And would have no desire to uphold it.
Posted on 09/21/2015 7:47:14 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson is standing by his view that a Muslim should not be president of the United States, telling The Hill in an interview on Sunday that whoever takes the White House should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran.”
Carson ignited a media firestorm in a Sunday morning interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” in which he said he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
“I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If the president is a Muslim, their oath means nothing, Bible, Koran, or Moby Dick.
And of course when the last POTUS was sworn in the “bible’ had a technical glitch, they had to do it twice.
While I would, indeed am not now, comfortable with a Muslim POTUS, has Carson even read the Constitution and no religious test for office. Statements like Carson’s were commonly made about preventing Catholics from holding office, citing their supposed allegiance to Rome. I’m sure that some on FR still hold that view.
And would have no desire to uphold it.
And yet there’s not one Protestant on the supreme court as all of our forefathers were. FU.
Carson is showing some COJONES!!!!!!
OUTSTANDING.
Lets see which of the contenders line up on his side of the line.
Carson's statement demanding candidates take an oath on a "stack of bibles" wouldn't prevent any Catholic taking from office, however it DOES fly in the face of the "no religious test" section of the constitution and would prevent numerous religious denominations that oppose oaths on bibles from taking office.
Most prominent would be Mennonites and Quakers (both faiths oppose having their members swear oaths on bibles). Many devout Jews would also object to taking an oath of office on the new testament, and prefer to use a torah instead.
Yes, and the WORST of it is, not only did they do it over because the first time it wasn't right -- there was NO BIBLE the second time -- the swearing-in that actually counted was without a Bible!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103685.html
Someone needs to point out where Islam allows gay marriage. What about the rights of the LGBT people under a Muslim president?
Can Ben Carson Cure cognitive dissonance?
Actually Souter is Episcopalian and Thomas has bounced back and forth. But your concluding abbreviation in capital letters kind of proved my point didn’t it. Dominus Vobiscum,
My reply proved nothing, it was just a statement of fact. Souter is no longer on the Supreme Court by the way, and Thomas is a Catholic. Many of my close friends are Catholic, so what was your original point.
“Statements like Carson’s were commonly made about preventing Catholics from holding office...”
I considered your original point drivel, I could just as easily have substituted “protestant” in your statement and used it in the present tense. It would still be drivel. After living under affirmative action for some forty plus years I’m tired of hearing the “we are being persecuted” mantra and it’s actually getting worse forty plus years later.
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.