I may need to find a new candidate after Carson said he would not have invaded Afghanistan after 09/11. I expect a non-politician to have limited expertise with foreign policy, and that doesn't worry me, if I trust that he will surround himself with qualified experts. But he sounded like a child when he said that, I had trouble believing what I was hearing. It was like listning to Code Pink.

Will also mark the end of Trump as well. People are getting sick of his idiotic remarks.

Will also mark the end of Trump as well. People are getting sick of his idiotic remarks.

no one has made more idiotic remarks than Biden and he's still a contender

no one has made more idiotic remarks than Biden and he's still a contender

True, but I'd say Biden comes off as buffoon-ish, where Trump is a jerk. I can't believe he got away with what he said about McCain.

True, but I'd say Biden comes off as buffoon-ish, where Trump is a jerk. I can't believe he got away with what he said about McCain.
Or Rosie

Or Rand Paul

Or Carly

Or Autism

The list goes on and on.

I could never vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I could never vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'd say about 40% of GOP voters don't believe in evolution either. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrats have no candidate that impresses
or is impressed

I am ready for the Donald
Let's start building the wall tomorrow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am ready for the Donald
Let's start building the wall tomorrow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed. Ask the Israelis whether or not walls work.

Ask yourself what would it be like if there was no religion in the Middle East.

No wall needed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ask yourself what would it be like if there was no religion in the Middle East.

No wall needed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Surface observation often leads to shallow, incomplete, faulty diagnosis. The surface can reveal faults, but may not show root causes.

On the surface, in the Middle East, there appears to be war between religions or between various sects of a religion. It would appear then, that if these religions were removed from the picture, no conflict would exist there. No wall would be needed. If that were true, would we have to assume that the people of the Middle East are different than those in the rest of the world? Are Middle Easterners free of wars between families, or races, or political persuasions? Or of the seemingly eternal war between freedom and slavery--the war between various ruling classes and those who serve them?

Or are we to assume that religion is the root cause, below the surface, of all those, and of all types of war? In a sense, that is true. It is true if we view all doctrinaire patterns of behavior as being forms of religion. ScottW and I, for instance, refer to progressivism as a religion. Ergo any group of humans who insist on a WAY of living with rules or laws to follow (the little book you disparagingly speak of) are, by such reasoning, "religions." And, by such reasoning, even you who makes light of religion seem to desire a more universal kumbaya secular religion that has only two little laws to follow--be cool and don't be a jerk.

But, beyond the persistent wars between various collectives, there is the even more fundamental war between the individual and the collective. And it would be a stretch beyond linguistic elasticity to refer to an individual as a "religion." Though, that can be done, but would dissolve any coherent or usable meaning for the word.

But, I am guessing, religion as you speak of it, is some ritualistic association which follows the dictates of a supernatural God. The wall that The Donald and Jim refer to, however, is not one that is at war with, or keeps out a certain form of religion in the manner which you use the word. But one that tries to stop a war between more abstract and secular religions which consist of material laws and economic ways of life.

And "walls" is also an elastic word, even as how you've used the word "slavery," meant to separate conflicting elements or "religions." As in the example of the "wall" of separation between church and state--church being a God led religion and State being a secular one.

So to say that no walls would be necessary in the Middle East if there were no "religion" would imply that those people are all unaffiliated individuals, which, on the surface, doesn't at all appear to be the case. On the contrary, the people there appear to be far more so regimented into collective WAYS of living which seem to have roots in God religions, but also seem to be dictated by ruling classes, families or otherwise, who build psychological or rather phony "religious" walls of separation for their benefit and continuation of their power. Unfortunately for those ruling classes, their use of "religion" to control their masses has given rise in those people a desire to return to the foundational principles of the very religion used to control them. Or, rather than merely rising in the people, they have been inspired by zealots of either Allah religion or the religion of personal power over the masses. In any case, they don't seem to have the desire, or knowledge, to dilute their religions with a healthy amount of individualism.

Pity, we once had that healthy amount here in America. But more and more of us seem to aspire to more potent forms of the religion of socialism. More willing to bow to the god of State.

The problem in the Middle East is not:

Religion
The USA
The Russians / Soviets
The Germans
The French
The Brittish
The Israelis


It is the Arabs. These problems have existed there for a thousand years before Mohamed showed up.

None of these issues would be happening if saddam was still head of Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

None of these issues would be happening if saddam was still head of Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the issues would be happening, but under different names. A Wiki entry states that According to The New York Times, the number of deaths Saddam's regime was responsible for is estimated to be upwards of 2 million. And added to that are an untold number of atrocities and tortures.

These continued throughout his regime, right until his removal. There is no indication that they would not have continued to happen if he had not been removed. The issues would be happening under his name and that of other players including Iran, Al Qaeda, and who knows what other "extremist" group.

