Ben Carson: A Muslim President is against the US Constitution

This is all strategy. Of course the many of the laws of Islam are not compatible with the Constitution but the same thing could be said with Christianity. Carson is trying to get another bump in the polls. Jeb Bush just said "We should not have a multicultural society."

These candidates saw the success that Trump had with his remarks on immigration. Carson is trying to emulate that with these remarks and now Bush has followed suit. This whole race is just a game.

 

Carson is really a fool.

Saying that a muslim should not be president or that any race, gender or religion should preclude one from the High Office is really idiotic.

That combined with his lack of understanding about the economy in any way would make him a pitiful candidate. He's on Obama's level of lack of understanding about the economy which is pretty bad.

 

One can parse Carson's comments until the cows come home, but from where I sit, what Carson is doing is pandering to the worst elements of the Republican Party.

 

The cows likely won't return until the morning for their milking.

 

Lying?

1. Here's the part I 'cut off':
[rquoter]CHUCK TODD:

And I take it you believe the president was born in the United States and is a Christian?

DR. BEN CARSON:

I believe that he is. I have no reason to doubt what he says.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, Dr. Carson I will leave it there, I look forward to speaking with you again soon.

DR. BEN CARSON:

All right, thank you very much.[/rquoter]

Here's the whole transcript: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/presidential-announcement-speech-guide-n374901 (but, a quick control+F shows no one says "Sharia" at all).

2. It was in his 'clarifying' remarks he made later to rationalize what came our of his mouth where he said denouncing Sharia might make things better. What he said at the debate was an unequivocal prejudice against Muslims. But, even his clarifying rationale is still (a) uneven treatment (as I had argued earlier in the thread) and (b) negated anyway by his follow-up reasoning about how you can't trust a Muslim because they have doctrinal justifications for lying.

3. He wouldn't support a Christian theocracy? Big whoop. He's comparing nominal Muslims to ultra-religious Christian nutjobs.

 

I like a lot of what those men said regardless of their race. Same with Carson. Do you really think those on the right are supporting these candidates to avert criticism?

 

possibly because so much of what all of the candidates mentioned has been pure crazy

 

It's a valid question, not only with regard to Muslims:

If someone is so strongly religious that it is apparent that in a conflict between their loyalty to the country they are serving and their religious convictions, they might make a decision based on their religious convictions, even if it goes against what the loyalty to the country would demand - then that is a serious question mark behind their eligibility for being president.

This is not exclusive to Muslims, though.

Examples:

• Someone is so strongly religious that their religion forbids working on a particular day, no matter the circumstances (e.g. 7th day adventists not doing anything on Saturdays (I think)). It would be difficult to fulfill the demands of being US president while strictly adhering to that rule.
• It is someone's religious conviction that women do not have the same rights as men. The person thinks that women should not be in leadership positions, but should stay at home and be mothers; therefore never appoints women to anything (similar to Erdogan in Turkey, not to mention Saudi Arabia).
• Someone is a fundamentalist Christian or a Muslim whose religious convictions includes believing that homosexuals are sinners who should be criminally prosecuted. Would that person ever appoint homosexuals or would he discriminate against them?
• Someone has a conflict of allegiance between his interpretation of whatever his holy book is and the constitution. E.g. his interpretation of his holy book says women have fewer rights than men. Or his interpretation of his holy book says that people of his own religion have more rights or protections than people with no religion or of other religions ("non-believers" or "infidels" from his perspective). E.g., he would never enter into a war with a country where the population is mainly made up of people of his own religion. Etc.

That is not to say that someone should not be allowed to become president just because they seek spirituality from a particular religion, including Islam.

But Islam is a special topic because, at least in its current form practiced in most countries, it is more all-encompassing and against separation of church and state. A large majority of Muslims around the world says Sharia "law" comes before any law of the land, wherever they are - and in fact, a large percentage of Muslims in the USA thinks that way. And Sharia "law" is more in contradiction to Western constitutional rights (e.g. for women and homosexuals and people of other religions) than most (moderate) Christian interpretations of the bible.

