Ben Carson Says Muslims Should Be Disqualified From Presidency

[David_42]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body.

It's not her body that is being killed.

Oh boy, here we go. A fetus is a fetus, it is reliant on the female body and the female has authority over the fetus, it is her body, there is no way in hell to control uterus's, it's impossible, well, unless you want to force women to give birth.

A fetus has its own DNA, unique from its mother. That is of course, human DNA. A little scientific fact that liberals refuse to acknowledge.

And they accuse republicans of ignoring science.

Yes, a fetus has DNA that is unique, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a fetus, without consciousness, inside of the women's body, free from your hands.

 

[Roudy]

Carson has a right to his opinion, which is line with what most Americans believe.

That's why Obama had to swear up and down a hundred times that he wasn't a Muslim. And based on his actions during his presidency, the jury is still out on whether he lied about that one as he did many things in 08, like when he said he was against gay marriage.

Obama wouldn't have had to swear anything up & down if not for the nutters insisting he was Muslim to begin with (as if that really made a difference CONSTITUTIONALLY considering there IS NO LITMUS TEST FOR RELIGION?)

Obama knew that if he professed his faith to be "Muslim" then that would have immediately deemed him undetectable. So who knows, he may have lied about his faith just to get elected, just like he did about gay marriage.

Or.....you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Call me strange, but in a contest of who to believe on Obama's faith, I put way more credence in Obama's accounts of his own beliefs than I do you pretending you're Obama.

I wouldn't believe Obama on anything. Maybe if he showed his transcripts, it would help clarify.

 

[bripat9643]

I just find if funny that you actually think that the US. Constitution gives a woman the right to kill a baby she conceived, no matter what when and how.

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

In terms of her reproduction, it absolutely does. Her reproductive choices are hers. Not yours. And for a lot of conservatives the fact that she gets to make this decision herself infuriates them. As these conservatives feel that its a choice they should be making for her.

Nope. In the question of her reproduction......you're nobody.

"In terms of her reproduction?" That reply has earned you a trip to weasel purgatory, nitwit.

As we're discussion abortion, her reproduction is immediately relevant. Your babble about assisted suicide isn't.

Again, you're nobody. You get no say in her reproduction. You never do. She always does.

See how this works?

The term "reproduction" wasn't used, moron.

No go play on the freeway.

 

[Skylar]

What's crazy about that? Does she have the right control her own body or not?

Of course she does, but it's an attempt to dodge the abortion subject, regardless, I do support a persons right to end their own life.

So asking you to explain how your "right to control her own body" applies in other situations is a "diversion?" You believe logic and facts are "diversions."

And what relevance does that have with a woman's right to control her own reproduction? Specifically?

Remember, you're irrelevant to this entire discussion. You never get a say in how a woman will reproduce. She always does. And she's the only one.

The term used was "the right to control her body." Quite trying to move the goal posts. However, that's exactly the kind of thing I expect from a champion weasel like you.

In the context of a discussion of abortion. Which you're desperate to abandon in your bizarre babble about suicide.

I'm quite happy right where its at. A woman controls her own reproduction. you don't.

You're nobody. You decide nothing. Ever. She always decides everything. In reference to what? The topic of our discussion: abortion.

 

[Mertex]

Never said they can't have the same RIGHTS as married couples. Why don't they call it a civil union and leave the world alone. But no, they want to stomp and insult people's faiths as well. They have the "right".

Marriage isn't owned by any one religion. "Marriage" is just a word to describe two people that have vowed before the courts that they are committed to each other and under the rules of being wedded.....it's not magically "spiritual", especially when so many like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump don't even take the word "marriage" seriously. I don't see conservatives denouncing Limbaugh for making a mockery of marriage....so I presume that it is all feigned sanctimony for those that abhor homosexuality.

 

[Roudy]

Our country needs to be more accomodating , tolerant and understanding of muzzies.
We could learn something... Lol

Yes, we need to tolerate those who have zero tolerance.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

In terms of her reproduction, it absolutely does. Her reproductive choices are hers. Not yours. And for a lot of conservatives the fact that she gets to make this decision herself infuriates them. As these conservatives feel that its a choice they should be making for her.

Nope. In the question of her reproduction......you're nobody.

"In terms of her reproduction?" That reply has earned you a trip to weasel purgatory, nitwit.

As we're discussion abortion, her reproduction is immediately relevant. Your babble about assisted suicide isn't.

Again, you're nobody. You get no say in her reproduction. You never do. She always does.

See how this works?

The term "reproduction" wasn't used, moron.

No go play on the freeway.

