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

[Mike64]

I wouldn't be surprised if in private several of them didn't give a shit about religion or believe it at all.

Very possibly, but one can say that about many who profess to hold, not to mention live by, religious beliefs. (I won't go quite so far as to say "probably", because it's so hard to distinguish those who lie about their beliefs from run-of-the-mill self-righteous hypocrites.) My point is only that it'll be a very long time before this country will elect even an overt agnostic, much less atheist, no matter what their personal life history and political background are.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wut? What President in the history of the US has been an atheist? It'll be quite some time before this country's ready to elect an atheist, or even agnostic, President.

Oh, wait, you probably mean someone's an "atheist" if they don't hold what you consider to be "appropriate" religious views?

As an agnostic, I think most the folks who attend church don't actually care what they do on Sundays. Political folks do it to keep up appearances, make contacts, and raise money, but I wouldn't call many of them devout.

Am I simply being too optimistic there? Perhaps... but I don't see a whole lot of preaching and sunday servicing from our elected leaders. Few make themselves appear as members of the clergy. This is a matter of degree. I think plenty of Americans are neutral for their personal religion these days and I don't think a devout person who wants to supplant our law with their own should hold office.

 

[FerrelGeek]

There were also many Christians of that day that thought slavery was abhorrent and were actively trying to abolish it; both in the US and England.

Well, Washington's actions of being a rather large slave owner, and by many accounts a mean fuck at that. Then the fact that we had to fight the bloodiest war of our history to end a practice that he thought was morally, and using your logic "christian", good and his "right" doesn't exactly put your position in a good light.

Hell you'd think that the slaves closest to him would be the ones best taken care of but nope, they were the ones that tried their hardest to escape. How very Christ like of him..... Again, we had to fight a massive war to rid ourselves of his good and decent "Christian morals". Or do his words outweigh his good Christian actions on this particular point (edited to add), bro?


Grammar nazis, was the comma supposed to go in front of the (edited to add) or did I add the "bro" correctly?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

This thread has turned into the P&N equivalent of the Rodney King video played on a loop.

Rodney King? Wasn't that where a group of thugs, viewing themselves as THE authority, ganged up on a single person?

Sounds about right and quite often the status quo in P&N. :thumbsup:

 

[FerrelGeek]

Rodney King? Wasn't that where a group of thugs, viewing themselves as THE authority, ganged up on a single person?

Sounds about right and quite often the status quo in P&N. :thumbsup:

No, the Rodney King vid was the one where the media showed the part of the story. It showed the part where a bunch of cops were beating on Rodney. They pushed a story where it was the cops intent to beat him to death. The stupid LA prosecutor charged the cops with attempted murder. Thanks to the media not showing the whole vid where King repeatedly resisted arrest and lunged at the cops even after being tazed, which is a big danger sign indicating he could have been on a drug like PCP. The cops were certainly guilty of overdoing it and could have very easily been successfully changed with some form of assault, but the idiot prosecutor decided to go for the big prize. What most people didn't know is that the jury had only one option - convict of acquit on the charge of attempted murder; they didn't have the option of convicting on a lower charge, like some form of assault. So when the prosecution couldn't convince the jury that it was the cops intent to kill King, they voted to acquit. That's when things blew up and south central LA got trashed.

But other than that, the above does describe P&N rather well

 

[jonks]

"Hannity then said he heard Carson tempering his earlier remarks and asked the candidate whether, if there were a candidate who was a moderate Muslim who "denounced Sharia law, that denounced radical Islamists, that denounced quotes in the Quran about killing the infidels or not taking Christians and Jews for your friends, that denounced the controversial life of Muhammad, you would be open to that Muslim running for president?"

"Of course," Carson replied.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ben-carson-muslim-comments-reject-islam-213914#ixzz3mUKqaQK6
------

To reiterate, now candidates (or only Muslim candidates?) need to go through the respective holy texts governing the religion to which they claim to adhere, and denounce all the bad parts. Someone get me that blacklined Book of Numbers (or Exodus)? I have to strike out that part about stoning to death people who work on the sabbath.*

This could be fun, practically speaking. "Senator Lieberman has stated he will not implement laws calling for the execution of those who work on Saturday. I take him at his word."

*not that I claim to adhere to that religion, but Hitler wouldn't have accepted my atheism as a defense now would he.

