2016 Election

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[elSicomoro]

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

[Undertoad]

They share my take on this.

[elSicomoro]

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?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.”


.

[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.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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

Number one, the US Constitution always places restrictions on law, not on people. That's actually how it operates and why the language in the amendment on religion (Amendment 1, not Article 6 here) says "US Congress shall place no restrictions..."

Number two, this section of text is in an Article speaking to "Oaths of Office". It's a discussion of what restrictions can be placed on people entering government, by government, in the form of Oaths that must be sworn on taking office. I believe this particular section has rarely been tested in case law (there are few annotations on it) because it's well-understood ...and does not mean what you think it does.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by elSicomoro

How do you know?

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politi...ss-Darkly.aspx

[DanaC]

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

[elSicomoro]

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

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[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?

[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