As John R said, these issues have existed (in varying degrees and under varying names but mostly by Muslims or Arabs), for over a millennium.

And Saddam's numbers have yet to be reached by the "issues" that have occurred after him. But the current ones seem more horrific because many of the actors have displayed them on videos for the rest of the world to see. Had Saddam made a video for every one of his tortures, mass killings, wars, and genocides, the current issues would be dwarfed in comparison.

And the seeds (Al Qaeda and its precursors) were implanted during Saddam's reign, and were already in active terrorist mode. And growing in influence. And he was not able to stem the growing tide. Today he would be a 78 year old tyrant under pressure from every direction, and it is possible that if the US had not toppled him, some other Muslim extremist organization would have. And it would not have tried to set up a democratic form of government to replace him. Most likely it would have been an Islamic State type of government.

The blood wouldn't have been on our hands though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The blood wouldn't have been on our hands though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's changing the subject or "issue" from your post that "None of these issues would be happening if saddam was still head of Iraq."

None of these issues would be happening if saddam was still head of Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sadam could be dead or feeble at this point and worse, one of his sons might have risen to power.

Or there would have been a coup
Or another and different war
Or it could be worse

i think he just lost the muslim vote

i think he just lost the muslim vote

You bet he did!

Personally, I'd rather have a true Muslim than a phony Christian (like Obama) or a phony Catholic (like Biden).

You bet he did!

Personally, I'd rather have a true Muslim than a phony Christian (like Obama) or a phony Catholic (like Biden).



Biden is a phony Catholic, why, b/c he is pro-Choice? You disagree with your church on Gay marriage, are you a phony as well? My wife is Catholic (while raised it, I don't associate as a Catholic any longer) but is not devout, she goes to church with the kids, but not every week. She is pro-choice, but would still identify with many of the teachings of the church. Just because someone isn't whole hog, doesn't make them a 'phony', or does it?

according to the pew foundation there R about 0.09% of adult muslims in the U S very small majority....will not hurt Carson over all since most vote democratic anyway....:)

according to the pew foundation there R about 0.09% of adult muslims in the U S very small majority....will not hurt Carson over all since most vote democratic anyway....:)

Add that to the Gay, transgender, Mexicans, other minorities, people who thing the Repubs. have become full of hate, etc. and others various candidates have insulted and pretty soon you have real numbers.

Biden is a phony Catholic, why, b/c he is pro-Choice? You disagree with your church on Gay marriage, are you a phony as well? My wife is Catholic (while raised it, I don't associate as a Catholic any longer) but is not devout, she goes to church with the kids, but not every week. She is pro-choice, but would still identify with many of the teachings of the church. Just because someone isn't whole hog, doesn't make them a 'phony', or does it?

Yes, Biden is a phony Catholic because he is pro-abortion (pro-choice is a bullsh*t term, because we aren't talking baout whether women can choose to like the Yanks or the Red Sox, correct?).

The Catholic Church has "binding beliefs" and "non-binding beliefs". Binding beliefs mean just what it says...you cannot disagree with those beliefs and be Catholic. They are stated in the Catechism. For example, you must believe Jesus was the son of God, you must believe you should go to Church on Sunday, and you also must believe that life begins at conception.

Gay marriage (like saying the rosary, and opposing the death penalty) are non-binding beliefs. If the Church makes opposition to gay marriage a binding belief, then I would find another religion, or change my stance I guess.

You cannot be pro-abortion and be a Catholic in good standing. Read that again if you wish. Or ask a bishop, as I have done. Being pro-abortion (unlike being pro gay marriage) is sufficient cause for excommunication. They won't kick you out of mass, but you are not supposed to receive Communion, and priests can (and often do) refuse to give it to you even if you ask for it.

The question is, why would Biden (or Nancy Pelosi) call themselves Catholic, when they disagree with the most fundamental beliefs? Here's the answer - they are unprincipled whores who will say or do anything to get elected, they have no principles whatsoever except the lust to win elections.

according to the pew foundation there R about 0.09% of adult muslims in the U S very small majority....will not hurt Carson over all since most vote democratic anyway....:)

Correct, that won't hurt him much, although it will give the democrats a whole new way to attack him if they choose.

I think Carson is done, and I think Trump is on the way down. For God's sake, the Pope insisted the war in Afghanistan was necessary.

I don't know what to think about Carly Fiorina. She got fired from Hewlett-Packard, correct?

Biden is a phony Catholic, why, b/c he is pro-Choice? You disagree with your church on Gay marriage, are you a phony as well? My wife is Catholic (while raised it, I don't associate as a Catholic any longer) but is not devout, she goes to church with the kids, but not every week. She is pro-choice, but would still identify with many of the teachings of the church. Just because someone isn't whole hog, doesn't make them a 'phony', or does it?

