Don't read more into that than intended. Society cannot institute a religious test; that is there can be no law that prohibits people of a particular religion or sect from running or requires a person to be a particular religion or sect to run. An individual has the right to vote for or against a candidate for whatever reason they deem appropriate.
I wouldn't vote for socialist either. They represent an ideology I find contrary to the Constitution. I wouldn't vote for a Muslim who gave the appearance of supporting Sharia Law over the Constitution for the same reason.
Meh, not much variety on that poll to be honest. Also would have been nice to see typical "yes" and "no" as a control. Like "Moderate Protestant" or "Anarchist" or whatever. Though I suppose in the case of "Anarchist" one would need to question the candidates commitment to that ideology if they were actually putting themselves forward as a candidate.
Probably not, though he does say a lot of things that are, at least, skeptical of capitalism. Then again, it seems like those guys contradicted themselves at different times - which does make for interesting discussions as to what they REALLY thought.
Your religion and your stance on issues do not have to be the same. Voting against a Muslim that wants to follow sharia law because you disagree with sharia law is fine. Voting against a Muslim that has demonstrated that they have the same stance on issues as your ideal candidate is bigotry.
Voting for a Muslim simply to "prove" you're not racist is in and of itself racist and thus proves you are racist.
9-24-2015, by Asra Q. Nomani To This Secular Muslim, Ben Carson Had a Point Take it from someone who’s been fighting it her whole adult life: The sad truth is that too many Muslims want to mix mosque and state. Ben Carson’s blunt remarks about a Muslim president triggered much outrage, even after he partially walked them back. But secular Muslims like me, who reject political Islam, understood what he meant: He doesn’t want a Muslim as president who doesn’t believe in the strict secular separation of mosque and state, so that the laws of the state aren’t at all touched by sharia, or Islamic law derived from the Quran and hadith, the sayings and traditions of prophet Muhammad. Neither do we. Carson’s comments underscore a political reality in which Muslim communities, not only in far-flung theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but also in the United States, still struggle with existential questions about whether Islam is compatible with democracy and secularism. This struggle results in the very real phenomenon of “creeping sharia,” as critics in the West call it (and which some Muslims like to mock as an “Islamophobic” allegation). While the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment states the United States “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the Quran states that Allah “takes account of every single thing (72:28),” which has led to the divine mandate by leading Muslim scholars to reject secularism, or alamaniya, or the way of the “world,” derived, from the Arabic root for world, alam. In too many instances, we are seeing an erosion of those boundaries, in part led by some Muslims, increasingly using America’s spirit of religious accommodation and cultural pluralism to challenge rules that most of the rest of America accepts. Many of those incursions have been led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial self-described advocacy group for Muslims that, not surprisingly, called for Carson to step down this week. Carson wasn’t being hyperbolic in expressing concern. Globally, Muslims express deep problems with separation of mosque and state. In a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, an alarming percentage of Muslims worldwide, numbering 99 percent in Afghanistan and 45 percent in Russia, answered “favor” when asked whether they favor or oppose making sharia the law of the land. A disturbing percentage supported including sharia in family, marriage, and criminal law, including settling property disputes, deciding child custody arrangements, stoning people for adultery, and cutting off the hands of thieves. While to be sure the survey wasn’t conducted in the West, the results reveal cultural mindsets. It’s not “time to pull the plug” on Carson’s campaign for his indelicate comments on Islam, as columnist P.J. O’Rourke argues. But it is time to continue the politically incorrect but critical conversation that he started. The presidential candidate is talking against a backdrop of 9/11 and a reality in which political Islam expresses itself violently in the West and in Muslim countries from Iraq to Indonesia. To me, not acknowledging this real issue among Muslims amounts to another Carson allegation, of Muslims practicing taqiyya, or deception. Carson dared to address an explosive issue that Muslims are still struggling to resolve on issues of sharia and fiqh, a related concept, referring to Islamic jurisprudence. Not long ago, Ayad Jamal Deen, a former Iraqi parliament member and courageous intellectual and religious cleric, admitted, “In my opinion, the fiqh is more dangerous than nuclear technology.” He acknowledged that “Islam has been politicized and is used as a sword.” We would be wise to listen to advocates of secularism who have battled the forces of political Islam. In his Fox walk-back interview, Carson said, “Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.” To me, Carson’s words aren’t “anti-Muslim” either, as a Guardian headline described them. They are a realistic mirror on the challenges Muslims today face with the notion of strict secularism. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/24/to-this-secular-muslim-ben-carson-had-a-point.html
Race is a social construct with no set parameters to define it nor does it have any taxonomic significance so anybody can define 'race' how they so choose. Groups of races have varied over time suit various 'needs' which further shows that there is no set determining factors. Race was first used to refer to groups that spoke a common language. After that became defunct it was used to denote national affiliations. It wasn't until the 17th century did it start using physical traits.
Such an interpretation has many upsides. Obama is NOT the first black POTUS, because there is no black. I can become a real samurai/ninja now. ANYONE can belong to the neck of red club, not just saltine cracker lovers. #AllLivesMatter just won. Racist jokes are ok to share in church and school and work, cause there is no race. Moonshine and mullets and trailers could apply to any group of folks on the planet. Epiphany!! Thanks for sharing sir. Much happiness is in my heart.
Oh yeah? Well I hear bad things happen to those that don't capitalize! Or was that capitulate? Eh, semantics.
i capitulate to the capitalist capitalization scheme on occasion; by and large i don't find a need to.
This whole flap over Ben Carson's comments is what I would call a deliberate mis-interpretation and people trying to make a big deal out of nothing. At no time to my knowledge has he advocated Muslims should be prohibited from running for office. He only stated that he wouldn't support one unless he clearly distanced himself from Sharia Law and the objectionable tenants found within it in various Muslim nations. IMHO Islam needs to go through a similar reformation that the Christian faith went through a few centuries ago. If you recall from your history freedom of religion wasn't exactly protected in the West either. Until it does so, I view Islam as a hostile ideology wrapped around a religion. Islam as currently practiced in a large part of the world (particularly in the Middle-East) is an existential threat to Western Civilization no different than communism, Nazism or any other totalitarian 'ism'.
