2016 Election

[Undertoad]

That was the same rationale used for blocking catholics from positions of power and influence in many European nations during the 19th century.

What, everything I said?

[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.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Griff

...Let's face it nobody has time to read all sides except for journalists
and they don't seem interested is presenting a fair minded view...

But we’re also separated, increasingly, by the news and commentary we read and watch.
To the extent that it informs us of what’s going on, and why, and what to expect,
our fragmentation and insularity has reached a dangerous tipping point: we no longer agree on what’s real.

Griff: I understand the concept of learning both sides of a news story.
So I may be misreading your intent here, especially in your selection of that particular Federalist article,
which criticizes only the liberal media's handling of Fiorina's attribution's to "Planned Parenthood Videos".

Here are the link and sub-links…

First link - The Federalist:

<snip>
The other story was what Carly Fiorina said during the GOP debate about those Planned Parenthood videos.
One of them shows a baby, she said, “its heart beating, its legs kicking,”
having survived an abortion but left to die in a metal dish.

…linked to: The Federalist:

To be clear, Fiorina, like the other Republicans attacking Planned Parenthood,
doesn’t have her facts straight. None of the videos have anyone talking about “harvesting” brains.
The supposedly macabre video she’s talking about was highly, selectively edited by right-wing activists.

The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging
that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus.
The Center for Medical Progress posted a new link on its video late Thursday,
adding that one of the images was actually a baby named Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks.

While it is obviously not the same baby as the one she harvested the brain of,
the footage helps viewers to understand what a 19-week old baby looks like
when hearing the testimony of an ex-employee who harvested brains from babies of the same age.

Then, despite their own "fact-finding" and editorial comment,
the author dismisses them with an editorial contrivance that:

ibid
Illustrating stories with appropriate images is a common journalistic technique, one used by all media outlets.

Which is followed a sub-link to: Breitbart.com headline:

Carly Fiorina PAC Video Proves Planned Parenthood ‘Legs Kicking, Heart Beating’ Fetus True

Which takes us yet to another sub-link to another Breitbart.com headline:

Carly for America’s headline: Carly Under Attack By Planned Parenthood and Their Media Allies

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What, everything I said?

No, sorry hehe. I was flyby posting and should have been clearer:

Islam, as it is practiced by a huge majority of its adherents although not all, is not compatible with the US Constitution.

This is not to say that one couldn't locate moderate practitioners who would agree to the standards of the Constitution. Of course one could. And those practitioners would be considered apostate in a huge majority of the Islamic world.

Very similar argument against catholics in a lot of the protestant European nations- effectively the argument was that their first loyalty was to the church, and that papal authority sat higher in the catholic mind than the highest authority of the land. Prior to that it was wrapped up with absolutism of catholic monarchs, but in the 19th century it was much more about acceptance of the authority of the nation and questions of loyalty to nation versus loyalty and assumptions of obedience to an external power. Along with that came assumptions that catholic beliefs were backward and incompatible with 'modern' living. Also that the catholic church, its clergy, its schools and its ministries represented in effect, the enemy withn.

The German kulturkampf was the most extreme (I think) and systematic approach to it during that era.


[eta] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampf

[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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

UT: To begin with, such a comment creates situational denial of a Constitutional Amendment.

Can "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification..." be interpreted other than
as ”no” religious test, not yours or mine or some orange-vs-black pundits

…unless you are of Scalian-thinking: “The Constitution means what I say it means.”

The Constitution says nobody can be barred from running for office because of their religious convictions.
However, who I vote for (or against), nor the reasons I make my choice, are regulated by the government. If I chose to vote for a man instead of a woman, or a white over a black, or Christian versus a Muslim, ain't nobody's business but my own. Same applies if I choose to go out and campaign for my choices.
The government/law is only concerned if I go out and campaign against my choice's opponents by attacking their race, ethnicity, sex, or religion, although it didn't seem to hurt Karl Rove too much.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

So I may be misreading your intent here,..

Yes, apparently you are. I'm simply wishing for journalistic integrity. When I read a left-wing and a right-wing account of the same story and still don't have enough facts to put a coherent narrative together I feel like the public needs to work harder than we really have time for.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Constitution says nobody can be barred from running for office because of their religious convictions.
However, who I vote for (or against), nor the reasons I make my choice, are regulated by the government. If I chose to vote for a man instead of a woman, or a white over a black, or Christian versus a Muslim, ain't nobody's business but my own. Same applies if I choose to go out and campaign for my choices.
The government/law is only concerned if I go out and campaign against my choice's opponents by attacking their race, ethnicity, sex, or religion, although it didn't seem to hurt Karl Rove too much.

Well said. The interesting thing to me is that pols will continue to lie and say they're serious about their religion to get votes when the world really needs someone firmly grounded in this world.

[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]

The deeper conversations about how you account for a person's faith and the potential conflict between muslim faith and western values is interesting and a worthwhile debate...

But are you seriously saying that a voter's choice of who to vote for is unconstitutional because it can qualify as a test?

[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.