So, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, an Islamic Extremist Terrorism support group, doesn’t like what Dr. Carson said. Too bad.
Trump also got it right. There is a big difference between a Muslim American Citizen and Islamic Extremist Terrorists. Trump is also not responsible for what someone in a crowd says nor is he obligated to defend Obama.
Why is it that Democrats consider calling someone a Muslim an insult?
Would you care if I call you a Muslim or say you are Muslim if you aren't????
____________________________________________________________________
Nice dodge.
Why is it that Democrats consider calling someone a Muslim an insult?
That's not a dodge at all, it gets to the heart of the issue. Would you care/object if someone called you a Muslim, if you are not?
Trouble with Muslims is that their Sharia law ideology supports a church-run state. Someone enlighten me here: Is there a Muslim-formed voluntary democracy anyplace on the planet?
Same with the extreme Christian Religious Right here in the USA, always pushing against the separation of church and state. They are pretty much like Muslims in practice. It is reasonable to assume that people who think like this could be a threat to our civil liberties, and should be expected to make it clear that they will keep their ideologies out of government duty.
I had a friend fly in for Lockn' from Los Angeles. We visited both Mount Vernon and Monticello before the festival. Jefferson considered the separation of church and state one of his greatest achievements.
I consider Carson's position treasonous. How can he swear an oath to the Constitution if he believes there should be a religious litmus test for the office of the Presidency?
I had a friend fly in for Lockn' from Los Angeles. We visited both Mount Vernon and Monticello before the festival. Jefferson considered the separation of church and state one of his greatest achievements.
I consider Carson's position treasonous. How can he swear an oath to the Constitution if he believes there should be a religious litmus test for the office of the Presidency?
__________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Carson’s reason for not wanting a Muslim to become President is not about bigotry or some litmus test.
His reason, as he explained but the liberal media failed to report, is that the Islamic faith requires that Allah is the Supreme Being and all laws and obedience must come from and be to Allah. That alone would preclude any Muslim from becoming The U.S. President.
If you have a problem with treason you would not be supporting Hillary.
Trouble with Muslims is that their Sharia law ideology supports a church-run state. Someone enlighten me here: Is there a Muslim-formed voluntary democracy anyplace on the planet?
Same with the extreme Christian Religious Right here in the USA, always pushing against the separation of church and state. They are pretty much like Muslims in practice. It is reasonable to assume that people who think like this could be a threat to our civil liberties, and should be expected to make it clear that they will keep their ideologies out of government duty.
Israel is a Jewish state. India is a Hindu state. I think if you look around the separation of church and state is rare. In fact republicans are also closely aligned with Christianity. Trump was on stage waving a Bible the other night in Iowa.
This whole conversation is really a remote hypothetical and the only reason it is out there is Ben Carson who is keeping it going I suppose to appeal to a segment of voters he has identified.
Trouble with Muslims is that their Sharia law ideology supports a church-run state. Someone enlighten me here: Is there a Muslim-formed voluntary democracy anyplace on the planet?
Same with the extreme Christian Religious Right here in the USA, always pushing against the separation of church and state. They are pretty much like Muslims in practice. It is reasonable to assume that people who think like this could be a threat to our civil liberties, and should be expected to make it clear that they will keep their ideologies out of government duty.
This is my line of thinking. I don't care what religion somebody follows, but the second they try to legislate their religion into law, that is the line I draw where they won't get my vote. Feel free to follow your religion, just don't ask me to follow your religion. If you don't believe in the separation of church and state, I will not vote for you.
Anyone who does not believe in the separation of church and state cannot possible swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
If you have a problem with treason you would not be supporting Hillary.
I don't support Hillary.
I also do not believe she has committed treason.
i will say this once and only once.
I will not vote for a man who does not have sideburns.
if that means i'm a bad person.........so be it.
Ben might be a good brain surgeon but he certainly does not appear to be a good politician.
Check out the latest...
Ben Carson is suing people making Ben Carson for President T-shirts, gets destroyed by logic
byWalter EinenkelFollowforweinenkelBen Carson has a new lawyer. An intellectual rights lawyer. His name is Clyde Vanel and he sent a cease and desist letter to CafePress for Intellectual Property Infringement.
