Daniel Larison points out the strangeness of Ben Carson's statements on Muslims' fitness for public office:
Ben Carson said some objectionable things yesterday about Muslims, but I thought this defense of his position was by far the strangest one he could offer:One of his commenters followed up by asking:Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.I say this is the strangest defense he could offer because it is extremely easy to imagine this same argument being deployed against Carson–or any religious conservative–in exactly the same way. A significant part of Carson’s support comes from evangelicals, his public rhetoric is full of expressions of his religious faith, he invokes Scripture when talking about policy, and I suspect he would be among the first to condemn attempts to drive Christian teachings out of the public square. More than most of his competitors, Carson would presumably affirm that Christianity ought to be “very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official” and he would object to the idea that it be kept strictly separate from political life. Indeed, many Christian conservatives are rallying behind him because of this.
Did Carson just throw Kim Davis under a bus?
(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-21 07:07 pm (UTC)o.O
Date: 2015-09-21 07:10 pm (UTC)wow.
and how does Carson feel about saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? and that money thing, the whole "In God We Trust"?
his public rhetoric is full of expressions of his religious faith, he invokes Scripture when talking about policy, and I suspect he would be among the first to condemn attempts to drive Christian teachings out of the public square.
oh...
well, that clears that up. he's just a hypocrite. ok...
(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-21 07:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-21 07:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-21 07:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-21 07:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-21 09:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-23 12:28 pm (UTC)This ought not surprise me, really... I mean, that's how unmarked cases work. White people don't have a race, straight people don't have a sexual orientation, men don't have a gender, USians don't have an ethnicity, middle-class folk don't have an economic class, and so forth.
Still, I find myself expecting U.S. Protestants to support religious freedom out of self-interest, and surprised when they don't.
(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-24 02:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-24 07:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-26 02:31 am (UTC)Probably not...
Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.
I'd hazard that correctly interpreted, he means "Islam being very much a part of someone's public life is inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution." which does not imply that Christianity being part of someone's public life is inconsistent with our principles and Constitution. As someone says above, the majority group isn't an alternative value of some property. Actually, it's stronger than that: Christianity isn't even in the same category as other faiths, and it's not part of Carson's principles that other religions are to be expressed in public life.
(no subject)
Date: 2015-09-27 07:20 am (UTC)