Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S.Constitution?

[Syriusly]

The faux Christians are really odd about what 'commandments' they choose to be outraged about.

Where is their outrage regarding Hindu's and Buddhists who worship false idols?
Where is their outrage for men who remarry after divorce- you know- like Trump and Gingrich and Reagan.
Where is the outrage against people who work on the Sabbath?

For the Christians who say that they want to reject the homosexual 'lifestyle' because it is against the Bible- where is their outrage about the lifestyle of Hindu's and Buddhists?

 

[Programmer]

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

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

I think everyone has a right to vote. Of course the Constitution bans lawmakers from making laws requiring a religious tests. Citizens aren't banned from weighing a candidate's religion.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't really know Carson's position- but I disagree with Huckabee's

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he 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," he wrote. "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.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

The first commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”) violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from giving preference to any particular religion, according to the plaintiffs.

The second commandment (“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image…”) also violates the First Amendment, they say, because it conflicts with the right to free speech and expression.

Likewise, the third commandment (“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”) represents a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and expression.

The fourth commandment (“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”) is yet another violator of the First Amendment because it requires people to engage in a religious practice, which again conflicts with the Establishment Clause.

The fifth commandment (“Honour thy father and thy mother”) tells Americans how to express themselves, putting it in conflict with the freedom of expression under the First Amendment.

The tenth commandment (“Thou shalt not covet…”) is tantamount to creating a “thought crime,” which violates the Equal Protection clause.

When exactly has there ever been an establishment of religion in this country? If the Founders bslieved religion, and various denominational beliefs were indeed contrary to our Constiution and in conflict with our system of government, then explain those early periods of our nation's history when the federal government had blue laws?

The blue laws were in conflict with our system of government, and that's why they were eliminated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he 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," he wrote. "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.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

There is no "penalty" for violating Sharia. I violate Sharia every single day, and yet I've never been penalized for it.

Why did you lie about being "done" here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he 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," he wrote. "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.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

Depends on the Commandment.
Taking the Lords name in vain the penalty is execution

Really? Where? Here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he 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," he wrote. "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 would be fine holding all candidates to the same requirements- exactly as I said them

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

And unlike you or Carson- if I asked any candidate to affirm that they would hold the Constitution over their faith- I would demand all candidates- regardless of their religion to- make the same claim.

No requiring Muslims or Catholic do something that Evangelicals are not asked to do.

So....you agree with what Carson said.

Clearly I don't- since I advocate treating all candidates the same regardless of their religion.

You're disagreeing with what Carson didn't say.
You;re agreeing with what he did.
Thank you.

Do you believe every candidate should be required to declare that he or she believes the Constitution supercedes his or her own religious beliefs in matters of government?

Given your responses here, I believe that you agree with Carson said and take issue with what he did not say.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Carson:
Carson: I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law - CNNPolitics.com
"If someone has a Muslim background and they're willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion ... I would then be quite willing to support them," he 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," he wrote. "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.

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

Obviously the penalty for violating the 10 commandments is eternity in hell.

So... there's no penalty imposed by the federal/state government for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments.
What happens in, say, Saudi Arabia when you violate Shahira law?

 

[easyt65]

This question is like asking if you would support someone for President who advocates screwing your little boy, killing your daughter if she is raped (instead of the rapists), and cutting your head off if you do not agree to renounce your faith and adopt theirs...and still might do so anyway....

Conservatives:



Liberals:
"Sign me up!"

 

[Syriusly]

I would be fine holding all candidates to the same requirements- exactly as I said them

I would not support any candidate who claims that he or she would follow his or her religion before the Constitution- or that any 'law' is 'supreme' over the U.S. Constitution.

And unlike you or Carson- if I asked any candidate to affirm that they would hold the Constitution over their faith- I would demand all candidates- regardless of their religion to- make the same claim.

No requiring Muslims or Catholic do something that Evangelicals are not asked to do.

So....you agree with what Carson said.

Clearly I don't- since I advocate treating all candidates the same regardless of their religion.

You're disagreeing with what Carson didn't say.
You;re agreeing with what he did.
Thank you.

Do you believe every candidate should be required to declare that he or she believes the Constitution supercedes his or her own religious beliefs in matters of government?

Given your responses here, I believe that you agree with Carson said and take issue with what he did not say.

Given your responses here, you seem determined to put words in my mouth.

And avoid any substance yourself

Do you believe every candidate should be required to declare that he or she believes the Constitution supercedes his or her own religious beliefs in matters of government?

 

[Syriusly]

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

Obviously the penalty for violating the 10 commandments is eternity in hell.

