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

"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

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?

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

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

Trust no one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

whole lotta haters here

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....:)

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?

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

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 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?

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

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

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.

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.