He should have challenged the journalist as to why the question was relevant as there are no Muslim candidates running.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ben Carson: A Muslim shouldn't be elected president
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
At the risk of annoying some of my conservative friends I'm afraid that Mr. Carson is completely off base with his beliefs. Islam, when practiced as it should be, is no more dangerous than Christianity. Of course it can be taken too literally and/or perverted, as can Christianity.
I would have no problem voting for a sensible Muslim, or a sensible Christian, or a sensible Atheist, etc., etc. Sensible being the operative word. These religions basic teachings are to be of humble service to others, and love your fellow man regardless of superficial differences. Those who bastardize these teachings will never know the warm embrace of God, Allah, or any other being greater than ourselves.
I believe our founders, having much experience with religious persecution, foresaw these potential landmines and wrote language accordingly. Christianity doesn't have a lock on kindness, nor does Islam have a lock on killing in the name of God.
We would be better off without fanatics like Carson and Huckabee who like to throw around the rule of law when it suits them, and defy it when it doesn't. You also have to know when you're being set up and Ben let his religious ideology cloud his better judgment. Fanatics are like that.
Thank you. When you can post with some sense I can respect you no matter what your religious beliefs or political side is. When you have to go name bashing or making pointless statements, then it's a different story.
I'm not even a republican or democrat nor Christian or Muslim, but some of the people here just don't make any logical sense.
Where to begin with this post...First off, if/when I point out the faulty position of a leftist, don't make the assumption that I am some bible thumper right wing zealot. Secondly, your point about homosexuality would be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that they have become the most intolerant element of our society...Essentially, if you dare disagree with them, you are immediately labelled a "homophobe" or some other term of "endearment".
And if you think that we are currently living in a "democracy", then fuck it, I won't waste any more time on your idiocy.
Please, feel free to point out where I said you were a Christian zealot. Until then, stop making assumptions.
Secondly, LGBT people never said you have to agree with them, but not giving them the same rights IS homophobe. They never said you must accept them. But if you are going to outright deny them being together, that IS homophobia.
The leftist stupidity is spreading like a plague...
No worse than the rightest retardedness
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
2. now we can discuss what "pursuance thereof' means...
3. then we can discuss the tenth amendment...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]"
4. Then I can explain to you the concept of states rights... and their ability to nullify Federal Law...
Which we are seeing more and more of... for instance in California and other states with marijuana legalization.
5. in short don't be a leftist troll and talk about misconceptions of the right, if you are going to mislead about what the constitution actually says...
No misleading dude. I posted what the Constitution says. If there is a disagreement between Federal law and state law it goes to the Supreme Court. That's how it works. Care to disagree?
If not, let's leave it at that and cut that crap about whether states rights or federal law matters more.
I don't know how anyone can talk about why a Muslim might not be a good President without discussing Sharia Law. Dr. Carson is a very smart man... he understands context and history.
When he says a Muslim should not be president its not because he does not like people who have faith in God or who typically have dark skin.
WTF we have to spell it out for you leftist einsteins? Dr. Carson typically speaks from an educated perspective... you need to step it up.
Muslims live here smarty. They aren't practicing Sharia law. Why would you make an assumption of one became President, he or she would?
Carson is not speaking from an educated perspective, he's speaking from a rightest one.
that is a modification of your position. Before you acted like Federal Law always wins because its was federal law...
arguing the court gets decide is a different point.
we know the supreme court knows it grabbed power out of thin air in Marbury vs Madison and it is acutely aware of its lack of power... which is why it seems even Roberts hesitates to create a constitutional crisis.
States have rights... the court and the fed could say otherwise it would not matter...nobody really wants the feds and states to go to war on most issues... we don't need more civil wars....
which is why the feds seem to be backing down on the marijuana laws.
the people of the states have voted and nullified federal law... and the Fed is properly backing down in my opinion even though I don't smoke pot.
arguing the court gets decide is a different point.
we know the supreme court knows it grabbed power out of thin air in Marbury vs Madison and it is acutely aware of its lack of power... which is why it seems even Roberts hesitates to create a constitutional crisis.
States have rights... the court and the fed could say otherwise it would not matter...nobody really wants the feds and states to go to war on most issues... we don't need more civil wars....
which is why the feds seem to be backing down on the marijuana laws.
the people of the states have voted and nullified federal law... and the Fed is properly backing down in my opinion even though I don't smoke pot.
No misleading dude. I posted what the Constitution says. If there is a disagreement between Federal law and state law it goes to the Supreme Court. That's how it works. Care to disagree?
If not, let's leave it at that and cut that crap about whether states rights or federal law matters more.
The problem with putting muslims in positions of authority is that islam is not merely a religion, as we understand the term. It is more a system of government with religious overtones. Islam makes no distinctions between the two, they are considered one and the same. To expect a practicing muslim to put the interests of a Christian country above those of the muslim world is as foolish as the Supreme Court forcing Christians to violate their own religion by facilitating gay marriage.
To the argument, well, they don't all practice their religion, I would ask why in the world would you want someone who is disloyal to their religion running anything? How could you trust them in anything? Either they are muslim or they are not. As we have seen with Obama, old habits die hard.
To the argument, well, they don't all practice their religion, I would ask why in the world would you want someone who is disloyal to their religion running anything? How could you trust them in anything? Either they are muslim or they are not. As we have seen with Obama, old habits die hard.
A blind man could see the obvious: Todd wanted Carson to say we have a president who is a Muslim. That was the game. Why else would he have put it out there? I already said how it should have been answered. We do not have legitimate journalism in this country at this point. Mostly operatives of each party. Too bad...for the country.