Would YOU support a Presidential candidate who held that Sharia Law superseded the U.S.Constitution?

[theDoctorisIn]

What makes you say that those who adhere to Sharia law believe it to be "the supreme law of the land"?

I don't see you drawing that correlation. G'head. Begin.

No. I'm not your trained monkey.

Absent that correlation, your claim that '... this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments" holds no water.
/end

Of course it holds water....

Sorry... not interested in your response until you demonstrate that correlation.
But, since I am a kind and magnanimous guy, I'll help:
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, ok. If you can't argue your point, then I accept your concession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't see you drawing that correlation. G'head. Begin.

No. I'm not your trained monkey.

Absent that correlation, your claim that '... this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments" holds no water.
/end

Of course it holds water....

Sorry... not interested in your response until you demonstrate that correlation.
But, since I am a kind and magnanimous guy, I'll help:
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, ok. If you can't argue your point, then I accept your concession.

Nice try, but we both know that you tried to make a point that you now refuse to support - mostly, if not in total, because you know you cannot.

 

[Seawytch]

If you believe any religious tenant supersedes US law, you don't get my support.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No. I'm not your trained monkey.

Absent that correlation, your claim that '... this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments" holds no water.
/end

Of course it holds water....

Sorry... not interested in your response until you demonstrate that correlation.
But, since I am a kind and magnanimous guy, I'll help:
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, ok. If you can't argue your point, then I accept your concession.

Nice try, but we both know that you tried to make a point that you now refuse to support - mostly, if not in total, because you know you cannot.

I made my point, and it's pretty self-explanatory to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking abilities.

I feel no need to waste anymore time jumping through your asinine and childish argument hoops.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Absent that correlation, your claim that '... this is equivalent to saying "I can support a Christian or a Jew for President, as long as they denounce the 10 Commandments" holds no water.
/end

Of course it holds water....

Sorry... not interested in your response until you demonstrate that correlation.
But, since I am a kind and magnanimous guy, I'll help:
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, ok. If you can't argue your point, then I accept your concession.

Nice try, but we both know that you tried to make a point that you now refuse to support - mostly, if not in total, because you know you cannot.

I made my point

No. You made a claim.
You were asked to substantiate it.
You refused, and continue to refuse, even after given information that, if your claim is true, will allow you to do so.
Fact of the matter is that you know there is no meaningful correlation between the two, especially not to the point where you claim is sound.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Of course it holds water....

Sorry... not interested in your response until you demonstrate that correlation.
But, since I am a kind and magnanimous guy, I'll help:
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, ok. If you can't argue your point, then I accept your concession.

Nice try, but we both know that you tried to make a point that you now refuse to support - mostly, if not in total, because you know you cannot.

I made my point

No. You made a claim.
You were asked to substantiate it.
You refused, and continue to refuse, even after given information that, if your claim is true, will allow you to do so.
Fact of the matter is that you know there is no meaningful correlation between the two, especially not to the point where you claim is sound.

You appear to have missed part of my post. Here, I'll make it bigger for you:

I feel no need to waste anymore time jumping through your asinine and childish argument hoops.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[hazlnut]

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?

That's a dumb question.

No one would.

BTW - the Constitution has a built in safe guard 1st Amendment which has been determined by SCOTUS (using their constitutional power of Judicial review) to create a Wall of Separation between Church and state. So regardless of what the Prez in your bizzaro hypothetical world believes...

Would you support a Presidential candidate who held that canonical law superseded the U.S. Constitution?

Or how about the laws of Wizards in Harry Potter?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That'd be a question I'd like to see them ALL answer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry... not interested in your response until you demonstrate that correlation.
But, since I am a kind and magnanimous guy, I'll help:
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, ok. If you can't argue your point, then I accept your concession.

Nice try, but we both know that you tried to make a point that you now refuse to support - mostly, if not in total, because you know you cannot.

I made my point

No. You made a claim.
You were asked to substantiate it.
You refused, and continue to refuse, even after given information that, if your claim is true, will allow you to do so.
Fact of the matter is that you know there is no meaningful correlation between the two, especially not to the point where you claim is sound.

You appear to have missed part of my post. Here, I'll make it bigger for you:
I feel no need to waste anymore time jumping through your asinine and childish argument hoops.

Fact of the matter is that you know there is no meaningful correlation between the two, especially not to the point where you claim is sound.
You don't like it; your petulant behavior proves it.
Now tuck that tail and run along.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

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.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

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.

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.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

Clearly you agree with everything I am saying then

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 Catholics do something that Evangelicals are not asked to do.

Thanks for agreeing that we should not discriminate against Muslims or any other religious group.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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

And he that pblasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he pblasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Most of the others the punishment is death also

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for swhosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A Muslim who would like to see Sharia Law replace the Constitution is no different than a fundamentalist Christian who would like to his God's law replace the Constitution.

 

[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.

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.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So you take no issue with Carson's position on this matter.
Thank you.

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?