Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S.Constitution?

[Little-Acorn]

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?


The media is crowing in triumph after managing to catch Dr. Ben Carson in a "Gotcha" question.

They asked first if he would support a candidate whose views went against the Constitution. He gave the obvious answer: Of course not. (Never mind that this would cut out nearly every Democrat in elected office today.)

They then asked if he considered Muslim beliefs to be contrary to the Constitution. He correctly answered "Yes".

Then they asked if he would support a Muslim candidate for President. Rather than hedge, he flatly answered that he would not.

The media then jumped as far as they could, and are screaming that Dr. Carson would require a religious test for elected office, something forbidden by the Constitution.

When it's clear that Carson simply meant what he said: The he would not support anyone whose opinions and beliefs were contrary to the Constitution... whether those beliefs came from what he read in the newspaper this morning, or from his religion, or from what he was taught in public school, or from listening to Hillary. Doesn't matter WHY the guy held opinions that opposed the Constitution. If they did, then Dr. Carson would not support him, nor should he.

But the leftists are screaming with delight that they can twist what he said into something he obviously did NOT mean, and pretend he meant it. That's their bread and butter, no matter how false on disingenuous. And the leftists aren't about to give it up. In part because it's all they have.

So, let's ask generally:

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?

 

[DarkFury]

NO, hell NO and if that is not clear NO!

 

[Davros]

Of course not.

Yes, this is a non-issue being blown out of proportion by leftists and the media.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary said she would obliterate Iran if they got out of line, I'm guessing that means nuking them. In other news the MSM is wetting themselves over a Carson gotcha question.

 

[Little-Acorn]

NO, hell NO and if that is not clear NO!

So, are YOU guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?

 

[mudwhistle]

NO, hell NO and if that is not clear NO!

So, are YOU guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?

Actually there is no law against it. This is liberals attempting, once again, to re-write the constitution.

No laws for or against the free-expression of religion.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No laws for or against the free-expression of religion.

....no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. - U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 3

So... are the people who answered NO, guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?

(hint: The answer's in the OP)

 

[rdean]

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?

No, and that's why I'm not going to vote Republican.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?

No, and that's why I'm not going to vote Republican.

Looks like little rdean can't even supply a correct answer without smearing and lying about Republicans.

 

[Claudette]

Hell no.

Muslim religion has no business running the US of A.

Anyone who would vote for a Muslim and their antiquated religion for POTUS is a class a fucking moron.

 

[DarkFury]

Sharia is not only a law but a religion AND culture. They do NOT come apart.

 

[mudwhistle]

No laws for or against the free-expression of religion.

....no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. - U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 3

So... are the people who answered NO, guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?

(hint: The answer's in the OP)

If it says it's not required that's the same as saying it can be allowed. The point being you can't require that everyone who wants to be president must be a member of a particular church or religion. This prevents a theocracy. Rejecting a Muslim according to his or her religious beliefs does the same thing. The purpose is to prevent theocratic rule.

 

[easyt65]

"Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S.Constitution?"

Wrong question...most people have no clue what Sharia law is really like. The right question would go something like this:

Would you support a candidate who would make it legal to oppress women, treat them like property, deny them education or the right to work? Would you support a candidate who would make it legal to kill your wife or your daughter if they went on a date and held hands with their date...or KILL them if they were raped - blaming THEM for the rape instead of the rapists? Would you support a candidate who advocated men having sex with little boys while declaring they do not believe or allow pedophilia? Would you support a candidate who would eventually call for all non-Muslims...yeah, that means YOU...to be beheaded if you refused to convert to Islam (and then you'd probably be beheaded anyway, like ISIS is doing to Christians who convert)?

 

[easyt65]

Sharia is not only a law but a religion AND culture. They do NOT come apart.

Sharia is a DISEASE...an infection that enters the host and begins to rot and drive insane the being it enters. Signs of this disease are intolerance, oppression, hostility, suicidal thoughts, rage, and the desire to kill others who do not believe the way you do. This insanity has been known to drive fathers to kill their own daughters for holding hands with a boy at the movies or for being a victim of rape at the hands of another.

 

[Davros]

No laws for or against the free-expression of religion.

....no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. - U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 3

So... are the people who answered NO, guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?

(hint: The answer's in the OP)

No. Voters can require any religious test they want to. Government cannot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?

Is he the (D) candidate?
If so, then every liberal here would support him; they're lying of they say otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NO, hell NO and if that is not clear NO!

So, are YOU guilty of requiring a religious test for public office?

There can be no such legal test, as in a requirement found in election law.
People themselves can support/not support someone for any reason they choose.

 

[g5000]

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?

Nope.

Nor would I vote for a Presidential candidate who held that Biblical Law or Talmudic Law superceded the U.S. Constitution.

So Mike Huckabee is right out!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?

No, and that's why I'm not going to vote Republican.

Name one Republican candidate that holds the view that Sharia Law supersedes the U.S. constitution...

 

[Pogo]

Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S. Constitution?

Fuck the fuck no.
Who said it does?

And wtf does this have to do with Ben Carson? That ain't what he said.