Ben Carson is under fire for his refusal to support a Muslim president of the United States. On Meet the Press, he says on faith “I guess it depends on what that faith is, but, if it’s inconsistent with the values of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”

 

Todd went on to ask Carson if a Muslim would be qualified to be president.

 

“No, I do not,” he replied. “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

 

Now Bernie Sanders is jumping in on this attacking Carson as well.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GEmBwkPdqY

 

Personally, I agree with Carson. I feel that Islam is highly incompatible with the worldview of America and American politics. This, coupled with the fact that Muslims are much, much more likely statistically to support radicalized and oppressive laws (http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-[BLEEP]...ricans.pdf) definitely makes me agree with the doctor.

 

Now, you may say "How can you support a Christian president over a Muslim president" or "Religion never truly affects a president so what does it matter". I look back historically and I personally believe that this nation, while not ultimately founded on Christian beliefs, was molded into what it was by a super-large majority of Christian citizens. For this reason I am all for consistency in keeping the leaders secular or Christian. As for the presidential religion not mattering, I also believe that the Islamic faith has a much larger impact on an individual than the Christian faith may hold. Therefor, going back to my first point, the Islamic faith is not compatible with the American ideology and would not mesh.

 

Your thoughts, good friends of the Political board?

---

Board rules prevent me from giving my opinion on this

---

;

;

Board rules prevent me from giving my opinion on this

 

Ah, I forgot about the rules on this one. If the mods find this out of line, they can delete it.

---

Board rules prevent me from giving my opinion on this

 

lol pretty much, I had a few comments but kept checking myself, since I recently got a warning.

---

The COC prevents me from giving an opinion on this as well.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I'm obviously not going to comment on what Ben Carson said.

 

It will be interesting to see what transpires with Ben Carson's poll numbers in the next couple of weeks.    

---

I'll gamble on it: if someone can fix the economy, get us out of the Middle East, stabilize relations with Russia and China and guarantee equal rights for all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or orientation, I don't care if they worship at the idol of Jeff Fisher. They are qualified to be President.

---

I'll gamble on it: if someone can fix the economy, get us out of the Middle East, stabilize relations with Russia and China and guarantee equal rights for all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or orientation, I don't care if they worship at the idol of Jeff Fisher. They are qualified to be President.

 

My only issue is that if they are a devout Muslim and adhere to the Quran, then I believe no matter what they may say they can never truly support the American or western way of life. He or she may say they support equal rights, but their holy book actively discriminates (harshly) against it. To an extent, the same can be said about a devout Christian president as well.

---

My only issue is that if they are a devout Muslim and adhere to the Quran, then I believe no matter what they may say they can never truly support the American or western way of life. He or she may say they support equal rights, but their holy book actively discriminates (harshly) against it. To an extent, the same can be said about a devout Christian president as well.

 

That is really up to the electorate to decide.

---

;

;

That is really up to the electorate to decide.

Absolutely, no argument there. I am just giving my opinion on why I agree with the doctor and his decision.

---

The problem with this thread and this conversation goes back to another thread we had a few weeks ago about Shariah Compliant Loans.  We went through pages and pages of discussion about the high ideals of inclusion in society when very few people actually stopped to think or research what Shariah Law is and if we as a society should be making concessions for it.  

 

The fact of the matter is TJ that you can't on the one hand advocate that system of governance (which inherently forbids you from recognizing non islamic sovereignty) and hold constitutional values as we currently understand them.  Ben Carson was absolutely correct.  A better way to explain it would have been to throw in a one liner about making sure that women can drive and that we don't stone homosexuals.  

 

I challenge anyone on this board who would decry Ben Carsons statement to read up on what shariah law and what the fundamental tenants of that particular system of government are and then come back to me and tell me that those values are compatible with the US constitution.  a simple yes or no should suffice.  

 

The funny thing is that it's only the silly westerners who are fretting about this.  Meanwhile those who advocate for the worldwide implementation of Shariah Law are pretty open and honest about the fact that they are going to lie cheat decieve and manipulate us based on our own fetishizing of moral relativism.  At this rate 5 years from now the conversation on the left will be "oh well it won't be that bad to pay a tax for being a non-believer.  This will send a strong message to the Muslim community that we want to participate in their faith as best we can and as long as those who don't comply are executed in a humane fashion that doesn't cause them too much prolonged agony while we videotape it for propaganda and recruitment purposes then it won't be much worse than the inquisition."

