Ben Carson says, "A Muslim should not be president because that faith is inconsistent with the princ - Polidicks

[video=youtube;sUJvUDdtp8w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUJvUDdtp8w[/video] Couldn't find a written article and the video straight from the horse's mouth is a better source anyway.

Oh you mean the same constitution that had to be purposely amended to acknowledge you as a human with rights

And you shouldn't be president since your beliefs conflict with the constitution too

You mean the constitution that also guarantees a separation of church and state?

Yeah yeah yeah keep finding reasons why religion is relevant spoiler alert [sp]its fucking not[/sp]

Donald Trump ignores a question with heavy discrimination tainted all over it, since correcting it might alienate the GOP voter base. Ben Carson comes right out and says it, but at least hes polite about it!

[QUOTE=Incoming.;48728015]but at least hes polite about it![/QUOTE] he should definitely be president! i like polite people

ben carson you're retarded, america isn't a theocracy

I was doing research on this him earlier today and came to the conclusion that he should never hold a public office. This doesn't really help his case.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48727971]You mean the constitution that also guarantees a separation of church and state?[/QUOTE] That phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution FYI, but I agree with the sentiment.

how do you get from being a famed neurosurgeon that saved dozens of kids' lives to this?

It's funny, because in the long-run, Christianity is also incompatible with the Constitution.

I don't think Christians should be able to hold the office of presidency. Just hangin over the launch button "Tell me when, Lord. I am your loyal servant, Lord!"

Ben Carson should just stick to brain surgery. It's funny when he tries to make being a neurosurgeon relevant to being president though.

[QUOTE=The Pretender;48728091]I was doing research on this him earlier today and came to the conclusion that he should never hold a public office. This doesn't really help his case.[/QUOTE] Honestly which one of them should?

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;48727902]Oh you mean the same constitution that had to be purposely amended to acknowledge you as a human with rights[/QUOTE] Argument complete. I liked this guy up until now.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48727971]You mean the constitution that also guarantees a separation of church and state?[/QUOTE] That's really not what he's talking about though. Under a strict (fundamentalist) reading of the Qur'an, you cannot respect the laws of a nation as equal or separate from Sharia Law, because the Qur'an commands that only God's law is valid. A devout Muslim cannot obey and enforce a legal framework separate from Sharia, otherwise he is failing in his religious obligation. It's different for Christianity because Christians are explicitly told to respect the laws of their nation as separate from the laws of God. Most Western Muslims, however, take a somewhat revisionist view, and Ben Carson doesn't seem smart enough to recognize the difference.

[QUOTE=Trixil;48728129]how do you get from being a famed neurosurgeon that saved dozens of kids' lives to this?[/QUOTE] Being a neurosurgeon has no bearing on your beliefs. Being able to cut people open and being a religious nutjob are not mutually exclusive.

The same was said about Catholics until JFK was elected.

[QUOTE=Kylel999;48727980]Yeah yeah yeah keep finding reasons why religion is relevant spoiler alert [sp]its fucking not[/sp][/QUOTE] Haha yeah, the personal beliefs of 90+% of Americans are completely and totally unrelated to their political views. Religion barely exists in America. [editline]21st September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;48728827]The same was said about Catholics until JFK was elected.[/QUOTE] Catholicism is still Christianity though, and is therefore a lot closer to the various Protestant denominations that make up the vast majority of the US population than, say, Islam or any non-Abrahamic religions.

Why are all the GOP candidates this time around so comically villainous? I mean, at least Romney was actually a really good Governor who introduced some aspects of socialized healthcare to his states, and McCain was actually pretty progressive on immigration issues and some energy topics. The '16 crop of candidates are nutjobs.

Depends on how devout they are to their faith. The scriptures of a lot of Abrahamic religions are well behind the times, I won't vote for anyone that will directly impede the rights of others in favor of their faith.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48728102]That phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution FYI, but I agree with the sentiment.[/QUOTE] Yeah, though It was implied and the quote itself comes from Thomas Jefferson (and others) who said it to explain specific causes in the First Amendment. For all intents and purposes, in any supreme court hearing, they would rule in favor of that quote.

Historically even heavily Christian nations exercised separation of church and state to a degree, even if only to limit the direct interference of the church in the state's affairs. Also iirc the bible explicitly includes a passage about keeping the laws of heaven and the laws of the earth separate but it's been over a decade since I read the bible.

[QUOTE=THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION]The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; [B][I][U]but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE] You are literally this retarded. [editline]21st September 2015[/editline] Where do people even get this concept that the Constitution, or any other official US document, for that matter, states that America was founded specifically for Christian faith and is specifically dependent on Christian morals. DID PEOPLE NOT FUCKING PASS EIGHTH GRADE HISTORY?