It has come to our attention that an unauthorized use of my clients' intellectual property,
including but not limited to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, misappropriation of name and likeness, privacy rights infringement is being hosted on the CafePress.com service and platform.
CafePress writes back:
Starting with the related issues of trademark infringement and misappropriation of name and likeness, we acknowledge there is a campaign organization called Ben Carson for President 2016, and you, acting on behalf of the campaign, have applied for a trademark registration for a logo that includes those words, shown in specific color pattern. But so far as have been able to discern, none of the items linked at the web page you have identified uses that logo as it appears in the registration application and on each page of your client's campaign web site.
At most, the items display the phrase "Ben Carson for President 2016," often appearing in the patriotic colors of red, white and blue. Many of them simply use Carson's name, or just his given name or his profession. You cannot use trademark theories to ride roughshod over members of the American public who either share your clients' views and favor Carson's candidacy, or for that matter disagree with their views and oppose Carson's candidacy.Good point. More?
More important are the issues of fair use and the First Amendment, which apply equally to your purported misappropriation of name and likeness claims as well as to your trademark claims. Speech about a candidate for president is squarely protected by the First Amendment, hence any effort to use trademark law to quash such uses is highly suspect. Although CafePress users' products are sold, their contents are noncommercial speech, which qualifies for full First Amendment protection.
How about snark?
Your reference to a purported invasion of Carson's privacy is particularly foolish. Given the intense scrutiny that presidential candidates receive in this day and age, it is a matter of some doubt whether any statement about a presidential candidate, especially one who now stands second in the polls of the Republican nomination, could constitute an invasion of privacy, no matter how personal. But there is nothing "private" in the expression contained on the products that CafePress carries-- they are all specifically about the Carson candidacy. That candidacy is certainly not private.
Hehe. Finally:
Most of the items contain some variation of the phrase "Ben Carson for President 2016." That expression lacks sufficient originality for copyright protection. Indeed, if the phrase were copyrightable, your clients might not be the owners of the copyright, because they might not have been the first to fix it in a tangible medium of expression. It is quite possible that some supporter hoping to encourage Carson to run may have written it down before Carson did. That person would own the copyright, if the phrase were copyrightable, and your clients would be among the infringers.
[Bold my emphasis.]
Dr. Carson, get control of your lawyers.You can read the the letters here and here.
i will say this once and only once.
I will not vote for a man who does not have sideburns.
if that means i'm a bad person.........so be it.
Will you vote for a woman who doesn't have sideburns?
Dr. Carson’s reason for not wanting a Muslim to become President is not about bigotry or some litmus test.
His reason, as he explained but the liberal media failed to report, is that the Islamic faith requires that Allah is the Supreme Being and all laws and obedience must come from and be to Allah. That alone would preclude any Muslim from becoming The U.S. President.
Isn't that exactly Kim Davis' position as a Christian in relation to God, which you have supported?
i will say this once and only once.
I will not vote for a man who does not have sideburns.
if that means i'm a bad person.........so be it.
Will you vote for a woman who doesn't have sideburns?
yes
Tying two current threads together:
The liberals here would have no problem with a Muslim becoming President. Okay.
Muslims are compelled by their religion to kill homosexuals. How do you square that?
Tying two current threads together:
The liberals here would have no problem with a Muslim becoming President. Okay.
Muslims are compelled by their religion to kill homosexuals. How do you square that?
Answered in the other thread. How do you square this?
quote:
Dr. Carson’s reason for not wanting a Muslim to become President is not about bigotry or some litmus test.
His reason, as he explained but the liberal media failed to report, is that the Islamic faith requires that Allah is the Supreme Being and all laws and obedience must come from and be to Allah. That alone would preclude any Muslim from becoming The U.S. President.
Isn't that exactly Kim Davis' position as a Christian in relation to God, which you have supported?
Is this like when we elected a Catholic, who really served the Pope in Rome?
Never again! We're still reeling from those years of papal influence.
I had a friend fly in for Lockn' from Los Angeles. We visited both Mount Vernon and Monticello before the festival. Jefferson considered the separation of church and state one of his greatest achievements.
