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.

You are overly formal about this. This is Chief Rabbi Lau's Yom Kippur message.

Chief Rabbi Lau: One cannot ignore the fact that Israel is a Jewish state.

. For me this is very painful, because someone who looks at the idea of a democratic and Jewish state can’t ignore the fact that it is indeed a Jewish state. That means that its day of rest isn’t Friday or Sunday, but Shabbat. Shabbat is a symbol.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/A-lesson-for-the-Jewish-people-417873

There are de facto rules in many countries like India where there are informal as well as formal regulations and codes that ensure one follows religious norms. Hinduism in India, like Judaism in Israel, is a dominant force and if one is from the wrong caste one can easily end up in prison for venturing into the wrong restaurant. Daily life in India is heavily regulated along religious lines. Go to Delhi and kick a cow and see what happens.

You know there are Jewish people in Iran as well so technically there is freedom of worship even in a Muslim state. Most countries in the world are today multi-ethnic to some degree. The US is by far the most functional and fairest multi-ethnic country in the world.

[Edited on 9/22/2015 by Swifty]

As Margaret Thatcher once said 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'.

Well, the British did not learn their lesson as they have gone socialist again. Did you know that Alberta, which is full of American conservatives that included Ted Cruz' parents, had been held by the conservatives for over 40 years and one morning this last spring these tried and true conservative woke up one morning and voted in a socialist government.

In reality in the above cases socialism simply means more taxes on higher income people and an expansion of state run essential services and this would be true in the US as well under Sanders. The Trump tax program could easily be the Sanders tax program.

As Margaret Thatcher once said 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'.

Well, the British did not learn their lesson as they have gone socialist again. Did you know that Alberta, which is full of American conservatives that included Ted Cruz' parents, had been held by the conservatives for over 40 years and one morning this last spring these tried and true conservative woke up one morning and voted in a socialist government.

In reality in the above cases socialism simply means more taxes on higher income people and an expansion of state run essential services and this would be true in the US as well under Sanders. The Trump tax program could easily be the Sanders tax program.

Let's say Sanders wins and we all get to vote in a socialist government, like Ted Cruz's parents. What baseline figure will denote "higher income" and what percentage of their income should they be allowed to keep after all taxes are paid? What services would be deemed as "essential?"

As Margaret Thatcher once said 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'.

Well, the British did not learn their lesson as they have gone socialist again. Did you know that Alberta, which is full of American conservatives that included Ted Cruz' parents, had been held by the conservatives for over 40 years and one morning this last spring these tried and true conservative woke up one morning and voted in a socialist government.

In reality in the above cases socialism simply means more taxes on higher income people and an expansion of state run essential services and this would be true in the US as well under Sanders. The Trump tax program could easily be the Sanders tax program.

_______________________________________________________________________

Britain has not gone socialist. Your post is wrong... again.

In the recent election a vowed socialist and Karl Marx admirer Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of Britain's opposition Labour party.

While Corbyn will have some influence on the British Government The Parliament will keep Britain a Democracy in the same manner as The U.S. Congress since 2012 has kept Obama from destroying our Democracy.

What you call "expansion of state run essential services" is in reality government control of the people which is exactly what most Americans will be voting against in 2016.

[Edited on 9/23/2015 by Muleman1994]

Let's say Sanders wins and we all get to vote in a socialist government, like Ted Cruz's parents.

What are you talking about? Ted Cruz's mother was born and raised in Delaware. His father was from Cuba abut left to attend college in Texas during the revolution, BEFORE the communists took over. Neither ever got "to vote in a socialist government." Cruz himself was born in Calgary.

For some reason this was over in the gay marriage thread, seemed more appropriate here....

You obviously don’t get it.
A Muslim is obligated to always first follow Allah and Islamic law and is therefore ineligible to be President.

100% false!

Muleman, what are you on about? Any citizen of the USA is eligible to be president! Look at Mitt Romney, devout Mormon, got a lot of support, and Mormonism is a conquering type religion too, they have run Utah since day one. Seemed like a fair minded fellow, and did a good job as governor of Massachusetts. Far as I know he didn't put his higher Mormon laws ahead of his public office.

