I would argue that there has been an uproar over Carson's comment as well, albeit not the same as if it were Jew instead. I guess my point is if you don't like his opinion don't vote for him. He's suggested nothing that violates the constitution and is entitled to his opinion just as Guesser is.
Umm, they're not like us. In fact, they're not like any political group, religion or ideology on this planet. The more dense the Muslim population, the worse off the individual (non-Muslims).
Quick, name one Muslim country you could comfortably live in enjoying the same rights and freedoms you have here.
Newsflash: they don't exist.
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Reno says no hypotheticals but the question does raise a lot of speculation. So first I have to put the Muslim issue aside and ask where he stands on the issues we as Americans debate in here daily. Does he line up with me on the issues that matter most to me? If yes, move to the next step. Now bring the Muslim issue back in. If we are to assume a Muslim can be a conservative republican, which is a leap, then doesn't it follow he also believes in modernity? For that answer return to one of my favorite pieces ever penned by Daniel Pipes entitled, "Do You Believe In Modernity?" And using this article I can properly vet our candidate:
http://www.danielpipes.org/1322/finding-moderate-muslims-do-you-believe-in-modernity
by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
November 26, 2003
If militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution, as I often argue, how does one differentiate between these two forms of Islam?
It's a tough question, especially as concerns Muslims who live in Western countries. To understand just how tough it is, consider the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi, a prominent American figure associated with 16 Muslim organizations.
FBI spokesman Bill Carter described one of those, the American Muslim Council, as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States." The Defense Department entrusted two of them (the Islamic Society of North America and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Council) to vet Islamic chaplains for the armed forces. The State Department thought so highly of Alamoudi, it six times hired him and sent him on all-expenses-paid trips to majority-Muslim countries to carry what it called "a message of religious tolerance."
Alamoudi's admirers have publicly hailed him as a "moderate," a "liberal Muslim," and someone known "for his charitable support of battered women and a free health clinic."
But this image of moderation collapsed recently when an Alamoudi-endorsed chaplain was arrested and charged with mishandling classified material; when Alamoudi himself was arrested on charges of illegal commerce with Libya; and when Alamoudi's Palm Pilot was found to contain contact information on seven men designated by the United States government as global terrorists.
Distinguishing between real and phony moderation, obviously, is not a job for amateurs like US government officials.
The best way to discern moderation is by delving into the record - public and private, Internet and print, domestic and foreign - of an individual or institution. Such research is most productive with intellectuals, activists and imams, all of whom have a paper trail. With others, who lack a public record, it is necessary to ask questions. These need to be specific, as vague inquiries ("Is Islam a religion of peace?" "Do you condemn terrorism?") have little value, depending as they do on definitions (of peace, terrorism).
Useful questions might include:
No single reply establishes a militant Islamic disposition (plenty of non-Muslim Europeans believe the Bush administration itself carried out the 9/11 attacks); and pretence is always a possibility, but these questions offer a good start to the vexing issue of separating enemy from friend.
__________
Dec. 27, 2004 update: I have collected my writings on the topic of reformist Muslims at "Bibliography – My Writings on Moderate Islam."
Oct. 5, 2005 update: For what others have come up with to determine who is an Islamist and who is not, see "Finding Moderate Muslims - More Questions."
June 3, 2006 update: For comments on the above list of questions, see John Furedy's "Organizational vs. individual application of Pipes's list."
Sep. 6, 2004 update: A semi-comical American Muslim "leader" replied to this article and I reply to him at "Hamza Yusuf Fails My 'Test'."
Apr. 28, 2007 update: For a sarcastic application of these question to Christians, see "Daniel Pipes on How to Expose Militant Christianity."
http://www.danielpipes.org/1322/finding-moderate-muslims-do-you-believe-in-modernity
by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
November 26, 2003
If militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution, as I often argue, how does one differentiate between these two forms of Islam?
It's a tough question, especially as concerns Muslims who live in Western countries. To understand just how tough it is, consider the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi, a prominent American figure associated with 16 Muslim organizations.
FBI spokesman Bill Carter described one of those, the American Muslim Council, as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States." The Defense Department entrusted two of them (the Islamic Society of North America and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Council) to vet Islamic chaplains for the armed forces. The State Department thought so highly of Alamoudi, it six times hired him and sent him on all-expenses-paid trips to majority-Muslim countries to carry what it called "a message of religious tolerance."
Alamoudi's admirers have publicly hailed him as a "moderate," a "liberal Muslim," and someone known "for his charitable support of battered women and a free health clinic."
But this image of moderation collapsed recently when an Alamoudi-endorsed chaplain was arrested and charged with mishandling classified material; when Alamoudi himself was arrested on charges of illegal commerce with Libya; and when Alamoudi's Palm Pilot was found to contain contact information on seven men designated by the United States government as global terrorists.
