Let’s make a deal, Democrats will stop advocating for Muslims who choose their religion over the rights provided by our Constitution if Republicans stop advocating for Christians who choose their religion over the rights provided by our Constitution.
Did you read the title of this thread?
Are you outraged that Carson doesn’t DID NOT say “Republican Candidate Carson Says Muslims Unfit to Be U.S. President”?
Are you outraged that the NYT did say, “Republican Candidate Carson Says Muslims Unfit to Be U.S. President”?
You can advocate for any candidate you chose to advocate for. However, would you advocate for a Muslim candidate who choses radical, fanatical, or violent Islam over a candidate who believes in the BOR?
You seem to have internet access. Rumor has it that you often live in the real world. Anyone with internet access could answer the question.
Once again, did not address what Carson actually said, which was that he could not support a Muslim for President. Clinton did not say whether she would support a Muslim for President.
However, it is a lot more than I expected of her. I’m also a bit surprised at the “Let’s move on”. If Carson had attacked women, we’d be hearing about it from now until a year after November. Why doesn’t she want to stick with this subject awhile longer?
You continue to phrase this question as if you find it inconceivable that “Muslim candidate” and “candidate who believes in the Bill of Rights” are not mutually exclusive terms.
In other words, no, I don’t.
Not simply a “Muslim candidate”, but a “Muslim candidate who choses radical, fanatical, or violent Islam”.
Then you both add far more qualifiers to the subject than candidate Carson deemed it necessary to, and posit a scenario which to the best of my knowledge has yet to occur in American electoral politics at any level.
Like I said, that’s a tough one. I’m going to do some research tonight and get back to you tomorrow. I think you may have finally stumped me!!
Being allergic to facts is de rigeur for the poster you addressed.
That’s likely the problem right there. ralph did educate himself…badly!
If she stuck with it, you’d attack her for that.
You’re a partisan muppet. Own it.
It never should have been necessary; not for Kennedy, not for Romney, and not for any Muslim candidate or any candidate of any other religion.
You don’t want to answer uncomfortable questions. Own it.
I think it’s fair to ask why, unlike just about ANY OTHER gaffe by a candidate having to do with an -ism, that everyone seems to want to move on. Usually we can have this out for weeks or months. What’s different?
Yes. I noted, above, that I worded that poorly. It should never have been necessary, and we should hope that JFK was the last.
What gaffe? She’s right, and it is that simple.
To be fair, doorhinge seems to have taken it as a challenge. He’ really upping the stupid, and I for one applaud him for it. Keep fucking that chicken, 'hinge!
Oh my god! Its not the same poor damn chicken, every time?
Meanwhile, President Obama has welcomed- personally! - The Pope to The U.S.! Prepare for the onslaught of fearful Republicans angrily accusing Obama of being some kind of Christian sympathizer.
Thanks for the excellent summary of the transmorgrification of the Grand Old Party. I just want to add that it’s even more pathetic than this. Unbelievable as it may seem to adults, Gingrich chose to shut down the goverment (starting a Republiopathic modus operandi that continues to this day) not over ideology, but because he was bitter about the seating he was offered on Air Force One!
Bullshit.
Even if your exceptionally kind “interpretation” of his words was true, (which it was not), he has “explained” his comments by making more egregiously ignorant and Islamophobic remarks.
“I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law,” he wrote. "I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced…I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.
Sharia is not “the central tenet of Islam.” That is a stupid statement that declares ignorance in the extreme.
There are multiple versions of Sharia, (which simply means a legal philosophy, not one express set of laws), and living in metro Detroit near as many (Dearborn) Muslims as he does, he should be aware of that.
He then went further, “Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them,” Carson said.
This is nothing but stupid hatred. The claim that a Muslim who did not place his or her religion above the laws of the U.S. would be considered an infidel and a heretic by (presumably) the majority of other Muslims is nothing but hate speech. It implies that all the Muslims currently serving in the military have rejected their religion for their country (which they swear to support when they enlist), and that their families and fellow citizens consider them “infidels” and “heretics” and that no good Muslim can be a good citizen.
He then goes on to make a false accusation regarding taqiyya:
“Taqiyya is a component of Sharia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals.” That claim is debunked in the linked article, although it echos the same sort of lies spoken about Jews and Catholics by the KKK and similar groups.
Ralph, he is a bigot. Your misguided defense of Carson is dumb.