Bryan, everyone who sits in the pews on Sunday s flawed, none more than me. Unlike your wife (presumably), and even unlike Biden, I have actually been excommunicated. For reasons of planning and logisticsm when I married my wife, we couldn't do it in a Catholic Church, so we originally got married in a Congragational Church. 3 months later, we had the Catholic ceremony. During those 3 months, I was told I could not receive Communion (our priest at the time was a very strict, old-school guy) because as far as the Chruch was concerned, we were living in sin.

What I mean is, I have no ill will towards normal people who are less-than-perfect, because we all are. But I have a great deal of contempt for politicians of both parties, who talk out of both sides of their mouth, for personal gain. I hate politicians who claim to be Catholic on Sunday so they can get that vote, and then talk about ho wgreta abortion is on Monday, so they can get the Catholic vote. I respect anyone who find sthe time to get their kids to church on Sundays, which isn't easy these days. My contempt is for politicians who will say whatever the given audience wnats to hear, not to people like me or your wife. Sorry if you interpreted it in a way other than it was intended.

Living in sin
Lol
Think about those standards for a while
Makes Jehovah's seem sensible
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree with you Jim, but what annoys me about the Catholics (and I was raised as one and even went to Catholic schoool where I was forced to take theology classes) is that even though the Pope may actually say these things are "non binding" and "welcomes gays" or whatever type of rationality you want to put on it, the doctrine and teaching does not reflect that and the Church certainly isn't going to recognize gay marriage, so in that sense it's not flexible at all. Anyway, this really has nothing to do with the argument, but just an annoyance of mine as the Pope is about to visit!

I agree with you Jim, but what annoys me about the Catholics (and I was raised as one and even went to Catholic schoool where I was forced to take theology classes) is that even though the Pope may actually say these things are "non binding" and "welcomes gays" or whatever type of rationality you want to put on it, the doctrine and teaching does not reflect that and the Church certainly isn't going to recognize gay marriage, so in that sense it's not flexible at all. Anyway, this really has nothing to do with the argument, but just an annoyance of mine as the Pope is about to visit!

I guess I disagree, in the sense that I like the fact that the Church isn't going to, for example, say abortion is OK, just because it's popular. There are other religions who change their principles every time a new poll comes out, I like some consistency. And while the Catholic Church won't recognize gay marriage anytime soon, this Pope has said that Catholics should pay a bit more attention to helping the poor, and a bit less attention focusing on telling everyone what they are doing wrong. He's the Pope, he's not going to change the catechism. But he is trying to change the messaging, in a more inclusive way.

Good post, you know how to be respectful, I admire that.

The question is, why would Biden (or Nancy Pelosi) call themselves Catholic, when they disagree with the most fundamental beliefs? Here's the answer - they are unprincipled whores who will say or do anything to get elected, they have no principles whatsoever except the lust to win elections.

Maybe it is pandering; many politicians do this using religion. Maybe they grew up Catholic, and agree with and believe most of the dogma and teachings of Christ, but disagree on this issue, even though it is binding. I wonder what the honest numbers are among current Catholics and this issue, particularly under 40 y/o. How many actually know it is binding.

Thanks for the lesson, I wasn't aware of the binding vs 'optional'

Maybe it is pandering; many politicians do this using religion.

that's called blasphemy...which is really, really bad...:uhuh:

Maybe it is pandering; many politicians do this using religion. Maybe they grew up Catholic, and agree with and believe most of the dogma and teachings of Christ, but disagree on this issue, even though it is binding. I wonder what the honest numbers are among current Catholics and this issue, particularly under 40 y/o. How many actually know it is binding.

Thanks for the lesson, I wasn't aware of the binding vs 'optional'

"Maybe it is pandering; many politicians do this using religion"

Not the honest ones. If you want to get the NAACP vote, that's fine, but you can't also seek the endorsement of the Klan.

Groucho Marx once said "these are my principles. If you don't like them, I have other principles".

"How many actually know it is binding."

Not enough!

it's not just religion that these politicians pretend about then demonstrate the opposite...or demonstrate then pretend the opposite....religion is just an easy target these days..actually...always has been...politics is just another religion but with an earthly god, probably Satan....

VDH with a great summation of this re: Queen Clinton

the real problem lies in the enablers :uhuh:

"Why is Ms. Clinton railing about big money? If she is really willing to change the Constitution to end the Big Money/Big Politics nexus, she might do two things. One, she could scold Barack Obama for being the first presidential candidate in the history of campaign-financing laws to have refused public funds, with the limiting and transparent protocols that they require, in order to be freed to raise the largest privately funded war chest in presidential campaign history — as well as to set records as the greatest recipient of Wall Street cash. Nothing has been more deleterious to the progressive idea of barring the piling up of unlimited money for presidential races."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/424372/print

it's not just religion that these politicians pretend about then demonstrate the opposite...or demonstrate then pretend the opposite....religion is just an easy target these days..actually...always has been...politics is just another religion but with an earthly god, probably Satan....

