Muslims Should NOT Serve in our Government

RR ^ | 7/21/19 | Geri Ungurean

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson was asked if a president’s religious beliefs mattered. He said they did, and, when pressed on the issue, said no Muslim should be President of the United States (insert Obama joke here) and that, in fact, Islam is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution:

Ben Carson: Well I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it is inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But, if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, then no problem.

Todd: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?

Carson: No, I do not, I do not. I would not advocate that we would put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

Ben Carson is right. So says Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar who said in 2009 that democracy and Islam are like matter and anti-matter in physics:

Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues….

In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ.

This is self-evident in the fact that Islamic theocracy rules throughout the Islamic world, crushing human rights such as those delineated in our Bill of Rights. In some “secular” states like Turkey and Egypt, democracy is tolerated for Western acceptance, but try telling a Coptic Christian in Egypt, for example, about the freedom of religion or try imposing a government dictate contrary to Islam, the way ObamaCare imposes on pro-life Christians, on Muslims.

[Fiddlstix]

Click The Pic & The Text
Click The Text Below For Link #1

Islam Is Nothing More Than A Blood Thirsty, Murderous, Satanic Cult! Their Allah Is The Being Known To The Rest Of The World As Satan!

Their UnHoly Koran Teaches Taqiyya! The Decieving Of Anyone They Choose To Tell Their Lies Including Other Muslims

Click The Text Below For Link #2

Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Click The Text Below For Link #3

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Click The Pic

[Mark17]

I think I see a pattern developing there. 😁

[madison10]

What a stupid comment...

[Jacquerie]

Islam is less religion and more MS-13. It deserves no protection.

[realcleanguy]

Pretty funny. Democrats siding with Islam that has laws that call for bigotry and death against Core Democrat Values LOL

[PeachyKeen]

Me too. Without a doubt!

[metmom]

Now the left is going to shred a black man because he is not towing (or toeing) the party line.

Race means nothing to them. It’s all ideology.

[DoodleBob]

I'm sorry, but if the Founders believed Muslims should not serve in our Government, they'd have put it in the Constitution. Indeed, they DID insert this little phrase:

... ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

As this article from the Heritage Institute discusses,

The clause was hotly disputed in some states during the 1788–1789 struggle over ratification of the Constitution. The objection was simple: "Jews," "Turks," "infidels," "heathens," and even "Roman Catholics" might hold national office under the proposed Constitution.

If you ban one religion without an Amendment, then all bets are off. It's simply then a matter of time before the next Dem president (it'll happen, some day) or Admin or Legislature will ban followers of Christianity, Judaism, or mandate atheism.

It's also worth noting that in support of there not being an oath, per the article one of the Founders said:

"The people may employ any wise or good citizen in the execution of the various duties of the government."

On that front, if he was a citizen, I may be more willing to vote for the 83-year-old Muslim cleric being honored by the US Government, who hid 262 Christians in his home and mosque during an attack in central Nigeria than CINO Nancy Pelosi.

Our side prides itself as the Rule of Law side...it's the liberals who twist and lie their way to things like Roe, and more recently that the Second Amendment is not a guarantee of the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. Let's not become stupid like the left.

[cradle of freedom]

The suburban woman voters do not get this. They believe in the Gospel according to Oprah.

[amihow]

If those in the government are to defend the Constitution against all enemies and Muslims want to destroy the Constitution and replace it with Sharia Law by command of their Prophet what is that?

[Deplorable American1776]

True... Muslims are against freedom...

[TigersEye]

LOL And those are the good points!

[TigersEye]

When they see her on the other side they’ll know her.
She’ll be the one handing out free pitchforks.

“Here’s a pitchfork for you, a pitchfork for you, a pitchfork for you ... everybody gets a free pitchfork.”

[trebb]

You bit on the misleading headline...it says one thing and he says, he “couldn’t advocate” it..

[Albion Wilde]

What a stupid comment...

It was not aimed at informed people; it was aimed at stupid people, such as the liberal legislators of the UK and US.

[DoodleDawg]

Can Nazi’s serve in the American government? That answer to that is the same as the question about mudslims.

Then I guess nothing prevents Muslims from serving if elected.

[DoodleDawg]

If the government can define Social Security as income, ketchup as a vegetable, and any number of rediculous things, certainly it can define islam as an ideology akin to naziism and not a religion.

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” - James Madison

If government gets into the business of deciding what is a religion and what is not, or what is a favored religion and what is not, then what is to prevent some future Democrat administration from defining evangelical Christianity as an ideology and not a religion?