Carson may have lost me last night

[PaulS]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

whole lotta haters here

[Fly Rod]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

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.

[PaulS]

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

[PaulS]

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[scottw]

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 in CT]

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

[PaulS]

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.”

[scottw]

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....

[PaulS]

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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....

[Fly Rod]

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[PaulS]

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.