So, while his statement may not be politically correct, the concern and sentiment is rightly shared by many people. The problem is not being a Muslim who believes in the spiritual aspects of Islam, but the problem is the all-encompassing nature of the religious ideology of Islam and Sharia itself.

 

In a different era, Rice or Powell would've been intriguing candidates. Powell more than likely had too many dead bodies that needed to stay buried.

I cant say I would've liked their ideas, but I might've respected them.

 

Does being a Christian also conflict with the duties of being a President?

Take, say, Kim Davis' sect of Christianity, for example and her duties as a public official to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Are these things irreconcilable?

What about a Catholic (Joe Biden, for example), whose religion is against abortion and death penalty? Are these things reconcilable with the duties of a public official whose job covers these areas of the U.S. law?

I think the question of "Will your religion conflict with your ability to carry out your duties?" is a legitimate one to ask in any election. I just don't think that the evidence suggest that Muslim Americans who have become public officials (for example, Judge Sohail Muhammed whom Chris Christie famously defended) have been unable to do their jobs because of their religion or have tried to impose their religion on others in a unlawful manner a la Kim Davis. And if any such officials let their religion get in the way of their jobs, they should be dealt with like Kim Davis is dealt with.

 

Personally, I think it could.

In my opinion, yes. You have to follow the law while representing the state, regardless of your own religious convictions. You are free to prioritize your religious convictions higher, but then you cannot do your job and have to look for a different one.

I think this is a bit different. You could have the same beliefs regardless of your religion. The key thing is that you follow the constitution and the law, even if it conflicts with your religious beliefs. And Catholicism nowadays does exist while not demanding to be the law of the land (except in the Vatican). Its followers mostly respect the separation of church and state. Islam is different in most countries in that it demands Sharia to be the law of the land, and so do most Muslims worldwide (not all of them). And Sharia is not just a set of spiritual beliefs, but actually demands to supersede whatever the constitution or the law of the land is.

Agreed.

Agreed, with the exception of what I wrote in the paragraph above about Sharia and its incompatibility with Western values (e.g. women, homosexuality, freedom of religion). I assume that the Muslim Americans you are referring to are Muslims with respect to the spiritual aspects, but do respect the separation of church and state and do not interpret Sharia in a way that would conflict with the US constitution. When you look at statistics, however, you will see that a large majority of Muslims worldwide and a significant percentage of Muslims in the USA has a different interpretation: They want Sharia to be the law of the land, they don't think women, homosexuals and people with different beliefs should have the same rights. So I don't think it is ridiculous to ask the question whether there is compatibility. But I also don't think someone should not be eligible just because they are a Muslim. It's just not automatically racist/bigoted to ask and inquire about their interpretation of Sharia.

 

Carson's initial response was that anyone whose values conflict with the intent of the US constitution would not be someone he would support for that office. Anyone.

The interviewer drilled that down to Islam and Carson took the bait and stumbled into something that could be grossly misconstrued. That isi all.

Lefties were going ape**** about Pat Robertson being US president and his values probably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgbg_Qn9ruU


Can't believe that anyone wants to make a fuss about what he says here....

 

That's only one of the comments Carson has said. It was a horrible comment at the time, and remains that way today.

 

What exactly is horrible... that someone whose values do not uphold the constitution of the US should not be president?

Please be specific rather than general.

 

Religion is a different category from race and gender. Religion pertains to one's belief system. I think what one believes, in general, is a fair criterion for their competency to be president.

 

Very good question. Unfortunately, FranchiseBlade does not address this properly and instead chooses to be intellectually lazy. To Carl Herrera's credit, his last post here in this thread was quite different than what FranchiseBlade is doing.

Agreed.

 

Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ

Spoiler

Matthew 22:21

 

So Rashmon is cool with a president who doesn't work on the Sabbath.

 

Cuba Gooding Jr is in a movie about Ben Carson.