Carson may have lost me last night

[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

[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.

[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....

[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.