Ben Carson

[wufan]

51% is a majority

You are correct sort of. 47% of those polled believed that Shariah law was a way to govern ones own life as opposed to a way to govern society or the law of God. Only 33% believed that if the constitution/Bill of Rights conflicted that Shariah law should prevail. 51% believed they should have the choice of either American courts or Shariah courts.

[SB Shock]

You are correct sort of. 47% of those polled believed that Shariah law was a way to govern ones own life as opposed to a way to govern society or the law of God. Only 33% believed that if the constitution/Bill of Rights conflicted that Shariah law should prevail. 51% believed they should have the choice of either American courts or Shariah courts.

Even those categories that are less than a majority - can be concerning to at to least some. The real question will those % numbers increase or decrease over time? That answer might be found in what has happened in Europe. I have looked for hard data, but haven't found any yet.

[wufan]

Even those categories that are less than a majority - can be concerning to at to least some. The real question will those % numbers increase or decrease over time? That answer might be found in what has happened in Europe. I have looked for hard data, but haven't found any yet.

Yes, they are still very, very high and likely growing based on a few things I've seen. There are two significant questions going on in this forum:

1. Is a Muslim qualified to be President of the US?
2. Are Muslims a threat to the US way of life based on extremist beliefs?

I think the data points to yes on both counts. A significant number (majority) believe in the Constitution over Shariah law. That, in my mind, qualifies them as acceptable. The data also says that there is a large percentage of Muslims that believe in their religion over the Constitution. That makes them a threat.

So how to deal with American Muslims? Allow them all the due freedoms that any American citizen has, but specific radical groups should be closely monitored as any potentially revolutionary group should.

[RoyalShock]

Here is a little wrinkle regarding the reliability of polls of muslims. I believe they are permitted to lie to non-believers if they feel they are being persecuted or if it benefits Islam.

I'm sure it depends on the individual being asked, but I see a lot of wiggle room for a western muslim when answering a question about their support for Sharia Law.

[SB Shock]

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa said the comments would likely help Carson in his state.

“I wouldn’t expect those remarks would hurt Dr. Carson in Iowa. I think they help him,” King told the the Washington Post. “The people on our side who pay any attention to this at all understand Shariah is incompatible with the Constitution and that a sincerely devout Muslim – I might say, a devout Islamist — cannot seriously give an oath to support the Constitution, because it’s incompatible with his faith.”

[shockmonster]

Here is a segment on Sharia Law last night that may settle some of this. It may be that Carson is right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asWqSF_KT5A

[Play Angry]

I don't think there's much debate that those Muslims who place Sharia law primary to the Constitution when the two conflict should not be President. It is too bad Carson failed at articulating that statement when the viewership was exponentially at its widest on weekend network television - if that is what he had said at that moment, there would never have been a controversy, but c'est la vie.

Supporters will give him the benefit of the doubt and point to the clarifying statements made in the wake of blowback from the original, much broader quote on the show. When taken in their totality and sincerely believed, the sum of the parts of those statements points to what is more or less a non-controversial viewpoint. Critics and competitors will of course take the opposite approach and, as happens pretty much all the time in politics, play the unflattering sound byte ad infinitum (see, e.g., Mitt Romney, "47%," "corporations are people," and "binders full of women," all of which are relatively less explosive miscues).

Carson will both embrace (as he has done during early primary season) and later be forced to distance himself, if his campaign makes it to the final 2 or 3 candidates (post Super-Tuesday and into the general election) the media narrative of him as the "evangelical" candidate. The image plays well when and where conservative, protestant Christians are represented in disproportionately high numbers in the electorate, like they will be in the Iowa caucus. From that standpoint, this was probably the best time for him to let Todd pants him on television like he did, because a sizable chunk of primary voters more or less agree with the original quote even sans the subsequent backpedaling. Obviously the tone will have to soften later when the courted audience is considerably more moderate than it is now, and mishaps like this give the PACS a lot of ammo to shape the narrative. I'm sure this was a learning experience and it will be interesting to see what the polls do over the next two weeks as the comment and debate performance bake in. Fortunately for Carson, the combination of Trump's neverending diva spotlight/Pope visit/continuing migrant crisis will make for a pretty short feedback loop in the news.

I honestly don't know the answer to this and am curious what kind of campaign organization Carson has built at this point. I know Carly is lacking in a big way in this department, but I haven't heard anything on whether Carson's momentum in polls has exploded his staff numbers or not. Anyone know?

[shockmonster]

I just thought that Wufan, Tropicalshox, and others weren't sold on Muslims following Sharia Law instead of the Constitution. This segment referenced the Poll being bandied about here on Shockernet. I thought it may clear up the issue for those doubters.

[wufan]

I just thought that Wufan, Tropicalshox, and others weren't sold on Muslims following Sharia Law instead of the Constitution. This segment referenced the Poll being bandied about here on Shockernet. I thought it may clear up the issue for those doubters.

