2016 Election

[Undertoad]

such a comment creates situational denial of a Constitutional Amendment.

Please see sexobon's comment thank you

[Undertoad]

I know of few religious adherents that stick to the tenets of their religion lock, stock and barrel.

That is your experience living in a secular society. In many, but not all Islamic countries, you are likely to be killed if you claim you don't believe in Islam.

[Undertoad]

effectively the argument was that their first loyalty was to the church

That's not my argument at all. But it will be the argument of everyone else who isn't evolved and can't think in a straight line. They too require governance, that they believe fairly represents them. One fair test of that is whether the person is electable, although I would prefer if a super-majority believes the POTUS can be representational.

To be Muslim and to be electable here would require you to swear off just about everything considered Islamic. Not even the women's headgear would work. But is that person Muslim?

I'm rather atheist and I would never be elected... unless I noted from time to time that there is a God...

Yes, a Muslim is permitted to be President. Nothing I've said refutes that one iota.

[DanaC]

I think it depends on what someone means by muslim really. Just as it depends on what kind of christianity someone espouses. For many muslims and christians their faith is a part of them but not their defining feature. I've known plenty of muslims who really didn't fit the mullah picture, ya know. They were muslim because they were born into the faith and that's the faith their families followed, but they themselves were no more religious than the people who only attend church for funerals and weddings.

That a politician is devout in faith is usually a huge turn-off for me regardless of which book they follow. There are a handful of exceptions to that.

I don't like this lumping together of all muslims as if they were of one mind, or even of one ideology. Islam is just as adaptable as christianity and judaism - it gets shaped by the country and culture it is in. Right now there is a problem with particular branches of Islam having an awful traction and reach - which kind of overshadows all the people who are just getting on with their lives and don't subscribe to medieval notions of female subservience and sharia law.

I admit though, that my suspicion of the devout is magnified with muslims because of the apparent place of women in that ideology. I find it difficult to be comfortable around someone who thinks I am inferior or infantilised by my sex.

[Griff]

Talking about others' religious beliefs is really difficult because to the devout language doesn't encompass the experience. We are left with describing the effects of the religion which as things are going in the Mid-East cannot be described as a positive good. Mitt Romney's religion probably didn't help him but his loss was ascribed to being out of touch. It seems you can be out of touch and successful as long as your alternate reality appears close enough to the herds.

Speaking of alternate reality my local paper was all over it last week.

LDS open historical, sacred site

[Undertoad]

Islam is just as adaptable as christianity and judaism - it gets shaped by the country and culture it is in. Right now there is a problem with particular branches of Islam having an awful traction and reach

There's little doubt that Islam will eventually reform but at this time "particular branches" is the majority.





http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...-about-sharia/

[glatt]

Those charts are fascinating. Thanks for finding and posting them.

So much of this thread is about personal point of view, but that data is good.

[it]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There's little doubt that Islam will eventually reform

Why?

This assumption reeks of social evolutionary levels, with all of the same problems.

[Lamplighter]

All of these points of view about Islam, Muslims, Sharia Law,
and how each Dwellar evaluates them is interesting,
but the discussion started with Ben Carson and his statements on Meet the Press,
as a Candidate for the G.O.P. nomination for President of the US.

The point was:
Ben Carson,himself, used a religious test to reject all of Islam
as being inconsistent with the US Constitution.
But the Constitution (6th Amendment) prohibits any religious test
from ever being used as a qualification of a candidate.


If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.

[it]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

used a religious test to reject all of Islam
as being inconsistent with the US Constitution.
But the Constitution (6th Amendment) prohibits any religious test
from ever being used as a qualification of a candidate.


If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.

So I'll ask again: Do you seriously think that the correct interpretation of the constitutional amendment's idea of a "test" within the context of the amendment includes the voter's choice of who to vote for as such as test?

As Carson himself misses, whether it is "muslim" or "test", context is kind of important in understanding the meaning of things...

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by traceur

So I'll ask again: Do you seriously think that the correct interpretation
of the constitutional amendment's idea of a "test" within the context of
the amendment includes the voter's choice of who to vote for as such as test? ...

No.

My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:
No Muslim can be President of the US because Islam is inconsistent with the US Constitution.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.

Such is the definition of bullshit! You're telling me if I vote for, or against, someone because I disagree with, or fear, their religious tenets, that makes me a hypocrite? Get the fuck out of here, it's called democracy, it's called freedom, don't force me to call sexobon to give you a ten minute speech on the men and women who have given all, to protect my right to use any fucking basis I want in making selection.

Let's see... no, he's half Jew... no, heard he's a faggot... Woman, oh please... not you negro.
Appalling? Yes. Disgusting? Yes. Illegal? No. Hypocritical? Nope, not at all, because the constitutional point of law that nobody can be barred from running, has absolutely no bearing on how or why individuals vote. Wanting the ballot to be open to all, but not wanting certain people elected, is not hypocrisy, it's democracy.
Do you suggest I submit my choices along with my reasons for them, to the ballot approval board, Senator McCarthy?

[henry quirk]

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

[Lamplighter]

Thank you, Henry !
Maybe for the first time we agree with one another !

[henry quirk]

....it's not about religion, but only about employees doin’ the work they were hired to do.

Again...

Employers (of presidents, clerks of court, stewardesses, etc.):

Don't hire X if X can't do the job.

Fire X if X refuses to do the job.

Offer no accommodations that relieve X of work at the expense of other employees.


Potential and actual employees (wanna be presidents, clerks of court, stewardesses, etc.):

Don't apply for work you can't do.

Quit if the work becomes unacceptable.

Don't expect accommodations that relieve you of doing your job.