Ben Carson: A Muslim President is against the US Constitution

The OP really did a great job with an incredibly misleading title.

here's what he should of written : Ben Carson: Islamic beliefs (specifically Sharia Law) are at odds with the Constitution

I think there are few who would disagree with this. I would say lock it up with how awful that thread title is written, but the mods dont come in here (nor should they).

Rereading the OP's post, I think he didn't read what Carson said or failed to understand it. Maybe the OP wasn't being misleading on purpose.

 

He said Islamic beliefs (specifically SHaria Law) goes against the principles of the constitution (it obviously does) and therefore he wouldn't support someone who held these beliefs. This is how literally 99% of the country feels. How many votes do you think someone who believes in Sharia Law would get in this country?

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It took us too long to overcome the prejudice against electing a Catholic or an African-American president.</p>&mdash; Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/645679922971844608">September 20, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

So we shouldn't have had Christian presidents when we were mowing down Natives while also illegally importing African Americans to do slave work?

Your point made no sense.

 

. . .

 

You think Sharia Law goes against the Constitution? What are you some kind of racist?!?!?!? rabble rabble rabble

 

He's back-peddling.

 

Good call.

Except that's not really what he was expressing either. He was saying a Muslim should not be president. The rationale for that position was that sharia conflicts with the Constitution, but that wasn't really the thesis of what he was saying. He's assuming that sharia will be central in the theology of this hypothetical Muslim candidate and further that the hypothetical Muslim candidate will not be able to find any way to reconcile his responsibilities to Islam with his responsibilities to the country.

Separately, I do want to say that I fully endorse Carson and whomever else using a religion filter in making his voting decisions. In my view, in a democracy, each voter should pick their own criteria for how to decide how to vote and should execute on those criteria themselves. If they won't vote for someone because they're Muslim, or black, or gay, or because they worked for Bain & Co, or whatever it is -- I think that is a fully legitimate use of their freedom to vote. And, it's his right to tell me his criteria and even what he thinks my criteria should be. But, it's not a good way to get my vote.

Also separately, I fight this political charade more laughable with each passing election cycle. Media running around saying "Aaaahh, he said this! Can you believe it!? What are you going to do about it, voter?" Can we force him to apologize? Will he be defiant? Will he double-down? He said it, you reported it, I read it. We're done here. Doesn't matter, I'm as likely to vote for Carson as Carson is to vote for a Muslim.

 

Except for all the cutting off heads, slavery, rape, stoning and stuff...you're right.

 

No he didn't. He said he wouldn't support Sharia.

i love how the article phrases it 'the only exception he would make' . From what Muslims say on this board, very few actually believe in Sharia. The 'only exception' Carson is making is to include most Muslims?

From what? cmon sam you can do it; finish that thought.

 

I actually understand his position and agree with a lot of the things he said aside from the quote above.

Why would a Muslim have to publicly deny their faith? The only tenet they need to show they have rejected completely is considering Islam as a basis for political/economic policy. And obviously that's done by believing in complete separation of church and state and living a life consistent with that.

Ironically, political Christianity is a good thing according to conservatives.

Zero consistency.

 

And that has everything to do with Christian carnal instincts to be aggressively anti-human rights being suppressed by the notion that secularism has supplanted Christian dominant regions and haven't supplanted Muslim dominant regions.

 

So a Muslim has to publicly denounce Sharia Law but a Christian doesn't have to denounce fundamentalist Christianity. In fact a Christian presidential candidate can say the EXACT OPPOSITE such as "God's law trumps the Supreme Court" like Huckabee stated and not be torn apart by your ilk and you want us to ignore the prejudice and double standard in that notion?

Okay, so here is the thing. We aren't idiots and we can see through your **** rhetoric.

 

Conservatism does not require anyone to be any religion. I am a conservative who is not Christian

Carson does not believe 'fundamental Christianity' is at odds with the Constitution.

 

The majority of conservatives are religious. The majority of conservatives in the United States are Christian.

 

That's the problem. He objects to certain fundamentalists but not his own.

 

he objects to fundamentalists that he feels disagree with the constitution. thats not a 'problem'.

so? that doesn't mean conservatism supports Christianity. Conservatism is pretty simple: limited government, strong national defense. that's it. nothing about the supernatural/metaphysical.

 

Carson is a great man

 

Conservatism in the United States absolutely 100% supports and is based on many fundamental tenets of Christianity and that's not even a debatable assertion. If you think otherwise you're either misguided or being intentionally obtuse.

Also, along those lines, why are you willfully omitting every single conservative social position?