I consider Carson's position treasonous. How can he swear an oath to the Constitution if he believes there should be a religious litmus test for the office of the Presidency?
Perform a quick examination of all countries ruled by Muslims and see how closely their way of life squares with the US Constitution.
I had a friend fly in for Lockn' from Los Angeles. We visited both Mount Vernon and Monticello before the festival. Jefferson considered the separation of church and state one of his greatest achievements.
I consider Carson's position treasonous. How can he swear an oath to the Constitution if he believes there should be a religious litmus test for the office of the Presidency?
Perform a quick examination of all countries ruled by Muslims and see how closely their way of life squares with the US Constitution.
Not relevant; the US constitution strictly forbids any kind of religious litmus test for political candidates.
If this doesn't prove that the campaign process is too nauseatingly long and too much time is spent microanalyzing every word out of everyone's mouth, then nothing will. What a stupid "issue."
This.
I had a friend fly in for Lockn' from Los Angeles. We visited both Mount Vernon and Monticello before the festival. Jefferson considered the separation of church and state one of his greatest achievements.
I consider Carson's position treasonous. How can he swear an oath to the Constitution if he believes there should be a religious litmus test for the office of the Presidency?
Perform a quick examination of all countries ruled by Muslims and see how closely their way of life squares with the US Constitution.
Not relevant; the US constitution strictly forbids any kind of religious litmus test for political candidates.
That may be true, however that doesn't mean Carson (or anyone else) has to support a Muslim running for President. He laid out a pretty good case why not. His comment is not that outrageous, as the drama queens are portraying it to be.
How are his comments any that different than a Progressive saying they would never support a evangelical Christian nut like Santorum or Huckabee? No mention of religious "litmus tests" in that case. Weird.
I had a friend fly in for Lockn' from Los Angeles. We visited both Mount Vernon and Monticello before the festival. Jefferson considered the separation of church and state one of his greatest achievements.
I consider Carson's position treasonous. How can he swear an oath to the Constitution if he believes there should be a religious litmus test for the office of the Presidency?
Perform a quick examination of all countries ruled by Muslims and see how closely their way of life squares with the US Constitution.
Not relevant; the US constitution strictly forbids any kind of religious litmus test for political candidates.
That may be true, however that doesn't mean Carson (or anyone else) has to support a Muslim running for President. He laid out a pretty good case why not. His comment is not that outrageous, as the drama queens are portraying it to be.
How are his comments any that different than a Progressive saying they would never support a evangelical Christian nut like Santorum or Huckabee? No mention of religious "litmus tests" in that case. Weird.
More proof that we are living in bizzaro world: I agree with alloak. 😮
If this doesn't prove that the campaign process is too nauseatingly long and too much time is spent microanalyzing every word out of everyone's mouth, then nothing will. What a stupid "issue."
I agree, and if this is all they can come up with to injure Carson he'll be in great shape.
Well, he is running for President. He said it. Inconsequential as it may be, he said it. No one can come up with anything about what anyone says unless they say it first.
I had a friend fly in for Lockn' from Los Angeles. We visited both Mount Vernon and Monticello before the festival. Jefferson considered the separation of church and state one of his greatest achievements.
I consider Carson's position treasonous. How can he swear an oath to the Constitution if he believes there should be a religious litmus test for the office of the Presidency?
Perform a quick examination of all countries ruled by Muslims and see how closely their way of life squares with the US Constitution.
Not relevant; the US constitution strictly forbids any kind of religious litmus test for political candidates.
That may be true, however that doesn't mean Carson (or anyone else) has to support a Muslim running for President. He laid out a pretty good case why not. His comment is not that outrageous, as the drama queens are portraying it to be.
How are his comments any that different than a Progressive saying they would never support a evangelical Christian nut like Santorum or Huckabee? No mention of religious "litmus tests" in that case. Weird.
More proof that we are living in bizzaro world: I agree with alloak. 😮
Okay, after reading Carson's statements over again, I agree he did not say anything about someone being disqualified because of their religious beliefs, only that he would not support them and didn't think it would be a good idea. I've got no problem with that.