Its the topic of our discussion, dipshit. That the topic of abortion isn't working out so well for you and you're now trying to abandon it isn't my problem.

She controls her reproduction. You decide nothing.

See how that works? You are (say it with me....) 'nobody'.

 

[Roudy]

Never said they can't have the same RIGHTS as married couples. Why don't they call it a civil union and leave the world alone. But no, they want to stomp and insult people's faiths as well. They have the "right".

Marriage isn't owned by any one religion. "Marriage" is just a word to describe two people that have vowed before the courts that they are committed to each other and under the rules of being wedded.....it's not magically "spiritual", especially when so many like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump don't even take the word "marriage" seriously. I don't see conservatives denouncing Limbaugh for making a mockery of marriage....so I presume that it is all feigned sanctimony for those that abhor homosexuality.

Gee, all this vitriol when your leader used religion as the main reason he was against gay marriage? Or was he lying through his teeth just to get elected?

 

[Skylar]

Carson has a right to his opinion, which is line with what most Americans believe.

That's why Obama had to swear up and down a hundred times that he wasn't a Muslim. And based on his actions during his presidency, the jury is still out on whether he lied about that one as he did many things in 08, like when he said he was against gay marriage.

Obama wouldn't have had to swear anything up & down if not for the nutters insisting he was Muslim to begin with (as if that really made a difference CONSTITUTIONALLY considering there IS NO LITMUS TEST FOR RELIGION?)

Obama knew that if he professed his faith to be "Muslim" then that would have immediately deemed him undetectable. So who knows, he may have lied about his faith just to get elected, just like he did about gay marriage.

Or.....you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Call me strange, but in a contest of who to believe on Obama's faith, I put way more credence in Obama's accounts of his own beliefs than I do you pretending you're Obama.

I wouldn't believe Obama on anything. Maybe if he showed his transcripts, it would help clarify.

And what you 'believe' has no relevance to Obama's religious convictions. Your existence is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. if you believe, if you don't, if you exist, if you don't......Obama's religious convictions go right on trucking.

Why would any rational person ignore Obama on his own beliefs and instead believe you pretending to speak for him?

 

[LittleNipper]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body.

It's not her body that is being killed.

Oh boy, here we go. A fetus is a fetus, it is reliant on the female body and the female has authority over the fetus, it is her body, there is no way in hell to control uterus's, it's impossible, well, unless you want to force women to give birth.

Again, it is not her body.

As for viability, there are quite a few bodies that are not viable without external help, and yet we are not allowed to kill them at will just because they are a huge financial and emotional drain or a big cost to the state.

It IS her body, the fetus relies on her body, she is the one who has full control of the fetus, not you, not the state, not old billy down the street.

It is her body, and she most likely chose to have unprotected sex with the man, and so has chosen the strong possibility of getting pregnant. The possibility of getting pregnant on the first try is extremely rare. Most need to choose to have sex several times. So, the point is murder is murder. It isn't different because the women has chosen to be sexually active and chosen not to be married.

 

[Mertex]

That is of course, human DNA. A little scientific fact that liberals refuse to acknowledge.

Where is the proof that liberals refuse to acknowledge that? A chicken egg also has chicken DNA, it still doesn't make the chicken egg a chicken.

Do you have scrambled chickens for breakfast.

 

[B. Kidd]

How many Christian leaders run Muslim countries?

Never realized we are a Christian country

Have you read our constitution?

U.S. rule of law founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Name some

Hint, the Ten Commandments is a good place to start.

Also, the overwhelming majority of our founders were Christian, who wisely seperated church from state, but did not intend to seperate God from state; and then there is this well written piece:

Articles: The Judeo-Christian Values of America

 

[Roudy]

Carson thinks a Muslim's beliefs are in conflict with the Constitution,

and yet, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison is pro-choice; Carson is anti-choice,

and abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

Who is conflict with the Constitution?

Abortion is a constitutionally protected right? Ha ha ha. What a joke!

Why many conservative politicians are trying to pass a bill making a fertilized egg a person. I guess the joke is on you.

I just find if funny that you actually think that the US. Constitution gives a woman the right to kill a baby she conceived, no matter what when and how.

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

I never said that I disagree with abortion or the woman's right to have one. I think the state shouldn't pay and sponsor murder of an unborn child, just because a woman or man fucked up and didn't use proper birth control. Abortion has become the equivalent of contraception in this country, and it shouldn't be. And it isn't a constitutional right, in my opinion, but I am for the right of a woman to have abortions, within limits.

 

[Roudy]

BUT the government NOW can and does tell me what I may and may not present via Public Education.

The government says my children cannot be forced to pray to your God in their school.

You are more than free to teach your children whatever you like.

