Cruz rebukes Carson for comments about Muslim president [Original title]

The Hill ^ | 9/21/15 | Mark Hensch

[BlatherNaut]

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.”

[so_real]

Cruz and Carson were responding to vastly different questions. Keep on reading.

You are mistaken. Completely. If you do more than just read (perhaps watch the question being asked on YouTube) you would know that Cruz was asked to speak specifically and unambiguously toward Carson's assertion that a muslim is not qualified to be President. Not vastly different questions at all. He was simply asked to agree or disagree, and he chose to do neither. He dodged and offered no support to Carson. That intimates complacency. And though I do not at all believe Cruz is complacent, that is where he left the viewers of this interview, and Carson's response was far superior.

[Durus]

You don’t want to take issue with Cruz concerning the constitution.

Article VI, paragraph 3

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your elaboration and link to the actual event.

I'm gonna give you this one, but just barely.. :)

I sincerely appreciated Carson's response more.

Until you get to him saying Congress is different, I could maybe. (At that point, he mirrors what Cruz said, but muddles it.) Overall, I still prefer Cruz's response, it gets the debate back to where it needs to be - and off the media's strong desire to avoid the real problem liberals have with what most American's support.

I trust that Cruz is an opponent to the islamification of the nation; but you would not know it from his answer to that question.

I definitely disagree with that. The clip cuts off but starts in on Zero's atrocious policies toward Christians. And, we would err if we were not clear on Cruz's opposition to this.

But, with these (few) caveats, I'll give you this one. :)

Thanks for your reply.

[xzins]

He should have said, “Americans can vote for whomever they wish.”

[CatherineofAragon]

I guess he figured that was already a given fact.

[so_real]

In the big picture, my FRiend, we are absolutely on the same team and Ted Cruz is in the trenches with us. This little controversy the Hill ginned up is a pebble on the sidewalk. I'll happily vote for Cruz. I have just really appreciated Carson (and to some degree Trump) putting the smack down on the cult called islam. I think adopting a similar strategy would help Cruz more than hurt him. But, I reckon, that strategy is Cruz's call and I'll agree to disagree with it even as I pull the lever for him. All the best to you.

[D-fendr]

Here's the full interview w/Carson.

The relevant part is around 7:50.

As it goes on, I think you'll see he walks back a bit and muddles what you would think ( or what I think you would think) is his stronger reply. He basically repeats Cruz's position - depends on their policies.

We likely both would agree that "Candidate X doesn't advocate a Muslim President" should be a basic requirement - in a sane world.

[xzins]

In this context, though, it would have been understood as deeper than that. The same as his answer about Obama’s religion: “that’s between him and God.”

[cynwoody]

“You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am constitutionalist,” [Cruz] said, according to The Des Moines Register.

Cruz is right. So is Carson.

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a Muslim from running. But a Muslim should never be elected, because, as Carson pointed out, Islam is inconsistent with the Constitution and with how we live in America.

Of course, a guy who is at the very least a Muslim sympathizer has already been elected twice. It all comes down to the sheeple's judgement.

[D-fendr]

All the best to you.

And my best to you and yours...

[editor-surveyor]

You just proved my point!

They asked Cruz about Carson, not what they asked Carson.

He had no reason to even say Carson’s name, but they wanted to create a schism that didn’t exist.

They definitely did not ask Cruz if a muzzie was qualified to hold office, and he is way smarter than they, and doesn’t walk into traps and gotcha questions.

Carson, on the other hand dove head first into gotcha land to their delight.

Answering their questions is almost always foolhardy.

They hooked you into thinking that there was any cause for Cruz to justify or validate Carson’s opinion. There was not.

Every thing they ask is a snare. Carson chose to pander to his constituency, but there was no need to do so; they already knew his beliefs.

Carson will learn, eventually, what Cruz already knows.

Don’t be a concern troll, we have too many of them already.
.

[ColdSteelTalon]

If a person is a true Muslim (in other words follows the Koran to the letter) they should never be president because they will undermine the Constitution but trying to install Sharia law.

Now if by chance they are the "kind of Muslim" that will defer to the Constitution in other words uphold and defend it (regardless of their religious beliefs) then it might be possible.

But the key point here is that a person who swears to uphold and defend the Constitution has to do so in a manner not always in agreement with their religious beliefs. The law of a secular state supersedes any religious law. This is especially so in the United States

[so_real]

I'm quite certain I did not prove your point. Still Cruz is entirely worthy of your "defense" as well as my "concern" as we offer it.

