Posted on 09/21/2015 12:05:21 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
Edited on 09/21/2015 3:25:31 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Admin Mod note: Title changed at source to Cruz: Carson's stance on Muslim presidents unconstitutional
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is criticizing GOP rival Ben Carson for saying that a Muslim should not be president of the United States.
At a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sunday evening, Cruz said religious convictions should have no bearing on one’s fitness for the Oval Office.
“You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am constitutionalist,” he said, according to The Des Moines Register.
“My view, listen. The president’s faith is between him and God,” the 2016 Republican White House hopeful added of President Obama. “What I’m going to focus on is his public policy record.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
It is incorrect to take Jesus' meaning to be that he does not rule over all creation or that he does not have authority over the Earth. To understand His meaning better, a look at the grammar of the preposition translated "of" is helpful. It indicates origin or source. Jesus is saying to Pilot that His Kingdom is not from the created order but superior and over the created order. Pilot gets his authority from Rome, some from the consent of the governed, others by birth, but Christ gets his authority from the a source higher and over all others, namely the Father. As the creator, sustainer of all things and as the redeemer of elect, Jesus rules over all, in perfect harmony with the Father, according to His eternal purpose by the counsel of will of God and for the glory of God.
Where in the Constitution does it say that a Muslim cannot run for President?
.
Read the article before posting!
.
“Cruz is right. No religious test.”
It must be exhilarating to be so broad minded, so open minded. Just think, you would die for somebody’s right to slit your throat if you don’t convert to his religion. Now, that is true dedication.
However, the plain context of the Constitution, as explained by the ones who wrote it, was fashioned solely in the context of Christianity. They wrote that it could only exist in the context of a Christian population. And, they didn’t think it could exist with any other people, also.
.
I’ll loan you the use of my tagline for a very nominal fee. :o)
Yeah, media attempting to stir up a feces storm, as per usual.
Cruz doesn't attack the other candidates. He's the only one practicing Reagan's 11th commandment.
Anyway there's no need for him to attack them. They all are good people who have many positive qualities and accomplishments to recommend them-But, Ted Cruz is far and away the best candidate running-This is so obvious to anyone paying attention, who has at least some understanding of what's gone wrong with our country.
He (Ted) is the person our nation needs to begin the monumental task to repair and heal it from the tremendous damage that has been inflicted by the Marxists, and their selfish, cowardly, enablers in the GOPe, who have completely abandoned their oath to uphold our Constitution, and who have surrendered us to those who would destroy us.
Ted Cruz is the man for this job.
Can't say I know him personally; I merely sought to gratify your peculiar obsession with him.
BTW on the topic of this thread you're wrong and Cruz is wrong -- Islam is not merely just another religion. It is a socio-political economic system whicj is wholly incompatible with the Founding Principles of this Republic. You cannot serve two masters.
.
Actually, I personally agree with your point, but the constitution doesn’t leave room for plural interpretation, unfortunately.
The voter is the discretionary factor as to what worldview will make it into the White House.
Does the Constitution have the power to sense worldview dangers found in Shariah Law especially if an Islamic candidate ran for president?
The article may intimate such an idea, but there is nothing in Cruz's words to support that. So you are buying into the narrative that the liberal author is trying to sell in order to stir up dissension among conservatives.
Cruz addressed one issue only - the reality that the government may not impose a religious test on candidates for office. I think Cruz strongly agrees that the VOTERS have a duty to consider the beliefs (religious and otherwise) of any candidate before choosing to vote for them.
I don’t see a rebuke here. Just facts.
There’s never been a litmus test to prevent witches, or communists, or pedophiles from running for president either. So if the question were raised, do you think a communist should be allowed to be President? ... would you answer “there is no litmus test” or would you answer “a communist has no business running this nation”. Cruz did one. Carson did the other. I love Cruz, but I have to be honest in that I prefer Carson’s response. He did it better; he intimated a better position.
________________________________
EXACTLY RIGHT!
Cruz and Carson were responding to vastly different questions.
Keep on reading.
Cruz should understand and state that Islam is not merely a religion, but it is a violent, life-encompassing system of economic/political/social control posing as a religion. It is murderous dictatorship that devours even its own. It deserves no place within our Constitution or country.
And I don't see where I said Carson said that.
I think what is going on is media manipulating a conflict/controversy where none should exist. I should have pointed that out from my very first comment on the thread.
And, it seems the media loves to foster fights and get everyone off on irrelevant sidebars.
Thanks for your reply.
Little test here:
Which religions can abide by our Second Amendment? Which religion cannot?
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.