VDH with a great summation of this re: Queen Clinton

the real problem lies in the enablers :uhuh:

"Why is Ms. Clinton railing about big money? If she is really willing to change the Constitution to end the Big Money/Big Politics nexus, she might do two things. One, she could scold Barack Obama for being the first presidential candidate in the history of campaign-financing laws to have refused public funds, with the limiting and transparent protocols that they require, in order to be freed to raise the largest privately funded war chest in presidential campaign history — as well as to set records as the greatest recipient of Wall Street cash. Nothing has been more deleterious to the progressive idea of barring the piling up of unlimited money for presidential races."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/424372/print


relegion has been used as a tool to control the masses by elected officials since officials have been elected. :gh:

I would have thought there would have been something here about his hating the constitution?

relegion has been used as a tool to control the masses by elected officials since officials have been elected. :gh:

as has politics...they're pretty similar when you think about....all depends on where or in whom you invest your trust

I would have thought there would have been something here about his hating the constitution?

I've never hear anyone use the word hate so frequently :angel:

as has politics...they're pretty similar when you think about....all depends on where or in whom you invest your trust

Trust no one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've never hear anyone use the word hate so frequently :angel:

whole lotta haters here

Some here would not vote for Bernie.....is one reason because he is a socialist?

Some here would not vote for Bernie.....is one reason because he is a socialist?

That's one reason. Another would be that he wrote that women fantasize about being gang raped. Yet another reason is that he's been in the Senate for about 85 years, and has done just about nothing as far as I can tell.

That one reason is no different then ben carson saying about muslims.....that is your opinon same as ben's opinon.....so what is the fuzz with people for what he said....carson has a very good point and concern about a muslim president.....united states could under a muslim president have 2 sets of laws such as in the united kingdom....in our country we have people that believe in equality...therfore giving into muslim sharia law perhaps....:)

socialism and Islam are incompatible with our Constitution, and that is why.....

May be incompatible and do not coexist at the same time or in the same place but both laws exsist in Briton....in our country americans R gullible....:)

socialism and Islam are incompatible with our Constitution, and that is why.....

Separation of church and state was created so that this country could be compatable with any religion and not push one religion down someone's throat or hold them accountable for religious violations like what happened in Salem.

what could not support a Muslim president is bigoted religious folks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Separation of church and state was created so that this country could be compatable with any religion and not push one religion down someone's throat or hold them accountable for religious violations like what happened in Salem.

what could not support a Muslim president is bigoted religious folks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I really hate to sound like Spence here, but what Carson said may be being taken out of context. Before Carson said what he said about Muslims, right before that, he specifically said he would support someone of any religion for President, as long as that person was able to make his religion take a back seat to the US Constitution. His concerns about a Muslim were directed at a hypothetical Muslim who would have difficulty putting the principles of our Constitution ahead of the principles of Islam. No one would want a radical Islamic president.

Furthermore, Carson didn't say such a person doesn't have the right to run for President, he said he wouldn't support it. If someone asked Obama if he would support a hard-line Tea Party candidate for President, and if Obama was being honest for once, he would say "no I would not support that". What's the difference?

I like to think I'm not an anti-Muslim bigot, and I am friendly with a few Muslims. But there is something about that religion that causes an extremism not found today, in any other religions. There is a reason for that. I don't know exactly what the reason is. But what I do know, is that nobody is concerned about Mormons, Catholics, or born-again Christians, blowing people up. We have federal agencies dedicated to the threat of radical Islamists, we don't have teams dedicated to tracking radical Quakers, not that I know of at least.

Nebe, we have to be vigilant bc Shira law is going to be imposed.

Carson made the following statement "Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

How is that different from everyone who was supporting that 4 time married, adultering county clerk who refused to issue marriage certs. bc she wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage?

Carson made the following statement "Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

How is that different from everyone who was supporting that 4 time married, adultering county clerk who refused to issue marriage certs. bc she wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage?

But in his statement before the one you quoted, he said that anyone of any faith could be POTUS, as long as they put the constitution ahead of their religious beliefs. What Carson is saying now, is that if you put the statements together, what he meant to say was that only a Muslim who couldn't put the constitution first, would be someone he couldn't support.

If Carson is implying that Muslims have a harder time seperating their religion from public policy than followers of other religions, well, he's obviously correct. I'm not saying every Muslim is a fanatic. But as a group, they tend to have a tough time putting religious beliefs aside when it comes to forming policy. and if you don't believe me, go over to France or Germany and report back on how well the Muslims there are assimillating.

