institute Shria law. Yes it’s all BullS**T but that’s the world we live in.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 26, 2015 10:41 AM
Comment #398973

Kap,

We’re supposed to be progressing. It was Kennedy that said;

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

So…, how’s it going on that front?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 26, 2015 11:08 AM
Comment #398974

Rocky, If you have all the answers to todays ills, Why don’t you run for political office, I know I sure don’t have all the answers. All I can do is try to make it comfortable in my little corner of this world and maybe by doing that it will spread out further. If we keep putting in office the A**HOLES that we have been, and I mean that for both sides, What do you expect? That A**HOLE to turn into a Rose, NO he/she will stay an A**HOLE.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 26, 2015 11:16 AM
Comment #398975

KAP,

“Rocky, If you have all the answers to todays ills, Why don’t you run for political office…”

I surely don’t have all the answers, and besides, I wouldn’t want to join any club that would have me as a member.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 26, 2015 1:49 PM
Comment #398976

Exactly Rocky, I wouldn’t either.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 26, 2015 2:01 PM
Comment #398977
If we keep putting in office the A**HOLES that we have been, and I mean that for both sides, What do you expect?

Excuse me, but on this particular issue, it is only one side that is putting “A**HOLES” into office. Democrats have no reservations when asked if they would consider supporting a Muslim Presidential candidate.

Yes it’s all BullS**T but that’s the world we live in.
Have we really sunk that low? That you will continue to aid and support a political party that puts such “BullS**T” on display for all to see.

I’ve never shied away from calling BS on Democrats when they deserve it. I have made it well known that I will not support HRC’s candidacy without significant persuasion on her part. The whole email thing just reeks of arrogance, lying, manipulation and a whole lot more. All of which are unbecoming for someone who wishes to be President. I also don’t engage in silly equivocation either. HRC’s problems are unique to HRC, for all of the GOP’s faults none of the candidates have same sort of problems she does.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 26, 2015 3:49 PM
Comment #398978

Warren, If a Muslim wants to be President that’s fine as long as he/she leaves his/her religion out of politics just like a Christian or other persuasion must do. A**HOLES are on both side of the fence Warren, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is A**HOLE in action or haven’t you heard her put down of Rubio? So is Pelosi and Reid.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 26, 2015 4:41 PM
Comment #398979
If a Muslim wants to be President that’s fine as long as he/she leaves his/her religion out of politics just like a Christian or other persuasion must do.

Of course. I already knew we agreed here. What I don’t understand is why you still identify with a party whereby leading contenders for the nomination say otherwise.

DWS shouldn’t have remarked upon Rubio’s benefactor’s collection of NAZI memorabilia. But this is relatively tame compared to the insinuation that Muslims running for elected office need to prove their secularism in a manner than Christians do not.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 26, 2015 5:36 PM
Comment #398980

Warren, I am a conservative I do not Identify with any party as far as Trump and Carson go and a few others in the Republican field I wouldn’t hit a Dog in the A** with. The only one I truly hope get the nomination is Kaschih.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 26, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #398981

By the way Warren I don’t understand why you identify with a party that would accuse a candidate of being a Nazi.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 26, 2015 5:54 PM
Comment #398982

DWS is just throwing slime. As DNC chair, that is her job. A month from now, those comments will be long-forgotten and irrelevant. However, the GOPs continuing prejudice against Muslim Americans will remain a cause of concern.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 26, 2015 6:01 PM
Comment #398983


So it’s the whole GOP Warren, the sins of a few and everyone is prejudice. So the head of the DNC job is to throw slime? Warren I put that comment in the same category as Carson’s about Muslims. So now it’s OK by you that Democrats can say what they want and throw all kinds of BULLS**T around but WOE to a republican if he does the same.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 26, 2015 6:10 PM
Comment #398985

Kap,

“So now it’s OK by you that Democrats can say what they want and throw all kinds of BULLS**T around but WOE to a republican if he does the same.”

So I know you are going to disagree with this but what the hell…

Comparatively speaking the GOP Presidential field is such a target rich environment, it’s hard not to take shots.

No offense meant but, you couldn’t swing a dead cat and not hit someone willing to say something stupid just to get noticed.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 27, 2015 11:02 AM
Comment #398986

KAP,

I’ll excuse slime thrown by Reince Priebus just the same. Neither he nor DWS are running for President.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 27, 2015 12:24 PM
Comment #398988

I agree with you on that Rocky.
Warren, Slime throwing is what is wrong with politics, my hope would be one time we could have an election without it be it by the respective leaders of the parties involved and the candidates. Run on the issues not the who can bring up the greatest slime.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 27, 2015 3:48 PM
Comment #399003

Slime throwing is nearly as old as the Republic itself.

The problem isn’t the slime itself. It used to be that after the election was over and it was time to govern, people could come together and strike a bargain. Tip O’Neil and his fellow Democrats hated Ronald Reagan’s guts with all their hearts, but they still acquiesced to many of his policy prescriptions. Now that the GOP has been overrun by the Tea Party, that doesn’t happen anymore.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 28, 2015 7:35 PM
Post a comment