Posted on 09/21/2015 5:13:09 AM PDT by Biggirl
From Jonathan Easley writing at The Hill: Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson is standing by his view that a Muslim should not be president of the United States, telling The Hill in an interview on Sunday that whoever takes the White House should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Here’s to hoping he can act against that nature until it becomes more natural.
Neither violates the constitution- both are statements of opinion by someone who is not holding political office, not actions by someone who was able to implement such. As mere statements of political opinion they are protected by the first amendment.
Swearing yourself in on a book that says it’s a good thing to lie to infidels would be ludicrous.
Further the Koran is antithetical to the principles of liberty as enunciated in the Constitution.
If he did, he would not be making any controversial remarks about islam and muslims. Because Trump certainly did not.
Carson’s not my candidate, and a mushy Colin Powell on too many issues.
But simply having Trump, Carson and Cruz willing to make straightforward statements of the obvious like this is helpful.
It is hard for a citizenry to think what is not permissible to say. And yet, the obvious sometimes must be thought.
I just want to make sure my aim is true...savvy?
:-)
How about that a majority in some Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, believe that sharia law dictating death to apostates should be enforced?
To me, once that sinks in, there’s more than enough reason not to give Islam equal respect with other “religions”.
No moslem can take the oath of office because no moslem can agree that the US Constitution is the rule of law, only Sharia is the rule of law for ALL moslems. Ipso facto no moslem can be president of the United States or hold ANY office that requires that they agree to follow the US Constitution.
All I ever needed to learn about islam I leaned on 09/12/2001. moslems are disqualified from holding almost all local, state and federal offices.
There is a Federal Legislature who is a Muslim who was sworn in on the Koran.
Look up the word "should"
Do YOU think the president "should" be sworn in on a book that is antithetical to the oath the person is taking?
Do YOU think the president "should" be sworn in on a stack of Mein Kampfs?
There’s as many kinds of muslims as there are Christians. Some very strict, some loose as can be.
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and English common law. Not Sharia law, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Mandarin, New Guinea Headhunter, etc., etc.
That’s a fact.
The fact that millions of Americans ignore, deny, or are actively working to destroy those principles is why this country(and Western Civ in general)is in such a state of decline.
Not all factions are governed by Sharia Law. It is the crudest though.
Do you think he "should" have been sworn in on a book that is antithetical to the principles of truth and liberty?,
That may be so......but our forefathers were so concerned with that exclusiveness that they added “Religious Freedom” to the Bill of Rights.
So was Brennan the CIA guy
Hmm. If you're a full-bodied moslem then you're a demonic psychopath. If you are a semi-full bodied moslem then you're a great all-round american sort of guy.
This does not make Carson any more electable than yesterday. A bit of “I can be like Trump” is nice but does not change who Carson is, weak and mean. He is not a leader.
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.