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

[Jaskalas]

Interesting, isn't it? When its their PREFERRED fundamentalist religion that's incompatible with the Constitution, righties label it "religious freedom."

This forum needs a poll on how many people support Kim Davis. I can't believe it'd be more than a joke count.

 

[ivwshane]

That line is crossed when religion cannot separate itself from government. Islam cannot do that because Islam demands that Sharia be part and parcel of government.

What Islam can and can't do is irrelevant to the constitution. If somehow a devout Muslim became president they would have to decide what was more important to them, their religion or the constitution. If he chooses his religion and still swears an oath to the constitution but fails to actually uphold the constitution there are two other branches of government who can step in and remove them from office.
Now if the new president puts his faith aside then so long as they are upholding the constitution it doesn't matter what his religion requires him to believe.

What you don't understand is that I understand perfectly that religion isn't completely inconsistent with the constitution. After all, it was Christians that wrote our own Constitution. I also agree with you that Islam could do no such thing. Islam could never separate religion from government.

Again, religion isn't inconsistent with the constitution, it's irrelevant.

 

[Jaskalas]

Again, religion isn't inconsistent with the constitution, it's irrelevant.

Oppression is by definition antithetical to our constitution.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Again, religion isn't inconsistent with the constitution, it's irrelevant.

It is NOT irrelevant when it is Islam since Islam demands that Sharia law is implemented. That is inconsistent with the Constitution since it creates a conflict between Church and State. Anyone who continues to ignore that fact continues to lose this argument.

Why is that so hard for some to comprehend?

 

[MongGrel]

The GOP would love their own version of Sharia Law.

Elect more. Give them complete control of the Supreme Court and Congress and they would wipe their ass with the Constitution.

Fuck ya, ye haaaaaaaaa.

 

[ivwshane]

Oppression is by definition antithetical to our constitution.

Yeah and? Oppression isn't unique only to religion so I fail to see your point.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The GOP would love their own version of Sharia Law.

Elect more. Give them complete control of the Supreme Court and Congress and they would wipe their ass with the Constitution.

Fuck ya, ye haaaaaaaaa.

Please shut up with your speculative, partisan bullshit and let the adults talk here.

 

[ivwshane]

It is NOT irrelevant when it is Islam since Islam demands that Sharia law is implemented. That is inconsistent with the Constitution since it creates a conflict between Church and State. Anyone who continues to ignore that fact continues to lose this argument.

Why is that so hard for some to comprehend?

Because that's a fundamental misunderstanding on part on what sharia law is and how it relates to Muslims. It's also a failure on your part to understand how out government works as it relates to checks and balances and the duty of each branch.
If a president doesn't uphold the constitution it doesn't matter what the reasons are and we have specific ways of dealing with it.

So unless you can show me how a president who is a devout Muslim could even implement sharia law, we are right back where we started, religion is irrelevant to the constitution as it relates to the duties of the president.

http://en.islamtoday.net/node/604

Ignorance fuels hate.

 

[sandorski]

It is NOT irrelevant when it is Islam since Islam demands that Sharia law is implemented. That is inconsistent with the Constitution since it creates a conflict between Church and State. Anyone who continues to ignore that fact continues to lose this argument.

Why is that so hard for some to comprehend?

As has been said repeatedly, yes, Islam is incompatible. However, a Muslim President is compatible for the same reason that a Christian is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

As has been said repeatedly, yes, Islam is incompatible. However, a Muslim President is compatible for the same reason that a Christian is.

I have not argued at all that a Muslim president is incompatible with the Constitution. Regarding religion and presidents the only thing I have stated is that I would prefer an atheist president. Unfortunately the current religious bias in the US would never support such a thing.

 

[sandorski]

I have not argued at all that a Muslim president is incompatible with the Constitution. Regarding religion and presidents the only thing I have stated is that I would prefer an atheist president. Unfortunately the current religious bias in the US would never support such a thing.