 

[BoberFett]

"Hannity then said he heard Carson tempering his earlier remarks and asked the candidate whether, if there were a candidate who was a moderate Muslim who "denounced Sharia law, that denounced radical Islamists, that denounced quotes in the Quran about killing the infidels or not taking Christians and Jews for your friends, that denounced the controversial life of Muhammad, you would be open to that Muslim running for president?"

"Of course," Carson replied.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ben-carson-muslim-comments-reject-islam-213914#ixzz3mUKqaQK6
------

To reiterate, now candidates (or only Muslim candidates?) need to go through the respective holy texts governing the religion to which they claim to adhere, and denounce all the bad parts. Someone get me that blacklined Book of Numbers (or Exodus)? I have to strike out that part about stoning to death people who work on the sabbath.*

This could be fun, practically speaking. "Senator Lieberman has stated he will not implement laws calling for the execution of those who work on Saturday. I take him at his word."

*not that I claim to adhere to that religion, but Hitler wouldn't have accepted my atheism as a defense now would he.

Would you vote for a young-Earth, creationist Christian?

What about a Christian who believes in evolution?

Then you're already demanding that Christians go through and pick and choose what they believe from the bible. Why not apply that to Muslims?

 

[bshole]

Would you vote for a young-Earth, creationist Christian?

What about a Christian who believes in evolution?

Then you're already demanding that Christians go through and pick and choose what they believe from the bible. Why not apply that to Muslims?

Why vote for a person with any religious beliefs. It makes no sense to vote for people who still believe in obvious fairy tales. No good can come from it.

 

[jonks]

Would you vote for a young-Earth, creationist Christian?

What about a Christian who believes in evolution?

Then you're already demanding that Christians go through and pick and choose what they believe from the bible. Why not apply that to Muslims?

We don't ask presidential candidates of other faiths whether they would seek to implement ancient biblical laws of observance that directly contradict the Constitution and modern ethical mores. The same should apply to a Muslim candidate. A Jewish candidate would never be questioned on whether he or she supports stoning adulterers to death (as Leviticus commands) or whether girls who lie to their husbands about being virgins should be killed (as Deuteronomy requires). If you think a modern, moderate American Muslim candidate (as if any other type would get enough support to even consider running?) should have to forswear outdated Quranic verses, that's a double standard.

 

[BoberFett]

Why vote for a person with any religious beliefs. It makes no sense to vote for people who still believe in obvious fairy tales. No good can come from it.

I agree.

So why are people getting all over Carson? Modern "liberals" love to berate Christians and make Flying Spaghetti Monster jokes, but one bad thing about Islam and the PC Bros will be ON YOUR ASS.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I agree.

So why are people getting all over Carson? Modern "liberals" love to berate Christians and make Flying Spaghetti Monster jokes, but one bad thing about Islam and the PC Bros will be ON YOUR ASS.

Because we don't like the inherent hypocrisy in someone believing that you have to espouse Christian values to run for President but Muslims shouldn't be allowed. Most liberals vote for Christians in every election, we just don't vote for the ones that espouse certain specific views (anti-evolution, anti-gay-marriage, pro-life, whatever). If you had a Muslim candidate advocating for young Earth creationism and denying evolution, I'd certainly never vote for that person, but I wouldn't claim that simply being Muslim made him ineligible any more than being Christian makes Mike Huckabee ineligible. It's the specific policies advocated that should guide one's vote, not a blanket statement about every single member of the second largest religion in the world.

 

[HumblePie]

What I find funny is that while a majority of people in this country would never vote a Muslim into office, they almost are willing still to stone atheists if they could. It's also telling that if you go back far enough in our history, people would never have considered a Catholic as a president once, but we got JFK. We would never consider a Mormon once, but Romney ran last time for it.

Eventually a Muslim might run for office and who knows, maybe even an open atheist! That would really be the day.

 

[Pens1566]

Rodney King? Wasn't that where a group of thugs, viewing themselves as THE authority, ganged up on a single person?

Sounds about right and quite often the status quo in P&N. :thumbsup:

Yep, that's entirely the point.

I mean, I knew you were stupid, but this just proves it.

 

[Mai72]

Nobody needs to worry because we will never EVER see a muslim as president during our lifetime.

 

[Darwin333]

And?

Where did you get the impression I approved of their morals? I am merely making an observation that the founding fathers, who were raised as Christians and therefore obtained Christian principles and morals, implemented those principles and morals during the founding of this country. Whether or not their behaviors were good or bad (in historical hindsight, no less) has absolutely no bearing on that fact.

