Ben Carson said on Sunday that Muslims were unfit to be president of the United States

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

While I would expect to see the left jump on this non PC opinion, most of you guys are smart enough to reason out the concept he based his opinion on. The facts are that as it stands today there is direct conflict between The Constitution and Sharia Law. #Womens rights #Due Process #Sexual Diversity #all men created equal # Too many to list
 
Religions are simply ideologies with scary monsters invented to enforce them.
Wrong.... Political differences are the true serial killers. It's the fight against one political ideology over another. Religion is just a subplot to the master plan. And a very small one in the last hundred years.
 
While I would expect to see the left jump on this non PC opinion, most of you guys are smart enough to reason out the concept he based his opinion on. The facts are that as it stands today there is direct conflict between The Constitution and Sharia Law. #Womens rights #Due Process #Sexual Diversity #all men created equal # Too many to list

Sharia law is not part of the discussion.
 
That actually supports how China and Mexico are kicking our ass. lol

No, that would be capitalism and Trump's corporations kicking our ass by shipping jobs and having his suits made in those countries.
 
Relax people; we can never have a Muslim president running our country. Borrowing money with interest is forbidden in Islam.

Then there is that no alcohol rule, no music rule, no masturbation rule, no eating pork (bacon) rule, no tattoos rule, no gambling rule…..
 
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/.../nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

Here is a table.

Israel is a special case, they do not have birthright citizenship but any Jew has auto citizenship.

Birthright citizenship is an economic tool that is used by undeveloped or underdeveloped countries to build an in-house labor force. Period. Once that goal is reached, or over-population becomes a problem, it is discontinued.

The US passed that point during the 50's.

From your link:

The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens.

The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:
  • Australia (2007)
  • New Zealand (2005)
  • Ireland (2005)
  • France (1993)
  • India (1987)
  • Malta (1989)
  • UK (1983)
  • Portugal (1981)
 
When you look at what Islam pushes, most of what they believe are probably not the most popular of American viewpoints. Sure, many other religions hold anti-gay views, but I don't think many take it to the level of islam (criminalizing homosexuality)

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population.

Regardless of whether they support making sharia the official law of the land, Muslims around the world overwhelmingly agree that in order for a person to be moral, he or she must believe in God. Muslims across all the regions surveyed also generally agree that certain behaviors – such as suicide, homosexuality and consuming alcohol – are morally unacceptable. However, Muslims are less unified when it comes to the morality of divorce, birth control and polygamy. Even Muslims who want to enshrine sharia as the official law of the land do not always line up on the same side of these issues.

Muslims’ attitudes toward women’s rights are mixed. In most parts of the world, Muslims say that a woman should be able to decide whether to wear a veil. Yet when it comes to private life, most Muslims say a wife should always obey her husband.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
Today in most of the Islamic world homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted. In some of these countries, Afghanistan,Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty.[4][5][6][7][8] In others, such as Somalia and Malaysia, it is illegal.[9]

Same-sex sexual intercourse is legal in 20 Muslim-majority nations (Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Niger, Tajikistan,Turkey, West Bank (State of Palestine), and most of Indonesia, as well as Northern Cyprus). In Albania, Lebanon, and Turkey, there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage.[10][11] Homosexual relations between females are legal inKuwait, but homosexual acts between males are illegal.
 
No, that would be capitalism and Trump's corporations kicking our ass by shipping jobs and having his suits made in those countries.
That's your opinion, but for normal people that understand economics, the price dictates the situation. Until America can compete with other countries that manufacture the same goods, this won't stop.

The (Democratic) unions, fight to protect the working man's salary, which I 100% support. But the government must protect the working class family by tariffs and restrictions to outside industry to import goods at half the price.
 
That's your opinion, but for normal people that understand economics, the price dictates the situation. Until America can compete with other countries that manufacture the same goods, this won't stop.

The (Democratic) unions, fight to protect the working man's salary, which I 100% support. But the government must protect the working class family by tariffs and restrictions to outside industry to import goods at half the price.

I support tariffs as well. But the corporations that you love so much have fought them tooth and nail with their lobbyists. So what you're saying is you want some regulation? Because that's exactly what tariffs are. Government regulation...
 
I don't have a problem with Muslims but I am 100% against muzzles.
 
I support tariffs as well. But the corporations that you love so much have fought them tooth and nail with their lobbyists. So what you're saying is you want some regulation? Because that's exactly what tariffs are. Government regulation...
I don't love corporations. I love America. Maybe you should too

As for lobbyists... Well, Trump isn't bound by them so he will fight for you.
 
