But this is a sticking point with me, FI presidential candidates are going to sign pledges, and influential conservatives are going to create them. Could they at least take some care with the wording so that they don;t make it so very easy for the left to take things out of context and make us look ignorant?
for example the Pledge requires “a rejection of Sharia Islam”
There is no such thing. There is Sunni Islam, Shi’ite’ Sufist, Salaafist, Wahhibist etc, but No Sharia. Sharia is the term they use for their religious laws. Using the term “Sharia Islam” makes about as much sense as “Kosher Judiasm” or “Canon Law Catholic”. A quibble perhaps but why give the other side the ammunition?
Same thing with the bit that talks about how There were more intact African-American families during Slavery than now. Why is that in there? Never mind the dubious historical accuracy, the fact is, that sort of thing is red meat to the opposition. I guarantee you, even now they are twisting this into “Michele Bachmann signed a document saying black kids were better off as slaves”
Yes that’s a total distortion of what she actually signed, but the first casualty of a political race is nuance, and She should know that.
That’s what shallow pandering get you...
It’s really worse than that, although you’re headed in the right direction. There is a fellow who was a mentor to Bachmann who has made statements like “for a while it was humane to keep slaves because life was so hard for them otherwise.” I forget the fellow’s name, but if Bachmann gets the nomination, that fellow and this pledge will be combined to do a reverse Jeremiah Wright to her, paint her, not just as a flake, but as a scary dominionist theocrat, with credentials to prove it. It’s a trap.