GOP leaders in Texas consider removal of Muslim member (1 Viewer)

[TU Curmudgeon]

From ABC News

GOP leaders in Texas consider removal of Muslim member
​

Republican leaders in one of the most populous counties in Texas want to remove a party vice chairman because he's Muslim, according to emails between party leaders.

The emails delivered anonymously to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram indicate the Tarrant County GOP executive committee plans to vote Jan. 10 on whether to remove Shahid Shafi from his leadership position.

Some in the party say Shafi, a surgeon and city council member in a Fort Worth suburb, may be more loyal to Islamic law or not supportive enough of the party's pro-Israel platform.

Shafi counters that he supports American laws and the court system, and says he has no affiliation to "any terrorist organization," as some have alleged. Shafi, who became a U.S. citizen in 2009 and shortly after joined the Republican Party, says he supports the Second Amendment and has never promoted Sharia, or Islamic, law.

COMMENT:

Since it is "a known fact" that "all Muslims lie all the time" the fact that this IMMIGRANT says that he is a loyal American is all the proof that is needed to show that he is in fact a traitorous IslamoFascist Terrorist - right?

Isn't it a good thing that the Texas Constitution doesn't have any commie sections like

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
​

or such other Commie Crap in it?

​

 

[Objective Voice]

If the Texas GOP leadership goes through with this and somehow gets this man removed from his state legislative leadership position, I hope he sues the crap out of them using Art. VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution which is very similar to what's stated in the Texas Constitution you refer to above. His leadership position could very well be classified as a position of "public trust".

Most people refer to the "supreme being" as God with no name, but people from various faiths call God by a specific name based on their religion.

Muslims = Allah
Jehovah's Witness = Jehovah
Jewish Torah = Yahwey
Buddist = Buddah

They all agree there is a supreme being; they just call Him by a different name.

 

[dcsports]

If the Texas GOP leadership goes through with this and somehow gets this man removed from his state legislative leadership position, I hope he sues the crap out of them using Art. VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, to which you refer. His leadership position could very well be classified as a position of "public trust".

The article is a bit convoluted, likely to give it more pop. The discussion is removing Shahid Shafi from his position as the Tarrant County GOP party executive committee vice-chairman. This isn't 'Texas GOP leadership', and has nothing to do with state legislature. His primary elected role is as a city councilman in a suburb of Fort Worth. This is also something inferred from SOME statements on SOME emails anonymously given to a reporter at a local paper... something that always should be taken with a grain of salt.

Just to be clear, I think it's absolutely wrong for people to consider removing him (or anyone) due to their religion. However, we should pause and find out the real issue, and also not try to extend this into a bigger issue than it is. Crazy things happen in local politics.

 

[Objective Voice]

The article is a bit convoluted, likely to give it more pop. The discussion is removing Shahid Shafi from his position as the Tarrant County GOP party executive committee vice-chairman. This isn't 'Texas GOP leadership', and has nothing to do with state legislature. His primary elected role is as a city councilman in a suburb of Fort Worth. This is also something inferred from SOME statements on SOME emails anonymously given to a reporter at a local paper... something that always should be taken with a grain of salt.

Just to be clear, I think it's absolutely wrong for people to consider removing him (or anyone) due to their religion. However, we should pause and find out the real issue, and also not try to extend this into a bigger issue than it is. Crazy things happen in local politics.

Fair enough per the section in bold. However, even low-level state elected officials, i.e., county clerks, have to swear an oath to uphold their state constitution. So, the same would apply here would it not even if the position he holds is at the county/municipal level? In any case, I agree...."we should pause and find out the real issue" first.

 

[dcsports]

Fair enough per the section in bold. However, even low-level state elected officials, i.e., county clerks, have to swear an oath to uphold their state constitution. So, the same would apply here would it not even if the position he holds is at the county/municipal level? In any case, I agree...."we should pause and find out the real issue" first.

I don't know if they make a specific oath or not. And again, this is a local party office, which has it's own rules. In any case though, I would hope that any official would try to act in the best interests of his/her constituents. The issue here is why (and if) members of his own party are turning against him.

 

[Objective Voice]

I don't know if they make a specific oath or not. And again, this is a local party office, which has it's own rules. In any case though, I would hope that any official would try to act in the best interests of his/her constituents. The issue here is why (and if) members of his own party are turning against him.

Agreed.

The article makes it sound as if these Texan public officials just don't like the fact that he's a Muslim, but maybe there's something more to it (playing Devil's advocate here...). Maybe the emails eluded to in the article paint a different picture of "say one thing (in public), but do another (in private)". For these public official's sake, I hope there is something more to this than "We just don't want a Muslim on our local/county committee/board". That would be disastrous for them!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Agreed.

The article makes it sound as if these Texan public officials just don't like the fact that he's a Muslim, but maybe there's something more to it (playing Devil's advocate here...). Maybe the emails eluded to in the article paint a different picture of "say one thing (in public), but do another (in private)". For these public official's sake, I hope there is something more to this than "We just don't want a Muslim on our local/county committee/board". That would be disastrous for them!

More likely the reaction would be "Oh those lying Democrats made the whole thing up and he wasn't removed because of religion at all. Those people must have had some other reason and we'll just have to wait until they decide it is the proper time for us to know what it is before we make up our minds. I mean, maybe they did, and maybe they didn't, but they have denied it and I find their denials convincing.".