Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
People have the right to lay whatever requirements they like for giving their support to someone or any office.elected or otherwise.By you- in order to get your support.I'll ask againDo 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?I quoted what you said.Where did I say I agree with what he said?"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"
This is what Carson said, save that he specified Muslims and Shaira law.
This is what Carson said, save that he specified Muslims and Shaira law
How does what you said NOT agree with him?
Oh look.. someone thinks that shouting will get them what they want.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?
Are you going to stop your feet as well?
Required by... whom?
Required by whom?
People have the right to lay whatever requirements they like for giving their support to someone or any office.elected or otherwise.By you- in order to get your support.I'll ask againDo 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?I quoted what you said.Where did I say I agree with what he said?
This is what Carson said, save that he specified Muslims and Shaira law
How does what you said NOT agree with him?
Oh look.. someone thinks that shouting will get them what they want.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?
Are you going to stop your feet as well?
Required by... whom?
Required by whom?
I, for one. would not support anyone who states they would govern according to The Word of God (or whatever) rather than the Constitution
I'm sure you agree.
I might, It would depend on the candidate - if someone were openly in support of instituting Sharia law , or the tenets thereof, into our laws, I would not consider supporting him until he made sch a declaration.So you would not require or expect a candidate to make a positive declaration like Carson said he would requirePeople have the right to lay whatever requirements they like for giving their support to someone or any office.elected or otherwise.By you- in order to get your support.I'll ask againDo 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?I quoted what you said.
This is what Carson said, save that he specified Muslims and Shaira law
How does what you said NOT agree with him?
Oh look.. someone thinks that shouting will get them what they want.
Are you going to stop your feet as well?
Required by... whom?
Required by whom?
I, for one. would not support anyone who states they would govern according to The Word of God (or whatever) rather than the Constitution
I'm sure you agree.
"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 might, It would depend on the candidate - if someone were openly in support of instituting Sharia law , or the tenets thereof, into our laws, I would not consider supporting him until he made sch a declaration.So you would not require or expect a candidate to make a positive declaration like Carson said he would requirePeople have the right to lay whatever requirements they like for giving their support to someone or any office.elected or otherwise.By you- in order to get your support.I'll ask againDo 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?
Required by whom?
I, for one. would not support anyone who states they would govern according to The Word of God (or whatever) rather than the Constitution
I'm sure you agree.
"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.
Now tell me
Why do you take exception with what he said, nothing that what he said and did not say are not the same thing.
Ok.. so,,, I still really don't see your problem other than Carson did not specifically mention Christians.Why do I take exception to what he said?
Here is what he said again
"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.
What are my problems with that statement?
Carson said any Muslim would have to renounce Sharia before he could support them.
- "I could never support that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law,"
Carson didn't say he wouldn't support a Muslim who was openly in support of instituting Sharia law- but that he would need ANY Muslim to specifically renounce Sharia first.
To me that is no different than saying I would not support any Christian unless he renounced the central tenant of Christianity- the 10 Commandments.
See I dont' really care what religion a candidate has or does not have. But if a candidate said his decisions would be guided by his religion or faith rather than the Constitution or the law- I could not support such a candidate.
Ok.. so,,, I still really don't see your problem other than Carson did not specifically mention Christians.Why do I take exception to what he said?
Here is what he said again
"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.
What are my problems with that statement?
Carson said any Muslim would have to renounce Sharia before he could support them.
- "I could never support that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law,"
Carson didn't say he wouldn't support a Muslim who was openly in support of instituting Sharia law- but that he would need ANY Muslim to specifically renounce Sharia first.
To me that is no different than saying I would not support any Christian unless he renounced the central tenant of Christianity- the 10 Commandments.
See I dont' really care what religion a candidate has or does not have. But if a candidate said his decisions would be guided by his religion or faith rather than the Constitution or the law- I could not support such a candidate.
Of course not.
Yes, this is a non-issue being blown out of proportion by leftists and the media.
"The Media" didn't blow anything out of proportion, Carson made a statement about a religious litmus test.
His handlers saw how badly that played in the media and now are qualifying and walking back what he said.
And still? He's been pretty clumsy about it. He's wholly not qualified to be President. That said? I hope he becomes the Republican candidate.
Hillary has done some back peddling and explaining over those emails. We have one media trying to show republicans are demonstrating religious discrimination, while the other is focusing on a democrat of being incompetent with respect to handling national security matters. Out of the two, which is more of a risk and concern for this nation, that comes with the position and responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief? Seems to me the left is reaching to protect their preferred candidate Hillary by throwing ANY dirt they can on the republican candidates, in hopes to make something strick that exonerates Mrs. Clinton from any lack of trust she has created with voters.