The clerk you refer to, has a constitutionally guaranteed right to practice her religion. Obama is suing truck transportation companies to force them to accommodate Muslim truck drivers who don't want to transport alcohol. Referring to that suit, Obama says that employers MUST make religious accommodations for their employees. If you can tell me why Muslim truck drivers have that right but not Christian clerks (or Christian bakers, for that matter), you can have my house for free. Good luck with that.

Paul, here i swhat the Obama administration said regarding their suit against truck transport companies. Muslim drivers didn't want to transport alcolhol, the companies said that in that case, they couldn't work there, because it's part of the job. From the Obama administration:

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so."

If that applies to Muslim truck drivers, why doesn't it apply to Christian clerks, or Christian bakers?

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

Separation of church and state was created so that this country could be compatable with any religion and not push one religion down someone's throat or hold them accountable for religious violations like what happened in Salem.

what could not support a Muslim president is bigoted religious folks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you forgot "haters"...have you ever actually read the Constitution or spent any time studying American History?

"But the problems with a Muslim being President aren’t religious, they’re political. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law.

No one, that is, except the Muslim clerics who agree with Carson. Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar said in March 2009: “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” -- because in Islamic thought, only Allah legislates.

Abd Al-Karim Bakkar was reflecting a common view. Pakistan Muslim leader Sufi Muhammad said in May 2009: “I would not offer prayer behind anyone who would seek to justify democracy.” Mesbah Yazdi, leader of the Shia Taliban in Iran, said in September 2010 that “democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place” -- in Islam, that is. Australian Muslim cleric Ibrahim Saddiq Conlan said in June 2011: “Democracy is evil, the parliament is evil and legislation is evil.”

In January 2013, the Saudi Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak declared: “Electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam as it has been introduced by the enemies of Moslems.” The idea of popular elections, he said, “has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”



Some Muslims in the West hold these views as well. In April 2015, Muslims in Wales plastered Cardiff with posters reading: “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires. This leads to a decayed and degraded society where crime and immorality becomes widespread and injustice becomes the norm. Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

And two Muslim groups in Denmark last June called on Muslims to boycott the elections that were held that month. One explained: “We are committed to being active participants in our society, but it has to be on Islam’s terms, without compromising our own principles and values. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Islam, and it is a sinking ship.” The Grimshøj mosque in Aarhus agreed, issuing a statement saying that “people should stay clear of the voting booths. We have concluded that only Allah can pass laws, as he says himself in the Koran that this is so.”

Tunisian author Salem Ben Ammar wrote last month: “‘To hell with democracy! Long live Islam!’ One hundred percent of Muslims agree with that. To say anything else is apostasy from Islam. These two competing political systems are antithetical to each other. You can’t be democratic and be a Muslim or a Muslim and be a democrat. A Jew can’t be a Nazi and a Nazi can’t be a Judeophile.”

But in his statement before the one you quoted, he said that anyone of any faith could be POTUS, as long as they put the constitution ahead of their religious beliefs. What Carson is saying now, is that if you put the statements together, what he meant to say was that only a Muslim who couldn't put the constitution first, would be someone he couldn't support.

.

but that doesn't change what he said in the statement that I quoted and the example of the clerk. Essentially, they both are the same and what he is saying is that you have to leave your religious beliefs at the door and do your job Edit - I should have said that it sounds like he is saying if you are Muslim, you should leave your religious beliefs at the door..

I didn't follow the trucker issue but if the issue is basically the same (it may be??) then he (and I think the majority of the US public) should be criticizing anyone who supports the trucker, the clerk, etc.

I don't recall statements he made 1 way or the other about the clerk.

Did a quick search and here is what Carson said.

In an interview about how to address the problem of those who support gay marriage versus the religious liberty rights of people such as Kentucky’s Rowan County clerk Kim Davis, Dr. Ben Carson said "this is a Judeo-Christian nation" and lawmakers need to take steps to ensure the First Amendment rights of every American are protected.

On the Sept. 8 edition of The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly questioned whether religious exceptions could be made for government employees who oppose gay marriage, remarking, “Detractors say that that’s a slippery slope because, next thing, you’re going to have Catholics who refuse to issue a marriage license to people who have been divorced, or Muslims who refuse to issue a marriage license to people who want to -- Muslims who want to marry Christians, and so on. Where does it end?”

Ben Carson responded, "But this is a very basic right. This is a Judeo-Christian nation in the sense that a lot of our values and principles are based on our Judeo-Christian faith. “

“There are substantial numbers of people who actually believe in the traditional definition of marriage,” he said. “I’m one of them. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think that other people can do whatever they want to do.”

