Posted on 09/21/2015 1:37:16 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
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.”
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
Thanks for the reply. I missed both the other thread and Cavuto’s show but I strongly disagree with that first statement as it’s written.
I have no problem at all with the statements Carson has made.
The MSM is an enemy of the people and western civilization in general.
I have always stood up for him. Fine to be a strict Constituionalist. Not so fine to not defend Ben’s right to express his real reservation about a Muslim as a president.
Ted was all high and mighty and it disturbed me. He played games that bothered me.
Someone needs to remind him that he is not running against Obama. He is running against the presumptive candidate who started all this crap.
He is signaling to the donor class that he knows how to play ball.
Let's hear it for a Quebec mayor...
Or as the commercial promoting pork says “put some pork on your fork”.......WAY TO GO QUEBEC...MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CANTEEN MENU... EXPLAINS WHYMuslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb. The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval,has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why...
“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate.The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.
-- “They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec.
-- “They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them.
-- “They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic, they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).
-- “That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.
-- “And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.
-- “Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain.
-- “For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah.
-- “If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.
-- “Ask yourself the question, just once, “Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?”
-- “A canteen with pork is part of the answer.”
No problem with what he said from where I’m looking. I do agree that, from a political standpoint, he would have been better off fending off the question.
I'm sorry, Grampa Dave, but I just listened to the entire Cavuto segment with Sen. Cruz and he never said that or anything like it.
“And the problem is...?)” sums up my opinion perfectly. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with American law, culture, and its ideals.
You must have missed the first part at about 1 min and 40 secs to 1:55
Cruz said “religious convictions should have no bearing on one’s fitness for the Oval Office.
I just listened to it again. He did not say those words. He said “Under the Constitution there can be no religious test for holding public office. What there can be a test on is public policy views.” That was from 1:49-1:57.
That’s what I’m referring to -
they use accusations like that to STIFLE the discussion about the substance of the issue, be it dysfunctional Islamics, or dysfunctional black culture, or dysfunctional immigration policy.
Once you get a prominent person who won’t back down when those accusations are thrown out,
then people actually start THINKING about the issue,
and many of them start to get the courage to say
“you know, the left does have it wrong on this”.
Interesting comments.
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.