Ben Carson

[shockmonster]

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.

Bad argument Shaka. Too many faiths and differing beliefs for US to be close to a theocracy.

[SHOCKvalue]

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.

I knew you'd go there eventually Kahn. Your liberal side was too much to hold back.

The difference is that one faith in a theocracy would fund private school vouchers, curtail late term abortion availability, and allow the ten commandments (and similar) on public grounds; the other faith likes to blow sheit up, stone women for out of wedlock sexual activity, remove body parts for infractions against their god, and execute those of other faiths. It is sort of like an apples and oranges comparison, but in this case the oranges give you ebola and transform into methuselah when ripe.

[shocka khan]

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.

I would like to discuss this whole notion, as well as the notion of nullification of federal laws by officials elected at a state or local level (for example, Kim Davis in Kentucky), but I really do not have the time for this right now. Let's just say that if certain groups or churches ran the country, you'd see a bunch of constitutional changes that would fit in better with their worldview and in line with the pronouncements/tenants of their religious views.

As someone else posted here, the only thing that prevents this from happening is that the protestant religion has wide and varied views and I'm thankful for freedom of religion.

[im4wsu]

Back in 1960, many voters were "concerned" that JFK was a practicing Catholic and the fearmongers were apprehensive that he (JFK) would be subject to the wishes of the Vatican and the Pope.

[MoValley John]

I would like to discuss this whole notion, as well as the notion of nullification of federal laws by officials elected at a state or local level (for example, Kim Davis in Kentucky), but I really do not have the time for this right now. Let's just say that if certain groups or churches ran the country, you'd see a bunch of constitutional changes that would fit in better with their worldview and in line with the pronouncements/tenants of their religious views.

As someone else posted here, the only thing that prevents this from happening is that the protestant religion has wide and varied views and I'm thankful for freedom of religion.

So, you're still backing Hillary, I see.

[shocka khan]

So, you're still backing Hillary, I see.

HAHAHA!!! You ought to have a late night talk show. You're funnier than Steven Colbert.

No, I'm pretty close, but not quite, an ABC (Anybody But Clinton). I have problems with Hillary regarding her unauthorized user of an email server. I also think if she were to be elected, she would govern much as Ann Richards did when she was governor. After Ann got elected, she owed feminists so much we got the biggest bunch of man-hating feminists I've ever seen.

At the time, I worked for the state of Tesxas. I'm not going into how the person lost their job, but a very ethical person who I highly respected, watched her husband lose his job over a very unfair situation. He was a director of HR for a state department. After being out of work about a year, he noticed that a position was open at the Texas Highway Department. However, this guy didn't fit their demographics (and probably was a republican), so they pulled the job posting to keep him from getting the job.

Ann Richard's war on men and some of her stances on regulation of the various departments of the State of Texas really perturbed large corporations in Texas, who threw their money and support to a politically-connected neophyte named George Bush.

Kind df of makes that whole speech she gave at the democratic convention (Pooor George, born with a silver spoon in his mouth.....) a ring of irony.

[shocka khan]

Back in 1960, many voters were "concerned" that JFK was a practicing Catholic and the fearmongers were apprehensive that he (JFK) would be subject to the wishes of the Vatican and the Pope.

Yes, I find it funny that people are 'concerned' about muslims instituting Sharia law and undermine the constitution, but when you want to talk about Christian politicians preaching nullification (and practicing it in some instances), they don't want to talk about that as much.

To me, laws are made to be followed or changed (provided you have a majority). But it's just as wrong for a Christian to ignore laws as it would be for a muslim to do it and I would not vote for anyone who did not follow the oath of their office and 'uphold the law'.

[shocka khan]

I knew you'd go there eventually Kahn. Your liberal side was too much to hold back.

The difference is that one faith in a theocracy would fund private school vouchers, curtail late term abortion availability, and allow the ten commandments (and similar) on public grounds; the other faith likes to blow sheit up, stone women for out of wedlock sexual activity, remove body parts for infractions against their god, and execute those of other faiths. It is sort of like an apples and oranges comparison, but in this case the oranges give you ebola and transform into methuselah when ripe.

What you would call 'liberal' I would prefer to characterize as 'moderate'.

That aside, I still don't know why you don't like Texas. You would fit in well here from a political/philosophical point of view.

[MoValley John]

What you would call 'liberal' I would prefer to characterize as 'moderate'.

That aside, I still don't know why you don't like Texas. You would fit in well here from a political/philosophical point of view.

Yup. Clinton supporter.