Carson did argue that though. So he is wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Because that's a fundamental misunderstanding on part on what sharia law is and how it relates to Muslims. It's also a failure on your part to understand how out government works as it relates to checks and balances and the duty of each branch.
If a president doesn't uphold the constitution it doesn't matter what the reasons are and we have specific ways of dealing with it.

So unless you can show me how a president who is a devout Muslim could even implement sharia law, we are right back where we started, religion is irrelevant to the constitution as it relates to the duties of the president.

http://en.islamtoday.net/node/604

Ignorance fuels hate.

I don't hate Muslims. Nice try at a slam against me, but it's a complete fail. But I guess it's what desperate folks like you have to resort to try and win their arguments. Pretty pathetic.

btw, I haven't argued that a Muslim president could implement sharia law. That's an entirely different issue. I merely argued that Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, and it is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Carson did argue that though. So he is wrong.

Really? You might want to read his comments again before claiming that.

 

[ivwshane]

I have not argued at all that a Muslim president is incompatible with the Constitution. Regarding religion and presidents the only thing I have stated is that I would prefer an atheist president. Unfortunately the current religious bias in the US would never support such a thing.

If you aren't talking about a Muslim president then what are you talking about? Carson wasn't talking about Islam itself as it relates to the constitution, he was talking about a Muslim president. And he is wrong as I've already explained why.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._we_should_never_have_a_muslim_president.html

Now if we are strictly speaking about Islam by itself and how it relates to the constitution then yeah it's not consistent but neither is most religions.

 

[ivwshane]

Really? You might want to read his comments again before claiming that.

Yes he did and I linked the transcript and video for you in my previous post.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't hate Muslims. Nice try at a slam against me, but it's a complete fail. But I guess it's what desperate folks like you have to resort to try and win their arguments. Pretty pathetic.

btw, I haven't argued that a Muslim president could implement sharia law. That's an entirely different issue. I merely argued that Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, and it is.

I didn't say you hated Muslims, I simply stated that ignorance fuels hate and it's a true statement.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

If you aren't talking about a Muslim president then what are you talking about? Carson wasn't talking about Islam itself as it relates to the constitution, he was talking about a Muslim president. And he is wrong as I've already explained why.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._we_should_never_have_a_muslim_president.html

Now if we are strictly speaking about Islam by itself and how it relates to the constitution then yeah it's not consistent but neither is most religions.

Did you even read the link you just posted?

CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don't, I do not.

Of course he was talking about Islam.

When it comes to having a Muslim president he specifically said:

I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

Can you not read?

 

[ivwshane]

Just stop.

CHUCK TODD: Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?

DR. BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. 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 consistent with the constitution, no problem.

Did you even read the link you just posted?


Of course he was talking about Islam.

When it comes to having a Muslim president he specifically said:

Can you not read?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Just stop.

And? That in no way back up your claims. If anyone should stop, it is clearly you since you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

[MongGrel]

Please shut up with your speculative, partisan bullshit and let the adults talk here.

Frank Zappa - Hot Plate Heaven at the Green Hotel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjF7sgwxROQ

Another kid talking BS.

 

[ivwshane]

Ok, so when the original question was, "should a presidents faith matter", to you, that means he was really just asking about Muslim religion by itself?

Ok...my bad, I thought the adults were talking.

And? That in no way back up your claims. If anyone should stop, it is clearly you since you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

[shira]

Christian fundies in the US are free to disagree with the recent supreme court decision. Their dissent can even extend to not doing their jobs (though I know plenty of pubbies that don't agree with her actions). But the simple fact is despite the supposedly overwhelming amount of Christian fundies, or so the lefties in here would have you believe they are some kind of overwhelming force, this country still has majority support for gay rights. Let's not also forget that a large majority of this country also professes to be Christian. Therefore, a good amount of Christians also support gay rights.

Contrast that to Muslim countries where it is not just the fundies that deny gays rights, it's a large majority within Islam. In fact, there are Islamic countries that hang gays by the neck purely because of their sexual preference, have laws that persecute them, or jail them. There isn't a single Islamic country that provides equal rights to gays. Not one. If there is one I am not aware of, feel free to name it.