Gus Hall ran for years on the Communist Party ticket, with Angela Davis, a militant communist, as the vice presidential candidate twice! Wolfgang Schrodt, a Nazi, won the primary in 1975 and got 12% of the white vote in the general election! In 2008 John Taylor Bowles (National Socialist Order of America....nazi) ran as "The White People's Candidate". Another freakin Nazi!

Anyone can run, even Frank Zappa. Even you! Muleman for President! It's ok for Nazis to run, so go for it, Fritz!

Qualifications for the Office of President

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

From: http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html

hegone!

(thx alloak, learned that from you when you said it to me! great saying, hegone! I like it!)

Mormons are not obligated to kill the infidels and Communists are not compelled to kill Westerners. The rest on your list are just whack-jobs with no chance of being elected.
The reason an Islamist cannot become President has been already explained.
Next!

You just can't admit when you are wrong, can you?

read your post

A Muslim is obligated to always first follow Allah and Islamic law and is therefore ineligible to be President.

If said Muslim is a US citizen and over the age of 35, that Muslim is eligible to be president. Whether or not they are a whackjob or get votes was not what you were saying. You were flat out saying that a Muslim is ineligible to be president!

Sometimes in civil discourse it is necessary to acknowledge that you are incorrect, if the facts plainly show your statement to be so.

Let's say Sanders wins and we all get to vote in a socialist government, like Ted Cruz's parents.

What are you talking about? Ted Cruz's mother was born and raised in Delaware. His father was from Cuba abut left to attend college in Texas during the revolution, BEFORE the communists took over. Neither ever got "to vote in a socialist government." Cruz himself was born in Calgary.

Check Swifty's post at 15:51. Interesting info on Cruz's family background. Thanks for that.

[Edited on 9/23/2015 by alloak41]

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.

And you won't see him flip flopping on an issue.

Bernie has been genuine from day one.

" Bernie Sanders, opening the door to Socialism"

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.

Yes, he said it and I find the timing of his remarks interesting. Coming right on the heels of the Kim Davis situation may be coincidental, but you have to wonder if Carson had this in mind. After all, a fundamentalist Christian holding office had become such a huge problem supposedly. If setting a trap is what he had in mind, it sure worked.

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.

Yes, he said it and I find the timing of his remarks interesting. Coming right on the heels of the Kim Davis situation may be coincidental, but you have to wonder if Carson had this in mind. After all, a fundamentalist Christian holding office had become such a huge problem supposedly. If setting a trap is what he had in mind, it sure worked.

Hmmmm. I'm not sure that someone simply being a fundamentalist Christian while holding office is exactly the issue, but I think you already know that.

Now, if you were to say that Carson said something to get some exposure, sure, and that's completely understandable.

But, as to any long-term plan off of it other than trying to grab some slack off Trump's heat for the town hall thing, I'm not so sure. These soundbite controversies are extremely short lived. Trump talking about the menstrual cycle of a pundit has already been forgotten...

When the Kim Davis situation exploded into the news cycle, concerns were brought to light about potential problems and conflicts around a devout and practicing Christian holding elected office and performing certain duties. Fair enough.

However, in her case there was NO mention of bigotry, "litmus tests," intolerance, or anything of the like --- Nothing compared to Carson raising similar concerns about a Muslim holding elected office. Perhaps Carson floated a trial balloon to gauge the reaction because he knew exactly what would happen.

When the Kim Davis situation exploded into the news cycle, concerns were brought to light about potential problems and conflicts around a devout and practicing Christian holding elected office and performing certain duties. Fair enough.

That doesn't hold water, and is not one of your better comment-baiters. 😉

Plenty of devout and practicing Christians hold office and have for decades. The persecution angle isn't in play here. It's also worth mentioning that Davis is an Apostolic Christian, a very specific sect that has limited appeal. Again, you know all of this. Just looking for some argument action, I assume?

However, in her case there was NO mention of bigotry, "litmus tests," intolerance, or anything of the like --- Nothing compared to Carson raising similar concerns about a Muslim holding elected office. Perhaps Carson floated a trial balloon to gauge the reaction because he knew exactly what would happen.

Two completely different things. Davis is already in office. Carson was talking about a hypothetical.

If this is the kind of thing that Carson needs to do to get attention, he's got some work to do. Throwing out red meat to the base is not that hard.