[Jim W N]

Cruz and you are right a far as U.S. officer eligibility. The intent was to keep government from establishing a national church like the Church of England. But the intent was never to exclude christian practice in government which is the extreme swing to the Left we have today. I think Cruz would agree with that also, at least I hope he would.

But states did have such laws and churches were places of political debate and where pastors talked to their flock about godly matters concerning political candidates. All healthy and constitutional.

The conventional wisdom about “separation of church and state” is patently unconstitutional. The monuments in D.C. and around the country testify against such heresy and in favor of the need for Christian influence in government.

[Jim W N]

However, I have to add something here.

Who is this eligibility test aimed at? As with the bulk of the Constitution, it is aimed squarely at the feds. It is the FEDS who are prohibited from such religious requirements (again with the intent of avoiding a national church like the Church of England).

It is certainly NOT a prohibition for states and individuals to speak out about religious preferences which is exactly what they did for about 150 years in America and Christianity prevailed in our free country.

Carson was set up by a stupid and totally irrelevant MSM question that had nothing to do with the situation at hand - no Muslim is vying for President. He should have dismissed it as irrelevant and moved on to the next question.

But if that question ever has to be tackled, the best way IMO is to deal with the adherence to Sharia Law which is against the Constitution. Any Muslim who wanted a U.S. office would need to be examined as far as his required loyalty to the Constitution and his suspension of Sharia Law.

IMO, for that reason, unless there’s such a thing as Muslims who don’t believe in Sharia Law, a Muslim should not be elected to office. Although banning Muslims per se from U.S office should not be a U.S. law, the oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and can and should be used if necessary to prohibit a Muslim from U.S. office.

[Mears]

This is the headline that I saw.

---

“Cruz: Carson’s stance on Muslim presidents unconstitutional”

.

[Dick Bachert]

Wanna clarify that very cryptic comment?

[Dick Bachert]

I suspect Eric Bolling of FNN's “The Five” has been called "upstairs" at FNN for a stern talking to about his comments defending Ben Carson's remark that Carson could never support a muslim candidate for the presidency. (How about ANY office?)

Eric is correct, but one "chink" in his comment is that muslims are allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- by their so-called "holy book" to practice "taqiya". What is that? Here's Wiki's definition:

"In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation (LYING), or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, especially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution."

“Persecution”? Most of the heads rolling around “over there” once belonged to NON-muslims (or members of the wrong sect). What's missing from this definition is that it is being employed by muslims today to eliminate all non-muslims (kafirs) and ADVANCE THEIR 12 century long GOAL OF WORLD CONQUEST!

So the hole in Eric's remark is taqiya: A muslim running for office would invariably LIE to get the job. Gee, does that sound like anyone you know whose initials are BHO?? (After almost 7 years of him, those of us who long ago stopped buying his BS are going boohoo!)

But what troubles me more are the comments by Trump and Cruz on the subject. BOTH fail to recognize the true nature of islam. It is NOT a "religion". It is a brutal, misogynistic (there are about a dozen more adjectives I COULD use but I don't want to piss off Face Book's Moroccan based PC police) political, legal and economic system MASQUERADING AS A RELIGION. Don't even get me started on Lindsey “Nancy Boy” Graham!

While it IS possible that both Trump and Cruz are practicing a form of taqiya to placate the millions of PC morons still walking among us to get the job, it does cause concern among those of us who understand that, next to Ebola, marburg, HIV and a number of other diseases, islam is THE greatest threat to Western Civilization since mohammad wandered from Mecca to Medina, there to preach and launch the bellicose WORLD DOMINATION BENT POLITICAL islam we now face!

[noinfringers2]

I maintain there is no if or but as to whether or not the citizens of the US were to elect a Muslim because records of Obama’s speeches and his family leaves no doubt in my mind that he is of Muslim faith. As such the US has already been exposed to a Muslim POTUSA. Your use of words such as asinine and hysterical to argue a point has no substance for me. To say that Cruz would call for impeachment is speculative as far as I am concerned. Also, I cannot agree that the US Constitution provides the opportunity for a dual religious and secular political system in our societal system. If you believe that Muslims are not beholden to a duel governance so be it. I still stand by my statement.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Wasn’t intended to be cryptic, but explanatory.

The discussion in the thread is chiefly about the MSM’s constant deception in their headlines.

The islam sidenote was not what was at issue. Both of the candidates mentioned in the headline had previously made their belief sufficiently clear that no part of islam was appropriate for America. Their supporters had the knowledge tucked away nicely.

The MSM laid “gotcha” questions on them, and Cruz handled it well, but the less politically experienced Carson fell into their trap and opened the discussion wider than was necessary to handle their games.

One should never answer the MSM’s gotcha questions.
.