“But I don’t actually believe that they have the right to force their way of life upon everybody else,” said Carson. “Nor would I try to force my way of life upon everybody else. And this is where some intellect has to come into place, and our legislators need to sit down and ask themselves, ‘How do we make sure that the rights of all Americans are protected?’ Which requires a little bit of effort.”

funny I think I recall the media and the left panicked and badgering GWB about how his religion might affect or influence his decisions and leadership....

Jim - question for you.

If someone was in a very rural area with only 1 doctor available who was a Jehovah's Witness and a member of their family needed a blood tranfusion to save their life. Would you have a problem with the Dr. refusing to perform it?

Jim - question for you.

If someone was in a very rural area with only 1 doctor available who was a Jehovah's Witness and a member of their family needed a blood tranfusion to save their life. Would you have a problem with the Dr. refusing to perform it?

don't answer that unless he can provide an actual example

but that doesn't change what he said in the statement that I quoted and the example of the clerk. Essentially, they both are the same and what he is saying is that you have to leave your religious beliefs at the door and do your job Edit - I should have said that it sounds like he is saying if you are Muslim, you should leave your religious beliefs at the door..

I didn't follow the trucker issue but if the issue is basically the same (it may be??) then he (and I think the majority of the US public) should be criticizing anyone who supports the trucker, the clerk, etc.

I don't recall statements he made 1 way or the other about the clerk.

Carson's concern about a Muslim president, is that said president might be willing to put his religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution. In other words, Carson wants to uphold the Constitution. That's not offensive, correct?

Which is exactly what supporters of the clerk (and the Christian baker) are doing. I am pro gay marriage, so I don't even agree with what the clerk, or Christian baker, believe. But I support the clerk and the baker purely on Constitutional grounds, because the constitution clearly guarantees them the right to do what they are doing. It is people who think the Christian baker should be fined, it is people who think the clerk should be fired, who are wiling to trample the constutution when it suits their personal agenda, which is EXACTLY what Carson is afraid would happen with a Muslim president. As liberals are more than willing to ignore the Constitution in support of liberalism, Carson will not support a Muslim president who would ignore the COnstutution in support of Islam.

I thnik you have this one wrong, Paul.

we've had the religion of progressivism, which is also incompatible with our Constitution, shoved down our throats for around a hundred years...like frogs in a pot on a stove

Jim - question for you.

If someone was in a very rural area with only 1 doctor available who was a Jehovah's Witness and a member of their family needed a blood tranfusion to save their life. Would you have a problem with the Dr. refusing to perform it?

Yes, I would. Because the standard, as Obama put it in the case of the truckers, is that if the religious person can get an accommodation without undue hardship, then he must be granted the accommodation.

In your example, it would likely cause undue hardship on the patient, for the only available doctor to refuse treatment.

That's not remotely the same thing as what happened with the clerk - the happy couple can get from the license from the employee in the next window. That's not an undue hardship.

Your example is not remptely what happened in the case of the Christian baker. Assuming there are other bakers in the community who would happily participate in the wedding, the happy couple can go with another baker. That's not undue hardship.

Your example, therefore, doesn't seem pertinent.

We all have to be willing to endure a little bit of nuisance of discomfort sometimes, to allow others to enjoy their constitutional protections. An artist can get public tax dollars to paint a picture of Holy Mary covered in feces - I find it deeply offensive, but I wouldn't want a law prohibiting it, because the Bill Of Rights gives the artist that right. The Bill Of Rights even applies to Christians.

Yes, I would. Because the standard, as Obama put it in the case of the truckers, is that if the religious person can get an accommodation without undue hardship, then he must be granted the accommodation.

In your example, it would likely cause undue hardship on the patient, for the only available doctor to refuse treatment.

That's not remotely the same thing as what happened with the clerk - the happy couple can get from the license from the employee in the next window. That's not an undue hardship.



I think what happened is that the judge put her in jail bc along with not issuing the licenses she was preventing the 5-6 clerks who work for her from issuing the licenses. I believe that her lawyers where stating that the couples could get licenses from clerks in other jurisdications. Prob. having to travel would be the difference and thus an undue hardship. Once she agreed not to infere w/the other clerks, she was let out.

I think what happened is that the judge put her in jail bc along with not issuing the licenses she was preventing the 5-6 clerks who work for her from issuing the licenses. I believe that her lawyers where stating that the couples could get licenses from clerks in other jurisdications. Prob. having to travel would be the difference and thus an undue hardship. Once she agreed not to infere w/the other clerks, she was let out.

Agreed, she has no right whatsoever, to force her beliefs on other clerks in that office. But as long as someone there was willing to grant the license, there's no undue hardship. Similarly, there's no undue hardship in finding another baker in the area. Do you agree?