Not if it's a private religious based school.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Plenty of signs.. Do you remember how long gay marriage was banned for? How one party wants to control women's bodies? Keep gays out of the military? Women?

Gay marriage has been considered an abomination for the last two years in the U.S. And before that for 5000 years. Are you seriously complaining THAT to the barbarism in Shariah law? Ho ho ho what a ******* moron.

You claim;
"Gay marriage has been considered an abomination for the last two years in the U.S."
Actually, I would say it's been just a tad longer than that. Is that from a secular perspective or a canonical POV you're speaking from? The answer is, obviously, the latter of the two just as with Islamic law, Sharia! The canonical law of a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim are the same in that respect and are held fast by the fundamentalists of those faiths, with some being "more faithful" than others!

You seem afraid, very afraid, of the possibility of Sharia & its Courts here in the US. We may share a common concern, but I'm not as one sided as you seem to be, but lets see! How about Jewish Law Courts and Rabbinical Courts that are already existing here in the US? Do you not fear those religious courts? I don't believe those civil law courts established by fundamentalist Jewry and Mosaic law are in harmony with the establishment clause either, but they exist. So are you going to be just as strident against those EXIXTING JEWISH LAW & COURTS (BETH DIN) AS YOU ARE AGAINST THE NON-EXISTENT ISLAMIC LAW & COURTS (SHARIA) AND PERHAPS SHOW ALL A HYPOCRITICAL, BIGOTED SIDE?

For one's edification:
http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-con...012/11/NYLS_Law_Review_Volume-57-2.Broyde.pdf
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1890&context=ulj

I meant "gay marriage has been considered an abomination for the last TWO HUNDRED YEARS" and rightly so. When you see a priest or rabbi perform a religious marriage ceremony for two men or women, IT IS AN ABOMINATION and an insult to all three faiths, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Let them have a different union and call it something else and give them the same exact rights as married couples. But to mock a faith and force it to change it's basic teachings, to me reeks of fascism, which is what radical leftists are really good at.

Shariah law is a barbaric and neanderthal. Take a look at all the areas ISIS has captured, or the Taliban are ruling, that is Shariah law.

Other than in the first line where you admit your error, what the hell does the rest of your rant have to do with the totality of my post to you? Now will you respond to the rest of my original reply or continue to pretend it that what you wrote in the first line was merely a typo?

BTW, "Sharia law" is redundant. Sharia is Islamic law, so it's like saying Islamic law law!

Exactly, Shariah is Islamic law, which is barbaric and intolerant and has been PROVEN to be incompatible with the constitution, freedom Western way of life. Which is why a "devout Muslim" cannot be president, ever. And that's what Carson said.

My initial post to you had nothing to do with your deflection. You don't want to reply to this:

You claim;
""Gay marriage has been considered an abomination for the last two years in the U.S."
Actually, I would say it's been just a tad longer than that. Is that from a secular perspective or a canonical POV you're speaking from? The answer is, obviously, the latter of the two just as with Islamic law, Sharia! The canonical law of a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim are the same in that respect and are held fast by the fundamentalists of those faiths, with some being "more faithful" than others!

You seem afraid, very afraid, of the possibility of Sharia & its Courts here in the US. We may share a common concern, but I'm not as one sided as you seem to be, but lets see! How about Jewish Law Courts and Rabbinical Courts that are already existing here in the US? Do you not fear those religious courts? I don't believe those civil law courts established by fundamentalist Jewry and Mosaic law are in harmony with the establishment clause either, but they exist. So are you going to be just as strident against those EXIXTING JEWISH LAW & COURTS (BETH DIN) AS YOU ARE AGAINST THE NON-EXISTENT ISLAMIC LAW & COURTS (SHARIA) AND PERHAPS SHOW ALL A HYPOCRITICAL, BIGOTED SIDE?"

For one's edification:
http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2012/11/NYLS_Law_Review_Volume-57-2.Broyde.pdf
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1890&context=ulj
"
So will you continue to deflect from the points made above for a third time or address them?

 

[Roudy]

Carson has a right to his opinion, which is line with what most Americans believe.

That's why Obama had to swear up and down a hundred times that he wasn't a Muslim. And based on his actions during his presidency, the jury is still out on whether he lied about that one as he did many things in 08, like when he said he was against gay marriage.

Obama wouldn't have had to swear anything up & down if not for the nutters insisting he was Muslim to begin with (as if that really made a difference CONSTITUTIONALLY considering there IS NO LITMUS TEST FOR RELIGION?)

Obama knew that if he professed his faith to be "Muslim" then that would have immediately deemed him undetectable. So who knows, he may have lied about his faith just to get elected, just like he did about gay marriage.

