Posted on 09/20/2015 6:30:31 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would not support a Muslim as President of the United States.
Responding to a question on "Meet the Press," the retired neurosurgeon said, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."
He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution.
Carson, who is near the top of several early presidential polls, said a president's faith should matter depending on what that faith is. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter," he clarified.
Carson's comments come days after another Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, did not distance himself from a questioner at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire who accused President Obama of being a foreign-born Muslim and called Muslims a "problem" in the United States. Carson said he has "no reason to doubt" that President Obama was born in the United States and is a Christian.
Many times in the past, Trump has questioned Obama's birthplace and American citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I’m saying, the intent of the Constitution is clear. Or, are you now saying we only need to follow the “spirit” of the Constitution? Cause that’s what libs always say.
I believe they should be deported from the earth.
Ok, that’s fair. But let’s be clear, the FOUNDERS did not intend for any religious test to be applied. Now, like you, I would agree most of them had never encountered a Muslim (Jefferson had, read the Koran, but he didn’t write the Constitution). I’m just saying, though, the SPIRIT of the Constitution is clear, no religious test. But I agree, I personally would be very selective as to whom I voted for.
Voters are certainly entitled to a religious test.
Personally, I would like SC justices who follow the Constitution but that isn’t likely to happen.
You think a Koran thumping Muslim would follow the constitution?
I said as a voter I will decide what is or isn't a qualifying issue to receive my vote. As a Democrat or liberal you may decide that the last person that promised you a hike in the minimum wage is the reason you are voting for someone. The constitution only states basic qualification, voters decide for who and why the cast their vote.
But they were educated men. They were well aware of the Barbary pirates and enslavement of Christians and the Crusades and all the rest and they still didn't put a religious test in the Constitution. The were also well aware of the religious wars in England and how some colonies were founded as sanctuaries for persecuted religions, tensions which still existed in the country, and still didn't put a religious test in the Constitution. So they knew what they were doing and why they put that clause in there and, as you said, the spirit of the Constitution is not to mix government and religion. So I'm not going to second guess them. If a Muslim wants to run for president then have at it. He or she will be judged by some solely on their religion, but hopefully by most based on their position on the issues.
Duh! Hey Doc, have you checked the current dude?
I would never vote for a Moslem or a Morman running for President. To me neither have Jesus Christ in His right place as the Son of God. But then I believe in the Trinity, death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
Carson is right. One only needs consider the country
of Turkey to see what a muslim president would bring.
( Or the Obama administration for that matter).
It is like saying that a Catholic should not be President at a time when the pope had just issued the Syllabus of Errors which denounced what today we would call “democratic principals” then called “republican”. They had cause. But Pius IX was not at war with the United States nor were the Catholic powers.
Let’s put the question to the media, should an orthodox Jew be president? Should a devout Catholic be?
Let the bigotry games begin.
Absolutely. BTW, it’s not a religion. It’s a world-domination ideology cleverly disguised as a religion.
and makes mohammedans unfit to live in a rational society of ordered liberty and natural rights
In other words, as you say, the Constitution was written by pretty bright people and for them not to put a religious test in there says something.
You seem to have the comprehension problem. It’s not about you or me, it’s about a presidential candidate who says he apparently doesn’t accept the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause. Now, Carson’s problem isn’t that he THINKS it, but that he has stated he is (theoretically) in contradiction of the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause. He should have shut up.
<>I’m saying, the intent of the Constitution is clear. <>
As is Article V. Over 400 applications have been submitted without congressional call to a state amendments convention.
Apparently the Founders had no problem with it. They specifically did not prohibit it. If you do, I suggest you try amending the Constitution. You won’t get far.
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.