Carson is right. One only needs consider the country
of Turkey to see what a muslim president would bring.
( Or the Obama administration for that matter).
Let’s put the question to the media, should an orthodox Jew be president? Should a devout Catholic be?
Let the bigotry games begin.
Absolutely. BTW, it’s not a religion. It’s a world-domination ideology cleverly disguised as a religion.
and makes mohammedans unfit to live in a rational society of ordered liberty and natural rights
Islam is not a religion, it is a theocracy. A true Muslim lives within the structures of that theocracy. This is why B-HO is not a Muslim and why a Muslim should never be president (or hold any office or even live here). Our way of life is wholly incompatible with true Islam and true Muslims. We, here, seem to be expert at identifying “Rinos” - but can’t get a grasp on “Islam 101”.
I tend to believe that Carson is somewhat confused as to the real Obama who intentionally took on a Muslim name as part of his ie. Obama’s identification. Perhaps Carson’s words were meant to be a bridge so to speak. In any case Carson cannot have it both ways as to whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Perhaps Carson needs to do a bit more reading about the Obama and Dunham families going back to the days mama Stanley Ann spent in Indonesia.
The United States should be as free of Muslims as Saudi Arabia is free of Cbristians.
Ben is right. I’ll go one step further: We should be able to legally shoot any member of the muslim brotherhood on sight.
Oh, and take away valjar’s (unauthorized by any statute) ss protection.
We already have a Muslim President. I don’t want another one.
Thanks Ben. How can you expect someone to be faithful to an oath that they do not believe in.
But as we have seen, they would be willing to lie to get the power.
Obma is an Indonesian muslim.
-PJ
A few brave souls are willing to tell the truth and are not intimidated by political correctness - we all need to speak out.
The United States Supreme Court says that the Bible has to be used and taught in schools!
And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such men by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college - its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay teachers? Certainly there is nothing in the will that proscribes such studies. Above all, the testator positively enjoins, “that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that on their entrance into active life they may from inclination and habit evince benevolence towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.”
Now, it may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of Christianity? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more?
Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume?...
It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of Judaism, or Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country; and therefore it must be made out be clear and indisputable proof. Remote inferences, or possible results, or speculative tendencies are not to be drawn or adopted for such purposes. There must be plain, positive, and express provision, demonstrating not only that Christianity is not to be taught; but that it is to be impugned or repudiated.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/43/127/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U.S. 2 How. 127 127
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Has anyone suggested that Dr. Carson might apologize?
I saw a post that confirmed the fact that religion plays no part in eligibility according to the Constitution. That is the way religion should be treated. On the other hand, there may be many other characteristics that we may find off-putting about a candidate.
Right now, an apology may be off-putting.