Or.....you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Call me strange, but in a contest of who to believe on Obama's faith, I put way more credence in Obama's accounts of his own beliefs than I do you pretending you're Obama.

I wouldn't believe Obama on anything. Maybe if he showed his transcripts, it would help clarify.

And what you 'believe' has no relevance to Obama's religious convictions. Your existence is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. if you believe, if you don't, if you exist, if you don't......Obama's religious convictions go right on trucking.

Why would any rational person ignore Obama on his own beliefs and instead believe you pretending to speak for him?

Yeah? And which are those, the Obama convictions before or the Obama convictions after? Or, did he throw his convictions under the bus, just like he did with his associations like Rev. Wright that started become a liabilities.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually I've never met an American Muslim that had a problem with me being gay or a female. I have met lots of evangelicals that did though.

to them you are simply an infidel.....but they can't kill you in the U.S.....

Define infidel as it applies to American Muslims that I am friends with.

Did you know that there are Muslim countries where being gay is not a crime?

The Dean Obeidallah Show: No, Islam doesn’t say kill gays

A Muslim has never personally told me I should die because I'm gay. Lots of Christians have.

really....? probably people on the net who are simply frustrated with the gay mafia...

there are variations in the muslim world.....but i doubt you can name a Christian country where you would be killed for being gay.....there are many muslim countries where it is punishable by death.....

Here are the 10 countries where homosexuality may be punished by death

Heard of Uganda?

Foiled in the United States, Anti-Gay Evangelicals Spread Hate in Africa | Mother Jones

How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad

bfd....so don't move to Uganda....

No shit Sherlock...but you're deflecting. Muslims AND Christians IN OTHER COUNTRIES want to kill gays. We live in America and the discussion is about American Muslims and Christians.

Here, I've had more problems with evangelical Christians than Muslims. My Muslim friends are still my friends. I've lost some Christian ones.

 

[David_42]

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

In terms of her reproduction, it absolutely does. Her reproductive choices are hers. Not yours. And for a lot of conservatives the fact that she gets to make this decision herself infuriates them. As these conservatives feel that its a choice they should be making for her.

Nope. In the question of her reproduction......you're nobody.

"In terms of her reproduction?" That reply has earned you a trip to weasel purgatory, nitwit.

As we're discussion abortion, her reproduction is immediately relevant. Your babble about assisted suicide isn't.

Again, you're nobody. You get no say in her reproduction. You never do. She always does.

See how this works?

The anti abortion right wing would love to force a women to give birth, and once the child is born, they will then tell the women it's her fault and that she doesn't deserve any evil "socialist" assistance.

Absoloutely. Remmeber, there's a very vindictive strain running through social conservatives. A desire to punish. To make people suffer. They want to make her abide their will. Then they want her to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

You see the same argument in many discussions of social welfare. Where many conservatives argue that suffering will motivate people to work harder. The more you make them suffer, the harder they work. And that the reason they aren't working hard enough is that we aren't hurting them enough.

Its the Gospel of Bizzaro Jesus. Where poverty is a character flaw that needs to be punished accordingly.

Social conservatives are authoritarian lunatics who can care less about a child, as long as it's not a fetus. They will do anything to protect the fetus, they will do anything to blame mothers for any problem the child has, they love the idea of getting a women to give birth against her will, it's what these lunatics crave, it's what they live for, their wet dream.. Yep, the conservative views on welfare are disgusting and barbaric, the sick idea that punishing people will somehow motivate them to work harder. Let's take billy, a 23 year old man raising a child with his 22 year old wife, billy is a manager at mcdonalds (shift) who barely makes enough to afford rent, let alone his kid. His wife works alongside him as a crew member, together, they have virtually no disposable income. They are on food stamps/wic/etc.. Now, the conservative ideology says we need to punish billy, his child, and his wife to motivate them to work harder. Another key conservative point that only spits on the working poor is to blame someone personally for holding a job that essentially forces them to rely on federal assistance, as if the working poor somehow have control of employment opportunities and the education they're provided. Then again, republicans will shout and holler for low wage workers to "GO TO COLLEGE." Ok, great, do you know how much college costs? The time required? These same "social" conservatives want to take away all federal aid from these low income potential college students and tell them to "**** off." Why? Conservatives are truly insane. That's all I can come up with.

 

[Roudy]

Gay marriage has been considered an abomination for the last two years in the U.S. And before that for 5000 years. Are you seriously complaining THAT to the barbarism in Shariah law? Ho ho ho what a ******* moron.