And it took us well over a century to get rid of most of those horrible "good Christian values of the time".

 

[Darwin333]

There were also many Christians of that day that thought slavery was abhorrent and were actively trying to abolish it; both in the US and England.

Good for them, truly, but I bet it had more to do with plain old human decency than it did their Christianity.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And it took us well over a century to get rid of most of those horrible "good Christian values of the time".

Dumb statement. Slavery was never solely a Christian value, it was a human value that had existed for millennia, long before the Christian religion. btw, some of the biggest slavers ever to exist were Muslims.

Oops, now I did it. I said something bad about Muslims. Time for the pile on crew to show up again.

 

[sandorski]

Dumb statement. Slavery was never solely a Christian value, it was a human value that had existed for millennia, long before the Christian religion. btw, some of the biggest slavers ever to exist were Muslims.

Oops, now I did it. I said something bad about Muslims. Time for the pile on crew to show up again.

No shit dude. Christianity and Islam adopted that value from Judaism.

 

[boomerang]

A Guide to Shariah Law vs. the Constitution

ARTICLE VI : THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”

SHARIAH: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” a1.1, UMDAT AL-*SALIK or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Sha- riah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia,” SEYED QUTB; “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” SEYED ABUL A’ALA MAUDUDI

FIRST AMENDMENT : FREEDOM OF RELIGION

CONSTITUTION: FIRST AMENDMENT: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

SHARIAH: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” QURAN 4:89 “Whoever changed his [Is- lamic] religion, then kill him,” SAHIH AL-*BUKHARI, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom. o9.14, o11.0-*o11.11, UMDAT AL-*SALIK

There's more here:

http://theshariahwaronwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Shariah_VS_Constitution.pdf

 

[Meghan54]

It's also telling that if you go back far enough in our history, people would never have considered a Catholic as a president once, but we got JFK. We would never consider a Mormon once, but Romney ran last time for it.

Heck, you go back far enough in our country's history and you get to the point in time where being a Catholic, Quaker, or Baptist would get you banned under penalty of death, like was done to Roger Williams by the Mass. Bay Colony. (Roger Williams was the founder of Rhode Island...founded because of the Christian religious intolerance of anyone not of the "proper" Christian church in other "states", like Mass. and Conn.)

 

[JD50]

I agree.

So why are people getting all over Carson? Modern "liberals" love to berate Christians and make Flying Spaghetti Monster jokes, but one bad thing about Islam and the PC Bros will be ON YOUR ASS.

Show me a Muslim Presidential candidate that has said something similar and I'll have the same criticism. Carson has said some other pretty radical things too, see his dancing around the question about the bible having authority over the constitution for example. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ben-Carson-Bible-Constitution/2015/08/02/id/665055/

Oh, he's also a creationist. How can a neurosurgeon reject science?

Although I do partially agree with you, there are a fair amount of liberals that are overly sensitive when it comes to criticizing Islam. I think if the religious fanatics in this country were devout Muslims instead of devout Christians, you'd see the criticism that you're looking for.

 

[JD50]

A Guide to Shariah Law vs. the Constitution

ARTICLE VI : THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”

SHARIAH: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” a1.1, UMDAT AL-*SALIK or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Sha- riah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia,” SEYED QUTB; “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” SEYED ABUL A’ALA MAUDUDI

FIRST AMENDMENT : FREEDOM OF RELIGION

CONSTITUTION: FIRST AMENDMENT: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

SHARIAH: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” QURAN 4:89 “Whoever changed his [Is- lamic] religion, then kill him,” SAHIH AL-*BUKHARI, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom. o9.14, o11.0-*o11.11, UMDAT AL-*SALIK

There's more here:

http://theshariahwaronwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Shariah_VS_Constitution.pdf

First Commandment - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

 

[Zorkorist]

It's quite obvious Religion has no place in Politics or Government.

Government has taken all that is good in Religion already.

Government has thought about it. And spit the bullshit out.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

I can picture bobber back in the day when black people were fighting for their civil rights, asking why so many white people are supporting the blacks and wondering where these white people are advocating for more civil rights for whites.

Liberals always fight and advocate for the oppressed or the minority and when white people become either of those they will take up their cause as well. Despite what his bubble tells him, that time isn't now.

 

[Zorkorist]

Meanwhile, blacks are in a worse place than ever.

-John