Currently, the moderates are the rinos, the liberals are the dems and the conservatives are the tea party.

Jeb Bush, whom I don't support, is a moderate. The only party with a spectrum of beliefs is the republican party. The democratic party is blindly in lock step, except for Bernie.

[DanielBryan]

Sanders will win the democratic nomination

[MoValley John]

Sanders will win the democratic nomination

No. Bernie Sanders is the liberal equivelent of Ron Paul. He will energize his base. He will fill them with hope. He will never gain traction beyond what he cutrently has.

The challenge for Democrats is getting him to bow out gracefully and not split the vote. He will do that and all Bernie supporters will fall in line and vote for Hillary. Yes, that is exactly why Shocka Kahn is a Hillary supporter.

[shockmonster]

No. Bernie Sanders is the liberal equivelent of Ron Paul. He will energize his base. He will fill them with hope. He will never gain traction beyond what he cutrently has.

The challenge for Democrats is getting him to bow out gracefully and not split the vote. He will do that and all Bernie supporters will fall in line and vote for Hillary. Yes, that is exactly why Shocka Kahn is a Hillary supporter.

e

I'm not sure that you are right. Bernie is an Independent and not a Democrat. While he has caucused with the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans, he isn't beholding to them. I don't think that he will win, nor do I think that he'd consider running as an Independent, but in the end he isn't a Democrat.

[Dave Stalwart]

In my opinion, Bernie Sanders should have come to terms with Detroit and stuck around for a few more seasons. It was hard to see him bow out early. He was a great back. If he's running for president, he has my vote because running was always his forte. My, how the years have aged him, though...

[Kung Wu]

But your question implied that it did. It may have been an unintentional use of a strawman, though.

Man, I lost my Internet for a week due to moving and this thread when crazy! Sweet!

It's no straw man. There is no distinction. Muslims cannot "renounce" Sharia. They can choose to reinterpret it, in order to distance themselves from something that is built right into Islam, but you can't "renounce" it without becoming an apostate. Those that chose to educate themselves as to why we were attacked on 9/11, already understand full well that Sharia courts/Jihad/Tarqiya(sp?) and a whole host of other core tenets of Islam are exactly why this country is not ready to be led by a Muslim leader.

As regards your commentary about Catholics, it's completely irrelevant. This country DID elect a Catholic, when it was ready. It DID elect a black man when it was ready. This country is NOT ready to elect a Muslim that has a major set of core values that only represent less than 1% of the population. In 1960, 25% of the country was Catholic. There is no comparison to be made.

[Play Angry]

Gotcha. I did not realize you were directly disagreeing with Carson's subsequent statements and substituting your own opinion. That was understandably the source of the confusion.

If you'd like to change the argument to whether it is politically palatable to run a conservative (not in the American political sense) Muslim for national office in the U.S. right now, I don't think you're going to get much in the way of opposition. Where I would disagree - and I may be wrong with what I'm reading into your post and apologize if this is incorrect - is the blanket disqualification of a person of any religion, race or otherwise, no matter their personal beliefs and experiences. Of course, you personally have every right to do so, but I simply disagree with it and instead would evaluate based on that individual's values and policy priorities. The likelihood of someone who was raised as a Quaker sharing my foreign policy views is probably pretty remote, but you really never know (see, Richard Nixon).

You have no more authority to say that a self-identified Muslim cannot disavow certain traditional tenets of their denomination than I do to say that a person who disagrees with aspects of Episcopal dogma is not truly an Episcopal. No religion is monolithic no matter how centralized the authority structure may be. Beliefs that get a person labeled as an apostate in Yemen or Afghanistan are acceptable in America. For example, I frequently deal with American Muslims (mostly native born) through my work whose value set is distinctly American - some of them drink alcohol, some support gay marriage, they make comments about the repugnant actions of ISIS, and so on. Others more closely align with the views of their parents who immigrated during the brain drain in the 60s, 70s and 80s. A few are Sufi, some are Shiite, and others are Sunni. An ayatollah or imam might say many of these people are not "real" Muslims, but they would very much disagree while acknowledging that their views do not match the global norms for their group. Using that same standard of exclusion would probably eliminate half (more?) of American Christians from self-identifying as such when you factor in the number of Christmas-and-Easter service folks who haven't dusted off their Bible in a decade and disagree with the Church on political issues. I'll reserve that level of judgment for someone more qualified.

I enjoy this board because I vote the same as 99% of the posters in the political forum but often completely disagree with how we arrive at the same endpoint.