:rolleyes:
First he’d have to be able to exist.
He wouldn’t exist because he wouldn’t get elected dogcatcher. Carson’s statement was a classic example of something being wrong because it wasn’t nice to say, rather than an expression of anything of substance.
Do please note that you have to *imagine *scenarios in order to condemn “liberals” for acting the way you imagine they’d do.
Why would I condemn liberals? Not supporting a candidate who places his religion over the Constitution is not only a positive thing it’s what liberals have done since liberalism was invented.
At least I HOPE you’re not telling me that liberals would support a Sharia-advocating Muslim candidate when they won’t support Mike Huckabee.
Why *did *you? Post 120, right above, just a few minutes ago.
By saying that liberals wouldn’t disagree with what he said, I was condemning them? Would liberal voters support a Sharia advocate for President?
Carson said that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” and that Islam is not consistent with the Constitution. No mention was made of whether the hypothetical Muslim candidate believes in or follows Sharia Law.
No one should agree with what he said, because it would seem to advocate for a religious test for presidential candidates, and it amounts to religious discrimination.
Additionally, it is another demonstration of Dr. Carson’s painful ignorance regarding many topics other than neurosurgery.
He did clarify his statement to mean advocates of Sharia law over our Constitution.
Not only is that a mealy-mouthed excuse (would he support someone like Kim Davis who advocates the Bible over the Constitution?), him making a religious test in order to be President is the definition of un-American. Heck, the Constitution that he’s speaking of has a l’il mention of a religious test for government office in Article Six…
I’d say that’s a pretty big gaffe…
I don’t see this – I see his latest statements as dumb as any of his earlier statements.
Why do Muslims have to vow to support the Constitution over Sharia law and Christians don’t have to vow to support the Constitution over the Bible (or their own interpretation thereof)?
I have to give credit to Carson for two things. He proved that you can be a brain surgeon and be an imbecile. He also proved that blacks can be racist assholes just as much as whites.
And weren’t those two questions you just needed to have answers to? They were keeping you up nights, weren’t they?
Carson offensively assumes that the “default” for practicing Muslims is a devotion to Sharia Law, which at best demonstrates a profound ignorance of Islam and religious practice in general, and at worst betrays his ill-informed bigotry against Islam (which his supporters share).
And when he adds that “I would have problems with somebody who embraced all the doctrines associated with Islam,” he implies that Muslims who are not devoted to Sharia Law are somehow not “real” Muslims. The man is a dolt.
He said right from the start that he personally could not support a Muslim for President. The Constitution lets people vote however they want and support whoever they want for any reason. The Constitution is not at issue here since Carson advocated no change in our laws. What is at issue is Carson’s personal views, which are shared by a rather large minority of Americans, and which if it was an actually devout Muslim would probably be nearly universally shared. A Sharia-supporting Muslim has about as much chance to win liberal votes as Kim Davis. The difference is that it’s PC to say that about Kim Davis.
:eek:Carson is not your wingnut conservative friend you run into sometimes at the grocery store; he is running for president. And making ignorant statements that insult the religion of at least 2 million Americans is not presidential.
Nobody asked him what he thought about a Sharia Law-practicing Muslim as president. The fact that he assumed it is telling and troubling.
Also I must add:
“PC” (what a stupid, meaningless word) doesn’t enter into it. The question was whether he would support a Muslim for president. If he had been asked whether he would support a proponent of Sharia Law for president, the reaction from the left would have been much different. The problem with Kim Davis is not that she’s Christian, it’s that she uses her religion to interfere with other people’s constitutional rights.
Aye, that’s the crux of the biscuit right there.
Did he clarify it as soon as he said it, or did he clarify it after his aides told him to?
ETA: whatever, I’m rooting for him, because if he became the Republican nominee, I think we would see about 10% voter turnout by Pubbies in the general election.
It’s wrong to assume that most Muslims are devout? I’d think assuming the opposite would be insulting. I know I’d be insulted if a candidate said, “Sure I can support a Jew for office, most of them don’t even go to synagogue!” Even though it’s true. But as a general rule, assuming that followers of a religion don’t believe in their religion enough to accept its basic precepts is actually fairly insulting. We’re not all Catholics, you know.