Ben Carson

[Kung Wu]

As much as I appreciate a good vocab check, my usage was correct. Think of it as "unwittingly shows you hold a view of Sharia..." I am guessing you read it in the context of a good old fashioned double-crossing.



There is a failure of conceptual understanding here. You have repeatedly said that Muslims must "believe" in Sharia or else they are not actually Muslims. To many believers, the question "do you believe in Sharia?" would be perceived to be non-sensical since it is not something you "believe" in as a matter of faith. On the other hand, some others would understand the question in exactly the way you are presenting it.



Again, fundamental misconception. You are treating Sharia as something mostly monolithic (monolithic elements might be a better description?) that is only subject to interpretation. Believers do not necessarily interpret Sharia, their personal Sharia is already an interpretation of the values and instructions set forth in its informing sources.

Also, you are mistaken that the "liberal" Muslims support lesser influence from Sharia as a guide to their public conduct - on the other hand, they very much think it should. They just do not embrace the literal practice and enforcement of every single rule set forth in the Qur'an and related religious works.



Your view in this thread is not skepticism, it is an absolute denial that a Muslim can possess a value set that is compatible with the American Constitution. Here, however, you are saying instead that their views are "often" in conflict with laws on the books and the western way of life. Is it often? Or always? Because if it is "often," then welcome to my side of the argument over these last few pages. If it is "always," we can resume the debate. :)



The Qur'an itself is considered the direct word of God, similar to how Christians believe the Bible is the word of God divinely given to man. However, you are trying to make this formulaic in a way that does not match up with what Sharia is, as discussed above.



I would disagree with the way you explain this in relation to Sharia for reasons set forth above.

Let's instead restate this as something like "Muslims believe in the Qur'an as the word of God (analogous to Christian belief in the Bible as the word of God), and the Qu'ran tells Muslims to follow Muhammad's actions as a way to lead their lives. These actions are chronicled in texts outside of the Qur'an that are believed to be divinely inspired (by way of Muhammad's actions) but recorded by man and supplemented with man's commentary. Muslims are instructed to follow the Qur'an and these secondary texts, and it logically follows that the above cannot be renounced by Muslims." I think this captures the jist and apologize if it misinterprets your logic, but really it is not too controversial so I doubt our disagreement would amount to much.

The unstated argument from your post that follows would be that because Muslims cannot renounce the Qur'an or those secondary texts, they must believe and follow everything set forth therein. However, this thread has become a wealth of evidence that Muslims do not actually believe and practice those contents in their entirety, at least in a literal sense (as is true with Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and any other religion). So either the tens of millions of Muslims in countries that support, implement and practice relatively liberal legal codes and live their lives in accordance with those codes, despite literal commands to the contrary in their holy texts, are either not real Muslims or it is actually possible to pick and choose what is supported and literally practiced from these sources as a matter of personal faith. Evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter- people practice religion in a way that meshes with their own cultural and social mores and experiences.



Clever and insincere are intertwined very closely here. At best, you are praising intellectual dishonesty. On one hand, this is politics, so anything goes, right? On the other, if supporters are to praise Carson for such a courageous and principled stand on his original statement, then backpedaling to hide behind support of something he believes cannot actually ever occur is cowardice and deserves ridicule as well.



In the end, this comes down to an insistence by one side of the argument that 100% of individuals practicing Islam are denied the flexibility in personal belief and practice that we ascribe to other religions, Christianity or otherwise, and they should be judged on their compatibility with constitutional principles solely on religious self-identification. Evidence of service to our country, statistical evidence showing a diversity of principles and beliefs, and personal anecdotes evidencing contrary examples are discarded completely under this approach because the rule is absolute. This is a poor and often lazy system of judgment that in itself is incompatible with many principles our country holds dear.

We all know that a ton of horrible stuff goes down in the name of Islam and no sane person would defend those atrocities or the people committing them. Lumping all individuals in the same boat as a result of those actions is a popular approach because it reinforces a simplistic worldview from which we can take comfort. However, it is also factually inaccurate, overinclusive and principally flawed.

This has been a very good discussion and I will happily buy you a beer if we ever meet in person.

Man, there's a whole lot going on here. There is quite a bit of not understanding what I said, and I am not 100% sure if it's my articulation or intentional. Either way, this is too exhausting. I don't have anywhere near the extreme view you have presented.

