Posted on 08/03/2015 7:37:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
"Does the Bible have authority over the Constitution?" That "gotcha" question was put to Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. The retired neurosurgeon, however, didn't fall for the bait.
NBC's Chuck Todd said it's a question from a Facebook poster by one Victor Roush, adding that it's a "simple question." "Does the Bible have authority over the constitution?"
"That is not a simple question by any stretch of the imagination," Carson, retired neurosurgeon retorted.
"I think probably what you have to do is ask a very specific question about a specific passage of the Bible and a specific portion of the Constitution," Carson added. "I don't think you can answer that question other than out of very specific contexts."
Todd left the answer there, saying, "We'll see if Mr. Roush liked that answer or not."
About the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal, Carson said, "It is perhaps the worst deal in the history of the United States."
Todd also asked Carson what he expects from the "Voters First" Republican Forum debate to be held Monday.
"Well, I hope that people will get an opportunity to see who I really am, not who other people have said that I am," Carson said. "And will have an opportunity to actually see what I think about a variety of subjects. You know, I have a tendency to be asked about medical things. And very seldom do I get asked about, you know, other types of political things that are important."
More than a dozen Republican presidential candidates are expected to take part in the debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Thursday.
During the interview, Todd referred to Carson as "the other non-politician who's been breaking through."
"I think it's a tremendous help," Carson said, about his lack of political background. "It's a tremendous aid because fewer people are talking about my lack of political experience now. And that's good because, you know, experience can come from a variety of different places. And certainly the life that you have led, you know, in my case, you know, solving complex problems, being involved in corporate America, starting a national nonprofit, you get an enormous amount of experience doing these things, particularly in solving problems. And, you know, it's an erroneous thought that only political experience is expedient."
You talkin’ about Abraham Lincoln?
Everyone KNOWS it is morally wrong to kill one's offspring. Abortion is not about choice, it is about death and killing. Everyone knows it wrong for one to take (sexually) one's neighbor. Everyone knows it is morally wrong to mock God. Yet those things are done every day. It is not because people who do these things do not know it is wrong. These are the laws written on the heart of every man, but many people become entangled by evasions and subterfuges to pursue their own lusts
In the German euthanasia programs they defined their euphemism as lebensunwerten Leben, 'Life unworthy of life'. Rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge. Natural life are those logic and rational understandings of reality associated with First Principles.
The clear vision of Natural Law is crushing to an honest person. The honest man first sees the vision of this discernment exceeds anything which he can pay. Apart from the forgiveness and assurance of that forgiveness, such payment is crushing. In the beginning it killed, and continues to kill today (those are the wages).
Excerpt:
Excerpt "Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”Is there anywhere a clearer statement of the underlying principle of the U. S. Constitution's provisions and protections for "the People's" rights and liberties?"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." - James Madison
The very foundation of the Founders' Declaration of Independence from a "government-over-people" rule to one of a people's recognition of "overruling Providence" and "people-over-government" liberty was summarized in Jefferson's, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
In our generation, do we not see that "hand of force" unmasked at the same time as that same "hand" not only is reluctant to recognize Madison's "Creator," "the Governor of the Universe," and "Universal Sovereign," or Jefferson's "the God who gave us life," but utilizes that "hand of force" to deny public discourse to include those descriptions in its "politically-correct" discourse or teaching of the youth of America?
I like Carson as a person and I see him as honest, which is important. Two major stumbling blocks for me are
1. He supported homosexual civil unions
2. He supports euthanasia in certain circumstances
Those are deal breakers for me.
What does that mean exactly? What does he believe?
Liberals love Romans 13: 1-7, because in their view it gives the government carte blanch to do as they please and Christians can’t complain about it. They conveniently forget that “authorities” are supposed to be Godly in nature; not promoting evils. There comes a time, though, when good men have to stand up to evil, even in the form of “authority”, else they be out of alignment with God. Some times God’s fire and brimstone fury comes in the form of the flesh and blood of redeemed men.
Go to Ontheissues.com and see. It says he supports allowing physician assisted death under certain circumstances.
Jesus said, Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
That said, there is nothing in the Bible that is in conflict with the Constitution, not as understood, by Christians.
He’s got to drop the “you knows.” Some minor coaching would work that out.
Huh !
I'm talking about organized religion who tortured, beat, murdered, dismembered other Christians who didn't believe in their particular faith...
RE: He’s got to drop the “you knows.” Some minor coaching would work that out.
The Millenials would love it. Especially if he uses “It’s like...” :)
"I remember a case of a prominent individual who had been in an automobile accident and was rendered a C-1 quadriplegic, which means not only was he paralyzed from the neck down, but he could not breathe without assistance. We could have made the decision to keep him alive at all costs, but through a unique system of communication that we were able to work out with him, he indicated that he wanted to die. After much debate, we yielded to his wishes and withdrew ventilator support. In the long run, I think our course of action was both compassionate and pragmatic. If we integrate compassion and logic into our decision-making processes, I am convinced that we will deal with newly emerging ethical dilemmas appropriately."
Interesting. I had never heard that before.
Thanks for the clarification. My mistake.
The original exchange was this:
“I don't recall him organizing an army to force people to follow his teachings. Or using a police state to gain compliance.”
Followed by:
“Jesus never did, but certainly some of his so-called followers did...”
For some reason A.L. came to mind.
Th constitution was written for people who already accepted the authority of the Bible. I don’t think that question would have even been considered.
1. He supported homosexual civil unions
2. He supports euthanasia in certain circumstances”
Add a third: he has badly garbled his support of the Second Amendment. A fair assessment is that he does not appreciate the concepts involved.
He has been coached up recently and is saying the right things. Still, he's a grown man and should not have waited until he reached his 40’s to become steeped in American history and constitutional principles.
He is a slender conservative and a risky choice.
People who respect the bible respect the constitution. Unfortunately we see.that people who don’t respect the bible tend not to respect the constitution.
Here’s how it should have been answered:
“Mr. Todd, when you provide me a complete transcript or video of you or any other member of the liberal media asking the same questions to the democratic candidates running for president, I will give you an answer. Until then I will answer the same softball questions you ask of those folks.”
No, it doesn't. Some may make the argument that what ever they do, it has to be followed, but as you point out, there are other instructions as well.
1 Timothy 3:1-16, Psalm 1:1-6, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Ephesians 6:10-20, Proverbs 25:26, etc all carry requirements as well.
Todd is a sanctimonious, snarky little twit.
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.