Distinguishing between real and phony moderation, obviously, is not a job for amateurs like US government officials.
The best way to discern moderation is by delving into the record - public and private, Internet and print, domestic and foreign - of an individual or institution. Such research is most productive with intellectuals, activists and imams, all of whom have a paper trail. With others, who lack a public record, it is necessary to ask questions. These need to be specific, as vague inquiries ("Is Islam a religion of peace?" "Do you condemn terrorism?") have little value, depending as they do on definitions (of peace, terrorism).
Useful questions might include:
- Violence: Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida?
- Modernity: Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West?
- Secularism: Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to other religions? May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men? Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government? Should the state impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license pictures), which should give way?
- Islamic pluralism: Are Sufis and Shi'ites fully legitimate Muslims? Do you see Muslims who disagree with you as having fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?
- Self-criticism: Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings?
- Defense against militant Islam: Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)? Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?
- Goals in the West: Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?
No single reply establishes a militant Islamic disposition (plenty of non-Muslim Europeans believe the Bush administration itself carried out the 9/11 attacks); and pretence is always a possibility, but these questions offer a good start to the vexing issue of separating enemy from friend.
__________
Dec. 27, 2004 update: I have collected my writings on the topic of reformist Muslims at "Bibliography – My Writings on Moderate Islam."
Oct. 5, 2005 update: For what others have come up with to determine who is an Islamist and who is not, see "Finding Moderate Muslims - More Questions."
June 3, 2006 update: For comments on the above list of questions, see John Furedy's "Organizational vs. individual application of Pipes's list."
Sep. 6, 2004 update: A semi-comical American Muslim "leader" replied to this article and I reply to him at "Hamza Yusuf Fails My 'Test'."
Apr. 28, 2007 update: For a sarcastic application of these question to Christians, see "Daniel Pipes on How to Expose Militant Christianity."
A Muslim Republican Responds to Ben Carson
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
ListenAddDownloadEmbed
Stream m3u
Neurosurgeon and author Ben Carson speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). March 8, 2014 (Christopher Halloran/Shutterstock)
Click on the audio player above to hear the full interview.
According to the U.S. Constitution, in order for a candidate to qualify for the presidency, she or he has to be at least 35-years-old, a citizen of the United States, and has to have lived in the country for at least 14 years.
Dr. Ben Carson, a Republican presidential candidate, would add that Muslims need not apply.
As he told NBC's "Meet the Press" over the weekend, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."
Dr. Carson did go on to say that Muslims should be eligible to serve in Congress, just not the White House, adding that Islam, as a religion, is "incompatible with the Constitution." Carson's remarks came after fellow candidate Donald Trump tolerated comments made by a town hall attendee who said that "radical Muslims" are a problem in the United States and described President Obama as Muslim.
In light of such heated rhetoric, how are Muslim Republicans feeling about their party today? Randa Fahmy Hudome, a political consultant and a Muslim Republican who served as associate deputy secretary of energy in the George W. Bush Administration, weighs in.
“I think Ben Carson needs to read the Constitution,” Fahmy Hudome says. “I also think it would behoove him to read all three holy religious books and their association or non-association with our political system here in the United States.”
Republicans and Republican leaners view Muslims much more negatively than they view other religious groups, according to a July 2014 report from the Pew Research Center. But Fahmy Hudome argues to the contrary, saying that Carson is an outlier among the GOP.
“I don’t think [there’s Islamophobia] within the party,” she says. “I think you have to be very careful when you coat the party with this. There are of course people like Lindsay Graham, Chris Christie and others who have not only rebuked these comments, but in the case of Chris Christie, has appointed loyal Muslim-Americans within his administration.”
However, Fahmy Hudome acknowledges that, at least among some Americans, Islamophobia does exist. But she attributes those feelings of fear to a lack of understanding.
“I don’t believe it’s the majority of Americans,” says Fahmy Hudome. “I think a lot of education would go a long way. There is absolutely no question that 9/11 had a huge impact on this country. But, to bring the words of up of my old boss, President George W. Bush, Islam is a religion of peace.”
But Carson wasn’t really talking about September 11th or terrorism on “Meet the Press.” Rather, he seemed to suggest that Islam runs contrary to American values and principles. A stance that Fahmy Hudome fundamentally disagrees with.
“I would highly recommend for him, if he really wants to understand the religion itself, to please study the Quran,” says Fahmy Hudome. “Thomas Jefferson had a Quran, which is in the Library of Congress. Keith Ellison, [a Muslim] representative from Minnesota, was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson’s Quran. I don’t know what [Carson] is talking about with respect to the tenants of the religion.”