Let's say Sanders wins and we all get to vote in a socialist government, like Ted Cruz's parents.

What are you talking about? Ted Cruz's mother was born and raised in Delaware. His father was from Cuba abut left to attend college in Texas during the revolution, BEFORE the communists took over. Neither ever got "to vote in a socialist government." Cruz himself was born in Calgary.

Check Swifty's post at 15:51. Interesting info on Cruz's family background. Thanks for that.

Swifty's post says his parents used to live in Alberta, which is where their son Ted was born so that makes sense. Frankly, I'm not sure what he was trying to say with the rest, but even if they lived in Alberta now it is incorrect to say they would be voting in a "socialist government".

[Edited on 9/23/2015 by gondicar]

Mormons are not obligated to kill the infidels and Communists are not compelled to kill Westerners.

My mechanics are Muslim. How come they haven't killed me?

How many Muslims are in America right now not killing infidels?

Muleman you have once again amazed me with your moronic, drooling hysteria.

Apparently the "controversy" over his comments has fired up the base...

"The money has been coming in so fast, it's hard to even keep up with it," Dr. Ben Carson says.

http://cnn.it/1L67AU0

It is not hard to understand why the liberals have no problem with a Muslim becoming President.

The Islamists in The U.S. have openly stated that Sharia Law must be observed above The U.S. Constitution.

National security, equal rights for all citizens and religious freedom are not a liberal’s priority.
Obama routinely ignores The U.S. Constitution when it gets in the way of his political agenda.

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?

The woman has to be post menopausal, cannot have someone with cramps in charge of national security and responsible to respond to any type of nuclear attack because she would be distracted by her pain which could come on at any moment.

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.

It wasn't Muslims who gave orders NOT to scramble the fighter jets to take the planes down once they were hijacked and it was clear they were heading to major cities. Also jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt molten steel, nor did it cause the liquefied glass that some of the first responders got in their lungs on that.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Of course maybe all the pilots, architechts, engineers, military people who found discrepancies are ALL wrong. But MAYBE they aren't.

IT comes down secular law vs. religious law. Anyone who is a citizen and wants to be President would have to compromise on his religion Judaism, Christianity, or Islam if they agree to follow and enforce secular laws because secular law changes to suit the desires of the people. God's laws do not change. And Yes they were written in stone, on the tablets given to Moses. They did not have contingencies in them, they were clear, concise. Then mankind got involved and said well we cannot follow this law because....in this situation we cannot follow it.....then Jesus was sent to show people how to live, but still the people refused to accept it.

So here we are now, God forbid homosexuality to the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, but society and secular law mandates it is acceptable. So who do you follow, God's laws, or mankinds revised laws?

A President has to follow secular laws because that is the law of the land. Can a Muslim be President? If he is a half hearted Muslim, same with a half hearted Jew or half hearted Christian. Can an Oathkeeper become President? No, he will not accept secular law because it is in contradiction to God's laws AND our Constitution in some cases. (Guantanamo violates our Constitution, the Patriot Act violates our Constitution - illegal search and seizure, spying on people etc. ).

The Islamists in The U.S. have openly stated that Sharia Law must be observed above The U.S. Constitution.

The Muslim population in America is more than 6 million. Why aren't more infidels being killed?

We already have at least one Muslim in Congress. Is he placing the Constitution second to Sharia Law?

Of course he isn't.

Muleman your thesis defies logic. You obviously cannot process facts in a critical, thoughtful manner. Your buffoonery is staggering.

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?

The woman has to be post menopausal, cannot have someone with cramps in charge of national security and responsible to respond to any type of nuclear attack because she would be distracted by her pain which could come on at any moment.

One thing I love about gina, this is one of those posts that is either clever or nuts, and I can't tell which...

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.

It wasn't Muslims who gave orders NOT to scramble the fighter jets to take the planes down once they were hijacked and it was clear they were heading to major cities. Also jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt molten steel, nor did it cause the liquefied glass that some of the first responders got in their lungs on that.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Of course maybe all the pilots, architechts, engineers, military people who found discrepancies are ALL wrong. But MAYBE they aren't.

Ah, that's not really what I'm referring to, but anyway...