So when I see people in here tilting at windmills by trying to imply that Christianity is just as bad as Islam I can't help but roll my eyes. There is a difference, a rather large one. Certain people need to drop the lame comparisons. It's not even close.

Isn't it interesting that you so conveniently completely avoided the subject of abortion. Because THAT Constitutional right is routinely flouted by fundamentalist Christians in the form of laws advertised as "protecting women's health," which amounts to nothing but a pretext to close abortion clinics.

Oh, and then there's voting rights: Is it the right or the left that puts barriers in front of minorities' rights to vote, on the pretext that "the integrity of elections" is being protected?

The point is, fundamentalists Christians, and righties in general, have no problem whatsoever in engaging in actions "inconsistent with the Constitution" when they can find a pretext to get away from it.

Let me put this much more forcefully: The actions of fundamentalist Christians in government positions are MUCH more hostile to the Constitution than any potential actions by Islamic Americans.

 

[disappoint]

I don't know how to explain it, for some reason people just shut off the critical thinking portion of their brain when it comes to religion.

I know how to explain it. I'm not sure if I should, but I will for the genuinely curious, which you seem to be.

It turns out that a long time ago humans have discovered how to bypass the critical thinking portion of the mind, and go straight to the subconscious to make people believe things that are not true.

Of course this doesn't work flawlessly as some people, especially those aware of how it's done, can protect themselves from such "programming" or bypassing.

As for the details of how that is accomplished, that I'll leave as a research exercise for the reader.:ninja:

 

[trenchfoot]

Isn't it interesting that you so conveniently completely avoided the subject of abortion. Because THAT Constitutional right is routinely flouted by fundamentalist Christians in the form of laws advertised as "protecting women's health," which amounts to nothing but a pretext to close abortion clinics.

Oh, and then there's voting rights: Is it the right or the left that puts barriers in front of minorities' rights to vote, on the pretext that "the integrity of elections" is being protected?

The point is, fundamentalists Christians, and righties in general, have no problem whatsoever in engaging in actions "inconsistent with the Constitution" when they can find a pretext to get away from it.

Let me put this much more forcefully: The actions of fundamentalist Christians in government positions are MUCH more hostile to the Constitution than any potential actions by Islamic Americans.

Yep, that damn Constitution and that damn Supreme Court siding with Obamacare, and the gay rights folks and the abortionists....who'da thunk the nation's most cherished document and Bush's picks to the Court would help the enemy's cause and create the kind of panic at the RNC that it has.

Backfires have a really funny way of blowing up in people's faces in the most unexpected ways don't it?

Sometimes it just ain't fair I tell ya's.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Isn't it interesting that you so conveniently completely avoided the subject of abortion. Because THAT Constitutional right is routinely flouted by fundamentalist Christians in the form of laws advertised as "protecting women's health," which amounts to nothing but a pretext to close abortion clinics.

Oh, and then there's voting rights: Is it the right or the left that puts barriers in front of minorities' rights to vote, on the pretext that "the integrity of elections" is being protected?

The point is, fundamentalists Christians, and righties in general, have no problem whatsoever in engaging in actions "inconsistent with the Constitution" when they can find a pretext to get away from it.

Let me put this much more forcefully: The actions of fundamentalist Christians in government positions are MUCH more hostile to the Constitution than any potential actions by Islamic Americans.

/sigh

Abortion is not really any different than gay rights when it comes down to Christian support. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans are against overturning Rove v. Wade. So, like gay rights, plenty of Christians support it. Are there those who would like to overturn it? Sure. And it is within their rights to try to do so, within legal parameters.

Strange how you contrast "fundamentalist" Christians against "Islamic Americans" too. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to contrast fundamentalists of one religion against the fundies of the other? We both know that in that case there is no question which group is more hostile to...just about everything, even other Muslims who don't bend to their will.