I think nowadays it's kind of like trying to make a distinction between a dick and an asshole, even though as curse words they mean the exact same thing.

That's cuz most people are p'tahks. Or are they topahs? Maybe they're just pieces of baktag. #BAZINGA

has anybody said welcome to the Cellar, Zathris? (unless you're an old dwellar with a new name and I just don't know :P) ... welcome to the Cellar, Zathris!

He made me look things up in the Klingon dictionary :joylove:

...Also he kind of came up with a democratic version of the spartan duel-king system to reflect today's economical needs. He's a keeper. Which I suppose is what cellars are for...

You're the first, so, thanks.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/55578237.jpg

Welcome Zathris!

You've clearly made yourself at home, I look forward to more of your contributions.

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

Got it.

After my nine year old went to bed, I tried to watch the latter half of last night's 'debate'...fell asleep in the middle of things...clear indication of my 'I don't give a fuck'...knowing the 'analysis' that would dominate the news this morning, I opted for cartoons instead...let's just hire the commie bastid (any of 'em) already so we can get back to eatin' doughnuts.

remarkably similar to my strategy!

great minds think alike.

What about the bitch?



BTW, whutsa bastid?

bastid = bastard
 

"great minds think alike"

Sometimes... ;)

I'm gonna be hard-pressed to build up a sufficient amount of 'give a shit' so as to gut my way through the soon-to-come dem 'debates'.

Thinkin' I'll probably sleep through those too.

#

"What about the bitch?"

Just one of a whole whack of folks who I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for.

Well said

Putin is a DICK.

So looking over the polls, I am rethinking this position:
Would Americans actually vote for Bernie Sanders in the general elections?

People said something similar about JFK, who was Catholic, thinking that as President he would defer to the Pope on matters of national importance. The religion barrier was broken 50 years ago. If a candidate can convince the voters that for public matters nationality comes first even if a mainstream religion comes first in private, that person has as good a chance as any.

I would vote for Mr. Sanders.

I, too, would vote for Bernie Sanders.

On the larger question about religion and the Presidency, I was aghast at the comments by Ben Carson, campaigner for the Republican nomination for the office.

OMFG.

Personal views, sure, ok, you religious bigot. Please pardon me while I catch my breath from the shock of your ignorance of our Constitution, especially the part about no religious tests for holders of public office... Mr Carson, this is an example of a deal killer for me. You can't espouse this belief, and any other combination of other beliefs and still persuade me to vote for you. Nuh-uh, nope, nada, zip, no way.

In other happy news, I just heard that Scott Walker, he of the selective intolerance of collective bargaining (cops and firefighters, ok; teachers, no way), has just announced that he'll suspend his campaign.

Oh happy day!

Way to take one for the team. And it shows a certain mortal fear of the power of Trump's blithering demagoguery. And they're right to be afraid, we should all be afraid, at least when we're not rotfloao.

YAY!!!

It's a competitive title, but I think he was the worst of the lot.

When the GOP campaign began, he worried me more than any of the others.

FWIW, I had a lot of fun debating my wife today on what it would be like if
Fionena became the GOP candidate and Clinton was the Democratic candidate.

Then no matter which won, the winner would say they proved 1 woman can beat 16 men*. :D





*... when all the men are Republicans...

I don't think he is saying we should legally prevent someone from running based on their religion, I think he is saying that we should consider someone's religious beliefs when deciding who to vote for, and that it's ok to choose not to vote for someone based on their religious beliefs.

IMO it isn't "wrong" so much as it misses the importance of looking for the context religious takes within the person's life and the role it takes in informing their ethics and ideology. There is an important difference between someone who is religious in their personal life and someone is running in the name of religion.

I have voted for both parties lead by Jewish and for parties lead by Muslim politicians in different elections here in Israel, depending on the state of the elections (I find that the need to pander to Arab parties helps keep the left in check), but they were also mostly secular liberal people.
On the opposite side of the context coin, we also have Jewish parties who are outright defined by their religion and would like nothing more then to turn keeping the shabat into law, biblical dress code into public decency requirements and kosher food into government regulations, and I would - and have in the past - voted for alternative small parties with the expressed intention to weaken the religious parties power. Likewise, I have friends in Egypt who were protesting against the Muslim brotherhood, and if I lived in Egypt I likely would have done the same. Much the same way, if I was living in the US as a citizen, I would probably not mind voting for a christian, but I would be quite reluctant to vote for someone who uses Christianity to inform their beliefs and policies that regard human sexuality.

(I admit though, it is very easy for me to say because I never actually had a choice of voting for someone who shares my beliefs - or lack thereof - in the first place. It's quite possible that if I had lived long enough with the option of voting for people who are openly agnostic or atheists, I would eventually come to look for that as a requirement. When you declare you would never eat the candy you never had access too, that's one very fragile high horse).

I was talking with my eldest about the election and got thinking about an issue I just found covered in a recent the Federalist article. Her politics are more like my own carrying a healthy skepticism about bureaucracies effectiveness along with a desire for a more egalitarian state. My younger is a more intense liberal with a little less skepticism. Finding a news source which is at all reliable is a problem especially in election cycles. 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.