In a different world: "A Christian should not be president because that faith is inconsistent with the principles of America and the Constitution. Christians believe that you should be executed for adultery, women can't wear trousers, and that when a woman is on her period, her husband should leave home for the duration, and they also advocate holy wars" (all in the bible) The Bible has some crazy shit, the Qu'ran has some crazy shit. There are both tolerant, progressive Christians and Muslims so shut it.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48730174]In a different world: "A Christian should not be president because that faith is inconsistent with the principles of America and the Constitution. Christians believe that you should be executed for adultery, women can't wear trousers, and that when a woman is on her period, her husband should leave home for the duration, and they also advocate holy wars" (all in the bible) The Bible has some crazy shit, the Qu'ran has some crazy shit. There are both tolerant, progressive Christians and Muslims so shut it.[/QUOTE] This being a very poor argument. I am sure the constitution was loosely based on Christian beliefs at the time.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48730174]In a different world: "A Christian should not be president because that faith is inconsistent with the principles of America and the Constitution. Christians believe that you should be executed for adultery, women can't wear trousers, and that when a woman is on her period, her husband should leave home for the duration, and they also advocate holy wars" (all in the bible) The Bible has some crazy shit, the Qu'ran has some crazy shit. There are both tolerant, progressive Christians and Muslims so shut it.[/QUOTE] The issue with that point specifically (And no other.) is that the Old Testament prescribes three different kinds of laws, Civil Law, Ceremonial Law, and Moral Law. Civil Law is the law of the state/nation/land etc., in the same way that we have Civil judicial processes today. These laws applied to the Theocracy of Israel that existed at that time it was written and until the nation was replaced, and included what would now be considered abhorrent rules. They no longer apply to us, as Christians are instructed that the law of the land (Civil Law) now originates from the governments and leadership appointed over us. Ceremonial Law is clearly the law that instructed the processes of sacrifice and worship, and these as well as the original Civil Law no longer apply due to the replacement of the physical temple and physical worship through the temple with Jesus Christ and what he has done. Moral Law was essentially just the Ten Commandments, and was obviously moral in nature (Don't kill people.) and is still to be followed by believers. This whole thing seems to be something many, many people both Christian and not get confused about or don't even know about.

[QUOTE=Tark;48730298]The issue with that point specifically (And no other.) is that the Old Testament prescribes three different kinds of laws, Civil Law, Ceremonial Law, and Moral Law. Civil Law is the law of the state/nation/land etc., in the same way that we have Civil judicial processes today. These laws applied to the Theocracy of Israel that existed at that time it was written and until the nation was replaced, and included what would now be considered abhorrent rules. They no longer apply to us, as Christians are instructed that the law of the land (Civil Law) now originates from the governments and leadership appointed over us. Ceremonial Law is clearly the law that instructed the processes of sacrifice and worship, and these as well as the original Civil Law no longer apply due to the replacement of the physical temple and physical worship through the temple with Jesus Christ and what he has done. Moral Law was essentially just the Ten Commandments, and was obviously moral in nature (Don't kill people.) and is still to be followed by believers. This whole thing seems to be something many, many people both Christian and not get confused about or don't even know about.[/QUOTE] Isn't that open to interpretation though? I don't think this distinction is explicit in the Bible (though I admit I'm not very knowledgeable on this particular topic).

[QUOTE=Tark;48730298]The issue with that point specifically (And no other.) is that the Old Testament prescribes three different kinds of laws, Civil Law, Ceremonial Law, and Moral Law. Civil Law is the law of the state/nation/land etc., in the same way that we have Civil judicial processes today. These laws applied to the Theocracy of Israel that existed at that time it was written and until the nation was replaced, and included what would now be considered abhorrent rules. They no longer apply to us, as Christians are instructed that the law of the land (Civil Law) now originates from the governments and leadership appointed over us. Ceremonial Law is clearly the law that instructed the processes of sacrifice and worship, and these as well as the original Civil Law no longer apply due to the replacement of the physical temple and physical worship through the temple with Jesus Christ and what he has done. Moral Law was essentially just the Ten Commandments, and was obviously moral in nature (Don't kill people.) and is still to be followed by believers. This whole thing seems to be something many, many people both Christian and not get confused about or don't even know about.[/QUOTE] The Christian faith isn't as literal as the Muslim faith, most Christians live by a moral code and accept Civil laws in their relevant countries whereas Muslims are more at loggerheads with Civil laws in favour of Sharia which they consider as the infallible law of God.