My new essay on Muslim Presidents is up at Medium.
10/1/2015 09:48:56 am
Ben Carson said he would be okay with a Muslim president if that individual swore to uphold the Constitution and denounced Sharia law. That is not really the same thing as "no Muslim for president". As student of psychology, I'm sure you are well aware of the inflammatory difference between what you addressed and what Carson actually said. (Yes, at one point, he did make the statement he did not want a Muslim for president but later clarified the statement. If you are going to use the first words out of anyone's mouth as their one and only opinion, you are just as guilty of bias as you have accused others.)
10/5/2015 09:35:09 am
Carson's "clarifications" are about as bogus as your comment.
10/7/2015 09:17:02 am
I guess you believe the first words out of anyone's mouth must be adhered to as their beliefs. Obama said I could keep my doctor—so he believed that? Hillary says a lot of things—I'll go back to the very first answer she gave on any question and use that interpretation from here on out (Oh, wait, she was against gay marriage so now she's lying about being for it, right? Thank you for clearing that up.). No sense in watching debates or seeing how the candidate developes. Their first words on a subject are all that matters. My life just got so much easier. All covered in a 2 minute sound bite. I actually thought there was reason to follow what a candidate said beyond the sound bite but you have made it clear I am wasting my time. Thank you. That makes things so much easier and requires so much less thought.
10/7/2015 11:36:38 am
Actually, what I believe is that when a person makes a statement, then claims to qualify it in a way that just repeats the original statement, then says it again, then says it again, then says it again (repeat several times), then says it in a more radical way, then seems to repudiate it without doing so, and then insists he's been saying the same thing all along, we can hold him to the common denominator of all of his comments. In this case, the common denominator of all of Carson's comments is exactly as I've described them. What Carson said is that he'd accept a Muslim president if that person repudiated Islam.
10/7/2015 11:48:40 am
Was there something to address?
10/7/2015 01:09:31 pm
Do you know how to read?
10/7/2015 01:25:39 pm
Yes, I do. Why do ask?
10/7/2015 02:41:32 pm
Because you've given ample reason to doubt it.
10/7/2015 03:04:07 pm
I was actually in advanced reading classes all the way through school. I read very well.
10/13/2015 12:29:30 am
Easy, Irfan. There's no call for that kind of insult. You're a professional academic philosopher -- not everyone on the web is going to engage you point by point in the manner we would in those old seminars.
10/14/2015 07:29:18 am
I will clarify what I wrote and my answers for Irfan:
10/30/2015 10:53:18 am
Your comment on the book of Esther is bizarre. Someone should have a problem with the Hebrews winning a war against enemies who had planned to murder them "including the children and the women"? The comparison makes no sense.
10/4/2015 09:02:19 am
Basically you're quite right. But I think many of us have a concern that Carson was echoing: someone who is religiously Muslim (as opposed to one completely assimilated) seems to have a barrier to being a loyal citizen which is far greater than a Catholic's. Would you agree that if the candidate said, I'm not actively striving to impose Sharia law in the United States, but absolutely I feel that that is what should ultimately be done instead of the Constitution and freedom of religion - would you agree that he is not qualified to be President?
10/6/2015 10:57:47 am
To answer your question, if a candidate said what you say at the end of your comment, he definitely wouldn't be qualified to be president--but in what imaginable universe would any candidate for the US Presidency say such a thing? Saying that would violate the oath of office and explicitly contradict the Constitution. The chances of such a person winning even a primary election are zero. In fact, the chances of anyone's campaigning that way are close to zero. The whole scenario is about as imaginary as the most outlandish philosophical thought-experiment.
10/30/2015 11:12:49 am
"Is pedophilia not a problem? What about the Catholic view on abortion? No problem? The Catholic view on contraception. No problem? The Catholic view on homosexuality. No problem?"
Leave a Reply.
José L. Duarte
Social Psychology, Scientific Validity, and Research Methods.