Relax people; we can never have a Muslim president running our country. Borrowing money with interest is forbidden in Islam.

Then there is that no alcohol rule, no music rule, no masturbation rule, no eating pork (bacon) rule, no tattoos rule, no gambling rule…..

EnpentG.jpg
 
I know Muslim isn't a race but his statement is still racist in my opinion. I think this makes the whole black people can't be racist thread obsolete.

Oh my! another synonym for racist. I bet you have never read the Koran either. Have you read of the Tribe of Shabazz?
 
direct conflict between The Constitution and Sharia Law

Spot on! How could one support Sharia and take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?
Geez! Now that I think of it, it may have been done before.
 
Oh my! another synonym for racist. I bet you have never read the Koran either. Have you read of the Tribe of Shabazz?

It's like you look for my posts to respond to. Get a fucking life..
 
ANYONE who truly believes in mythical superbeings whether it be allah or god or the easter bunny, or pretends to believe in them to get elected, is totally unfit to lead America anywhere. A rational mind and basic reasoning skills are the foundation of effective leadership.

It's the 21st Century, people. Get a fucking clue.

While I mostly agree, I'm afraid it is still the case that the voters will only elect someone who either believes in mythical superbeings, or pretends to believe in them.

Given that those are the only two choices, and given the nature of the job, I prefer the latter.

barfo
 
Sharia law is not part of the discussion.
It was literally the main point of the discussion:
Doctor Carson said:
The first issue I want to deal with tonight is the stories today about my comments yesterday when I was asked if I would support a hypothetical Muslim candidate for Presiden.t. I responded “I would not advocate for that” and I went on to say that many parts of Sharia Law are not compatible with the Constitution. I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive. Know this, I meant exactly what I said. I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.
Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing. Under Islamic Law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.
I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced…I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.
…I also can’t advocate supporting Hillary Clinton either by the way.
https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson?fref=ts
 
He's a very smart man who was undoubtedly a great doctor. (BTW, he had no student loans to pay off. He got grants. Scholarships. Society thought he was a good investment. And it paid off. But he wants to eliminate those options for others; typical "pulling up the ladder".)
So if he's a "very smart man", what makes you think that his differing viewpoints from yours are dementia rather than a very smart man thinking logically, if perhaps hyperbolically? Do you want to keep the ladder down for poor investments?

And Carson clearly did not read or chose to disregard the US Constitution which explicitly states in Article VI, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
I think, based on his quote, that he chose to put as a higher priority to "support and defend the Constitution", which a Muslim who does not renounce Sharia law (in his mind, anyway) cannot. I find it odd that you wouldn't agree to that.
 
It was literally the main point of the discussion:

https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson?fref=ts


I don't think it was. You are quoting from the 'let me walk back what I said yesterday because it didn't go over so well' interview.

Here's the transcript of the original.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?



DR. BEN CARSON:

Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.



CHUCK TODD:

So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?



DR. BEN CARSON:

No, I don't, I do not.



CHUCK TODD:

So you--



DR. BEN CARSON:

I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.



CHUCK TODD:

And would you ever consider voting for a Muslim for Congress?



DR. BEN CARSON:

Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there's somebody who's of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them.

You'll note he does not mention Sharia law. At all.

barfo
 
Fair enough. You could parse and say "what aspect of Islam is not consistent with the constitution?" and the main answer would be "Sharia law", but I don't see this at all as a sign of "walking back"--if anything, it's a double-down on it. He's not apologizing for a single thing he said, which is kind of the point of walking back, right?
 
I did not say Carson may have dementia because we disagree.

I am going by what people who have followed him for years, which I have not, have observed. Numerous journalists, for example, have said that in the past he was always clear, articulate, logical - even if they disagreed with him. Now he always looks half asleep, struggles to find words, says things that are just totally absurd (like slaves working hard so their children could have a better life! Their children were slaves, or killed, or ran away.)

I don't claim to be an expert on dementia. But smart people can go into declines. And he has been just bizarre.
 
I did not say Carson may have dementia because we disagree.

I am going by what people who have followed him for years, which I have not, have observed. Numerous journalists, for example, have said that in the past he was always clear, articulate, logical - even if they disagreed with him. Now he always looks half asleep, struggles to find words, says things that are just totally absurd (like slaves working hard so their children could have a better life! Their children were slaves, or killed, or ran away.)

I don't claim to be an expert on dementia. But smart people can go into declines. And he has been just bizarre.

You made that up, or someone did and you accept it as fact.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top