You claim;
"Gay marriage has been considered an abomination for the last two years in the U.S."
Actually, I would say it's been just a tad longer than that. Is that from a secular perspective or a canonical POV you're speaking from? The answer is, obviously, the latter of the two just as with Islamic law, Sharia! The canonical law of a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim are the same in that respect and are held fast by the fundamentalists of those faiths, with some being "more faithful" than others!

You seem afraid, very afraid, of the possibility of Sharia & its Courts here in the US. We may share a common concern, but I'm not as one sided as you seem to be, but lets see! How about Jewish Law Courts and Rabbinical Courts that are already existing here in the US? Do you not fear those religious courts? I don't believe those civil law courts established by fundamentalist Jewry and Mosaic law are in harmony with the establishment clause either, but they exist. So are you going to be just as strident against those EXIXTING JEWISH LAW & COURTS (BETH DIN) AS YOU ARE AGAINST THE NON-EXISTENT ISLAMIC LAW & COURTS (SHARIA) AND PERHAPS SHOW ALL A HYPOCRITICAL, BIGOTED SIDE?

For one's edification:
http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-con...012/11/NYLS_Law_Review_Volume-57-2.Broyde.pdf
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1890&context=ulj

I meant "gay marriage has been considered an abomination for the last TWO HUNDRED YEARS" and rightly so. When you see a priest or rabbi perform a religious marriage ceremony for two men or women, IT IS AN ABOMINATION and an insult to all three faiths, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Let them have a different union and call it something else and give them the same exact rights as married couples. But to mock a faith and force it to change it's basic teachings, to me reeks of fascism, which is what radical leftists are really good at.

Shariah law is a barbaric and neanderthal. Take a look at all the areas ISIS has captured, or the Taliban are ruling, that is Shariah law.

Other than in the first line where you admit your error, what the hell does the rest of your rant have to do with the totality of my post to you? Now will you respond to the rest of my original reply or continue to pretend it that what you wrote in the first line was merely a typo?

BTW, "Sharia law" is redundant. Sharia is Islamic law, so it's like saying Islamic law law!

Exactly, Shariah is Islamic law, which is barbaric and intolerant and has been PROVEN to be incompatible with the constitution, freedom Western way of life. Which is why a "devout Muslim" cannot be president, ever. And that's what Carson said.

My initial post to you had nothing to do with your deflection. You don't want to reply to this:

You claim;
""Gay marriage has been considered an abomination for the last two years in the U.S."
Actually, I would say it's been just a tad longer than that. Is that from a secular perspective or a canonical POV you're speaking from? The answer is, obviously, the latter of the two just as with Islamic law, Sharia! The canonical law of a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim are the same in that respect and are held fast by the fundamentalists of those faiths, with some being "more faithful" than others!

You seem afraid, very afraid, of the possibility of Sharia & its Courts here in the US. We may share a common concern, but I'm not as one sided as you seem to be, but lets see! How about Jewish Law Courts and Rabbinical Courts that are already existing here in the US? Do you not fear those religious courts? I don't believe those civil law courts established by fundamentalist Jewry and Mosaic law are in harmony with the establishment clause either, but they exist. So are you going to be just as strident against those EXIXTING JEWISH LAW & COURTS (BETH DIN) AS YOU ARE AGAINST THE NON-EXISTENT ISLAMIC LAW & COURTS (SHARIA) AND PERHAPS SHOW ALL A HYPOCRITICAL, BIGOTED SIDE?"

For one's edification:
http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2012/11/NYLS_Law_Review_Volume-57-2.Broyde.pdf
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1890&context=ulj
"
So will you continue to deflect from the points made above for a third time or address them?

Deflect what, Shariah law is burning down the middle east, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Again, not all religions are equal:

 

[Seawytch]

So those are your only targets of bigotry.

Wow, rare. Got it.
.

No...I don't like pick and stickers either. Still don't think they should get additional security scrutiny just because I'm bigoted against them.

You still haven't explained why a person's religion should preclude them for a security clearance or why they should get additional screening as a result.

Screws me, ask Carson.

Plus, I didn't say what you're pretending I said. Not even close. Not within a mile.

This whole thread sure has been chock full 'o dishonest posts. Straw Man - O - Rama.

I'm used to that here, but it does become tedious.
.

Carson didn't bring up security concerns, you did.

No, I made a guess about his reasoning.
.

And by the way, perhaps you can show me I said, and I quote from you, that "a person's religion should preclude them for a security clearance or why they should get additional screening as a result."

Or you can admit that you dishonestly and blatantly misrepresented my words, either one.
.

You can speculate what HIS motivations are but I can't question that speculation?

You must have a reason for speculating such a ridiculous thing.