My personal bottom line is that because of Sharia and other core tenets that often run counter to Western philosophy and civil code -- and because Muslims currently make up less than 1% of the entire nation -- the vetting that would be required to support a Muslim leader as a Presidential candidate (and therefore the vetting it would take for Americans to "trust" their sitting President) would be a distraction beyond comprehension. On the other hand, it appears that Presidential candidates can always find friendly media and practically escape vetting these days, so who knows. Also, if those demographics change, and they will, then that "problem" for Muslims slowly begins to erode.

[tropicalshox]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-political-education-of-ben-carson-090042238.html

[tropicalshox]

6 polls in a row say Carson is either tied or ahead of Trump in Iowa.

[wufan]

6 polls in a row say Carson is either tied or ahead of Trump in Iowa.

I will be quite thankful if Trump doesn't get the nominee.

[tropicalshox]

Thoughts on why Carly F's bump didn't last long? I haven't seen any analysis on that..

[pinstripers]

Neither Trump or Carson can win the election.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Neither Trump or Carson can win the election.

I'm very worried this might be true.

[Kung Wu]

Neither Trump or Carson can win the election.

I used to share your concern. But early on I didn't think Carson would ever be leading in the polls either. I think Carson could win it. He's quite likely to win a large majority of the black vote. If there is a Republican candidate that is centrist, without being a Rhino, it's him. So I think he can win independents over without alienating conservatives.

It's still far from clear who the GOP candidate will actually be though.

[tropicalshox]

I don't think Carson can come close to a large majority among blacks. The question is can he get enough to make a difference.

[Play Angry]

That is interesting - I would not consider Carson a centrist or expect him to receive a majority of the black vote (or anywhere close to it, honestly). Maybe I should reassess my views of him.

On the black vote statement - what informs your opinion on this? I remember Michael Steele still losing 75% of the black vote in Baltimore despite running an almost perfect campaign against Ben Cardin in Maryland. Is there precedent where a black conservative has flipped the demographic before?

[Dave Stalwart]

Neither Trump or Carson can win the election.

It's pretty funny really. Neither Trump nor Carson can win the election against a proud, open socialist and someone who has pretty much done more wrong than Nixon. 50 years ago, she would not be considered. In 2015, she is the frontrunner...

[Kung Wu]

That is interesting - I would not consider Carson a centrist or expect him to receive a majority of the black vote (or anywhere close to it, honestly). Maybe I should reassess my views of him.

On the black vote statement - what informs your opinion on this? I remember Michael Steele still losing 75% of the black vote in Baltimore despite running an almost perfect campaign against Ben Cardin in Maryland. Is there precedent where a black conservative has flipped the demographic before?

Concerning being a centrist: I am not saying he is a centrist -- I'm saying he is more centrist than the rest of the GOP candidates. If any of them are -- it's him. I base that on noticing that on a lot of the "red meat" topics, he does not dive right in with strong right language, and takes a much more mild approach.

Some examples:

War -- He felt the Iraq war was unnecessary. That's far removed from the average GOPer's thought process, and definitely does not tow the party line.

Environment -- He's been on record saying that protecting the environment is important and a responsibility for corporations, though does not buy into athropogenic global warming.

Immigration -- Believes in guest worker program, and not deportation.

Abortion -- Instead of beating the drum for outright ban on abortion, he says we should ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Marijuana -- The hard right still strongly argues against any marijuana. He believes in allowing it for medicinal purposes.

Economy -- Wants to cut all agencies by 10% across the board. Hard right wingers say cut social programs but leave military alone, for example.

Regarding the black vote: I used "large majority" and should not have. I do think he has the ability to win a majority of the black vote, if in a race against Hillary. I honestly think he can win a chunk of women against Hillary too (not the majority of women, but enough to make a difference).

[tropicalshox]

Clinton is very strong with blacks. Carson would be thumped. But there would still be the question if he could manage to get enough support to changed some states.

[Kung Wu]

Clinton is very strong with blacks. Carson would be thumped. But there would still be the question if he could manage to get enough support to changed some states.

Based on the numbers as they sit today, probably. I think there is plenty of time for Carson to win them over, and I think he would.

[tropicalshox]

He would have go do major changes during that time as he is not connecting on what matters to African Americans. A large majority of blacks believe police are more likely to use force against them than whites. Blacks support social programs and the affordable care act. Carson would have to change dramatically in these areas.