In addition to reading the Quran, Fahmy Hudome says that Dr. Carson should spend sometime looking at Article VI of the U.S Constitution, which states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
“I’m glad that many members in the Republican Party have rebuked his comments,” she says. “I don’t think we should’ve ignored this. I think it’s a good idea to highlight it, and to highlight it in a negative sort of way—that there is a problem here with Dr. Carson’s understanding of not only the U.S. Constitution, but also one of the great monotheistic faiths in the world. To call him out on it is absolutely the right thing to do, but I wouldn’t give it any more credence. Somehow he’s rising in the polls because of this statement.”
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
ListenAddDownloadEmbed
Stream m3u
Click on the audio player above to hear the full interview.
According to the U.S. Constitution, in order for a candidate to qualify for the presidency, she or he has to be at least 35-years-old, a citizen of the United States, and has to have lived in the country for at least 14 years.
Dr. Ben Carson, a Republican presidential candidate, would add that Muslims need not apply.
As he told NBC's "Meet the Press" over the weekend, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."
Dr. Carson did go on to say that Muslims should be eligible to serve in Congress, just not the White House, adding that Islam, as a religion, is "incompatible with the Constitution." Carson's remarks came after fellow candidate Donald Trump tolerated comments made by a town hall attendee who said that "radical Muslims" are a problem in the United States and described President Obama as Muslim.
In light of such heated rhetoric, how are Muslim Republicans feeling about their party today? Randa Fahmy Hudome, a political consultant and a Muslim Republican who served as associate deputy secretary of energy in the George W. Bush Administration, weighs in.
“I think Ben Carson needs to read the Constitution,” Fahmy Hudome says. “I also think it would behoove him to read all three holy religious books and their association or non-association with our political system here in the United States.”
Republicans and Republican leaners view Muslims much more negatively than they view other religious groups, according to a July 2014 report from the Pew Research Center. But Fahmy Hudome argues to the contrary, saying that Carson is an outlier among the GOP.
“I don’t think [there’s Islamophobia] within the party,” she says. “I think you have to be very careful when you coat the party with this. There are of course people like Lindsay Graham, Chris Christie and others who have not only rebuked these comments, but in the case of Chris Christie, has appointed loyal Muslim-Americans within his administration.”
However, Fahmy Hudome acknowledges that, at least among some Americans, Islamophobia does exist. But she attributes those feelings of fear to a lack of understanding.
“I don’t believe it’s the majority of Americans,” says Fahmy Hudome. “I think a lot of education would go a long way. There is absolutely no question that 9/11 had a huge impact on this country. But, to bring the words of up of my old boss, President George W. Bush, Islam is a religion of peace.”
But Carson wasn’t really talking about September 11th or terrorism on “Meet the Press.” Rather, he seemed to suggest that Islam runs contrary to American values and principles. A stance that Fahmy Hudome fundamentally disagrees with.
“I would highly recommend for him, if he really wants to understand the religion itself, to please study the Quran,” says Fahmy Hudome. “Thomas Jefferson had a Quran, which is in the Library of Congress. Keith Ellison, [a Muslim] representative from Minnesota, was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson’s Quran. I don’t know what [Carson] is talking about with respect to the tenants of the religion.”
In addition to reading the Quran, Fahmy Hudome says that Dr. Carson should spend sometime looking at Article VI of the U.S Constitution, which states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
“I’m glad that many members in the Republican Party have rebuked his comments,” she says. “I don’t think we should’ve ignored this. I think it’s a good idea to highlight it, and to highlight it in a negative sort of way—that there is a problem here with Dr. Carson’s understanding of not only the U.S. Constitution, but also one of the great monotheistic faiths in the world. To call him out on it is absolutely the right thing to do, but I wouldn’t give it any more credence. Somehow he’s rising in the polls because of this statement.”
I realize you're being facetious, but that doesn't really address my point.
It's not about a small group of "extreme fanatics", the fact is Islam is incompatible with Western values. Period.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule (at least some Muslims pay lip service to modernity and tolerance which you will no doubt find in some corner of the Internet) but for the vast majority of the 1.3 Muslims worldwide, they're not like us, will never be like us and don't want to be like us.
Ben Carson Doubles Down On Muslim In The White House Comments
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is standing by his comments that he wouldn’t support a Muslim in the White House.
The 2016 hopeful came under fire Sunday after he told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd he doesn’t believe Islam is compatible with the Constitution and “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
In a Facebook post Monday evening, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon doubled down on his remarks, saying unless the hypothetical Muslim candidate denounced Shira Law, he could not advocate for them serving as commander in chief.
“I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive,” Carson wrote in the post. “Know this, I meant exactly what I said.”
“Under Islamic Law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed,” he continued.
During an interview with Sean Hannity Monday, Carson clarified that if the candidate is willing to put the Constitution before his religion he would consider backing them.
Carson’s rival in the race, Donald Trump, who also recently came under fire for his own comments on Muslims, weighed in on his competitor’s remarks.