I had a friend fly in for Lockn' from Los Angeles. We visited both Mount Vernon and Monticello before the festival. Jefferson considered the separation of church and state one of his greatest achievements.
I consider Carson's position treasonous. How can he swear an oath to the Constitution if he believes there should be a religious litmus test for the office of the Presidency?
Perform a quick examination of all countries ruled by Muslims and see how closely their way of life squares with the US Constitution.
Not relevant; the US constitution strictly forbids any kind of religious litmus test for political candidates.
That may be true, however that doesn't mean Carson (or anyone else) has to support a Muslim running for President. He laid out a pretty good case why not. His comment is not that outrageous, as the drama queens are portraying it to be.
How are his comments any that different than a Progressive saying they would never support a evangelical Christian nut like Santorum or Huckabee? No mention of religious "litmus tests" in that case. Weird.
Is that particular Progressive running for President? 😉
He was allowed the opportunity to clarify his remarks. This is not a "like your doctor keep your doctor" moment where he reiterated his position over and over and over and then changed his tune.
[Edited on 9/22/2015 by OriginalGoober]
If a candidate does not support the separation of church and state, he/she should not be elected.
That is Carson's reason for not being able to support a Muslim. He does not believe Islam supports the idea of separation of Church and State. He didn't say a Muslim couldn't run. He said he wouldn't vote for one because Shariah Law is incompatiable with Democratic government. I am not agreeing with him (ir disagreeing) but in the continuing if delusional belief that people here are interested in fact based discussions I thought I would point out the context of his remarks.
What an incredible thing to say as a presidential candidate. Are the leaders of both parties trying to get Bernie Sanders elected?
I sure hope so!
This would be a very positive development. Bernie Sanders is by far one of the most real people running for president.
I don't disagree with that. Unfortunately what he IS would be disastrous for the country.
Trouble with Muslims is that their Sharia law ideology supports a church-run state. Someone enlighten me here: Is there a Muslim-formed voluntary democracy anyplace on the planet?
Same with the extreme Christian Religious Right here in the USA, always pushing against the separation of church and state. They are pretty much like Muslims in practice. It is reasonable to assume that people who think like this could be a threat to our civil liberties, and should be expected to make it clear that they will keep their ideologies out of government duty.
The answer is no. There is not. Turkey is the only state that even purports to be free and that has only been carried out by a ruthless suppression of religious Islamic elements and with the Edrogan regime even that is being undermined and Turkey is likely to revert to an Islamic dictatorship. And yes if the real religious crazies in this country (of which the vast majority of Christians are not) there would be a similar problem but that is certainly not going to happen as Americans rightly would reject it. There seems to be, however, a concerted effort to minimize the meaning of and inflluence of fundamentalist Islam. At this point it has very little effect in this country but it is having a MAJOR impact on the formerly western states of Europe and a major backlash is coming.
Trouble with Muslims is that their Sharia law ideology supports a church-run state. Someone enlighten me here: Is there a Muslim-formed voluntary democracy anyplace on the planet?
Same with the extreme Christian Religious Right here in the USA, always pushing against the separation of church and state. They are pretty much like Muslims in practice. It is reasonable to assume that people who think like this could be a threat to our civil liberties, and should be expected to make it clear that they will keep their ideologies out of government duty.Israel is a Jewish state. India is a Hindu state. I think if you look around the separation of church and state is rare. In fact republicans are also closely aligned with Christianity. Trump was on stage waving a Bible the other night in Iowa.
This whole conversation is really a remote hypothetical and the only reason it is out there is Ben Carson who is keeping it going I suppose to appeal to a segment of voters he has identified.
Israel is a state for Jews but is not governed by Jewish law but by secular Israeli law that guarantees free religious expression and civil rights for all religions. India is not a Hindu state as far as I know. It is a multi-ethnic religious state that guarantees free worship, much like the United States.
Constitution of Iraq
SECTION ONE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Over 3,000 Americans died for that. The perspective as to why that happened and who supported it happening as compared to events of the current day couldn't be more glaring.
As Margaret Thatcher once said 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'.
