Posted on 09/21/2015 7:19:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) did not back up his fellow Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson when asked about the retired neurosurgeon's comment that Muslims should not be president of the United States.
"You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a constitutionalist," Cruz said at a Sunday taping of Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press," according to the Des Moines Register.
Carson on Sunday morning told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would "not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation." In an interview with The Hill later on Sunday, Carson stood by his remarks.
"I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country," he told The Hill. "Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution."
Although Cruz weighed in on Carson's comments, he would not criticize Donald Trump for failing to correct a town hall audience member who said President Obama is a Muslim.
"My view, listen. The president’s faith is between him and God. What I’m going to focus on is his public policy record," Cruz said when asked about Trump's comments on "Iowa Press," according to the Des Moines Register.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...
How are they going to take the oath of office?
When their religion is inconsistent with it?
Sadly, he is correct.
I think God is optional in the oath. I would not be surprised is Obama omitted that part.
If you actually read what Carson said, he didn’t say a Muslim should be barred from running. Carson just said he would not support a Muslim’s candidacy.
Cruz did not contradict anything Carson said.
Cruz avoided the gotcha questions.
The foreigner Barry Soetoro thwarted the constitution... what difference does it make now?
RE: How are they going to take the oath of office?
1) Put their hand on the Koran
2) Saying “So Help Me God” would be no problem for them.
3) Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, Taqiyya and Kitman.
These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
CONSIDER:
Qur’an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur’an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, though they should not feel that way..
Qur’an (9:3) - “...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters...” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur’an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Qur’an (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Qur’an (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Yes, he is correct; it would be unconstitutional to prohibit a muslim from being president. On the other hand, it would be stupid to elect one.
As we have found out.
I am not sure he is correct on this. The purpose of excluding "religious tests for office" was to keep from blowing apart the coalition of states each of which had official state religions that were not compatible in doctrine.
The founders eschewed doctrinaire based tests because such would favor one denomination over another, and such a thing would blow apart the coalition.
It is doubtful that Islam was even contemplated within this framework.
Much of the problem we have with Constitutional interpretation nowadays is making the spirit of the law inferior to the letter of the law, when in fact it should be the exact opposite.
I will once again point out that the US Constitution ends with a reference to Jesus and excludes the President from having to work on Sundays.
I do not accept without discussion that he is. See my previous comment.
NO ONE SAID THEY WOULD KEEP A MUSLIM FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
I wouldn’t even say sadly correct.
I like the fact that any or no religion can run for the presidency but I also like the fact that I can vote against them.
As the Don says, perhaps we already have a Muslim President
RE: NO ONE SAID THEY WOULD KEEP A MUSLIM FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
That is a clever way of side-stepping the question.
As someone posted above, how do you answer the question : SHOULD (emphasis) A MUSLIM BE PRESIDENT?
On what basis would it be unconstitutional to prohibit a Muslim from being president?
My general rule of thumb for dealing with whether or not something is constitutional was to ask myself if this argument would have worked in 1787. If it wouldn't work then, then it ought not be considered valid in the present.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Been there, done that the last seven years with a (clearing throat) non-muslim making up what he wants as he goes along, while ignoring his duties—and thumbing his nose at the American public ...
Most recently, yesterday having his security brutes throw out a group of kids suffering with cancer along with their parents using a park, with a permit, because they were in his way.
RE: Yes, but how would he answer the question “Should a muslim be president?”.
Cruz gave a partial answer to that question : “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,”
The answer then is - if a Muslim believes in Sharia Law, NO. He cannot be President.
Next question — Are there Muslims who do not believe in Sharia Law?
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.