She, like Bill Clinton, has handled the manufactured scandal pretty badly. She should have took a page from the Bush/Cheney book when they had the exact same issue with over several million emails. They were like "fuck you". Next.
Good stuff.
FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug
Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state
See, that's the problem with this nation. You want to keep excusing people for corruption just because of the party they belong to. Bill and Hillary Clinton are criminals. What does that say about you when you think they are good representatives for you?
Remind us again when Bill and Hilary were convicted of crimes- and which crimes that they were convicted of?
The blue laws were in conflict with our system of government, and that's why they were eliminated.
No. It's not.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?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.
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.
No. It's not.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?
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.
Blue laws were enacted during the early formation of this country to encourage and include religion, as well as they believed there was a connection to establishing good moral behavior. These actions were not evidence of a people that believed and promoted freedom FROM religion and "separation", in fact the vast majority of the states widely accepted as well as included religion as pert of their state constitutions. You would be hard pressed to find evidence of a state constitution from the colonies of the late 18th century, that rejected religion or demanded their separation from it.
I might, It would depend on the candidate - if someone were openly in support of instituting Sharia law , or the tenets thereof, into our laws, I would not consider supporting him until he made sch a declaration.So you would not require or expect a candidate to make a positive declaration like Carson said he would requirePeople have the right to lay whatever requirements they like for giving their support to someone or any office.elected or otherwise.By you- in order to get your support.I'll ask again
Required by whom?
I, for one. would not support anyone who states they would govern according to The Word of God (or whatever) rather than the Constitution
I'm sure you agree.
"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.
Now tell me
Why do you take exception with what he said, nothing that what he said and did not say are not the same thing.
Why do I take exception to what he said?
Here is what he said again
"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.
What are my problems with that statement?
Carson said any Muslim would have to renounce Sharia before he could support them.
- "I could never support that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law,"
Carson didn't say he wouldn't support a Muslim who was openly in support of instituting Sharia law- but that he would need ANY Muslim to specifically renounce Sharia first.
To me that is no different than saying I would not support any Christian unless he renounced the central tenant of Christianity- the 10 Commandments.
See I dont' really care what religion a candidate has or does not have. But if a candidate said his decisions would be guided by his religion or faith rather than the Constitution or the law- I could not support such a candidate.
But I do not expect- nor would I require that any candidate tell me that his decisions would be guided only by the Constitution- not his religion or faith.
Regardless I would hold all candidates of any faith- or without any faith to the same expectation.
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.
Blue laws were enacted during the early formation of this country to encourage and include religion, as well as they believed there was a connection to establishing good moral behavior. These actions were not evidence of a people that believed and promoted freedom FROM religion and "separation", in fact the vast majority of the states widely accepted as well as included religion as pert of their state constitutions. You would be hard pressed to find evidence of a state constitution from the colonies of the late 18th century, that rejected religion or demanded their separation from it.
All true, but one of the best parts of our system of government is it's ability to change to better apply to changing society.Those blue laws were acceptable back then, but that is no longer true. That's why they were eliminated.
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.
Blue laws were enacted during the early formation of this country to encourage and include religion, as well as they believed there was a connection to establishing good moral behavior. These actions were not evidence of a people that believed and promoted freedom FROM religion and "separation", in fact the vast majority of the states widely accepted as well as included religion as pert of their state constitutions. You would be hard pressed to find evidence of a state constitution from the colonies of the late 18th century, that rejected religion or demanded their separation from it.
All true, but one of the best parts of our system of government is it's ability to change to better apply to changing society.Those blue laws were acceptable back then, but that is no longer true. That's why they were eliminated.
Well faith and the following of various denominations aren't as big now as it was back then. Most colonies were built around a local church or churches, where various religious denominations became a normal accepted part of your daily life. Areas like drunkenness, promiscuity, stealing, profanity were viewed much harsher then and not as easily tolerated. Now there are less people that attend a certain denomination as there once was in this country, and even less devout followers who make it a part of their daily lives. You only have to watch the news for a week, to make the determination that there is no value for human life, nor are there any children raised with a respect towards their elders, a handshake is no longer viewed as the sealed bond behind a person's word, etc.. I'm not saying religon is the solemn reason for what's happened, but yes ... overall... a lot of things have certainly changed in this country. Unfortunately, not all for the better.
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?
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?
