Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Muslim Can't Be President Apparently
http://
Carson is a highly educated man. It wasn't so long ago that people were saying that about black people, and as a black person, he should really know better than to try to replace one form of prejudice with another.
Carson is a highly educated man. It wasn't so long ago that people were saying that about black people, and as a black person, he should really know better than to try to replace one form of prejudice with another.
Answers
AOG - "Now what do we have here, Mikey's opposition to a US Republican Party member, that I can understand to a certain extent, taking into consideratio
12:27 Mon 21st Sep 2015
You've (accidentally) raised an interesting point, sp.
Children say, 'me, me, me' and 'I want, I want, I want,' but normal people develop empathy for others as they grow up.
Ergo, they don't constantly whine about, say, stubbing their toe, when they know that others are dying of cancer.
You say it's a cliché, I say it's a valid point. Instead of constantly whinging about, imagined, first world problems, grow up and spare a thought for the people beset by very real problems in the third world.
Children say, 'me, me, me' and 'I want, I want, I want,' but normal people develop empathy for others as they grow up.
Ergo, they don't constantly whine about, say, stubbing their toe, when they know that others are dying of cancer.
You say it's a cliché, I say it's a valid point. Instead of constantly whinging about, imagined, first world problems, grow up and spare a thought for the people beset by very real problems in the third world.
sp1814
It's as bad as saying to Rosa Parks, "Look...I don't know what all this bus fuss is about...at least we're not lynching you!"
I hope you see my point.
Or a bit like someone telling a non Asian child ...
"well ok you have been raped and abused in all manner of unspeakable ways but look at it this way... it would have been worse for you had you been Asian"
It's as bad as saying to Rosa Parks, "Look...I don't know what all this bus fuss is about...at least we're not lynching you!"
I hope you see my point.
Or a bit like someone telling a non Asian child ...
"well ok you have been raped and abused in all manner of unspeakable ways but look at it this way... it would have been worse for you had you been Asian"
Mikey, I don’t know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in. Islam is not simply a religion like any other religion. Islam means 'submission', and it governs every single aspect of the lives of its adherents. Among other things it denies freedom of speech and it is not compatible with a western lifestyle. Mr Carson is quite right. Of course a Muslim should never be president of the USA. The comparison you've made with the treatment black people confirms your naivety.
The problem is that that is such a blanket statement that not only discriminates against someone in a way that should be incompatible with Western values, but is also exactly incompatible with the Constitution also. No test based on religion may be applied.
And anyway not all Muslims -- indeed, arguably the vast majority, of those living in the western world at least -- are not so adherent to the tenets of their faith that are incompatible with holding public office. It's almost an absurdity to assume that someone who has sought high office and moved through the system so high as to be in a position to be nominated for president, will still be a radical Muslim determined to impose Sharia or subjugate women or something like that. Utter paranoia. Of course your faith, whatever it should be, should not of itself be a barrier to presidential office.
And anyway not all Muslims -- indeed, arguably the vast majority, of those living in the western world at least -- are not so adherent to the tenets of their faith that are incompatible with holding public office. It's almost an absurdity to assume that someone who has sought high office and moved through the system so high as to be in a position to be nominated for president, will still be a radical Muslim determined to impose Sharia or subjugate women or something like that. Utter paranoia. Of course your faith, whatever it should be, should not of itself be a barrier to presidential office.
Jim, //No test based on religion may be applied.//
In this instance such a test must be applied. A constitution founded upon freedom, fairness, and justice for all only works if all involved support freedom, fairness, and justice for all. Islam doesn’t. It brings a very different philosophy into western society and that must be recognised.
//It's almost an absurdity to assume that someone who has sought high office and moved through the system so high as to be in a position to be nominated for president, will still be a radical Muslim determined to impose Sharia or subjugate women or something like that.//
It's most definitely an absurdity to assume that someone who has sought high office and moved through the system so high as to be in a position to be nominated for president will be a faithful Muslim at all. Since Islam is not compatible with western democracy such a candidate would need to have abandoned his faith.
In this instance such a test must be applied. A constitution founded upon freedom, fairness, and justice for all only works if all involved support freedom, fairness, and justice for all. Islam doesn’t. It brings a very different philosophy into western society and that must be recognised.
//It's almost an absurdity to assume that someone who has sought high office and moved through the system so high as to be in a position to be nominated for president, will still be a radical Muslim determined to impose Sharia or subjugate women or something like that.//
It's most definitely an absurdity to assume that someone who has sought high office and moved through the system so high as to be in a position to be nominated for president will be a faithful Muslim at all. Since Islam is not compatible with western democracy such a candidate would need to have abandoned his faith.
Svejk
You've brought this up before, and I still don't understand what you mean.
Are you saying that anyone who protests about something they believe in are like whining children?
Does that cover everyone?
People who campaign about fracking? Equal pay for women? Redirected flight paths? BBC expenditure? Extension of road works on the M4? Net neutrality?
It's great that you seem to spend time thinking about people in developing countries...really great. I admire that.
However, looking back at some of your previous posts, I can't help but think that you don't exclusively spend all your time pondering the life of Sudanese farmers or the treatment of the disabled in Papua New Guinea.
Perhaps it's because like the rest of us, there are immediate concerns which directly affect your own life?
