Carson: Islam not consistent with Constitution; no Muslim should ever be President

[ivwshane]

If you like I can teach you to speak their languages so you can be ready for that day.....

Sure! I'll learn it after I learn to speak in tongues.

 

[Mike64]

They said similar things, broadly speaking, about Roman Catholicism when Kennedy was running for office...

So does that mean that only Protestants can be counted to ignore their religious beliefs when the shit really hits the fan? Perhaps someone should ask Queen Elizabeth II ("Defender of the Faith" and all that sort of thing..) what she thinks about the subject...

Needless to say, we've never had a Jewish President and I imagine it'll be some time before that happens...:hmm: But even that'll happen long before we elect an overt atheist and probably before an agnostic, for that matter...

 

[MongGrel]

Thou shalt not get drunk and attempt to discuss politics, religion or other serious topics, lest thou looketh like a colossal fucking moron.

Nice try, but it seems to be a futile attempt at this point.

:thumbsup:

 

[pcgeek11]

OK, but someone running to defend the Constitution should not be saying things like "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that." Absolutely would not agree with someone taking (a specific) public office based on their religion? That's unConstitutional. He has every right to say it, but it belies his understanding of the very document he's running to defend.

Maybe he shouldn't say it. However Obama seems to be pretty lax about the constitution unless it supports something he wants... Same goes for actual laws.

At least Carson is up front about his feelings. Just because he said that is how he feels doesn't mean he could do anything about it or do anything to change it...

 

[pcgeek11]

And his personal opinion was bullshit and obvious pandering to idiots. Did it work on you?

You know this how?

I'll just ignore your little personal attack.

 

[pcgeek11]

Needless to say, we've never had a Jewish President and I imagine it'll be some time before that happens...:hmm: But even that'll happen long before we elect an overt atheist and probably before an agnostic, for that matter...

That is a good thing.

 

[sandorski]

That is a good thing.

Why?

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe he shouldn't say it. However Obama seems to be pretty lax about the constitution unless it supports something he wants... Same goes for actual laws.

At least Carson is up front about his feelings. Just because he said that is how he feels doesn't mean he could do anything about it or do anything to change it...

The feelings he so honestly expressed are an anathema to the US Constitution and the principles for which it stands. Anybody who respects the Constitution and the form of government it represents would immediately dismiss Carson from any consideration as being fit to be its President. You have been dragged kicking and screaming to the point of 'maybe' because you have some basic logical integrity, but there is actually no 'maybe' about it. As long as you are going to go as far as maybe, you may as well go the whole hog and stop the BS of focusing on some ginned up equivalency from the other side.

 

[fskimospy]

The US was founded as a Christian nation and our laws are based on Christian ethics and principles. Fortunately our forefathers recognized the conflict between religion and government and made laws accordingly, all while being Christian themselves. That was a major portion of their brilliance. Also, most US residents still proclaim themselves to be Christian. I am not part of that group but I recognize who the majority are, though they likely won't be the majority in the relatively near future.

If the US was founded as a Christian nation can you explain why in 1797 the US signed a treaty explicitly stating we were not founded as a Christian nation?

 

[HomerJS]

I swear it's like an immutable law of the universe.

Islam gets insulted.

Liberals tear down Christianity.

The irony. Criticize Islam in a majority muslim country, I dare anyone. That alone gives credence to what Carson said.

Actually the irony is Republicans want religious freedom but only for Christians

 

[Jaskalas]

The feelings he so honestly expressed are an anathema to the US Constitution and the principles for which it stands.

There is nothing anathema to the US Constitution with placing the Constitution higher than religion. Of denying religion the "right" to impose upon us.

Is this very subject not the Separation of Church and State?

 

[Pens1566]

The US was founded as a Christian nation and our laws are based on Christian ethics and principles. Fortunately our forefathers recognized the conflict between religion and government and made laws accordingly, all while being Christian themselves. That was a major portion of their brilliance. Also, most US residents still proclaim themselves to be Christian. I am not part of that group but I recognize who the majority are, though they likely won't be the majority in the relatively near future.

And this is why no one will take you seriously on the topic. Back to grade school until you learn about the founding of this country.

 

[brycejones]

Actually the irony is Republicans want religious freedom but only for conservative evangelical Christians

FTFY

 

[JD50]

The US was founded as a Christian nation and our laws are based on Christian ethics and principles. Fortunately our forefathers recognized the conflict between religion and government and made laws accordingly, all while being Christian themselves. That was a major portion of their brilliance. Also, most US residents still proclaim themselves to be Christian. I am not part of that group but I recognize who the majority are, though they likely won't be the majority in the relatively near future.

False.

 

[shira]

He didn't say that he would not support the Constitution. He gave his Personal Opinion.

The only say he gets in who is elected President is the same as you One Vote.

The irony here is, of course, that he prefaces his second comment with the first one wherein he states:

"If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and [is] consistent with the Constitution, I have no problem."

I completely AGREE with that statement. But by saying that Muslims - blanket statement - should not be President, he is demonstrating that he himself has beliefs that are INCONSISTENT with the "values and principles of America."

In other words, Carson is hoist by his own petard: He is UNFIT TO BE PRESIDENT.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

If the US was founded as a Christian nation can you explain why in 1797 the US signed a treaty explicitly stating we were not founded as a Christian nation?

It was done to appease the Muslims. There is also some contention whether the phrase even appeared in the Arabic version of the treaty. Also, that treaty was superseded in 1805 by a new treaty in which that phrase was omitted.

Any other questions?

