The underlying value he is expressing is a bigoted one. Any level-headed person would come to that conclusion based on his conclusion: absolutely *no* Muslims in his Administration. He's actually walking on the 1st while ironically thinking that he's defending it. Fancy that.
uh oh I think we gonna fight
I might have clicked reply before he said "no muslims" in his admin. I dont get why he would say that it does sound prejudiced.
Ok ok the fighting part, lol..........back to the first ammendment comment. Are you ok with implimenting sharia, aka islamic, law into our court system? I'm asking you honestly here and not trying to imply anything with my question.
if you answer yes I'm going to ask if you feel its ok to have the ten commandments up in public buildings and stuff like that. If you say no to this I am going to ask why its ok for 1 religion, in your opinoin, to be involved in government while its not ok for another.
If you answer No i'm going to say I agree.
I'll answer the question, but it doesn't speak to his irrational judgement. Because hiring a Muslim to his administration does not mean the Muslim is some covert operative looking to change us from the inside out, it's certainly a prejudgement, and it's basically anti-American to prequalify a candidate for a job by his/her Religion.
Obviously I don't believe in Sharia Law or implementing it into our Court system, but it's also prejudging every Muslim to believe they all
DO BELIEVE that, and I don't believe in Law formed by Religion, of any sort, at all.
The Ten Commandments being up on Public walls is a catch-22 for me. #1. I don't believe that the Religion owns those, I believe they're universally moral independant of Religion. (most of them anyways, I don't have them memorized), but I also NO, I don't believe in spending public money favoring any Religion.