I celebrate the fact that you will not be complaining about absolutely anything anymore, in your aims to be 'Bob Geldof II: The Sequel'.
You've brought this up before, and I still don't understand what you mean.
Are you saying that anyone who protests about something they believe in are like whining children?
Does that cover everyone?
People who campaign about fracking? Equal pay for women? Redirected flight paths? BBC expenditure? Extension of road works on the M4? Net neutrality?
It's great that you seem to spend time thinking about people in developing countries...really great. I admire that.
However, looking back at some of your previous posts, I can't help but think that you don't exclusively spend all your time pondering the life of Sudanese farmers or the treatment of the disabled in Papua New Guinea.
Perhaps it's because like the rest of us, there are immediate concerns which directly affect your own life?
I celebrate the fact that you will not be complaining about absolutely anything anymore, in your aims to be 'Bob Geldof II: The Sequel'.
The thing is, who is then abandoning the constitution first, Naomi? Some hypothetical Muslim candidate, who hasn't even put himself forward yet, or those who decide that suddenly faith does matter?
Perhaps it is the case that a "true" Muslim can't, by definition, run for office. Well, good then. In that case there's no problem with a Muslim president because there can't ever be one -- and those who, at least, practised the religion at some point in their lives, albeit not "properly", shouldn't be tainted by association or excluded from the job.
Even then of course we're discussing theory rather than practice. In the foreseeable future I find it difficult to believe that a Muslim presidential candidate would win the election, not least because there aren't any such candidates currently. There are just two Muslim members of the US Congress, no senators and no state governors, and very few others floating around the political scheme. It seems that we don't need to worry that much about the possibility, then -- Muslims aren't putting themselves forward for the job. If one did, though, I would hope that people would judge them on policies and not faith.
Perhaps it is the case that a "true" Muslim can't, by definition, run for office. Well, good then. In that case there's no problem with a Muslim president because there can't ever be one -- and those who, at least, practised the religion at some point in their lives, albeit not "properly", shouldn't be tainted by association or excluded from the job.
Even then of course we're discussing theory rather than practice. In the foreseeable future I find it difficult to believe that a Muslim presidential candidate would win the election, not least because there aren't any such candidates currently. There are just two Muslim members of the US Congress, no senators and no state governors, and very few others floating around the political scheme. It seems that we don't need to worry that much about the possibility, then -- Muslims aren't putting themselves forward for the job. If one did, though, I would hope that people would judge them on policies and not faith.
Jim, // I would hope that people would judge them on policies and not faith.//
Would you really hope that? Are you sure? I doubt the majority of the electorate would agree with you when they discover their potential president deems a man's evidence in court worth twice that of a woman's. The constitution would certainly warrant review.
Would you really hope that? Are you sure? I doubt the majority of the electorate would agree with you when they discover their potential president deems a man's evidence in court worth twice that of a woman's. The constitution would certainly warrant review.
"I don't accept the argument that western countries have a good record on gay rights."
OK, SP, I won't seek a fight over that statement.
Let's sum up your Rosa post:
1. The Christian West has traditionally been hostile to gays;
2. Support for "gay rights" in the West is a recent phenomenon;
3. Tolerance of homosexuality is inversely proportional to religious conviction.
If these three propositions are true then I think you as a gay ought to be opposed to mass immigration from religiously conservative countries.
Is this a reasonable conclusion?
OK, SP, I won't seek a fight over that statement.
Let's sum up your Rosa post:
1. The Christian West has traditionally been hostile to gays;
2. Support for "gay rights" in the West is a recent phenomenon;
3. Tolerance of homosexuality is inversely proportional to religious conviction.
If these three propositions are true then I think you as a gay ought to be opposed to mass immigration from religiously conservative countries.
Is this a reasonable conclusion?
vetuste - //If these three propositions are true then I think you as a gay ought to be opposed to mass immigration from religiously conservative countries.
Is this a reasonable conclusion? //
If I may join in - I suggest it is not reasonable.
To penalise people because of the cultural stances of their government is completely unreasonable.
If you are a committed pacifist living in Australia, would you seek to turn away a potential British immigrant family because the UK has a Trident missile programme?
Is this a reasonable conclusion? //
If I may join in - I suggest it is not reasonable.
To penalise people because of the cultural stances of their government is completely unreasonable.
If you are a committed pacifist living in Australia, would you seek to turn away a potential British immigrant family because the UK has a Trident missile programme?
Please read SP's post about Western intolerance of gays, Andy. He said that the intolerance was based largely on strict adherence to religious beliefs. You did say that, didnt you, SP?
I'm quite sure that many people from Muslim countries come here to get away from Sharia and all that crap. But many don't. That's why they keep building mosques. Or hadn't you noticed?
I'm quite sure that many people from Muslim countries come here to get away from Sharia and all that crap. But many don't. That's why they keep building mosques. Or hadn't you noticed?
A more realistic analogy (suggested again by SP's post) than the tendentious one you proposed would be inviting half a million Bible-belters over here. They'd be against abortion, against gays, against the teaching of evolution in the class-room, and, of course, there'd be quite a few Klan members among them.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
And They Wonder Why Insurance Is So...
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Crosswords19 mins ago