The Islamists in The U.S. have openly stated that Sharia Law must be observed above The U.S. Constitution.

The Muslim population in America is more than 6 million. Why aren't more infidels being killed?

We already have at least one Muslim in Congress. Is he placing the Constitution second to Sharia Law?

Of course he isn't.

Muleman your thesis defies logic. You obviously cannot process facts in a critical, thoughtful manner. Your buffoonery is staggering.

_______________________________________________________________________

Ellison refused to take his oath of office on The Bible and demanded the Koran. That alone should give you pause.

Your other questions are nothing more than a sideshow.

You, like so many other liberals simply refuse to see the danger in allowing Islamists into our country and their growing influences such as pushing Sharia law. Our National Security is incumbent on seeing threats before they occur.

Bill Clinton ignored the threats of Al Qaeda and thousands of Americans died. Just like Clinton you and your liberal friends have your head in the sand again and that is dangerous.

Never Forget.

It is not hard to understand why the liberals have no problem with a Muslim becoming President.

The Islamists in The U.S. have openly stated that Sharia Law must be observed above The U.S. Constitution.

National security, equal rights for all citizens and religious freedom are not a liberal’s priority.

You are as wrong as wrong could be. Liberals (along with Libertarians) are the biggest defenders of equal rights and religious freedom. That is why they both support gay marriage. Conservatives only support "religious freedom" as it pertains to the religion they follow. They do not care that the US is a melting pot of people with many religions and citizens who follow other religions and have different beliefs deserve the same rights that everybody else (the majority) enjoys. Conservatives seem to think that liberals somehow support Muslims more than Christians. That is not the case. What they are supporting is Muslims not being persecuted just because they follow a different religion. If Muslims tried impose their religion on the general population, then the liberals would not support that. I would guess 90% of liberals support a secular government and want to keep all religious doctrine (regardless of religion) out of the government.

It is not hard to understand why the liberals have no problem with a Muslim becoming President.

The Islamists in The U.S. have openly stated that Sharia Law must be observed above The U.S. Constitution.

National security, equal rights for all citizens and religious freedom are not a liberal’s priority.

You are as wrong as wrong could be. Liberals (along with Libertarians) are the biggest defenders of equal rights and religious freedom. That is why they both support gay marriage. Conservatives only support "religious freedom" as it pertains to the religion they follow. They do not care that the US is a melting pot of people with many religions and citizens who follow other religions and have different beliefs deserve the same rights that everybody else (the majority) enjoys. Conservatives seem to think that liberals somehow support Muslims more than Christians. That is not the case. What they are supporting is Muslims not being persecuted just because they follow a different religion. If Muslims tried impose their religion on the general population, then the liberals would not support that. I would guess 90% of liberals support a secular government and want to keep all religious doctrine (regardless of religion) out of the government.

_____________________________________________________________________

"I would guess"

No kidding but guessing doesn't get it and neither do you.

Bill Clinton ignored the threats of Al Qaeda and thousands of Americans died. Just like Clinton you and your liberal friends have your head in the sand again and that is dangerous.

Never Forget.

You've already forgotten that it was Bush that ignored the "Al Qaeda determined to attack" memo and that it was George W. Bush that allowed the attacks of 9/11.

Good God man you are both a Buffoon and a STRAIGHT UP LIAR!!!

Bill Clinton ignored the threats of Al Qaeda and thousands of Americans died. Just like Clinton you and your liberal friends have your head in the sand again and that is dangerous.

Never Forget.

You've already forgotten that it was Bush that ignored the "Al Qaeda determined to attack" memo and that it was George W. Bush that allowed the attacks of 9/11.

Good God man you are both a Buffoon and a STRAIGHT UP LIAR!!!

_________________________________________________________________________

The Islamic Extremist Terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch. The CIA setup its Al Qaeda desk in 1995 and repeatedly warned Clinton about impending attacks but Clinton refused to act. The Islamic Extremist Terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were all here and training during the Clinton administration.
Bill Clinton's failure to act is how 9/11 happened.

I know you, as a card-carrying liberal coward, are obligated to blame President Bush for everything but the facts show you to be an empty left-wing ideologue.
Stupid is no way to go through life son.