So... there's no penalty imposed by the federal/state government for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments.
What happens in, say, Saudi Arabia when you violate Shahira law?

There is no penalty imposed by the federal/state government for violating the specifically religious tenets of Islam/Shariah either.

I can violate Sharia law every day here in the United States and probably do.

 

[Syriusly]

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

Depends on the Commandment.
Taking the Lords name in vain the penalty is execution

Really? Where? Here?

It is right there in the Bible.

Whether or not Jews and Christians choose to enforce those religious penalties is the same in the United States as it is with American Muslims on whether they choose to enforce the religious penalties that come from the Koran.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So....you agree with what Carson said.

Clearly I don't- since I advocate treating all candidates the same regardless of their religion.

You're disagreeing with what Carson didn't say.
You;re agreeing with what he did.
Thank you.

Do you believe every candidate should be required to declare that he or she believes the Constitution supercedes his or her own religious beliefs in matters of government?

Given your responses here, I believe that you agree with Carson said and take issue with what he did not say.

Given your responses here, you seem determined to put words in my mouth.

Where did I put words on your mouth?
You agree with what he said.
You take issue with the fact that he did not apply it across all religions - you take issue with that he did not say.
Where am I wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

Obviously the penalty for violating the 10 commandments is eternity in hell.

So... there's no penalty imposed by the federal/state government for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments.
What happens in, say, Saudi Arabia when you violate Shahira law?

There is no penalty imposed by the federal/state government for violating the specifically religious tenets of Islam/Shariah either.

Correct. But in states where Shahira law is law, there is.
Where in the Christian/Jewish areas of the world are violations of the religious tenets of the 10 Commandments punished by law?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

Depends on the Commandment.
Taking the Lords name in vain the penalty is execution

Really? Where? Here?

It is right there in the Bible.

So... nowhere in the modern Christian / Jewish world.
Thank you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You understand this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments", right?

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

There is no "penalty" for violating Sharia. I violate Sharia every single day, and yet I've never been penalized for it.

Why did you lie about being "done" here?

I didn't say I was "done here", I said I wasn't going to jump through your silly hoops.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It's not.

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

There is no "penalty" for violating Sharia. I violate Sharia every single day, and yet I've never been penalized for it.

Why did you lie about being "done" here?

I didn't say I was "done here", I said I wasn't going to jump through your silly hoops.

Ah.
Well, until you meet the requirement I laid out, directly related to you supporting your claim, I have no interest in what you have to say,
Have a nice day.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes it is. The 10 commandments directly conflict with our laws.

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

There is no "penalty" for violating Sharia. I violate Sharia every single day, and yet I've never been penalized for it.

Why did you lie about being "done" here?

I didn't say I was "done here", I said I wasn't going to jump through your silly hoops.

Ah.
Well, until you meet the requirement I laid out, directly related to you supporting your claim, I have no interest in what you have to say,
Have a nice day.

Whatever will I do without your nuggets of wisdom?

Why did you respond to my post, then?

 

[David_42]

What is the penalty for violating the specifically religious tenets of the 10 commandments?
What is the penalty for violating Shahira law?
There you go.

There is no "penalty" for violating Sharia. I violate Sharia every single day, and yet I've never been penalized for it.

Why did you lie about being "done" here?

I didn't say I was "done here", I said I wasn't going to jump through your silly hoops.

Ah.
Well, until you meet the requirement I laid out, directly related to you supporting your claim, I have no interest in what you have to say,
Have a nice day.

Whatever will I do without your nuggets of wisdom?

Why did you respond to my post, then?

This shooter guy is ridiculous, you can present him everything he asks for and hell continually say you don't meet his requirements.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This shooter guy is ridiculous...

Says he who freely admits he wants the state to impose his version of morality on others.

you can present him everything he asks for and hell continually say you don't meet his requirements.

You were asked to show a necessary relationship - that B must follow from A, and only A.
You offered nothing but post hoc ergo propter hoc -- not that you know what this means.
Your problem of course, is not that you will not admit that you failed, but you do not understand that you failed.

 

[David_42]

This shooter guy is ridiculous...

Says he who freely admits he wants the state to impose his version of morality on others.

you can present him everything he asks for and hell continually say you don't meet his requirements.

You were asked to show a necessary relationship - that B must follow from A, and only A.
You offered nothing but post hoc ergo propter hoc -- not that you know what this means.
Your problem of course, is not that you will not admit that you failed, but you do not understand that you failed.

I rest my case. I showed you mountains of evidence connecting the rise of labor organization and workplace unrest to government regulations aimed at helping laborers, you claim I show no connection. You're a fucking idiot.