 

The most ironic and frankly sad part of this whole debate is that the secular left has been KILLING Ben Carson, one of the great scientific minds of our lifetime, on the fact that he is a 7th day Adventist and their belief in the creation of the world.  

---

There's no religious test to run for office.

 

Each person gets to decide for himself if there's one for receiving his vote.

 

I, personally, would not vote for an admittedly devout Muslim running for office. It would instantly disqualify them for me.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The problem with this thread and this conversation goes back to another thread we had a few weeks ago about Shariah Compliant Loans.  We went through pages and pages of discussion about the high ideals of inclusion in society when very few people actually stopped to think or research what Shariah Law is and if we as a society should be making concessions for it.  

 

The fact of the matter is TJ that you can't on the one hand advocate that system of governance (which inherently forbids you from recognizing non islamic sovereignty) and hold constitutional values as we currently understand them.  Ben Carson was absolutely correct.  A better way to explain it would have been to throw in a one liner about making sure that women can drive and that we don't stone homosexuals.  

 

I challenge anyone on this board who would decry Ben Carsons statement to read up on what shariah law and what the fundamental tenants of that particular system of government are and then come back to me and tell me that those values are compatible with the US constitution.  a simple yes or no should suffice.  

 

The funny thing is that it's only the silly westerners who are fretting about this.  Meanwhile those who advocate for the worldwide implementation of Shariah Law are pretty open and honest about the fact that they are going to lie cheat decieve and manipulate us based on our own fetishizing of moral relativism.  At this rate 5 years from now the conversation on the left will be "oh well it won't be that bad to pay a tax for being a non-believer.  This will send a strong message to the Muslim community that we want to participate in their faith as best we can and as long as those who don't comply are executed in a humane fashion that doesn't cause them too much prolonged agony while we videotape it for propaganda and recruitment purposes then it won't be much worse than the inquisition."

 

The most ironic and frankly sad part of this whole debate is that the secular left has been KILLING Ben Carson, one of the great scientific minds of our lifetime, on the fact that he is a 7th day Adventist and their belief in the creation of the world.  

 

One of the true faults of the irreligious and the culturally religious is that they can't believe that the truly religious really believe what they say they do. That's why many on this board cannot accept that the leader of Iran really truly wants to kill the USA and Israel.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

My only issue is that if they are a devout Muslim and adhere to the Quran, then I believe no matter what they may say they can never truly support the American or western way of life. He or she may say they support equal rights, but their holy book actively discriminates (harshly) against it. To an extent, the same can be said about a devout Christian president as well.

I can't really disagree with you all that strongly, because to a large extent, you're right. My best reply would be that a radical Muslim who support Sharia law and doesn't support the basic philosophies of American society would probably not want to run for President in the first place. Even if they did, they wouldn't come close to winning.

 

No Obama comments, please. The "Obama is a Muslim" stuff is tired and worn out, and it's irrelevant at this point anyway. I'd hardly expect a radical Muslim to support same-sex marriage and the right to abort a child.

 

Can't really go any further without running into the CoC, I don't think. I'll keep reading because this has the potential to be an interesting discussion, but I doubt I'll do much replying to this one. Hey, modmins, any chance we could revisit the "no religion" rule so long as the discussion of religion is kept tangential to the discussion and not being used to support or refute arguments, or as a means of claiming moral high ground?

---

Hmm ... wonder if Carson would have felt the same way about Catholics in 1960?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

The same argument cannot be made about catholicism. The core basis is that adherence to fundamental islam is inconsistent with the constitution. Look up shariah law and tell me thats not the case.

---

Btw your right. The obama is a muslim stuff is played out. I cant wait to here Mrs. Clintons heartfelt appology for injecting it into the political conversation and lowering the level of public discourse.

---

Btw your right. The obama is a muslim stuff is played out. I cant wait to here Mrs. Clintons heartfelt appology for injecting it into the political conversation and lowering the level of public discourse.

Good luck with that lol

---

I certainly understand what Dr. Carson is saying, and I somewhat agree with him.  This could be an interesting discussion, but I think that it would eventually go beyond the CoC of this board.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Interesting to see who agrees with carson but is OK with a candidate who thinks the earth is less then 10k years old.

---