“If properly vetted – the proper people properly vetted – going through an election, I think that anybody that is able to win an election will be absolutely fine,” Trump told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren. “This is a long, tough road, Greta, I can tell you and it really is very revealing and I would have no problem with it, no.”
Follow Juliegrace Brufke on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/22/b...im-in-the-white-house-comments/#ixzz3mX5qF27y
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:aktion033
That will make heads explode.
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is standing by his comments that he wouldn’t support a Muslim in the White House.
The 2016 hopeful came under fire Sunday after he told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd he doesn’t believe Islam is compatible with the Constitution and “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
In a Facebook post Monday evening, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon doubled down on his remarks, saying unless the hypothetical Muslim candidate denounced Shira Law, he could not advocate for them serving as commander in chief.
“I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive,” Carson wrote in the post. “Know this, I meant exactly what I said.”
“Under Islamic Law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed,” he continued.
During an interview with Sean Hannity Monday, Carson clarified that if the candidate is willing to put the Constitution before his religion he would consider backing them.
Carson’s rival in the race, Donald Trump, who also recently came under fire for his own comments on Muslims, weighed in on his competitor’s remarks.
“If properly vetted – the proper people properly vetted – going through an election, I think that anybody that is able to win an election will be absolutely fine,” Trump told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren. “This is a long, tough road, Greta, I can tell you and it really is very revealing and I would have no problem with it, no.”
Follow Juliegrace Brufke on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/22/b...im-in-the-white-house-comments/#ixzz3mX5qF27y
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:aktion033
That will make heads explode.
"During an interview with Sean Hannity Monday, Carson clarified that if the candidate is willing to put the Constitution before his religion he would consider backing them"
EVERY candidate should put the Constitution over their Religion. Nice backtrack by Dr Carson, something he's all too familiar with with some of his statements so far during his campaign. But it brings up a valid point and it's one I hope EVERY Candidate is asked at some point. It's a very valid question.
EVERY candidate should put the Constitution over their Religion. Nice backtrack by Dr Carson, something he's all too familiar with with some of his statements so far during his campaign. But it brings up a valid point and it's one I hope EVERY Candidate is asked at some point. It's a very valid question.
Pro Ben Carson fundraising spikes after Muslim questioning
“We sent out an email to Carson supporters, and we’ve never had an email raise so much money so quickly — it’s unbelievable,” said John Philip Sousa IV, who chairs the 2016 Committee super PAC. “My phone has exploded over the last 48 hours — of people wanting me to pass on to Dr. Carson how much they respect his truthfulness and believe in the American system, and how absolutely not should anyone who believes in Sharia law come close to the White House. The people are on Dr. Carson’s side on this one — sorry NBC you lose.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/22/ben-carsons-fundraising-spikes-after-muslim-questi/
In an era of political correctness (left wing bullshit), people are rewarding candidates for who speak truth to power.
Exhibit A: Donald Trump
Exhibit B: Ben Carson (in this case, anyway)
“We sent out an email to Carson supporters, and we’ve never had an email raise so much money so quickly — it’s unbelievable,” said John Philip Sousa IV, who chairs the 2016 Committee super PAC. “My phone has exploded over the last 48 hours — of people wanting me to pass on to Dr. Carson how much they respect his truthfulness and believe in the American system, and how absolutely not should anyone who believes in Sharia law come close to the White House. The people are on Dr. Carson’s side on this one — sorry NBC you lose.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/22/ben-carsons-fundraising-spikes-after-muslim-questi/
In an era of political correctness (left wing bullshit), people are rewarding candidates for who speak truth to power.
Exhibit A: Donald Trump
Exhibit B: Ben Carson (in this case, anyway)
My neighborhood is the most ethnically diverse Zip Code in the US. I'd guess Muslim is the #1 Religion in the zip code, just walking around and seeing people out on the street, types of stores, Restaurants, etc. I'd guess Jewish is #2. Everyone gets along, no one bothers each other on the street because of Religion. No one has imposed Sharia Law on me.
Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence
| Episcopalian/Anglican | 32 | 57.1% |
| Congregationalist | 13 | 23.2% |
| Presbyterian | 12 | 21.4% |
| Quaker | 2 | 3.6% |
| Unitarian or Universalist | 2 | 3.6% |
| Catholic | 1 | 1.8% |
The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time...
The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin.
The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic,
and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists,
many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion.
It is unlikely that any of the signers ever contemplated the prospect of a Muslim President. It is equally
as unlikely that any of them ever had set eyes on a Muslim. So when some of these same men contemplated
the text of the Constitution & inserted "The Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office"
it certainly was inconceivable that anyone other than a christian would assume high office.
For many Muslims, however, Mr. Carson’s view reeks of racism. Demanding he withdraw from the race ranting that his
views are 'inconsistent with the United States Constitution' while those responsible for that clause would 'turn over in their
graves' at the sight of Muslims invoking the Constitution.