Again, if Obama is willing to sue to make sure Muslim truck drivers get a religious accommodation, why the hell don't Christian workers have that same right? Do we have equal protection under the law, or did Weird Harold do away with that?

prob. no undue hardship but in Co. there was an antidiscrimination act. preventing people from discriminating against gays and that that the court said it didn't have anything to do w/religion. Providing goods/services was included in the law. The court said that the U.S.S.C.'s ruling in the gay marriage case meant that if you don't recognize gay marriage, you are discriminating against gays. They said that if he made the cake it does not mean that he supports gay marriage and doesn't violate his 1st amend. rights. I think they even said he can post a note saying he doesn't support gay marriage. The Co. court also said that bc of the antidiscrimination act (or the way it was written) freedom of religion had nothing to do with the case.

prob. no undue hardship but in Co. there was an antidiscrimination act. preventing people from discriminating against gays and that that the court said it didn't have anything to do w/religion. Providing goods/services was included in the law. The court said that the U.S.S.C.'s ruling in the gay marriage case meant that if you don't recognize gay marriage, you are discriminating against gays. They said that if he made the cake it does not mean that he supports gay marriage and doesn't violate his 1st amend. rights. I think they even said he can post a note saying he doesn't support gay marriage. The Co. court also said that bc of the antidiscrimination act (or the way it was written) freedom of religion had nothing to do with the case.

If state law in Colorado says that Christians must abandon their beliefs, that law is unconstitutional, and thus not valid. Read the administration's quote about the rights guaranteed to Muslim truck drives, and please explain how that could possibly not also apply to the Christian baker. Come on, Paul.

Then help fund an appeal. I don't know what else to tell you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Separation of church and state was created so that this country could be compatable with any religion and not push one religion down someone's throat or hold them accountable for religious violations like what happened in Salem.

Your statement contradicts itself. If the church and state have to be separate, and if a country is a state, then how could it be compatible with any religion? If the church and state are compatible, then they can exist together in harmony. If they must be separate, they cannot be compatible since they cannot exist together.

The "creation" of the separation of church and state was a manufactured notion based originally on a letter of Jefferson. It was not based on the first amendment which prohibited the Federal Government from abridging religious freedom--that is, it was not separate from religion, but actually protected it even as a parent would protect its child not only from outside predators, but from the parent's own inclination to deny its child of valuable liberty. To say that the first amendment created a wall of separation between church and state would be like saying it created such a wall between freedom of speech and the state, or between the state and the other rights listed or implied in the Constitution. If the foundation of a state is based on unalienable rights, and its function is to protect those rights, how can it be separate from them?

But the Progressive's glomming onto the notion that there is such a wall of separation in the Constitution expanded over time to not only become a tenet of jurisprudence, but to even reverse who or what is to be prohibited by the wall. The Progressive ideology that rights cannot be unalienable, but can only be granted by the state lays the burden of prohibition not on the state but on the church. It is now increasingly becoming the church which is prohibited against abridging the rights and dictates of the state.

And this concocted wall of separation has metastasized onto the other once unalienable rights of individuals listed in the Constitution as well as onto the vast residuum of rights not listed therein but existing because of the strict constitutional limitations placed on government.

And, again, the walls are all a fiction. In fact, the "separation" is a fiction. There never was a separation when the government was prohibited from abridging the people's rights, and there is now no separation when the people are prohibited from abridging the power of the state. There was always a bond between the people and the state. Ultimately, the people were meant to be the state. And because of the necessity of government it was necessary to abridge its ability to destroy individual sovereignty over personal life.

The bond still exists, but now the sovereignty is being transferred to the Federal government, and the people are intimately connected to it not as sovereigns but as supplicants.

But if you must be stuck on this fictitious notion of the wall of separation between church and state, and you believe the Constitution prescribes that wall, then you must reject Islam. In Islam, there is no separation. Fundamental Islam is not only a religion, it is a form of government. In Fundamental Islam, there is no separation between church and state. And the foundation of that government, sharia, is not compatible with our republican form of constitutional democracy.

One need not be swayed by Article VI which states that there shall be no religious test for qualification to any Office of the United States. The test is not Islam as a religion. It is Islam as a government. And one which is utterly in contradiction to ours. And if a Muslim were elected President, and was truthful rather than practicing Taqiyya, he could not honestly take the oath of office which would require him to obey the Constitution in any dispute between it and Sharia.

Here is a brief excerpted synopsis by a famous fundamental Islamic scholar which shows the incompatibility between Islam and our form of government:

Essential Features of the Islamic Political System
by

Abul Ala Maududi

"The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid (unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood) and Khilafat (vicegerency). It is difficult to appreciate the different aspects of Islamic polity without fully understanding these three principles. I will therefore begin with a brief exposition of what they are.

"Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use. This principle of the unity of Allah totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments are the Law.