Ain't nobody got time for that reading, I just have to assume everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. :lol2:

traceur--

I see from reading and rereading your remarks that we're saying the same thing. Voting for someone should involve examining their character, etc, including their ideas on religion. What Ben Carson's saying is that being a Muslim is a disqualifying condition for President of the United States. *I'm* saying that's a completely bullshit point of view. And that someone who's vying for public office that holds such unambiguously rigid prejudices is himself unfit for public office.

He's saying "no" *because* someone's a Muslim.

He's not saying any more about "the importance of looking for the context religious takes within the person's life and the role it takes in informing their ethics and ideology." He's just saying "no", being Muslim is enough for him to make his decision. That's prejudiced and ignorant and bigoted, not characteristics I believe are conducive to good public leadership. He compounds this error by citing its "unconstitutionality", adding a good dose of dumb to his remarks.

do you have some complete quotes for this so we can judge the level at which we should be aghast and all harumphing at

Sure. I quoted him in post number 137, and included a link in that post to my source. He said this during an appearance on meet the press. He's subsequently reaffirmed his position.

Oh, is that all? I, too, would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I was expecting some sort of actual Constitutional challenge or something. Something to really be aghast about.

Huh.

So, I can't ask Ben Carson, but I can ask you: that's all it takes for you to reject a candidate? Don't need to know anything else about them, once it's clear they're Muslim, the answer for you is "no".

Right now? 2016? Yeah, no.

Yabut, there's already a Muslim in the White House, dintcha know?
It's on all the honest patriotic websites. :us:

Transcript of Carson's words on Meet The Press 9/20/2015
Then the 6th Amendment...



UT: What does it take for something to be a "religious test" or an actual declaration to be taken "aghast about" ?


.

There is a citizenship test for office of the President. One has to be born in this country.

There is no religious test for office of the President. One does not have to be a certain religion.

Those are qualifications.

Disqualifications: Anything that undermines the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Religion can be a disqualifier if it promotes theocracy; but, doesn't necessarily have to be depending on an individual's ability to maintain a separation of church and state in their mind despite group pressure.

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.

I don't really want a Southern Baptist to be President either. I don't consider their beliefs all that Constitutional. You could find me a "moderate one" but I would only ask why they are hanging out with and defending their friends if they want to be President of a country with LGBT equality and gender equality and freedom of religion.

And so would you, my progressive brethren. Not demanding the same of Muslims is just your attempt to say how well-evolved you are.

presidents, clerks of court, stewardesses
 

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.

#

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.

So it's less about them being muslim, than it is about them potentially holding views that are counter to the duties of president- which in your opinion much of Islam is, in the same way that many branches of Christianity are?

Would you waive your objection if said muslim was an army veteran? Or had served his/her country in some other very tangible way?

Because 'muslim' conjures up the Islamic world, whereas there are plenty of secular muslims -many of whom are born in America.

Yeah, the first thing people say when confronted with this kind of question is "well what about the ones who are modern?"

(Because you can't say "Well what about the good ones?" ...unless they are Southern Baptist or some religion that we may safely criticize)

No matter how carefully the "although not all" qualifier is placed, it's invisible to progressives!

Point is, it doesn't matter; we here are the evolved thinkers and we are already into nuances just starting; and once we get into nuances, leadership becomes more difficult/impossible. You can't start by losing the support of over half the country and expect to lead it. So once we say "This person is part of a global belief system that is anti-American, anti-freedom, and actually rejects a separation of church and state as one of its central beliefs... but forget all that because this person is one of the good ones!" You've already lost. Whether they are one of the good ones is the only debate we would be having for 4 years.

The first step to a Muslim becoming POTUS, electorally, is a wholesale rejection of almost everything Muslim. Does that work on the world stage?

Also, I can't imagine a Muslim POTUS just seeming to support one side of Shia versus Sunni and the world coming out a better place in the end. Serious shit will have hit the fan.

For the record UT, both Carter and Clinton have been Southern Baptists...apparently they are now just Baptists.

They share my take on this.

How do you know? Were you and Bubba sharing cigars between a lady? Were you chatting with Jimmy in-between building houses and monitoring elections in Africa?

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

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.”


.

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

I hate to defend Ben Carson, but unless he was saying that a Muslim should be denied the Presidency after winning the election, or that states should be able to deny Muslims a place on the ballot, then I don't see the constitutional angle to this.

Individuals can have any test they like for their vote, and even for their public pronouncements of support. That doesn't innure them from criticism, but that criticism isn't really about the Constitution.

What, everything I said?

Please see sexobon's comment thank you

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.

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: …linked to: The Federalist: Then, despite their own "fact-finding" and editorial comment,
the author dismisses them with an editorial contrivance that:
Which is followed a sub-link to: Breitbart.com headline:
Which takes us yet to another sub-link to another Breitbart.com headline:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

http://cellar.org/2015/shariapercent.png

http://cellar.org/2015/sharia3.png

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

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.

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?

Why?

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

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.