I ‘would not advocate that we put a Muslim in’ the White House
 

I wouldn't either to tell the truth.


Ben Carson: I ‘would not advocate that we put a Muslim in’ the White House


"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," the retired neurosurgeon said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2367295

The ruling-out of a Muslim is a religious test for office, and thus inconsistent with the constitution. Since Carson says inconsistency with constitutional values makes one unfit for the office, he's ruled himself out by his own argument.

You're late.

It's nothing to do with contitutional anything He just expressed an honest feeling he has.

With all that's going one in the world today I can honestly say I feel the same way.

:confused:

I never go into that thread, that's your private space.;)

Kinda like special onwner threads on AK, if I have no interest or nothing nice to say, there is no need to go into it.:rolleyes:

BTW

It would be nice to see you at AK more. I meen that, as you do have a wealth of TT knowledge and are always able to help someone.

Just my two cents;)

I'm not bothered by Muslims in general, fundamentalist religious zealots of any stripe however are a serious concern.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Reminiscent of the JFK days when people thought a catholic shouldn't be president, albeit.... For different reasons. .

Doubts on allegience, and the general American Protestant base distrust/ distain for the 'other'.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Though Carson didn't explain his views very well (and his views may be simply pandering to knuckle-draggers), many strict Islamists find democracy to run counter to the Koran (i.e., they object to laws made by man as opposed to those imposed by God in the Koran).

The (in)famous British Islamist, Anjem Choudary, has openly expressed his views that democracy and Islam are inherently incompatible for this very reason. Given the success of democracy is Islamic countries, he may have a point.

That said, this whole thing is a silly argument in that there is no chance that a Muslim (an athiest or a soci@list) would be elected to the Presidency any time in the foreseeable future.

Quite true with Muslim fundamentalists like the Salafists/Wahabists. Also true for Christian fundamentalists here in the U.S.
Most mainstream pious folk are fine with peaceful coexistance, the fundamentalists are a disruptive pain in the ass for the rest of us, whether Christian Dominionist, Islamic Salafist, or Hebrew fundamentalist.

During my lifetime, it has been accepted wisdom that there was no chance that a Catholic, a Jew, an African American or a woman could ever be elected to the presidency. We've had our Catholic and our African American. We may well get our woman this time around and, though we haven't had a Jewish president, we popularly elected a ticket that included a Jewish Veep.

Oh! And some would insist we've had our atheist too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...omas_Jefferson

Yes that's what I thought when I read it.

Alf Smith had to cope with this in 1928 and didn't make the cut.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

To be elected the candidate would have to publically separate his faith in Allah from Islam, i.e. remain a Muslim while discarding Islam. Anyone who could pull this off could be a great and potentially dangerous President.

Deist.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly....
Carson believes that a person elected to public office should set his faith aside to perform his public service duties and not expect others to follow their religious guidance, in this case... Shira law.

And then, we have a clerk in some backward county refusing to issue marriage certificates......

Ironic

😕

Yes, that's the prevailing opinion but it doesn't change what I said. There are indeed some who consider Jefferson to have been a Deist.

Could Carson do this himself?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Many of the founders were Deists.

Only you can change what you say. :)

Good question.

Did Carson disqualify himself?
Ben Carson: Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil - http://huff.to/1L4lQfW

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Not with the base.

Welcome to the dark ages redux.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Islam is the guidance of sharia law and governance there is no separation of "Law" "Islam" and "Governance" in the Moslem World.




The Shariʻah (literally "the path leading to the watering place") is Islamic law formed by traditional Islamic scholarship, which most Muslim groups adhere to. Shariʻah "constitutes a system of duties that are incumbent upon a Muslim by virtue of his or her religious belief

The Quran set the rights, the responsibilities and the rules for people and for societies to adhere to.

Mainstream Islamic law does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state"; the scholars function as both jurists and theologians. Currently no government conforms to Islamic economic jurisprudence, but steps have been taken to implement some of its tenets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Quite true, especially for fundamentalists. I expect there is a range of believers who can observe their tenets and still coexist in a broader environment as do Jews and Christian in general. The uncompromising fundamentalist fanatics are a pain in the rear for the rest of us.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Not one Moslem country follows any other law but Sharia. Are they all uncompromising fundamentalist fanatics then?


Sharia or sharia law is the Islamic legal system derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.

Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Adherence to sharia has served as one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Muslim faith historically. In its strictest and most historically coherent definition, sharia is considered in Islam as the infallible law of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia


Steve a western liberal mind can twist and spin this all day long but it doesn't change Islamic beliefs.

In Saudi Arabia, home base of the Wahabi, pretty much. Its looser in some other countries but it's regardless best not to test it.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Saudi Arabia has Kings....they changed a little so as they can break Sharia Laws.:rolleyes:

The wealthy may do so, the rest not so much. Sharia is for the little people I guess, gotta keep them in their place.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Outsiders otoh better mind their manners when visiting.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

We agree here:p

I would not advocate that we put a Bible thumping fairytale believer in the Whitehouse.

Dr. Ben "Unicorns and Rainbows" Carson can go sing Kumbaya by the campfire with all of his happy horseshit.

Same here.

No religious nutters, and that includes atheists.

Atheists are just as bad.

Gimmee a good old agnostic.

Why would an atheist be bad and an agnostic ok?

Most Atheists are OK.

It's the ones that make it into a religion that give me a case of the ass.

Amen!:p