"The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of Allah. The Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, has also, in accordance with the intention of the Divine Book, given us a model for the Islamic way of life by himself implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. The combination of these two elements is called the Shari‘ah.

"Now consider Khilafat. According to the Arabic lexicon, it means ‘representation’. Man, according to Islam, is the representative of Allah on earth, His vicegerent. That is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him by Allah, he is required to exercise his Allah-given authority in this world within the limits prescribed by Allah.

"A state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a human caliphate under the sovereignty of Allah and will do Allah’s will by working within the limits prescribed by Him and in accordance with His instructions and injunctions.

"What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy is that while the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty the former rests on the principle of popular Khilafat. In Western democracy the people are sovereign, in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. In the former the people make their own laws; in the latter they have to follow and obey the laws (Shari‘ah) given by Allah through His Prophet. In one the Government undertakes to fulfil the will of the people; in the other Government and the people alike have to do the will of Allah. Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is subservient to the Divine Law and exercises its authority in accordance with the injunctions of Allah and within the limits prescribed by Him."


what could not support a Muslim president is bigoted religious folks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or rational people who want to keep what liberties they have left intact.

Carson did say something about the type of Muslim. I suppose that, if such exists, a secular one who somehow subscribes to a reformed version of Islam might be OK. But such a person, at this point in time, would be more of a Muslim in name only. As religions "reform" they tend to depart from their foundations and actually become something else. And to depart from the teachings of a religion's founder and the very foundations on which the religion is based . . . would that still be the same religion . . other than having the same name?

As of yet, most of the Islamic countries are still fundamental in nature. The greatest exception would probably be Indonesia. Turkey had made great headway in reformation, but is now reverting to fundamentalism. Iran had tried reformation, but is now one of the most fundamental in governance. Egypt is struggling to maintain secular rule. Maybe a Muslim of Indonesian descent could take the oath of office and mean it?

Actually, what Maududi says about Western democracy really fits the Progressive model of centralized Federal government: " . . . a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner . . ." And how he describes Islamic governance is very similar to how Progressive government works--just replace "Allah" with "the government." Maybe, if the Constitution is a dead letter, and progressivism is the reality, then Islamic law might not be so different than how our government, more and more, operates.

Hmmm.

Then help fund an appeal. I don't know what else to tell you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could tell me, since I asked a few times, why Obama feels that Muslim truck drivers have a constitutional right to expect religious accommodations at work, but not these Christians? Is that not a valid question, given the facts? Isn't the same exact principle at play here?

You could tell me, since I asked a few times, why Obama feels that Muslim truck drivers have a constitutional right to expect religious accommodations at work, but not these Christians? Is that not a valid question, given the facts? Isn't the same exact principle at play here?

this is an easy one Jim....different strokes for different folks...the left makes it up as they go along based on political expedience...like Obama's gay marriage evolution

In August 2008 at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in California “I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” said Obama. “Now for me as a Christian,” and here he paused to let the applause die down, “for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union.” At this juncture, he pointed skyward and added, “God’s in the mix.”
Who could possibly have doubted so sincere a profession of faith? Obama adviser David Axelrod certainly did. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church,” Axelrod wrote of Obama in his memoir, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics, “and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union.’”

In those two words, “sacred union,” is the rub. Obama not only lied, but he also used “God” to sell the lie, a stunning bit of blasphemy in whatever faith Obama professes.

For Obama, lying about his faith was apparently no big deal. As he told Axelrod after stumbling through a question on same-sex marriage, “I’m just not very good at bulls––ing.”

One has to ask, if Obama was willing to bulls–- about his relationship with God, what was he not willing to bulls–- about?"



also Eben....I'm not finding much in the Federalist Papers, Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights or any of the founding documents referring to the Salem witch trials...lot's of other informative stuff in there however....

donations have been increasing to Carson's campaign since his muslim remark.....:)

Muslims will tell americans what they want to hear....:)

Jim, maybe the difference was that in Col. they had the anti discrimination law which was the key to the case. I don't know but I'm sure someone must have asked that question of the DOJ or a spokesman.

Or it could be that he enjoys sticking it to the guys who think it is appropriate to call the Pres. a POS bc of politics.

Jim, maybe the difference was that in Col. they had the anti discrimination law which was the key to the case. I don't know but I'm sure someone must have asked that question of the DOJ or a spokesman.

Or it could be that he enjoys sticking it to the guys who think it is appropriate to call the Pres. a POS bc of politics.

Paul, if federal law guarantees Muslims the right to religious accommodations at work, then state law in Colorado cannot take that right away from Christians. Federal law trumps state law.

"could be that he enjoys sticking it to the guys who think it is appropriate to call the Pres. a POS bc of politics"

He, Obama, enjoys sticking it to everyone who doesn't kiss his ring.