Ben Carson Is Correct About Muslims Holding Public Office

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by Tom

Isn't that the oath of office? (not to be confused with Obama, the OAF of office.)

I realize we ARE talking about the POTUS.....but just look at the fine job that muslim creep Rep in Minny, Ellison, has done. Anyone want an ASS-HAT like him running our country?

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

My crystal ball doesn't see any person who professes before hand to be a Muslim ever getting elected as the President.

Or a Mormon...
Or A Jew...or
Buddhist
Hindu
Atheist
The list is almost endless.

And after our experience with the likes of Carter and Bush 43 about the only "professed" believer with a shot would be Christian Lite.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Goren,

Even as a devout Christian, I must completely agree with this statement.

It is the very essence of separation of church and state.




Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: Will a few of you please protect me from the wrath of Boxcar that is likely on its way?

No, it's not the essence of separation of church and state. The only separation we are guaranteed is no state-imposed religion. But that's neither here or there. You are electing someone to make laws etc for this country. That person's actions and beliefs and heart and core are important, very important. That includes his religion or lack of as well as his ethics, morals and integrity.

[Marshall Bennett]

Ben Carson's not intelligent enough to know when to speak and when to shut up. Doesn't even resemble a politician, and not because he's black either.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

Ben Carson's not intelligent enough to know when to speak and when to shut up. Doesn't even resemble a politician, and not because he's black either.

I don't think intelligence is the problem. I think not understanding what is politically correct and what is not is the problem. If you are a conservative politician, you have to filter yourself and be extremely careful about how you say and word things because the left controls more of the media and they are on a seek and destroy mission at all times. There were ways to express reservations about a Muslim president that believed in Sharia Law that would have gotten his point across about the conflicts between that and our constitution without causing all hell to break loose when most people understood what he really meant to begin with.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Ben Carson is correct when he says that a Muslim has to say out right he that he puts the Constitution, the laws and duties of office over his religious beliefs. This is also true of Christians including the county clerk in Kentucky. An office holder may disagree with the law in regard to duties of his office personally and try change the laws, but until the laws are actually changed, they need to carry out their duties as proscribed by the current law.

The Constitution of the United States, Article Vi, paragraph 3.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So if the guy/gal can get the votes, swear him/her in. Hopefully the voters will have satisfied themselves as to his/her qualifications. If he/she doesn't do the job, then impeach him/her.

[Tom]

98% of the people have no clue what Ben said.
Typical. (Are you listening, Carly, you dimwit?)

But the upside to Ben is that money is flowing in to him at unprecedented rates.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

Ben Carson's not intelligent enough to know when to speak and when to shut up. Doesn't even resemble a politician, and not because he's black either.

Actually, the problem is most people are too stupid to listen to what he really said.

but, why would any sane person go on Meet The Press and be interviewed that light weight nobody host they have.Talk about your JV squad - he is the guy who picks up the jock straps in the JV squad locker room!

Chuck Todd.....really?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

98% of the people have no clue what Ben said.
Typical.

But the upside to Ben is that money is flowing in to him at unprecedented rates.

I would guess a large portion of conservatives understand and agree with him. The real question is how many people understand just how bonkers he really is?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ura#.ko1by0pla

In a speech delivered in 2012, Ben Carson said the big bang theory was part of the “fairy tales” pushed by “high-faluting scientists” as a story of creation.

Similarly, Carson, a noted creationist, said he believed the theory of evolution was encouraged by the devil.

“Now what about the big bang theory,” said Carson at speech to fellow Seventh-day Adventists titled “Celebration of Creation,” about the theory for the origin of the universe.
ation.

[lamboguy]

http://conservativevideos.com/young-...w-up-the-jews/

[Tom]

I would guess a large portion of conservatives understand and agree with him. The real question is how many people understand just how bonkers he really is?

So you think liberal would not agree that the POTUS should go by our laws and not Islam's?

And, as far as bonkers goes, HE did not just give Iran nuclear capability and billions of dollars to fund international terrorism.

Perspective, my boy, perspective.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by hcap

I would guess a large portion of conservatives understand and agree with him. The real question is how many people understand just how bonkers he really is?

You do understand, right, that there are problems with both theories?

It doesn't make someone bonkers to question scientific theories (as opposed to scientific facts), particularly when there are problems with the theories that can't be explained. I consider it smart to question instead of just accepting what is spoon fed to you.

[Marshall Bennett]

Originally Posted by hcap

I would guess a large portion of conservatives understand and agree with him. The real question is how many people understand just how bonkers he really is?

Tell me Hcap, how many times can you recall a liberal trashing another liberal politician?
I'm a conservative and I agree with you, he comes across as an idiot.

[_______]

Dr. Carson's viewpoint is one that was debated among the founders. James Madison summarized one of the objections to the constitution on exactly the same grounds. "By prohibiting religious tests (the Constitution would) open a door for Jews, Turks, and infidels".

Jefferson saw opening the door to religious minorities as a positive, the mark of our democracy's success. His 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom affirmed "that all men shall be free to profess...their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no way diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities".

Anti-Federalist Henry Abbot argued against ratification of the constitution in the North Carolina legislature stating, "Mahometans (sic) might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans". Federalist James Iredell responded that America's new experiment in democracy had "set an example to mankind...that a man might be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society."

We know that the Federalists eventually won the argument and Article VI is unambiguous in stating "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That doesn't preclude Dr. Carson from expressing his own opinion that he would not vote for a practicing Muslim. Or arguing that the election of one would not be a good result for our nation. Expressing those opinions is also protected.

I do find it interesting that this argument isn't new and seeing how little the debate has changed in 230 years.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by _______

I do find it interesting that this argument isn't new and seeing how little the debate has changed in 230 years.

I don't think Carson has any issue with the US electing people of various religions.

I think he would have an issue when/if the laws of any religion conflict with the laws of the United States. That would mean you'd have to trust that individual to willingly disobey his own religion in order to uphold the constitution. If they are willing to do so, then he would question their character.

It's similar to the kind of problem we are having with the clerk.

People are screaming that she should uphold the new law on gay marriage despite her religion, but she is refusing.

If she caves, what does that say about her religious convictions and character?

Should we refuse to elect or appoint people to positions like this when their religion conflicts with the constitution?

If you think we should no longer appoint or elect clerks that might not issue gay marriage certificates then Carson makes perfect sense when it comes to the presidency.