Posted on 09/20/2015 6:30:31 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would not support a Muslim as President of the United States.
Responding to a question on "Meet the Press," the retired neurosurgeon said, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."
He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution.
Carson, who is near the top of several early presidential polls, said a president's faith should matter depending on what that faith is. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter," he clarified.
Carson's comments come days after another Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, did not distance himself from a questioner at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire who accused President Obama of being a foreign-born Muslim and called Muslims a "problem" in the United States. Carson said he has "no reason to doubt" that President Obama was born in the United States and is a Christian.
Many times in the past, Trump has questioned Obama's birthplace and American citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Personally, I don’t think Communists, Atheists, Moslems, Cthulhu Cultists, Ba’al or Moloch worshippers, or worshippers of Aztec gods should be President, but I would never present the argument against them in that fashion.
There is an article in the Constitution that prevents the government from considering the religion of a candidate, and there is the First Amendment which protects Freedom of Religion.
I would limit my arguments to the candidates platform and to any personal issues he might have that make him less suitable.
Obma is an Indonesian muslim.
H. L. Mencken
-PJ
On Monday, September 21, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, will hold a news conference at its Capitol Hill headquarters to call on Republican candidate Ben Carson to withdraw from the presidential race for saying today that Islam is "inconsistent" with the Constitution and that a Muslim should not be elected president. *snip* "Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which clearly states that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,'" said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
A few brave souls are willing to tell the truth and are not intimidated by political correctness - we all need to speak out.
The United States Supreme Court says that the Bible has to be used and taught in schools!
And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such men by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college - its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay teachers? Certainly there is nothing in the will that proscribes such studies. Above all, the testator positively enjoins, “that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that on their entrance into active life they may from inclination and habit evince benevolence towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.”
Now, it may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of Christianity? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more?
Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume?...
It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of Judaism, or Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country; and therefore it must be made out be clear and indisputable proof. Remote inferences, or possible results, or speculative tendencies are not to be drawn or adopted for such purposes. There must be plain, positive, and express provision, demonstrating not only that Christianity is not to be taught; but that it is to be impugned or repudiated.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/43/127/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U.S. 2 How. 127 127
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
We need a Constitutional requirement that Muslims not hold office in our Christian republic. I would prefer they not be allowed in. Their “faith” is antithetical to our founding principles.
The problem here is larger.
The bible never got put as a general morality manual apart from the specific loving care of God for all souls. That is WHY it is so pure and intense and even apparently impractical at parts, otherwise we might more reasonably expect to see something that looks like the analects of Confucius, a practical worldly reality that gives respect but no real devotion to the divine.
Christians are going to need to get busy on their knees (so to speak) and replenish the supply of the actual salt, which is the presence of the invisible (but tangible) Christ. We can’t argue shade into a situation where the umbrella has blown away and there is now only scorching desert sun.
First things first. We need to see the love of God subscribed to again so the merits of a Christian worldview are actually manifested. And that means prayerful evangelism which cannot absolutely presume its outcome.
I appreciate what you are saying...
But I personally need to have that solid foundation of where we have been so I can be assured that I am making the right and strong decisions for Christ, family, and country. As a Christian nation, maybe post-Christian, I believe others may also need that. Some will need it, and some won’t. Some wont appreciate the shades and subtleties, and some will. I hope you will bear with me and accept this for myself and others.
LEX REX
It’s folks like you that have Trump leading in the polls. Carson didn’t I said that a Muslim could run for president. You are being purposefully obtuse. He said that he thinks that they shouldn’t be elected, nor do I. I decide who I vote for and why I vote for them.
Has anyone suggested that Dr. Carson might apologize?
I saw a post that confirmed the fact that religion plays no part in eligibility according to the Constitution. That is the way religion should be treated. On the other hand, there may be many other characteristics that we may find off-putting about a candidate.
Right now, an apology may be off-putting.
Seems Lindsey Graham asked him to apologize. I could be wrong.
Well, Graham is really off-putting.
Dr. Carson should just explain what he meant without apologizing. But who am I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.