Posted on 09/21/2015 12:05:21 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
Edited on 09/21/2015 3:25:31 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Admin Mod note: Title changed at source to Cruz: Carson's stance on Muslim presidents unconstitutional
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is criticizing GOP rival Ben Carson for saying that a Muslim should not be president of the United States.
At a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sunday evening, Cruz said religious convictions should have no bearing on one’s fitness for the Oval Office.
“You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am constitutionalist,” he said, according to The Des Moines Register.
“My view, listen. The president’s faith is between him and God,” the 2016 Republican White House hopeful added of President Obama. “What I’m going to focus on is his public policy record.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
My post is BIBLICALLY CORRECT! Deal with it. I LOVE JESUS - in word AND deed! I don’t allow a candidate to pull me away from what IS Biblically CORRECT. I don’t care what office he/she is running for.
SCRIPTURE is NEVER WRONG! I don’t put ANY human before JESUS - that includes Trump, Cruz, and Carson.
If you are a Christian, shame on you for going against God’s Holy Word for a candidate!!
I believe a case can be made for Islam being both a political system and a religious system that are side-by-side. To the extent that is true, and I think it is very true, Islam would be incompatible with the constitutional republic set up by our Founders. For the same reason, I would expect a communist to attempt to undermine that republic, I would expect a muslim also to do so.
Ataturk was the exception and not the rule in Islamic history. Otherwise, you see many caliphates, and all envisioning one caliphate.
This is significantly different than Christianity, whose founder said, “My kingdom is not of this world”, and one of whose leading apostles said that God has placed government there for the good of the people (assuming good government, of course)
Then why post this headline??
Your empty-headed reaction to the lie in the headline, and subsequent argumentative defense of the error is is the turnoff.
Take a class in reading comprehension.
Damn Ted is going milk-toast power buddy on us. No mas numero uno
.
I guess it is posted because FR rules require the correct copy of the original headline to post a thread.
That is to make the search engine work.
Ok. Thanks.
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry:
.
>> “Damn Ted is going milk-toast>>>” <<
.
No, he isn’t.
Read the whole article, and forget the headline and the concern trolls here that seek to confuse people.
.
People are falling for the HEADLINE.
Actually, even Carson doesn't state that it is "unconstitutional" for a Muslim to be President just that Islam based upon Shariah Law, is inconsistent with our Constitution and that he is opposed to one serving!
They were probably state laws since such a federal law would probably be unconstitutional as you say. But it certainly didn’t hurt our country - it greatly helped and strengthened her.
Faith (spiritual/personal freedom) and political freedom go hand-in-hand which is probably the main reason we see political freedom slipping from our grasp today.
I can feel you “got” my point.
Ok.
Will we never learn??????
“We cannot set religious tests for office in our laws.”
True enough. I don’t see where Carson ever suggested that we do.
By analogy, a self-described satan worshipper has the constitutional right to try to get his name on the ballot (assuming he meets all other qualifications other than his religious beliefs), but if one of his opponents expressed his opinion that a satan worshipper should not be ELECTED President that’s perfectly okay.
He might lose all the support from the satan worshippers (and their supporters) around the nation, but he might also gain the support of many voters who happen to agree with his stance. It’s still okay for him to express his opinion on the matter.
Absolutely nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.
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.