I'm a right winger. I would almost definitely not vote for a Muslim. That didn't clear up anything for me. It's pretty clear that if you are in favor of a Sharia State, then you are anti-US government. Nearly half of the Muslims in the poll believed that Sharia law was a personnel law (not a form of government). Slightly more than half believed that Shariah law super scedes the Constitution. What Christian do you know that wouldn't state his/her religion is more important than civic law?

[RoyalShock]

I'm a right winger. I would almost definitely not vote for a Muslim. That didn't clear up anything for me. It's pretty clear that if you are in favor of a Sharia State, then you are anti-US government. Nearly half of the Muslims in the poll believed that Sharia law was a personnel law (not a form of government). Slightly more than half believed that Shariah law super scedes the Constitution. What Christian do you know that wouldn't state his/her religion is more important than civic law?

The difference is, an overwhelming number of Christians wouldn't try to institute a theocracy when their faith doesn't agree with the rule of law.

[shockmonster]

I'm a right winger. I would almost definitely not vote for a Muslim. That didn't clear up anything for me. It's pretty clear that if you are in favor of a Sharia State, then you are anti-US government. Nearly half of the Muslims in the poll believed that Sharia law was a personnel law (not a form of government). Slightly more than half believed that Shariah law super scedes the Constitution. What Christian do you know that wouldn't state his/her religion is more important than civic law?

Yes. But the Constitution was written by James Madison with others helping. They wrote it with the 10 Commandments and Judeo-Christian (New Testament) tenets being in harmony and congruent to it. Stoning Sinners, and killing people who disagree (the infidels) with your beliefs were not a part of it. Majority rule and minority rights are in perfect harmony with the justice teachings of Jesus. Sharia Law believes in killing those who are not Muslim even though (according to the Muslim last night) evidently there is a teaching in the Koran that a good Muslim can operate under the law of the land. A good number of Muslims either ignore or aren't aware of that interpretation.

[wufan]

The difference is, an overwhelming number of Christians wouldn't try to institute a theocracy when their faith doesn't agree with the rule of law.

That's where the statistics are silent. 51% of American Muslims believe that where there is contradiction, the rule of Sharia should be upheld as they believe it to be the word of God. 47% of those same Muslims believe that Sharia law is a way to live ones life, not a judicial law. Because the Constitution is written to allow all to practice religion, the two would not conflict. I assume that those that believe it is a personal law are not looking for new legislation to enforce on others. If the 51% believe that the constitution should not over ride their freedom for personal law also are the 47% that believe Sharia is a personal way to govern ones self, then 47% of that population are in agreement with the constitution and 4% are right wing nut jobs. If on the other hand, the 51ers also believe that Sharia is a way to govern a nation, then half of Muslims are totally against America. You can't tell the answer based on the percentages.

[shockmonster]

Maybe not but the unknown percentage should be a concern to all of us. The Ok. City beheading should be a cautionary tale to all who love this country whether Muslim or not. The Hannity guest who called for a reformation of Islam in Anerica would be great. However, e movement like that has to come from Muslim Americans.

[shocka khan]

The difference is, an overwhelming number of Christians wouldn't try to institute a theocracy when their faith doesn't agree with the rule of law.

I wouldn't be too sure about that one, there, not a bit. Not that I like referencing the Huffington Post, but take a look at this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sofia-cruz-pope-francis_5603aea1e4b00310edfa1092

So someone who has parents who are illegal is trying to enlist the pope so that their parent's illegal acts (i.e. crossing the border) can be wiped away.

So that just blows your theory out of the water, as there are a whole bunch of people who think this is not only appropriate, but ought to be done.

Maybe not a theocracy, but for sure a data point that reflects that Christians might actually feel that they can and should be able to invoke their faith and beliefs when it conflicts with the rule of law.

[RoyalShock]

I wouldn't be too sure about that one, there, not a bit. Not that I like referencing the Huffington Post, but take a look at this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sofia-cruz-pope-francis_5603aea1e4b00310edfa1092

So someone who has parents who are illegal is trying to enlist the pope so that their parent's illegal acts (i.e. crossing the border) can be wiped away.

So that just blows your theory out of the water, as there are a whole bunch of people who think this is not only appropriate, but ought to be done.

Maybe not a theocracy, but for sure a data point that reflects that Christians might actually feel that they can and should be able to invoke their faith and beliefs when it conflicts with the rule of law.

Ok, so first you say my theory is blown out of the water, then admit it's not a theocracy. Simple logic would say my theory remains intact. Asking a person of influence to advocate for you with another person of influence is hardly a theocracy.

Let me know when a respected group of Christians calls for all places of business to be closed on Sunday (or Saturday, if they are Seventh-day Adventists), and ask for representative of the church to enforce it.

theocracy - A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.