Posted on 09/23/2015 7:29:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[SNIP]
Ben Carson is right. So says Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar who said in 2009 that democracy and Islam are like matter and anti-matter in physics:
Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues….
In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ.
This is self-evident in the fact that Islamic theocracy rules throughout the Islamic world, crushing human rights such as those delineated in our Bill of Rights. In some “secular” states like Turkey and Egypt, democracy is tolerated for Western acceptance, but trying telling a Coptic Christian in Egypt, for example, about the freedom of religion or try imposing aa government dictate contrary to Islam, the way ObamaCare imposes on pro-life Christians, on Muslims. Under Islam and Shari Law, there is no freedom of religion or speech and equal rights are forbidden to women and non-Muslims. If you should convert to Christianity, you have signed your death warrant.
As Islamic expert Robert Spencer notes in FrontPage Magazine:
In January 2013, the Saudi Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak declared: “Electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam as it has been introduced by the enemies of Moslems.” The idea of popular elections, he said, “has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”…
Tunisian author Salem Ben Ammar wrote last month: “‘To hell with democracy! Long live Islam!’ One hundred percent of Muslims agree with that. To say anything else is apostasy from Islam. These two competing political systems are antithetical to each other.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Of course he is right... The bankrupt ideology on the left is what is wrong in this regard.... The correct response to a liberal who questions if you would support an Islamist for President is “Would you support a NAZI?
Islam has been incompatible with civilized society since the beginning of recorded History, and always will be. It is NOT a Religion, it is a complete political ideology wrapped around death and violence
Any theocratic entity that will ‘bear whiz’ on The Bill of Rights ain’t one I would support.
Happy oktoberfest to y’all, and eat all the schweine fleish you can!
Carson is right. We need to stop calling Islam a religion and call it what it is a political ideology. Islam is not compatible with Democracy or Christianity.
Absolutely, I’ve been saying it for years, izlam is a social, political, and militaristic legal system hiding beneath a thin veneer of religiosity. So glad that someone with a national microphone is starting to speak the truth.
FR has been saying this for as long as obama has been on the scene and we discerned his real self
In addition to religious totalitarians, secular totalitarians (national socialists) are also incompatible with the constitution.
Enemies foreign, enemies domestic.
Anti-federalist: Brutus #1...
If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.
How far the clause in the 8th section of the 1st article may operate to do away all idea of confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite [indefinite?], and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. Suppose the legislature of a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt, may the Congress repeal this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme lay of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the different states to the contrary notwithstanding. — By such a law, the government of a particular state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.
It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the constitution would warrant a law of this kind; or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting, that the federal legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the constitution, than that of an individual state, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.
Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question then will be, whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?
It may be incompatible with The Constitution, but it will take decades to undo the damage it has already done within our government — from the influences of the likes of Vallery Jarrett and Huma Abedin and John Kerry (his daughter is married to an Iranian), etc.
As more ME oil money pours into the coffers of politicians and the like, the influence may be permanent.
Que all the people who want to point to the "religious test" clause, and assert it was always intended to apply to Muslims rather than explicitly Christian doctrinaire disputes.
ping
NO Muslim POTUS EVER! Not after what we’ve learned about them, Islam and the Quran. ANY sitting POTUS who converts to Islam should be impeached.
I admire Carson for having the guts to tell dumbed down Americans the truth about Islam. Bravo Ben!
But while I’m sure he is a decent man, I just don’t think he is presidential material.
The assertion that the founder's intended the "no religious test" clause to actually allow for any religion to serve in government is either factually wrong, or intellectually wrong.
It is an idea that must be rejected. Islam is not compatible with a Republic.
“It is an idea that must be rejected. Islam is not compatible with a Republic.”
Amen.
Islam is incompatible with Western culture.
So what does Carson intend to do about the Muslim problem?
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.