Some people seem to confuse the separation of Church and State with the separation of religion and State. 'Ooh, but the US is a secular nation!' Our founding fathers recognized that a state religion was never a good thing. That doesn't imply that Christian principles - and nearly every founding father was a Christian - and rather devout ones by today's standards, didn't have a major impact on the founding of this country. It would take an absolute slobbering moron to believe otherwise and, apparently, there are a few of those in here.

 

[shira]

Maybe he shouldn't say it. However Obama seems to be pretty lax about the constitution unless it supports something he wants... Same goes for actual laws.

At least Carson is up front about his feelings. Just because he said that is how he feels doesn't mean he could do anything about it or do anything to change it...

But by saying what he said, he is revealing that his own values are inconsistent with the Constitution. By his own standard, he is unfit to be President.

 

[fskimospy]

It was done to appease the Muslims. There is also some contention whether the phrase even appeared in the Arabic version of the treaty. Also, that treaty was superseded in 1805 by a new treaty in which that phrase was omitted.

So it was done to appease the Muslims and then not shown to them? Additionally, why does it matter if it was in the Arabic version or not? It was in the version that was approved unanimously by Congress and the President. (the President being a founding father of course, and Congress having several of them in it if I remember correctly)

I also don't know why it being omitted in a future treaty is relevant.

Any other questions?

Yes, how do you square your opinion that the country was founded as a Christian nation with that nation explicitly stating it was not founded as a Christian nation?

Some people seem to confuse the separation of Church and State with the separation of religion and State. 'Ooh, but the US is a secular nation!' Our founding fathers recognized that a state religion was never a good thing. That doesn't imply that Christian principles - and nearly every founding father was a Christian - and rather devout ones by today's standards, didn't have a major impact on the founding of this country. It would take an absolute slobbering moron to believe otherwise and, apparently, there are a few of those in here.

I don't see anyone saying Christianity didn't influence the country, I see people saying that the US was not founded as a Christian nation, because it wasn't. In fact, we went out of our way to avoid doing that.

 

[shira]

There is nothing anathema to the US Constitution with placing the Constitution higher than religion. Of denying religion the "right" to impose upon us.

Is this very subject not the Separation of Church and State?

But he did NOT say that someone who places their own religious beliefs above the Constitution shouldn't be President. He said that ANYONE who is of a particular religion (Islam) - regardless of their personal beliefs regarding Islam and the U.S. Constitution - should not be President.

And the double-irony here is that these righties fall all over each other defending the right of a Kim Davis to put her personal religious views ABOVE the Constitution. In case you have forgotten, the meaning of the Constitution is what the SCOTUS tells us it means.

So, on the one hand, ALL Muslims are by definition unqualified to be President because SOME Muslims would place Sharia law above the Constitution. But ANY Christian who has a personal belief that is at odds with the Constitution should be allowed to violate the Constitution.

Does it get an loonier than that?

 

[BoberFett]

This, "no religious test" is pretty clear. I'll just point out that Christianity is also not consistent with the US Constitution. Yet Christians become President all the time.

And we all know how well that's working out...

 

[Jaskalas]

But he did NOT say that someone who places their own religious beliefs above the Constitution shouldn't be President. He said that ANYONE who is of a particular religion (Islam) - regardless of their personal beliefs regarding Islam and the U.S. Constitution - should not be President.

Direct quote from the video: "...depends on WHO that Muslim is and what their policies are...". Coupled with the first line he said regarding the Presidency and he's clearly trying to add qualifies to it.

And given the state of Islam in the world today, who would vote for a Muslim? They'd have to be more Atheist than anything, much like every other President in recent history. I wouldn't vote for a devout Muslim, and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Kim Davis.

 

[shira]

Direct quote from the video: "...depends on WHO that Muslim is and what their policies are...". Coupled with the first line he said regarding the Presidency and he's clearly trying to add qualifies to it.

And given the state of Islam in the world today, who would vote for a Muslim? They'd have to be more Atheist than anything, much like every other President in recent history. I wouldn't vote for a devout Muslim, and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Kim Dickens.

The quote you refer to was Carson's view on whether it's acceptable for members of Congress to be Muslim. This thread - check the title - focuses on his statement about the Presidency.

 

[ivwshane]

But he did NOT say that someone who places their own religious beliefs above the Constitution shouldn't be President. He said that ANYONE who is of a particular religion (Islam) - regardless of their personal beliefs regarding Islam and the U.S. Constitution - should not be President.

And the double-irony here is that these righties fall all over each other defending the right of a Kim Davis to put her personal religious views ABOVE the Constitution. In case you have forgotten, the meaning of the Constitution is what the SCOTUS tells us it means.

So, on the one hand, ALL Muslims are by definition unqualified to be President because SOME Muslims would place Sharia law above the Constitution. But ANY Christian who has a personal belief that is at odds with the Constitution should be allowed to violate the Constitution.

Does it get an loonier than that?

Loony? Irony? Hypocrisy? Call it what you will but righties are incapable of seeing it.

 

[khon]

I don't agree with Carson at all, and ironically he is the one who is not consistent with the constitution, which clearly states that there shall be no religious test to hold office.

However, I am surprised none of the candidates said this earlier, because it is clearly going to be a big hit with the Republican base. Not only did he slam muslims, he also gets to stand up to the "mainstream media", and look strong doing so. He'll get a bump in the polls for this.

 

[bshole]

I would expand that to anybody who believes Noah's Ark myth actually occurred probably lacks the brain cells and judgement to hold down the position of president of the United States.